3.21.18: a rebel alliance of quality content
our facebook page our twitter page intrepid media feature page rss feed
FEATURES  :  GALLERYhover for drop down menu  :  STUDIOhover for drop down menu  :  ABOUThover for drop down menu sign in

love at first site
make me a match.com
by matt morin

Next to bartender at the Playboy Mansion, or maybe Brad Pitt's best friend, you'd think being a straight single guy in San Francisco would be the easiest way in the world to meet women. At parties, I can't finish a beer without overhearing some woman lament that, "There are no good single men in this city." I'm 30. I consider myself above-average looking. (Then again, who would admit to being below-average?) I work for myself and make almost as much as my parents combined. I own real furniture. I can cook. I'm relatively well read, and when in public you will rarely see me with a finger in my nose.

But here's my problem: I don't meet women.

The most obvious reason is that I work at home by myself. That rules out meeting anyone at work. It also precludes meeting any of your co-workers' friends. My friends are great, but all but two of them are married or coupled up, so the majority of their friends are other couples. And despite asking pathetically often, only once has someone said, "Hey, I've got a single friend for you to meet." I don't even bother trying to meet women in bars or clubs. I'm not the kind of guy you talk to for 5 minutes and want to date. I'm the kind who grows on you. (I once had a girlfriend say she became attracted to me like tanning – It's not there, then six months later, all of a sudden you realize, "Hey! I'm tan.")

So, tired of going to bed alone and waking up feeling even more alone, I decided to do something about it. I called Hugh Hefner. OK, not really. But wouldn't that have been cool to tell you I just picked up the phone and said, "Hef, hook me up"? Anyway, instead, I tried something I never, ever thought I'd consider. Online dating. Hello Match.com.

Match.com is a well-designed site and the logistics are pretty simple. You pay $25 for a month of access. Answer a dozen or so questions like age, height, body type, religion, income, etc. You answer the same questions about who you're looking for. Then you have 2000 words to write about you and your perfect match. Upload a picture or two and you're set. Then you can either browse other profiles or have Match.com send you profiles of people who meet your criteria. When you find someone you like, you e-mail them through Match.com's anonymous e-mail system and things go from there.

In theory, it sounded perfect. I receive a ready-made a pool of women who are actively looking for boyfriends. I'll know ahead of time if they're cute, if we share interests, and if they prefer 6'3" blondes who make $150,000 a year.

I started browsing the site. And frankly, it was much different than I had anticipated. I didn't really think it'd completely populated by ugly, socially inept psychotics. But I also didn't expect it to be Temptation Island either. What I found was that most Match.comers were just regular, everyday people who didn't have time to meet other people. Some are cute. Others not. Some are funny. Some are smart. Some are boring. Some are divorced. Some just moved here. There were, however, an unsettling number of women who started their bio with, "Don't judge a book by its cover!" Not exactly the way I'd sell myself. I tend to flaunt my assets, not my drawbacks. But hey, that's just me. There were plenty more where all I could think of was, "Couldn't you have uploaded a picture where you actually look like you're among the living? Is it asking too much to smile? Maybe brush your hair?"

The whole thing felt like I was combing through headshots, casting for a role in The Matt Morin Story. (Me: "OK, you'll be playing the love of my life." Her: "Really? I thought I was reading for the lying, cheating ex-girlfriend role." Sorry...I digress.) It's amazing how picky you become when you're allowed to be. I cut women because they said too little about themselves. I cut them for saying too much. I passed on some because of their religion, their cat, and their insistence the person they date make a lot of money. But despite the overwhelming task, I did find about eight or nine women who were interesting enough for me to e-mail. Not one of them e-mailed me back. I'm sure that says something right there. But I was trying to raise my hopes, not crush them, so excuse me if I skip the analysis.

Then I started receiving e-mails from women who saw my profile. I get about 3-4 a week and 80% of them go something like this: "Hi. I just signed up for this thing. Never thought I'd be doing it. But I liked your profile. It made me laugh. And you're cute. So you're the first person I decided to e-mail." I always get the weird feeling that this exact same e-mail is currently in about 15 other guys' inboxes. They always say you're the first.

