Ody 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. A relevant difference is that eHarmony does not bill itself as a Christian dating site. (Or does it? I could be wrong on this one, I never tried that site since it sounds so crappy). If they are letting in Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddists but excluding athiests, any first year law student could probably pick apart whatever weak justification they come up with. Different story if they really only let in Christians. Like I said I don't know. Might have to settle and make this aspect of things part of the front page, but doubt they'd close the site or otherwise have to change policy much. Personally I'll just stick to avoiding the site like the plague, which I was doing even before I heard about this policy.
shadowplay Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 While this has some bearing on real life, I think people are also more superficial when surfing dating sites than irl. I've never been a member of a dating site, but I have skimmed through them on occasion, and invariably I've clicked only on the pictures that catch my eye for one reason or another. Why? It's the easiest way to weed through a ton of information. I'm not going to click on every single profile and read through them if there are hundreds/thousands of matches in my location. There's another factor that the site doesn't really touch upon. A picture doesn't just indicate physical attractiveness; it also gives some clues to a person's personality and lifestyle. How a guy dresses and presents himself down to facial expression says a lot about whether he's my type or not. I'm not going to click on the profile of a guy wearing a dress shirt with a popped collar and heavily gelled hair. I immediately think play-boy with low IQ. Stereotyping, yes? But there's more than a grain of truth to our blink reactions. It's not uncommon for me to click on the profile of a guy who's about average in looks but seems exciting, cool or intelligent based on the way he presents himself in his picture. I get the sense with men these factors are less important. Maybe I'm wrong.
jerseyboy Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 A relevant difference is that eHarmony does not bill itself as a Christian dating site. (Or does it? I could be wrong on this one, I never tried that site since it sounds so crappy). If they are letting in Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddists but excluding athiests, any first year law student could probably pick apart whatever weak justification they come up with. Different story if they really only let in Christians. Like I said I don't know. Might have to settle and make this aspect of things part of the front page, but doubt they'd close the site or otherwise have to change policy much. Personally I'll just stick to avoiding the site like the plague, which I was doing even before I heard about this policy. Idk either. I dont think it relevant I just found the suggestion that a person who would prefer to visit a site with certain criteria established beforehand must be a bigot to be pathetically absurd. I also find people in general who think others must not only accept, as in its your right to to do and believe as you wish, but also embrace everyone else4s beliefs and lifestyles to be intellectual midgets
shadowplay Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I forgot to add that things like body language, demeanor, presence, voice...etc. don't even come to play on dating sites. You're basically forced to be more superficial because you have less information.
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 Words Don't you have a Sarah Palin book signing to rush off to dude?
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Idk either. I dont think it relevant [...] I also find people in general who think others must not only accept, as in its your right to to do and believe as you wish, but also embrace everyone else4s beliefs and lifestyles to be intellectual midgets It should certainly be relevant to the site because of the legal issues surrounding discriminating against customers. As far as personal relevance, that is a preference that I don't tie to intellect either way. It is a murky issue, lots of ambiguous case history surrounding country clubs, etc. Once you start offering a service in general, it is tricky business to start weeding out small groups. Sometimes possible, but tricky, and I'm surprised a site would risk it re athiests. Not surprised they risk it re gays. A service offered to a select group is more legally defensible. I wouldn't assume anyone visiting such a site to be bigoted at all. I wouldn't assume the founders of a demographically targeted site to be bigoted either. I would suspect the founders of a demographically generalized site that excludes a few small groups to be bigoted. You really can't equate eHarmony and a fitness site. I will be the first person to admit that I wish I had *more* selective screening out options on the only site I use which is OKCupid. My angle on this issue is the generalized admission with select exclusion, rather than simply select admission, or specific criteria section available to all.
shadowplay Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Females of OkCupid, we site founders say to you: ouch! Paradoxically, it seems it’s women, not men, who have unrealistic standards for the “average” member of the opposite sex. I disagree with this, because if women are messaging men they deem average or below why does it matter how they rate those men? To me it indicates that they prioritize other features ahead of looks.
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 To me it indicates that they prioritize other features ahead of looks. Haha so basically they really think everyone is ugly but are willing to deal with it?
Sam Spade Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 A relevant difference is that eHarmony does not bill itself as a Christian dating site. (Or does it? I could be wrong on this one, I never tried that site since it sounds so crappy). If they are letting in Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddists but excluding athiests, any first year law student could probably pick apart whatever weak justification they come up with. Different story if they really only let in Christians. Like I said I don't know. Might have to settle and make this aspect of things part of the front page, but doubt they'd close the site or otherwise have to change policy much. Personally I'll just stick to avoiding the site like the plague, which I was doing even before I heard about this policy. That's right . Religious fags can't discriminate against me - I discriminate them . No religious zombies allowed in my social circle . They only think they're in the majority .
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Females of OkCupid, we site founders say to you: ouch! Paradoxically, it seems it’s women, not men, who have unrealistic standards for the “average” member of the opposite sex. I disagree with this, because if women are messaging men they deem average or below why does it matter how they rate those men? To me it indicates that they prioritize other features ahead of looks. The definition of an average looking male would be typically be rated as more attractive than about 50% of other males. Yes we can get way more specific than this, median versus average, etc but when the numbers were that far off - 80% of men rated as below average, it's not just about look prioritization. Either says something profound about the male OKC population versus entire male population, or about how the female OKC population either perceives males or evaluates males to others. Probably a few other possibilities actually. That's why this is such a good read. I am using "medium" and "average" interchangably here too which may be a mistake. I wish I could see what the actual question page looked like. Diction makes an enormous difference in poll like activities.
