New study shows that male Online Dating Columnists are "huge douchebags"

If you had an infinite number of monkeys typing away at an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite time, one of them would eventually produce Hamlet.

If you gave three monkeys two typewriters and gave them an hour and a half, one of them would eventually produce an online dating column.

At least that's what scientists at Duke University have discovered in a recent study taking a look at male online dating columnists. The study, entitled "Dating Douchebaggery," researched male dating columnists over a period of two days. The findings initially shocked the researchers, but they were able to put it all into perspective.

"First of all, the most important thing is this - male online dating columnists share an extraordinary amount of traits with douchebags," said Dr. Sven Barrimore. "While this was assumed, we were truly unprepared by just what douchebags these guys really are."

The study found many similarities between douchebags and male online dating columnists - first, they make it clear that they know women. That quickly devolves into parody, however, as the columnists introduce stereotypes, strange data and other things to make their "advice" seem realistic, even if it's just misogynistic claptrap.

Take this recent dating advice given by Todd Katz on the AT&T and Match.com homepages, trying to explain why men have to look at attractive women walking by, even if they are with another woman at the time:
There he goes again: You're walking down the street with your new guy, and his eyes slide over to check out a blonde in a low-cut top. And let's not even get started on his Salma Hayek obsession. But don't give him too hard a time: A new study suggests that we're biologically compelled to stare at the sexy and powerful.
Katz goes on to talk about the "new study" (that came out in 2005) and how it shows that monkeys have wandering eyes so there should be no surprise that men do the same thing. Katz does a poor job making this all work, though, which is surprising, being that he printed the same column on AOL more than six months ago and in the New York Post more than 18 months ago.

In his brief "scientific" article, Katz does not find it necessary to state that monkeys also often engage in homosexual behavior. Katz doesn't mention this due to the scientific reality that he is a douchebag. And note, scientists were able to declare Katz was a douchebag even before being aware that he has previously written for the magazines "Maxim" and Stuff." Katz also uses the "Law of Leviticus" but with monkeys, instead. The "Law of Leviticus" states that Leviticus is extremely important when it comes to homosexuals, but that it's virtually meaningless regarding shrimp-eaters. For online dating columnists, the "Law of Monkeys" states that nothing a monkey does is pertinent to humans, unless it can help prove a misogynistic point.

Dr. Barrimore said that the study was an exciting achievement, as it was the easiest and fastest research project of his career.

"When we met with Katz and with Yahoo dating columnist David Wygant, we knew within the first three minutes that these guys were total douches," said Barrimore. "We did a few tests, but the evidence truly confirmed what we could tell just by talking to them for a few minutes."

So remember, your man may seem like a douchebag some times, but that's probably only because he reads douchebag dating columnists.

"Douchebaggery is incredibly contagious," said Dr. Barrimore. "Once you get a group of guys agreeing with each other on fallacious, misogynistic nonsense, you're bound to see a huge douchebag pandemic. It happens all the time and it's never pretty."

--WKW

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus