LeaningIntoTheMuse Posted April 10, 2011 Posted April 10, 2011 Men - They are reasonably good looking, but have no luck in the real world due to women being too picky. Some are ugly, but most are average looking. They have good social skills, but are passed over for the hot players who have no social skills. The few players on there are the ones that have the most success. Women - They are mostly average looking, and are passed over for the hot girls who date the hot guys. They're too picky to date the average guys on their level, and instead go after the guys that every single woman on that dating site is going after. Because of this, the hot guys reject the average women for the few hot girls on the site, and they reject the average guys who are rejected by the hot girls who are dating the hot guys. Thoughts?
Mrlonelyone Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 That's not correct. I think it's more like this. Everyone: Male female straight or queer who uses online dating is in some sense socially unskilled. For if those of us who used it were socially skilled our real life, real world social networks would have produced a mate. Our real life networks of friends, relatives, coworkers, acquaintances etc should have been able to help find us someone. Now just talking about heterosexuals. Men: Most men be they hot or not hot have to send on average ten messages to get one reply. They have to get ten replies to get one date. This is because of the passivity that our society mandates for women in the mating process. Added to that is the above mentioned lack of social skill on the part of the women... who are often too nervous to reply to a hot man. Women:Hot or not are very passive in the whole process. They are all get more messages than a man of comparable looks. They repond to fewer messages because they get so many messages. The of course respond to the hottest men the most. These hot men then pick from the women who responded to them who they will date. (Remember in my scenario the hot men still have to send perhaps 4 -5 messages to get one reply.)
Disillusioned Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 In my experience, the only difference is that the women never choose the men, and the men who do contact them get rejected every time. Keep in mind though... if a guy contacts "her" on an OLDS, the chances are about 6 to one he's contacting a phantom profile cooked up by a ghostwriter.
fortyninethousand322 Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 That's not correct. I think it's more like this. Everyone: Male female straight or queer who uses online dating is in some sense socially unskilled. For if those of us who used it were socially skilled our real life, real world social networks would have produced a mate. Our real life networks of friends, relatives, coworkers, acquaintances etc should have been able to help find us someone. This is true. Although, I think some people use online dating (especially the free sites) to augment their social lives in a more targeted fashion. These types of people though do not typically take online dating very serious. I will also add that as people get older those social networking opportunities in real life tend to dry up so online dating can be a good way to try to meet people.
Crazy Magnet Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I think online dating is a madness of the masses!! There's really no explanation for it.
zengirl Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) I find online dating is as much a mishmosh of different people and situations as other dating. The differences being that things are clearly laid out (ages, likes/doesn't like kids, etc) in ways that sometimes simplifies or eliminates the need for a date in many cases to assess these values and such and that the abilities to both reflect on who you are and write are amplified in importance. For me, the latter is fine (I like men who can write decently and who reflect regularly, in general, so that's something I'd assess anyway), but many people care about this online but wouldn't otherwise. Men - They are reasonably good looking, but have no luck in the real world due to women being too picky. Some are ugly, but most are average looking. They have good social skills, but are passed over for the hot players who have no social skills. The few players on there are the ones that have the most success. Women - They are mostly average looking, and are passed over for the hot girls who date the hot guys. They're too picky to date the average guys on their level, and instead go after the guys that every single woman on that dating site is going after. Because of this, the hot guys reject the average women for the few hot girls on the site, and they reject the average guys who are rejected by the hot girls who are dating the hot guys. Thoughts? This is not my experience with online dating at all. I've messaged men who've been messaged by other women before, but never in droves. I often reject so-called "hotter" guys (guys with nice pictures, at least) because I find them incompatible based on their answers to match questions or what they've written in their profiles. I know plenty of pretty girls who are on the same dating site I am; attractiveness does not seem to necessarily determine success. Nor does the number of messages received (unless that's how you're gauging success, but that seems weird to me). I only occasionally look at women on the dating site, and even then, I only look at my profile and the "Women Like Her" panel on the side (to see who's like me!) so not fully 100% sure of them as a whole, but I saw quite a few pretty girls. And they didn't sound picky in their profiles, or at least not about silly things. Everyone SHOULD be picky with dating. Picking a life mate is no easy matter, so I'm not sure why "picky" is bad. I mean, I'm allowed to be picky about a job I'll take for a couple years but not the man I marry? Seems silly. That's not correct. I think it's more like this. Everyone: Male female straight or queer who uses online dating is in some sense socially unskilled. For if those of us who used it were socially skilled our real life, real world social networks would have produced a mate. Our real life networks of friends, relatives, coworkers, acquaintances etc should have been able to help find us someone. I disagree with this as well. I know many people who use both sources. You're relying on an either/or factor, as though online dating is some kind of last ditch effort you'd only turn to if all other wells were dry. Surely some folks see it that way, but not everyone. (At least not on free sites.) Edited April 11, 2011 by zengirl
Mrlonelyone Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 @Zegirl I'm not saying it's a last ditch effort. I am only saying that if someone had healthy real life social networks they would have after a time provided them with a date. They would make an effort to introduce people they would make an effort to fix people up.
