<![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> Facebook, hell. Adult FriendFinder is how old? Old school, fer shure. And *they* have a more sophisticated code.

LAS

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> @Aph:

Hey Aph,

Just an FYI there are plenty of gay people on Engage. Engage does not discriminate. Sign up on the site and see for yourself.

cheers,
william.hall at engage dot com
art director
engage.com




williamhall

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> @valleymonger What happens to the people whose famewhoring depends on a bubble?

CyndyA

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> to william.hall at engage dot com,

it's unclear on your answer on the valleywag.com blog whether engage.com is actually working on correcting this discriminating shortcoming.

i think you should be clearer on this, and indicate whether valleywag.com is working on fixing this.

most other dating sites do have a setting for "bisexual". for example, if i prefer to date bisexual women, i can indicate that on sites like okcupid.com .

as posted on [www.sarahdopp.com] , toggling the switch is not an acceptable / viable solution. especially, it does NOT work if you are searching for bisexual partners!

and by the way, your email william.hall at engage dot com is NOT functionning: User unknown in local recipient table!

loupiote

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> Its just their niche market man!
eHarm has the christians
Chemistry has the rejects
Engage has the fag haters.

Aph

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> btw, the party was ok, full of this new (?) gang of web 2.0 posh/snob people that think the world is only what they see/talk about.

So nice to see young people unknowingly repeating what happened in the same city back in 98/99... I only wonder how their fall will be (wait and see).

valleymonger

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> Fortunately for we bi men, we've NEVER been in style. It's so nice to not have to care about what people think of you.

SFJoe

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> What? No conservative blogger drop-down selection? Forget it.

Fake Jimbo Wales

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> great site feedback melissa, thanks!

but don't let one little drop down menu fool you...bisexual people are totally welcome on Engage.

yes currently we do require a choice on sign up, BUT once inside the site on the "about you" tab you can toggle back and forth and switch hit all you like. :)

i won't go into the boring details about this decision, but it certainly wasn't meant to discriminate. It was purely a deadline driven decision. turns out there is a LOT of code behind adding that last choice...who knew?

thanks again for the feedback! we are open to all suggestions, keep them coming.

cheers,
william.hall at engage dot com
art director
engage.com

williamhall

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> Oh! the embedded bitterness...

@raincoaster, that explains EVERYTHING!

sarahdopp

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> @sarahdopp: Sounds like it was set up by married people who got cheated on by their bisexual spouses.

Okay, Valleywag: any suspects?

raincoaster

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> @Nick Douglas: And only limited choices for those in an open relationship.

sample032

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> Nick makes a good point -- your options are:
- Single (never married)
- In a Relationship
- Divorced
- Separated
- Widowed
- Engaged

... and they tell you that if you're in a relationship, they won't set you up with anyone.

There's no grey area between single and relationship, but there are FOUR LEVELS of grey area relating to marriage.

Such strange priorities...

sarahdopp

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> And no love for the "it's complicated"s.

Nick Douglas

]]> <![CDATA["Love 2.0" tonight, but not for girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys]]> "Bisexuality may have gone out of style in the '70s..."

You'd never know this by looking at college girls, today. "Trendsbians" my ass.

sample032

]]>