Gothamist77%

Want to find romance in NYC? Bookstores, bars and bagel shops all want to set you up.93%

By Hannah Frishberg0%

2/13/2026, 12:55:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Authority, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 28.7% saturation with 232 hits. Analysis detected 1,675 faulty-reasoning hits from 807 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 88.4% and a BS Rank of 93% (1,553 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.90% of the article peer group.

Where’s a single New Yorker to look for love in 2026? 
There are, of course, myriad dating apps, but those are increasingly gamified, expensive and, most importantly, don’t seem to work. 
There is also, of course, the analog world, formerly the only world, where, since time immemorial, humans found their mates at school, at work, at houses of worship, through mutual friends, through family, etc. 
But after a decade of swiping, a global pandemic, the rise of AI, and the decay of the world order, navigating the so-called meatspace has become much harder for many singles. 
And so, amid this fraying of the social fabric and the mating rituals of our species, many brick-and-mortar establishments are stepping in to help love-seekers connect with one another off the apps, in real time, through a host of hyper-local matchmaking shticks and events. 
Manhattan French language school Coucou NYC has instructor-led French speed-dating nights; West Village wine bar The Lavaux has weekly secret message parties (wherein participants anonymously send handwritten conversation starters to people there they’d like to meet); Bed-Stuy watering hole Paul’s has designated a bartender the Arbiter Of Love and connector of crushin’ patrons; Clinton Hill coffee shop Prima publishes personals in a paper newsletter; and a Brooklyn food co-op has singles nights where members can “flirt about produce” with their “co-op crush.” 
For the businesses, such programming is low-cost and low-risk, and for lovelorn New Yorkers  social muscles still atrophied from the pandemic and tiptoeing through the cancellation-laden minefield of making romantic gestures  it’s a blessing. 
Last year, Chinatown bookstore Yu & Me Books started the Mingles event series. 
The evenings invite patrons to come hang out at the shop, have some snacks and meet new people. 
Colored wristbands are handed out to distinguish if you’re seeking friends, lovers, or both, adding a transparency and intentionality that really helps people connect, said Yu & Me owner Lucy Yu. 
“These are probably our most popular events right now,” Yu said. 
Yu said people today are “hypervigilant, understandably” and not nearly as open to just asking for someone’s number as they may have been a decade ago. 
“There’s such a disconnect now between person to person. 
We’re in app overload, our sensory stimulation in general is shot,” she said. 
And so instead of sitting at the bar waiting for love that may be too nervous to approach them, they come to a bookstore with the intention of finding it, at an event organized around it. 
There are plenty of such events to choose from these days. 
Indeed, attendance at dating events grew by 49% in 2024 alone, according to one recent report. 
Brands have also gotten in on the trend, with leakproof underwear brands and bagel places alike looking to hook you up. 
There are dating-focused trivia event producers, a slide deck-based “matchmaking experience” and classic dating apps like Feeld all partnering with local entities ranging from bars, cafes, and bookstores to help Gotham’s lonelyhearted find love in real life. 
Amy Van Doran, a professional New York City-based matchmaker of 19 years, says “matchmaking is at an all-time busyness." 
Recently, she’s noticed the amount of matchmakers “skyrocket” both in terms of individuals and singles events. 
She blames everyone having seen the 2025 matchmaking romcom “The Materialist,” and also social awkwardness. 
“My job shouldn't exist,” said Van Doran, who also does relationship coaching. 
But “we’re all just horribly maladjusted, and so we have to have structured little games to talk to each other. 
People really do need permission to talk to each other.” 
The apps give that permission, but so do the singles events, which also offer a feeling of participating in a classic if now almost nostalgic human ritual. 
“It’s a lot easier trying to re-energize that idea of, you can still meet someone at a bar, in a somewhat traditional way,” said Gabi Mann, owner of Williamsburg’s Baba. 
The wine bar and the group Flirt Club will once again be partnering with Baba this Valentine’s Day, putting on a “crush party.” 
To kick off the events, which are posted publicly, the group uses software from the company Match.Box, which matches participants after they take a questionnaire. 
But the heart of the parties comes from the fact that most attendees are personally invited by one of the three cofounders, so “you all have one of us in common, so you already have an entry point into a conversation with someone,” which makes it easier said co-founder Parker Damato. 
In that way, the events are less a traditional singles meet up than a lusty gathering of their extended community. 
“It feels a bit like throwing a house party,” said Damato. 
And that's vital because, as with the ability to naturally meet a romantic partner in the wild, “house parties just don’t really feel like they’re a thing anymore.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.5%Hannah Frishberg: 2.6%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias4.5%This article: 2.0%Hannah Frishberg: 3.1%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias2.0%This article: 2.0%Hannah Frishberg: 5.2%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic2.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 1.7%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 2.0%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 28.7%Hannah Frishberg: 14.4%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect28.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 2.0%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 14.7%Hannah Frishberg: 2.4%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Hannah Frishberg: 5.9%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias1.4%This article: 22.8%Hannah Frishberg: 1.8%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias22.8%This article: 20.7%Hannah Frishberg: 5.5%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias20.7%This article: 5.2%Hannah Frishberg: 2.4%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias5.2%This article: 1.9%Hannah Frishberg: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error1.9%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Hannah Frishberg: 4.3%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.9%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Hannah Frishberg: 6.6%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect10.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.2%Hannah Frishberg: 2.8%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias5.2%This article: 4.2%Hannah Frishberg: 0.7%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.2%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.9%Hannah Frishberg: 5.2%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority20.9%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.8%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 3.8%Hannah Frishberg: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope3.8%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.4%Hannah Frishberg: 7.0%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization21.4%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 2.9%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 6.8%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.3%Hannah Frishberg: 2.3%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.3%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.2%Hannah Frishberg: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature4.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.6%Hannah Frishberg: 6.5%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal17.6%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 9.6%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.2%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Frishberg: 6.3%Gothamist: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

807 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.