What's a good come-back for girls who don't respond to online dating messages?

[EnigmaticClarity]

For the love of God, DON'T.

 

Fun personal story time: I've been on Match.com for about 4 months. I hate it. I barely got any mail or responses in the first two months, so have essentially given up going to check it. (Of course had to pay for a 6 months subscription up front. Yeah, how awesome.)

 

That's surprising, your writing style looks great and if your avatar is you, you appear to be very cute. Do you have kids? That filters tons of guys out on that site unfortunately. I know a very desirable girl who also doesn't get much interest on dating sites, and I'm convinced it's because she has three kids.

[EnigmaticClarity]

I had to give her the boot, but still I was polite and sincere about it. I didn't ghost out. I told her "Please don't get me wrong; you're very attractive and I wish I could get to know you in person, but honestly, we live a little too far apart, and I don't come up to (____) often. I can't imagine any practical way for us to meet. I'm sorry."

 

She was cool about; she only said "Haha no worries :)" I don't understand why it can't go down like that.

 

I'd rather get no response than "sorry, we're not a match" emails. At least with no response the reason you're not getting one is up in the air, could be a dozen reasons. When you get a generic "we're not a match" message, you know exactly why you're not getting with them, and a stranger will never give you enough info to figure out why they rejected you, so it's not useful enough to alter your approach in the future.

[Taramere]

But finally, let me tell you why I quit responding:

 

I would write my nice and polite rejection response and guys would respond with something insanely mean and hurtful like, "**** you, you ugly Cvnt. You're going to be single forever, blah, blah, blah."

 

I would try so hard to be nice to these guys and I would say 8 out of 10 of them would spew straight venom back in my face.

 

So yeah, I quit responding. Sue me.

 

Jesus. Whenever I think I might try online dating, I see something like this.

 

When I first started on Facebook I joined my city's network and got some unsolicited messages. I just sent a friendly message back but made it clear I wasn't using FB as a dating site. None of them were rude, but then again I live in a small city. Perhaps people feel that bit less anonymous.

 

I think I would report a guy to the dating site adminstrators in a situation like that. It's not in their interests to have people put off using their sites as a result of getting that kind of abuse.

 

OT if you send somebody a message and they don't respond, forget it and move on. Art's method of ensuring he didn't contact them again by mistake also sounds advisable.

[EnigmaticClarity]

There is no good follow up.

 

Well, actually that's not strictly true. There are a few messages I've sent out as follow ups which were funny enough to get a reply even though the initial email didn't. But - here's the important bit - they never led to a date. Why? Because she wasn't interested to start with. If you're not someone's type you just can't turn that around.

 

I generally agree. The only exception is once I emailed a girl, and then she favorited me but didn't respond. After a few weeks went by I emailed her a second time, and we dated for a few weeks. She was waiting to see if another guy she was already dating worked out on my first email, but by my second, they weren't going out anymore and she was glad I had emailed her.

 

A LOT of non-responses are due to women already dating someone and waiting to see if it works out. Women don't seem to multi-date much.

[grkBoy]

If you take the time to write a well thought message to a girl and she doesn't respond, what's a good, short comeback? Nothing obscene or obnoxious, just something to send a few days later that will make her feel a little guilty?

 

Nothing you say or do will make her feel guilty. She could very well just decide to be honest and say you're too short, too ugly, too poor, or "not worthy".

 

Then you might retort with some angry words, and she'll block you...or even notify the site and they will ban you... because you're the cattle and she's the prize they want on the site. If it came down to kicking 100 men out of a site to please one hot girl, they'll do it.

 

This is why you accept things, walk away, and you'll probably see her on the site a year later with plenty of complaints on how she can't find a "good man".

 

It's not worth the effort or energy to look for "justice". These women are out for themselves and all the things you might say or do will mean nothing to them if you're not seen as "worthy" in their eyes. They'll simply dismiss you as a "loser" and go about life believing they are the top of the food chain.

[serial muse]

When I was online dating, I decided I was going to respond to EVERY SINGLE message I got, whether I was interested or not. If I wasn't interested, I would write something nice like:

 

"Thank you for your nice message. I looked over your profile and you seem like and nice and attractive man, but I don't think we have much in common. Good luck on your search."

 

First of all, the first day I signed up, I got over 200 messages. I responded to them all. Hello wrist cramps! After that, I would receive about 10-20 new messages a day. HELLO WRIST CRAMPS!

 

But finally, let me tell you why I quit responding:

 

I would write my nice and polite rejection response and guys would respond with something insanely mean and hurtful like, "**** you, you ugly Cvnt. You're going to be single forever, blah, blah, blah."

 

I would try so hard to be nice to these guys and I would say 8 out of 10 of them would spew straight venom back in my face.

 

So yeah, I quit responding. Sue me.

 

This is unfortunately quite true. When I was doing online dating, I made a similar resolution, to respond to every person who contacted me, even if I wasn't interested. I'd say it was about 50-50: Half of the guys I responded politely to with a no were very gracious about it, and half of them responded with either a "**** you" or a "but whyyyyyy". I understand that it sucks to get no response, but please understand that it also sucks when a polite no is interpreted as a secret yes, or when it opens the door to an uncalled-for insult. So one is faced with a choice: Don't respond, or open the door to stuff I'd rather not deal with. OLD is not a job and I'm not a saint; I am not required to field that sort of thing if I really don't want to. It's time-consuming and depressing. And when you add in the fact that there are indeed men who misinterpret ANY kind of response, then I think it's reasonable to take the course of not responding. In fact, I noticed a thread floating around here a few weeks ago that made that very point - the OP (a man) was annoyed that women responded to his contacts with a polite no, because he felt it was misleading!

 

Given what I've read on here, I doubt I'll convince anyone of anything they weren't already open to, when it comes to dating, much less convince any men who are predisposed to be angry about the uneven rules for men and women in the dating world. I get that men bear the much larger share of sending out an opening salvo. That said, OLD can also be tricky for women, if not equally so, and I guarantee that those men who at least acknowledge that do better with women.

[EnigmaticClarity]

I would try so hard to be nice to these guys and I would say 8 out of 10 of them would spew straight venom back in my face.

 

So yeah, I quit responding. Sue me.

 

Not responding is ideal--unless you've got some reason they can't control and isn't a big deal, such as they live too far away from you. Saying something generic about not matching, not having much in common, etc, is just a big neg; no response is better than a generic "you're not my type" message. No matter how nicely you word it, they'll read it as "you suck and I don't want to date you."

 

If a girl is repeatedly contacting me, I eventually respond, but I either lie or exaggerate. "I'm already seeing someone else and want to see how it's going to work out" works very well for repeat-contacts; that way, they're not left thinking something is wrong with them.

[EnigmaticClarity]

I get that men bear the much larger share of sending out an opening salvo. That said, OLD can also be tricky for women, if not equally so, and I guarantee that those men who at least acknowledge that do better with women.

 

The tricky thing for women is that men are often big scumbags. Still, I'd rather get 90% scummy messages and 10% decent leads as a woman than zero contact as a typical guy.

[ThaWholigan]

Just forget about it. I've sent a lot of messages on POF and about 95-99% of them have been ignored. It doesn't bother me, simply because I have had quite a lot messages surprisingly and I have had to ignore most of them myself simply because I was not attracted to the majority of them. Only some I have replied back to and made polite conversation but it never went further.

 

I know it's annoying when the ones you want ignore your messages, but eventually you will get a few replies once you get better at messaging.

[dasein]

When I was online dating, I decided I was going to respond to EVERY SINGLE message I got, whether I was interested or not. If I wasn't interested, I would write something nice like:

 

"Thank you for your nice message. I looked over your profile and you seem like and nice and attractive man, but I don't think we have much in common. Good luck on your search."

