The Birds, The Bees, and Everyone Else

A parable: two guys walk into a bar. It is an ordinary bar with ordinary run of the mill people. Nothing special, nothing fancy, just a place to go and enjoy yourself with the surrounding company and atmosphere. The men are nice looking, well-dressed, well-groomed, dignified; not flashy, but not dingy either. They casually walk up to the bar to order their first round.
“Bartender, we’d like to order two cognacs, please” says the first man
The bartender takes a moment to look at them, smiles a little half smile then almost undetectably shakes his head as he turns to prepare their order. Upon returning to the two men, the bartender serves them two bottles of Bud Light.
“Excuse me, sir” says the first man “this is not what we ordered. We ordered two cognacs”
The bartender, a little taken aback, looks at him and his partner and says “Oh, I’m sorry, but we can’t serve you cognac, we can only serve you this” motioning to the bottles in front of the men.
The men then turn to observe the other bar patrons as the bartender goes about his business. They assume the bar is simply out of cognac, but remain confused as to why Bud Light was the instinctual second choice. Almost immediately, they see a man and a woman sitting at a table nearby slowly sipping on glasses of cognac as they chat with each other.
The second man motions to the bartender and asks “excuse me, it looks to me like those two over there” motioning to the couple at the table “are drinking cognac. I don’t mean to pry, but did they happen to get the last of it?”
The bartender again smiles a half smile and says “oh no, we have lots of that here, it is one of our more popular drinks, so we pretty much have an unlimited stock of several varieties.”
Second man then responds rather abruptly “well, now I really don’t understand, we ordered cognac, exactly like they are drinking, twice, and you explicitly told us you couldn’t serve it. So do you have any or not?”
Bartender says “yes, we have lots of cognac, but like I said I can’t serve it to you”
Looking rather insulted, but still patient for a logical explanation, the first man asks “well would you mind telling us why you can’t serve it to us?”
The bartender, sensing the men’s growing aggravation gets very serious and looks the first man in the face and says “ok, well it is pretty simple: those two over there are a man and a woman so I can serve them whatever they like. You two, however, are two men, and I can’t serve you cognac, but as a consolation I can serve you Bid Light. Do you know what I mean?”
The first man snaps back and says “Frankly, no, I don’t understand. What the hell is so special about the two of them that they can drink what they want, and we have to drink what you choose to allow us to drink?”
The bartender, not wishing to upset the men further tries to console them “Gentlemen, I am very sorry, I understand you would like cognac, but Bud Light will get you drunk too, so how about we make all of our lives a little easier and just enjoy your beer, after all the end result is the same.”
The second man, unimpressed with this response, inquires further “explain to me again why we can’t have what we ordered; I am still not understanding”
“Ok, it is like this” The bartender says becoming exasperated himself “If I serve you the same thing as those two, it cheapens the drink. Cognac is a classy drink and it is my responsibility to make sure it stays that way, but if I serve it to you it takes away from the quality of the drink as a whole and effectively keeps those two from feeling the stateliness they feel by drinking it.”
Proud of his articulate answer the bartender turns to go back to work when he is stopped by the second man again.
“So, because they are a man and a woman, they are allowed to drink it, but because we are two men, we can’t because of the value of the drink itself?”
“That’s right” says the bartender frankly “because if I serve it to you, I don’t know who else will end up drinking it; maybe kids, maybe animals, who knows where it will end up?”
“Well I don’t think that is very fair. I mean we are two grown men, we are citizens of this country, we have jobs, we pay our taxes, what is the difference?”
Wishing to appease the two men the bartender comes to a compromise “alright, how about this: I will take a quick poll of everyone in the bar tonight to see how they feel about you two drinking cognac? Does that sound fair?”

Every so often a political issue sweeps across the landscape of American popular culture that polarizes the nation with inexplicable force for inexplicable reasons. Supreme Court justices? Social Security benefits? The deficit? Gun control? None of these hold a candle to the firestorm that is the gay marriage debate. The gay marriage debate has set water-coolers boiling across the nation in the course of the last four years. It has caused turkeys, stuffing, and most-likely silverware to be hurled in frustration at Thanksgiving dinners. It has even been partly responsible for breaking-up heterosexual relationships. It is a debate that has recently taken center-stage on this country and has left its mark on every office, every home, and every school from Maine to California, and now, this blog. Let us reflect and refract as necessary.

