In Date Lab Rat, Anna Bank (editor-in-chief, hopeless romantic) bravely experiments on herself with each week’s installment of the Washington Post’s Date Lab, where the Post tries–and often fails–to fix up applicants.
Looks like the Date Lab team’s strong showing last week was just dumb luck after all. This week’s installment is a complete flop, both in terms of the duo’s romantic prospects and the amount of enjoyment you’ll get from reading it — it’s pretty much a tutorial on how not to set up a successful blind date. But then, that’s why I’m here.
First of all, I don’t know if Date Lab is running low on applicants or if the Post‘s matchmaking team overestimated the daters’ appeal. He thinks he has a good sense of humor (who doesn’t?); she says she’s D.C. because she gets “annoyed by tourists who don’t stand on the right when going down Metro escalators” (more like she’s D.C. because she sounds like a witch in a major paper). There doesn’t seem to be anything in either of their questionnaire answers to suggest that they would make a particularly good pair, other than her stated preference for black guys, and that’s not much to go on.
Unsurprisingly, the sparks don’t fly: she’s not attracted to him, he thinks it’s lame that she doesn’t want to order free wine , she freaks out when he puts his arm around her for the photo. He’s nice enough to give the date a 3 out of 5, while she returns the volley with a damning (and weirdly specific) 1.9.
Rating: I’m sure this could be worse somehow. There were no acts of physical violence or outright psychological warfare, but after last week’s turnaround, DL slump is back. I’d give it a 1.
Chances of Success: Are negative numbers allowed?