I hate how shallow this is going to sound, but 9 out of 10 of the e-mails I get, as soon as I look at the picture, I delete them. Just not what I'm interested in. But there were three that stood out. I started e-mailing them. That turned into phone calls. And last week, over three consecutive days, I set up...well, not dates per se. Let's call them meetings.

Meeting 1: Karen (names have been changed to protect the innocent) was 31 years old, 5'9", worked for a 401K management company, and liked the Niners and snowboarding. We met for a beer after work. Now, I usually get upbraided for this, but I can tell in the first five seconds if I'm interested in someone or not. You either feel that chemistry or you don't. I didn't. It was fine conversation. We both had a good time. But after two hours, I shook her hand, thanked her, and that was that. I was somewhat bummed we didn't click. But that was just my first try, right? Two more to go.

Meeting 2: Debbie. I'll be really, really nice and just say she didn't look like her picture. If I could have left immediately after meeting her, I would have. We had a drink and talked. Well, she talked. And talked. And if I didn't keep asking her questions about herself, the conversation would have gone nowhere because she certainly didn't ask any questions about me. I left with even lower expectations for meeting #3.

Meeting 3: Erin. Erin was really cute, smart, and seemed like a lot of fun. We were having a great time until she casually mentioned that in two weeks she was leaving on a six-week trip to Australia. Then a few months after that, she was planning a three-month trip around Europe. Um...call me a pessimist, but it's kinda hard to start a relationship when you're not even going to be on the same continent.

As I walked home from date #3, I realized why Match.com wasn't going to work for me. It goes about everything backwards. In most cases, if I talk to someone at a party for 10 minutes, we both can tell if there's any spark. If there is, we keep talking. Phone numbers are exchanged. Then the date happens. With Match.com, there's no way to quickly find out if that spark is there. You e-mail, read profiles, e-mail some more, talk on the phone, set up a meeting. Only then do you find out if there's any of that hard-to-define chemistry that's so important.

I'm not saying Match.com doesn't work. I know plenty of people who have met a match online. An ex-girlfriend even recently got married to a guy she met on Match.com. In my remaining time, I'll probably e-mail a few more women. They probably won't respond. And that will be that. However at least I tried something different. Unfortunately, the results were the same, but I know (hope?) one day they'll be different. So now I return to my search, only without the aid of the Internet. Up next: I have a "Singles Party" in two weeks. Wish me luck.


Matt would love to be George Plimpton...welll, except for the being dead part. He supplies the doing and the writing. All he asks of you is the reading.

more about matt morin


all i want for christmas.
i'm making a list and checking it twice.
by matt morin
topic: general
published: 12.13.02

straight eye for the straight guy
big primpin'
by matt morin
topic: general
published: 10.15.03


jael mchenry
1.25.02 @ 8:51a

Who doesn't prefer 6'3" blondes who make $150,000 a year?

It seems like it puts emphasis in all the wrong places, though, doesn't it? Who has these non-negotiable criteria? Only dating rich men, or only dating Catholics, or only dating brown-eyed vegan bass players? I think we've had this conversation before but it still baffles me that people are so choosy they'll narrow their list so arbitrarily when, as Matt notes, it's tough enough to meet people in the first place.

tracey kelley
1.25.02 @ 9:46a

I met my Matt at a wedding reception. What are the odds? We had a mutual friend (the bride) who:
1) Knew he was single, tall, intelligent and funny
2) Knew I was single, tall, intelligent and funny
but never thought to introduce us because she believed "our political views were too different." This was before Carville and Matalin were vogue. So she introduced him to her sister instead, while my a la carte selection included Bruce the "No, Really, I'm a Philosophy Major at UNC" Bouncer and Tom the Army Man. shudder. Matt and I had our 1st date a week after we met - that was 10-1/2 years ago. Our friend laughs now "I still can't believe you two got together." No help from you, thanks!

adam kraemer
1.25.02 @ 9:49a

Matt - I know it's based in New York, but on a link from this site, I discovered that the people on Nerve.com tend to be more interesting, and that the questions they ask are more telling. And most of the articles have something to do with boobs. It's a win/win situation.

russ carr
1.25.02 @ 10:03a

Nerve.com. Gosh, Adam, talk about timing. Last night was Nerve's first episode of their sex & culture magazine on HBO. Now I'm as prurient or moreso as the next guy, but I was stunned by what they were showing. They kept interspersing the features with clips from what was allegedly a Nerve.com office party. The thought that kept popping into my mind: This is what Rome looked like before it fell...

