Ok I was doing that thing on tinder where you quick swipe right(yes) or left (no) and was clearly swiping to fast because just as I swiped left on someone I noticed that they were holding a meh bubba mug.
@cinoclav hey why not. It is Friday night. Most of my friends are married and with spouses or oddly a lot of my friends are on vacations this week. I am drinking wine and watching star wars for the 5 million time
I hope I’m not crossing a line here, but maybe I can break the ice… If mehtizens want to swipe right on @CaptAmehrican, the whisper icon is right up there on the line just above this post. Bring your best Bubba mug photos (probably with pants on at this point) and maybe you can help spice up her Friday night!
Yes but it is where men are. I want to find a relationship but I also want to get laid again this century.
If I were wanting to date, I don’t think I’d use tinder or similar no matter what. I personally know of no one who “found someone that matters” there and it all worked out well. I have heard a number of bad/funny/humiliating stories.
But it must work for some people? Dunno.
I have this attitude that dating only really works when either you already know someone, or someone you know already knows that person. Or if you meet because you share a common life activity and interest.
The younger members of my family (20-40) seem to indicate that meeting thru friends or pastimes or (if appropriate) work is best. So far, they’ve all gotten permanent with someone.
Otherwise it’s all rolls of the dice, games, and trolling? Or people who present themselves as being serious and ready for life when they aren’t?
@CaptAmehrican Not sure about the decent relationship potential but the getting casual getting screwed potential would likely be there on some/many tall ships. Of course since many of the employees in that sector are broke, or close to it, that might be another consideration unless you plan on being the sugar mama .
One summer (home port Boston), I was on deck watch that evening (in the inner harbor at our usual dock) and I overheard several crew (and the captain) attempting to put together a list of everyone they had screwed so far that summer. I’d imagine some of those lists would be awarded 4 or 5 Pinocchios but none the less I also know they worked hard at adding to the list.
On a more serious note:
My cousin married someone he found through his local public radio’s classified ads. That source, at least, already has an initial screening device since you couldn’t post an ad unless you were a member. His test first date was to take them kayaking. If I recall correctly it took him about 20 or so tries to find someone that way. Marriage has lasted though.
I’ve whispered you something else that has too much identifying information attached to post publicly.
When my wife and I were dating, she used my phone for something once. Idk, take a picture or something. She started acting off, and was weird for about an hour before I could get out of her what was wrong.
I kept asking her what the deal was and she wouldn’t say. She finally asked, “why do you have Tender on your phone?”
Yes, Tender. Not Tinder. It’s a sous vide cooking app. I guess it’s only fair that it tried to put me in hot water.
@CaptAmehrican This week T-Mobile gave out codes for a month of Tinder Gold for $1. I have no use for them, so if you or any other (up to 3) Meh members want a code, they’re up for grabs!
I actually have pictures of myself in meh clothing (other app(s), I don’t use Turder), but I can tell you for sure that there’s no reaction to or recognition of that. It definitely does not work every time, sixty percent of the time.
And overall, contemporary dating in western swipe cultures is such a crapshoot, that even the makers of those apps have put out studies confirming that pretty much nothing ever happens through them, neither for men nor women, save for those in the top 2% of attractive people who use the apps exclusively for hooking up. Out of 2,500 likes, you’ll get 50 initial responses to messages, of which 1 will lead to a date, who will ghost you after the first meeting.
My recommendation is to not rely on the apps so much if you’re seriously trying to date (and also don’t be overweight, short, not wealthy, and/or ethnic if you’re a guy, or not breathing if you’re a girl), and talk to people in person instead. At least that way, they can’t ignore/escape from you so easily. I’m still holding out hope that one of these days, my true soul mate will notice me wearing a meh shirt in public, and start yelling “take me now!” while desperately tearing off her own clothing right then and there.
My life got 100% more peaceful when I gave up on dating. Now and then I think about hopping back in the shitpool – uh sorry, I mean dating pool – and my blood pressure goes to defcon 2.
@Thumperchick I don’t know why, but this song popped in my head, except I keep thinking of it as “mehtchmaker, mehtchmaker, make me a mensch”. I blame you.
I’ve never used online dating. I don’t live in a rural area, but such apps seem to rely on a user-base located in a densely populated metropolitan area. In fact, if I recall correctly, Tinder, or a similar app, once required users to find others only within Bluetooth-radio range, similar to Facebook, at and near its inception, requiring its users to register with a .edu domain email address.
The lessening of exclusivity with no regard to demographics, save internet connectivity, is, to me, anyway, not so good.
@eonfifty I did a significant amount of on-line dating YEARS ago with no positive results. I was on several sites and found the same group of men on each of them with a few exceptions. A large number were looking for hook-ups or women on the side. Some were the guys your mama warned you about
In the end I gave up and decided it was not worth it. If I am meant to find someone, they will show up!
@eonfifty As someone who lives in one of America’s ultra-liberal, squalor-ridden hellholes, I can tell you that the flip side of the coin is something that’s known as the paradox of choice, which in the dating world manifests itself as never acting on anything because you think that “well, this isn’t so bad, but if I got this, then surely something even better will manifest itself if I just wait a little bit longer, and…”
Women are responsible for most of this behavior (wait, hear me out, this isn’t sexist, I promise). Why? Because guys are responsible for almost 100% of the initial contact on these platforms. So the onus of “first choice” with regard to acknowledging or ignoring falls on women.
But guys are responsible for quite a bit of stupid bullshit themselves.
A friend and I rolled a fake female profile on OKC just to see what it’s like on the other side. A cute Asian girl who likes jogging, playing on her Nintendo, and looks good in a bikini, of course.
The profile received about 300 likes/messages a day. I’m not kidding. (For comparison, a fitness-focused male friend with a good amount of refined style gets about 1-2 likes a day, and maybe one message a week, if any.)
Most of the messages were just “hey”. Some were dick pics/the kind of “ey chica, papi hav fun wit u 2nite” flirting/catcalling you could only while get passing through a construction site full of illegals/GED rejects (not an attack on anyone, just another observation of a large American city). Some were real sad sacks, opening up with stuff like “I know that someone like you would probably not in a million years even notice someone like me but…” messages.
Only maybe 2-3% of the messages were decent, referencing something in the profile/making an actually humorous joke, and written well. But in my own experience, as someone who writes decent messages, only about 1-2% ever get responded to, and of that 1-2%, only maybe 10% lead to a conversation that goes beyond the first message.
Oh, and if you ever see a woman who says that she’s not there for hookups and/or says that she will ignore anyone with a topless/abs pic, that’s exactly what she’s looking for. There was actually an experiment done on this exact thing a while ago. Pass and move on. And girls: avoid like the plague any dude who mentions anything along the lines of being “a nice guy” anywhere in their profile.
Basically, online dating (and probably millennial dating in general) is a total shit-show, and the entire thing needs to be Thanos-snapped out of existence.
paradox of choice, which in the dating world manifests itself as never acting on anything because you think that "well, this isn’t so bad, but if I got this, then surely something even better will manifest itself if I just wait a little bit longer, and…”
Women are responsible for most of this behavior
Women’s are responsible for most of this conduct: True within in my observation.
But the reasons given are incorrect in my experience.
In the first place, many females are only there to window-shop, or out of curiosity. They are quite serious about looking for someone, but they are not serious about looking for someone on that platform.
In fact many females prob doubt any relationship initiated via that platform could be worth anything, even if the other party is pretty decent.
This sort of platform - or any gaming or “make it easy” approach to dating - cheapens the experience, in that in makes it less likely that a result will be worthwhile. Because of the lack of social and emotional “vetting” and lack of other other social connection factors tend to make people act in “non-serious ways”, I presume.
The potential costs of errors or bad judgment in the dating experience seem to count as far more costly and far more of a downside to females than to males.
The potential downside to meeting someone who turns out to be someone you really didn’t want to meet seem to be counted as a far higher cost to most females than to most males. Therefore, reluctance to take up any offers is expected behavior.
Every successful relationship I know of that has initiated in the last 15 years has been when people got to know each other slowly, in non-pressure situations, or where the persons already other connections. So that each had some knowledge of the other’s personality and character before dating, or had shared community expectations and acceptance. In cases where the successful relationship initiated online, the persons spent months or years developing the relationship before even meeting each other.
I don’t know of a good shortcut to this, tho personal connections do happen in unpredictable ways all the time.
In my own life, even the “strong interest at first sight” situations occurred within a community. Both parties shared common emotional and behavioral expectations and decent reputations. And we could have checked each other out more thoroughly easily enough.
Getting into a relationship, maintaining one, making it better - these are all v costly investments. Any platform that pushes the initial contact into “insta-response” means that many participants see the platform as a form of entertainment, rather than a way of meeting someone for real life involvement.
@eonfifty@f00l Hm, I agree with that, even though I think that it also has a lot to do with age/finances.
It seems that older women, or at least those that aren’t “that young anymore,” are much more intent on finding actual relationships on online dating sites than the younger ones. Young women get plenty of sexual attention, so actual relationships “can wait.”
It also explains away the phenomenon I’ve observed where women in their mid-thirties and older are much more likely to put stuff like “no hookups!” into their profiles. The younger ones don’t seem to need to mention that as much, even if it’s also something they aren’t looking for. This is also a good way to know that someone has been doing quite a bit of hooking up, by the way; those who don’t usually don’t use the term as much.
This is in line with what I’ve observed about relationships around here (i.e. ultra-liberal hellholes) in general. That is to say, the people having all the sex are not the same people who are paying for all the dinners (this applies to both genders, but is predominantly a male issue). I see a lot of hipsters walking around and holding hands with their waifus, but in private (I’ve overheard a few interesting barstool conversations), these people always complain about how much their relationships cost, how their girlfriends are “distant romantically,” etc.
Meanwhile, a couple of “player”-type friends I have are banging the 18-year-olds without paying a dime up-front (seriously, one guy I know who’s in his forties swipes left on anyone whose age doesn’t begin with a “1”). Although to be fair, most of them are also stuck with child support.
So basically, aside from the naturally beautiful and wealthy people who alternate between gym and the club scene, the dating world mostly consists of younger women with older men, and younger men and older women utterly alone.
I know that this is kind getting into “red pill” territory, which has its share of fucked-up logic and problems, but that’s how messed up the situation is these days, and why birth rates and two-parent households are nosediving so badly. To be fair, this seems to be more prevalent in big cities, and my friends in less urban environments have told me it’s not quite that bad there; more social pressure/financial need for conventional relationships, etc.
But yeah, online dating is really fucked up, and that’s why you see all these people saying they can’t find anyone (and the companies themselves putting out studies saying the very same thing). It’s just not as serious and authentic as meeting someone in the wild, which also sucks these days, because everyone always has their face buried in a phone screen. I know exactly one person who achieved a solid long-term relationship through online dating, and it took him years to find that one person, who was a somewhat traditional and sheltered girl around his own age.
Personally, I’ve mostly given up, and spend my time on work, fitness, and video games.
‾_(ツ)_/‾
@therealjrn That depends…Is he my waifu, or am I his waifu? I suppose the only way to tell will be to wait and see who takes the lead in using terrible internet acronyms like “lol” and “omg,” and posting Chad/virgin memes to discuss this serious subject.
I supposed I will prepare my webcam and Miku outfit just in case…
@f00l@therealjrn Please don’t try to rescue my soul. The amount of indulgences you’d have to pay for my sins on my behalf would fill a Scrooge McDuck-sized bank!
However, if you know of any religions that will still take me otherwise, do let me know. My standards are fairly low at this point and I’ll take what I can get (ba-dum-tssss). Maybe the one they had in Nick Cage’s The Wicker Man? Does that one actually exist?
This entire topic is completely fascinating to me.
I’m part of the oddball group that met my spouse on OKC, back in 2008. We’re still together, with the kid, dogs, white picket fence, etc. We hit it off from the jump and were married 18 months after we met.
