grogster Posted October 15, 2008 Posted October 15, 2008 Match profiles are usually puffed up. Chemistry profiles are a little more truthful, in my opinion. That's interesting. I wonder why there's more candor in Chemistry Profiles. I'll inquire.
D-Jam Posted October 15, 2008 Posted October 15, 2008 This all got me thinking, because this is not the first time this has happened where a guy I know in real life has asked me out or hit on me that I later find online who lists their preference as slender or athletic only. And as a larger than thin woman it is frustrating to date online because most of the decent catches all list slender and athletic as their only body type they want to date. The pickings are slim. Like everyone else has stated, the big problem is that too many women on these sites will stretch the truth when it comes to their weight and body. In my past experiences with online dating, I've seen many women who should list that they are "a few extra pounds" or "BBW" listing themselves as "average". It's why I keep mentioning how all men and women should put a full body shot in their images. I personally think all men and women should be required to post a clear face image and a clear full body image. Nothing to hide at that point. If they want to pull out the song and dance about people being shallow or "nobody wants to date a fat person", then maybe they should first find out if no one will date them for their weight and/or maybe thinking about losing weight for the sake of their health if anything. Seen plenty of guys who will date bigger women, but it's funny that I will politely reject one and suddenly I'm made out to be the shallow evil snob of a man. Do men have different dating criteria for their online dates than they do for the women they approach in real life? Why the discrepancies? My way was as I stated, I would search on "thin", "athletic", and "average" and just pick out women based on photo that I physically liked. From there I'd read profiles and only email the women whom I felt I would have common ground with. If I hit profiles where there were no photos, unclear photos, photos of them hiding in groups of friends, etc...I just don't bother. Some could say I'm shallow, but in the real world (like in a store or bar), you can't hide from how you look. Either be proud and confident, or fix what you don't like is how I see things. Men are not as shallow as the media makes us out to be. I personally like women with a healthy weight and sexy curves. I'm totally not into skinny sticks who look like they have little girl bodies. Maybe these dating sites should put illustrations next to the area where people pick their body type. Sort of a clear definition. Isn't the concept of online dating the opportunity to meet someone in real life? Why do people lie about weight, height, etc? It will be pretty obvious upon meeting, that it's not true. They want results more than an ideal match.
JohnnyBlaze Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 Do men have different dating criteria for their online dates than they do for the women they approach in real life? To be frank, yes. It's the same reason you always hear of people falling for someone who they always thought wasn't their "type". If you ask me what type of chick I go for, I can write down an entire list. If you ask me to describe the chicks I have fallen in love with, I could write you an entire list. Take those two lists and compare them; barely anything will match up. Until the last five or ten years, we've never had to qualify our attractions. What attracts us is such a variety of things that it's rare to honestly be able to state definitively which features we insist upon. If a guy's into tall, blue-eyed blondes with 34D's, which differences (or how many) change his opinion? What if she's a short brunette with 32C's, but has the most captivating deep blue eyes he's ever seen? The problem is that attraction has been turned into a has/has not list. Attraction isn't a checklist; it's an impulse. You can't qualify an impulse.
grogster Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 To be frank, yes. It's the same reason you always hear of people falling for someone who they always thought wasn't their "type". If you ask me what type of chick I go for, I can write down an entire list. If you ask me to describe the chicks I have fallen in love with, I could write you an entire list. Take those two lists and compare them; barely anything will match up. Until the last five or ten years, we've never had to qualify our attractions. What attracts us is such a variety of things that it's rare to honestly be able to state definitively which features we insist upon. If a guy's into tall, blue-eyed blondes with 34D's, which differences (or how many) change his opinion? What if she's a short brunette with 32C's, but has the most captivating deep blue eyes he's ever seen? The problem is that attraction has been turned into a has/has not list. Attraction isn't a checklist; it's an impulse. You can't qualify an impulse. So true. Lists don't have anything to do with it.
pretty professional Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 No, it is women are harder on themselves than men are. While you see yourself as a "larger" woman, your coworker sees as a very attractive, normal sized, sexy woman. I have actually read studies that this is true, also.
pretty professional Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 I'm 5'1", 102lbs, size 0. I'm not at all sickly or anorexic looking...remember, I am only 5'1". I look proportionate to my size. 5'1" is very little. I agree with you. Eva Longoria put only a few pounds, but the paparrazi has had a field day with her fuller figure. She is still a size 0! She is just short and small so a few pounds are more noticeable.
flc Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 I think the problem with online is the criteria and the way you search. You do have to put something in for age range, height range etc. When doing this people are using their analytical brain and saying I don't want someone less than 6' and over 50yo. But in reality I am sure they can find someone they are attracted to who is 5'10" and 51. People know that this is how it works so they fudge a bit so that they fit a wider search criteria. I think most people know they have to meet the person and most I know spill the beans on the first date. So far I have only gone out with one women who listed her age accurately most moved it down by a couple of years and one as much as 5. Now I could blow them off and say they are liars and not worth my attention but really I understand why they did what they did, they told me their true age early in the dating process and if I liked them I really did not care about this fact.
lovestruck818 Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 I agree with you. Eva Longoria put only a few pounds, but the paparrazi has had a field day with her fuller figure. She is still a size 0! She is just short and small so a few pounds are more noticeable. They did with Jennifer Love Hewitt too and she's a size 2! It's like god forbid a celebrity wants to eat something other than a salad once in a while! Sheesh. This is why women today have such issues with their bodies...b/c of the emphasis put on it from the paparazzi.
Geishawhelk Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 The emphasis is thrown at us frome everywhere... magazines full of diets, anti-ageing creams, hair dyes, underwear... all to tuck us in, get rid of the grey, hide the wrinkles and shed the fat.... Hell's teeth...! We get old! We change shape! Sometimes it's genetic, sometimes it's to do with lifestyle, but nobody can halt or reverse all the processees.... but we're made to feel old/fat/ugly if we don't try! All these actresses telling us 'we're worth it'! What a bunch of touched-up hooey! And have you ever noticed that all those adverts for undergarments designed to lift, tuck, hide conceal and emphasise - are all modelled by women who don't need that kind of stuff - !?
Recommended Posts