There’s a new dating site on the scene called Engage.com, and it’s bragging about its unique social aspects. In truth, it looks pretty awesome. They encourage friends to match each other up (in contrast to the “Web 1.0” model of seeking out strangers), and they seem to have the tools to make it work. They’re presenting themselves as hip and in touch with what people are really looking for. They’re also sponsoring a party tonight called Love 2.0, which I’m heading out to in about an hour.
They seem well intentioned, but they’ve missed the boat on the categories issue. Their site is so rigidly structured by gender and gender preference that I couldn’t even complete my profile without being forced to lie. It’s not the “okay, i’ll call myself this for now and then go do what I actually want to do” kind of lie. It’s the “wow, I really can’t do half the things I’d like to do here because you won’t let me be honest about who I am” kind of lie. I’m not impressed.
So last Friday, I wrote them a letter:
subj: I’d like you to acknowledge bisexuality.
Hi Team Engage,
A friend just invited me to the Love 2.0 event this Monday that you’re sponsoring, and was excited to tell me about your site. I tried to sign up, but was disappointed to find out that you don’t acknowledge bisexuality. I don’t have a gender preference in my dating, and it would be dishonest and limiting for me to express one.
I dug through your FAQ trying to find some acknowledgment of this situation, and only came up with this:
Does Engage support same-sex matches?
Of course! No one is left out on Engage. You can fix up same-sex couples as long as they’ve both indicated that that’s their preference when they registered for Engage.It’s important for you to know that I’m feeling pretty left out right now, and many of my friends would, too.
I’m active in the social media tech industry and dating scene, and your site sounds awesome. But I can’t use it if this limitation is going to be such a major aspect of how the site is organized. It’s offensive to me.
Can you change this? Please?
Or at least tell me why it’s important for you to have the restriction?
I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to this.
Many thanks,
Sarah
It’s been three days and I haven’t seen a response, despite the fact that their automated email promised they’d get right back to me.
So now I’m going to dress up in my finest cleavage-boosting men’s suit, head over to their party, and ask them about this myself. I’ll be joined by a friend who takes issue with the fact that they don’t acknowledge open relationships or the equivalent of Facebook’s “It’s Complicated.” (You can only be matched up if you designate yourself as single.) Weirdly enough, though, they do provide categories for Divorced, Separated, and Widowed… as though those should significantly impact how you should be labeled on the site.
Just warning you in advance.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe to the feed.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 am
Engage.com sounds interesting considering the fact that it allows for married/taken folk to participation in a matchmaking sense, thus not making them feel entirely left out. I find my married self seeing those dumb ads on TV for eHarmony and match.com and feeling mildly left out because the use for dating websites in my life has long since passed… and I have a profile making addiction. Engage scratched that itch for me at least. ;)
But it seems to have fallen into the same trap as most of the others with it’s limiting orientation and relationship configuration criteria… and I agree, that’s disappointing and disheartening.
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:36 am
But you didn’t show the drop-down for “Preference,” which might list “Men,” “Women,” and “Either” as values.
My legal status (which is, as much as I despise it, “Divorced”…my current status is “Single,” thanks very much) doesn’t reflect how I identify in the world. You’ve said as much in your post by stating that bisexuality isn’t supported–that value doesn’t correlate to the snapshot above. So what, literally, are you responding to?
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Did you see the response from an Engage rep at Valleywag? I hope someone will explain to him why signing up and then “toggling back and forth” is not a functional solution for bi people (any more than posting and deleting ads in alternate personals sections on Craigslist is.) I’d do it but I don’t have a registration there…
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I’m mystified by Melissa Casburn’s comment. This isn’t some kind of complicated politics of self-definition — it’s a practical issue of what the dating site lets you do. If you have to pick either men or women, then it’s not a bi-friendly site, because half of your potential dates will either be invisible to you or won’t know to look for you.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
thank you everbody! Hob, I think Melissa C was pointing out the fact that I gripe about bisexuality here, but the photo i chose was about relationship status….
Melissa, to answer your question, the preference dropdown said “Men” or “Women”… there was no “Either” option… and whatever you choose strongly changes the language and arrangement for the rest of your site experience. (I wrote this post really quickly and didn’t illustrate my points very well… sorry.)
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Also, I have found that when starting to date a person, either a man or a woman, it helps when they already know that you are bisexual.
July 7th, 2009 at 9:57 am
I want to http://www.adultxdating.co.uk date a person and so even I have visited some dating sites.