Online dating: It’s all a bit of a shambles

I know I’m gambling on general agreement, since many enjoy the merits of online dating, whilst some have had long term relationships or even a marriage or two come from it! However I feel that whilst this is now almost the preferred method of dating by probably anyone under 50, it still isn’t without a variety of flaws, issues and concerns.

I’ve been reading the brilliant ‘Modern Romance’ by one of my current favourite comedians, Aziz Ansari where he flirts with the far more wider concept of dating now compared to way back when, but I wanted to kind of elaborate on a small portion based on my experience and others I’ve spoken to.

Now when I talk about online dating, I’ll be a touch clearer. I’m not talking about those sites you pay for, Match.com or eHarmony etc. I’m talking more about your free apps, Tinder, Plenty of Fish and OK Cupid type apps. The tabloids of the virtual dating world, rather than the classier broadsheets, if you will.

Also I’m talking from a male perspective, which from what I’ve discussed and lazily researched, is quite a different experience from a mans. Which I guess is probably assumed anyway but will go into the big differences shortly within each point. But yeah, it’s mostly about the guys.

 

So, you’re a newly single man and looking for…well I’m not sure… let’s say you’re looking to make a connection and see where it goes. Ambiguous I know, but extend it to you’re a normal guy looking for dating and hopefully a relationship. You join one of the ‘tabloids’ and get to work. You set up your profile (perhaps a picture of you holding a puppy, or looking at the stars, or kicking a football at an unsuspecting child’s face. You choose) and you venture out there. There’s a wealth of women to choose from, so what do you do.

I’ve listed a few ‘steps’ of points I find ‘mildly’ irritating. Also this will be based roughly around POF/OK rather than Tinder due to its mutual like need, however you could apply it on the assumption that you’ve ‘liked’ one another.

 

 

#1 Shambles – the first message.

There’s 3 very distinct ways of doing this. I’ve tried all 3, and all 3 work to a varying degree. I imagine a muscly tattooed male probably only needs to try one and will eclipse my success rate in a matter of minutes. And if he’s got a beard? I might as well just give up entirely. Ah women, certainly not as fickle as men, no siree.

The first is, you see a lady you like – and no matter what ANYONE says, the first thing you’re going to be drawn to is her looks. Photos are almost a requirement now on these sites, and for Tinder, they are really pushed to the forefront. This is the huge difference with a natural old fashioned type meeting. Where it might be a work colleague, or a friend, or a friend of a friend’s second cousin. You’re thrown into a situation with them that you might not have chosen naturally, but it turns out you get on great and romance blossoms. For online dating this isn’t the case at all, you don’t have those ‘meet as friends and see what happens’ type situations. You’re naturally messaging someone you like, or think you might like. You’re not messaging them to friend zone you for life and unload their actual man problems on are you. (Are you?! Because if you are, get out). Also can I recommend that girls who list 2+ social media contact details (FB name, SC etc), tread carefully. It’s a bit stakerish if you go all in and just add everything straight away. Though saying that I have added one SC before where the girl didn’t realise it was me and thought I was a total random and seemed to like this new me more than the me who had spoken to her on POF!! Ah love my weird life sometimes.

Anyway, I digress. I said 3 types and here they are:

1)      The generic message – this is a standard no name, “how’s it going” / “had a good weekend” type message. I think we’ve all found it boring simply reading this point!

2)      The template – it’s your staple approach, your bread and butter. It’s a bit fun, maybe with a couple of questions (Not the ones above!), and this is crucial, you always include their name! And obviously remember to change it for each person you send it to. That doesn’t go down too well. As then that’ll really dazzle them, you’re fun AND paying attention who you’re sending it to! It couldn’t possibly be a message he sends to every girl…

3)      The deeply personal message – this is where you’ve taken the time to craft a message that touches on a multitude of interests and likes on that persons profile. You’ve addressed her by her name and probably linked to a few of your own interests. It’s taken you 10 minutes to do whilst listening to Drake, thinking that one day the two of you will have your own Marvins Room moment

 

 

#2 Shambles – the reply.

