When I heard about quirkyalone (Quirky? Is that what I am, quirky?), I pretty immediately went to check it out. I thought the premise was okay, but I prefer using "premise" to "concept" - 'premise' to me feels more like they had potential and really blew it. First of all, yeah, the name is bad. Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that is gonna be defined by its name, and it just leaves too much to interpretation for the worse. So first, am I quirky? How do I know if I'm quirky? It means I have quirks. I guess, maybe. But everybody has quirks. Idiosyncracies? sure. Out-and-out dysfunctions? If you're dysfunctional, can you downgrade that description to "quirky" for the purpose of joining this club? Am I quirky because I'm alone, or am I alone because I'm quirky?

At the time (still on the first sitting during which I'd discovered the thing), I went through a lot of the website's bulletin boards, thesis statements, and definitions, and found a whole lot of nonsense. People using the phrase "identifying as quirkyalone" rather than "identifying with," not a grammatical problem but one of creation of perception. It's one thing to be interested in an idea posed by someone else about how some people don't seem to fit into the general social mold, and another entirely - a bad one - to decide that it's a major personality type and the one for you. I myself have been "quirky," which I suppose just means varying levels of crazy, for a long while, and alone for a long while too. Do I "identify as" quirkyalone? Of course not. Did I feel that I was this particular personality-type before I heard it described as "quirkyalone"? Absolutely not. Yes, quirky, yes, alone. Quirkyalones are supposed to be proud of or happy with their solitude, and certainly at times I have been that. They are claimed to be more willing to be alone than to engage in any relationship that is less than ideal, and I have done that too, quite a lot. There's already a word for that; it's "unsuccessful." Everyone is looking for the best possible relationship, even those dismissively referred to by QA as 'serial monogamists,' of whom the most condemning difference from the quirkyalone is that they are functional with others, likeable and liked, and have more realistic ideas of how long relationships tend to last. Apparently the QAs like to paint themselves as true romantics, believers in true love and holding out for perfection, and I haven't had any truck with those concepts for a loooong time. I'm not down with condeming the serial monogamists. So a guy gets with a lot of girls. So what? I like a lot of girls, and I mean a LOT of girls. Am I above getting with them? Just the opposite. Would I get with a lot of girls if that were the way the cards had worked out for me? Probably so. Does that willingness make me less quirky? I don't see it. So the Quirkyalones aren't averse to relationships; they want relationships, sometimes very badly, and just want you to believe they're holding out for the ideal ones. In other words, they are human beings who have failed, to date, to date. I'm sorry, that sentence is a little too cute. They are people who have failed to find the relationships they want. There's a word for that too: "failures." Don't condemn me too harshly as condemning them too harshly. I'm not calling them bad people or losers. I am speaking scientifically: these people are romantic failures. If they want to be high and mighty and prudish, and state from their...

Read the rest of the review!

Topics: websites