So I painstakingly made my way through the aforementioned Washingtonian section (although, I admit – some parts I skimmed). Hey, I read so you don’t have to (ahem).

Well, for one – the girl who wrote the feature was kinda cute. Nothing wrong with her at all. Good start. She’s probably not even really single. (Hah, just kidding.)

The poor soul started out on Match.com. Oh honey, that was your first mistake. She winked her way into a couple dead end dates, but nothing came out of it. She then had a friend advise her to try Yahoo Personals or (gag) MySpace…yeah. No. Any informed dating guru knows that MySpace leads to MyStalker. Or something like that. I do however, agree with her theory of the “match.com ploy to get me to reenlist” when her subscription was ending – she got a sudden wave of interested suitors. In fact, isn’t Match being sued for this very thing?

Her second tactic was speed dating. In theory, a good idea – kind of like being thrown in a bar scene situation where you are forced to talk to someone you might not normally talk to. However, in reality – a horrible way to meet someone. Although it’s been said that you know whether or not you like someone within the first minute, and whether or not you’d sleep with him within the first five minutes (or less)…speed dating offers up a brief moment of hope that you’ll just click with someone right away and it’ll just be that easy; when in reality everyone is probably searching for more than they’re going to get, and coming up empty handed. Such is life.

After the author’s short stint in online dating and speed dating (only a month), she sums it up to this: “I’ve spent 25 years studying the nuances of body language to determine if men are interested in me, and suddenly I’m supposed to send an unprompted cyber wink or e-mail? Or flirt with 15 guys in rapid succession, without running out of steam? I guess I’m more old-fashioned than I thought.” Amen, sister.

The rest of the section included some “no-fail first dates” which was three trite and tired (and can I say LONG) ideas for a first date in DC. Now, I don’t know about anyone else…but a first date to me should NOT be a day long event. I mean, not initially. If it turns into something longer, cool. But, I find that 2-3 hours is plenty of time for a GOOD date. A really good one. This section had like 6-8 hours worth of adventures galavanting around DC. And, the ideas weren’t even that great. Boring. Next.

I’m not even going to talk about the 3 page long interview with Carolyn Hax. Sort of interesting, but mostly another yawn.

I found it interesting that in a sidebar box, there was a list of traits that women found important in a man. 46% said fantastic lover. You hear that men? FANTASTIC LOVER. It beat out handsome face by 1%.

The next section was a whirlwind list of organizations to join to meet people. It ranged from cooking classes to places to dance (um, listing Clarendon Ballroom was I think…well…it speaks for itself. Gag.) to volunteer organizations, sports leagues (WAKA anyone?) and of course the social clubs and societies for the elite singles in the city.

The final section in the series was finding love over 50…and I’ll admit I just didn’t read it because it didn’t appeal to my demographic, and it made me a little depressed.

In addition to all of the helpful hints (if you want to call them that) and “great date” ideas, they had a pull out section with 20 area singles from a wide range of ages – 24 to the elusive “forties and fifties.” I mean, if you’re gonna be in an article saying you’re single, you can say you’re 47. It’s OK. Really. I know this wasn’t the “50 Most Beautiful People in Washington” list, but…they could have found some more attractive participants. They weren’t BAD necessarily, they were just, well, average. The whole section made being single look well, boring to me. It didn’t sound fun or exciting to be single in the city. Granted, I took it all with a grain of salt I guess.

Maybe that was the point. We’re all average. And single. Thanks, Washingtonian, for pointing that out to me.

Popularity: 39% [?]