Online dating sites not worth their bandwidth

I was once an outspoken critic of online dating services. I always described them as a disgustingly artificial way of meeting someone, reserved only for those who feel they have no better alternative. I vowed never to stoop to that level.

So it's with reluctance that I admit to not keeping my own word. For the past 90 days, I've been a subscriber to such a service, dishing out a cool $30 per month in exchange for the privilege. Such an admission, from my perspective, is akin to an alcoholic caught tipping the bottle after a long period of staying clean. Or a recovering compulsive gambler who is confronted as he walks out of a casino. Or an adolescent boy who swears to his parents that he doesn't have any dirty magazines — only to be found later on using them to satisfy himself.

Why do I draw such unkind comparisons with online dating? The answer, simply stated, is that my short-lived experience with it only confirmed my prejudicial views of the practice. For starters, there's the humiliation associated with acknowledging that you cannot find a romantic relationship apart from this paid service. I've heard many people attempt to refute this notion. Someone even predicted that online relationships will be the rule rather than the exception in our society in the future. I disagree entirely. Such an assertion presumes that people will seek romance on the Internet even though many will have shown themselves capable of finding it elsewhere. That doesn't make sense. After all, what self-respecting individual would pay to find a date if he knew he didn't have to?

Which brings me to my second point: Dating sites are a waste of money. I equate them with free social networking sites like Facebook that simply have a different emphasis. Indeed, when you weigh Match.com against Facebook, the comparison is fairly clear: Both sites allow you to post images of yourself and create a profile that displays your age, educational and professional information, geographical location, activities, hobbies, political leanings, and a detailed personal description. Likewise, both allow you to connect with other members in various ways. The only key difference between the two is that the former emphasizes dating and isn't free. (Far from it, in fact.) So why are online dating services so successful at persuading people to fork over cash to access their sites?

It's because they know that there are countless people who have reached a level of discouragement or desperation deep enough for them to pull out their wallets. It's not a matter of eHarmony providing a remarkable service worth that much more money than Facebook — it's a matter of eHarmony advertising a desired outcome that Facebook does not offer. Dating sites have made romantic relationships a consumer's market. It's like scrolling through IKEA's online catalog. You don't click on furniture items that are tacky or don't match your home's decor. Similarly, you wouldn't select the profiles of members on a dating site whose primary photos make them look physically unattractive. It's profoundly superficial. Profile photos often don't do justice to physical appearance — but since they're the first detail you observe, they're often your sole measure of judgment against a person.

Needless to say, I cancelled my membership to this service. In so doing, I likely didn't do any favors for my future romantic prospects — but I surely caused no detriment, either. And despite my retained status as a lonely urban-dwelling bachelor, I truly do now feel like the confessed alcoholic who has given up the bottle for good.