 

First of all, the first day I signed up, I got over 200 messages. I responded to them all. Hello wrist cramps! After that, I would receive about 10-20 new messages a day. HELLO WRIST CRAMPS!

 

But finally, let me tell you why I quit responding:

 

I would write my nice and polite rejection response and guys would respond with something insanely mean and hurtful like, "**** you, you ugly Cvnt. You're going to be single forever, blah, blah, blah."

 

I would try so hard to be nice to these guys and I would say 8 out of 10 of them would spew straight venom back in my face.

 

So yeah, I quit responding. Sue me.

 

Perfect example of rationalization. Of course, replying to the "hey baby" type emails and form emails is not expected. Will wager a vast majority of what you received were those types based on women I have dated OLD who let me see the incoming mail they were getting.

 

Moreover, the types of custom, thoughtful emails received from men OLD stick out like a sore thumb, and will also wager that very few of those if any responded in a hostile manner to the "not interested" mail. If a few bad apples did, that's why the site has blocking/ignoring functionality, a matter of a couple mouseclicks, not an angst opportunity to be rude to everyone else. Moreover, by reporting the hostile, nasty men on the site to the site admins and getting their accounts revoked, you are doing everyone on the site a service. You are just using a few bad apples to rationalize lazy, rude behavior.

 

As far as "wrist cramps?" more rationalization, it's not "wrist cramping" to use the site's "not interested" mouseclick function to send a form email, and if the site doesn't have that, you can certainly keep a form rejection clipped in your clipboard. Why are you expecting us to believe that you custom typed out a form rejection every time you used one?

 

A couple of ironies in OLD are 1) women pay for the site or at least take the time creating a dating profile to meet people to date, yet when it suits them, treat the site and characterize it as just another type of FB or nightclub with some expectation of a "magic bubble of privacy," it's not. The presumption of a dating site, unlike FB or a bar, is that the members are there to meet people and date. 2) Lots of bad male attitudes that might cause a normal guy to react rudely are catalyzed by continual rudeness when women ignore the site's members. It's one thing to ignore the equivalent of trolls, another to ignore legitimate, sincere members based on whatever rationalization du jour.

 

The reason I make a deal of this is that when I do OLD, I want to know whether or not I am mailing an actual site member as opposed to a fake profile. I also want to learn if my OLD approach is effective or ineffective, and when a woman sends back the form "have met someone from the site and want to see where things go" I may be using an effective approach at least for that woman but the timing is off. If OTOH, I get a form "I don't think we are compatible," it's more likely something in my profile is not sending the message I want it to. Female rudeness often denies men the data they need to make more effective approaches to a better targetted group of prospects, and this is a HUGE chunk of male frustration with OLD IMO.

[serial muse]

The tricky thing for women is that men are often big scumbags. Still, I'd rather get 90% scummy messages and 10% decent leads as a woman than zero contact as a typical guy.

 

Yes, I do understand this. My point is just that that disparity, irritating as it is, still doesn't obligate the typical woman to take a chance that a guy she's not interested in will turn out to be a scumbag. (Ideally, of course, one she's interested in won't be a scumbag either.)

[grkBoy]

I'm just really tired of getting such low response rates though. It just isn't fair that a guy has to constantly sacrifice bits and pieces of his self esteem just to boost a girl's on online dating. What else can a guy do to get it back?

 

Grow a thick skin. This is the same thing I tell women who take a chance, ask a guy out, and he rejects her.

 

I know this sounds like the passive answer, but life just isn't mean to be fair. Yet I see plenty of men and women who keep trying to ask me over and over why life has to be so unfair.

 

The only thing I can tell you is to disconnect yourself from it all. Send emails if you want, or close your account and find your own inner happiness. Just don't fall into the "I WANT JUSTICE!" mode...because you won't get any.

 

This is like when I see men and women who end up being dumped, but they spend weeks or months going on and on about "wanting closure", because they can't just take the actual "dumping" as the closure that it's over.

