amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 This article basically tells me what I already knew: It's all about the picture, stupid. There are however a few interesting points about women being at least as shallow as men, which goes against a lot of the self righteous ranting you can find elsewhere. http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/11/17/your-looks-and-online-dating/ Personally I put almost no weight into their profile besides their pictures and their vitals. I look for their age, job, etc - but I mostly ignore what they put in the boxes as I've found it is not generally a good indicator of how the person actually is - more of their mood at the time. Edit: I wonder what kind of bias this has because it is on the free site OkCupid and not one of the pay sites.
CarrieT Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I'm curious of those photographs used in the article/study were given permission by the actual people in the shots...
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 I'm curious of those photographs used in the article/study were given permission by the actual people in the shots... They were: The above featured users have graciously agreed to let me post their pictures, so please don’t make them regret it
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) This article basically tells me what I already knew: It's all about the picture, stupid. There are however a few interesting points about women being at least as shallow as men, which goes against a lot of the self righteous ranting you can find elsewhere. http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/11/17/your-looks-and-online-dating/ Personally I put almost no weight into their profile besides their pictures and their vitals. I look for their age, job, etc - but I mostly ignore what they put in the boxes as I've found it is not generally a good indicator of how the person actually is - more of their mood at the time. Edit: I wonder what kind of bias this has because it is on the free site OkCupid and not one of the pay sites. I saw this when they posted it, yeah great and pretty much objective article. They have a lot of other great articles too, I think the one on race was even more interesting: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/10/05/your-race-affects-whether-people-write-you-back/ The most interesting bit for me in your link was that women rated 80% of men as significantly below average looking, that part was more of a surprise to me than others. It could be argued that the male population on that site is simply less attractive than men who don't have profiles at all, but I don't quite buy that. Heh or perhaps men just don't know how to pick pictures! But seriously there are many interesting ways to look at that notion. Agreed that boxes are often not a good indicator of who they are, although I will pay attention to certain basic things there, like compositional skill and the sorts of books and interests they decide to advertise about themselves. I doubt there is much of a bias, the sample size at OKCupid is very large and the people running those numbers know what they are doing. Edited November 25, 2009 by Ody
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 The most interesting bit for me in your link was that women rated 80% of men as significantly below average looking, that part was more of a surprise to me than others. Oh you shallow women, when will you learn to love us men for what is in our hearts and our minds not our pants. We are more than sexual objects!
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Oh you shallow women, when will you learn to love us men for what is in our hearts and our minds not our pants. We are more than sexual objects! LOL yeah it's a rough life. I'd love to see some number crunching from hotornot. Jeez I wish these companies would all anonymize and publish their data. Oh well a guy can dream.
sally4sara Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 About the only thing I've found out about these dating site was that the Harmony one was there to weed out gays and atheists so folks could marry (the site will reject people as a members based on these two qualities!), the alternate to Harmony was to weed out atheists but not gays so folks could find serious relationships, and the rest - like the cupid one, were more focused on hooking up for sex over serious relationships. I'm sure you could find a hook up for sex on all of them, but different ones seem to have different intent. So it should not be a surprise that cupid especially was all about the pictures.
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 About the only thing I've found out about these dating site was that the Harmony one was there to weed out gays and atheists so folks could marry (the site will reject people as a members based on these two qualities!), the alternate to Harmony was to weed out atheists but not gays so folks could find serious relationships, and the rest - like the cupid one, were more focused on hooking up for sex over serious relationships. I'm sure you could find a hook up for sex on all of them, but different ones seem to have different intent. So it should not be a surprise that cupid especially was all about the pictures. I have no idea what you just said but I'm an atheist and highly moral, successful and looking for real love (marriage). We exist.
sally4sara Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I have no idea what you just said but I'm an atheist and highly moral, successful and looking for real love (marriage). We exist. I know we exist cuz I am atheist, moral and getting married in Jan. When my best friend tried to sign up for eharmony, she got rejected (bisexual and atheist). I tried so we could figure out what it was she got rejected on and I got rejected too. She finagled with eharmony till it accepted her and discovered all was good as long as she didn't list herself as bi and/or atheist. Then there was another that rejected her but not her other guy friend who is gay but christian. Cupid accepted her immediately - no problems.
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 I know we exist cuz I am atheist, moral and getting married in Jan. When my best friend tried to sign up for eharmony, she got rejected (bisexual and atheist). I tried so we could figure out what it was she got rejected on and I got rejected too. She finagled with eharmony till it accepted her and discovered all was good as long as she didn't list herself as bi and/or atheist. Then there was another that rejected her but not her other guy friend who is gay but christian. Cupid accepted her immediately - no problems. Ah okay I misread what you were saying, I thought you were saying atheists are only looking to hook-up and should be filtered out. Yeah well eHarmony was founded by an evangelical christian, so it's no surprise. I never actually put that I'm an atheist, I just put no response.
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I know we exist cuz I am atheist, moral and getting married in Jan. Wow I actually read your post the same way amirpc did, kind of one of those rubbish fundie posts. Damn internet, removing subtext. Sorry.
sally4sara Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Ah okay I misread what you were saying, I thought you were saying atheists are only looking to hook-up and should be filtered out. Yeah well eHarmony was founded by an evangelical christian, so it's no surprise. I never actually put that I'm an atheist, I just put no response. Yeah, I don't feel "those people" should be weeded out, but people who don't approve of atheists or non hetero sexed folk often presume those qualities make people not marriage material. So those sites weed them out while others don't. That was all I meant.
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 but people who don't approve of atheists or non hetero sexed folk often presume those qualities make people not marriage material. Godless queers can't feel love, silly.