On a personal note, I swore I would never write an article about a political issue, and in a sense, I am keeping with that promise. Every so often a political issue emerges from the woodwork that is so fraught with controversy it transcends political and social culture to become popular culture. Popular culture in the respect that it becomes a conversation piece for virtually every sect of the mass population from the obvious homosexuals to heterosexuals, from Democrats to Republicans, from students to teachers, young and old, rich and poor, every race, every creed, every one has an opinion. It is one of the few issues where it is simply impossible to not have an opinion. This is not to say that everyone thinks about gay marriage every moment of the day. In fact I suspect anyone who thinks of it or any single issue every moment of the day is critically insane. But gay marriage has been so widely reported and so widely discussed over the past four years that it is difficult to imagine anyone not having an opinion.

If you happen to be someone who voluntarily entered the Theodore Kaczynski life of luxury by shutting yourself out of society to build homemade "presents" and have somehow avoided the question, it is time to end your silence: how do you feel about the prospect of homosexuals gaining the right to marry and have their marriage recognized as equal to that of heterosexual marriage? It is simple. So simple that it is impossible to say “I don’t know” to this question. It is impossible to say “it depends” It is impossible to not know enough information to answer. It is so simple that it has to be popular culture because you don’t have to know anything to have an opinion. Either you feel that consenting homosexual adults should have the right to marry or you don’t. It couldn’t be simpler, and yet it has, as always, become far more complicated.

The debate is no longer about gay marriage, the debate is about you, it is about me, it is about “we the people,” and it is about the United States as a whole. Should there be a Constitutional law for or against it? What does gay marriage do to affect the institution of marriage? What does it do to families? Is a civil union the same thing? What does the Bible say? How would a bachelor party work? Now we have ourselves a complex debate, and complex debates are how relatively simple issues become convoluted so much that the core question no longer becomes recognized or even relevant, and the real issue becomes about two polarized stances. All of a sudden if you are in favor of gay marriage then it means you are against the Bible or you are against family values or you are against the natural order or you are in favor of pedophilia. If you are against gay marriage you are against freedom of choice or you are against love or you are against civil rights or you are for segregation. If you are opposed to gay marriage you must be a bigot and hate America. If you support gay marriage you must be gay and hate America. Gay marriage is no longer about gay marriage, gay marriage is about you and your relationship with America, and there is no right answer. But there is also no wrong answer. Everyone believes themselves to be right which means everyone else must be wrong. The debate is incredibly complex even though the debate is incredibly simple.

And the best part is this: the whole thing is utterly ridiculous, and before I die, I hope the rest of the country figures that out. In fact, I know the rest of the country will figure that out.

As I write this, the debate continues over California’s proposition 8 or the “California Marriage Protection Act” which would add to the California constitution a clause that only a marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized in the state effectively making marriage between same sex couples illegal. The act was voted for and passed in November 2008 until August 4, 2010 when Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned the act in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which is now currently pending appeal by the ninth circuit court of appeals. The amount of money spent on campaigns for and against prop 8 total $39.9 million and $43.3 million respectively as of the 2008 ballot initiative making it the highest funded campaign outside a presidential election. The debate has spawned commercial campaigns on both sides and even a mock musical. Did I say ridiculous? I meant completely insane. Let’s take a trip back, way back to a simpler time: 1920.

1920 was not that long ago. Fewer than 100 years. 12 years prior was the last time the Cubs won the World Series. Let me repeat that: 1908 was the last time, not the first time, but the last time the Chicago Cubs won the World Series. In 1920 Hitler was on the rise, the US struck down the invitation to join the League of Nations which they had created, and Warren G. Harding was elected President. Something else happened that year: The nineteenth amendment was ratified on August 26, 1920 guaranteeing women the right to vote. Again, let me repeat: in this country, the United States of America, women were not given the right to vote in an election until 1920 whereas white men had been granted the right to vote since the Constitution was adapted in 1787. That doesn’t even include the pay equity act, the right to own property, or the still un-ratified equal rights amendment. Women were not and in many was still are not treated as equal to men in this country.

