But — as if that’s not enough — the newest series of Chemistry.com commercials, dubbed on YouTube as “Chemistry.com Vows,” presents two people mimicking wedding-ceremony protocol and normalizes the matrimaniacal tendencies of American culture.

I’ve used the above video as a prime example because, for one, it creeps me out. The woman begins,

I vow never to wear a flannel nightgown

And the man replies (with a creepy smirk):

Can you just make that, I vow never to wear a nightgown?

Eew – and that’s “chemistry”?! (not to mention: what, exactly, is wrong with flannel nightgowns — sheesh!)

But secondly, this video — and, indeed, the whole series — assumes that the goal of dating, even of relationship-making, is to make commitments that imitate heterosexual marriage rituals (because the goal is, eventually, marriage … right?!).

And, perhaps even more problematically, the series assumes that the “joy” of being in a relationship is to make compromises and to “fit in” with “normal” (non-flannel-pajama-wearing) society. In fact, all four of the Chemistry.com “Vow” ads that I found online pit one partner against the other, having one partner “vow” that he/she will “get over” (or at least conceal) the other person’s flaws. Take, for example, the “Subway” commercial:

And the (snarkier) “Gay” commercial (kudos to Chemistry, though, for at least matching same-sex couples):

Or, as in the flannel-pajama commercial above, one member of the couple agrees to compromise in order to make the relationship “work,” as in the “Sushi” commercial:

I understand and agree that good relationships will inevitably require compromise and even “dealing” with tastes that may not match your own. But why this push to make compromise and “putting up with” others — not to mention the push toward “serious” marriage-like commitment — the central tenet of what dating’s all about?

One of the reasons I’m single is because, in my last relationship, my partner was willing to put up with ALL of my flaws, and we had to “work” at every aspect of our relationship. He even said that if we ever got married, he thought we should see a relationship counselor regularly — just to make sure things “worked”! I couldn’t understand why we had to have this mindset; and eventually, I guess I just grew tired of having to constantly appreciate all the compromises he was willing to (and did) make for me (I suppose that all that appreciation on my end began to feel like “work”).

So, copious readers, what’s the deal with the rhetoric of “work” in relation to dating and relationships? I’ve written about this question previously in relation to Laura Kipnis’s compelling and polemical book, Against Love, and I’m interested in how “work” has become a “normal” aspect of what we expect when it comes to being “in love” and maintaining intimate relationships.

– L

p.s. I searched and searched for a Zyrtec commercial that I just KNOW used the same “Vow” theme — but I can’t find it anywhere online. Does anyone know what I’m talking about? I found the theme even more bizarre in the context of an allergy medication!

I just want to take a moment to THANK YOU for writing so many fantastic and funny posts for our awesome Onely blog. The ones you wrote this week were sharp and hilarious, as always. We’d been discussing the one about chemistry.com since you checked our inbox and read that bizarro email and immediately called me to sound the alarm. Your post made me laugh so hard (J is not for Jerk!!! HA) – you have such a skill with wit and acuity - I’ve told you before, and I’ll tell you again, I’m completely jealous (but in a good way)!

And I’m glad you decided to call out all those NUT-SUCKERS who keep googling nut-sucking and find your nut-sucking post instead of whatever it is they imagine they’ll find.

We’ve been writing together for about four months now, and I want you to know — I’m having so much fun! I am completely thrilled that you were up for making this crazy idea work. Most of all, of course, I am grateful for this partnership, which I feel has made our friendship even more interesting and satisfying than it already was.

Awwwwwww,

from your fave co-blogger,

L

Readers: Post love letters to your favorite single friends here!! (and no, I’m not implying that you should write to us, though you may, of course! )

“Dear Onely,” he says, “I noticed that your blog discusses the challenges that single women go through in today’s hectic world of dating.” Oh, J, you’re so sensitive! Are you available?

“This week,” J tells us, “Chemistry.com is going to make it a little easier.” Oh, J, do you really mean it? Are you going to petition Congress to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act? Are you going to demand that airlines and insurance companies and other corporations charge singles the same as couples? Will you publicize the fact that married men earn more than single men?  Encourage singles, an untapped voter demographic,  to get out and participate in the upcoming November election?

Uh, not so much. This is how J tells us that he will make it easier for singles:

It’s National Singles Week, so anyone who visits http://www.chemistry.com/offer/7daysfree?bannerid=2008972 this week (9/22-9/27) will receive a free seven-day membership to Chemistry.com.

That’s right, Copious Readership, the way to fight singlism is to not be single anymore!

I know what happened: J did not read our blog before soliciting Onely. Either that, or we did not make our mission statement clear on our front page. (Copious Readership, are we clear?) J only saw that we write about singlehood, and then he went into autopilot. Many, many, many people–even singles themselves–assume that all singles aspire and should aspire to couplehood. J saw the word “single” and assumed the same.  Granted, he works for chemistry.com, which would probably brainwash anyone into a couplecentric mindset.

Also granted, it’s not always easy being single. But we should find ways to make life easier for singles, not turn them into couples (normalizing them to heteronormative standards).

Chemistry.com’s “Come As You Are” mantra has created a destination that attracts millions of diverse and creative people who are looking for the kind of relationship that fits their needs and their life-philosophy – whether it’s a marriage, long-term commitment, or romance.

I think your readers would be interested in learning about this free trial that Chemistry.com is offering. Please let me know if I can answer any questions or if I can do anything to help.

Whatcha think, readers? Are you interested in learning about this free trial? If you’re reading a blog about singles, then you must be interested in becoming a couple, right? Now, nothing against online dating sites–they can be a fine resource. You can date and still be Onely, of course! In the future I might use an online dating site, if I feel there’s room for it in my life, but I sure won’t be using chemistry.com, because I can hold a grudge like no one’s business. 

“National Singles Week is the time of year that the singles across the country receive the recognition they deserve,” said Mandy Ginsberg, senior vice president and general manager of Chemistry.com. “We are proud to offer all singles a free seven-day membership to one of the fastest growing relationship sites in the country where anyone has the chance to find a lasting relationship.”

Whaaaaaaaaaaa?????

To be fair, upon closer inspection of the first two pages of my Google search results, I see that jdatersanonymous, dating-weblog, and doctorlovecoach all are cashing in on National Singles Week. 

People, people, people! We are *celebrating* all that there is to love about being single, not trying to become unsingle! (That’s for *next* week!)

-CC