This is the success story that sites like OKC would use to promote their product. Really though - neither of us were looking for the one. We were both looking for fun/not serious/etc. Just happened to land in the right place, at the right time, with the right person. Just like everyone else in a successful, long-term relationship.
Dating is a crap-shoot no matter where or how you meet someone.
Netflix put out a really interesting and absolutely NSFW documentary about how social media, hook-up culture, and porn have changed dating. It’s a very feminist based, female sex-positive POV, with an in depth look at how the internet changed porn, which changed sex, which changed everything else.
@Thumperchick To be fair, 2008 is ancient as far as social norms are concerned. To put that in perspective, that was before the college “safe space” became a thing, and waaaay before MeToo. I would imagine that people used dating sites properly back then…
People back then probably responded to almost every single message they got. The official rates today are about 1%.
@Thumperchick The reason I quoted that is because before these things came about in the last 5-7 years, dating was quite a bit more “traditional” in nature, and was expected to be as such. This is corroborated by some older people I’ve asked. For example, it wasn’t seen as taboo on dating sites for guys to appear masculine, women to appear feminine, etc. These days, you get absolutely crucified for doing that.
There are whole profile and Q/A sections dedicated to displaying how much of a feminist you are, for example, and if you don’t fill them out affirmatively as a male, your match scores with most women get absolutely destroyed.
For example, there’s a question at OKC that asks if it’s necessary to always ask verbal permission before touching your partner. The grand majority of the answers I see are “yes” with a maximum importance factor. Tell me, would you inherently respect and be attracted to your husband if he always asked verbal permission before touching you?
The whole system is utterly self-defeating these days. I can tell you for sure that all the people I know who are either in relationships or casually sexually active are not rabid feminists.
I prefer to disassociate an actual desire for human rights and equality from what is, at its core, a mental condition. Political correctness be damned.
Tell me, would you inherently respect and be attracted to your husband if he always asked verbal permission before touching you?
Various dating apps are not dealing with people who are discussing their “currently married-expectations”. Married persons and persons in serious relationships make both-party-agreed accommodations to intimacy as the relationship grows more serious.
The apps are going for, and getting, ideology. So … People opt for hard lines.
If I asked a serious life-partner for that particular accommodation, we would likely be in serious trouble. But … I would expect the partner to honor it. And v v. And we would need to work out our problems.
There are differences between “touching” and “sexual touching” also. I would expect any partner of mine to be aware of and honor whatever my expressed preferences were regarding those. And v v.
I would expect that we would know each other well enough to accommodate and please and be spontaneous without endless discussion. This would necessarily be individually worked out within each relationship.
If we couldn’t reach happy agreement on those issues, then, perhaps, we would need need to end the relationship.
If these dating apps don’t allow for useful subtleties on issues such as touching and other points of respect both parties, then I’d look elsewhere for dating partners.
I know of no females within my extended family or friends who would use these apps for other purposes than light entertainment. If they actually met up with someone via such an app, they would be a little shocked at themselves.
They would also not be serious about the date. It would be a lark. It’s the internet. A dating app. How seriously can you tell take the date?
I don’t thing their minds would be closed to a better outcome. Just … Unlikely.
Re your frustrations in the era of #metoo: obviously there is a lot of stuff that needs working out.
FWIW: I used a dating site once, more than 25 years ago, not really looking for a date.
Just, someone had died. I wanted to get my mind off the loss. I met two of my v best lifelong friends there. Still friends. I talk to them each frequently. Many times each month.
In those days of no pix and of literate, well-written responses, I think the female response rate was still less than 1%, or else, at least very low. I think many males just sent out generic notes to every listed female in their age group.
@f00l@Thumperchick I somewhat disagree with one of the points here. I believe that women are on these sites and apps in actual seriousness, and intend to meet up. They are looking for emotional connections they aren’t getting from guys inviting them to their place during Friday happy hours, or “regular” guys who are probably too shy/introverted to approach them on the street and/or other social settings. In fact, one of the most common complaints from women on their profiles and in research is that guys they talk to end up never asking them out, and becoming pen-pals of sorts. Meanwhile, guys mainly complain about getting ghosted after the first date (been there, paradox of choice all over again; I fully acknowledge that the women I go out with are likely talking and setting up dates with multiple other guys at the same time as myself, competition I never get to actually see).
People pretend that they’re on dating sites only for “light entertainment” because they don’t want to be seen as desperate, or as someone undesirable using a last-resort option to avoid being single while under the judgmental gazes of their peers.
Anyway, in the end, it all does come down to this duality in which you are either this unapologetic misogynistic asshole (like some people here must think I am for expressing these views, even though that’s far from the truth) and are vilified for it, or steadfast “allies” who are praised for their contributions, but ultimately sexually ignored, because women are inherently unattracted to subservient, docile men. The only true winners here are the extremely good-looking and wealthy, as people are generally willing to discard their principles to get together with someone of that caliber.
@f00l@RiotDemon@ShotgunX@Thumperchick I have sat idly by reading these posts and rolling my eyes at shotgunx’s depiction of females on dating sites. I need to jump in at this point.
ShotgunX needs to understand that when reading a study, one needs to look at (1) who ran the study, (2) what was their motivation and (3) who was the sample population utilized. I find it hard to believe the any published stated that “all women” did one thing or another. You might want to question the source. You should research your sources before passing along the details as gospel.
Now, I cannot speak for ALL woman. That said, I am a woman who did a substantial amount of on-line dating in my early/mid 30’s. I was looking for a nice guy, someone with whom I could connect. I was looking for “the guy”. I DID NOT reply to shirtless, muscle bound guys - EVER. They generally cared more about themselves and their appearance than anyone/anything else.
I DID respond to the nice guys regardless of their bank account, zip code, etc. My favorite boyfriend from one of those sites barely made $20k a year, and I did not care. He was a very sweet man.
I was NOT looking for a hook-up, but had to deal with so many guys who felt like, “well I took you out for a nice meal, so give it up”, and had to throw several of them off my porch, etc.
I applaud the sites for putting hard/soft limit questionnaires on their sites these days - that is a significant improvement. In the past the sites turned a blind eye to physical or mental abuse that someone may have dealt with from one of their members. Literally - no concern whatsoever. Would I ever visit one of those sites again, hell no!
There are reasons why people become jaded and do not take these sites seriously. There are also reasons why the questionnaires are in place and why these questions need to be asked.
Just try to be open minded and try to see the situation from the other persons point of view. As Atticus Finch once said, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…until you climb into his skin and walk around in it” Ok, creepy but very, very true.
@RiotDemon How did I know one of these comments would pop up around here?
No, I’m agreeing with established science. Doesn’t take much, either; just Google “study women prefer men personality type” or something along those lines and see for yourself.
@tinamarie1974 You might have been the exception to the rule, then. The thing about exceptions, though, is that they’re rare and hard to find, and make the game not worth playing.
Re: study sources
Both Tinder and OKC have put out multiple studies and data sets corroborating my claims. In fact, it’s more like I am corroborating their claims. And they put out all the strategies for success in messaging, et cetera as well. Guess what? This stuff isn’t coming from a pickup manual, but straight from the horse’s mouth. The most success can be had from acting like the type of man that women rail about in real life, but are actually attracted to. Who would have thought, eh?
Paying lip service to “nice guys” is meaningless when statistics show that any man under 5’8" is basically invisible and might as well not have a profile at all.
There are whole profile and Q/A sections dedicated to displaying how much of a feminist you are, for example, and if you don’t fill them out affirmatively as a male, your match scores with most women get absolutely destroyed.
Ah, I think your POV here is what’s confused you.
It’s not just dating that’s changed. Women and “non-traditional” men have decided that the old social norms don’t work.
If you’re crucified for your views on consent, gender/relationship roles, etc. - the issue is likely not that the questions are there. The issue lies in a discrepancy in values.
There is something to be said for defined roles and traditional presentation. It’s a safe space for folks who don’t quite do the fluid, open, level, but ever-evolving environment that currently makes up the societal landscape.
It’s not that there’s no space for, or acceptance for traditional people. That’s just not the current “norm” for society.
You keep mentioning how women are changing the landscape. This is absolutely true! Women are telling men and the world what they want and what they will accept in a partner/date/etc.
@tinamarie1974 I didn’t say sole exception. There can be many out there, but they’re still eclipsed by the sheer amount of people who fit neatly on the bell curve.
Thankfully I’m not 5’8", however, I’m not over that magical 6’0" number, and have actually been called a midget by a girl (more than once). How’s that for feminism?
And no, once again, studies show that guys are much more relaxed about physical appearance than women are on these sites. Basically, be alive, and don’t be morbidly obese. That’s about it.
The dudes who only go for tall, leggy blondes don’t have dating site accounts.
@ShotgunX I feel like you do not want to see both sides. Several of us have tried to explain, but you are not hearing our POV’s Maybe you will figure it out one day. Good luck with that!
women are inherently unattracted to subservient, docile men
Well … Women are inherently unattracted to a whole bunch of things. And what attracts someone for a date might be or not be what attracts someone for a life partner.
It’s a world which should allow for some subtlety and individuality.
That said:
The females I know and am close to, and who have married or “gotten permanent with someone” or who have deliberately had kids with someone in the last decade, are all ardent feminists in terms of their intimate relationships and the internal power dynamics.
They don’t wear it in their sleeves or talk about it all the time tho. Or walk around counting “transgressions” or whatever.
They’re simply “easy people” who are quite sure what they want, and who don’t waste time on what won’t work.
Their partners could be said to be “quite feminist”, and also not in the least subservient.
Turns out two people of good will and good temperament are quite able to make that work in many instances.
@Thumperchick Science shows that what women say they want, and what they ultimately go for, romantically, are two entirely different things. Stereotypes exist for a reason, and “bad boy” and “dark and mysterious” weren’t things invented by sad men during open mic night at a comedy club, but knowledge passed through the ages, and now, finally, quantified by research.
Also, I assure you that society is still quite a bit more traditional than you might think. In fact, if anything, we are seeing a return to the harem system of the old times, which was briefly replaced by a Judeo-Christian monogamistic system for a few hundred years. Women, having been freed from the shackles of socially-enforced monogamy, are able to select their partners, and have as many as they want, which are at the top end of the desirability spectrum. One man, many girlfriends. The only difference is that because of modern birth control, it’s not leading to too many babies.
@tinamarie1974 It’s not that I don’t want to listen to your side, it’s just that your side is anecdotal and comes from an ideal, and mine comes from data. The ideal, and how things actually work, are not the same. Kind of like how they teach you that you will have a happy, successful life if you just focus studying hard and working diligently, but in reality it’s only possible if you do coke and defraud pension funds on Wall Street.
@f00l There are different types of feminism out there. Believing that women shouldn’t be excluded from jobs and have access to birth control isn’t the same as believing that you need verbal permission to hug your wife or a zealous devotion to “destroying the white heteronormative patriarchy scum” or whatever. Contemporary social “norms” deal entirely in the latter.
I can wholeheartedly tell you that it’s backfiring pretty badly, based on the amount of 40-year-old women pushing strollers full of dogs that I see every day.
I think the important distinction to reiterate here is “when reading a study, one needs to look at (1) who ran the study, (2) what was their motivation and (3) who was the sample population utilized. I find it hard to believe the any published stated that “all women” did one thing or another. You might want to question the source. You should research your sources before passing along the details as gospel.”
People tend to flock towards “data” that validates their own preconceived notions. Woman setting boundaries in relationships and you not getting a date may not be related to the fall of mankind’s birth rates, and moreso connected to some men’s overall lack of willingness to communicate effectively. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
@ShotgunX Realize what I wrote is fact and has occured and there are so many more facts regarding on-line dating that I will not share on this forum. I shared my thoughts, but I know SO many women who have had the same or similar experiences. I am not an atypical.
What I am hearing is, women say they like “x” but they date “y” and it is not fair. Life, my friend, is not fair and that is just how it goes. Women and men make decisions based upon a multitude of factors. You cannot boil it down to one thing.
