Tag: dating
Thiel's New Right-Wing Dating App Got 'Amazing' Reviews (LOL)

Thiel's New Right-Wing Dating App Got 'Amazing' Reviews (LOL)

When news came out that former Trump administration Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany had a sister, and that sister (Ryann McEnany) was given seed money by the shadowy Peter Thiel to create a conservative dating app, everyone rejoiced.* Finally, a place for people who think Tucker Carlson is kind of hot to go and look for their Mr. Right (stuff!).

Responses to the first advertisements that went around the internet were very fun to read. Since the app hit the Apple Store it has received around 275 reviews (as of the writing of this story), but so far the reviews are not great. Actually, the score is not great, with The Right Stuff only receiving an average of two out of five stars from customers. But the reviews have actually been amazing.

Here’s a sample: “I love my country. I love the second amendment. And I love God. These days it’s hard to find a woman who values my patriotism. My faith. And so after being ghosted by every match on Tinder, I decided to give this app a try. I created my profile, uploaded a selfie of me sitting in my truck with sunglasses, and it worked great. The interface was intuitive and easy to use. But the weird thing is, I couldn’t find any women on it. I don’t know, maybe the app is bugged? I tried switching my preference to men (just to make sure it was working) and dads of handsome men came up. I hope developers fix this.”

Here’s a one-star review that seems to really want answers.

Invite only and asks for too much personal information

What?!? Ok interface but violates my privacy. Way too many personal questions, I don’t want to give out my phone number so can’t sign up. Stupid to have to be invited unless you refer 3 other people, who will join? I have heard there are no women on the site and the ad shows hot conservative women but there aren’t any. Get rid of the January 6 question, have you seen all the men at January 6? Duh. Liberal web sites don’t ask for so much personal info, be better and respect my privacy. Why so many personal questions and invite only? Stupid

I give you a one-star review that could be real or could be a joke.

Socialist App in Wolves Clothing

I saw this app advertised on one of my trusted conservative news channels. My wife passed away two days ago and I think I’ve mourned long enough. She would want me to be happy and get back out there on the dating scene. So when I saw this Right Stuff stuff that was about dating stuff I knew I had to jump on it.

Much to my disappointment when I signed up, I realized it’s invite only. How am I supposed to marry the next woman of my dreams (preferably she has a great life insurance plan) when it’s invite only? I did some research and found out why.
This app is actually funded by Bill Gates. What happens is they take your photo and information and store it in a database that will be used in the future as a way to identify and exterminate all of us conservative Christian’s.

I suggest you delete this app now and never use it again.

But Walter, you ask, are there no five-star reviews? I give you some five-star reviews of The Right Stuff dating app.

Better then Grindr

Once you get past the invite only, it’s game on. So much better than Grindr for guys. it’s basically all men. perfect.

Here’s another.

Note that good

The app asked where I was on Jan 6 so I explained in detail how I attacked the Capitol. Next thing I know...87,000 armed IRS agents showed up at my door.. also, it’s all dudes.

How about this forlorn one-star review.

The right to date

If only democrats access to the polls were as restricted as access to this app. That would definitely restore my faith in election integrity. Until I get my invite I guess I’m stuck in my truck on TikTok trying to fight the deep state that is. Love Candice [sic] Owens I’m just not attracted to black women but I’m not racist. #iknowcandiceowens

Finally:

Well it’s bad.

If you’re looking for racists, this is your app.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Lessons From The ‘Modern Love’ Column

Lessons From The ‘Modern Love’ Column

For a guy who watches maybe 250 ballgames a year, I’ve always taken an interest in what was once called the women’s page. After studying the sports section every morning, it’s the next thing I turn to.

Newspapers no longer have women’s pages. For complicated reasons I’m reluctant to parse, they now have sections euphemistically devoted to “Style,” “Food,” “Home,” etc., featuring fad diets, exercise crazes and home decorating trends. I head straight to the advice columns.

It’s there you learn what should be obvious from the massacres and catastrophes elsewhere in the news: human beings are irreducibly mad, and women no saner (if less dangerous) than men. Read Emily Yoffe’s “Dear Prudence” column at Slate regularly, and no front-page headline will ever shock you. Lunatic mothers-in-law are a regular feature.

I’m also devoted to the New York Times “Modern Love” series, a recurring feature almost invariably written by women, mainly about less dire relationship issues: husbands who watch too many TV ballgames, say, rather than impatient mothers-in-law who sabotage birth control devices.

What do women want? Freud famously asked. The most-emailed “Modern Love” column ever featured this timeless lament: “I wanted—needed—to nudge him a little closer to perfect, to make him into a mate who might annoy me a little less…a mate who would be easier to love.”

The answer was to leave off nagging and handle the dumb brute as an animal trainer would: rewarding behaviors you like and ignoring the rest.

Works for me.

Somewhat paradoxically, the other main topic of “Modern Love” is how to capture a man in the first place. And there, I’m happy to report, the Times has recently published an all-time classic, an essay by Mandy Len Catron entitled “To Fall in Love with Anyone, Do This.”

If you’re a vulgarian like me, i.e. a guy, you may think you already know the answer. But this is the New York Times, so it’s more complicated than that.

Catron, who teaches writing at the University of British Columbia, met a man she fancied. So she reacted by administering a pop quiz — specifically a 36-item questionnaire of extremely personal questions formulated by a psychology professor to be answered by a man and woman sitting across from one another in a bar.

