From the Charlotte Observer: “A forthcoming study by a Duke University researcher and several colleagues confirms what not-so-thin women and short, broke men have long suspected: They don’t get nearly as much romantic attention as skinny women and tall, financially secure guys.” You need a study for that? Here, I got a study. It’s called pay my rent, food, and Netflix. Fund that, science people.

The study, out of the University of Chicago, is still under peer review before publication. But here’s what we know: analyzing 22,000 online daters, researchers found that “women put a premium on income and height when deciding which men to contact.” They did the math: the study showed that a 5-foot-9-inch man needs to make $30,000 more than a 5-foot-10-inch one to be as successful in the dating pool.

Men in the study demonstrated a strong, and depressing, preference for women with a BMI of 18 or 19, which basically means if you’re 5′ 6″ you’ve gotta weigh 115. So okay, women want men who can afford to take them to dinner, but the men don’t want us to eat. This should work just fine.

Sarcasm aside, I’m still annoyed with this study — or at least, to some degree, this article about it — and the way it only, and unnecessarily, perhaps even misleadingly, perpetuates and underscores that same-old same-old depressing, needlessly divisive message: “The only thing men and women have in common is that they’re shallow.” ‘Cause here’s the thing: the article and the researchers talk about what a fertile field for study these online sites are, because there are just so many people on them. Right: there are just so many people on them. That’s why people go in — or at least online — with those faux-“high” standards. Because they can. There are so many eligible singles there, at least in urban and urbanish areas, that you can afford to impose a minimum height or maximum BMI standard. You know? Then later, at a party, you happen across someone who — for whatever ineffable reason — makes your heart go pitter-pat, maybe someone whose attributes you wouldn’t have click-clicked and checklisted, and boom, you give them a chance. I’m not saying some people aren’t shallow, but still.

As the article, to be fair, does state: “Since the study focuses on first impressions and initial contacts rather than marriage, it doesn’t rule out the chance of true love winning despite appearance or income. ‘If you had to sit down and write what you wanted in your dream guy, most girls would write ‘tall, hot and well-off,'” said Kari Castle, a 27-year-old online dater in Charlotte. ‘But in reality, is that the only thing they’d settle for? Probably not.'” Right.

So, I guess, since the study doesn’t really tell us much, the reporter is forced to fill in with dumb cranky unhelpful — and dare I say self-fulfilling — quotes like, “It’s got nothing to do with anything but green,” [said one bachelor]. “If you’ve got enough money, you’ll have women swarming all over you.” Attitude, people! Actually, it might be a guy in the comments who said it best: “If you think women will only like you if you have a sizable bank account, you are the one who makes that happen.”

Thank goodness! FOBG Mary Beth Williams at Broadsheet explains this article from yesterday’s New York Times, which struck me as just so strange that even someone with a Breakup U. education couldn’t figure it out. Now, I wasn’t a math major, but all I could think was, I understand that 45 percent is less than 55 percent, but do still-nearly-half-male campuses really, REALLY, make all institutions of higher learning feel “women’s colleges”? And, more to the point, does this EMERGENCY!!!! man-shortage really drive smart co-eds to make foolish choices?

We think not. From Williams’s awesome fight song:

According to yet another of those scare tactics stories that makes my weekend coffee seem just a little more bitter, when women outnumber men in colleges, they’d better lower their uppity-ass standards, stat!

Take, for example, the heartache unfolding at the University of North Carolina. On yet another “tiresome” evening out, writer Alex Williams explains, the girls are forced to “slip on tight-fitting tops, hair sculpted, makeup just so, all for the benefit of one another,” because as one future spinster bemoans, “there are no guys.” “With a student body that is nearly 60 percent female,” it’s “just one of many large universities that at times feel eerily like women’s colleges.” And at the University of Vermont, where it’s 55 percent female, locals “sardonically refer to their college town, Burlington, as ‘Girlington.'” I’m sorry, I’m just a set of knockers who can’t do math, but a 45 percent male enrollment makes for a no-man’s land?

Sure, Williams throws us the bone that all this education “is hardly the worst news for women” (no, it’s your withering love box that’s the bad news). But all that fancy book learning comes with a price – “it is often the women who must assert themselves romantically or be left alone on Valentine’s Day, staring down a George Clooney movie over a half-empty pizza box.” And that’s an inevitable tragedy that shouldn’t have to happen until you’re at least 35.