You’ve chosen from 1 of the 3 above, fired it out to a girl you think you could be compatible with, and now you wait.

Generally speaking, guys will always make the first move. This shouldn’t surprise you, and contrary to bigamists, is not sexist. It’s as old as the hills, the guy courts the woman. This shouldn’t be any different. The guy spots his prey/girl he likes, whatever, and he makes his move.
Now I’ve given this section its own conclusion already by indicating there is a reply. But to even get to this stage it can be painstaking. Some apps let you know when the person was last active (a gift or a curse, you decide. I’m firmly in curse territory as you’ll come to see), and so getting one who is means odds are she’s going to see your message fairly soon. However never underestimate your fellow gender pals. I imagine if you’ve found a lovely looking/sounding (really looking) lady, then so have a few others. They’ve all sent a message, now her inbox is full of a range of 1, 2’s and 3’s. What does she go for, what’s she after, does she like F*CKING TRIBAL TATTOOS!!!

The giveaway that she’s read it is simple. She’s viewed your profile *gulp*. Immediately you’re thinking does she like what she sees?! Does she like what she’s read?! Does she like the combination of your football kicking picture mixed with your “how’s it going” message?! Did she even do both! (Some mental women have read and replied to messages without ever looking at my profile. They might be all about ‘personality’. It didn’t work out.)

So now you’re waiting. And waiting. And waiting. She’s been online for 2 hours straight (you’ve kept a log, it’s been 2 episodes of Keeping Up With The Kardashians by your reckoning) and she’s still not replied. You’ve punched a pillow and sent a selfie to everyone on snapchat to try and feel loved. I don’t think it’s going to happen mate.

 

 

#3 Shambles – the next step.

This is so generically written, thanks for reading if you are. I’ve not planned this out at all. However I’m being logical and the next step feels a good place to be.

Right so you’ve finished pouting into snap chat and had replies from male friends begging you to stop. The pillow is in bits and your tears have dried.

One of four things happen at this time:

1)      You do nothing. You man up. You take a breath and you move on. You go back to Shambles #1 and then just apply it to 50 girls. You’re now playing ‘a numbers game’. No I don’t think it means anything either, but say it to feel a bit better about your life. Celebrate by having a Chocolate Éclair, you’re now a ‘playa’

2)      You send another message, perhaps similar but not identical, you know just in case she didn’t get the first one (despite looking at your picture and vomiting in her mouth). You playfully mention you sent one before but not to worry BECAUSE YOU ARE SUPER CHILLED.

3)      You send another message, very different to the last. You laugh at how pathetic she is. You tell her she’s ugly anyway (whilst staring at her picture which you’ve made as your background). And that’s she would be punching with you. You high five the nearest wall. Celebrate by having a Chocolate Éclair, you’re now a ‘playa’

4)      She replies. Oh sh*t just got real!

 

 

#4 Shambles – the exchange.

Basically if you hit 1-3 on the previous #, just repeat until you hit the 4^th option. And then you’ve made it to this stage. Congratulations. But you can’t rest on your laurels, what happens next?!

You’re now smiling, you know she’s both looked at you and listened to your opening gambit and she’s in. Well I mean, she’s alright to go a little further and try to determine you’re not a total nutter (Always found this amusing “Are you a nutter?” “Nope. Promise” “Oh ok want to date?” ) like a few messages will tell her that. Just don’t tell her you dream of kicking Kittens or punching Donkeys and you should be ok.

But now the ball is firmly back in your court, she’s responded to you. Assuming you don’t playa it up and drive her to do 1-3 above, and aim to reply in a fairly normal manner (people who delay x amount of time to ensure they aren’t too keen, get in the sea. And girls who actually like that? End yourselves). So start constructing! Obviously you’re going to respond to anything she’s asked you, playing on any connections you’ve already made, maybe chucking in another question or two based on interests (generally, asking how big her, well whatever is, isn’t the ideal question despite what you think).

