January 02, 2005

• Wow. I had no idea. That is very scary. I always thought that those ads were really freaky -- makes so much sense now that I know that they're natalists.
• No same-sex matching. So much for the search for love!
• Is there a presidential connection? eHarmony just received 110 million in funding from Sequoia Capital. One of the Sequoia partners is Tom Stephensen is one of George Bush's top contributors and a Republican "Super Ranger" contributor. Stephensen helped Condoleeza Rice by setting up the Thomas and Barbara Stephensen Senior Fellowship at the Hoover Institute. Weird.
• Well, should they tell you this information? I suppose in the interest of full disclosure, yes, but where do you stop? Does one need to know the political and religious leanings of everyone within a given organization before joining? It's one thing if there's a direct conspiracy there, but somehow I think that dog won't hunt.
• You didn't know they were Christian? I always thought it was obvious.
• Argh, how did you get to the page in your second link?
• this just in: J-date is for JEWS!!!
• Is this some bizarre form of social engineering based on marriage and family? No it's a fucking dating site for Christians. Get over it already.
• Jeez (no pun intended) -- this is old news, and besides that, SO THE HELL WHAT? My biggest beef with the whole commercial campaign is his referring to himself by all three names: NEIL CLARK WARREN. I think that people who use three names to identify themselves are pretentious bores.
• eHarmony does not offer same sex matching services. We're sorry if the placement of recent advertising led you to believe that we offer this service. eHarmony's matching system is designed to match highly compatible men and women who are seeking a successful long-term relationship. Our ongoing research has examined thousands of married couples to determine what factors predict the greatest degree of success in the marriage relationship. Based on over 35 years of clinical practice and empirical study, eHarmony has discovered what similarities and differences between men and women lead to their most successful unions. This unprecedented research into compatibility has been conducted with the goal of lowering the rate of unsuccessful marriages and divorce by providing singles with a tool for finding truly compatible matches with whom to pursue a relationship. With this goal in mind, eHarmony's research has only examined heterosexual relationships. I like their logic.
• For sale; One tinfoil hat - used
• Seems, then, like you could theoretically work backwards from their logic/matching-system to find out what the "real" differences are between men and women (or maybe they just say it up front somewhere). Now excuse me while I go reach the climax of this intellectual masterbation in private.
• And the strange thing is, on a whim today (before reading this article) I took their free personality test. It was remarkably accurate. It also told me that their matching service couldn't accomodate my personality, and that it produces such results for 20% of people. Maybe they're trying to stop me from meeting the hedonistic atheist of my dreams.
• Man, I wanted to bring up something atheist related, but I thought it would just bore the hell out of people. Now I'm curious though. I'll go take the test myself and report back. . .
• For starters, someone has already taken the name "freethought" . . .
• ...providing singles with a tool for finding truly compatible matches with whom to pursue a relationship. With this goal in mind, eHarmony's research has only examined heterosexual relationships. ...with the hidden snark that only hetero relationships result in "truly compatible matches". Nuts to these nutty nuts.
• hidden snark?
• Well, the service isn't weeding out blatantly non-religious/avoid-church-community people because I got no such "couldn't accomodate" mumbo-jumbo. At the same time the test didn't reflect who I am so well. I have taken tests that seemed spot on; this one was only battin' 0.600 or so. It just couldn't capture my ... my ... complex nature. Yeah, that's it.
• No it's a fucking dating site for Christians. Get over it already. Bullshit. It's a dating site that makes no freaking mention of it's religious backing or the fact that the dollars contributed to eharmony help fund anti gay, anti abortion and neocon agendas. It's a ruse, a con and it's just wrong. I'm not saying they (or anyone) should have a banner saying "By the way, we're Christians". I just think it's bullshit the way an agenda is being pushed without the general publics knowledge. If they're so obvious about it why isn't this link the main page instead of this? Methinks they would have a lot less business if people knew where their dollars were really going.
• Well, the service isn't weeding out blatantly non-religious/avoid-church-community people because I got no such "couldn't accomodate" mumbo-jumbo. At the same time the test didn't reflect who I am so well. Surely they also wouldn't mind taking your money if you're wanting to give it to them, and then match you up with another undesireable non-christian that happened to join the site. Dosn't hurt their aim, if that is to get more christians to breed in the suburbs and raise their little angels in a religiously homogeneous environment.
• If it's only hetero matching, why do they keep referring to "partners"?
• It's a ruse, a con and it's just wrong. Holy crap, argh...lighten up. It's not like some sort of conspiracy...it's just a freakin' business.