BeginAgain Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Everyone SHOULD be picky with dating. Picking a life mate is no easy matter, so I'm not sure why "picky" is bad. I mean, I'm allowed to be picky about a job I'll take for a couple years but not the man I marry? Seems silly. If I get picky I find only one woman on okcupid and one on pof. Both of them are thicker women I would be too thin for. Being picky isn't practical.
orangelady Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Men - They are reasonably good looking, but have no luck in the real world due to women being too picky. Some are ugly, but most are average looking. They have good social skills, but are passed over for the hot players who have no social skills. The few players on there are the ones that have the most success. Women - They are mostly average looking, and are passed over for the hot girls who date the hot guys. They're too picky to date the average guys on their level, and instead go after the guys that every single woman on that dating site is going after. Because of this, the hot guys reject the average women for the few hot girls on the site, and they reject the average guys who are rejected by the hot girls who are dating the hot guys. Thoughts? I totally disagree. For me : MEN - a lot of them are below average looking, dont' seem to know what they want and a lot of them want to get laid. WOMEN - average to above average looking. Have nice profiles because of their pictures, that's about it.
BeginAgain Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 OL I have to wonder if you are more attracted to women, or you have put a woman's beauty on such a high pedestal because of perceived flaws in your own attractiveness making a man's looks most times inadequate in comparison. This is unless you live in a place that is a fashion capital where would be models flock in abundance. As far as I have seen on these sites the men seem to be more often of greater physical attractiveness. I think that might be since men need good social skills to bag women and the physical aspect isn't as important to women. The women are less attractive because a man's attention focuses most on beauty which has left them on the short end of the stick. Most of the women are a little thick to obese. Very few are on the thinner side. Many of the men though are quite muscular. Other trends I have notice are the more attractive women are bi or at least claim to be. They also tend to be on the younger side while their older counterparts simply don't exist. Maybe the prettier girls who are more my age are mostly married or in very serious relationships. Pretty girls tend just to want to hang out and aren't looking to date yet they still want you to be single. I don't know if they are looking for attention, testing the waters for a future relationship, or both. Too many women for my taste have photos with men who should be their boyfriends and I am not getting a very strong gay friend vibe. Too many women seem to be very into the party/club scene or adventure oriented lifestyles.
Enchanted Girl Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Men - They are reasonably good looking, but have no luck in the real world due to women being too picky. Some are ugly, but most are average looking. They have good social skills, but are passed over for the hot players who have no social skills. The few players on there are the ones that have the most success. Women - They are mostly average looking, and are passed over for the hot girls who date the hot guys. They're too picky to date the average guys on their level, and instead go after the guys that every single woman on that dating site is going after. Because of this, the hot guys reject the average women for the few hot girls on the site, and they reject the average guys who are rejected by the hot girls who are dating the hot guys. Thoughts? Because everything about dating is related to LOOKS, right? And there aren't any other ways people can be compatible besides appearance, right? This thread sounds really shallow to me because I don't give a crap if ugly girls are dating hot guys or hot girls are dating ugly guys or whatever the heck is going on as long as people aren't using people and/or judging them just based on appearance. The amount of threads you've been making lately about appearance is bothering me. It keeps reinforcing this idea that you see girls in three categories: hot, average, and ugly (with no personalities), and you're really angry that hot girls reject you and that some average ones do to. Because average girls should have no right to reject anyone (or that's how you word it) because they are supposedly acting like a stuck up hot girl when they do that. Let's just encourage people to start dating others for the ways they are compatible on the inside and stop focusing on whether or not people's appearances match up with the people they are dating.
Mrlonelyone Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 @Enchanted girl. Lets face it looks matters in online dating. Systems like OK Cupid and Eharmony both attempt to match people based on questions they answer. Of those people who are somewhat compatible... based on those questions there will be a range of looks. As far as appearance is concerned I need someone who appears to have taken some care of their physical fitness. I don't mean skinny either I mean well proportioned.