What about the period of time between 1955-1968 during the American civil rights movement? What about the fact that racial segregation in all public places was the law of the land until 1954, and even since African-Americans have continued to be treated as inferior citizens?

We look back now, or at least I hope we do, and consider our nation’s past mentality as ridiculous. How did we legally treat women as inferior? How did we legally segregate races? How did we ever consider “separate but equal” status humane? More than that, how did opposition to these issues exist? The darkest secret of all is that opposition did not only exist, but opposition was the majority mentality. A majority of Americans opposed integration. A majority of Americans opposed universal suffrage. A majority of Americans believed that certain races and a certain gender were inferior and were to be treated as such by law. We’ve come a long way, baby, but we still have many rivers to cross, and one of those rivers is rainbow-colored.

It is so simple. It is so simple it is ridiculous. It is so ridiculous that it must be the kind of debate reserved for only the most incendiary and provocative of public figures to spit mouths full of gasoline into an already burning fire of American society.

Believe it or not, but homosexuality is real. People really are homosexuals and homosexuals really are people. In this country we not only have the right, but we have the responsibility to treat everyone equally, and I am yet to see any evidence that a person’s sexuality makes them any less than deserving of all of the rights and privileges guaranteed by our United States Constitution. I am yet to hear a logical argument opposing gay marriage. Opponents like to say that the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination, but the Bible also says that a women were put on Earth to serve their husbands (Genesis 3:16) and that a woman shall be summarily executed if she is not a virgin when she weds (Deuteronomy 22:20), so something tells me the Bible isn’t too tolerant as far as marriages go. Some like to say that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, but with a current divorce rate of 40%, and with fairly recent highly rated television shows like “Rock of Love with Brett Michaels” and “Joe Millionaire,” heterosexual marriage is far from sanctified. Some will say that gay marriage is a threat to the American family and family values, but I have never once witnessed the actions of a neighbor affecting my or anyone else’s family structure except perhaps the affect of helping me realize how much I hate Hispanic music at 7am on a Saturday.

A popular argument is that a civil union is comparable to marriage and available for homosexuals as an alternative, but that is the biggest load of garbage yet. As soon as you tell a person that they aren’t suitable for one option, but are qualified for another with different rights and privileges, you are immediately classifying them as inferior. It is the same flawed reasoning behind the Jim Crow laws of the first half of the 20th Century. “Separate but equal” status is inherently flawed and imbalanced as was determined in Brown v. Board of Education more than 50 years ago in 1954. Telling anyone they can’t get married but can have a union as consolation is no different from telling a person they are inferior and are not deserving of the same rights as others. Nothing could be simpler. Nothing could be more ridiculous. Yet nothing could be more convoluted or skewed.

Homosexuals will be allowed to marry in every state in the United States. Gay marriage will be nationally recognized in this country in my life-time. This is a fact that I know for sure. I know this because we progress as a society. What may be debatable today will be an unquestionable way of life in the future. We evolve. We improve. We accept and we grow. Someday, somewhere, someone in the not too distant future will write a poignant piece about our next social hurdle and they will use the gay marriage debate to illustrate our turn of the century short-sightedness. They will cite the bible debate. They will cite the family values debate. They will cite the majority opposition. They will also cite the ridiculousness of the debate as a whole.

Will homosexuals be allowed to marry? Yes. Will they endure all the difficulties inherent with sharing one's life with another? Absolutely. Will a significant percentage of homosexuals who marry end up divorcing? Of course. But will an even greater percentage survive the hysteria and spend the rest of their lives in a loving caring relationship with all the rights and privileges given to them by this great nation of ours? Damn right. I know this because love is simple. And I know this because love is complicated.