So of course, I recorded it.

joe procopio
1.25.02 @ 10:05a

Here's how small a world it is. I built NerveCenter. Emma Taylor, now one of Nerve's VPs, used to be my editor at Tripod.

russ carr
1.25.02 @ 10:10a

RE: Jael's comments

One of the alt.pop radio stations around here has their own version of "Am I Hot or Not?" running on its webpage. The guy yesterday -- "Rod" -- was special, in that he is offering $10,000 to the person who introduces him to the woman he marries. They called him up to ask him about it, and he eagerly volunteered all sorts of information about his dream girl: thin, brunette, attractive...should look a lot like that girl in "Starship Troopers." (Denise Richards, if you were wondering.)

This morning, they announced the results of yesterday's voting. Despite being a pretty attractive guy, Rod was shot down...something like 68 percent said "not hot." And with the Rockwellian attitude he copped, I can't blame the voters.

tracey kelley
1.25.02 @ 10:16a

Russ - so *this* time, you didn't just leave the TV on for the cat, huh?

russ carr
1.25.02 @ 10:19a


michelle von euw
1.25.02 @ 10:29a

Don't rule out bars, Matt. For years, my motto was, "I'm not going to meet my future husband in a bar!" And then I did.

adam kraemer
1.25.02 @ 12:04p

Sounds like I'm sorry I missed it. Hey, Joe - any chance you can hook me up with a freelancing job at Nerve? I've already got feelers out because the other founder went college with a friend's older brother. It's a small world.

matt morin
1.25.02 @ 12:31p

Michelle, I know what you're saying about bars. One of my best friends met his wife-to-be in a bar, only because I was sick and wouldn't go out with him to our usual hangout. So he went with a different friend to a bar he'd never been to before.

But I always just feel so cheesy talking to women in bars. No matter how plain old friendly I'm being, I still feel like she's thinking, "Jesus, what kind of cheeseball hits on women in a bar?"

matt morin
1.25.02 @ 12:34p

FYI: Thanks for all the critiques so far. The new system rocks.

matt morin
1.25.02 @ 12:34p

FYI: Thanks for all the critiques so far. The new system rocks.

russ carr
1.25.02 @ 12:37p

Adam: You must get work at Nerve so on an upcoming HBO broadcast we can watch you get groped and licked by androgynes in Old Navy garb.

matt morin
1.25.02 @ 12:40p

Julianelle doesn't wear Old Navy.

mike julianelle
1.25.02 @ 12:57p

Unsolicited venom! You'll get yours, Morin. Hopefully in the form of some transvestite computer date.

matt morin
1.25.02 @ 1:22p

Mike, sorry. I couldn't resist.

I wanted to respond to a critique I received. Someone thought I sounded very superficial because a large portion of the article talked about looks. But when you're on a site with hundreds of available women, you can't start narrowing them down by their personality, because so little of that comes across. By default you have to start with the physical.

mike julianelle
1.25.02 @ 1:51p

I completely agree. That wasn't my critique. People who babble about not caring about looks are lying. Like it or not, 90% of the time, it's looks that start it all. BRING IT ON!

russ carr
1.25.02 @ 2:03p

I wasn't chasing the hot babe; she chased me.

I first met my wife when I went to help a girl I'd gone to high school with (and pined for) move into her dorm room. Kathy was her roommate. Kathy was also considerably more attractive -- to the point where I considered her out of my league. Funny thing, we didn't fall in love 'til after I graduated and we started writing each other back and forth. I went back the following year for her roommate's (aka my ex-girlfriend) graduation and in an evening soaked in rum, decided we were made for each other.

matt morin
1.25.02 @ 2:28p

Russ, I bet if you asked your wife, she say you were out of her league, too. That's the best, when both parties think they're the ones who got the better end of the deal.