But no, women barely above drinking age are hooking up for desperate one-night stands.  “A lot of my friends will meet someone and go home for the night and just hope for the best the next morning,” explains one desperate little hussy. You read right, New York Times readers: College women! Having easy sex! Because they are lonely and sad. And if they’re lucky enough to land one of those precious boy thingies, they’d better be wiling to put up with his shit: Cheating is described as “a thing that girls let slide, because you have to.”

Well, what do they expect, really? This is what happens when a university is “obligated to admit the most qualified applicants, regardless of gender.” Paraphrasing W. Keith Campbell, a psychology professor at the unnaturally 57 percent female University of Georgia, the Times explains, “Women on gender-imbalanced campuses are paying a social price for success and, to a degree, are being victimized by men precisely because they have outperformed them.”

No, it’s OK. Go bust your ass on the SATs and take out loans you’ll be paying until well into your 40s, as long as you don’t mind paying the price and being victimized and all. Happy now, girls? HAPPY NOW? No you are not, that’s the answer. And “the loneliness can be made all the more bitter by the knowledge that it wasn’t always this way,” Williams writes, sadly citing a girl who tells of her roommate’s parents, who met (siiiiiiiigh) in college. Dammit, why did they have to ruin everything with stupid learning? Now they’ll never have babies!

But brace yourselves: Not all young women are looking for serious boyfriends. Psssst…. not all young women are into boys, period. (Note to the Times: it’s pronounced lez-be-in.) Never mind that drinking and hooking up and heartache and occasional insensitive behavior are part and parcel of the human experience. Never mind that the number of men in colleges is actually holding pretty steady. Nope, outnumbering the menfolk, even slightly, is a romantic death sentence. And if you can’t trust the people who helped sell us the Iraq war to get it right, who can you believe?

Author (and FOBG) Lori Gottlieb appeared on the Today Show this morning to discuss her — to me, bizarrely — inflammatory book, Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, which basically urges women to be picky about the important stuff (kindness) and not picky about the not-important stuff (height), and which Lemondrop summarizes rather equitably here. What it’s left in its wake is a lot of women feeling very rankled and defensive about being told they should “settle,” which is not really what Lori is saying. That said, I understand the defensiveness. Women, rightly, do not like to hear, which they often do, over and over, that they are “too picky.” (Yes, picky. About the person you are going to spend your life with. Urr?) Not that there aren’t women (and men) who are indeed “too picky.” But to be told that, or to get that message from our culture, which single women do, over and over, can be insulting, dismissive, unsympathetic. For one thing among many, it puts the dating onus squarely and only on the woman, whereas it’s not like every still-single woman is surrounded by terrific uncomplicated men on bended knee, just waiting for her to get over her thing about bowties or “no lawyers” or whatever. Women who have gone on a million dates with and given a million chances to a million perfectly nice guys who for whatever legitimate reason leave them lukewarm do not want to hear that they are “just being picky.” They are tired. They are trying. Go away.  That’s part of my theory, anyway, for why Lori’s message, fairly or not, has left so many women so totally steamed.

I also wonder this: to the degree that men are paying attention to this tempest in a coffee-date, how does this message make you feel? If I may render it in the shorthand of stereotype, it’s basically “give the short bald poor guy a chance.” Do you feel that Lori’s advice, for those who follow it, could spell triumph for the common man? Let us know in comments!

A steaming cuppa joe and a little righteous indignation make for a stimulating morning, which is why I do all my blog-reading before noon. In other words, I was all prepared to be annoyed by this Lemondrop post — “Hey Ladies, Can You Stop Doing This on Dates With Me? Thanks” — but I have to say, Redacted Guy gets it mostly right. Most of his first-date tips spring from simple good etiquette — don’t be snippy with wait staff, don’t keep checking your cell phone — and some are perhaps targeted to the clueless amongst us, male and female, who can’t pick up subtle clues about when it’s time to move on.

I appreciate that the palpable exasperation behind this list of “don’ts” doesn’t translate, as it so often does elsewhere, to gender-flaming and meanness.

So! In that spirit of learning and not just griping…what are your top out-on-a-date “don’ts”?

MSN.com, Match.com, HappenMagazine.com: they’re in a healthy and satisfying 3-way relationship. Meaning that you can find MSN/Match.com’s “Ask Lynn” columns –penned by BG’s alter ego — over at Happen now as well.

This week Lynn aids Vexed Veronica, whose dates keep vanishing:

We had lots in common and had fun on our first date. He left me a message the next day (in the morning, even!) saying he had fun and wanted to hang out again that night. We had another good time and I left him a message the following afternoon. I haven’t heard from him in over a week.