Do some women like bad boys, yup. Should that be your target audience, nope. Since you like data so much, you should analyze the type of woman who is attracted to you and find her.
@RiotDemon You have a social imperative to advocate for your views right now. Of course you’re not going to say “yeah, were kinda attracted to assholes” right here in public. That would be quite scandalous.
Hey, men are quite guilty of this as well! Just in different ways. That’s why in one of my earlier posts I warned women to be wary of any guy who puts that he’s a “nice guy” anywhere in his profile, for example.
But anyways, studies are blind, and people are less likely to put up a guard when protected by anonymity.
Also, you guys are kind of dipping into the “if it’s not working for you then you should…” well a bit too much. I’m discussing this from a wide, general perspective. At no time have I talked about my personal experiences with online dating aside from mentioning message response rates, which fall in line with the numbers the companies themselves put out. My viewpoint might be unpopular with you, but it’s far from a cry for help.
Anyway, look, having studies is better than not having studies. Even if someone is lying with statistics, as long as there’s raw data being presented, you can derive your own conclusions.
@RiotDemon And I could say that “I’m only attracted to her for her mind.”
And we both might be telling the truth.
The question is whether this holds true for the majority of the population. And I’d rather play the odds than bet on the three-legged horse with a whole lot of spirit.
@tinamarie1974 Data isn’t always right, but we’re not exactly testing a new drug with a sample size of 24 people here. This stuff has been around for a long time, and it is utterly against the anecdotal arguments you guys are trying to make.
And before data, there were millions of years of evolutionary competition, and guess what, the guys holding the doors for people weren’t the ones passing on their genes.
I mean, I can argue anecdotally too. Would you prefer that? I have quite a few stories to tell.
But you literally do not actually know, nor have any relevant data whatsoever, about what “holds true” to the majority of the population. You have a bunch of made up statistics from men who want an excuse as to why he can’t get a date.
@ShotgunX
I’m gonna be honest man, it sounds like you’ve got some toxic mindsets based off of preconceived notions or perhaps a prior experience. You’d be better off letting go of some of the vitriol you’ve got simmering around inside.
@halfling Actually, that’s not the point of the argument at all. It is actually kind of easy to get a date through online dating (if you meet the minimum criteria) if you utilize the data to craft the kind of profile and messages that have higher rates of positive responses.
The issue I am mainly talking about is the paradox of choice that ensures that most online dating doesn’t lead to long-term contact/relationships.
Once again, I am ready to take the heat for expressing an ostensibly unpopular viewpoint. That doesn’t mean that I’m personally attacking anyone here, so don’t take it as such. Nor am I complaining about my own problems. I’ve done literally hundreds of hours of reading about this topic, and am arguing from the point of conclusions presented from all of that knowledge. Nothing more, nothing less.
If this issue is that these studies are put out by men who can’t get dates (which is a ludicrous premise), then I’m fully in favor of having studies conducted by women and/or men who can.
There are different types of feminism out there. Believing that women shouldn’t be excluded from jobs and have access to birth control isn’t the same as believing that you need verbal permission to hug your wife or a zealous devotion to “destroying the white heteronormative patriarchy scum” or whatever. Contemporary social “norms” deal entirely in the latter.
I think you’re attempting to date in the wrong pool. If your dating site contains mostly women who talk about ideology all the time, find another social pool.
If you’re attempting to date on the internet, expect a lot of discussion about ideology. After all, both you and the other party could be just anyone. As in, someone who isn’t sane, honest, or civilized. So … Extreme personal caution is not a useless norm there.
Re hugging your wife.
How about people won’t hug sig others when they don’t want to be hugged, or hug them in a way they don’t like at the time?
And v v.
And how about both agree to respect each other’s boundaries?
And how about both work that out before they get married or whatever?
If a site is too ideological to handle that, find another place to look for a potential mate.
I can wholeheartedly tell you that it’s backfiring pretty badly, based on the amount of 40-year-old women pushing strollers full of dogs that I see every day.
It’s possible those women are in intimate relationships with another adult. How do you know they’re not?
And it’s possible that those females are doing exactly what they want to be doing. While in a relationship, or not. So, fine.
And it’s possible that pushing pets in a stroller is not stupider then things many other adults, including “masculine, dominant-behaving males” are busy doing.
So… Somebody seems to have some resentment. True? False?
Dunno. Say, the implied stereotype and its implied “attitudinal causes” sounds like a possible cheap shot.
Or not. I leave that to you.
Anyways … If you don’t wanna date someone who has a stroller for their pets, don’t date them.
/giphy eye roll
I actually don’t often see someone out w pets in a stroller. Kinda rare in my world. That sounds to be a potentially giphy-rich environment.
Actually, I assume that you are a “nice guy” (in the sense of that term that I have respect for). And a competent and responsible one.
But I think online dating sites may be a bit toxic for you. Perhaps these sites are ridiculously toxic for everyone.
As for the polls and research you quote: Please don’t take that very seriously. Much of it is from self-selected respondents. And people who wanna make a point.
As for the alleged thing about “bad boys”. Get over it.
Yes, in romance novels and in real life, females sometimes wanna be with the sexy dangerous or fucked-up guy. And rescue him through love or whatever.
Briefly. Kinda like a “vacay experience wish” for many.
Just like many guys would, if they could, date high-maintenance females who look like supermodels.
Until he wants a quality relationship as the first priority. In which case the supermodel might or might not be a first choice.
Please don’t confuse all that daydreaming with what sort of person people actually want to live with.
You can come across as kinda naive at times. I don’t think that’s part of your self-image?
I hope I’m wrong about the naivete.
Anyway, try some serious research about who gets and keeps stable, happy, and rewarding relationships.
Why not drop so-called “knowledge” about all the polls and research you mention (which sounds pretty lame anyway by any serious measure), and if you have a visible attitude or visible resentment, seriously drop that also?
And just find one competent stable female person who likes you and is willing to get to know you better?
Odds are you won’t find her on the net. Tho miracles of that sort can and do happen.
Re my “lame research” mention:
Research which does not take into account current opportunities and power dynamics (which are quite different from [even recent] past power dynamics and opportunities w regard to females) are unlikely to give useful results.
And “internet polling data results” from dating sites: Sigh.
So can all that garbage, and just go find some likeable female people. You only need to locate 1. Or, at most, a few, over time.
I very much agree. That’s why I mentioned before that people I know in less urban areas have had better experiences with online dating (plus it’s less paradox-of-choicey because sometimes your entire match list for 100 miles is like 200 people). Meanwhile, people I know who live in big urban centers like I do seem to share in my experiences. And yes, I do acknowledge that this is anecdotal. While we do know that urban centers are more liberal socially and politically, I haven’t seen any studies that tie that specifically to online dating. I mean, if I had to bet money…but I digress.
Anyway, not sure what I can do about that. Moving isn’t really an option.
I don’t think I’m “nice.” I think I’m “fair.” I don’t go out of my way to be nice to people, as in my eyes, few deserve it, including myself.
Agree that dating sites are likely toxic for everyone. Also agree that you’re unlikely to find a true match online, which was one of the very first things I said in this thread.
I lived in a big urban area (top ten US, over 7 million I suppose).
Urban politics are a nice mix of centrist, conservative (all types), lib (all types), and who knows what else.
So: anecdotal in my life:
Most females I know (esp under age 40) are avowed feminists. But they don’t talk about it all the time. In fact, they are gracious and entertaining company to anyone who is polite and interesting. If you wanna know that sort of thing you have to ask.
They simply act that way and have expectations of authority and success. Within their own lives and in the lives of their partners.
PS. Most are married. Apparently happily.
Some females I know are not avowed feminists. If asked, they would prob deny it or say they are “a little that way but never strident”.
And … In their personal lives they simply act much the same as the feminists do; and they have expectations of authority and success. Within their own lives and in the lives of their partners.
PS. Most are married. Apparently happily.
And both types expect to be pleasant company. And not to be political all the time.
I don’t think I’m “nice.” I think I’m “fair.” I don’t go out of my way to be nice to people, as in my eyes, few deserve it, including myself.
“Nice” as I meant it is: decently behaved, respectful, good company, good tempered, excellent manners, empathetic to the appropriate degree, responsible, having honest relationships with the world at large and with friends and family, and reasonably able to take care of self, and when it’s one’s responsibility, able to take care of others.
“nice” doesn’t mean “superficially nice”. And it doesn’t mean “gets walked on”.
And … If one isn’t nice day to day with most people, expect a rough time in life. A portion of “niceness” (not all of it) is social savvy.
I agree with you, but that’s more like a baseline of traits to be an acceptable human being, as opposed to being “nice.” I’d say it’s more like being “normal.”
“Nice” in the dating world means that you patiently watch her stuff as she’s making out with the bartender in the bathroom. Yes, I’m obviously exaggerating for comedic value (I feel like I need to mention that since so many people got their panties in a bunch at my other sarcasm), but that’s how we as society have generally come to interpret the term “nice guy.”
If people are “getting their panties in a wad” a lot in reaction to you; then either you are doing “very much the wrong thing”, socially speaking, or “very much doing the right thing”.
@halfelf What about criminals? Cheaters? People who leave their children in locked cars during heat waves, or tie up their dogs outside during hurricanes? I’m sure they all want to be treated nicely.
@f00l Well, it’s a forum on the internet. I’m not going to put my filters on when there’s literally nothing in it for me.
I mean, look at the people who bailed from the conversation. None of them even tried to make any sort of argument aside from talking about themselves, or trying to shame me through bandwagon groupthink.
What about criminals? Cheaters? People who leave their children in locked cars during heat waves, or tie up their dogs outside during hurricanes? I’m sure they all want to be treated nicely.
That mindless virtue signaling, lol.
Attn. Straw man argument in sight
/giphy straw man
As regards the other participants: did you notice that they generally had something meaningful and useful to say, even if they didn’t put it into your precise preferred terminology?
Did you notice that they were mostly trying to like you in the beginning? And you appeared to want to either “win” or push them away?
World you rather “win” an argument about some miniscule point? (“win” within your own definition, not necessarily that of others)
Or would you rather get to know a few people and possibility maybe learn some stuff over time?
In the meantime, if they are willing to forgive a few of your possible rhetorical errors, perhaps you can forgive a few of what you perceive to be their rhetorical errors?
Tho it’s not always right track each and every time … there are times when "to get along, go along"
(as often told to incoming members of Congress) is valid.
Not always. But … one thing about “going along” is that one frequently learns something by the by.
The social and rhetorical “ears” should both be attuned to nuance. And “right” and “wrong” arguments should both be viewed critically.
@f00l@ShotgunX You are assuming I crave your respect or want to waste my time in this meaningless diatribe. Regardless of what is said you will not be swayed, this much is clear. It is time to move on.
@f00l In this case, yes, I was trying to win. I wasn’t after agreement, or reinforcement, just for the sake of getting along.
This is after my initial goal of rationalizing the not-so-good experiences with online dating that other people have mentioned. The actual course of events was:
someone shared an experience
I provided my take on it using background info
some completely different people got upset because my viewpoint wasn’t in line with their “progressive” belief systems
rabble rabble rabble
“I am a woman and you do not get to speak for all of us!”
“Heh, maybe if you accept our generous advice, then you won’t die dateless, dummy!”
They made it about me, while I didn’t make it about them. This usually happens when something hits a bit too close to home. People aren’t as clean and pure as they make themselves out to be to others. The strawmanning happened much earlier than you think.
@tinamarie1974 I absolutely can be swayed, and have been many times in my life. The difference is that you’re not so much trying to sway me, but rather shame me into agreement. If you want to truly change my viewpoint, then attack the arguments. If you present a good case, then I will balance what you say against other arguments I perceive as valid, and they will become part of my knowledge base from which I will draw in the future.
If you just want me to take what you say at face value based purely on your subjective experience, well, that’s going to be worth much less. For example, we can go back to our height example. Studies show that message response rates correlate positively with increased male height (to a point). Do you take issue with the validity of these stats? If yes, why? Can you provide a valid counterpoint, or will you say that you’re a woman, and you never considered height as a part of the equation, therefore the people putting out these stats have to be men who can’t get dates for other reasons, and are publishing polluted statistical claims?