Mike, it's not ALL about looks. But that definitely is a piece of the puzzle. It's not the only piece, or even a huge piece, but it usually is the first one.

mike julianelle
1.25.02 @ 2:33p

I didn't say it was all about looks, I just said that's where it starts. We are in agreement.

michelle von euw
1.25.02 @ 3:29p

OK, I'm only saying this to play devil's advocate, but wouldn't the point of an online dating service to be to go beyond the looks, and connect with someone who you find witty and charming and funny, so then when you finally meet them, you've already gotten beyond the looks thing?

tracey kelley
1.25.02 @ 3:35p

My Matt says he liked me from the 1st moment he saw me, bless his little heart.

I was in a bridesmaid's dress and had braces. Now THAT"S attractive!

Matt also highly recommends going to every wedding you can and "hitting on all the women, especially bridesmaids, 'cause they're feeling romantic and longing to be the bride. There's free food, too."

Now you can see why I fell for him, too.

Ouch. He just flicked me.

michelle von euw
1.25.02 @ 3:44p

OK, now there's a great idea for a column, Tracey! And your Matt can be the columnists' adviser. Are you up for a little wedding-hopping, Matt Morin?

matt morin
1.25.02 @ 4:32p

Michelle, whether I got to the looks thing first or the looks thing later, it's still part of the equation. And frankly, it's the easiest thing to figure out. I can see in a few seconds whether or not I'm physically attracted to someone. It takes a while to learn if you're attracted to someone's personality. So why spend all that time finding out if you have the latter connection if the former connection is going to kill things anyway?

Wedding-hopping? Hell, why not? Just as long as I don't get seated at the kids' table...

adam kraemer
1.25.02 @ 4:49p

I had a problem recently where I actually really liked someone's personality, but just couldn't get past the fact that I wasn't physically attracted to her. What bothered me more than having to dance around the issue was that I always thought I could look past that sort of superficiality, but it turns out that it's probably closer to 60%-40% for me. So I've been trying to come to grips recently with being more of an asshole than I thought I was. In some ways, it's kinda fun.

matt morin
1.25.02 @ 5:04p

There are tons of women I know where I really like their personality - they're called friends.

I don't see any reason to settle. I want to find someone I'm both mentally and physically attracted to.

jael mchenry
1.25.02 @ 5:52p

Matt, this is what I think you've said so far that's most brilliant: the best thing is when both parties think they're the one who got the better end of the deal. When you both can't believe how lucky you are to have each other, that's when it's working.

Aw, now I'm all squishy. Everyone look away.

lee anne ramsey
1.25.02 @ 8:27p

Me too. Not squishy, but the part about both parties thinking they got the better end of the deal. The happiest couples I know fall into that category.

And yes, because Matt is not allowed to write an article that doesn't reference me in some way, I was the one who fixed him up with one of my single friends here in SF.

matt morin
1.26.02 @ 2:30p

Yes, Lee Anne was the only friend who tried to fix me up. We won't talk about what actually happened... But I truly appreciated the effort regardless of the results.

She's always looking out for me.

russ carr
1.26.02 @ 6:32p

Matt, as usual, you're ahead of the major networks.

sigbjørn olsen
1.27.02 @ 5:02p

I think surprisingly many people would admit to being less than average looking. Even considering how 'good' and 'bad' are entirely subjective expressions. Just shows how depressingly stupid the vast majority of the world is.

adam kraemer
1.28.02 @ 10:02a

Well, you have to assume that technically only half the people are less than average looking. The problem is that "average looking" actually means fairly attractive, but nothing that stands out. So average really isn't average at all.

jael mchenry
1.28.02 @ 11:49a

Being below average in any way -- looks, intelligence, athleticism, anything -- and actually a) perceiving yourself as below average and b) being able to publicly admit to being below average are entirely different things.

I don't know that "average looking actually means fairly attractive." But neither would I characterize more than a handful of the people I've met as actually "ugly."

michelle von euw
1.28.02 @ 12:28p

And then there's always this situation: you can date someone who you don't consider good-looking & aren't attracted to, because you feel guilty for being superficial or whatnot, & then when the relationship goes bad, you feel like an idiot for ignoring something that was obviously important. And then your friends make fun of you for dating someone who looked like Frankenstein.

matt morin
1.28.02 @ 12:40p

That was all hypothetically speaking, right Michelle?

adam kraemer
1.28.02 @ 12:51p

Literally like Frankenstein? The bolts and everything?