The whole thing is weird to me. Like you’re some quivering wreck asking her if she likes Apples or some nonsense, hoping she’ll give you more than 2 minutes before some 6’4” stacked lad called Gary from Leeds who bench presses cattle steals her attention away. With your aim being that you can hit the Holy Grail, securing her number. Also don’t panic and immediately send her your phone number, full name for FB purposes, SC addy, Fax number and National Insurance number, play it cool Trig, play it cool.

 Just be normal and ask normal stuff. There’s really no trick to this. But it’s just one of those cringey moments. My advice is try and keep a quick back and forth going so you’ve got her full attention, don’t let it go over days as she’ll lose interest generally speaking. Especially if you see she’s online and hasn’t replied to your last message (twice, you logged it down, never not log things. Like how often you hear a thump upstairs, like it’s another body being put on a pile).

Let’s assume it goes quite well, you’re comfy and chatting away and you’ve beaten off the competition (or so you’re told, I don’t fully believe this in most scenarios, women much like men will always have a couple of backups) and you’ve got her number, then well done, I guess you’ve come through the online maze successful and can move onto more normal human interaction. God forbid you might even want to go for a drink soon!

And no, 'Netflix & chill' is not a good first date suggestion!

Coming soon (if people want it): Part 2, actual dating.

True Detective Season 2 Summary Review

So Season 2 of the highly acclaimed True Detective aired on Sunday night in the US (Monday for the UK), and so after the smoke has settled, how was it?  (WARNING: Minor Spoilers Ahead)

Impossible not to compare to Season 1, which appears to have been knocked down a peg or two by some quarters ever since gaining universal praise last year. Especially around the finale, which apart from the main set piece, was fairly slow paced. Even the well known dialogue pieces that prompted endless discussions have been brought into question over potential plagiarism. Was that due to Season 2? Were people retrospectively seeing through the fog, and changing opinion? Possibly, or perhaps we simply over hyped the original (Personally, I stand by that Season 1 was great television).

The hype for Season 2 was phenomenal after the success of the first, especially when it showed true Hollywood star power coming to the smaller screen. So once the casting announcements were made for such heavyweights as Colin Farrell, Rachel McAdams, and Vince Vaughn the internet went a little mental with excitement (Sorry Taylor Kitsch, not quite yet).

As the dust began to settle and we started to get a little more information, it became clear that instead of Season 1’s direction of two central detectives, this would feature three with a Gangster portrayed by notorious comedic actor Vaughn. Immediate thoughts were how would he adapt to a serious role, in a series that is dark in tone with laughs few and far between (if at all).

In addition, we were told that whilst Nic Pizzolatto would be writing all the episodes as he did in Season 1 (apart from 2 where he had a co-writer in Scott Lasser), whilst directing took a very different format. Season 1 was purely directed by Cory Fukunaga, Season 2 had 7 directors for the 8 episodes.

Given the context, I got back to my initial question of how was it? My answer: It was ok.

Ok I’ll elaborate. Firstly, I’m trying to keep this separate from season 1 since it’s meant to be an anthology, but in some aspects it’s impossible not to compare them.

A big difference that helps establish this as its own series is the setting. Based in California (LA was purposefully avoided), the main feature being these vast sprawling highways and open ended landscapes mixed with an industrial inner city. The locations for the season were fantastic, and the cinematography which captured that was great. Every director seemed to have at least one token highway shot which was sort of unnecessary.

The plot itself, starting with the discovery of a body which turns out to be a corrupt city manager is what brings the main characters together. And without going into specifics, what exactly ties them together to this case and the larger series outline.

However early episodes were slow to plod along with fairly poor character development, a raft of supporting characters and a fairly convoluted plot. The dialogue was clunky, and whilst trying to clearly hit some of the highs from Season 1, just appeared to miss repeatedly.

