The Systematic Dating Process

Hello again, readers.

You may have read about my last dating experience. In that debacle, I tried to second-guess women's behaviour, assuming that their intentions were the opposite of what they said they were!

Stupid, I know. 

Afterwards, I resolved to do the opposite. I would assume that everything any woman said was the whole truth, the complete truth and nothing but the truth.

Not only that, I would construct a behavioural template within which I could best apply this new approach. 

After several weeks contemplation, I came up with what I assumed would be a very reliable one. I called it the Systematic Dating Process (SDP). The process was manifold. First, I would contact dozens of women through an internet dating site. I knew from studying statistics that some were certain to respond. Then I would ask them all out. Again, a certain number would surely say yes. After each date, I would send a questionnaire fielding prospects for intimacy. I would assess the responses completely on face value, and rate the level of relationship potential each conveyed. The woman who scored highest would be the one I'd give my heart to.

Some of the questions are listed below:

1) In 50 words or less, please describe exactly what you are looking for in a man.

2) How many of these qualities do you think I actually possess? 

3) If we are to become involved with each other, do you think that it would be on a purely sexual, romantic, or platonic basis? Or would it be a combination of these relationship types? (That is, perhaps a sexual-platonic model, an arrangement often colloquially described as "the buddy bonk".) 

Results from the implementation of the SDP over a 2 month period were as follows: 

From an original sample of 110 women contacted, 45 responded. I asked 36 of them out. Of these requests, 24 agreed (although I was stood up twice). I then e-mailed questionnaires to all 22 women I had met in person. Only 10 responded. Almost all were negative.

One wrote, "This is a joke, right?" 

Another said: "Go to hell, loser!" 

Terms of abuse were common. Examples included: "nutbar", "freak", and "psycho". I was a little upset by this. Still, at least I knew exactly where I stood with these women.

Only one responded in a non-derisive manner. Her name was Harriet, and she was a student doing a PhD in psychology.

I immediately called her back. During our conversation, she elaborated on the content of her thesis.

"The working title is 'Physiological Aspects of Emotional Dissociation in Males'," she said, then added that I was an ideal candidate for a case study.

Since she had responded honestly to my questionnaire, would I be willing to participate in an ongoing assessment?

I felt let down that her interest in me was clinical. Still, I consented.

I have made daily visits for a week now. It is a very formal arrangement, and many of the tests Harriet puts me through are quite unpleasant. 

Today, for instance, she spent the afternoon zapping me with electric shocks to measure my pain thresholds. It wasn't much fun. Still, between jolts we did manage some small talk. There was even a moment or two of mild flirtation! 

There are other clues to her growing interest in me. When I winced while she took a blood sample she apologised profusely and stroked my arm. And while measuring body fat on my bare stomach, she giggled nervously. I don't want to delude myself, readers. But I do think there is a slim chance that she might just be The One.

I will keep you informed of the progress of our relationship.

© Matt Hayden, Feb 2003.