Sam Spade Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 "But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway." "Paradoxically, it seems it’s women, not men, who have unrealistic standards for the “average” member of the opposite sex." :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao: The other interesting tidbit of the experiment for me was the graph that shows that male messaging increases with the attractiveness of the female, but only up to a point, after which it begins to drop sharply . Do i need to spell out the reasoning behind it?
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 Do i need to spell out the reasoning behind it? Well it could be: 1) I don't think I have a shot in hell with her (most likely) or 2) She's way too hot there is no way she's at all interesting (I do this) But yeah, its #1
Sam Spade Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Well it could be: 1) I don't think I have a shot in hell with her (most likely) or 2) She's way too hot there is no way she's at all interesting (I do this) But yeah, its #1 No --> Too much pain in the azz. There is a point where the marginal costs of hotness begin to increase the marginal benefits .
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Well it could be: 1) I don't think I have a shot in hell with her (most likely) or 2) She's way too hot there is no way she's at all interesting (I do this) But yeah, its #1 There is actually a #3 which is "screw that it's obviously a fake profile put up by some dude shirtless in his basement".
jerseyboy Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Godless queers can't feel love, silly. That doesnt mean they are entitled to have other people sort through them if thats clearly not what they are interested in Fat people have feelings as well, but they probably shouldnt be posting personal ads on fitness dating sites
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 That doesnt mean they are entitled to have other people sort through them if thats clearly not what they are interested in Fat people have feelings as well, but they probably shouldnt be posting personal ads on fitness dating sites The fat people analogy is easy to argue against simply by virtue of the fact that there is no objective definition of fat, even the various medical definitions are debated. Anyhow simple addition: [ ] include atheists [ ] include homos [x] include bigots Problem solved!
sally4sara Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 That doesnt mean they are entitled to have other people sort through them if thats clearly not what they are interested in Fat people have feelings as well, but they probably shouldnt be posting personal ads on fitness dating sites I get your reasoning and respect it, but if eharmony doesn't like atheists or homosexual folk, they should probably be up front about that. It takes forever to fill out their huge list of questions just to find this out. Just put it on the home page - "no godless gay folk need apply" and not waste folks time.
D-Jam Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 The most interesting bit for me in your link was that women rated 80% of men as significantly below average looking, that part was more of a surprise to me than others. It could be argued that the male population on that site is simply less attractive than men who don't have profiles at all, but I don't quite buy that. Heh or perhaps men just don't know how to pick pictures! But seriously there are many interesting ways to look at that notion. I think there is a little of everything. I think the most attractive males out there aren't going to bother with dating sites. They simply go out and pick up women more easily. I've seen women speak of how they wish they could find that hottie on match or something, but claim it's just a bunch of bland boring guys. I also think women are just way more hardcore on looks than they ever want to admit, and this proves it. Lord knows how many women I talk to who see most men as unattractive. Seriously here. I'll even show them single males whom I think are quite handsome and they'll think the guys are ugly...but lust for celebrities and such. Plus I think the attraction standard for women is not just looks, but wealth, and any perceived excitement. So when they put the stars it's probably their impression of all information they have received. Which leads me to say that many guys are terrible at putting up good photos and writing good profiles. It's an interesting study, but if that chart of how women perceive the attractiveness of males and how much they message speaks clearly of reality both online and offline, then it's no wonder that there are so many singles out there and so many average guys are striking out continuously. Believe me, I seem to know way more single women than I do "taken" women...and they all come off as eternally unsatisfied with the male populace as a whole.
jerseyboy Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 The fat people analogy is easy to argue against simply by virtue of the fact that there is no objective definition of fat, even the various medical definitions are debated. Anyhow simple addition: [ ] include atheists [ ] include homos [x] include bigots Problem solved! LOL So someone who doesnt wish to marry a gay person or an atheist is bigoted? Get over yoruself, and buy a course in basic reasoning skills while you are at it. If I were to marry someone, faith might very well be an important factor. If its deeply held, I would want to liekly raise my children in that environment, and have those beliefs reinforced by my spouse. Irrespective, common beliefs and outlooks are important to any relationship. Especially ones that deeply held. If I have to explain the gay one to you, then the effort would likely be wasted.
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 That doesnt mean they are entitled to have other people sort through them if thats clearly not what they are interested in Fat people have feelings as well, but they probably shouldnt be posting personal ads on fitness dating sites My issue is exclusion from the site as a whole, rather than using it as a factor in the matching process. Nothing wrong with using it as a search or match criteria. Exclusion from site as a whole is gross to me, and also probably has legal ramifications that I'm surprised they are willing to risk. They can probably get away with the gay exclusion due to the current murky atmosphere on gay marriage, but any athiest with a chip on his shoulder and a decent lawyer and some funding could probably eat them alive in court on this issue. Likewise ACLU. Consider if they tried to screen out senior applicants. AARP would eat them alive if it got big, and it would be a PR nightmare. Similar "smaller pool, unsuitable to other applicants" justifications would be used as with athiests and probably not stand up in court. Seems like thin ice to me and I hope they fall through. Then again J-Date is alive and kicking. I wonder how much legal difference it makes if a business's stated purpose is religious specific, rather than just under the table like eHarmony.
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 So someone who doesnt wish to marry a gay person or an atheist is bigoted? Get over yoruself, and buy a course in basic reasoning skills while you are at it. Exactly, if you're not interested in marrying gay atheists you're a bigot. Come on, it was a joke, lighten up.
jerseyboy Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 As an aside Try posting an online personal on a fitness dating site. I promise you there is no ambiguity with these people. Theyll tell you right down to body fat percentage range. And also want to know if thats your bulking percentage or not.
Recommended Posts