Given, I also think that there's a lot of people out there who are better looking than they think they are. People who feel like they're below average when they're actually not.

michelle von euw
1.28.02 @ 1:32p

Completely hypothetical -- even down to the Frankenstein comparison. Really. (Adam, I didn't notice the bolts, but you'll have to ask the hypothetical friends who made the comments.)

matt morin
1.28.02 @ 7:53p

Match.com update: I e-mailed a cute blonde a few weeks ago. A return e-mail directed me to her website. http://educatedescort.com.

It's truly amazing. She's even had an article done on her by salon.com.

And her rates? Two day minimum (expenses not included) for the bargain price of $12,000 per day. I am not kidding.

russ carr
1.28.02 @ 10:14p

You heard the man, Intrepidites....any spare change, put it in the jar.

adam kraemer
1.29.02 @ 8:20a

Actually, I'm a little down on the whole thing right now, as I recently had a letter completely ignored by a girl who seemed both funny and cute.

But, hell, I'll pay for Matt to get laid. I've got 46¢, if anyone else cares to chip in.

michelle von euw
1.29.02 @ 9:31a

I'm all for chipping in for a date for Matt -- except can we find one who doesn't indulge in random capitalization like Anne Marie does on her website?

jael mchenry
1.29.02 @ 9:53a

Man, I'm in the wrong business.

adam kraemer
1.29.02 @ 10:15a

Whereas the right business is having sex with Matt for money?

michelle von euw
1.29.02 @ 10:33a

While reading Anne Marie's website, I was actually thinking, "Jael could write better prose than this, and she wouldn't resort to unattributed quotes at the top of the page, AND she's cuter!" Too bad you also have way too much class than to pimp yourself behind big words on the web.

And why would a $12000/day whore post her photo among the "common people" on Match.com?!?!

russ carr
1.29.02 @ 10:52a

I think it's telling that on Anne Marie's links page, the only "educated" link (and I use quotes with all irony and sarcasm they can carry here) is to slashdot. Given that most of slashdot is computer networking geek speak...it doesn't suggest that AM is particularly "educated." Maybe she's got an MCSE? C'mon baby, show me your CV...

I know plenty of intelligent, articulate women who'd listen to me blather on about art house cinema and quantum physics for the price of a beer or three. For $12,000 (plus expenses!), I want sex so mindblowing that I enter a monastery the morning after.

roger striffler
1.29.02 @ 11:08a

I don't see why everyone gets so upset if you say that looks are important. It's like saying, "Don't buy a book for it's cover." If the cover didn't matter, why would they pay artists like Tom Canty to paint them?

Looks may not be a viable basis for a relationship, but it's what gets your attention and makes you want to talk to a person in the first place. It's what you see before they start talking, and what you look at when they're lying there, sleeping. (Assuming, Adam, the breasts are covered up).
I don't care if the rest of the world disagrees, I have to think the person I'm dating is beautiful, and part of that is the way they look. Only a part of it, but definitely a non-zero part.

I have to agree with Jael that being below average and admitting to it are totally different things. While arrogance is extremely annoying, self-confidence and being comfortable with yourself is incredibly attractive. Acting like you think you're below average or unworthy in some way is a big turn off.

adam kraemer
1.29.02 @ 11:40a

I think the people who say that you should look beyond looks are probably people who don't have confidence in their looks. Ironically, if they did, they'd be better looking just by virtue of thinking they are.

Talk about a vicious circle.

jael mchenry
1.29.02 @ 12:48p

That's right, Michelle -- I throw around big words on the web for FREE! Come and get 'em, boys.

Good way to put it, by the way, Roger -- "a non-zero part." Anyone who claims looks have absolutely nothing to do with attraction is lying. Or perhaps I should say they're indulging in mendacity.

matt morin
1.29.02 @ 12:52p

I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to the Get Matt Laid in 2002 Fund. Keep those pledges coming. Operators are standing by.

Only $11,999.54 to go...

And Adam, don't get down. It's weird, but the way to say, "Not interested" is to just not reply. I felt so guilty the first few times I didn't reply to someone. But really, what am I going to say? I think it's less painful all the way around to just not respond.

adam kraemer
1.29.02 @ 3:26p

See - I think that's bullshit, though. I'd rather get something saying, "I'm sorry, but after looking at your profile, I don't think it's gonna work," than just wonder about it for a while until I get a chance to dull my senses with beer.

