Debunking the Bar Myth

Sometimes it seems as though all I ever hear is my single friends complaining about how impossible it is to meet someone worth dating at a bar. Occasionally, I just nod along, listening to their rant about the bar scene. Other times, I try to respond with a hopeful "You'll find someone eventually!" But what I normally say to these friends is simple: you can meet people anywhere.

And that includes a bar.

I think bars get a bad rep. Sure, I have had less than delightful experiences at bars, many of which include being the recipient of unwanted affections or engaging in conversation with the annoying, over-inebriated stranger. However, to those who say that you can never meet anyone worth dating at a bar, I must ask this: do you go to bars? And subsequently, are you worth dating?

If you answered yes to the above questions, then all I ask is that you consider that perhaps if you frequent bars and are a decent, dateable human being, then there must be a chance that there are other people at bars just like you -- also decent and dateable. Shocking revelation, I know.

The thing is, it really is a matter of getting to know people as best as you can, given the circumstances and the location. Not all bars are created equal, of course, but ultimately, all you can do is strike up a conversation, learn a little bit about the other person, and give them a chance. So they might not end up being a potential match. So what? You're at a bar -- presumably with friends, as opposed to venturing out alone -- so go hang out with your friends and let it go.

At the same time, completely dismissing someone wanting to strike up a conversation based on bar-prejudice alone could mean missing out on someone interesting. For as many questionable interactions I've had with people at bars, I've had twice as many engaging and enjoyable ones. I've met some fun and interesting people at bars -- some of which I am still friends with today. TRUTH.

I think back to my favorite success story, which is not mine personally, but a friend's: we girls were out one night, and my friend ended up meeting a guy at a bar. Personally, I think the rest of us girls were doubtful about their interaction, considering the amount of alcohol flowing; however, something must have clicked between my friend and this guy. They exchanged numbers, went on a first date, and come to find out: he's a gentleman, a volunteer with the Boys & Girls Club, has a good job, and an apartment. Yes, people, he is the quintessential nice guy and my friend met him AT A BAR.

And that is not some sort of miracle. It can happen to you too. Give bars a chance. At the very least, you'll get a good cocktail out of it, right?

Kim K. to Kover Vogue?

People are talking. What are they saying, exactly? Well, if you've heard anything from the rumor mill or overheard your regular neighborhood fashion gossip, then perhaps you know that there's speculation that Kim Kardashian could be Vogue's next cover girl.

*GASP* I know. The reality TV tartlet, supposedly with the help of her eager fiancé Sir Kanye West, may perhaps grace the superior fashion glossy's cover in the near future, if these rumors are true. And it seems as though everyone has an opinion -- including yours truly.

So, since you were wondering, I'm sure, what exactly do I think about the whole potential fiasco? (As if dubbing it a fiasco doesn't tell you enough as it is...) Well, I think there are a lot of factors that play into a potential Kim K. cover that could make it both good and bad. I'm going to discuss three.

First off, let's discuss one of the arguments I've heard so far: that Vogue is just giving the people what they want; Kim is a major celebrity and it's the public's interest in her that has prompted her cover girl status. Ultimately, this argument blames the public -- that we have made her important and if we wanted her to go away, it is our job, as the media consumers, to just say no!

While I think there's some truth in that, I also think that argument shows only one side of the complicated circus that is the media-public relationship. Yes, the masses have spoken, and they watch  all of Kim's shows, read other magazines with her bodacious bod on the cover, and probably buy her perfume and whatever else she sells at Sears. However, the media makes a conscious decision to give her those television shows, put her on their magazine covers, and write stories about her. When E! news decides to do a special on Kim, or if UsWeekly features a "tell-all" as their major headlining story, they are telling us that Kim is worthy of discussion -- that she is important. The media is setting the agenda, making Kim salient, and therefore, crafting her celebrity. With Kim's image over-saturating the media market, a passive media consumer assumes she has some sort of cultural value. 

Granted, people could stop watching her TV shows, stop buying magazines with her on the cover, and stop buying all of her products as promoted in her advertisements. But they don't, and this then fuels the need for more episodes, magazine covers and Kim-approved products because they make money.

Which brings me to my next point: magazines need to sell because magazines need to make money. If Kim is a tried-and-true cover success, then perhaps Vogue is just being smart. If you've ever waited in line at a grocery store (or really, any store that sells magazines for that matter) then you've seen Kim on probably half of the magazine covers. The girl might not actually be news-worthy, but by golly, the magazines make her news-worthy, and her face sells. Now, I don't have any statistics supporting or refuting the influence of Kim covers on your purchasing decisions, but the fact of the matter is: she is always on a magazine cover. There must be a reason why she is: people must buy those magazines. And if that's the case, then Vogue is going to appeal to all of those people who have purchased Kim-covered magazines in the past, and it's going to succeed in making money.

