The Dysfunctional Marriage of eHarmony and Gay Money
For those of you who don’t know, eHarmony has come under a lot of pressure in the last year, both from Chemistry.com advertising and lawsuits, because the company does not provide services to gays and lesbians. While it’s clear that the matrimony-centered dating service has strong Christian roots, their stated reason for not accepting gay money has always been that their matching system was based on heterosexual relationships.
eHarmony labs are constantly studying relationships and compatibility to tune their questionnaire which determines a whopping twenty nine dimensions of compatibility. Whether you believe computers can predict love or not, eHarmony boasts almost 200 marriages a day. The success of their model has inspired variations, like Chemistry (a Match.com company) and gay versions like MyPartner.com.
While eHarmony pursued business in markets as diverse as China and India, they never seemed very motivated to invest in expansion into the lucrative gay markets. When you consider that gays are one of the most prolific users of online dating services, the old standby of ‘œwe don’t have any data on gays’ smelled of a lame excuse. After all, how hard would it be for one of the largest and most successful dating sites in the world to get data when you’re pretty much guaranteed a return on investment?
Now, under the terms of their settlement they have until March 31st to provide service to gays and lesbians in search of love. So, can we expect to see a revolutionary service that changes the way gay life partners discover each other?
The new service will be called ‘œCompatible Partners’, a generic-sounding off-brand that eHarmony doesn’t want associated with its primary user base. Also, this is the exact same questionnaire eHarmony has maintained for years was designed for straights. eHarmony makes no guarantees, but if you want to try it out, they will now accept your money.
The algorithm eHarmony uses may work just fine for gays and lesbians but my gut says no. In my research I’ve found that there are very different dynamics that determine not only attraction but also satisfaction and dissolution rates between gay and straight couples. I doubt ‘œtop or bottom’ is one of the 29 dimensions of compatibility.
I didn’t agree with the lawsuit when it was originally brought and the outcome bothers me. eHarmony is still closed to gays’”the company that owns them is now providing an identical service under a segregated brand with the caveat that it’s probably not as effective. Victory? Maybe for some, but bisexuals will need to maintain two accounts or wait for the next lawsuit.
The sad thing is that in spite of the perfunctory nature of this effort, eHarmony will probably make a decent margin off Compatible Partners based on the strength of their brand and the publicity of the settlement. It’s important to remember one thing: the lawsuit was not won, but rather settled in the most expedient manner possible to make bad PR go away. While we can force companies to provide services, we can’t make them care. This move was good for eHarmony’s image but it remains to be seen if it was good for anything else.
—–
When not analyzing the dimensions of compatibility, Mike occasionally updates Broken Cupid, a dating blog for single gay guys.
Photo credit: Youtube.com Photo.
I don’t understand why eHarmony has to make gay matches if it doesn’t want to, any more than making inter-religion or inter-racial matches. If that’s their business model, good for them. Why would you want to join a service that doesn’t want you?
Lawsuits like this are the kind of thing that causes backlash.
I agree with the previous comment. This lawsuit was dumb. If eHarmony doesn’t want my money, I’d just as soon not give it to them. Why would one want them to make money off the very people they rejected?
Let’s not forget that eHarmony founder Neil Warren is a Mormon and a bigwig at Focus on the Family. Both organizations donated heavily to the Yes on 8 campaign. Why would you put money in the pockets of these people?
Most online dating sites discriminate against trans folks, including sites targeted at the LGB community. It will be interesting to see how Compatible Partners takes that into their logarithm.
Maybe I’m being Paranoid but why would you GIVE let alone PAY opponents to Equal Rights for GLBT folk for a place where they can collect all sorts of “Statistical Evidence” to manipulate and use in their Hate Messages.
“According to Statistics from ‘Compatible Partners’ 78% of Gays fail to Brush after Oral Sex. Because of this deviant behaviour the average Dental Visit costs God Fearing Christians $.25 more per visit to the Dentist. We need a Constitutional Amendment disallowing Dental Care to Queers.”
Now for ManHunt to let straight people on.
Mike: “While we can force companies to provide services, we can’t make them care.” Should the government really be forcing companies to provide services to people that they really don’t want as customers?
Anyone remember the landscaping company that refused to perform work for a gay couple. A lot of similar views were expressed then like they are being expressed now.
On the other hand, back in 2004, a Seattle, Washington business refused to print wedding invitations for a same-sex couple:
Both sides of this debate make excellent arguments… I’m still not sure where I stand but I love all the comments and hope they continue because it makes for a really interesting conversation. Mike, thanks for writing this post.
As a biwoman, I find dating sites to be very aggravating. Match.com once wrote an article about bisexuals searching for love (sorry, no link). I wrote to the company questioning how they can say that they understand our situation, yet not cater to us. Of course I did not receive a response.
I recently used Chemistry.com, with great success. I met a wonderful man, who has not a trace of homophobia. BUT! I didn’t have the choice to select both male and female partners. For a few weeks I switched my profile back and fourth. I found that here in my Texas city there weren’t many out and available women, so my choice to look for males seemed an obvious conclusion. I don’t regret it, but I do begrudge these sites for forcing me to choose.
One site I found that catered to bipeople was mostly for sexual relationships. It was male couples looking for a female to mix things up, or married couples whose wives had girl on girl fantasies. Whatever people want to do is their thang, but I don’t get down like that. My girl on girl fantasies involve white weddings and baby making. Where is the site for old fashioned, monogamous, bisexuals like me?!?
@Nina– good point on discrimination. In most cases I agree. However eHarmony doesn’t turn gays away from their services per se, they simply don’t provide any that we would use. Saying who a private company should offer services to is one thing, telling them what those services should be is another.
In the case of something so overtly tied to sexuality like a dating site it becomes doubly silly in my opinion to make a company provide service they don’t want to; especially when there are tons of alternatives.
Mike, I agree with you in being uncomfortable with both the lawsuit and its outcome. I think there’s a difference between selling to a targeted market and discrimination, and I don’t think eHarmony crossed that line any more than J-date does in not offering an option to request Christian partners, or than a women’s clothing store does in not carrying men’s apparel. What eHarmony chooses to sell (connections with opposite-sex partners) is simply not something most of us want to buy. That’s very different from selling something we want to buy (like Nina’s examples of printed wedding invitations or lawn service) and then refusing to sell it to us. Presumably gay evangelical Christians who actually want to find opposite-sex partners (as camouflage?) have been able to do so on eHarmony….
If it were up to me, sites wouldn’t be compelled to accommodate all varieties of relationships. If eHarmony wants to specialize in straight relationships, good for eHarmony. I don’t think gay-oriented sites should be forced to accommodate straight relationships, either. I must be missing something, for this lawsuit to have even been brought in the first place.