I keep wanting to find her on AIM and just ask why she didn't even have the courtesy to respond. I'm not gonna do it, but I want to.

The bitch.

mike julianelle
1.29.02 @ 3:29p

DO IT. And report back! PLEASE!

matt morin
1.29.02 @ 3:31p

Really? I'd rather send out ten e-mails and only hear a "Sure" back from one. Instead of sending out ten e-mails and hearing "No thanks, I don't think it'll work" nine times.

If they don't e-mail me back, I get the picture. I don't think they owe me anything.

Although the very first woman I e-mailed, wrote me back a few times...until my profile posted. Then I never heard from her again. That kinda sucked because then I knew it was all about how I looked.

adam kraemer
1.29.02 @ 3:40p

Or maybe your profile answers are crappy.

I think I'm gonna give her a few days, at least. She might be one of those people who takes her time or something. And I'm not really into stalking.

But, Mike, if I do it, it'll be for you, buddy.

michelle von euw
1.29.02 @ 4:25p

No, Matt's profile answers were good. If I were single, I'd email him.

Adam, be warned: if you AIM her & ask why you didn't email her back, there's a good chance that she'll turn it into a "This guy is stalking me on the internet" story for all her friends.

michelle von euw
1.29.02 @ 4:26p

OK, that last part was supposed to read:

"Adam, be warned: if you AIM her & ask why SHE didn't email YOU back, there's a good chance that she'll turn it into a 'This guy is stalking me on the internet' story for all her friends."

adam kraemer
1.29.02 @ 4:27p

See - I've thought of that, and if I were in high school, or even college, it might make me think twice, but in a city of 8 million, the chances of it biting me in the ass go down a lot. And it's not like she was going to write me anyway, so I've got nothing to lose in that arena.

mike julianelle
1.29.02 @ 4:31p

If you're going to get accused of stalking, you might as well go whole hog and send her messages in all caps that say things like: WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME! and IN THE DARKNESS, BETWIXT EARTH AND FLESH, YOU WILL BE MINE. And so on and so forth...

michelle von euw
1.29.02 @ 4:34p

Yes, but you ARE a world famous Intrepid Media editor and columnist. That's a pretty big reputation to uphold.

At least you have a common-ish name: she may think you're the Adam Kraemer that plays hoops for SMU.

russ carr
1.29.02 @ 4:41p

Better idea, Adam: Change your last name to "Kreamer" and sell yourself as a $12,000/day gigolo.

adam kraemer
1.29.02 @ 4:44p

Oh, you know about him, too? Pretty much every hit on MetaCrawler that isn't me is him.

I wasn't going to attack her; just ask, very pleasantly, why my letter didn't seem to deserve a response. Was it the letter itself? My profile answers? My photos? The fact that I wrote it at 5:15 am on a Saturday?

lee anne ramsey
1.29.02 @ 4:44p

Realistically, of course looks matter. But since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it only matters to the person who is looking. I once dated a guy who was not the best looking guy in the world, but he and I had smokin chemistry - something I never would have known if I had met him on the internet. Which is part of the reason why I don't think the whole "internet" thing is the way to meet your mate. The success stories I hear are, in my humble opinion, dumb luck in a game of odds.

lee anne ramsey
1.29.02 @ 4:45p

There. I said it.

God, do I feel better now.

jael mchenry
1.29.02 @ 4:45p

If you'd taken all these posts and stripped the names off, I coulda told Julianelle at 80 paces.

Wait, is this how this works: you see the profile, you send an Email saying "I liiiike you." She may or may not write back. Adam, why would you possibly want I "no, I don't like you one bit" Email? It's just a hot flaming bag of rejection, and so unnecessary.

adam kraemer
1.29.02 @ 4:51p

Well, a) I'd rather know for certain than just assume. b) I'd like to know a real reason. I'm not a big fan of letting silence speak for itself. c) If I just say, "Well, I guess she's a bitch," or something like that, I'm making a snap judgement, too. And d) I think people who don't respond to e-mails deserve to be called on it.

jael mchenry
1.29.02 @ 5:15p

A real reason? Why should it matter why someone you don't know, whose opinion you don't trust, rejects you?

adam kraemer
1.29.02 @ 5:45p

A) because, Dr. Freud, it does and B) because maybe I can learn something from it so I don't make the same error next time, if there is a next time.

matt morin
1.29.02 @ 5:56p

Michelle, how did you know what my profile answers were? I think you're stalking me.