zengirl Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Re: Looks Except for a very small portion, I don't think most of the people I've ever seen on an online dating site would be judged "Hot" or "Not" but rather it'd be depending on the person doing the judging. My roommate and I can never agree on which guys are cute. It's silly to think everyone has the same tastes. Unless you're dealing with Quasimodo or Brad Pitt on their respective ends of the spectrum, it's probably a crapshoot. I might not think a guy is cute at all if he asks me out, but a girl who he thinks is "prettier" than me might think he's gorgeous. It's not like people find their magical equal levels of prettiness or even have firmly set levels. @Zegirl I'm not saying it's a last ditch effort. I am only saying that if someone had healthy real life social networks they would have after a time provided them with a date. They would make an effort to introduce people they would make an effort to fix people up. And I'm saying that there are people who do both at the same time and it's not an either/or. I have a pretty strong social circle, even having lived here less than a year and am GREAT at building social groups, having moved so much. I meet new men in life all the time, I have people clamoring to fix me up (I rarely go for fix-ups) and introducing me to people, sure, but I still have an OKC profile. Why not? I've met several guys off of OKC, and most of them seemed to have friends and such. Dating online doesn't mean the people can't get dates offline (in some cases, I'm sure that is true, but not all or even most I've run into). Personally, I think it's just smart, if you're really open to finding someone great, to have ALL of your options open --- on and offline.
Intricategirl Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I saw a video last night- a clip from one of the old Kung Fu shows on Youtube. This little kid goes up to a blind monk, and the monk says to hit him. The kid keeps trying over and over, but he can't. The blind monk knows kung fu, and every time the kid comes near him, he flips the kid onto the ground. It wasn't until I got to the comments that I was in a fit of laughter. Someone commented, "Poor inductive reasoning: assume every blind man knows kung fu." My point- you have no idea why anybody is rejecting anybody else. Nine times out of ten, you won't even know the real reason someone is rejecting you. But you see one characteristic and decide to hang your hat on it, because the real truth is way too complicated to figure out. I rejected a guy yesterday, even though he looked a LOT like Leonardo Dicaprio. I had a male model that was dying to date me, and I rejected him several times. I've rejected a much younger guy. I've rejected several lawyers, doctors, and small business owners that make over $150,000 a year. I've rejected people with PhDs. And I've rejected people who live with their parents, are not much to look at, have no degree, will never make much money, and are too old. All of them blind men, but none were kung fu masters. Trying to boil it down to something simple and easily digested is great and all. It may be enough to let you sleep at night. But if it keeps you from the person you're supposed to be with because you made assumptions, you're not doing yourself a lot of favors with it.
Disillusioned Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 This is true. Although, I think some people use online dating (especially the free sites) to augment their social lives in a more targeted fashion. These types of people though do not typically take online dating very serious. That's why OLD has been such a failure. I will also add that as people get older those social networking opportunities in real life tend to dry up so online dating can be a good way to try to meet people. Really? I've noticed just the opposite here in L.A. People have gotten tired of getting no action from OLD, so they started their own Meetup groups. Unfortunately they discovered that the same people who were jerks online are even worse jerks IRL!!!
orangelady Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Because everything about dating is related to LOOKS, right? And there aren't any other ways people can be compatible besides appearance, right? I think I used to do that a lot because of guys like LIM. I feel so caught up that I'm not hot and I feel like it's the only reason why I can't a decent man. Sigh...unfortunately, a lot of people are like LIM. (no offence to you, LIM) Let's just encourage people to start dating others for the ways they are compatible on the inside and stop focusing on whether or not people's appearances match up with the people they are dating. I like you.
jt1 Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) People can be anyone they want to be, online or real life. However, online they can lie more easily. Why? Easy, they can take their times saying the "right" thing. Dressing up words easily. You have more of a chance to call peoples bullsh*t more easily I have found in real life by their actions. Of course, not 100% but better than online. Edited April 11, 2011 by jt1
Imajerk17 Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) Yeah, so women and men look at different things when deciding to respond. Men try to figure out what the woman would look like with her clothes off and women instead try to figure out if she and the guy would connect from reading his profile and looking at his pictures (they seem care more about whether he has friends than whether he has nice pecs, whereas men care less about whether she has friends and more about her curves). Men are shallow tards who care too much about looks, and women are loopy fools who put too much stock in "chemistry", whatever that is. Newsflash. I would say IME that women are pickier. Simple economics here: I get maybe two unsolicited emails a month, and three unsolicited winks a month, from the "real" profiles. *Maybe*. I would say that 15% of my "first" emails that I send out, responded to. And I make it a point to *not* email the women who are less likely to respond to me due to their profile (I am well out of the age, distance, and height preferences). I have been averaging about 2 first dates a month. When I come home from a first date that went only OK, I don't have 10 unread emails waiting in my inbox that a lot of women have. I don't even have 5, or 2. So I am a lot more willing to give it a shot and go on a second date, simply because it took a decent amount of work on my part to get to the first! {laugh} Edited April 11, 2011 by Imajerk17
Recommended Posts