Ongoing Adventures in Online Dating Part 3 - The Timewaster's Timewaster

For some reason, it has now become necessary to include some kind of  'sexy sea creature' image with these dating posts.
 That doesn't excuse this image, though. Nothing excuses this. I'm really, really sorry

The other day, via OKCupid,  I was propositioned by a French television presenter who wanted me to give him oral sex. He has a thirteen inch penis, apparently. Which is nice.

It's a little strange that a successful, attractive celebrity with his own Wikipedia page should be propositioning Englishwomen in such an indiscriminate manner. Stranger still that he is pretending to be a 37 year old man from London. I get that he might want to hide his identity but then, you know, using a bunch of easily googlable media images was probably a misstep.

I suppose it's also possible that it was a random internet weirdo who nicked a bunch of pictures of an attractive black man off the internet with which to furnish his profile but I'm choosing to believe that it actually was the celebrity in question. And the reason he chose not to respond to my message where I included a link to the news article containing his profile picture, is because he's really really shy.

If any of Harry Roselmack's lawyers are reading this, I would like to make it clear that I don't really think that Mr Roselmack is asking ladies to perform sexual favours via OKCupid.
Although, I am making no comment about the length of the gentleman's penis.

You get, I've found, a lot of really, really odd messages when you subscribe to a dating site. Or I do, anyway. I got a bit over excited answering all the OKCupid  questions and may have made myself sound a little bit slutty in the process. (I'm not saying any of it is wrong exactly, but it's probably not the impression I should be giving to strangers on the internet.) I have removed the bit that says I might be interested in 'casual sex' now. When I ticked that box, my reasoning was that I would be potentially up for having a sex-based relationship with someone I liked but with whom I knew I had no future. I believe that others may have interpreted it as "prepared to have immediate and indiscriminate sex with any chancer who sends a six word badly spelled introductory message",

I didn't update the 'casual sex' bit as quickly as you might expect because, to be honest, I found a lot of the messages I received rather amusing. To begin with, I took a firm line in not responding to the chancers, obvious fakes and timeswasters. 'Life's too short," I reasoned to myself. But then I changed my mind entirely and decided that there was fun to be had being the Timewaster's Timewaster. Life's  never too short to amuse oneself by taking the piss out of wrongmos on the internet.

Despite having specified thirty as the minimum age as far as potential suitors go, I am contacted by a lot of - supposed - people who are - supposedly - far younger than that. Are they for real? Is it a Nigerian-Prince-Type scam or some kind of viral marketing campaign? I can't believe that eighteen year olds are regularly trying to hook up with fat forty-something year olds via the internet. It's a long time since I was eighteen but I definitely recall that there was a lot of sex freely available back then. Teenagers should be seducing one another via the traditional  methods of getting rat-arsed and woozily colliding faces in the student bar.

Other methods of seduction are available.

The first eighteen year old who contacted me was from my my terribly middle-class home town. We produce nice, well-mannered teenagers round these parts. The lad in question initially suggested getting together for some casual sex, politely appending the suggestion with "I'm going out on a limb here but I think we would both enjoy it." He then followed up his original message saying "If you don't just want a sexual relationship, I can tell you a little more about myself." I wonder exactly he had in mind in terms of a not-just-sexual-relationship? Going to the cinema together, perhaps? Meeting one another's families? I responded basically saying "Oh bless you, aren't you sweet?" and wishing him all the best in his future endeavours. He didn't get back to me presumably because (a) he had other middle aged women to politely proposition and (b) if he wanted to be patronised that badly, he could hang out with his mum.

They keep coming though. Dozens of shirtless, hairless teenagers 'wanting to play' with an older woman. Judging by their photos, I suspect in some cases 'playing' might involve spending an evening helping them construct their Lego Wookiee gunship.

OKCupid provides a percentage level of compatibility with other subscribers based on the millions of questions you've answered. When I've been messaged by someone with whom I have an incredibly low compatibility score, I quite like checking out the answers to the questions in their profile in order to see quite how fundamentally unsuited we are. Oh, you're really into guns and hunting? And you thought the vegetarian hippy looked like a good match?

The guy who answered the question "Is a woman who's slept with a hundred men a bad person?" with 'Yes' isn't necessarily an arsehole. A hundred people is a lot of people to have sex with, I'll give you that . More than a weekend's worth certainly.