Future Sound

Who among us hasn’t dreamed of travelling through time? Who hasn’t contemplated the idea of going back in time to save lives, alter history, or gain financially? Who hasn’t wanted to seek out ourselves from an earlier stage in life to advise, instruct, or slap the living crap out of ourselves as a means of changing who we are and what we have today? Who among us hasn’t thought “if I could only go back in time…”? It is our nature. It is who we are. It is a universal desire despite being a physical impossibility, yet we still wonder. We still hope. We still yearn for the technology to alter some part of existence in ways that would mildly or drastically alter our everyday ways of life.

This is why Marty McFly is now and forever will be a cultural icon. Marty McFly experienced what each of us dream of. If not prior to, then at the very least, immediately following “Back to the Future,” Everyone wanted to travel to the past, everyone wanted to visit the future, and, quite frankly, everyone wanted a hoverboard. Marty McFly had it all, and we wanted it. We wanted it badly. Fortunately, “Back to the Future” is fiction. Doc never invented a time machine, Marty never travelled to 1955, 2015, or 1885, and the Delorian didn’t become a symbol of scientific advancement (depending on who you ask). We should all thank our lucky stars that “Back to the Future” is fiction. We should all be grateful that no such time travelling device exists. We should all breathe a sigh of relief that Marty McFly never existed because otherwise he would have ruined life as we know it, or at least a large part of it: if “Back to the Future” had been a true story, Martin McFly would have ruined rock and roll music for all time to come.

Rock and roll as we know it today would cease to exist. Certainly a variant form of rock music would have taken its place, but everything we currently know and love about rock music would not only stop existing, it never would have existed in the first place and therefore never evolved into what we now know as modern rock and roll music. We would have no concept of that which we love about it because it never would have happened. Some people fear heights, some people fear public speaking, some people fear death. I fear Marty McFly.

This, of course, is assuming that Chuck Berry is and always has been a musician with high integrity.

If you happened to be one of the three people between the ages of 5 and 105 who has not seen “Back to the Future,” or if your mind has been fried due to years of substance abuse or exposure to American politics, here is a little refresher course: At the conclusion of the primary storyline in “Back to the Future” Marvin of Marvin Berry and the Starlighters cuts his hand trying to free Marty McFly from a locked car trunk. Marvin, who is the lead guitar player and singer for the Starlighters insists that the dance has drawn to a conclusion due to his inability to play guitar with his cut hand; a detail that proves Marvin is not and never will be Pete Townshend or Jimi Hendrix. Marty begs Marvin to reconsider so that his future parents can solidify their eternal love through the magic of 1950’s Doo Wop. As a compromise, Marty, a 1980’s guitar virtuoso, agrees to fill in for Marvin for the purposes of ensuring his own future existence. So far so good.

As Marty is about to leave for his destined journey back to 1985, Marvin, the inevitable oracle says “let’s play something that really cooks.” Enter the end of rock and roll as we know it. At this point, Marty, not known for turning down an opportunity to quietly walk away from a challenge steps up to the microphone and introduces “an oldie where I come from” before launching into a blistering version of Chuck Berry’s legendary “Johnny B Goode.” Hubris never win in the end. See any piece of Ancient Greek literature for examples.

Robert Zemeckis and Steven Spielberg are a couple of jokers. While writing, developing, and producing the film, they had some fun throwing in a few timing gags. In this case timing is in reference to the cultural boundaries one would encounter by traveling to the past (different slang, lack of knowledge of future historical persons or events, etc). One of their jokes occurred during Marty’s rendition of “Johnny B Goode” in which Marvin makes a phone call to his cousin who happens to be, you guessed it, Chuck Berry; original author of “Johnny B Goode.” Marvin is seen talking into the phone saying “You know that new sound you’ve been looking for? Well listen to this…” and holds the receiver in the direction of the stage and Marty’s innovative (or innovative for 1955) guitar playing, indicating that Marty’s homage to the Chuck Berry classic is actually that which inspires Chuck Berry to author the song in the first place. Very funny, you have just ruined us forever. The problem with this is that Mr. Zemeckis and Mr. Spielberg are guilty of not taking their own advice.

