The Devil’s Guide to Online Dating
I blame smiling.
The first lie, whenever it took place, whether it was a snake in a garden or just some swindler trying to sneak his way up a skirt – it really doesn’t matter. It all began with a smile. Unlike most of the animal kingdom, bearing teeth for the human animal is wrongly perceived as something positive.
Hardly.
It’s the first lie. Never trust a smile. And, especially, don’t trust a smile in a photograph. It’s cemented, like the initials of two young lovers; they’re now divorced and dueling over the custody of three blithe children. But their photograph remains like a bloodstain on a well-worn t-shirt sleeve. Permanent. The smile in a photograph wants to prove something, perhaps how happy one has the potential of being or, worse yet, how perpetually happy one actually is.
So, the first bit of advice regarding “online dating” – be wary of those celluloid smiles. Or, if you’re building your profile for a dating site, simply don’t smile. Be as somber and as serious as those delightful, faded old photographs taken of families two hundred years ago. There’s good reason those people weren’t smiling, and having taken a few tumbles now, I’m certain I’d rather date my great-great-great-great Aunt Elsabie any day of the week, and twice on Sunday, than the hyper-happy and active flubber that passes itself off as female nowadays.
Gross? Maybe. But there’s wisdom in those old photographs, a seriousness towards life that can now only be found in largely unread literature, and perhaps those few movies that struggle at the box office because they’re, god-forbid, “such downers.”
Life really isn’t full of smiles or chuckles or outright laughter. Aunt Elsabie and her family knew this; she and her family worked harder than we’ll ever understand, all so they could live in a shack and chow down on some hodge-podged American goulash and play pinochle at the end of the day. Of course, “historians” will tell you that people didn’t used to smile in photographs because the photograph itself simply took too long to take.
People always say you can learn from history, but what can you possibly learn from that? That exposure-times have made great strides? History, in this case, fails us. So we rely on stories. “That’s what fiction is for,” says Tim O’Brien. “It’s for getting at the truth when the truth isn’t sufficient for the truth.” And the story is this: those poor old souls didn’t smile in stupid photographs because they saved their smiles for real occasions. You know, when something went right, and the smile could become a genuine gesture. Let’s face it, these people couldn’t be as slap-happy as we are. They didn’t live with supermarkets or Netflix, and especially didn’t have Facebook’s show-and-tell, self-gratifying overindulgence to placate themselves with.
The point is a smile, like the cock of an eyebrow, should mean something. It should be interpretable. But because we have chalked it up as beautiful and because it’s become a selling-point, people now pin their cheeks up for weeks at a time. And now, it’s hard to not capture the smile, especially with modern-exposure times. So they pose, demonstrate their excess delight, and say, of all things, “Cheese” as the photograph is snapped and their insipid beauty is captured for time and all digital eternity.
It’s lost most of its spontaneity. Its lost all its sincerity.
If you still think a photograph can’t lie, consider the most popular of current selling-points. The camera conveniently poised above the head and body, peering downward like a deity, and the “cheesy” prayer from below – “Oh, Lord, hallowed be my name. Let them forget how fat I may be, and perhaps the pomp of my cleavage may, like my poised and pinned-on grin, likewise garner their binary attention for ever and ever. Amen.”
Oh, I blame words, too.
With online dating, you’ve not much to go one besides what people write and what poised photographs of themselves they choose will best suit their needs. That’s right. Everyone has an agenda. And on a dating site, it’s not hard to guess what that agenda might be. While I’d like to believe otherwise, I am inclined (and entirely disgusted) to quote Pamela Anderson: “What I know in life runs the gamut of the ‘feminist experience.’ The true meaning of feminism is this: to use your strong womanly image to gain strong results in society.”
A better sentiment would be her words and a better role-model would be herself, but alas she now lives in that aforementioned largely unread literature – Virginia Woolf – who said, quite simply, “If you do not tell the truth about yourself, you cannot tell it about other people.”
These are good words. Not necessarily fun or peppy or witty words. They are more. They are wise and honest. And is it too much to ask that, if people neglect to portray their outward beauty honestly, that they at least describe themselves honestly?
I think it is. People are subscribing to the Pamela Anderson school-of-thought, the sell-yourself-at-any-cost philosophy. Variety may be the spice of life, but it certainly isn’t the spice of clicking through dating profiles. Andy Warhol once said, “I think everyone should be a machine. I think everybody should be like everybody.” I think he’d be quite pleased with online dating. The good news is, you aren’t going to need much of a vocabulary as you cycle through the profiles of people proudly pawning themselves off as god-like. The bad news is – well, your choices are about as vast as extra-value meals.
Humility is not the grace of our age. No. And Warhol’s machines are pretty predictable. Terms such as “fun” and “independent” and “happy” and “strong” are spewed forth with more vigor and resolve than semen in a sperm bank.
So, the second piece of advice regarding online dating is quite simple – be wary of words. People these days seem to have an overabundance of self-esteem, so it’s wise to consult The Devil’s Dictionary and the brilliance of Ambrose Bierce before continuing:
“Self-esteem, n. An erroneous appraisement. “
That said, and on that note, proceed with caution as you “read up” about persons on their profiles. For example, if someone describes themselves as “resilient,” consider that they are instead aloof and, in the past, were quite likely irresponsible (not to mention, dreadfully irresolute).
Those who are “confident” are merely too cocky to bother even with bragging.
People who are “fun” are fake.
People who are “energetic” are exhausting.
Those who are “happy” are just oblivious and those who are “optimistic” are downright delusional. If only Bierce were alive today, perhaps she could help shed some wise suspicion on the self-aggrandizing way people describe themselves…
Independent, adj. Self-sufficient
Self-sufficient, adj. Self-serving
Self-serving, adj. Borderline sociopathic
Positive, adj. Obtuse
Outgoing, adj. Asphyxiating
Driven, adj. Insatiable
Motivated, adj. See Driven
Outspoken, adj. Insolent
Assertive, adj. Dismissive
Strong, adj. Vigorously neglectful
Loveable, adj. Overweight
Loving, adj. See Loveable
Passionate, adj. Melodramatic
Intelligent, adj. Condescending
And so the last piece of advice regarding online dating is this: consider that those who blog about the bane of online dating are quite likely bitter, more than a bit broken, and unlikely to meet anyone even in the seemingly endless and opportune void of virtual space.
Copyright © 2010 Christopher Yeates