But when the same guy answers the question "Is a man who's slept with a hundred women a bad person?" with 'no', well it turns out he actually is an arsehole after all. One who needs a stern talking-to about gender equality and precisely which century we're currently living in.

My responses are the second ones in each case. I am fairly relaxed about hypothetical triple digit shaggers.

One subscriber answered 'yes' to the question "Do you think homosexuality is a sin?" and then sent a "hey u r sexy" message to me, presumably without having given my profile even the most cursory glance or registering that I am interested in meeting both men and women. Or perhaps he was looking to cure me of my sinful bisexual urges.

Of course, people who just scattergun the same banal message to hundreds of people whose profiles they have barely glanced over are par for the course on internet dating sites. Occasionally you want to give them points for trying. One potential suitor introduced himself by saying simply "Fancy sitting on my face tonight?" I replied asking if that particular tactic had ever worked. "Want to be the first?" he responded. Ha, nice try. It's clearly a no but I kind of admire his optimism.

The most startlingly direct approach came from someone whose profile picture was a close-up photo of her genitalia. The picture was changed shortly afterwards to a more standard non-naked non-genitalia based profile picture. Somebody probably had a word. Although I like to think that she had created her profile in a hurry from a phone and was completely oblivious that she had attached entirely the wrong photo by accident. Because who hasn't had that cold thud of dread in the pit of their stomach upon realising that they've shared a picture of their intimate lady garden with tens of thousands of strangers? We've all been there.

Some messages are a bit baffling. "You look pleasant" was a masterwork of faint praise. And while the guy who wrote "A heart has a million stories and i would like to know yours" clearly spent a bit longer on his copy 'n' paste introductory message than some other people, he rather gave himself away by sending the exact same message to me three times. Top marks for WTFery go to the chap whose introductory message simply said "U look like a murderer lol".

I didn't even respond to that one. It's all very well deciding to be the timewaster's timewaster. But sometimes the timewasters on OKCupid can leave one a bit speechless.

Book Review - The New Rules by Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider

Want to know more about the book review star rating system? Or find out what other books I've reviewed? Check out this page here.

Back in 1995, Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider published The Rules: Time-tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right. In it they claimed to have found a sure-fire recipe for finding your perfect man which largely consisted of not returning a man’s phone calls and generally playing hard to get. Behaving like ‘no’ means ‘yes’ basically. The book hit all the bestseller lists but raised a lot of questions like “Isn’t that kind of sexist?” and “Won’t that kind of behaviour make guys think it’s OK to act like stalky weirdoes?” And most pertinently, “What the actual fuck?”

Fein and Schneider have clearly decided that another generation of women are clearly ready for their unfounded wisdom and have released “The New Rules: the dating dos and don’ts for the digital generation.”

Although “Rules 2: This time it’s rulesier” would have been better.

Apparently they have been inundated by women who just desperate to live their lives by the rules set out for them in their by now presumably dog-eared original copies of The Rules but who are flummoxed and confused about how to follow them in this crazy new world of texting and social media.

I’m not convinced that there was a lot of work put into updating the original. Mostly they seem to have put “or email” after every instance of “phone” and called it an afternoon. There are sections on Facebook and texting but they’ve already told you to remain aloof and not return his phone calls for four days. Having separate chapters telling you not to answer his texts for four days and not to answer his Facebook messages for four days seems a little unnecessary.

Who am I kidding, though? The whole damn thing is unnecessary.  Who reads this sort of thing? Who writes this sort of thing? Who decided that apropos of no kind of qualifications or relevant experience whatsoever, they are the perfect person to dictate to women how to behave?

And dictate really isn’t too strong a word in this instance. Everything in Rules world is black or white. You follow Fein and Schneider’s rules to the letter or your life will be one big fuck-up. End of.

The absolutely certainty of their assertions made is astonishingly.  One edict which is continually hammered home is the rule that the woman can never make the first move. Ever. You can’t ask a man out on a date or even say ‘hi’ first because if you do, you will fuck up everything. There are no exceptions in Rules World.

You know that marriage of yours that you thought has been going swimmingly for the last fifteen years? Well, if it all began when you struck up a conversation with your husband unbidden, then your whole relationship is on borrowed time. It’s a hollow sham.