@ShotgunX let me point out that you never provided your imperical evidence or sources. You stated that you spent a significant amount of time and that we could go on the web and find it ourselves. At that point I had no interest in proving my point by providing fact. Why would I care if you did not?
And for the record I was not shaming you. I was simply pointing out that a study states “all” it is likely wrong and used myself as the example. I did that to prove that not all women fit in that tiny box where you believe they were placed based upon your “research”
I was attempting to either have you provide your data or think outside of your box. When it was clear that I would get nowhere I decided to leave the conversation, it is not worth my time or effort.
So enjoy your evening and feel free to respond, but I am finished and will not respond further.
@tinamarie1974 I never claimed that all women were this or that. All I stated was that statistics show that people tend to act in certain ways. Not everyone is going to be at the tip of the bell curve. But if you have specific goals in mind, then it’s wise to play the odds. Nothing more, nothing less. If OKC tells me that the most responded-to messages are about 120 characters in length and impose some kind of profile-related query, then that’s how I’m going to write them, despite you telling me that you prefer haikus.
Regarding data sources, so far I only made very basic stuff part of my arguments, such as male psychological traits and height in relation to romantic success. That is very baseline stuff that you can get with a Google search. I’ll try to provide some high-end studies with regard to that when I can. But it’s really common-sense stuff that is so widely known and accepted in society that I shouldn’t have to. Most women prefer big, strong, assertive guys, news at 11. I mean, are you seriously going to try to convince everyone here that’s that’s not generally the case?
some completely different people got upset because my viewpoint wasn’t in line with their “progressive” belief systems
rabble rabble rabble
Really?
“I am a woman and you do not get to speak for all of us!”
"Heh, maybe if you accept our generous advice, then you won’t die dateless, dummy!”
They made it about me, while I didn’t make it about them. This usually happens when something hits a bit too close to home.
I didn’t write see it happening that way. Yes to a degree, but only that. No more.
I “saw” a lot more going in than that. I don’t know, but I’m guessing that other participants saw/inferred the “more” also. And they sometimes responded to the inferred “more”.
Now that later move is entirely “legal” in casual conversation, assuming that the person isn’t trying to be obnoxious. What I saw here was mostly, by that standard, “legal”, to my memory, but I haven’t gone back and read the entire topic carefully to parse every exchange. Nor do I intend to.
Casual conversation mostly shouldn’t be treated that way. So I try not to. For someone to do so is to commit a serious logical error re the nature of conversation, and the act proclaims the “ultra parsing party” to be a foolish literalist who doesn’t “get” language.
Casual conversation isn’t debate club. And shouldn’t be treated as such. It serves a logical and necessary function. Just not a “debate club” function.
Also I “saw” slightly different things going on than those you mention. Make of that, and of my alleged “perceptions” or my tendency toward them, what you will.
You and I read this entire exchange and gained different ideas of what went on. And other parties’ various POVs add layers to that.
To a degree, all of these potentially partially valid offerings are, if offered by a persons of quality mental status and possessing social savvy, and if offered with decent intentions, potentially logically (and mathematically, if it comes to that) partially valid and true, to a degree.
And then human judgment come into play. Because human relations are v v complex and we have no final map to them. We don’t even have a final map to the validity of debate-type arguments. Because language and human perspective, as used by our species, is way way way too complex for that. We only achieve partials. At best. And all those are open to question.
Do you really think you “won”?
None of us “won”.
Perhaps we gained a little knowledge of things we usually don’t understand very well. Or perhaps we didn’t.
Why throw away (even if limited) valid info and valid reasoning? All our POVs are limited. The world is a complex place. No mortal POV is “complete and total”. There’s always stuff to learn.
I didn’t write see it happening that way. Yes to a degree, but only that. No more.
So which is it? The fact that you are so unsure as to put it on a scale speaks volumes. Kind of makes it seem you just don’t want to offend the other folks here.
Yes, people have done quite a bit of inferring here. Just look at the post below yours, which I’m not going to bother addressing since I don’t fall for bait. Or I might, with a joke. Something about not needing a date because their mother will give it up for free. Haven’t decided yet. Ask me again after two beers.
PS: I don’t think I’ve necessarily “won,” but I do think that I defended myself well.
Re agreeing to a degree and no more (or whatever):
So which is it? The fact that you are so unsure as to put it on a scale speaks volumes.
Nope. It means I’m casual about a casual conversation. And I intend to stay that way. Even if I try to make a valid point every so often.
I must ask you to excuse such excursions into seriousness and validity. My bad. Such poor manners I have!
And nope. It means I read as carefully as I want to read, and no more carefully. Since all that can take time and energy. And conversation is only worth so much, judged in long term or short term consequence and value.
“So unsure”?
That I don’t vector-quantify it or whatever? Come on. Do you know what casual conversation is? This is, despite occasional divergences, casual conversation.
Kind of makes it seem you just don’t want to offend the other folks here.
Quite frankly, I have no prob with much or most of what they said. Altho I could see that the form of expressions chosen often might not resonate with you.
I don’t wanna offend the other folks here particularly. But that never stopped me. Specially when I’m extra stupid.
Occasionally - rarely - I am awake and aware and have some degree of human judgment. That stops me from offering gratuitous offense - or offering any strictly unnecessary offense - if I have the wit to see it and avoid committing it.
That happens sometimes I’m told. Kinda hard for me to believe it tho.
Re defending yourself and what all
In a sense (strictly by your parsings, your arguments, and your definitions [not by any other]), perhaps you defended yourself well. By the standards of your own judgment.
Unfortunately, I don’t think most intelligent and educated persons who are quite capable of and competent at logic and reason would read this conversation as having the context you seem to give it. I think they world likely, en masse, make a quite different reading.
And not be wrong.
Just … People tried here. For real.
You apparently found small or large errors and points of weakness in what they offered. And appeared to thereby be justified to dismiss all that.
In your shoes (in the sense of if I were to have made the presentation you made), I would not have even bothered to view the responses in that way.
Who the fuck cares about scoring points? or defending self? Or making some supposedly classy or strong argument? Or catching out the other people with purported weakness in their less formal approaches?
I would have have my most important “listen” be with another sort of “ear” altogether.
To me, that’s where almost all the real value is. Just about every time.
@ShotgunX -
You do realize this entire replies section is to a comment I made, about my experience (which was clearly anecdotal), simply to introduce a documentary I found interesting and relevant?
The conversation immediately took an unnecessary turn when you cranked the wheel and sent us barreling into the trees.
Since we’re in the forest, I’ll play along for a moment.
If you don’t cite your sources, your “data” doesn’t exist.
There is no point in continuing to discuss or debate anything with someone who states they have facts and data to back up their position, but refuses to produce the source.
Proclaiming you have a golden egg laying goose doesn’t hold up, unless you have the eggs to prove it.
When it appeared you managed to start a dogpile in response to your opinions/comments; I tried to give you the easier out and sidetrack this conversation with cute puppies.
Please, take it now. Or, at the very least, jump into a new comment and replies subthread.
The rabbit hole goes even deeper when you read that other primary selective factors for relationships, such as career success, are also tied positively with increased height. lol.
There’s like…thousands of these studies. These are just some random ones I read through this evening, following research citations after a blind Google search for “height preferences dating”.
Looking forward to accusations of bias in study selection/misinterpretations of results, “not all women!”, “there’s just no getting through to you I’m done here,” et cetara.
Honestly, you have to be ignorant as hell to think that this particular subject hasn’t been researched to death.
@ShotgunX@Thumperchick what do you want? Us to cite other sources that go against your research? I don’t really understand what you are going on about at this point. You already said you won. Didn’t realize there was a competition here.
You keep talking about the studies. We, as women, are talking about personal feelings. I’m not sure why you want to argue so much.
@RiotDemon@Thumperchick First, yes, I’d like you to cite other sources that go against this (not mine) research.
Second, when the argument to begin with was with regard to how the overall online dating scene is like, and how to best utilize information to your advantage in order to be successful in said dating scene as a man, your personal feelings are irrelevant. Remember, I made generalizations backed by science, and you people took it personally as an attack against a whole gender because the truth seemed a bit too inconvenient.
Once again, none of this was a personal attack; you merely chose to interpret it as such. And then you attacked me.
If someone here claimed that men are dirty boors who can’t focus on more than one task at a time reliably (backed by a shit-ton of science, by the way), I wouldn’t get offended at that because I would understand that it’s not an insult aimed at me. Grow up.
Off topic, but related: This is one of the reasons I adore these forums – this intelligent and meaningful conversation is taking place here, and one thread away we’re talking about scented poo spray
@mfladd a million times YES!
Yes but it is where men are. I want to find a relationship but I also want to get laid again this century.
@CaptAmehrican optimist! I’m planning to get jiggly some time in the late 2200’s.
@CaptAmehrican Right now several dozen mehmbers are probably scouring the web looking for more details about you.
@cinoclav hey why not. It is Friday night. Most of my friends are married and with spouses or oddly a lot of my friends are on vacations this week. I am drinking wine and watching star wars for the 5 million time
I hope I’m not crossing a line here, but maybe I can break the ice… If mehtizens want to swipe right on @CaptAmehrican, the whisper icon is right up there on the line just above this post. Bring your best Bubba mug photos (probably with pants on at this point) and maybe you can help spice up her Friday night!
@CaptAmehrican @djslack Hey, OP approves! Do it people!
@CaptAmehrican Hey, I just got back from seeing the Philadelphia Orchestra play along to The Empire Strikes Back! It’s Star Wars night!
@CaptAmehrican @djslack
Nothing that has to be done with pants on is worth doing. Nothing.
@nolrak all I’m sugesting is pace yourself. If pants-free living is your natural state, I guess go ahead and do you.
@djslack I strive to reach a point in my life where pants are no longer necessary. For now, i think I’d get some funny looks at the office.
@CaptAmehrican @djslack @nolrak
Riding motorcycles.
Yea, I suppose you could do it without pants, but roadrash is just so much fun.
@CaptAmehrican A/S/L???
@CaptAmehrican
If I were wanting to date, I don’t think I’d use tinder or similar no matter what. I personally know of no one who “found someone that matters” there and it all worked out well. I have heard a number of bad/funny/humiliating stories.
But it must work for some people? Dunno.
I have this attitude that dating only really works when either you already know someone, or someone you know already knows that person. Or if you meet because you share a common life activity and interest.
The younger members of my family (20-40) seem to indicate that meeting thru friends or pastimes or (if appropriate) work is best. So far, they’ve all gotten permanent with someone.
Otherwise it’s all rolls of the dice, games, and trolling? Or people who present themselves as being serious and ready for life when they aren’t?
@CaptAmehrican Not sure about the decent relationship potential but the getting casual getting screwed potential would likely be there on some/many tall ships. Of course since many of the employees in that sector are broke, or close to it, that might be another consideration unless you plan on being the sugar mama
.
One summer (home port Boston), I was on deck watch that evening (in the inner harbor at our usual dock) and I overheard several crew (and the captain) attempting to put together a list of everyone they had screwed so far that summer. I’d imagine some of those lists would be awarded 4 or 5 Pinocchios but none the less I also know they worked hard at adding to the list.
On a more serious note:
My cousin married someone he found through his local public radio’s classified ads. That source, at least, already has an initial screening device since you couldn’t post an ad unless you were a member. His test first date was to take them kayaking. If I recall correctly it took him about 20 or so tries to find someone that way. Marriage has lasted though.
I’ve whispered you something else that has too much identifying information attached to post publicly.
@CaptAmehrican Ooops just saw someone resurrected an older thread. Well if you don’t already have someone… it’s too late to delete anyway…
When my wife and I were dating, she used my phone for something once. Idk, take a picture or something. She started acting off, and was weird for about an hour before I could get out of her what was wrong.
