Make dating worth your while

Imagine getting paid to date. Just go out on a date, no sex involved. Well, you can, according to Emily Brady's article, "See Dick Pay Jane: Chaste Dating for Cash," in the May 26th Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-05-27/news/see-dick-pay-jane-chaste-dating-for-cash/). Several months ago, a few enterprising young women figured out that men would actually pay for the opportunity simply to have a date -- someone to go out to dinner with, or take to a ball game. They founded Austen's Janes Agency (http://austensjanes.com) to fill this void. As the article states, "For $60 an hour, the agency arranges for a smart young woman to accompany you, laugh at your jokes, and make you feel interesting and special. It may sound like just another escort service—with additional sex services available by negotiation—but it's not. The women who set up the agency are adamant about this, and they spell it out on their website: 'If there are any attempts at sexual activity, the girl has the right to end the date immediately.'"

I can relate to the reasoning behind the 26-year-old unemployed women who started the agency. As one of them put it, "I've been on so many bad dates, it was kind of a joke because it felt like work sometimes. You might as well get paid for it."

Why would men pay for this? One married guy just got a rush from pretending to have an affair -- paying a woman for her time and her dinner was as close to an affair as he actually wanted to get. Half the guys are foreign-born, and some of them haven't had any success yet on the on-line dating sites, so this fills the void for now. And other men apparently just enjoy the occasional platonic afternoon or evening with a pretty woman, no strings attached.

Getting paid to date -- now why didn't I think of that? I could've retired by now. ;)

Maybe they're just not that into you

Sean McGinn, a man from my 'hood (Brooklyn), is suing Match.com (http://www.match.com) for $5 million because women he contacted didn't write him back. According to this article, "N.Y.C. Man Sues Match.Com for Cyberspace ‘Bait and Switch’" on AttorneyAtLaw.com (http://www.attorneyatlaw.com/2009/06/nyc-man-sues-matchcom-for-cyberspace-bait-and-switch/), this man believes the site shouldn't list non-paying singles' profiles and photos, since they can't respond to his e-mails and winks, and therefore he gets his feelings hurt. As the article explains, "In his lawsuit, filed in a New York federal court, McGinn said he suffered 'humiliation and disappointment' when women he tried to contact through Match.com did not respond to his cyber-advances."

Hey, I feel your pain, buddy -- try being a woman older than 34 on the site. The last time I was on, I wrote to over 30 guys in a month and got about 2 responses. But I don't necessarily agree that Match is being "deceitful," as McGinn claims. I mean, when you sign up, they tell you about the free trial and not having to pay, but they make it clear if you don't pay, you can't read e-mails or respond to them. Did McGinn think that offer only applied to him? Like any smart business, Match tries to lure you in so you end up becoming a paid subscriber. Yes, it can be painful when people don't write you back -- but $5 million worth of pain?? Grow a thicker skin, man!

And I must give credit where credit is due: I did meet the Nicest Guy in the World on Match (it just took me an embarrassingly long time to realize we should be dating. :)