Because, you see, what a woman has to remember is that “she cannot be the aggressor without eventually regretting it. Like it or not, being the one asked out, not the asker is the only way it works with a man.” Well, that’s us told then. Women – know your limits.

Fein and Schneider recognise that everybody is an individual. You are a creature unlike any other, they tell us. They even shorten Creature Unlike Any Other to CUAO and use it a lot so you know they mean business. You are unique, they tell us, you have your own style. Be yourself.

As long, that it, as your self is enigmatic, doesn’t hold strong opinions and always allows the man to do most of the talking in a conversation. Oh and when it comes to your looks, the authors are unequivocal that you should do the following

• Grow your hair long and wear it straight. (Invest in some hair-straighteners curly-haired ladies! Your future happiness depends upon it.)
• Wear bronzer
• Swap your glasses for contact lenses
• Always wear high heels, tops that show cleavage and tight skirts or skinny jeans
• Wear three inch hoop earrings at all times

So, you know, be yourself. Unless your self isn’t exactly like the ideal woman described above, In which case, be her instead.

Less sexist than The Rules

To be fair to Fein and Schneider – and I don’t know why I’m bothering beyond the sheer mental exercise of the thing – not every single piece of advice in the book is bad. They encourage their readers to make an effort to get and meet new people which is fair enough.

Of course, once you’ve met someone you are then encouraged to play a bunch of silly manipulative games in the manner of an attention-seeking nine year old at a slumber party. Don’t make the first move. Don’t ever pay for dinner. Don’t talk too much in the first few weeks.  Always end a phone or online conversation first. You don’t even have to wait for a lull in the conversation, just say I have to run!” and hang up. Men love that, apparently.

Most importantly, don’t ever suggest the day or time for a date.  I don’t know why this is so important. Presumably it totally emasculates a man if you say “How about Thursday at eight?” to him. You might as well just chop his penis off and be done with it, you brazen hussy.

This rule is so important that the authors genuinely suggest that you have the below conversation rather than just answer a straightforward question.

Him: Hey, want to go out some time?
You: Sure. That sounds good.
Him: Okay. When are you free?
You: Well, when did you have in mind?
Him: How‘s tomorrow, Tuesday night, for drinks?
(Of course being a Rules girl, you would have to say no to a last minute date)
You: So sorry, but I already have plans.
Him: Then how’s Wednesday night?
You: Actually, work is really crazy this week!
Him: Ok, so how’s your weekend?
You: The weekend is good (but don’t mention any specific date)
Him: Okay, how’s your Friday night look?
You: Actually, I may have plans Friday night.
Him: Saturday night?
You: Sure, Saturday night would be great!

No matter what it takes you mustn’t ever suggest a date (or agree to most of the dates he suggests, apparently). It’s like the yes/no game. But more stupid. “Remember, he has to fish and hunt otherwise it will be too easy and he will get bored.” Sure, who can resist a challenge like having to rattle off every day of the bloody week every time you want to go out for dinner?

Giving this book one star is absurdly generous. This book isn’t just stupid, trite, badly written and more than a little sexist. It’s hateful. It reduces dating to a reality show-style competition in which underhanded tactics are the only way to win. It portrays men and women as adversaries. When it comes to finding happiness, aren’t we all on the same side? If you can accept than any women actually follow this piffle (and I dearly hope that they don’t and that all the authors’ case studies are as phoney as they sound), then the picture of women to come out of this book, is that of shallow manipulative players who favour  point-scoring over formulating any kind of connection.

Not pictured: bungee jumping

It’s men though who really get the rough end of the deal in Rules World. Sure the women may be playing you, but those big dumb blokes are just so very easy to control. Read this book and you will be able to pull the strings of the meat puppet of your choosing until he has no choice but to bung a ring on your finger.

As the rules tell us: “Men are extremely visual and can’t be attracted to a woman just because she is nice, smart or funny.” Hey, all men ever, I didn’t know that about you before. Thank god I have Fein and Schneider to set me straight.

To sum up, and just in case you were in any doubt about how different men and women are, this is what actually passes for advice in a self-help book in 2013:

“Men and women are not the same romantically. Men love a challenge while women love security.  Men love to buy and sell companies as well as extreme sports like mountain climbing and bungee jumping, while women love to talk about dates and watch romantic comedies.”

Hahahahahahahahahahah. Piffle.