I kept asking her what the deal was and she wouldn’t say. She finally asked, “why do you have Tender on your phone?”
Yes, Tender. Not Tinder. It’s a sous vide cooking app. I guess it’s only fair that it tried to put me in hot water.
@djslack babababahahahaahahahha! Great story
@djslack that’s amazing.
@djslack now I have to dig out that sous vide thing I got for Christmas and try it!
@djslack “Nothing!”
@djslack Bloody fantastic.
@djslack Actually, I think Tender may be a better place to find a soul-mate, or at least someone who can cook.
So, if you had noticed the mug first, would you of swiped right?
@RiotDemon possibly maybe just to find out if it was someone on the forum
@CaptAmehrican This week T-Mobile gave out codes for a month of Tinder Gold for $1. I have no use for them, so if you or any other (up to 3) Meh members want a code, they’re up for grabs!
Code expires at 4:59am 7/30/19, so don’t delay!
@smigit2002 Somebody’s gettin’ lucky GOLDEN STYLE…wait…um…well…ok…GOLDEN STYLE!
@smigit2002 @therealjrn Umm… what, no giphy?
@smigit2002 can i get a code?
@smigit2002 @therealjrn
Thanks for playing, all, best of luck to those who received codes, I hope you have a more than “meh” experience
@mehrk whisper’d
I actually have pictures of myself in meh clothing (other app(s), I don’t use Turder), but I can tell you for sure that there’s no reaction to or recognition of that. It definitely does not work every time, sixty percent of the time.
And overall, contemporary dating in western swipe cultures is such a crapshoot, that even the makers of those apps have put out studies confirming that pretty much nothing ever happens through them, neither for men nor women, save for those in the top 2% of attractive people who use the apps exclusively for hooking up. Out of 2,500 likes, you’ll get 50 initial responses to messages, of which 1 will lead to a date, who will ghost you after the first meeting.
My recommendation is to not rely on the apps so much if you’re seriously trying to date (and also don’t be overweight, short, not wealthy, and/or ethnic if you’re a guy, or not breathing if you’re a girl), and talk to people in person instead. At least that way, they can’t ignore/escape from you so easily. I’m still holding out hope that one of these days, my true soul mate will notice me wearing a meh shirt in public, and start yelling “take me now!” while desperately tearing off her own clothing right then and there.
@ShotgunX You should probably add to your list: “Don’t be that guy who measures the office chairs” lol
/I keed, I keed.
@ShotgunX well said
@therealjrn Even if it’s in my job description?
My life got 100% more peaceful when I gave up on dating. Now and then I think about hopping back in the shitpool – uh sorry, I mean dating pool – and my blood pressure goes to defcon 2.
@UncleVinny
/image defcon 2
@capguncowboy noooooooooooooooo!
@UncleVinny Oof, I recently rejoined the land of the single, and fired up the online dating app (I’ve never done Tinder).
It’s bad, man. Online dating occupies the part of the map labeled “here there be dragons”
@hanzov69 @UncleVinny Amen, Brother/Sister!
We need a mediocre dating app. Call it “mehbe”.
@hanzov69 how about maeby?
@hanzov69 Expect mediocrity and you might not be disappointed. Also, all photos will be verified as current
@hanzov69
The Love Commehction
Mehtch Maker
@hanzov69 @Thumperchick
“Mehbe: just swipe left”
@Thumperchick I don’t know why, but this song popped in my head, except I keep thinking of it as “mehtchmaker, mehtchmaker, make me a mensch”. I blame you.
@hanzov69 @Thumperchick A mehnsch.
I’ve never used online dating. I don’t live in a rural area, but such apps seem to rely on a user-base located in a densely populated metropolitan area. In fact, if I recall correctly, Tinder, or a similar app, once required users to find others only within Bluetooth-radio range, similar to Facebook, at and near its inception, requiring its users to register with a .edu domain email address.
The lessening of exclusivity with no regard to demographics, save internet connectivity, is, to me, anyway, not so good.
/giphy robots are undatable
@eonfifty I did a significant amount of on-line dating YEARS ago with no positive results. I was on several sites and found the same group of men on each of them with a few exceptions. A large number were looking for hook-ups or women on the side. Some were the guys your mama warned you about
In the end I gave up and decided it was not worth it. If I am meant to find someone, they will show up!
@eonfifty @tinamarie1974
@eonfifty @therealjrn that always makes me giggle
@tinamarie1974 It’s like that movie “Six Degrees of Separation,” but with only one degree of separation.
@eonfifty
/youtube futurama i dated a robot
@eonfifty As someone who lives in one of America’s ultra-liberal, squalor-ridden hellholes, I can tell you that the flip side of the coin is something that’s known as the paradox of choice, which in the dating world manifests itself as never acting on anything because you think that “well, this isn’t so bad, but if I got this, then surely something even better will manifest itself if I just wait a little bit longer, and…”
Women are responsible for most of this behavior (wait, hear me out, this isn’t sexist, I promise). Why? Because guys are responsible for almost 100% of the initial contact on these platforms. So the onus of “first choice” with regard to acknowledging or ignoring falls on women.
But guys are responsible for quite a bit of stupid bullshit themselves.
A friend and I rolled a fake female profile on OKC just to see what it’s like on the other side. A cute Asian girl who likes jogging, playing on her Nintendo, and looks good in a bikini, of course.
The profile received about 300 likes/messages a day. I’m not kidding. (For comparison, a fitness-focused male friend with a good amount of refined style gets about 1-2 likes a day, and maybe one message a week, if any.)
Most of the messages were just “hey”. Some were dick pics/the kind of “ey chica, papi hav fun wit u 2nite” flirting/catcalling you could only while get passing through a construction site full of illegals/GED rejects (not an attack on anyone, just another observation of a large American city). Some were real sad sacks, opening up with stuff like “I know that someone like you would probably not in a million years even notice someone like me but…” messages.
Only maybe 2-3% of the messages were decent, referencing something in the profile/making an actually humorous joke, and written well. But in my own experience, as someone who writes decent messages, only about 1-2% ever get responded to, and of that 1-2%, only maybe 10% lead to a conversation that goes beyond the first message.
Oh, and if you ever see a woman who says that she’s not there for hookups and/or says that she will ignore anyone with a topless/abs pic, that’s exactly what she’s looking for. There was actually an experiment done on this exact thing a while ago. Pass and move on. And girls: avoid like the plague any dude who mentions anything along the lines of being “a nice guy” anywhere in their profile.
Basically, online dating (and probably millennial dating in general) is a total shit-show, and the entire thing needs to be Thanos-snapped out of existence.
@eonfifty @ShotgunX
Women’s are responsible for most of this conduct: True within in my observation.
But the reasons given are incorrect in my experience.
In the first place, many females are only there to window-shop, or out of curiosity. They are quite serious about looking for someone, but they are not serious about looking for someone on that platform.
In fact many females prob doubt any relationship initiated via that platform could be worth anything, even if the other party is pretty decent.
This sort of platform - or any gaming or “make it easy” approach to dating - cheapens the experience, in that in makes it less likely that a result will be worthwhile. Because of the lack of social and emotional “vetting” and lack of other other social connection factors tend to make people act in “non-serious ways”, I presume.
The potential costs of errors or bad judgment in the dating experience seem to count as far more costly and far more of a downside to females than to males.
The potential downside to meeting someone who turns out to be someone you really didn’t want to meet seem to be counted as a far higher cost to most females than to most males. Therefore, reluctance to take up any offers is expected behavior.
Every successful relationship I know of that has initiated in the last 15 years has been when people got to know each other slowly, in non-pressure situations, or where the persons already other connections. So that each had some knowledge of the other’s personality and character before dating, or had shared community expectations and acceptance. In cases where the successful relationship initiated online, the persons spent months or years developing the relationship before even meeting each other.
I don’t know of a good shortcut to this, tho personal connections do happen in unpredictable ways all the time.
In my own life, even the “strong interest at first sight” situations occurred within a community. Both parties shared common emotional and behavioral expectations and decent reputations. And we could have checked each other out more thoroughly easily enough.
Getting into a relationship, maintaining one, making it better - these are all v costly investments. Any platform that pushes the initial contact into “insta-response” means that many participants see the platform as a form of entertainment, rather than a way of meeting someone for real life involvement.
@eonfifty @f00l Hm, I agree with that, even though I think that it also has a lot to do with age/finances.
It seems that older women, or at least those that aren’t “that young anymore,” are much more intent on finding actual relationships on online dating sites than the younger ones. Young women get plenty of sexual attention, so actual relationships “can wait.”
It also explains away the phenomenon I’ve observed where women in their mid-thirties and older are much more likely to put stuff like “no hookups!” into their profiles. The younger ones don’t seem to need to mention that as much, even if it’s also something they aren’t looking for. This is also a good way to know that someone has been doing quite a bit of hooking up, by the way; those who don’t usually don’t use the term as much.
This is in line with what I’ve observed about relationships around here (i.e. ultra-liberal hellholes) in general. That is to say, the people having all the sex are not the same people who are paying for all the dinners (this applies to both genders, but is predominantly a male issue). I see a lot of hipsters walking around and holding hands with their waifus, but in private (I’ve overheard a few interesting barstool conversations), these people always complain about how much their relationships cost, how their girlfriends are “distant romantically,” etc.
Meanwhile, a couple of “player”-type friends I have are banging the 18-year-olds without paying a dime up-front (seriously, one guy I know who’s in his forties swipes left on anyone whose age doesn’t begin with a “1”). Although to be fair, most of them are also stuck with child support.
So basically, aside from the naturally beautiful and wealthy people who alternate between gym and the club scene, the dating world mostly consists of younger women with older men, and younger men and older women utterly alone.
I know that this is kind getting into “red pill” territory, which has its share of fucked-up logic and problems, but that’s how messed up the situation is these days, and why birth rates and two-parent households are nosediving so badly. To be fair, this seems to be more prevalent in big cities, and my friends in less urban environments have told me it’s not quite that bad there; more social pressure/financial need for conventional relationships, etc.
But yeah, online dating is really fucked up, and that’s why you see all these people saying they can’t find anyone (and the companies themselves putting out studies saying the very same thing). It’s just not as serious and authentic as meeting someone in the wild, which also sucks these days, because everyone always has their face buried in a phone screen. I know exactly one person who achieved a solid long-term relationship through online dating, and it took him years to find that one person, who was a somewhat traditional and sheltered girl around his own age.
Personally, I’ve mostly given up, and spend my time on work, fitness, and video games.
‾_(ツ)_/‾
Am I seeing a TL;DR forum hookup in the making here between @f00l and @ShotgunX?
It’s enough to soften my blackened, hard heart.
/a little.
@therealjrn he said “hard”
@therealjrn That depends…Is he my waifu, or am I his waifu? I suppose the only way to tell will be to wait and see who takes the lead in using terrible internet acronyms like “lol” and “omg,” and posting Chad/virgin memes to discuss this serious subject.
I supposed I will prepare my webcam and Miku outfit just in case…
@ShotgunX @therealjrn
Hey there, loverly thought! But I’m not in the market.
Otoh, @therealjrn, you are such a romantic! We all know that much about you.
Perhaps you can redeem ShotgunX from his relationship-cynicism! You can rescue his soul!
/giphy try try try
@ShotgunX Oh, don’t sell yourself short @f00l…you know love always finds you when you’re not looking for it!
@ShotgunX @therealjrn
@therealjrn:
Your heart is black. But my heart is an all-devouring black hole.
I’m destroying the universe, a little at a time, as this or that piece of it ceases to amuse me.
Plumbing probs in Oklahoma still amuse me tho. For the moment. So you’re safe for a while.
Take heart! (Since I know you have one).
/giphy black hole
@f00l @therealjrn Please don’t try to rescue my soul. The amount of indulgences you’d have to pay for my sins on my behalf would fill a Scrooge McDuck-sized bank!
