Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
7 years ago  ::  Oct 20, 2007 - 4:01PM #1
lil_lamb
Posts: 2,898
ok. i was chattin' with my gay best friend (yes! my gay best friend! LOL) about the eHarmony hoopla. there are all these commercials now that say *we don't know why eHarmony turned us down.*

so this was our deal: if you believe sexual orientation, and thus romantic relationships, are deeply biological - don't you have to agree that you wouldn't want eHarmony to try and match you? since their matching system is presumably based on research of heterosexual relationships? research is a thing where you pick a narrow subject of focus... you don't want any one researcher to go too broad... isn't it actually all consistent with the idea that homosexuality is not a matter of morality? they'll match wiccans, so you can't say it's a christian club...

...or is it that we are missing some fundamentally social thing and ought to realise the needle is flickering for us on the asperger's scale?

Sincerely,

lil_lamb
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 20, 2007 - 10:30PM #2
Beautiful_Dreamer
Posts: 5,171
I could be wrong, but I think there are still entirely too many people who believe that being gay is a choice, not something you were born with. If they see that you did not choose your orientation, then they will have to admit that you are not much different from your average straight person, and that they were wrong in their thoughts about you. Admitting they are wrong about anything is apparently too much for some people to cope with.

I read somewhere that the founder of eHarmony, Neil Clark Warren, used to be part of the National Association of Evangelicals. I am not sure why he left, but given the experience I have had with a lot of evangelicals where I live (and I used to be one), I am not surprised that they are still thinking back in the dark ages.
More where that came from...

Writing I get paid to do

Beliefnet Community Host - Christian Faith and Life, Christian to Christian Debate
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 20, 2007 - 10:37PM #3
ToujoursDan
Posts: 1,065
My understanding of the eHarmony brouhaha is that is meant to test the scope of the new California law where public businesses aren't allowed to discriminate against people based on Sexual Orientation. They are a California business.

We have had that law in parts of Canada for years but it seems pretty new in the US and needs to be fleshed out
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2007 - 5:02AM #4
lil_lamb
Posts: 2,898
If they see that you did not choose your orientation, then they will have to admit that you are not much different from your average straight person, and that they were wrong in their thoughts about you.

this is interesting. so my best friend (Red) is gay, i'm straight, and we're two humanities majors working in science and technology. so far our co-theory on life, the universe, and everything says there is a universality to the human condition for all individuals (that would be the humanities part)... but we haven't been able to extend that to saying gay and straight relationships operate by the same dynamic (and that would be the science part).

two people, so science has discovered, form an actual biological unit. their physiologies regulate each other's, which is reflected in their "visible" relationship. considering that two people of the same sex bring different amounts of, say, testosterone and estrogen to the party than two people of the opposite sex...

..well, for example, Red isn't so sure about gay marriage. he doesn't know that "marriage" fits the dynamic. nor does he think the same courtship signals work (and boy does he respond badly to little courtship gifts... hehe).


Admitting they are wrong about anything is apparently too much for some people to cope with.

I read somewhere that the founder of eHarmony, Neil Clark Warren, used to be part of the National Association of Evangelicals. I am not sure why he left, but given the experience I have had with a lot of evangelicals where I live (and I used to be one), I am not surprised that they are still thinking back in the dark ages.


but i guess that's the thing... is eHarmony's exclusion of gay people really about the rightly-called limits of dr. warren's knowledge or unfounded limits projected onto gay people?


My understanding of the eHarmony brouhaha is that is meant to test the scope of the new California law

ah, the larger societal statement, the speech act. that's what's been missing in our ponderings. we are too geeky...

Sincerely,

lil_lamb
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2007 - 12:22PM #5
robinsgarret
Posts: 228
While I think eHarmony is kind of stupid for their positioning...ultimately it can only hurt them, I think attempting legal action could cause unwanted consequences.  What about social networks that are set up targetting gay people...could they be sued for implying a sexual orientation bias? 

IMHO, eHarmony could just allow gay people and just ignore the fact that their process is not very good for us...we would go elsewhere.  Or it would work for us, and they would make more money...without anyone seeing how successful they were in helping us meet people.

Given the current state of their positioning, I think the BEST response is the one from their competition who is using eHarmony's closed mindedness against them and as a competitive advantage.  That sends the appropriate message without trying to legislate mating processes.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2007 - 2:05PM #6
Total_Top
Posts: 170
As a bisexual who had a successful marriage to my wife and now a successful relationship with a male partner, I have to say that (in my experience having had both the difference between same-sex and opposite sex relationships is the same as the difference between having a relationship with a Caucasian and having one with a non-Caucasian.

Ultimately, it will probably be bad for their business.  I have no problem with that.  One of my employees met a man on eHarmony.  She thought he was her
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2007 - 3:57PM #7
lil_lamb
Posts: 2,898
[QUOTE=Total_Top;12280]As a bisexual who had a successful marriage to my wife and now a successful relationship with a male partner, I have to say that (in my experience having had both the difference between same-sex and opposite sex relationships is the same as the difference between having a relationship with a Caucasian and having one with a non-Caucasian.

