Copyright (c) 2010 Dirk Sayers
I ran across a post on an online dating site, the other day, entitled "Why You Should Lie In Your Online Dating Profile." No kidding. In the interests of full credit for work done, Russ Ruggles is the author. Google it and you can find his post. Proving once again if you look hard enough, you can find just about anything online, irrespective of merit. No, Russ is not talking about the whopping misrepresentations that plagued online dating in the early years. Those of you around "back then," know what I mean. He's talking about itty-bitty fibs targeted at expanding exposure...about gaming the search engine on the site, by stretching or shrinking the truth. Two examples used in his post were women under-reporting their weight or men adding an inch to their height to improve their search results in the interests of upping the number of prospects.
Russ doesn't stop there. He blends social science into his argument; using two studies specific to online dating. The first was the small sample (163) study conducted by Eastwick and Finkel at Northwestern University and the second the much more ambitious 2008 Michigan State University Study of Toma, Hancock and Ellison, entitled, "Separating Fact From Fiction: An Examination of Deceptive Self-Presentation in Online Dating Profiles"...though he attributes it to Ellison only. One of their findings in the latter indicate that 90% of respondents copped to deceptive self-representation in their profiles... but only, Ruggles notes, in matters unlikely to be noticed on meeting. All of which makes it okay, right? I don't want to sound stiff-necked, but it makes me squirm when someone (male or female) advocates conscious misrepresentation. I'll concede it happens. I've been on the business end of "creative" self-representation in online dating. I'll even cop to being tolerant of the kinds of minor infractions he refers to, if "she" was otherwise attractive to me personally. And, in Mr. Ruggles defense; the social honesty bar isn't very high, when we have web sites devoted almost exclusively to fact-checking the statements of our elected officials. The inescapable conclusion is we EXPECT to be lied to. Or should we call it "marketing...or spin?" So lying on your profile...particularly little lies...are no big deal, right?
Sorry, Russ. Can't see it that way...for (at least) these three reasons.
1. We become the decisions we make. If you choose to lie in small things, you're prone to developing the insidious habit of doing so whenever it's convenient. Will it inevitably lead to bigger lies? Maybe not. But if we can agree we are over-supplied with examples of whoppers told for personal gain in business and politics, aren't we justified in concluding there may be something to the ole slippery slope analogy?
2. Lies are the necessary accomplices of greater offenses. What Enron, Bernie Madoff, the Arco debacle and the ill-conceived war in Iraq all have in common is their foundation in lies. They rely on deception to attract support or money. While the stakes in online dating seem inconsequential by comparison, someone who consents to meet you invests the time it takes to determine whether you might be a fit. Yes, that's part of the understood cost of online dating, but don't we owe each other "truth in advertising" out of respect for each other's time...because none of us will ever get that time back.
3. There's a better way. Interestingly enough, on a different site on the same day, a poster identified only as Liz made the counter point beautifully, when called both herself and online dating sisters out for their stubborn adherence to rigid and restrictive "requirements." She had recently concluded her own laundry list had l fashion jackets online ittle or nothing to do with what she actually found attractive in men. As a man, I can second her opinion and tell you I have often opted for something other than my hypothetical ideal when confronted with a profile that fell outside those preconceived notions. The key, Liz correctly observes, is flexibility on our parts, with regard to those stated requirements; not creative treatment of the truth.
Someone reading this right now is whispering, "Yeah right. You're dreaming! How many are REALLY willing to compromise on their expectations and accept me as I am?" It's a fair question. But if we're honest, the answer is MOST of us are. How many of us...men or women...wind up with the "ideal" man or woman paraded in front of us by mainstream media? How many men of your personal acquaintance are married to super models? How many women do you know with truly narrow gauge "heavy hitters" for their main squeeze? Unless you're pretty narrow gauge yourself, the answer is not many!
But most importantly...what does it mean if you or I buy into the argument in Russ Ruggles' post? That it's okay to stretch the truth? That if everyone else is doing it, we have to as well, in order to compete? Or might it mean that, deep down we don't think we're worthy just as we are? I can't answer for Russ Ruggles...or for you. But you must answer for yourself, as must all of us. In the end, we are the stewards of the image others form of us and above all of ourselves and how we feel about us. No one will ever feel better about us than we do. Yes, Virginia and Virgil...you are whom you attract! If that bothers you, work on fixing your reality...not the appearance of it!
No comments:
Post a Comment