However, if you know of any religions that will still take me otherwise, do let me know. My standards are fairly low at this point and I’ll take what I can get (ba-dum-tssss). Maybe the one they had in Nick Cage’s The Wicker Man? Does that one actually exist?
@ShotgunX @therealjrn
Shhhh!
I’m trying to get @therealjrn to try to save you.
Don’t scare that critter off.
Religion?
/giphy Marcus Aurelius
@ShotgunX Well, @f00l is trying to make this about me, but I’m positive now they are infatuated with each other.
@ShotgunX @therealjrn
/giphy “it’s always about you”
@f00l @ShotgunX
/giphy I’m rubber, you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks onto you
@ShotgunX @therealjrn
/giphy frenemies!
This entire topic is completely fascinating to me.
I’m part of the oddball group that met my spouse on OKC, back in 2008. We’re still together, with the kid, dogs, white picket fence, etc. We hit it off from the jump and were married 18 months after we met.
This is the success story that sites like OKC would use to promote their product. Really though - neither of us were looking for the one. We were both looking for fun/not serious/etc. Just happened to land in the right place, at the right time, with the right person. Just like everyone else in a successful, long-term relationship.
Dating is a crap-shoot no matter where or how you meet someone.
Netflix put out a really interesting and absolutely NSFW documentary about how social media, hook-up culture, and porn have changed dating. It’s a very feminist based, female sex-positive POV, with an in depth look at how the internet changed porn, which changed sex, which changed everything else.
Here’s the link: Hot Girls Wanted: Turned On
I’m going to stress again that this is absolutely not safe for work and not intended for folks who shouldn’t see sex/porn/nudity/etc.
TLDR: Watch the thing. Date who/when/how you want. Be safe.
@Thumperchick To be fair, 2008 is ancient as far as social norms are concerned. To put that in perspective, that was before the college “safe space” became a thing, and waaaay before MeToo. I would imagine that people used dating sites properly back then…
People back then probably responded to almost every single message they got. The official rates today are about 1%.
@ShotgunX I find it odd that you’re quoting changes that were put into place to protect victims of violence, or to out abusers, as a timeline?
The response rates were still low and it was still a sea of dick pics and shenanigans.
The true change here is the swipe culture. That began after I was out of the game.
@ShotgunX @Thumperchick
@Thumperchick The reason I quoted that is because before these things came about in the last 5-7 years, dating was quite a bit more “traditional” in nature, and was expected to be as such. This is corroborated by some older people I’ve asked. For example, it wasn’t seen as taboo on dating sites for guys to appear masculine, women to appear feminine, etc. These days, you get absolutely crucified for doing that.
There are whole profile and Q/A sections dedicated to displaying how much of a feminist you are, for example, and if you don’t fill them out affirmatively as a male, your match scores with most women get absolutely destroyed.
For example, there’s a question at OKC that asks if it’s necessary to always ask verbal permission before touching your partner. The grand majority of the answers I see are “yes” with a maximum importance factor. Tell me, would you inherently respect and be attracted to your husband if he always asked verbal permission before touching you?
The whole system is utterly self-defeating these days. I can tell you for sure that all the people I know who are either in relationships or casually sexually active are not rabid feminists.
I prefer to disassociate an actual desire for human rights and equality from what is, at its core, a mental condition. Political correctness be damned.
@ShotgunX @Thumperchick
Various dating apps are not dealing with people who are discussing their “currently married-expectations”. Married persons and persons in serious relationships make both-party-agreed accommodations to intimacy as the relationship grows more serious.
The apps are going for, and getting, ideology. So … People opt for hard lines.
If I asked a serious life-partner for that particular accommodation, we would likely be in serious trouble. But … I would expect the partner to honor it. And v v. And we would need to work out our problems.
There are differences between “touching” and “sexual touching” also. I would expect any partner of mine to be aware of and honor whatever my expressed preferences were regarding those. And v v.
I would expect that we would know each other well enough to accommodate and please and be spontaneous without endless discussion. This would necessarily be individually worked out within each relationship.
If we couldn’t reach happy agreement on those issues, then, perhaps, we would need need to end the relationship.
If these dating apps don’t allow for useful subtleties on issues such as touching and other points of respect both parties, then I’d look elsewhere for dating partners.
I know of no females within my extended family or friends who would use these apps for other purposes than light entertainment. If they actually met up with someone via such an app, they would be a little shocked at themselves.
They would also not be serious about the date. It would be a lark. It’s the internet. A dating app. How seriously can you tell take the date?
I don’t thing their minds would be closed to a better outcome. Just … Unlikely.
Re your frustrations in the era of #metoo: obviously there is a lot of stuff that needs working out.
FWIW: I used a dating site once, more than 25 years ago, not really looking for a date.
Just, someone had died. I wanted to get my mind off the loss. I met two of my v best lifelong friends there. Still friends. I talk to them each frequently. Many times each month.
In those days of no pix and of literate, well-written responses, I think the female response rate was still less than 1%, or else, at least very low. I think many males just sent out generic notes to every listed female in their age group.
@f00l @Thumperchick I somewhat disagree with one of the points here. I believe that women are on these sites and apps in actual seriousness, and intend to meet up. They are looking for emotional connections they aren’t getting from guys inviting them to their place during Friday happy hours, or “regular” guys who are probably too shy/introverted to approach them on the street and/or other social settings. In fact, one of the most common complaints from women on their profiles and in research is that guys they talk to end up never asking them out, and becoming pen-pals of sorts. Meanwhile, guys mainly complain about getting ghosted after the first date (been there, paradox of choice all over again; I fully acknowledge that the women I go out with are likely talking and setting up dates with multiple other guys at the same time as myself, competition I never get to actually see).
People pretend that they’re on dating sites only for “light entertainment” because they don’t want to be seen as desperate, or as someone undesirable using a last-resort option to avoid being single while under the judgmental gazes of their peers.
Anyway, in the end, it all does come down to this duality in which you are either this unapologetic misogynistic asshole (like some people here must think I am for expressing these views, even though that’s far from the truth) and are vilified for it, or steadfast “allies” who are praised for their contributions, but ultimately sexually ignored, because women are inherently unattracted to subservient, docile men. The only true winners here are the extremely good-looking and wealthy, as people are generally willing to discard their principles to get together with someone of that caliber.
@f00l @ShotgunX @Thumperchick
Are you speaking for women now?
@f00l @RiotDemon @ShotgunX @Thumperchick I have sat idly by reading these posts and rolling my eyes at shotgunx’s depiction of females on dating sites. I need to jump in at this point.
ShotgunX needs to understand that when reading a study, one needs to look at (1) who ran the study, (2) what was their motivation and (3) who was the sample population utilized. I find it hard to believe the any published stated that “all women” did one thing or another. You might want to question the source. You should research your sources before passing along the details as gospel.
Now, I cannot speak for ALL woman. That said, I am a woman who did a substantial amount of on-line dating in my early/mid 30’s. I was looking for a nice guy, someone with whom I could connect. I was looking for “the guy”. I DID NOT reply to shirtless, muscle bound guys - EVER. They generally cared more about themselves and their appearance than anyone/anything else.
I DID respond to the nice guys regardless of their bank account, zip code, etc. My favorite boyfriend from one of those sites barely made $20k a year, and I did not care. He was a very sweet man.
I was NOT looking for a hook-up, but had to deal with so many guys who felt like, “well I took you out for a nice meal, so give it up”, and had to throw several of them off my porch, etc.
I applaud the sites for putting hard/soft limit questionnaires on their sites these days - that is a significant improvement. In the past the sites turned a blind eye to physical or mental abuse that someone may have dealt with from one of their members. Literally - no concern whatsoever. Would I ever visit one of those sites again, hell no!
There are reasons why people become jaded and do not take these sites seriously. There are also reasons why the questionnaires are in place and why these questions need to be asked.
Just try to be open minded and try to see the situation from the other persons point of view. As Atticus Finch once said, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…until you climb into his skin and walk around in it” Ok, creepy but very, very true.
@RiotDemon How did I know one of these comments would pop up around here?
No, I’m agreeing with established science. Doesn’t take much, either; just Google “study women prefer men personality type” or something along those lines and see for yourself.
@tinamarie1974 You might have been the exception to the rule, then. The thing about exceptions, though, is that they’re rare and hard to find, and make the game not worth playing.
Re: study sources
Both Tinder and OKC have put out multiple studies and data sets corroborating my claims. In fact, it’s more like I am corroborating their claims. And they put out all the strategies for success in messaging, et cetera as well. Guess what? This stuff isn’t coming from a pickup manual, but straight from the horse’s mouth. The most success can be had from acting like the type of man that women rail about in real life, but are actually attracted to. Who would have thought, eh?
Paying lip service to “nice guys” is meaningless when statistics show that any man under 5’8" is basically invisible and might as well not have a profile at all.
@ShotgunX Yes, I am the only woman who felt this way. Come on you know better.
And if you are under 5’8" maybe you need to date a short girl
Oh wait, but all guys only date tall leggy blonds with a tiny waist and big boobs, all of them…right???
@f00l @RiotDemon @ShotgunX @tinamarie1974
Ah, I think your POV here is what’s confused you.
It’s not just dating that’s changed. Women and “non-traditional” men have decided that the old social norms don’t work.
If you’re crucified for your views on consent, gender/relationship roles, etc. - the issue is likely not that the questions are there. The issue lies in a discrepancy in values.
There is something to be said for defined roles and traditional presentation. It’s a safe space for folks who don’t quite do the fluid, open, level, but ever-evolving environment that currently makes up the societal landscape.
It’s not that there’s no space for, or acceptance for traditional people. That’s just not the current “norm” for society.
You keep mentioning how women are changing the landscape. This is absolutely true! Women are telling men and the world what they want and what they will accept in a partner/date/etc.
@tinamarie1974 I didn’t say sole exception. There can be many out there, but they’re still eclipsed by the sheer amount of people who fit neatly on the bell curve.
Thankfully I’m not 5’8", however, I’m not over that magical 6’0" number, and have actually been called a midget by a girl (more than once). How’s that for feminism?
And no, once again, studies show that guys are much more relaxed about physical appearance than women are on these sites. Basically, be alive, and don’t be morbidly obese. That’s about it.
The dudes who only go for tall, leggy blondes don’t have dating site accounts.
@ShotgunX I feel like you do not want to see both sides. Several of us have tried to explain, but you are not hearing our POV’s Maybe you will figure it out one day. Good luck with that!
@ShotgunX @tinamarie1974
Well … Women are inherently unattracted to a whole bunch of things. And what attracts someone for a date might be or not be what attracts someone for a life partner.
It’s a world which should allow for some subtlety and individuality.
That said:
The females I know and am close to, and who have married or “gotten permanent with someone” or who have deliberately had kids with someone in the last decade, are all ardent feminists in terms of their intimate relationships and the internal power dynamics.
They don’t wear it in their sleeves or talk about it all the time tho. Or walk around counting “transgressions” or whatever.
They’re simply “easy people” who are quite sure what they want, and who don’t waste time on what won’t work.
Their partners could be said to be “quite feminist”, and also not in the least subservient.
Turns out two people of good will and good temperament are quite able to make that work in many instances.
@Thumperchick Science shows that what women say they want, and what they ultimately go for, romantically, are two entirely different things. Stereotypes exist for a reason, and “bad boy” and “dark and mysterious” weren’t things invented by sad men during open mic night at a comedy club, but knowledge passed through the ages, and now, finally, quantified by research.
Also, I assure you that society is still quite a bit more traditional than you might think. In fact, if anything, we are seeing a return to the harem system of the old times, which was briefly replaced by a Judeo-Christian monogamistic system for a few hundred years. Women, having been freed from the shackles of socially-enforced monogamy, are able to select their partners, and have as many as they want, which are at the top end of the desirability spectrum. One man, many girlfriends. The only difference is that because of modern birth control, it’s not leading to too many babies.
