johnsu01 ([info]johnsu01) wrote,
@ 2008-12-05 00:52:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:eharmony, gay, new york times

eHarmony step in the right direction?

eHarmony is finally allowing same-sex matches -- on a separate site that they are opening -- as settlement of a suit with one Eric McKinley.

It's not possible that the AP reporter didn't know what they were doing here:

McKinley called the settlement ''fabulous'' and said he was happy with the outcome. He's considering signing up for the new site once it launches.


(Post a new comment)


[info]stargazer
2008-12-05 12:22 pm UTC (link)
This would be a good place to use that animated eye-rolling smiley graphic you see on phpBB boards.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]johnsu01
2008-12-06 07:15 pm UTC (link)
Yeah.


(Reply to this)(Parent)
Gulag
(Anonymous)
2008-12-06 05:06 am UTC (link)
I'm as liberal as anyone, but forcing a private company to go outside its business model (eharmony relies on some bizarre "matching formula" to introduce people) in support of gay rights is extreme.

''It's very frustrating and it's very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can't,'' he said. ''And the only reason I can't is because I'm a gay man. That's very hurtful.''

Is Erick McKinley going to file suit against Tara Reid? Give me a break. The right to marry is one thing. The "right" to use a private company's web service? Ridiculous.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: Gulag
[info]johnsu01
2008-12-06 07:09 pm UTC (link)
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think this is a case of that. It's a case of prohibiting harmful discrimination. My business model can't be buses only for white people, and it can't be a dating service only for straights. I guess you'd have to think that their matching formula only works for men who like women and vice versa because of something inherent to heterosexual roles, and I don't think I believe that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Gulag
(Anonymous)
2008-12-07 01:13 am UTC (link)
I don't think your analogy is apt for precisely the reason you detail. The matching formula is likely, in some senses, gender specific. eharmony makes a big deal about its "formula."

You wouldn't ask a plumber to become a gastroenterologist - even if there are certain similar aspects to each job description, and you shouldn't ask a company specializing in heterosexual relationships to extend its knowledge to homosexual relationships, if it knows nothing about those relationships. If eharmony creates some screwed up homosexual relationships because of a lack of knowledge, it cheapens the brand which, in the relationship development market, is very important.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Gulag
[info]johnsu01
2008-12-07 02:52 am UTC (link)
Well, eHarmony settled without admitting to breaking any laws, and the cost of this litigation seems quite minimal to them ($50,000 to NJ and $5,000 to the plaintiff). I poked around a bit and don't see any evidence that they actually advanced the argument that you are making about their matching formula. Have you seen that mentioned in relation to this case somewhere?

At any rate, I think bringing a high degree of skepticism to claims like that is warranted. Could someone open a gifted & talented private school only for white people on the basis of racial intelligence studies like those discussed in The Bell Curve? Can a restaurant staffed entirely by white people decline to serve any black customers because it doesn't have knowledge about their eating habits?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Gulag
(Anonymous)
2008-12-08 06:20 am UTC (link)
I don't know whether they advanced the argument I'm making or not. I think forcing eharmony to enter into a novel relationship market is dumb whatever reasons they advanced. And I'm no proponent of discrimination: my issue is that any alleged animus for discrimination is too deeply tied into the substantive service offered by the site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ybm5dfQWkI They sell "compatibility" and a "personality profile." Otherwise they're just match.com (which site already has that market share).

As a heterosexual man, I don't really get how gay sex works in a relationship context. Is it reciprocal? What about children? Necessarily some kind of adoption/in vitro/donor scenario is involved. What are your options in that regard? Are gay relationships usually open to third party partners? Is there a box you check for that? To tell you the truth, I don't even really know enough about it to figure out all the issues.

eharmony's brand is cheapened if it puts together a bunch of people who don't get along. "Compatibility" is their watchword. The whole premise is basically that the gray-hair who started it is some kind of compatibility genius who came up with a test that measures, in a secret way, what might make a man and a woman like being together. That's the purported expertise that's for sale. If Neil doesn't know anything about gay sex, or gay relationships, how can he design a quality test? How come don't you blog about elephant training? Or the art of the tattoo? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBndaBHBJxo

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Gulag
[info]johnsu01
2008-12-09 07:18 am UTC (link)
Yes, but what I'm saying is that you do not have the knowledge necessary of the proprietary matching formula to make that claim, and if eHarmony did not make that claim themselves, your saying it is not very persuasive.

There are limits on what private businesses can do under the rubric of concerns like "compatibility", and it's good that we have those limits. White cab drivers can't not pick up black people because they worry they will not have as much to chit-chat about and so not get as good of a tip.

All the questions you named about gay relationships apply to hetero relationships as well, and eHarmony already has profile questions that take them into account.

Cheapening the brand is a circular argument. Their business has to be built within the bounds of the law. Laws that prohibit murder eliminate the hit-man business -- but just because an activity can make money does not make it something that must be permitted.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: Gulag
(Anonymous)
2008-12-11 06:36 am UTC (link)
Well, my argument is based on the brand, and on the matching formula. Who knows, maybe the matching formula is BS. Or, maybe eharmony just made a business decision to create a totally BS service for homosexuals. Perhaps they just decided that whatever happened with the homosexual relationship market, they would let that happen, and not worry about the fallout to their "core" straight market.

Not to nitpick example after example, but none of the examples you cited are directly on point. The cab driver without as much to "chit chat" about has a job that is not related to "chit chat": driving the cab.

Gay sex, however, the physical act of gay sex, and the relationship between that physical act (which is the essential factor distinguishing homo and hetero-sexuals) IS something with a direct bearing on relationships. I don't think it's too controversial to assume gay men have much more sex than straight men. There are differences between the sexes, and the sexualities - differences that relate directly to relationship compatibility. And any solid service would have to research those differences to competently match people

Your restaurant example is not on point because service has nothing to do with the customers eating habits. A more apt example would be "the waiters wouldn't serve elephants because they did not know what was involved in serving elephants." And race is not synonymous with intelligence the way that sex is synonymous with relationships.

Wait - did I just say that?

"And race is not synonymous with intelligence with the way that ABSTINENCE is synonymous with relationships."

My general objection to all of this is the forced aspect of it. It's just not right to tell someone how to run their business. And there's a difference between saying: don't discriminate, and saying "whenever someone presents their party card, serve them a choice, succulent tempeh, delicately seasoned and slow roasted in a creamy oil bisque." It's telling people what to do. It's unamerican. It's as bigoted.


All those words wasted... ...eharmony can sit and spin as far as I'm concerned...

ask RMS (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,735,568.PN.&OS=PN/6,735,568&RS=PN/6,735,568)

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Essentialism
(Anonymous)
2008-12-11 04:59 am UTC (link)
I had this talk with someone the other day . . . and well it confirms my position that this is a double edged sword. I have not studied this specific situation - nor will I. Who cares (my stance is we such turn it over to the roaches)

Honestly if there is a market for homosexual dating services - other than Craigslist- it will be developed by the market (estate)

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: Essentialism
[info]johnsu01
2008-12-11 05:02 am UTC (link)
Really? Does the market solve hiring discrimination based on race and gender as well, without legal intervention?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…