Date Lab Rat: So much for their happy ending
Sorry about last week’s absence, folks. Today’s a great day to get back in the game, though, because this week’s Date Lab raises an interesting question about the Post team’s Date Lab editing etiquette.
The daters both seem likable enough, although he’s definitely funnier than she is (his morning routine and dream date: “Watch a YouTube video of a baby panda sneezing” and “A ponytailed second-grade teacher with a political-button collection;” hers: “Check my email” and “A tall, dark and handsome diplomat.”) Nonetheless, they enjoy their evening together, chatting about Camus and mutual friends (of theirs, not the author’s.) They even grab a post-dinner drink and both rate the date a 5.
Sounds good, right? Just pleasant enough to leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling before a long Sunday of studying. But the follow-up reveals that “The two met up a few more times, but then ‘things just kind of fizzled.'” It got me wondering — do we always need that extra morning-after comment?
Any relationship is bound to fizzle eventually if you follow it long enough (I doubt many DL couples end up married), so why not cut out while you’re still ahead? Then again, this is a newspaper, and I suppose it’s a question of journalistic integrity to include all the information you’ve got. Sigh.
Rating: 4. Despite the downer ending, you don’t have to feel sorry for anyone, which is nice, and the date itself was a fun read.
Chances of Success: 2. These two both sound popular enough not to recycle if it didn’t work out the first time.