Columnist Clare Palo discusses how TIME’s ‘Textual Chemistry’ rings true in college dating.
I haven't had a lot of luck with Tinder. Or maybe, Tinder hasn’t had a lot of luck with me. Last spring, my curiosity got the best of me, and I downloaded the Tinder app. It was an effort to seem more like a millennial dater when I had always been just the opposite.
My first impression was that swiping through all these candidates was creepy, not to mention tiring. I felt like I was online shopping, browsing Zara’s website and looking for a new sweater. Online shopping already gives me anxiety: What if the shoes don’t fit, and I have to send them back? How was I supposed to ‘swipe right’ on a person when all they had was a blurry Facebook profile photo? What was the messaging protocol? Do I message first?
I would much rather approach someone at a party, or really anywhere else, besides this online hookup vortex. You can call me old-fashioned, but I like to meet people organically.
But yet, I love texting. Eliana Dockterman’s “How ‘Textual Chemistry’ Is Changing Dating” is the dating culture article we’ve all been waiting for. She explains why it induces panic when someone doesn’t text you back within 20 minutes and why a simple “OK” reply won’t suffice as an adequate answer. We’ve been conditioned to a textual connection.
She explains that “texting has become not only a means of seduction, but also the foundation upon which a future might be built. Whether a witty repartee is established in those first few messages on Tinder or Bumble could be the first step to a lasting relationship.”
However, it can be the opposite for me. If later I learn the chemistry is there, but the person isn't a good texter, it can be a bit of a letdown. Dockterman interviewed young women who have ended relationships because their tech-emistry wasn’t compatible. I learned to live with it. I taught myself that everyone is busy and doesn’t like writing out text novellas or live-texting an awards show with me like my best friends do.
Dockterman’s piece resonated with me and many people I know because it’s a quirk that people my age struggle with but don’t discuss. She even notes that if it is addressed, it can be very controversial — not everyone agrees on the texting “guidelines” but always thinks their belief is the better one.
Being romantically congruent has ventured beyond in-person communication; it’s now dictated by a whole online realm in which every like, emoji or double-text can make or break whether you’ll ever see the person again.
{{tncms-asset app="editorial" id="b144bc20-cdf0-11e5-b73b-a743d3d8a749"}}
But, when you find that perfect blend, Docktermna says, “it’s kind of magical when it happens: finding someone who understands the way you communicate, whether it be in person or over text. Like the Prince finally matching Cinderella to her glass slipper — except the glass slipper is an emoji, and the Prince and Cinderella haven’t actually ever seen each other, just profile pictures of each other.”
As you contemplate online dating, remember that being a bad texter might not necessarily throw you out of the game, but being a good texter may make you a more viable contender. It’s a millennial world, and we’re just texting in it.
Clare Palo is a senior studying journalism and digital content director for The Post. What do you think about double-texting? Tweet her @clarepalo or email her at cp954211@ohio.edu.
