In the most recent issue of the Wall Street Journal (August 31, 2019), an essay extolls the miracle of dating apps. I read it with skepticism.
Dating apps are making marriages stronger, by Dr. Peggy Drexler, on WSJ.com.
To read the full article, you need to be a Wall Street Journal subscriber. So if you’re not a subscriber, here’s a summary:
- Research shows, according to the author, that online dating leads to better romantic compatibility and stronger marriages.
- In 2013, a University of Chicago study found that couples who met online had a higher “relationship quality” and a 25% lower rate of separation and divorce.
- The study also found that anonymous online communication created greater self-disclosure, and more feelings of affection, than face-to-face communication.
- A 2017 study found that marriages created online were less likely to break up in the first year than those that started offline.
- Research by Tinder and Bumble found that people who dated online were more likely to commit than people who did not date online.
- The Tinder and Bumble research also found that over time, “people relaxed their preferences and were more likely to give a chance to someone who wasn’t exactly what they thought they were searching for.”
The article contained no information about the pitfalls of online dating — such as the fact that thousands, or perhaps millions, of online profiles are fakes. Or, even when the profiles are real, people posting the ads lie about their age, appearance, income and intentions.
Many people on dating sites aren’t looking for love. They’re trolling for targets.
So I sent the Wall Street Journal a letter to the editor. Here it is. I hope they publish it.
The risk of online dating
Dr. Peggy Drexler’s bright and sunny article, “Dating Apps Are Making Marriages Stronger” (Review, Aug. 31), fails to even mention the extreme risk associated with online dating: Thousands of people who are posting profiles on dating sites are not looking for love and companionship. They are looking for someone to exploit.
I met my first husband online. After a few weeks of correspondence, we met in person, and he was not my type. At all. But because, as Dr. Drexler explains, our preliminary communication produced self-disclosure and feelings of affection, I decided to give him a chance.
He turned out to be a con artist. This man took a quarter-million dollars from me, cheated with at least six women during our two-year marriage, had a child with one of those women, and then, 10 days after I left him, married the mother of the child. It was the second time he committed bigamy.
Because I had told him what I was looking for during our initial communications, he was able to present himself as my perfect match. That is the true danger of online dating profiles. When we reveal what we want, we provide scammers with a detailed road map for exactly how to take advantage of us.
After my disastrous marriage, I founded Lovefraud.com and collected data on exploitative romances. Three online surveys, with a total of 5,468 responses, revealed that 22 percent of respondents met their exploitative partners online. It was the most common way of encountering them.
Romance fraud, in which criminals specifically pursue romantic relationships with people in order to swindle them, is a growth industry. In February, the Federal Trade Commission reported that Americans lost $143 million in romance scams last year — up from $33 million in 2015.
Finding love via dating apps certainly can work, if both parties are honest in their communications. But no one should ever assume that his or her new online love interest is honest.
Ms. Andersen is author of Lovefraud.com and the forthcoming book, “Understanding the Sociopath: Why antisocials, narcissists and psychopaths break the rules of life.”
Understanding the Sociopath — a new book by Donna Andersen, author of Lovefraud
Dear Donna,
Dr. Peggy Drexler’s research and/or article was probably sponsored by the dating websites. The dating websites are fraudulent themselves, as in almost every one I participated in, when I asked them to remove my profile when I asked to close my account, they did not, and a few of them did, only to put my profile back in after six months. Thus, most of the profiles are “dead” profiles!
The “quizzes” to determine “compatibility,” are a sociopath’s dream! Especially the extensive quiz in the so-called Christian dating website, which claims to reject one in five applicants! The “too good to be true” person is accepted (the sociopath) while the person that admits their faults and warts is rejected!
In short, online dating attracts sociopaths because it creates a large inexpensive pool of potential victims, requiring little work to begin the love bombing process!
Monica – yes, I thought that as well – especially with her using research from Tinder and Bumble.
I know that I’ve heard from people who met con artists on all websites – Match, Plenty of Fish, eHarmony, OKCupid, JDate, Christian Singles – all of them.
I would question anything from the WSJ.
I am appalled that the Wall Street Journal would publish such a blatantly biased and poorly researched/vetted article. I agree with monicapz – obviously paid for by the very sites the author extols. Even the “facts” she quoted are suspect. Like Disraeli said — “There are three types of lies — lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
I tried on-line dating on three different sites supposedly for those over 50 and found almost all replies to be suspicious. Some were easy to spot — poor language, cut-and-paste answers, inability to answer simple questions about where they lived — while others were pretty smooth and sophisticated. In fact, I met my ex-narcissist on-line. He was a real person, albeit a bad one. I have only personally met one couple who met online and married, but have talked to dozens of men and women who had very bad experiences with on-line dating. Their experiences ranged from meeting “the one” only to find out that the hunky, successful, well-traveled gentleman they had corresponded with was 50 pounds overweight, living in a trailer park and had visited Reno – once – to a man who fell in love with a gorgeous sexy young thing (half naked pictures “proved” that) who promised to marry her on-line meet-up “as soon as she could recover her dead father’s gold stash from a vault in Nigeria if only he could send money for the plane ticket.” One of the guys I met online said he had a “waterfront home” and “an interesting past”. Turned out he was living in his car, moving nightly from make-shift campsites along lakes and rivers where he fished for his dinner – without benefit of a license – and the interesting past was a rap sheet a mile long! The “real men” I met weren’t interested in meeting women their own age or they wanted a caregiver. Lots of sharks and jellyfish in the online dating waters! What you have to remember is these sites are there to make money – not to help anyone. Anyone can become anyone they want on paper and everyone lies. (Even my driver’s license has a couple of small fibs!) So – buyer beware. And always take these “essays” with a huge grain of salt.
The WSJ is probusiness not pro consumer.
Yes, the Wall Street Journal is pro business, but that doesn’t mean it is not pro consumer. As a journalist, I am appalled by what passes as reporting these days, and I find that the WSJ is more balanced than many other publications.
The Associated Press – the wire service that is supposed to just report the facts – is full of editorializing. And the New York Times, as a recently leaked transcript of an internal meeting reveals, has stopped being objective and is now shaping its reporting to match what its subscribers demand.
WSJ regularly calls out companies that engage in practices that harm customers in any way. But it also calls out regulators who make it difficult for businesses to operate.
Which is why it was so surprising to see such an oblivious article about online dating. It was not written by a regular WSJ reporter, but was contributed by the clueless Dr. Peggy Drexler. But some editor should have knows that online dating is dangerous.
Thank you for sharing this thoughtful perspective on Dr. Drexler’s article! It’s crucial to acknowledge the complexities of online dating, especially with the risks involved. Your personal experience highlights an important side of the conversation that often gets overlooked. While dating apps can certainly lead to meaningful connections, it’s wise for users to remain vigilant and discerning. Perhaps some couple apps could provide additional resources or tools for navigating these challenges safely. Your insights are a valuable reminder for anyone exploring the online dating landscape!