Anyone who knows anything about the birth of rock and roll will tell you the same thing; Chuck Berry was one of the biggest pioneers and, by extension, most influential musicians in the history of rock and roll. Berry exploded onto the music scene in 1955 with a completely unique sound that had never been heard before. Prior to Chuck Berry, the roots of early rock and roll were set in various combinations of blues, R+B, gospel, country, and the big band jazz era as founded by artists like Elvis, Ray Charles, and Bo Diddley. But as Eric Burdon of the Animals said “I always felt that Chuck Berry was the poet laureate of America” or as Carl Perkins once said “Chuck Berry was an act you didn’t want to have to follow.” Carl Gardner of the Coasters goes so far as to call Chuck Berry and Little Richard the kings of Rock and Roll. There is no doubt that Chuck Berry’s sound would go on to either directly or indirectly influence every guitar player that would follow, but none of that could have happened had he listened to Marty McFly play his song. Again, assuming Berry was a musician with a high level of musical and innovative integrity.

Artistic pioneering does not happen by accident. Artistic pioneering does not happen by coincidence. Artistic pioneering only occurs through either an innovative mix of current or past styles, or through the full rejection of current popularity. The 1960’s psychedelic movement occurred through innovation using blues and jazz with experimental electronic influences, the punk movement occurred through a rejection of the Woodstock era, the 1970’s arena and glam rock was born out of pushing live production value to an extreme, grunge was born out of rejection hair metal, all styles evolve through pushing boundaries of musical styling or full rejection. Chuck Berry’s innovation was no different.

When Marvin calls and says “you know that new sound you’ve been looking for” he actually single-handedly eliminated the influence Berry had on the world of music. Had Berry heard Marty playing in Berry’s signature style, it would have become clear to him that that style already existed, and therefore was not new or innovative, and therefore was not a pioneering effort. If we assume that Chuck Berry is a musician of integrity, we can assume that he had no interest in attempting to re-create a pre-existing style he heard elsewhere. If we assume Berry is only interested in money and fame and not about musical innovation, we can assume that he would have heard the efforts of this no-name band playing a high school dance and considered the style a failure from the start and not worth the effort. After all, who in their right mind would want to copy a band whose ultimate achievement was playing the Hill Valley High School “Enchantment Under the Sea Dance?”

Case and point, you will notice that following Marvin holding the phone up to the stage, Marty’s guitar playing turns from a distinct Chuck Berry sound to what can only be described as electronic noise, or punk, which is really the same thing. Most would argue that the transition is the result of Marty simply becoming carried away with his live performance antics, but perhaps Zemeckis and Spielberg were acutely aware of the detrimental implications of this particular time disruption. Perhaps they recognize that upon Berry’s hearing and rejection of what would ironically go on to become his own style, the influence that travelled from 1955 through the generations to McFly in 1985 would instantaneously become irrelevant and vanish. In other words, as soon as Berry hears McFly’s “Johnny B Goode,” the song “Johnny B Goode” and musical style of Chuck Berry as a whole would no longer exist (as Berry would have no interest in copying it, as opposed to writing it originally), and instantly reduce McFly to a fumbling maniac with a guitar who has no knowledge of “Johnny B Goode.” By playing the yet-to-be-written “Johnny B Goode” to and unimpressed Chuck Berry, Marvin caused the song to be instantaneously eliminated from existence altogether. Eliminating Berry in the past would render his music non-existent in the present and future. This is my nightmare.

It is hard to say how extensive Chuck Berry’s influence in music actually is. Ray Manzarek of the Doors has said that every guitar player was in some way influenced by Chuck Berry which is certainly an indication that his sound played a large part in shaping the future of rock and roll. Obviously when playing a Green Day, Kiss, or Metallica record, one doesn’t think immediately about how closely it sounds like Berry, but influence is everything, especially when playing the six degrees of influential separation game. Musical influence is a lot like the food chain. Any biologist, chemist, or garbage collector with some common sense will tell you that if humans no longer existed, animal and plant life would flourish beyond cognitive imagination, but if microscopic plankton no longer existed, all life on this planet would cease almost immediately. Music is the same way: Take away current, high grossing musicians, and the history of music doesn’t skip a beat (no pun intended), but take away the early founders of rock music, and everything we know and love about all media as a whole changes in ways we can’t possibly fathom. Life itself changes in ways we can’t possibly fathom.

