Lying to Dates

I think it's pretty clear that I usually don't condone lying. After all, I was the one who spent an entire post ranting about my ex-friend who I not-so-nicely called out for having fabricated a life of lies. I mean, why wouldn't I believe that she was commuting to Manhattan for a glamorous internship at The Food Network when her mommy wouldn't really let her drive to the bagel store in our town alone? And, what's more, of course she had an extremely devoted boyfriend who she'd travel extensively with-- even though she wasn't allowed out of her house in suburban Connecticut past dark and happened to be spending her nights navigating from one Jdate profile to another. All adds up. Sure.

Anyway, I just realized an instance where I wholeheartedly believe that it's ok to take this really disgusting practice of lying and put it to good use. Mind you, I'm not talking about all-out lies; rather, I'm hinting at the fact that it's OK to sometimes craft a white lie here or there in order to spare someone's feelings. Really, it's only OK when there's no risk of the situation escalating for the worst or for any involved parties to find out. And it has to be helping someone or sparing their feelings, not for any other purpose.

I realize I'm speaking pretty abstractly so I'll go ahead pinpoint the instance that I have in mind where it's alright to fib a little. This whole train of thought started earlier today when I was talking to my friend who's currently out and about on the dating scene in New York, M. M was briefing me on her dates of the past weekend and noted that she had gone out with someone rather dull. He was a nice guy, but someone she had no interest in pursuing due to a lack of chemistry or, OK, fine-- just his inability to generate interesting conversation. The day after the date (where he took her for cupcakes but not coffee or tea because he's opposed to caffeine but somehow not sweets) he texted her saying how he had a great time and was pretty sure she felt the same.

Lesson for men: don't ever assume that your date felt the same way as you did. Just don't. Women can be deceivingly great actresses, so try to avoid putting words into their mouths.

Lesson for women: you have two ways of handling this situation where you clearly aren't interested in laying eyes on him but where he wants to lay a hell of a lot more on you. You can be direct and say something to the effect of "I think you're a really great guy, but I just didn't feel any chemistry." Conversely, you can lie. And by lie, I mean just concoct some sort of BRIEF yet fictional line that explains why you have no interest in pursuing him further. If you choose the second option, the most common excuse (see, not lie, but EXCUSE!) is that you're just getting over a relationship or painful breakup and you're not really so keen on dating yet.

In this instance, I actually think it's beneficial for both parties when the girl just tells a simple fib. First off, the guy gets the point. (Well, we hope he gets the point. We've all had situations where-- OH MY GOD, does he even speak English!? What is he missing here!?) We're giving him the chance to move on and find someone who likes him just as much as he likes them, because most people in life deserve that.

Second, we're sparing his feelings. Sure, most men can handle being told that there's no chemistry because it doesn't mean they're a bad person or boring or dumb or ill-mannered. But, of course, some people take it personally, even if it's not at all-- myself most certainly included.

In addition, we're helping ourselves. We're ending things with him (even if they haven't really yet begun) and we're doing what's best for ourselves. Never should we be on "sympathy dates," or out with someone just to not hurt them. If it's not right, end it. Immediately. You're not helping anyone by keeping something worthless going. And if you're going to end it, there's no reason to bruise his ego. Let him think it's about you-- be the bad guy. You're not hurting yourself and you're not hurting him, other than the fact that he won't get the chance to go out with you again.
Important note: If you're deep into a relationship, stupid excuses like those I mentioned won't work. After all, I'd hope by that point you know each others' dating histories and that you wouldn't have committed in the first place if you weren't that into him. But, after a date or two, he doesn't know much about you and you don't know much about him. You don't really owe him anything other than common courtesy, and although lying isn't courteous, it's not kind to tell him that you think he's the most boring person on earth. That's even if he spent the entire date listing his food allergies.

I vote that you spare his feelings and make it seem like your lack of interest in him isn't ABOUT him. No need to hurt him, but there's a reason to let him go and find someone who's really digging him. So fib, make it clear that you're not interesting in dating him further, and move on. Maybe, just maybe, you won't have to with the next guy who pops into you life.

Sunday Styles

People like myself are the reason that we’re all going to have to soon pay $165 per year to read The New York Times online. For those who rarely have the time or energy to sit down with a hard copy of a newspaper, our smartphones and laptops provide a quick and easy solution to getting the juice without newsprint ink on our fingers. Heck, for the amount of news I read online-- which has ultimately caused such papers to recognize potential areas of profit-- I really should earn a commission on every dollar they make. Either that or I definitely shouldn’t be paying the fee, because people like me made the fee worthwhile and valuable in the first place.

On rare occasion though, I do succumb to the joys of doing things old- school and sit down with an actual Sunday paper in hand. Usually it’s when I’m home in my childhood house, when some mysterious fairy has already placed it on the kitchen table-- right before she laid out my breakfast in front of it. Now while I normally read somewhat intelligent articles on my iPhone on the way to work, Sunday mornings at home call for a more indulgent read: The Sunday Styles.

Why, you might ask, do I automatically flip to this section? Especially coming from the girl who hates engagements and romance, how can I be so contradictory?

I think the answer is that it’s flat out enjoyable to catch a sneak peek into the lives of people we’d never otherwise encounter. As I read about Ms. Yale University the biochemistry graduate whose father is a world renowned cardiologist, I consider how bizarre her conversations with her Harvard philosophy major husband must be. Do they spend hours debating evolution at the dinner table, or perhaps they do they plan their upcoming exotic vacation?

Whatever the case, it’s interesting to get a look into the lives of strangers on their special days, to read the sometimes fascinating biographies of the newlyweds. The best is when we’re provided short vignettes that describe how the two met at a cocktail party when he spilled his red wine down her pastel colored dress, or how she knew from the start at that Halloween party that she just had to know Mr. George Bush impersonator.

What’s always been apparent, though, is that the New York Times is exceptionally exclusive and elitist. Sorry, but you’re not going to find Mrs. Manicurist and Mr. Truck driver’s announcement, although I think their story might be more interesting than two boat shoe clad and stuffy thirty-somethings.

As of recently, there’s apparently a new website that attempts to quantify exactly how many of the people in these announcements are Ivy League educated. Not only Ivy League educated, but also married by a Catholic Priest and women keeping their last names.

Meet WeddingCredential.com (see http://www.weddingcredential.com) and you too can search 3,981 NYTimes wedding announcements to see how many female Princeton graduates who kept their last names. You can also learn how many Goldman Sachs employees who graduated Summa Cum Laude have also been listed. Because we all really care about these details.

According to a New York Magazine article Columbia is the Most-Named University in the Times Wedding Pages, Columbia is the most-named university in the Times Wedding Pages. OK not funny, sorry. But really, it’s interesting to consider how NY Magazine has broken down these seemingly useless yet interesting statistics. (See http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/07/columbia_is_the_most-named_uni.html.)

First off, NY Magazine’s analysis has led me to consider the fact that the New York Times is, in reality, pretty elitist. That we all already knew. But, really, who would actually care to read about someone non-Ivy Leage educated? I won’t even begin to mention those people who not only didn’t go to top tier schools, but those who were raised by teachers or-- even worse-- wait, I can’t think of anything the Times would shun more than that.

Beyond that, I think the article makes a very significant point: it’s because of the prevalence of words like “Jdate,” “online dating,” and “Facebook” in marriage announcements that online dating as a whole has become more socially acceptable overall in America. Since we’ve been reading those words repeatedly every Sunday morning for years now, we’ve somehow begun to convince ourselves that meeting someone over the Internet is less taboo.

I also learned that if you want to try and get a three by six inch spot in the Sunday paper, you too can now search this new website. Your seach can help you find out if you’re more likely to make it in if you’re marrying a surgeon or lawyer. You can also determine if your chances are better with a man whose father was a salesman or one whose mom was a CPA. I don’t know about you, but my one and only life goal has been to make it into that section-- so much so that I’m willing to spend hours plotting a way how. (Can you believe that some girls actually do think that though!?)

So what, in actuality, is this new site good for? Besides a little fun with statistics for non-mathematicians, I’m not really sure. What I do know, though, is that we Americans are nosey. We like learning a bit or two about that handsome stranger who we’ll only meet on paper, and we feel validated by the fact that even that gorgeous woman met her soul mate online and-- gasp-- not at a friend’s party. Perhaps it’s sad that one three-page section of a newspaper impacts us this much socially but hey, we’ve gotta get with The Times, folks.