But then, the natural question is: well, what about all of those people who already purchase Vogue? Does Vogue's *speculated* choice of Kim as a cover girl align with Vogue's current demographic? This is something about which I have no idea. Certainly, Vogue is called the "Fashion Bible" for a reason -- it is one of the most prestigious fashion magazines. It is an institution. For goodness sake, Carrie Bradshaw chose Vogue in lieu of food because "it fed [her] more." 

On the one hand, it might seem as though Vogue is abandoning its current readership. These are sophisticated women. These are women who get their news from more than just E!. Could it be that Vogue is "selling out" and giving in to this talent-less celebrity culture, forsaking art, culture, and fashion for a woman whose career was built on a sex-tape? Could it be that they are no longer the institution they once were?

Well, clearly the fact that this is a controversy only serves to prove that they are still as culturally important and prestigious as ever -- or else no one would care who graced the cover. However, if Vogue does choose to feature Kim as their next cover girl, I think it makes a huge cultural statement. Perhaps Vogue is simply aligning itself with a new conceptualization of the "celebrity." Though Kim's career had an infamous start, she has developed her own empire -- a modern businesswoman, if you will (though that is still debatable).

And we must consider this: it was Wintour who revolutionized the fashion mag cover in the first place, replacing model-dominated covers for covers with actors/actresses and singers. She has proven her prowess in shaping the industry, and maybe this is just another strategic move in redefining the celebrity and fashion landscape. Vogue could be headed in a new direction, keeping up with our changing cultural and societal values.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

The Need for "Creeping"

I had a moment a few weeks ago when I was in my communication theory class amidst discussion of social media and its role in uncertainty reduction theory. Some might call this an "aha" moment. I would call it "that moment where the practical intersects with the theoretical" -- where the stuff normally reserved for academics and large, overpriced books finds its way into your life and is suddenly applicable. I finally realized why people engage in this activity we so fondly and aptly label "creeping'" -- that is, "Facebook creeping."

When you consider the "Facebook creeping" phenomenon, the first thought that probably comes to mind is "stalker." The second thought is probably, "Except for me... Because I do it," which is a more accurate observation. Not all who wander around the intricate web that is Facebook are lost. No, no. In fact, more than anything, they are just giving into their intrinsic need to gather information about others. Let me drop some knowledge on ya.

You see, in the context of communication, humans gather information about others (acquaintances, potential love interests, coworkers, etc.) because they seek to reduce uncertainty about those "others", whoever they may be. A certain Mr. Berger developed this concept, which, in a very, very small nutshell, hammers down to the fact that people want to be able to predict the behaviors of others because this enables them to then build a relationship (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011). Once solely confined to face-to-face interactions, the development of the Internet, and subsequently, social media, has led to people venturing online to reduce uncertainty rather than relying on their in-person interactions, observations, and overall questionings.

Facebook, therefore, is the perfect medium on which to pursue this basic need of ours. Between the thousands of photographs, incessant posting, and chat capabilities, Facebook's features end up being an important tool in reducing uncertainty about others. Consider this: you meet a cutie at a bar, have zero mutual friends, and end the night knowing only his/her first and last name. Whether you care to admit it or not, you'll probably look up this bar fly on Facebook (or at least one other social networking site) and immediately sift through his/her interests, photographs, posts, and mutual friend list. You might even resort to Facebook messaging this person and having an online sober chat, much unlike your initial interaction. As you use your sleuth skills, you might ask yourself: Does this person constantly post depressing statuses about how his/her life sucks? Are all of this person's photographs of drunken escapades and borderline inappropriate revelries? Is your single mutual friend that one douchie person you knew from high school? What does that douchie person you knew from high school say about this person? Immediately, we began to create a picture of who this person is, and use this information in order to predict that person's behavior, and ultimately, decide whether to build a relationship with this person, or, in some instances, further a relationship with this person. (Hopefully not, if you actually met a person like this...)

Of course, there will always be the same argument that comes up when we discuss the transition from offline interactions to online interactions: inevitably, things could get lost in translation, be misrepresented, or just ultimately, lack many of the nonverbal forms of communication necessary to more-completely get one's point across -- and these are all valid points. Yet, one could argue (and there is research to back this up) that the overload of information that social media sites (especially Facebook) provides us with sometimes serve to make up for the lack of nonverbal communication or the possibility for misrepresentation.

Regardless, Facebook creepin' is not a perfect science, nor is it anywhere close to being the perfect and single representation of a human being -- especially considering that we humans do not exist solely on our beloved Interwebs. We do exist offline, in real life. However, at least there is some sort of reason behind our inclination to "creep," and maybe next time, we might wear that "creep" badge with pride.

Or not.

References:

Littlejohn, S.W., & Foss, K.A. (2011) The Conversation. In Theories of Human Communication (10th ed.) (pp.180-182). Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.