Dick Clark’s most famous quote is “Music is the soundtrack of your life.” Besides being possibly the least profound and most obvious expression anyone has ever said about music, Clark managed to actually strike a chord people up with that quote. He is right. Music is not only the soundtrack, but in a lot of ways, it is the cornerstone of a lot of our memories and experiences. Music changes people. Music leads people in different directions. Music makes people think about who they are and what they want. What would have happened if the Beatles (whose covers of “Roll Over Beethoven” and “Johnny B Goode” indicate that they too were influenced by Chuck Berry) had never made it big and played Ed Sullivan? What would have happened to the Rolling Stones who never would have had the Beatles to chase? What would have happened to countless other bands who count the Beatles or the Stones as their number one influence? What if Bob Dylan hadn’t plugged in his electric guitar at Newport in 1965 and played “Maggie’s Farm” to a sea of booing folkies? What would have happened if there were no Woodstock? No Monterey Pop Festival? No Isle of Wight? No Altamont? No Bonnaroo? What would have happened (or not happened) in countless cars at “make-out points” across the county without “Stand By Me” “When a Man Loves a Woman” or “In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida?” Maybe nothing. Maybe everything.

It is not enough to say “we would have found our way eventually” or “if Chuck Berry didn’t do it, someone would have.” That is tempting fate, which is something we certainly can’t rely on. Don’t forget, if Marty hadn’t gotten his parents back together in 1955, he would have ceased to exist, too. Relying on fate is a lot like relying on the law of large numbers: sure, maybe it would have happened eventually, but there is no telling how it would have transpired, and there certainly be no way of knowing when or by whom.

The one consolation is that had Berry not gone on to be one of the most influential musicians of all time, we would have no concept of what music would be, and more importanly, we would have no concept of what we are missing. Maybe it would have been worse, but maybe it would be vastly superior. Either way we would have no concept of it what-so-ever. Think about it this way. It is entirely possible if not probable that somewhere in history’s past, someone who could have drastically influence the future of American culture could have been stopped from doing so, but we don’t know what we would have been missing. In other words; a Chuck Berry type person with equal innovative ability very well could have existed without actually influencing anyone or anything, but we don’t feel we are missing out on anything.

There is simply no telling what implications would have happened through the course of time had Chuck Berry not pioneered his corner of the musical universe, but, unless you believe in fate (which clearly the creators of “Back to the Future” don’t), all our lives would be drastically different in some way, maybe for the better, and maybe not, and luckily, we will never know. The moral of the story is simple: If you find yourself back in 1955 and someone asks you to play a song at a high school dance, pick one from a band that doesn’t matter like Nickelback or someone.

It's Not Science, It's Love

I know exactly one universal fact that will never change: there is no logical reason for anything that happens. Broad? Yes. Concise? Absolutely. Inaccurate? Most likely, but in my experience, logic has no place in reason. Let’s take a step back: When an object is dropped, it will fall to the ground. When water becomes very cold, it will freeze. When Yo-Yo Ma picks up a cello, he will rock in a way you never thought classical music could rock. These events do not require logic.

But when trying to rationalize why LaBron James signed with the Miami Heat, or why Lady Gaga is so popular in the gay community, or why some people think Dane Cook is funny, there is simply no logical rationale. Realizing of course this is not a negative trait at all, it is simply a null set which transcends explanation. If you asked 100 gay men why they like Lady Gaga you would receive a different answer almost 100% of the time including responses along the lines of “I don’t like Lady Gaga” at least 20-30% of the time if not more. Why is this? Because there is no concrete universal answer. If you asked 100 sports analysts about LaBron’s Miami move each will give you a separate and unique reaction, but that is because there is no definitive, all encompassing explanation. This is a fact of life that has consistently proven true time and time again. There is no universal logic, so logic is null, and therefore nothing matters.