@tinamarie1974 It’s not that I don’t want to listen to your side, it’s just that your side is anecdotal and comes from an ideal, and mine comes from data. The ideal, and how things actually work, are not the same. Kind of like how they teach you that you will have a happy, successful life if you just focus studying hard and working diligently, but in reality it’s only possible if you do coke and defraud pension funds on Wall Street.
@ShotgunX @tinamarie1974
cough cough
@f00l There are different types of feminism out there. Believing that women shouldn’t be excluded from jobs and have access to birth control isn’t the same as believing that you need verbal permission to hug your wife or a zealous devotion to “destroying the white heteronormative patriarchy scum” or whatever. Contemporary social “norms” deal entirely in the latter.
I can wholeheartedly tell you that it’s backfiring pretty badly, based on the amount of 40-year-old women pushing strollers full of dogs that I see every day.
@ShotgunX
If it was so obvious, maybe it tells a lot about what you are saying.
Just because a study says X doesn’t mean we are all X. Maybe if you listen to the actual women in this thread, it would help open your eyes.
@ShotgunX @tinamarie1974
I think the important distinction to reiterate here is “when reading a study, one needs to look at (1) who ran the study, (2) what was their motivation and (3) who was the sample population utilized. I find it hard to believe the any published stated that “all women” did one thing or another. You might want to question the source. You should research your sources before passing along the details as gospel.”
People tend to flock towards “data” that validates their own preconceived notions. Woman setting boundaries in relationships and you not getting a date may not be related to the fall of mankind’s birth rates, and moreso connected to some men’s overall lack of willingness to communicate effectively. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
@ShotgunX Realize what I wrote is fact and has occured and there are so many more facts regarding on-line dating that I will not share on this forum. I shared my thoughts, but I know SO many women who have had the same or similar experiences. I am not an atypical.
What I am hearing is, women say they like “x” but they date “y” and it is not fair. Life, my friend, is not fair and that is just how it goes. Women and men make decisions based upon a multitude of factors. You cannot boil it down to one thing.
Do some women like bad boys, yup. Should that be your target audience, nope. Since you like data so much, you should analyze the type of woman who is attracted to you and find her.
@ShotgunX @Thumperchick bias, you don’t say?!??!?!?!?!
@f00l @ShotgunX
I am almost certain that women pushing dogs in strollers are doing exactly what they want to be doing. Not sure how that’s a backfire?
/giphy dogs in strollers
@RiotDemon You have a social imperative to advocate for your views right now. Of course you’re not going to say “yeah, were kinda attracted to assholes” right here in public. That would be quite scandalous.
Hey, men are quite guilty of this as well! Just in different ways. That’s why in one of my earlier posts I warned women to be wary of any guy who puts that he’s a “nice guy” anywhere in his profile, for example.
But anyways, studies are blind, and people are less likely to put up a guard when protected by anonymity.
@ShotgunX
I wouldn’t say it anywhere because it’s not true.
Also, you guys are kind of dipping into the “if it’s not working for you then you should…” well a bit too much. I’m discussing this from a wide, general perspective. At no time have I talked about my personal experiences with online dating aside from mentioning message response rates, which fall in line with the numbers the companies themselves put out. My viewpoint might be unpopular with you, but it’s far from a cry for help.
Anyway, look, having studies is better than not having studies. Even if someone is lying with statistics, as long as there’s raw data being presented, you can derive your own conclusions.
@ShotgunX because data is always right.
@RiotDemon And I could say that “I’m only attracted to her for her mind.”
And we both might be telling the truth.
The question is whether this holds true for the majority of the population. And I’d rather play the odds than bet on the three-legged horse with a whole lot of spirit.
Needs more
/giphy dogs in strollers
I’m leaving this thread for now. My eyes hurt from rolling.
@tinamarie1974 Data isn’t always right, but we’re not exactly testing a new drug with a sample size of 24 people here. This stuff has been around for a long time, and it is utterly against the anecdotal arguments you guys are trying to make.
And before data, there were millions of years of evolutionary competition, and guess what, the guys holding the doors for people weren’t the ones passing on their genes.
I mean, I can argue anecdotally too. Would you prefer that? I have quite a few stories to tell.
@RiotDemon @ShotgunX
But you literally do not actually know, nor have any relevant data whatsoever, about what “holds true” to the majority of the population. You have a bunch of made up statistics from men who want an excuse as to why he can’t get a date.
@halfling @RiotDemon @ShotgunX
Hafling, well said.
I am out. He is not listening and my time is far too valuable to waste here.
/giphy drop the mic
@ShotgunX
I’m gonna be honest man, it sounds like you’ve got some toxic mindsets based off of preconceived notions or perhaps a prior experience. You’d be better off letting go of some of the vitriol you’ve got simmering around inside.
@halfling Actually, that’s not the point of the argument at all. It is actually kind of easy to get a date through online dating (if you meet the minimum criteria) if you utilize the data to craft the kind of profile and messages that have higher rates of positive responses.
The issue I am mainly talking about is the paradox of choice that ensures that most online dating doesn’t lead to long-term contact/relationships.
Once again, I am ready to take the heat for expressing an ostensibly unpopular viewpoint. That doesn’t mean that I’m personally attacking anyone here, so don’t take it as such. Nor am I complaining about my own problems. I’ve done literally hundreds of hours of reading about this topic, and am arguing from the point of conclusions presented from all of that knowledge. Nothing more, nothing less.
If this issue is that these studies are put out by men who can’t get dates (which is a ludicrous premise), then I’m fully in favor of having studies conducted by women and/or men who can.
@ShotgunX
I think you’re attempting to date in the wrong pool. If your dating site contains mostly women who talk about ideology all the time, find another social pool.
If you’re attempting to date on the internet, expect a lot of discussion about ideology. After all, both you and the other party could be just anyone. As in, someone who isn’t sane, honest, or civilized. So … Extreme personal caution is not a useless norm there.
Re hugging your wife.
How about people won’t hug sig others when they don’t want to be hugged, or hug them in a way they don’t like at the time?
And v v.
And how about both agree to respect each other’s boundaries?
And how about both work that out before they get married or whatever?
If a site is too ideological to handle that, find another place to look for a potential mate.
It’s possible those women are in intimate relationships with another adult. How do you know they’re not?
And it’s possible that those females are doing exactly what they want to be doing. While in a relationship, or not. So, fine.
And it’s possible that pushing pets in a stroller is not stupider then things many other adults, including “masculine, dominant-behaving males” are busy doing.
So… Somebody seems to have some resentment. True? False?
Dunno. Say, the implied stereotype and its implied “attitudinal causes” sounds like a possible cheap shot.
Or not. I leave that to you.
Anyways … If you don’t wanna date someone who has a stroller for their pets, don’t date them.
/giphy eye roll
I actually don’t often see someone out w pets in a stroller. Kinda rare in my world. That sounds to be a potentially giphy-rich environment.
@halfelf Once again, people are making assumptions about my personal life based on my arguments.
Please see my arguments for what they are, and not bitter lashing out and resentment because of all the women who rejected me.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I don’t have to be personally wronged to feel a certain way about something.
@halfelf @ShotgunX
And sometimes an attitude is just an attitude.
Actually, I assume that you are a “nice guy” (in the sense of that term that I have respect for). And a competent and responsible one.
But I think online dating sites may be a bit toxic for you. Perhaps these sites are ridiculously toxic for everyone.
As for the polls and research you quote: Please don’t take that very seriously. Much of it is from self-selected respondents. And people who wanna make a point.
As for the alleged thing about “bad boys”. Get over it.
Yes, in romance novels and in real life, females sometimes wanna be with the sexy dangerous or fucked-up guy. And rescue him through love or whatever.
Briefly. Kinda like a “vacay experience wish” for many.
Just like many guys would, if they could, date high-maintenance females who look like supermodels.
Until he wants a quality relationship as the first priority. In which case the supermodel might or might not be a first choice.
Please don’t confuse all that daydreaming with what sort of person people actually want to live with.
You can come across as kinda naive at times. I don’t think that’s part of your self-image?
I hope I’m wrong about the naivete.
Anyway, try some serious research about who gets and keeps stable, happy, and rewarding relationships.
Why not drop so-called “knowledge” about all the polls and research you mention (which sounds pretty lame anyway by any serious measure), and if you have a visible attitude or visible resentment, seriously drop that also?
And just find one competent stable female person who likes you and is willing to get to know you better?
Odds are you won’t find her on the net. Tho miracles of that sort can and do happen.
Re my “lame research” mention:
Research which does not take into account current opportunities and power dynamics (which are quite different from [even recent] past power dynamics and opportunities w regard to females) are unlikely to give useful results.
And “internet polling data results” from dating sites: Sigh.
So can all that garbage, and just go find some likeable female people. You only need to locate 1. Or, at most, a few, over time.
@f00l Re: dating pool
I very much agree. That’s why I mentioned before that people I know in less urban areas have had better experiences with online dating (plus it’s less paradox-of-choicey because sometimes your entire match list for 100 miles is like 200 people). Meanwhile, people I know who live in big urban centers like I do seem to share in my experiences. And yes, I do acknowledge that this is anecdotal. While we do know that urban centers are more liberal socially and politically, I haven’t seen any studies that tie that specifically to online dating. I mean, if I had to bet money…but I digress.
Anyway, not sure what I can do about that. Moving isn’t really an option.
@f00l @ShotgunX Moral of the story is Go outside and practice social skills
@f00l Re: second post
I don’t think I’m “nice.” I think I’m “fair.” I don’t go out of my way to be nice to people, as in my eyes, few deserve it, including myself.
Agree that dating sites are likely toxic for everyone. Also agree that you’re unlikely to find a true match online, which was one of the very first things I said in this thread.
@f00l @ShotgunX Another moral of this little story, Golden Rule: Treat others as you’d want to be treated, whether they “deserve” it or not.
@ShotgunX
I lived in a big urban area (top ten US, over 7 million I suppose).
Urban politics are a nice mix of centrist, conservative (all types), lib (all types), and who knows what else.
So: anecdotal in my life:
Most females I know (esp under age 40) are avowed feminists. But they don’t talk about it all the time. In fact, they are gracious and entertaining company to anyone who is polite and interesting. If you wanna know that sort of thing you have to ask.
They simply act that way and have expectations of authority and success. Within their own lives and in the lives of their partners.
PS. Most are married. Apparently happily.
Some females I know are not avowed feminists. If asked, they would prob deny it or say they are “a little that way but never strident”.
And … In their personal lives they simply act much the same as the feminists do; and they have expectations of authority and success. Within their own lives and in the lives of their partners.
PS. Most are married. Apparently happily.
And both types expect to be pleasant company. And not to be political all the time.
@ShotgunX
“Nice” as I meant it is: decently behaved, respectful, good company, good tempered, excellent manners, empathetic to the appropriate degree, responsible, having honest relationships with the world at large and with friends and family, and reasonably able to take care of self, and when it’s one’s responsibility, able to take care of others.
“nice” doesn’t mean “superficially nice”. And it doesn’t mean “gets walked on”.
And … If one isn’t nice day to day with most people, expect a rough time in life. A portion of “niceness” (not all of it) is social savvy.
@f00l Re: “nice”
I agree with you, but that’s more like a baseline of traits to be an acceptable human being, as opposed to being “nice.” I’d say it’s more like being “normal.”
“Nice” in the dating world means that you patiently watch her stuff as she’s making out with the bartender in the bathroom. Yes, I’m obviously exaggerating for comedic value (I feel like I need to mention that since so many people got their panties in a bunch at my other sarcasm), but that’s how we as society have generally come to interpret the term “nice guy.”
@ShotgunX
If people are “getting their panties in a wad” a lot in reaction to you; then either you are doing “very much the wrong thing”, socially speaking, or “very much doing the right thing”.
/giphy Socially speaking
@halfelf What about criminals? Cheaters? People who leave their children in locked cars during heat waves, or tie up their dogs outside during hurricanes? I’m sure they all want to be treated nicely.
That mindless virtue signaling, lol.
@f00l Well, it’s a forum on the internet. I’m not going to put my filters on when there’s literally nothing in it for me.