 

Woman doesn't respond, she's not going to give you a shot. Even if it means she'll grow old and die alone, she won't give you a shot. Girl does a "read-delete", then it says she just read what you wrote and looked at your profile, and decided she's not interested. Girl does "unread-delete", then it says she probably only looked at your height, photos, and income and decided "no" on you.

[Taramere]

I understand that it sucks to get no response, but please understand that it also sucks when a polite no is interpreted as a secret yes, or when it opens the door to an uncalled-for insult. So one is faced with a choice: Don't respond, or open the door to stuff I'd rather not deal with. OLD is not a job and I'm not a saint; I am not required to field that sort of thing if I really don't want to. It's time-consuming and depressing. And when you add in the fact that there are indeed men who misinterpret ANY kind of response, then I think it's reasonable to take the course of not responding.

 

That sounds very fair...and particularly the bolded part. There are a lot of people around who, in various contexts, will want to make their issues your issues.

 

Important as good manners are, you have to be alert to people who will use the concept of good manners to try to guilt-trip you into engaging with them when you find it difficult or unpleasant to do so. Sometimes you just have to be prepared to let people regard you as rude, if the alternative of engaging with them is likely to lead to hassles you don't need.

[dasein]

Grow a thick skin. This is the same thing I tell women who take a chance, ask a guy out, and he rejects her.

 

I think it's the women who need to grow a thicker skin based on the rationalizations they post here. It's not as if they run off and cry in the closet whenever they see a troll post on the internet or some random anonymous stranger says something "mean" to them in an OLD environment. Yet they use this and other rationalizations to try to shift blame for their lazy rudeness. 1. A vast majority of the mail women get is not the type that deserves a response, yet they always say "Ohhh 200 messages... cramped wrist," when most of those messages are forms or one liners. 2. Responding to the few legitimate mails takes a few seconds and a couple of mouse clicks or a form mail. 3. Any rude response back from a few bad apples just isn't that big a deal, and can be blocked and reported.

 

I'm just tired of seeing their absurd rationalizations and lying. Would have more respect for the honest ones who admitted "I'm lazy and have no problem being rude to others when I'm protected by anonymity," or "The hot doctor isn't calling me back after that BJ last Wed and I'm just going to ignore a bunch of the site's members as some twisted form of payback."

[Janesays]

Moreover, the types of custom, thoughtful emails received from men OLD stick out like a sore thumb, and will also wager that very few of those if any responded in a hostile manner to the "not interested" mail. If a few bad apples did, that's why the site has blocking/ignoring functionality, a matter of a couple mouseclicks, not an angst opportunity to be rude to everyone else. Moreover, by reporting the hostile, nasty men on the site to the site admins and getting their accounts revoked, you are doing everyone on the site a service. You are just using a few bad apples to rationalize lazy, rude behavior.

 

 

I'm sorry, but those messages hurt my feelings. I don't like being cussed at and insulted. Sorry, I don't. It is not my job to police that site. And I shouldn't have to expose myself to that nonsense if I don't want to. So I don't. If it makes me 'lazy' and 'rude' to want to avoid being called an 'ugly cVnt' by random men, then so be it.

[dasein]

Important as good manners are, you have to be alert to people who will use the concept of good manners to try to guilt-trip you into engaging with them when you find it difficult or unpleasant to do so.

 

Red herring, sending a form rejection letter or using the two click site functionality to send one of the site's forms isn't "engaging" with anyone, nor is blocking and reporting some 1 in 100 rude a-hole who continues past the rejection.

[dasein]

I'm sorry, but those messages hurt my feelings. I don't like being cussed at and insulted. Sorry, I don't. It is not my job to police that site. And I shouldn't have to expose myself to that nonsense if I don't want to. So I don't. If it makes me 'lazy' and 'rude' to want to avoid being called an 'ugly cVnt' by random men, then so be it.

 

Well then if that's the case you are obviously too sensitive for OLD or most any other form of anonymous discourse because quite a few of the starting emails from random OLD beavis and butthead types are of the "ugly cvnt" type without any chance to filter or ignore them. I suppose those are somehow different though?