Actually, a laboratory setting was recommended, but Mandy pretty clearly had her thumb on the scales. The exercise is supposed to end with the couple, all soppy with “vulnerability,” staring into each other’s eyes for four minutes. I have to think the object of her experiment must have been hoping the last bit would be performed naked.

Otherwise, what would be the point?

Now to me, the storied Sixties of legend and song were bad enough the first time. Dreaming up appropriately “sensitive” answers questions like, “What roles do love and affection play in your life?” much less, “When did you last cry?” would strain my impoverished imagination.

Mellow Sixties-style aggression used to make me crazy. I’d have flunked Woodstock if I hadn’t skipped it. Mandy’s quiz is reminiscent of those dreadful days of yore when people sat in circles toking up and faking their “innermost” thoughts about each other.

All too often my honest, uncensored thought would have been something like, “Actually I wasn’t thinking about you. I was wondering if the Red Sox are going to sign another starting pitcher.”

Even the first item in Mandy’s quiz, formulated by psychologist Arthur Aron, would cause most guys a problem. “Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?”

The first name that pops into my head is “Shakira.”

Somehow I think that’d be an unwelcome answer. So I’d be lying right out of the box. So much for vulnerability.

And she’s going to say Pope Francis?

However, by the time we get down to Number 25, “How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?” why not go all in? Freud wrote a famous essay about Dostoyevsky, arguing that a man raised by a quarrelsome, termagant mother would end up gay.

Wrong. Farcically wrong. Freud certainly never met me or my brother. Reading that essay soon after meeting the woman who eventually took me home from the shelter was the first time I suspected that the father of psychoanalysis might be as daft as that other 19th-century genius, Karl Marx.

No 36 questions were involved. I was drawn to her from across the room before I knew her name. The graduate school dean who introduced us put me on the spot. Had I ever heard of her alma mater, Hendrix College?

“No sir,” I said. “They must not play football.”

An Arkansas coach’s daughter, she laughed. Both because she thought it was a funny answer under the circumstances, and because I was right.

Dear reader, she’s still laughing.

Photo: Al Hernandez via Flickr

Bill o reilly's ex wife and the Jeff Gross

Bill O’Reilly Bullies Police Officer Dating His Ex-Wife

On Tuesday, investigative reporter John Cook reported on the Gawker website that Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly had pushed his local police department to investigate an officer who allegedly dated O’Reilly’s wife while they were separated.

Cook reports that Richard Harasym, an Internal Affairs detective in the Nassau County Police Department in O’Reilly’s hometown, was ordered to help O’Reilly’s private detectives investigate an officer in the department who was romantically involved with O’Reilly’s wife, Maureen O’Reilly (nee McPhilmy). The commissioner of the police department at the time, Lawrence Mulvey, is described as a friend of O’Reilly’s and was allegedly expecting him to make a large donation to the police department’s nonprofit organization. After declining that assignment, Harasym was reportedly transferred out of the Internal Affairs department. Gawker’s sources say that he was transferred because he refused to help O’Reilly.

Internal Affairs is intended to investigate police misconduct, and dating a married woman — though perhaps immoral — is not police misconduct. And the officer in question may not have even been dating a married woman. O’Reilly’s nephew, according to Cook, mentioned to staffers at Fox News that McPhilmy started dating the officer while she and O’Reilly were already in a trial separation. Indeed, McPhilmy bought a house under her maiden name last year, and O’Reilly has not been wearing his wedding ring this year — suggesting that they intend to split up, if they haven’t already.

It’s not hard to see why McPhilmy and O’Reilly may have decided to call it quits. In 2004, O’Reilly was accused of sexually harassing Andrea Mackris, a young producer on his Fox News show The O’Reilly Factor. Among other things, he allegedly called Mackris on the phone and told her steamy sexual fantasies — including one involving falafel — while masturbating with a vibrator. The parties later settled out of court.

But it wasn’t all fun and games. When Mackris considered exposing O’Reilly’s harassment, he allegedly threatened to enlist his Fox News connections to ruin her life:

“If you cross Fox News Channel, it’s not just me, it’s [Fox President] Roger Ailes who will go after you. … I’m the street guy out front making loud noises about the issues, but Ailes operates behind the scenes, strategizes and makes things happen so that one day BAM! The person gets what’s coming to them but never sees it happen. Look at [prominent Fox News critic] Al Franken, one day he’s going to get a knock on his door and life as he’s known it will change forever. That day will happen, trust me.”

O’Reilly and Fox have been known to retaliate against critics in the past. A few years ago, O’Reilly warned a caller on his radio show, “We have your phone number, and we’re going to turn it over to Fox security, and you’ll be getting a little visit. … Fox security then will contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable.” And after a New York Times journalist reported that Fox News had lower-than-expected ratings, rumors began to surface that he had spent time in rehab before writing the article.

Fox still appears to be in the business of intimidation, judging by their numerous on-air attacks against John Cook and his employer, Gawker. But Cook says he’s not worried about retaliation from Fox News. “I’ve never been to rehab or anything like that,” he says, “and there’s nothing they can say that will embarrass Gawker.” Moreover, he says, “They just want this to go away, and if they know that if they do anything to us, we’ll just write about it.” The one thing that Cook expects from O’Reilly is an interview. “O’Reilly has a history of sending out producers to stop people and get ambush interviews,” Cook says. “I’m prepared for that.”