Lee Anne, very true. I never claimed this was the only, or even the best way to meet someone. It's just another way.

Adam, what if she says it's because you're not tall enough. Are you going to hang, Bobby Brady-like from the jungle gym until you're 6'3"?

adam kraemer
1.29.02 @ 7:21p


Nope. But it would be good to know. I'm aware that I'm short and some women don't like that. That wouldn't really even bother me.

Mike - you think Jael's wrong and I should go for it?

russ carr
1.29.02 @ 8:08p

You people make me so glad to be married. Yeesh.

tracey kelley
1.29.02 @ 11:18p

Adam - another girl opinion. I completely agree with Jael. I wouldn't pursue the woman's non-response. To any woman with self-respect, you'll seem:
1) Desperate. "Why don't you like me, perfect stranger who has never stared into my come hither eyes?"
2) Defensive. As in "anyone who doesn't answer email deserves to be called on it." Uh, no. Not from complete strangers who I may/may not be interested in. I don't have to be called on anything.

Some questions in life remain unanswered. This may be one of them. Better you move forward in search of someone better that 1) responds if she likes you and 2) has the brain, looks, body and humor you require. This woman may SEEM cute and funny, but that's what my friend Tim thought when he hooked up with some psycho broad he met through a match site. Not only did she lie about her name, occupation and age in her profile, (and did the "heh, heh, now that we REALLY know each other, my name isn't Monica" bit) she dragged him through the mud for about 2 months before dropping him cold.

tracey kelley
1.29.02 @ 11:24p

To counter that, my friend Sean met a perfectly lovely woman through a match site - and thought it particularly funny that they lived about 2 miles apart, and both had children in the same play group, and had never met! (you singles think it's hard meeting people - imagine being a single parent...
shudder) Sean and Jayme compliment each other very well and have been together almost a year. So it happens. But he went through many a profile before finding her.

michelle von euw
1.30.02 @ 9:57a

Tracey is brilliant (not to mention eloquent); I totally sign onto her theories. It's annoying, but sometimes you have to let things slide.

And I'm just keeping you on your toes, Matt.

adam kraemer
1.30.02 @ 10:03a

Of course I'm going to let this one slide.

But to play Devil's Advocate, Tracey, your argument seems to be based on the idea that I should care what a girl who didn't write me back thinks of me. It's not like as if I were to look desperate or defensive it'll make her ultra-not write me. I was just saying that if I could pinpoint what the problem was (unless it was something pysical), I might be able to change it for the next time. I'm trying to make myself a better person, and I think every experience should be a learning experience. It's not as though I'd be writing her to try and convince her that I'm Mr. Right or anything. That I know would not work.

michelle von euw
1.30.02 @ 10:10a

Adam, I don't think you should think that you need to change yourself (or the way you present yourself to a potential suitor) based on one girl's non-reaction. I'm sure the letter you sent her was brilliantly you, and you should be thinking about it from this perspective: if she didn't respond to you, she's not your type. Find a new girl, send the same letter, and repeat until you get a response from someone who clicks with you.

(Of course, if you do this 100 times and get no response, then maybe you should think about amending your opening letter...!)

tracey kelley
1.30.02 @ 10:18a

Now, see, I wouldn't count on a total stranger's opinion of me to improve something about myself. A few well-placed friends will give you a more honest, caring assessment. So ask them.

Considering the type of person I think you are - and keep in mind that I only really know you from what you type - I believe you have many friends that would have told you by now if you had some glaring wart that needed attention. Maximize your best qualitites: intelligence balanced with amazingly quick wit, a very appealing sensitive side (displayed in many ways that you may not see, but some of us female types pick up on) a dedication to tradition, bravery, an open mind, in addition to a nice smile and smolderingly sexy eyes. As far as the warts? We all have 'em - but the trick is to not call attention to yours or those of others unless they pop and ooze.

If I wasn't married, I'd date you - even if you are a foot shorter than me.

tracey kelley
1.30.02 @ 10:22a

Michelle - why thank you! And likewise to your letter suggestion!