 

It's not "your job" to be polite to anyone, anonymous or otherwise, either. Feel free to be as lazy and rude as you like doing OLD or anywhere else, just own it as opposed to rationalizing.

[Emilia]

Well then if that's the case you are obviously too sensitive for OLD or most any other form of anonymous discourse because quite a few of the starting emails from random OLD beavis and butthead types are of the "ugly cvnt" type without any chance to filter or ignore them. I suppose those are somehow different though?

 

It's not "your job" to be polite to anyone, anonymous or otherwise, either. Feel free to be as lazy and rude as you like doing OLD or anywhere else, just own it as opposed to rationalizing.

 

I don't understand why you don't believe when she tells you that some of these guys genuinely upset her. Why are you so suspicious of her motives?

 

It happened to me countless times too, Phillydude on this site said in one of his threads that he preferred no response as opposed to a polite 'no' and that he sent rude messages on purpose to women that politely declined to engage with him.

 

Why should someone tolerate other persons' bad behaviour instead of doing their best to avoid it? The healthy response is to avoid repeatedly stressful and hurtful situations, not to seek them out. Jane's response is completely normal.

[grkBoy]

I think it's the women who need to grow a thicker skin based on the rationalizations they post here. It's not as if they run off and cry in the closet whenever they see a troll post on the internet or some random anonymous stranger says something "mean" to them in an OLD environment. Yet they use this and other rationalizations to try to shift blame for their lazy rudeness. 1. A vast majority of the mail women get is not the type that deserves a response, yet they always say "Ohhh 200 messages... cramped wrist," when most of those messages are forms or one liners. 2. Responding to the few legitimate mails takes a few seconds and a couple of mouse clicks or a form mail. 3. Any rude response back from a few bad apples just isn't that big a deal, and can be blocked and reported.

 

I'm just tired of seeing their absurd rationalizations and lying. Would have more respect for the honest ones who admitted "I'm lazy and have no problem being rude to others when I'm protected by anonymity," or "The hot doctor isn't calling me back after that BJ last Wed and I'm just going to ignore a bunch of the site's members as some twisted form of payback."

 

I don't think it's that. I still think many women who join dating sites look down on these sites, and feel like they're taking a "step down" in joining them. They want Mr Amazing Man and grow weary on how all the men who look the way they want won't commit to anything more than a roll in the hay, but also how all the men who will go further than sex aren't making their panties wet.

 

So they join, out of desperation, and believe they won't settle for anything other than "Mr Incredible".

 

Part of the reason this happens is the business of OLD...which is why I'll never join one again in my life. Not even the free ones. Think about it if you had a business in a dating site. You would want to have what people want.

 

Right now in society, we tell men in so many ways how they're "not men" or "worthless" if they can't get laid or get a woman. BUT...we tell women how they don't need a man, how they should be independent and strong, and how they should never settle. We've made the system into a world where men are deeply wanting of a female while women are conditioned to not worry if they have a man.

 

Thus you have a plethora of desperate men and men who make their whole existence about attracting women. Even the biggest "alpha" males I've met seemingly tie a lot of their own self-worth on how easily they can lay hot women. Imagine if one day they couldn't get a hookup.

 

So dating sites prey on desperate men to join and pay them money. They continually look for how they can get men to hand over that credit info. You might not remember, but in the beginning dating sites were FREE for women and they only charged men. Eventually a lawsuit changed that, but you also notice how Match and some other sites now won't let you go "month to month". You might think this is because too many quit too soon, but I see it more as a means to milk more money out of you.

 

I don't think it's in their interest to help you or anyone find love, but to continually convince you to keep paying every month on the hope that you'll magically find Ms Right. You notice how many "long term" folk are on these sites? You notice how many "sets the bar too high" and "socially inept weirdos" are on these sites?