I mean, look at the people who bailed from the conversation. None of them even tried to make any sort of argument aside from talking about themselves, or trying to shame me through bandwagon groupthink.
You, I actually respect.
@f00l @ShotgunX sometimes it’s not worth wasting my time.
So sorry I had more important things to do and bailed on this enthralling conversation.
/S
@RiotDemon @ShotgunX
Attn. Straw man argument in sight
/giphy straw man
As regards the other participants: did you notice that they generally had something meaningful and useful to say, even if they didn’t put it into your precise preferred terminology?
Did you notice that they were mostly trying to like you in the beginning? And you appeared to want to either “win” or push them away?
World you rather “win” an argument about some miniscule point? (“win” within your own definition, not necessarily that of others)
Or would you rather get to know a few people and possibility maybe learn some stuff over time?
In the meantime, if they are willing to forgive a few of your possible rhetorical errors, perhaps you can forgive a few of what you perceive to be their rhetorical errors?
Tho it’s not always right track each and every time … there are times when
"to get along, go along"
(as often told to incoming members of Congress) is valid.
Not always. But … one thing about “going along” is that one frequently learns something by the by.
The social and rhetorical “ears” should both be attuned to nuance. And “right” and “wrong” arguments should both be viewed critically.
@f00l @ShotgunX You are assuming I crave your respect or want to waste my time in this meaningless diatribe. Regardless of what is said you will not be swayed, this much is clear. It is time to move on.
/giphy move along, nothing to see here
@tinamarie1974
Bingo.
@RiotDemon
@f00l In this case, yes, I was trying to win. I wasn’t after agreement, or reinforcement, just for the sake of getting along.
This is after my initial goal of rationalizing the not-so-good experiences with online dating that other people have mentioned. The actual course of events was:
They made it about me, while I didn’t make it about them. This usually happens when something hits a bit too close to home. People aren’t as clean and pure as they make themselves out to be to others. The strawmanning happened much earlier than you think.
@tinamarie1974 I absolutely can be swayed, and have been many times in my life. The difference is that you’re not so much trying to sway me, but rather shame me into agreement. If you want to truly change my viewpoint, then attack the arguments. If you present a good case, then I will balance what you say against other arguments I perceive as valid, and they will become part of my knowledge base from which I will draw in the future.
If you just want me to take what you say at face value based purely on your subjective experience, well, that’s going to be worth much less. For example, we can go back to our height example. Studies show that message response rates correlate positively with increased male height (to a point). Do you take issue with the validity of these stats? If yes, why? Can you provide a valid counterpoint, or will you say that you’re a woman, and you never considered height as a part of the equation, therefore the people putting out these stats have to be men who can’t get dates for other reasons, and are publishing polluted statistical claims?
@ShotgunX let me point out that you never provided your imperical evidence or sources. You stated that you spent a significant amount of time and that we could go on the web and find it ourselves. At that point I had no interest in proving my point by providing fact. Why would I care if you did not?
And for the record I was not shaming you. I was simply pointing out that a study states “all” it is likely wrong and used myself as the example. I did that to prove that not all women fit in that tiny box where you believe they were placed based upon your “research”
I was attempting to either have you provide your data or think outside of your box. When it was clear that I would get nowhere I decided to leave the conversation, it is not worth my time or effort.
So enjoy your evening and feel free to respond, but I am finished and will not respond further.
@tinamarie1974 I never claimed that all women were this or that. All I stated was that statistics show that people tend to act in certain ways. Not everyone is going to be at the tip of the bell curve. But if you have specific goals in mind, then it’s wise to play the odds. Nothing more, nothing less. If OKC tells me that the most responded-to messages are about 120 characters in length and impose some kind of profile-related query, then that’s how I’m going to write them, despite you telling me that you prefer haikus.
Regarding data sources, so far I only made very basic stuff part of my arguments, such as male psychological traits and height in relation to romantic success. That is very baseline stuff that you can get with a Google search. I’ll try to provide some high-end studies with regard to that when I can. But it’s really common-sense stuff that is so widely known and accepted in society that I shouldn’t have to. Most women prefer big, strong, assertive guys, news at 11. I mean, are you seriously going to try to convince everyone here that’s that’s not generally the case?
@ShotgunX
Really?
I didn’t write see it happening that way. Yes to a degree, but only that. No more.
I “saw” a lot more going in than that. I don’t know, but I’m guessing that other participants saw/inferred the “more” also. And they sometimes responded to the inferred “more”.
Now that later move is entirely “legal” in casual conversation, assuming that the person isn’t trying to be obnoxious. What I saw here was mostly, by that standard, “legal”, to my memory, but I haven’t gone back and read the entire topic carefully to parse every exchange. Nor do I intend to.
Casual conversation mostly shouldn’t be treated that way. So I try not to. For someone to do so is to commit a serious logical error re the nature of conversation, and the act proclaims the “ultra parsing party” to be a foolish literalist who doesn’t “get” language.
Casual conversation isn’t debate club. And shouldn’t be treated as such. It serves a logical and necessary function. Just not a “debate club” function.
Also I “saw” slightly different things going on than those you mention. Make of that, and of my alleged “perceptions” or my tendency toward them, what you will.
You and I read this entire exchange and gained different ideas of what went on. And other parties’ various POVs add layers to that.
To a degree, all of these potentially partially valid offerings are, if offered by a persons of quality mental status and possessing social savvy, and if offered with decent intentions, potentially logically (and mathematically, if it comes to that) partially valid and true, to a degree.
And then human judgment come into play. Because human relations are v v complex and we have no final map to them. We don’t even have a final map to the validity of debate-type arguments. Because language and human perspective, as used by our species, is way way way too complex for that. We only achieve partials. At best. And all those are open to question.
Do you really think you “won”?
None of us “won”.
Perhaps we gained a little knowledge of things we usually don’t understand very well. Or perhaps we didn’t.
Why throw away (even if limited) valid info and valid reasoning? All our POVs are limited. The world is a complex place. No mortal POV is “complete and total”. There’s always stuff to learn.
@tinamarie1974 It’s a real puzzle why this guy can’t get a date. Hm
@therealjrn
/giphy you think?
@f00l
So which is it? The fact that you are so unsure as to put it on a scale speaks volumes. Kind of makes it seem you just don’t want to offend the other folks here.
Yes, people have done quite a bit of inferring here. Just look at the post below yours, which I’m not going to bother addressing since I don’t fall for bait. Or I might, with a joke. Something about not needing a date because their mother will give it up for free. Haven’t decided yet. Ask me again after two beers.
PS: I don’t think I’ve necessarily “won,” but I do think that I defended myself well.
@ShotgunX
Re agreeing to a degree and no more (or whatever):
Nope. It means I’m casual about a casual conversation. And I intend to stay that way. Even if I try to make a valid point every so often.
I must ask you to excuse such excursions into seriousness and validity. My bad. Such poor manners I have!
And nope. It means I read as carefully as I want to read, and no more carefully. Since all that can take time and energy. And conversation is only worth so much, judged in long term or short term consequence and value.
“So unsure”?
That I don’t vector-quantify it or whatever? Come on. Do you know what casual conversation is? This is, despite occasional divergences, casual conversation.
Quite frankly, I have no prob with much or most of what they said. Altho I could see that the form of expressions chosen often might not resonate with you.
I don’t wanna offend the other folks here particularly. But that never stopped me. Specially when I’m extra stupid.
Occasionally - rarely - I am awake and aware and have some degree of human judgment. That stops me from offering gratuitous offense - or offering any strictly unnecessary offense - if I have the wit to see it and avoid committing it.
That happens sometimes I’m told. Kinda hard for me to believe it tho.
Re defending yourself and what all
In a sense (strictly by your parsings, your arguments, and your definitions [not by any other]), perhaps you defended yourself well. By the standards of your own judgment.
Unfortunately, I don’t think most intelligent and educated persons who are quite capable of and competent at logic and reason would read this conversation as having the context you seem to give it. I think they world likely, en masse, make a quite different reading.
And not be wrong.
Just … People tried here. For real.
You apparently found small or large errors and points of weakness in what they offered. And appeared to thereby be justified to dismiss all that.
In your shoes (in the sense of if I were to have made the presentation you made), I would not have even bothered to view the responses in that way.
Who the fuck cares about scoring points? or defending self? Or making some supposedly classy or strong argument? Or catching out the other people with purported weakness in their less formal approaches?
I would have have my most important “listen” be with another sort of “ear” altogether.
To me, that’s where almost all the real value is. Just about every time.
Wtf. There is always stuff to learn.
@carl669
@ShotgunX -
You do realize this entire replies section is to a comment I made, about my experience (which was clearly anecdotal), simply to introduce a documentary I found interesting and relevant?
The conversation immediately took an unnecessary turn when you cranked the wheel and sent us barreling into the trees.
Since we’re in the forest, I’ll play along for a moment.
If you don’t cite your sources, your “data” doesn’t exist.
There is no point in continuing to discuss or debate anything with someone who states they have facts and data to back up their position, but refuses to produce the source.
Proclaiming you have a golden egg laying goose doesn’t hold up, unless you have the eggs to prove it.
When it appeared you managed to start a dogpile in response to your opinions/comments; I tried to give you the easier out and sidetrack this conversation with cute puppies.
Please, take it now. Or, at the very least, jump into a new comment and replies subthread.
/giphy doggy stroller
^ I should have anticipated a Snoop Dogg gif in response to “doggy”. It’s staying anyway.
@Thumperchick Here you go:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w20402
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886907002504?via%3Dihub
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886907002814?via%3Dihub
https://www.eharmony.co.uk/dating-advice/relationships/why-do-women-love-tall-men
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.61.4010&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The rabbit hole goes even deeper when you read that other primary selective factors for relationships, such as career success, are also tied positively with increased height. lol.
There’s like…thousands of these studies. These are just some random ones I read through this evening, following research citations after a blind Google search for “height preferences dating”.
Looking forward to accusations of bias in study selection/misinterpretations of results, “not all women!”, “there’s just no getting through to you I’m done here,” et cetara.
Honestly, you have to be ignorant as hell to think that this particular subject hasn’t been researched to death.
@ShotgunX @Thumperchick what do you want? Us to cite other sources that go against your research? I don’t really understand what you are going on about at this point. You already said you won. Didn’t realize there was a competition here.
You keep talking about the studies. We, as women, are talking about personal feelings. I’m not sure why you want to argue so much.
@RiotDemon @Thumperchick First, yes, I’d like you to cite other sources that go against this (not mine) research.
Second, when the argument to begin with was with regard to how the overall online dating scene is like, and how to best utilize information to your advantage in order to be successful in said dating scene as a man, your personal feelings are irrelevant. Remember, I made generalizations backed by science, and you people took it personally as an attack against a whole gender because the truth seemed a bit too inconvenient.
Once again, none of this was a personal attack; you merely chose to interpret it as such. And then you attacked me.
If someone here claimed that men are dirty boors who can’t focus on more than one task at a time reliably (backed by a shit-ton of science, by the way), I wouldn’t get offended at that because I would understand that it’s not an insult aimed at me. Grow up.
@ShotgunX @Thumperchick
With that amazing rebuttal, I won’t be responding anymore. There really is no point.
Off topic, but related: This is one of the reasons I adore these forums – this intelligent and meaningful conversation is taking place here, and one thread away we’re talking about scented poo spray
@nolrak The best part is knowing at some point they’ll likely merge.
@nolrak
Fuckity motherfucker.
I thought we were taking about scented poo spray.
/giphy what are we taking about?
@cinoclav @nolrak parts of this one could’ve used a spritz or two of poo spray.
@cinoclav @DennisG2014 @nolrak
Give us time!
/giphy poo spritz
Thread topic: Tinder
Me: Who could’ve guessed that this thread would cause so much ferment and folderol!?
Everyone: Meeeeeee!
But statistics on Tinder usage really impressive
@julla but how many successful relationships are formed from the app?
I met one of my best friends on Tinder.