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 Either says something profound about the male OKC population versus entire male population, or about how the female OKC population either perceives males or evaluates males to others. Probably a few other possibilities actually. Some of those pictures they showed were decent looking guys, they weren't rock stars but they weren't ugly. It likely just means girls on free dating sites have unrealistic expectations for appearance.
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 That's right . Religious fags can't discriminate against me - I discriminate them . No religious zombies allowed in my social circle . They only think they're in the majority . What are you talking about? Have you somehow missed the entire point of my posts, which is that personal preference is not discrimatory, whereas organizational policy can be? I welcome people from checking "no athiests" when performing their search. My avoidance of a particular site, whose policy is partially based on attracting members whom they think are fundamentally incompatible with me, is somehow discriminatory? My choice to not patronize an establishment (note eHarmony is a paid site) based on my personal views is somehow discriminatory? Am I taking crazy pills? Can no one else in the thread distinguish between a personal choice and an organizational policy?
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Some of those pictures they showed were decent looking guys, they weren't rock stars but they weren't ugly. It likely just means girls on free dating sites have unrealistic expectations for appearance. You might be right, my spidey sense just tells me there are some more profound interpretations. Until I man up and actually come up with one rather than spout off one sentence wonders though who knows.
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 Am I taking crazy pills? Can no one else in the thread distinguish between a personal choice and an organizational policy? No, I think people are just very confrontational when the words god or homo get used. FWIW - I understand what you're saying perfectly and I think that an intentional exclusion policy should be stated publicly.
jerseyboy Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Don't you have a Sarah Palin book signing to rush off to dude? LOL Have societal anger issues much. Might wantr to limit that commentary in your personal ads. Unless your goal is to attract similar type headcases to yourself. And foir the record. Its not my fault yoiu dont fit in Hate your parents. Its probably their fault
shadowplay Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 The definition of an average looking male would be typically be rated as more attractive than about 50% of other males. Yes we can get way more specific than this, median versus average, etc but when the numbers were that far off - 80% of men rated as below average, it's not just about look prioritization. Either says something profound about the male OKC population versus entire male population, or about how the female OKC population either perceives males or evaluates males to others. Probably a few other possibilities actually. That's why this is such a good read. I am using "medium" and "average" interchangably here too which may be a mistake. I wish I could see what the actual question page looked like. Diction makes an enormous difference in poll like activities. Right, but my point still applies: why does it matter how harshly women judge the appearance of men if they're still interested in guys who they consider average or below in appearance only?
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 That's right . Religious fags can't discriminate against me - I discriminate them . No religious zombies allowed in my social circle . They only think they're in the majority . No amount of emoticons makes parroting either left or right wing canned responses OK.
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Right, but my point still applies: why does it matter how harshly women judge the appearance of men if they're still interested in guys who they consider average or below in appearance only? It matters to me because it is interesting. Whenever I see rich data with room for interesting and relevant interpretations it seems to matter.
shadowplay Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 It matters to me because it is interesting. Whenever I see rich data with room for interesting and relevant interpretations it seems to matter. People are interpreting that bit of data as evidence that women are just as superficial as men, when it hardly indicates that.
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 People are interpreting that bit of data as evidence that women are just as superficial as men, when it hardly indicates that. Yes. I don't recall doing that myself though. If I did feel free to quote, I'm always spouting off dumb s**t and then forgetting about it 5 minutes later and in that case I deserve the chagrin. The variety of interpretations is what makes it interesting to me. When I hear one that's way more convincing then the rest I will probably get a little brain crush on them for 5 minutes.
shadowplay Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I think the four male pictures they picked demonstrate how important presentation is to women. If I were to typecast the guys based on their pictures the first looks intelligent and interesting, the second looks like an overgrown adolescent musician, the third looks goofy and nice but ineffectual, the fourth looks like an uber-dork. I'm a little surprised the first two guys got low ratings. I think the first guy is above average but the way his hair is styled emphasizes its wispy thinness. The second guy is actually pretty cute, but I can imagine some women being turned off by his combination of age and messy hair/guitar because it may suggest not career-minded. I think if he were younger, he'd be a total hit with the ladies. I bet he'd clean up pretty well too. The third guy is just average looking. His posture, clothes, choice of location and hair solidify the impression of nice but bland. The fourth guy is a turn off, imo. In terms of physicals, his face is mostly fine, but his open-mouthed, forced smile emphasizes his worst feature: his teeth. Then there's the fact that he comes off as incredibly geeky, awkward and unexciting because of his expression, shirt, glasses and the fact that's he's chosen to pose in front of a computer screen. So there's a window into one woman's mind.
CaliGuy Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 So the "average looking woman" doesn't think she's average looking but thinks that 80% of the men aren't good enough for her? Thank you. I needed a good laugh today
shadowplay Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 So the "average looking woman" doesn't think she's average looking but thinks that 80% of the men aren't good enough for her? Thank you. I needed a good laugh today Actually that's not true. She messages guys who she considers average.
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 LOL Have societal anger issues much. Might wantr to limit that commentary in your personal ads. Unless your goal is to attract similar type headcases to yourself. And foir the record. Its not my fault yoiu dont fit in Hate your parents. Its probably their fault hahahaha <3
AD1980 Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Of course women are just as superficial and visual as men Some have vote for presidents because hes a good looking,buy albums because the band is cute.. If u can vote for somebody to be leader of the free world because you find him attractive id say youre a pretty superficial and visual creature:p
Recommended Posts