• Surely they also wouldn't mind taking your money if you're wanting to give it to them, and then match you up with another undesireable non-christian that happened to join the site. It's possible, but I'd hope they'd be making the match in good faith.
• Argh, what's needed is a central reference for apparently-secular businesses fronting for christian orgs and efforts. Something like "christ_in_the_box.org". Referring to a surprise christ popping up at unexpected moments. "By their works ye shall know themn" would be a good tagline for the FP. Geez, I've done all the hard stuff already.
• freethought: hell, it sounds win-win to me :)
• If it's only hetero matching, why do they keep referring to "partners"? My guess would be that it's easier to say "partners" throughout the site rather than "boyfriend/girlfriend" (which sounds juvenile) or "mates" (which sounds Australian). "Lovers" sounds too presumptuous. What alternative would you suggest? "Partners" is not just a term for the gay community. As for the site itself, I can tell you from experience that they don't discriminate against non-believers or refuse to take their money. Once you get past the personality test and are completing your profile, there are options you can select to indicate your religious preferences. All are represented and you are matched with others according to your preferences on who to be matched with. I've actually been debating going back on eH because it's the most in-depth and complex online dating sites available, so I know the men on it are serious about their search, unlike Match.com, etc. But reading that they are supported by Dubya supporters is unnerving. I knew it was a Christian-esque site when I first joined but never thought about the Religious Right connection it could have. I guess there's not always a way around supporting companies who support the GOP but it makes me feel icky.
• i've taken the test it was free and i reccommended it to other people because i thought it was interesting i think it's very obvious about faith because it makes allowances to how important it is for some people. also, i found that people were incredibly marriage minded and serious about the business of hooking up for the purpose of marriage and breedingcan you say offputting? It seems people doing it are very intent on checking stuff of a life list. like young professionals with religious backgrounds/families. interesting to investigate lightly but it creeped me out. i did like it's "dump options": from "um, i'm busy right now" to "um, no"
• Tempest. Teacup. I don't see the big deal, here, really.
• This was a pretty embarrassing post to read and sort through. There's no conspiracy here, Argh. I tried to rethink your post in succinct terms and came up with "Christians have dating service that caters to Christians". Yeah, the guy's ideology is suspect and exclusionary, but so what? He's allowed to be nutty under the 1st -- it's what allows me to be nutty in my way and so on.
• I'd rather keep in mind the eugenics craze of the last century and always be slightly wary than to blow most anything off as supposedly harmless(anyone have a better word than harmless?).
• My older sister is a Jain and her boyfriend is a Muslim, and they met up through eharmony. It's worked for them, but I don't see anything Christian or sinister about it.
• I'm aware of the hate for Christianity around here, but Eharmony is just a dating site. I took the personality test and it didn't balk at my non-religiousness. There is zero evidence of eugenics, or bigotry, or anti-gay sentiment anywhere. In other words: Harmless.
• Somewhat off-topic, but I hate that the Christian Right has ruined the word 'family' for me. That word should bring to mind happy grandparents, kids fighting over toys, going to your cousin's wedding, etc. Now the word makes me instantly tense and I brace myself for an attack. If not an attack on my rights, then on the rights of someone I care about, or just an attack on social progress itself. To me, the word 'family' now means Christians being un-Christian. Which sucks, because it used to be a perfectly good word. Like 'right' or 'moral'.
• And, natch, I don't hold that particular re-branding of an English word against Christianity - just against the really scary, really loud minority that wants to recreate some hybrid of biblical times and the imaginary peacefulness of the 1950's.
• I still think it's creepy
• Imaginary peacefulness of the 1950's? No, more-so, i think they're pining for a physical manifestation of evil that the Soviet Union provided. Now that there is no big actual scary boogeyman, they've been chomping on the bit trying to find another one. When someone or something else is evil and you can point at it, it makes your own issues a little bit less complex. For a cross cultural example, take Middle Eastern rulers and radical islamic clerics with regards their relationship with the US.
• i found that people were incredibly marriage minded and serious about the business of hooking up for the purpose of marriage and breedingcan you say offputting? Maybe for some people, but for those of us serious about getting married and tired of all the yahoo playas on Match.com, it's refreshing. Personally I'm not "checking stuff of [sic] a life list" nor do I come from "religious backgrounds/families." Where do you get the impression that these people are? How many people do you know or have you talked to who actually use this service?
• One of my dearest friends keeps "meeting" guys on eHarmony and without exception they turn out to be issue-laden boobs looking for a geisha girl. Christian or not, it's providing hilarious vicarious entertainment for me. Maybe I'll sign up to see what kind of trouble I can start. Anyone interested in a marriage minded nymphomaniac?