So I joined a dating website. Why? For exactly no reason what-so-ever. Literally. I am not lonely. I work in theatre and meet very attractive and usually single women on a regular basis. I have no interest in meeting any of the women I find on a dating website. I have been on the site exactly 3 times and have never contacted nor been contacted by any members. And I sure didn't pay a subscription fee. I joined a dating site for no other reason than to join a dating site; to see what the future, or at the very least, the present, of internet dating was about.

The internet age and I grew up together. I remember getting my first dial-up modem for our home computer and signing up for a subscription to America Online when I was about 10. I vividly recall the rise of the “chat room predator” paranoia among America’s parents. Every week there seemed to be new stories on the news about a 50+ man posing as someone else and luring 12 year old girls away from home. This was a time when seeing the typed phrase “I want 2 meet you” was the single most horrifying thing a parent could ever see on a computer screen. The idea that anyone would pay money to get together with other people they met on the internet was absolutely unheard of.

But as a much wiser man than I once said “The times they are a-changing.” Culture and experience evolved, and online dating became one of the biggest and most prominent online industries of the last 20 years even edging out internet pornography. Yes, Americans spend more money on virtual dating (an average of $239 per person per year) than they do on porn. Take that Dateline NBC.

In this country an estimated 40 million people are currently involved in some sort of cyber dating service. With 20 million registered members, eHarmony.com tops the list of sites. Almost 53% of online daters (who will henceforth be referred to as eDaters) are adult men, and the average age is 48.

Culture evolves just as nature evolves. What was once unknown and forbidden territory now becomes commonplace. We, as people, do not run scared from the new and unknown, we embrace it, we learn from it, we profit from it, and then we exploit it. With cultural acceptance comes cultural exploitation. Like any industry who’s success depends entirely on a nameless faceless consumer population, and especially any industry who’s end result is seeing someone else naked: we lie. We lie a lot.

It is easy to find data about the most common lies people tell about themselves on dating websites. A quick Google search with wield dozens of sites about the biggest lies told and how to spot a lie. It is as though the dishonesty of eDating is equally as accepted as eDating itself. The lies are statistically measured, and the results are to be expected: Men lie most about their age, height, and income, women lie most about their weight, physical stature, and age. It seems obvious why people would lie about themselves: the more attractive (physically or otherwise) I make myself the more messages of interest I will receive from the opposite sex. However, logic has no place in reason.

By a resounding majority, people of both sexes will say that honesty or trust is the most important part of a successful relationship. The second most important thing is communication. So let’s review: of the roughly 70% of people surveyed by Topdatingtips.com who said they would try eDating, where lying and dishonesty is an accepted practice and connections are made through individuals silently browsing two-dimensional profiles alone before sending an e-mail to a person of interest, most would count honesty and strong communication as the two most important aspects they look for when establishing a relationship. Logic has no place in reason.

Now, skipping past the obvious conclusion that any and all lies about one’s physicak appearance will be immediately debunked upon the initial meeting of the two eDaters, the stats on eRelationship successes are fascinating. It is like dating on crystal meth. eHarmony claims that connections have led to as many as 236 members being married each day (though little evidence supports this claim, looks like members aren’t the only ones lying about themselves). A recently survey found that 30% of female eDaters has slept with a man they met online on the first meeting; 80% of whom did not use any form of protection. If that sounds like a quick turn-around, how about the fact that the average eCourtship leading to marriage is approximately 18.5 months compared to 42 months for those of us who date the old-fashioned way? This all from an industry built on that which was everyone’s biggest fear 20 years ago.

There is no question that the internet has changed the way mankind communicates more than any other tool since the invention of the telephone. My generation saw the rise of AIM, e-mail, Napster, Facebook, Myspace, Facebook again, Craigslist, E-bay, YouTube, Pandora, Chatroulette, and the list goes on and on. The internet has changed the way we talk to friends and family, the way we buy and sell goods, the way we watch television and movies, the way we listen to and acquire music. why shouldn’t dating be next?