Read the letter at Happen then come back here to comment!

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s strategy for attracting bright young talent gives new meaning to the phrase “nuclear fusion.”

As Jim McDermott, NCR chief human capital officer, said last week, “There are incentives, and then there are incentives. When we’re hiring, we say, ‘Is there a significant other in the picture?’ If there’s no significant other, I tell them, ‘We can help.’ ”

As the Federal Times blog explains, “McDermott said his unorthodox recruitment pitch works because while nuclear engineers may know how to split atoms, they’re not quite so adept on the dating front.”

I admit I got a bit skeeved upon reading “human capital officer” in the same breath as “dates” — and McDermott never explains exactly how his group can help — but there is something refreshing in that cool logic. Who can appreciate a nerd as well as a nerd? If highly specialized work is your life, then the physics lab might in fact be the best place to — as the blog puts it –  “meet other single engineers (who probably won’t roll their eyes at Star Trek or lectures on reactor cooling systems).” Niche dating in all flavors, especially nerd dating is on the rise thanks to the internet, and as BG points out, many geeky pursuits are inherently social.

And nobody’s being pimped out here. With more gender balance in the work environment, the notion of finding a suitable mate is extended to every engineer being courted by the  Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So far, NRC’s dating scheme, whatever it is — and which McDermott jokingly calls “NRC Harmony,” after eHarmony — has resulted in about eight or nine weddings.

Coda: While some blog commenters think find McDermott’s candor stereotyping and impolitic, NerdyGirl truly gets in the last word:”Who let the Muggles in? They’re the only ones who are whinging about what McDermott said. When your head is full of crunchy data goodness, it’s smart to have someone who understands that you don’t have time to get all ‘socially smooth’ like the Muggles are. There are too many interesting things to research and process…”

Lagniappe: 16 Golden Retrievers Teach You About Atoms! You’re welcome.

Again with the dating advice that just won’t die.

Presenting Menage a Twang: BG’s new fav-o-rite local band!

P.S. Our spy, who saw them the other night, reports that they also sang (not from the album) “Your Love is Like Time Warner Cable.” (You know, as in, “I hate you but can’t live without you.”) Other titles included I’ll Only Support Your Art for So Long, Find Me on Facebook, I Don’t Want to Hold Your Baby, The Pantsuit, and Your Boyfriend Has a Boyfriend.
P.P.S. New Yorkers in inter-borough relationships, please do not miss Weekend Service Changes.
P.P.S.S. Attention concert bookers: Menage a Twang + Rob Paravonian = music comedy heaven.

Sure vampires are big now, but once New Moon comes out, Breakup Girl is going to be flooded with questions about dating WEREWOLVES. As a public service, we thought we’d head off some of these inquiries by asking the REAL professors of lycanthropy, Ritch Duncan and Bob Powers, authors of The Werewolf’s Guide to Life: A Manual for the Newly Bitten.

1. What’s the best way to tell your boy/girlfriend you’re a werewolf?

Short answer?
Don’t.
At least not right away. The newly bitten werewolf already has “a significant other” to deal with, and it’s the savage killing machine they are going to be turning into every month. You know how when people break up with you they say “I need some space?” Well, if you’re a werewolf, the “space” you’re going to need is inside a cage made of re-enforced steel, which isn’t going to build itself. You’re gonna be pretty busy, and the month leading up to your first transformation simply isn’t the time for casual dating.

This isn’t to say that you can’t have a boyfriend or girlfriend, it’s just that right now, time is of the essence, and you should take a break from any relationship you aren’t positive will last to come to grips with your condition in as much secrecy as possible. You are going through some serious changes, and like any relationship, it’s not a good idea to stay involved in it unless you are confident about who YOU are. Figure that out first, and keep your secret well. Marriage, of course- is a different story.

(more…)

It only took two silver Olympic metals and becoming the reigning table tennis world champion for China to allow Wang Hao to date.

The country exerts rigorous controls over its athletes’ lives, often banning them from dating or marrying until a certain age. But this month, China allowed the 25-year-old to date his former national teammate, 23-year-old Peng Luyang.

“Both of them are old enough and it’s normal,” the government-owned China Daily quoted Peng’s coach Qiao Yunping as saying.

Yikes! What would happen if the U.S. government controlled the dating lives of our athletes?! What would the tabloids have to write about? Half our celebrity gossip would be gone! Luckily, we’d still have reality TV and the Gosselins to keep us fascinated. New hairstyle, you say? I’m riveted!