Oh and Matt, I'd date you too if I wasn't married. Thought that since it was your column, I should throw that in there. But I told you that once already! :)

adam kraemer
1.30.02 @ 10:54a

Thanks, Trace. Maybe I should only date women where my eyes are already at boob level.

I really don't care about this girl, and as the days pass, I find I'm caring even less. But I think everyone needs a little scapegoating every now and then. She was just the most recent poster-child for "women who have rejected me without meeting me." Let's hear it for the internet.

mike julianelle
1.30.02 @ 10:56a

Can I get in on the compliments? Jeez.

Adam, I mostly agree with the ladies that if they don't respond, screw them. I wouldn't particular care why they didn't email me back, maybe she got 1000 emails, whatever. Yeah, it's gnawing to not know, but she's a nobody. A NOBODY! I just think it'd be funny to confront her, although the results probably wouldn't be pleasant. In the same situation, I might do it on a lark, for kicks, to see what I could stir up. But one hag's opinion does not a person make. Does that make sense?

adam kraemer
1.30.02 @ 11:01a

Of course. But can you imagine how flustered she would be to actually have me asking, "So, why didn't you write? Was it the letter? My profile? My beard?"

I just like to surprise people sometimes. Go against the grain, you know?

mike julianelle
1.30.02 @ 11:06a

I am totally with you. I think you should do it just for the comedic ramifications. But if you do, type in ALL CAPS. Best way to scare people.

adam kraemer
1.30.02 @ 11:35a

Should I visually stutter, as well?

mike julianelle
1.30.02 @ 11:48a

Oh man, please just do it! And save all the emails and print them as a column.

michelle von euw
1.30.02 @ 11:58a

Now THAT would make a great column. We can run it simultaneously with Matt's wedding-hopping adventures.

matt morin
1.30.02 @ 12:11p

As always, I'm late to the morning party...but I agree with the ladies. Don't change based on one woman. That's like taking the first puzzle piece you try and trimming it to fit.

Adam, I totally know what you mean though. It would be very satisfying to call someone on their rude behavior. (I last wanted to do it with the one woman Lee Anne tried to set me up with. 60 minutes before we were to meet for dinner, she calls and says "Uh...I'm really sick. I just ate a bunch of bad sushi. Sorry." And I'm wanting to ask, we're just about to go to dinner. Why are you eating sushi?" She of course said we'd reschedule, but never called me back.)

adam kraemer
1.30.02 @ 1:11p

See? This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. You should have asked her that.

I'm thinking my column this month is going to be about things you didn't do, but wish you had.

Or maybe I'll just write that girl and print the converstaion verbatim.

matt morin
1.30.02 @ 1:53p

I thought about doing that. I though about asking her "Why do you sit there and tell me that you'd like to go out sometime, agree to do so, and even reconfirm the date, when you had no intention of going on the date in the first place?"

But then I realized her answer doesn't matter. Not one bit.

adam kraemer
1.30.02 @ 2:12p

Well, to paraphrase Dazed and Confused, "I just don't want to look back on this as one of those moments that contributed to me being an ineffectual little nothing, man." Or something like that.

roger striffler
1.30.02 @ 5:31p

Ok, I'm about to come across as a complete zen buddhist tree hugging sensitive new age flake mobile, but I say life is too short to let anyone else make you unhappy. "nothing to see here folks, move along..."

I wouldn't waste any time on anything that makes you feel bad about yourself or your life.

Unless you get a really kick-ass column out of it.

tracey kelley
2.7.02 @ 10:12a

"really like your theories, wanna shake your buddhist tree...."

Me paraphrasing Steve Miller is a baaaaad thing. Perhaps I'd better critique Adam's latest column instead.

adam kraemer
2.7.02 @ 11:00a

For what it's worth, by the way, I didn't write her.

The bitterness in my current column is from every other woman that only saw me as a friend.

matt morin
2.7.02 @ 1:15p

Nice way to use my column to promote yours. That's slick.

adam kraemer
2.7.02 @ 1:53p

If you so desire, you can use mine to link to yours. Mutual benefits, and all.

matt morin
2.7.02 @ 2:00p

One of these days I'll learn HTML...

Intrepid Media is built by Intrepid Company and runs on Dash