If your profile is over 1,000 words long, odds are slim that anyone reading it will actually make it to your “You should message me if” response. If they do, you better have cookies and milk waiting for them, or at least a bucket of Red Vines. Today’s subject, a 30-year-old female from Los Angeles, offers neither, but she does provide plenty of fodder for our inspecting eyes.
You should message me if…
Always start with something unrelated: “you want to adopt a SUPER sweet, loving, talkative [!!], little black lap cat. im sort of fostering her and im not home enough to give her the attention she needs. also, since im not home enough the pup isnt warming up to her. :(“
Analysis: Remember when you used AIM, and you’d be drunk or make a bad joke or say something that inadvertently offended someone, and the only feasible method of escape was to write “Oops… Wrong IM!” as you pretended to have erred in your choice of recipient? I feel that way about this entire first paragraph, as I’m pretty sure that finding homes for stray animals is not a legitimate usage of OKCupid, nor does it amount to being the most important consideration for whether a guy should message you.
“This article… that I’m reading… that you can’t see…”: ”or if my username caught your eye and you “get” it. and if you dont…i have boobs and like bukowski. figure it out. but, im actually supposed to not be liking boys who like bukowski. shit, its a conundrum. this article is funny, cuz its true [ed: WTF article is she talking about?]. so hopefully you like buk but wont (always/only) treat me the way he treated women cuz “its cool”.”
Analysis: Her username combines — you guessed it — the words “boobs” and “Bukowski,” and either a guy won’t get it (and will no doubt compose one of those historically awful intro emails), or he will get it and will know better than to write this girl.
Judging by what she’s written so far, our subject is definitely one of those people who eschew any sorts of filters in casual conversation. If you’re looking to hear about how her battle with Celiac’s Disease has resulted in countless embarrassing situations, go ahead and write her. Otherwise, you know what to do.
(Also, “buk” is, in some truly depraved circles, short for bukaki. Let’s not get into what that is.)
With so many doors for entry, it’s impossible to choose which to take: ”OR! if you want to compare notes and tell me how women on this site are so i dont have to make up a fake boy profile just to get some data. (would i really do that…?)”
Analysis: Classic misdirection. She has already made up said fake boy profile.
Mr. Oxford and Mr. Webster both take issue with that definition: “‘available’ means there is one boy who makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside but i am not opposed to still looking for other meaningful relationships, friend or otherwise. i just dont need all the casual sex i was getting when i hopped on this “sex catalog” only a few weeks ago. so if you wanna hang out without a guarantee for sex, lets do it. maybe youre my future ex husband or my soul mate or we are meant to be bffs!”
Analysis: This is not a “poly” situation. This is someone who likes some poor sap more than the other guys she’s seeing right now, but would be quite happy to drop his ass if someone better comes along. This is also known among wizened gold prospectors and hall-of-fame NBA coaches as “the disease of more.” It’s also prominently featured in Aesop’s fable The Dog and Its Reflection. There’s nothing wrong with being forthcoming about this information — it’s far better than surprising someone with it after he’s fallen in love — but it’s still some shady shit.
YOU SHOULD NOT MESSAGE ME IF:
— “you are a jock/more athletic type and are just looking to hook up”
Analysis: the difference between a “jock” and a “more athletic type” is as wide as that existing between a “nazi” and a “socialist.” As a non-jock more-athletic (whatever the fuck that means) Jewish socialist-ish type, I feel confident making such a claim, and am highly offended that someone would group jocks with people who enjoy exercise. And why are jocks/athletes necessarily linked to individuals just looking to hook up? Somewhere Jeremy Lin is shaking is head.
— “you are a republican/homophobic/racist/religious/sexist/hypocritical/a liar”
Analysis: Am I the only one who finds “hypocritical” a much less offensive label than any of the others listed here? Who among us has not acted in a hypocritical manner at some point? Is it not our inevitable hypocrisies that hold society together? No? Oops… Wrong IM!
— “our match rating says we are more likely enemies than a good match or friends (i have to give the bots some credit…)”
Analysis: You are not allowed to have a 400-word “you should message me if” answer if one of those words is a complete abuse of the word “bots.” Match percentages are yielded by algorithms. Bots are… Hell, let me Google that for you.
— “you are looking to have good times with a token weirdo but you also make fun of weirdos with your friends”
Analysis: Dude, this isn’t Pretty in Pink. Get over yourself.
— “you have any pictures of just your shirtless torso in a mirror”
Analysis: Fair play.
Just the facts, bro: ”if i dont instantly reply, dont be a douche. im not waiting around to hear from you. and if i give you my number, feel free to text. maybe ill even text back sometimes. i have a vagina and in turn get a lot of messages. you may want to message me again if you get a reply and it seems like i like you and i never reply again…its not a game…its just the facts, bro.”
Analysis: Grammar Nazi says: If you’re not e.e. cummings, you sure as shit better include some apostrophes in your prose or we’re coming after you.
Also, the whole “if I give you my number, feel free to text” and “maybe I’ll text back” is the deliberate nonsense of someone who doesn’t understand the Online Dating Order of Operations: never, ever give someone your phone number until after you’ve had sex with them at least three times (or at least until you’ve agreed to go out on your first date).