• Cynnbad: Are you male or female? That would strongly influence my answer. =)
• i tried the "free trial" sign up thing when i was doing research, in part about spam. they still keep sending stuff to that email. i ended up having them remove me just because it felt very odd to me. a lot of earnestness and eagerness, and not being so very interested, it made me feel ingenuous to be letting anyone think i might be by being listed. that offputting can anyone say part lost it's tags, but as someone casually checking it out, i did find that intensity to hook up personally unpalateable, but did think it would work better for someone who was as intently marriage minded-- that was my brief experience,not judging anyone. At the time i had some very "goal-oriented" dating friends who i suggested it to, but they had problems with the whole concept. i'm not sure what perceived stigma people have with services and personals anymore.
• Good question...probably worthy of a Curious George post. How do people feel about dating services and websites? Do they smack of desperation? I used one last year (lavalife) and met a nice woman who I dated for a few months. I was recently thinking of giving it a second try, but I've encountered attitudes from friends about those services being for desperate losers.
• One of my girlfriends uses them to meet guys, partly because our particular group of friends, male and female, is so well-established and cliquey that it's hard to find, say, friends of friends to be introduced to. Also, she's in the restaurant business so long antisocial hours that impinge heavily on getting-to-know-you time. She uses the sites to exchange messages and get to know people that way, then meet them in neutral territory if they communicate well. And I'd never call her desperate; she's gorgeous and gets asked out by men while she's at work, but I think she's more comfortable with this.
• Seems, then, like you could theoretically work backwards from their logic/matching-system to find out what the "real" differences are between men and women (or maybe they just say it up front somewhere). I think they have different parts. Don't quote me on that, though. Do they smack of desperation? To me they do, because the only person I knew who used them was desperate, and they still remind me of him. But think about it - if you meet someone through the service, they're using it too. Are you trying to impress your friends, or get dates? Every mention of eharmony I've ever seen has mentioned the Christian focus. I'm not all that surprised that a company doesn't spill its guts on the front page - it's courting users, and most users probably don't care. They want a nice simple interface without all those confusing words and links.
• i never really thought of any of them negatively in themselves. i just see them as adding another element of randomness where a lot of people don't have much diversity at hand. it seems a lot of people stop making new friends at some stage in their lives and depending on where you are, people can be really insular. personally, i like having my "romantic" life separate. it makes things easier and removes any social pressure from things I think people may not know how very pro Christian some parts of the US are. Like here in the midwest, to not make any religious distinction is more of a statement than just making the average "everybody else it" token faith statement-- i remember being shocked that religious programming would preempt things on network tv, the good old days...
• it=is i'm sure i've littered typos and flubs everywhere today dumb keyboard i'm more disturbed by the fact that when i am seeing someone for whatever reason, people act like i'm no longer me and part of some two headed monster that need to be included in every exchange
• I know many people who use or have used online dating sites, and know many people who know these people, and no one judges anyone for it. There doesn't seem to be a stigma attached to it any longer, at least not in the DC area. This can be a difficult area to meet people, and it seems like most people work 80 hours a week, so having free time to socialize with new folks is rare. Women have a harder time because the male/female ratio is low and there's a large gay population. As you get older, the men in your age range are already married or carrying more baggage than United due to a messy divorce. Many of them have kids. (Not saying anything against kids, but it's an additional factor to consider when getting into a relationship.) Being able to weed out the unavailable men by way of a Web site makes things easier. Plus I abhor the bar scene and know I don't want to waste my time trying to meet someone there. It's all about convenience and saving time really.
• Well that's exactly why I used it in the first place. At my age (counting the days to 40) most of the women I meet are already married. It's also nice to have all the info about kids, exes, etc, presented up-front, so there's no surprises.
• You have the benefit of the doubt for now, e"Harmony."
• Heh. The founder was interviewed on WCBN's "Closets are for Clothes" (LGTB-themed talk) for their Valentine's Day special last year. I'm surprised that they don't cater to gays didn't come up. Interesting interview, but superficial now that I see a little bit more about them. Anyway, though I'm not single, I wouldn't use this service knowing what I now know. I know that it got great razzes when posted a couple months ago, but I try not to spend money on businesses that support ideologies directly hostile to mine. 'My dollar, my vote,' here in America. I rrealize that just association with different causes, such as the Focus on Family jackasses, doesn't mean an agreement. But since I believe people like the aforementioned fundies to be extreme, I do ask that moderates disassociate themselves.