The internet has not only changed how we do things, but it changed us as well. Shy kids who were too terrified to call a member of the opposite sex (or same sex as it were) were able to freely eChat well into the night via AIM without even thinking twice. They actually became more social by sitting silently alone in a dark room at a computer. We became a more connected society, but we became a more passive society as well. Calling someone on the phone became unnecessary, even too aggressive compared to IMing someone. Why confront someone in person when you can simply send them an e-mail? Why go to the store when you can buy anything you need from Amazon.com and have it shipped right to you? And now with eDating, the biggest obstacle has been conquered. Too timid to go out and meet people? Too shy to ask someone out on a date? Just sign-up for eHarmony and your problems are solved, just let eHarmony do the heavy lifting for you. They have set up a way to passively ask out and passively accept or reject anyone you want. We are slowly moving towards a society where no one has to vocally say anything to anyone at all. The internet has managed to simultaneously bring the world together and isolate everyone who embraces it. As much as some would still caution against it, eDating is not simply a part of modern society, it IS modern society, and for no other reason than because it is there. Logic has no place in reason.

Certainly, an inescapable stigma still lingers at the idea of “meeting someone online,” and the dangers of being scammed through the written word have not, in anyway decreased (many would argue the opposite to be true), but we are different now. We are better suited to recognize how to spot potential danger online. I don’t know too many people these days who click on a pop-up ad to “win a FREE iPod” or “meet sexy singles in your area” where as 10 years ago we may have been more susceptible rather than suspect.

Recently, I had a conversation with a cousin of mine who is roughly 15 years older than I and who has 2 young children. We began discussing guarding against internet predators and how she fears that she has absolutely no way to protect her children from being lured in by someone who wants to do the unthinkable to them. This is, no doubt, still a universal fear among parents, especially parents who were not born into the internet generation the way her kids were. My immediate thinking was this: rather than banning your children from going into chat rooms and conversing with strangers, try encouraging them to. Lead that charge in protecting your loved ones by embracing culture rather than retreating from it and fearing it.

When I was a kid in the 1980’s, the golden rule was simple: don’t talk to strangers. Simple, straightforward, easy to remember. If you are a stranger I am not talking to you, period, end of story. But this reasoning is flawed. Reality is much more complex than can be summed up into a four word statement. Yes, for the most part, it is a good defense for a kid to stay away from adults they don’t know, but not always. What about strangers in uniform? What about strangers of authority? What about strangers who are there to help you rather than harm you? Children need to learn that there is a big difference between a stranger with a trench coat and a stranger with a badge. There is a big difference between a rusted out 1987 Oldsmobile and a police squad car. But mostly, children need to learn that if they are in danger, they know who they can tell, and parents and families aren’t always around when something happens, and in fact usually parents and families aren’t around when something happens. There are good strangers and there are bad strangers, and the only way a child can really learn how to differentiate between the two is by learning the tell signs.

An internet chat room is like a game of poker. You can’t see the hand anyone else is holding, but if you play the game long enough you learn that there are always telling signs to know when someone is bluffing, and by learning these signs, you have a better chance at winning. Children can easily learn what signs to look out for. They can become acutely aware of what they should avoid in order to stay out of trouble. Just as I learned how to stay clear of the wrong strangers in the outside world, children can and should learn how to steer clear of danger in the cyber world without being technologically left behind. Give them the proper tools and kids can accomplish just about anything. “Teach your children well.”

Screws fall out all of the time, the world is an imperfect place, and despite statistical analysis and public polling, no universal rationale exists in the world because outliers have always and will always exist. There is a solid guarantee that 90-99% of everyone you will find on a dating website is there for the same reason you are. They are looking for love in the final refuge of the lonely, but no place on Earth or in cyberspace is 100% safe no matter how hard you try. This is a fact that everyone already knows but no one wants to accept. We want people we meet online to be honest. We want that perfect man or woman with everything we have always desired to be there waiting to be discovered by us. Of course if they are there waiting for us, we need to look our best, so we tell little fibs. We lie about how tall we are, how much we weigh, how much we drink or smoke, our religious preferences, how much money we make because we know that when we find Mr. or Ms. Right, the lies won’t matter; they will love us regardless. So there we are, sitting alone at a computer hoping the honest, trustworthy true life soulmates will fall passioantely and helplessly in love with the dishonest image of ourselves… Logic has no place in reason.