As the episodes went on, things did improve, but for an 8 episode season there isn’t a great deal of time to get things right. The final 2 episodes were the seasons best overall, in my opinion, but that doesn’t mean we simply ignore the rest. Too many initially developed plot ideas seemed to just vanish, the high speed rail line being one example. Too many supporting characters were given next to no screen time, yet we’re meant to care to certain outcomes by the end. In fact, there is plenty of fun being pointed to the character ‘Stan’ who is referred to in almost every episode, including a trip to his family’s home, yet is only in 2 scenes as a standby character. How are we meant to care?! And that’s without speaking about Caspere’s killer, which follows a trend set in some murder mystery’s, but only the most absurdly eagle eyed would be able to work out ahead of the reveal in episodes 7/8, once more very little screen time and most of the ‘reveal’ was done prior to that character even having a second scene in the season!

The plotline gets complicated unnecessarily, and whilst it might be needed to really show how shady various factions and situations can be, the concept of mob money invested into developments etc, once more it didn’t really work. In fact, the whole character of Frank, played by Vaughn, really wasn’t really needed. And served as almost an afterthought vs the 3 detective leads. He was given some awful dialogue early on in the season, whilst Vaughn struggled to make us care about his character, and for a while many couldn’t see him outside of his comedy guise. By the time he started hitting the right notes and even have us root for him at times, it was a bit too little too late.

Looking at the 3 detective leads, there were some good points. Farrell played Ray fantastically through a series of situations bringing about different emotions and issues. His voice going weird in the final episode, and somehow having a ginger child aside, he was the character you could really empathise with to some degree. He also had great chemistry with both Vaughn and McAdams and really helped drag through some parts of the season. Speaking of McAdams, she was also pretty good selling the tough character of Ani. And then comes Kitsch’s Paul, who like the others had a dark incident in the past, though his is left the most ambiguous in terms of specific details. Whilst he was fine, and did lots of moody staring and not saying a great deal, he was also not hugely needed or intricate to the plot, and his big scene in episode 7 towards the end only happened due to a bit of a far fetched plotline.

Focusing for a moment on the finale itself, did it do what was required to bring things back on track? To an extent. But there was a feeling that some of what happened was a formality. It was never going to be a happy ending for all, the tone is bleak, the backgrounds are bleak, there's a huge theme around lack of father figures, so this was no different. You could probably have predicted about 70% of it before watching. It tied things up, sure, but due to a couple of ridiculous 'eureka' moments, and some well timed situations which pushed our belief. However apart from that, there were a couple of very good scenes which played out well, a favourite being Frank in the dessert. Though part of me will always wish Ray didn't just lazily jab at you know what with his knife and actually make an effort, might have changed things and seemed a bit lazy.

Focusing a bit of that 'eureka' factor, or TV luck (or deus ex mechana to some degree ), some fairly large pieces of Season 2 were based on ‘luck’, or more accurately risky writing from Pizzolatto. Clearly aiming to expand upon the True Detective universe (not literally, but in terms of story scale etc), increasing the character count and the plot lines, just seemed to perhaps be a touch too much for him to pull off. He was given creative freedom, and who can blame HBO after what he delivered in 2014. Budgets didn’t seem to be an issue for one of the biggest TV networks around, and the pulling power from the cast would ensure solid viewing figures. Yet I still feel it had so much more potential than it showed.

Overall, Season 2 started off poorly, fixed up midway through to be a fairly run of the mill police procedural and finished better – but not greatly – to give the whole season a slightly above average rating.6.5/10 if you want a number. Some great set pieces, improved character performances in the latter half with the direction and cinematography keeping things looking great really helped drag this through but I think Pizzolatto really needs to think long and hard about Season 3, if he wants to do it, and perhaps bring another creative force in to help with some of the pieces he seemed to struggle with this Season. I’m sure HBO will back it for another season based on initial comments, and I think it can still pull in the star power it’ll want, as like I said – not a disaster this year, and you do have to tip your hat at the risks he took and the ambition of the project, however sadly it just didn’t work for me.