Ultimately, it will probably be bad for their business.  I have no problem with that.  One of my employees met a man on eHarmony.  She thought he was her[/QUOTE]

haha! so did they hit it off, or is meeting yourself not the ticket? ;>

now that you mention it... i can't say i recall any studies about the physiology of bisexual people per se. but in any case, it would make sense that, since you are always you, your relationships would have a certain consistency between them in terms of physiological and attending relationship dynamics.

it's interesting. was it foucault who said *heterosexuality is a social construct*? people are really attracted to specific people, not huge categories defined by a single criteria. if i say, oh, *i like blonds*, it doesn't mean i like any and all blonds. and in fact, i may not know what i'm talking about at all - it could be a mistaken extrapolation. it may just be a coincidence in my life that i've met some blonds and liked them a lot... and what is that thing they say, *20% are born blond, but 50% of the people you'll see walking around will have blond hair.* my blonds may not have been blond at all.

my hair stylists daughter told me to sign up for eHarmony so i could see for myself that everyone on it was *not hot.* she signed up and then called customer service and told them this. haha! Red also agrees, from watching the commercials. i did sign up one free weekend. i noticed there were some people also on yahoo personals (ha! i check things like that)... and they just seemed so morose on eHarmony but not so bad on yahoo. i'm not exactly sure how eHarmony stays in business at all...

Sincerely,

lil_lamb
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2007 - 5:47PM #8
espiritus85
Posts: 134
[QUOTE=lil_lamb;12468] if i say, oh, *i like blonds*, it doesn't mean i like any and all blonds[/QUOTE]

I used to get tripped up on this idea of generalization in respect to sexual orientation and gender. In fact, I used to say that attraction was incidental, though really trying to say that what you're attracted to is part of a defined group is incidental. I thought "well isn't it a contradiction if I say I'm attracted to men, but not ALL men when the word implied nothing less than ALL"? I got over this mental dilemma when I came to the conclusion that generalization wasn't the root of the problem, it was what you mention - extrapolation - when in fact things are actually multi-dimensional. So, it may be true that one is attracted to blondes, but those blonde heads are also attached to other characteristics. Same and different co-exist.This all relates to the eHarmony site because the rationale for only offering services to a certain defined group seems to indicate the mistake you allude to. I'm pretty sure they find that many of the couples they match up are actually different from one another. Likely, an image of propriety is about the only thing they have in common.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2007 - 9:47PM #9
lil_lamb
Posts: 2,898
[QUOTE=espiritus85;12631]This all relates to the eHarmony site because the rationale for only offering services to a certain defined group seems to indicate the mistake you allude to. I'm pretty sure they find that many of the couples they match up are actually different from one another. Likely, an image of propriety is about the only thing they have in common.[/QUOTE]

that's a good point. i went out with this one guy (him, i call *the flatliner* ;>) (he wasn't from eHarmony)... anyways we seemed to value the same things - books, art, a garden, border collies - but it turned out, in my mind, that we valued them in different ways. those things feed my soul; i don't think they fed his. like his collie, actually she was a katrina dog and she loved him a lot. which was interesting, because i gathered that made him kind of uncomfortable. his chosen dog was a much colder beast.

Sincerely,

lil_lamb
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2007 - 11:38PM #10
Total_Top
Posts: 170
[QUOTE=lil_lamb;12468] haha! so did they hit it off, or is meeting yourself not the ticket? ;>[/quote]

An unfortunate case of a truncated post.  It appeared correct in preview and I failed to check it once posted.

Here is what I intended to post:

She thought she had met  “her match” until he raped her on their third date, when she let down her guard and didn’t meet him in a public place.

The reality is that eHarmony is no safer than meeting someone in a bar, and possibly less safe, because you don’t have the opportunity to observe the person in an environment prior to becoming involved. 

[QUOTE=lil_lamb;12468]now that you mention it... i can't say i recall any studies about the physiology of bisexual people per se. but in any case, it would make sense that, since you are always you, your relationships would have a certain consistency between them in terms of physiological and attending relationship dynamics.[/quote]

I still can’t see what the universal difference in dynamics would be between same-sex and opposite sex relationships.  Only someone who has had both can say that there is or is not a difference, but even his experience wouldn’t be universal.  A gay person making a comparison to a straight person could be any two people making comparisons.  There will likely be differences between any two people, which makes eHarmony’s excuses all the weaker.

[QUOTE=lil_lamb;12468]it's interesting. was it foucault who said *heterosexuality is a social construct*? people are really attracted to specific people, not huge categories defined by a single criteria. if i say, oh, *i like blonds*, it doesn't mean i like any and all blonds. and in fact, i may not know what i'm talking about at all - it could be a mistaken extrapolation. it may just be a coincidence in my life that i've met some blonds and liked them a lot... and what is that thing they say, *20% are born blond, but 50% of the people you'll see walking around will have blond hair.* my blonds may not have been blond at all.[/quote]

There have been studies about bisexuality.  They generally indicate that most men who claim to be bisexual are either solely aroused by male erotica or greatly prefer male erotic to female erotica, to the point of being indiscernible from men who describe themselves as “gay.”  I have met only a few other men who are truly bisexual.

When it comes to saying that we are all attracted to specific people, are you talking about sexually or romantically?  When I’ve been single and just looking for a sexual partner, I’m not terribly picky.  Of legal age, clean and convenient works for me.   If the person turned out to be good company, that was a plus, but not a requirement.

Romantically, I have found very few people interesting,  I don’t seek great beauty, but a sense of humor I appreciate and an intellect that challenges me are critical.  Those people are far and few between, but I’ve been fortunate to have found two of them, in my late wife and my current partner.

[QUOTE=lil_lamb;12468]my hair stylists daughter told me to sign up for eHarmony so i could see for myself that everyone on it was *not hot.* she signed up and then called customer service and told them this. haha! Red also agrees, from watching the commercials. i did sign up one free weekend. i noticed there were some people also on yahoo personals (ha! i check things like that)... and they just seemed so morose on eHarmony but not so bad on yahoo. i'm not exactly sure how eHarmony stays in business at all...[/quote]

“Hot” is subjective.  My wife might not have been “hot” to many people, but she could smile at me across the room and I’d physically react to her presence.  No model-perfect person I’ve had sex with surpassed how “hot” I considered her.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook