The Observer reports on…

US research suggesting the ‘marriageable pool’ of men in some cities is now dangerously low given the number of young men in prison, on drugs or on welfare. [...] ‘One of the American academics who studies the problem of young people in the US, William Julius Wilson, has got a theory that the marriageable pool of young men in some American cities, once you think of the guys who are in prison … or are unemployable, is very small.’ “

Why do I blog this? It seems that the Conservative Party thinks that the same thing may be happening in the British underclass. If so, then among certain groups in the UK, marriageable men may once again be at a premium. Which might be thought to work to the advantage of some, until you consider that our underclass simply doesn’t value marriage anyway — because it’s been systematically devalued (both financially and otherwise).

In today’s Times newspaper…

“Online dating seems too mechanical and appears to require engagement with people determined to misinform”

Incredible. In November Match.com re-billed my credit card for a whole year, without asking me for permission. Now, my membership reads, after log-in…

“You are not a current subscriber.”

… yet my subscription should run until November 2008.

I rather suspect this is because my credit-card details have just expired (expiry date of 05/08 on the old card), and their system auto-expires a member when they no longer have a card that Match can charge at their whim?

Lads — never ever use Match.com as a dating site. If you do, never pay with a card that can be re-billed. If you’re serious about online dating in the UK, read my blog to learn about Match.com.

The Atlantic has a long, perceptive and honest article on what might be termed ‘the marriage conundrum of the modern woman’ in the English-speaking world.

Just a final remark for this blog. I thought I had cancelled the Match.com three-month trial. Yet in October, seven months after the trail finished, Match.com re-billed my credit card! For a whole year! Bastards! Here’s a tip; change your credit-card details to some gobble-de-gook after you’ve signed up for a trial, so they’ll find it more difficult to engage in their notorious and probably legally-dubious re-billing practices. Better; don’t use Match.com at all.

Well, not having found a woman to spend my cash on (see the rest of the blog for details), I decided to buy a new home. I’m happy to say that on Thursday I exchanged contracts on a brand-new £110k canal-side flat, located in a leafy nook less than a mile from the main train station.

Oh blimey; the things the taxpayer pays for, eh? We’ve been funding a study that says that “Women fall for men who look like dad”. Eeww.

The Guardian on the hazards of Facebook dating.

New research shows that committed couples don’t have to live in the same space to get on well. In fact, it may help to live apart.

Well, the verdict on my Match.com experience? One month after my three-month subscription expired, I can generally say that it’s been a waste of time and money. Kudos to Match.com, though, for not continuing to bill me like some dating companies might have done, and for ending the subscription promptly and with no hassle. [ Update: I was wrong - there was nearly £70 of legally-dubious re-billing after the end of the sub! ] But Match.com really needs to stop displaying women on site searches long after they’ve become inactive, or find some better way of weeding people out who are not likely to respond or who just signed up for a drunken laugh (of which there seemed to be a few, judging from the profiles they wrote). Building up a huge bank of inactive or uncommitted people is a form of ‘misleading advertising’, in a way.

But who did I find that was “a genuine possible”? One woman a long way off, down in the Cotswolds and still in a relationship. We chatted by e-mail but it went nowhere, and she probably never intend it to. Another woman who said she was a psychologist – but whom I soon suspected of being a patient rather than a doctor. One woman near me who demanded I phone her on her mobile immediately, which rather spooked me. And that was about it. There were about eight lovely-looking women of my age near me, but either they never replied or (two) said they had already ‘found someone’.

Oh, and I found out that women will never ever “make the first move” on Match.com, at least in the UK and in my age group. I can only imagine that this is because there are far more active men than active women on these dating sites, and the women get bombarded with e-mail. Which is probably the best strategy for men joining Match.com – just sent a polite and short introductory e-mail to every woman within 50 miles, regardless of profile compatibility or photo. That way you’ll at least have contacted all genuinely active women (which out of perhaps 200, might be 35 or so, at an educated guess).

So, what now? Well, I’m not sure, but this blog will stay up for a while. Feel free to have a look at my photo and leave a comment if you want to get in touch. I’m in Stoke-on-Trent, in the English Midlands.