 

If I was running a business of an online dating site, my only goal would be to get loads of pretty women to sign up (and look for any way to get away with not charging them) and then I'd spend my time making things happy for them while guys eagerly sign up in the hopes they can land one of these women. So when a guy fires back an angrier message to a girl for not replying, I won't think about it...I'll first make it so she can totally vanish from his view and never be able to see or message her again, or I'd delete his account just to keep her on and keep more guys signing up in the hopes of getting her.

 

Look how Yahoo and Match in the past tried fake profiles and even hiring people to go out with some guys. Look how they still keep and use photos/info from the "free profiles" and past profiles...just to entice men into signing up.

 

This is why I am a skeptic of OLD and why I'll never do it again.

[dasein]

I don't understand why you don't believe when she tells you that some of these guys genuinely upset her. Why are you so suspicious of her motives?

 

I'm suspicious of the "hurts my feelings" excuse not to use the site's simple "rejection/block" functionality because many of the initial emails are of the same offensive type. If she is so offended by rude emails from men, then she is obviously too sensitive for OLD as a whole, and should use more regular methods. In short, that excuse is bogus.

 

Phillydude on this site said in one of his threads that he preferred no response as opposed to a polite 'no' and that he sent rude messages on purpose to women that politely declined to engage with him.

 

He's welcome to his preference and opinion, as is anyone else. Based on his threads here, he has had problems getting success from OLD. If he took a more analytical stance, including expecting that the women on the site weren't acting like cake eaters (lots of attention from men, no obligations of politeness in return whatsoever) his results might improve.

 

Why should someone tolerate other persons' bad behaviour instead of doing their best to avoid it? The healthy response is to avoid repeatedly stressful and hurtful situations, not to seek them out. Jane's response is completely normal.

 

And saying once more, the few bad apple rude responses to a form rejection email are NBD if someone can magically tolerate such from initial emails. Be rude, privileged and lazy all you like, just own it as opposed to empty rationalizations.

[Taramere]

Red herring, sending a form rejection letter or using the two click site functionality to send one of the site's forms isn't "engaging" with anyone, nor is blocking and reporting some 1 in 100 rude a-hole who continues past the rejection.

 

I haven't done online dating, so I don't know how these things work. I can envisage that if I received a message that sent off my troll radar I would probably not use a form rejection letter in case that triggered an abusive response.

 

To understand the variety of responses a woman gets, in response to rejecting advances, you have to experience it first hand. Of course there are lots of very courteous men out there...and I would agree that they are in the majority. However women on the receiving end of male interest see all kinds of behaviour...and often it's quite obnoxious. That's not the fault of the men who make efforts to be polite and considerate...but it's there. It's a reality.

 

Women dating online are going to be dealing with all kinds of men. Some who are normal. Some who seem courteous and polite, then suddenly go ballistic without warning. Some who are just out to troll. Some who are habitual drinkers and who get nasty when drunk.

 

I would guess that the ones who are most likely to be abusive are probably the ones who contact many women each day. So there's a high chance of a woman getting messages from quite a few of them...and it might not be immediately apparent from their approaches that they're liable to turn nasty if rejected. Those guys might not even remember contacting a particular women unless or until the standard rejection form arrived and triggered a bout of anger that they decided to take out on that woman.

 

You might think women have to develop a thicker skin. I'd say that taking measures to minimise the amount of that kind of thing they have to read/deal with is probably better for people generally.

 

I do think it's fair to say that if a woman receives a thoughtful, personalised sounding approach, some effort to respond is preferable. With free sites I'd imagine that there must be a few people who sign up and then don't check them regularly or even just forget about having profiles there...but again, I don't really know how it works. Whether profiles go dormant if the person doesn't log on regularly etc.

[dasein]

Part of the reason this happens is the business of OLD...which is why I'll never join one again in my life.

 

I agree with your post for the most part, but don't see how that bears on rationalizing bogus excuses for cake eating an OLD site. On one level, members are free to use the site within its terms of use. If someone wants to ignore emails from other members, it's their right, just as letting a door slam in the face of someone coming in behind is also their right. What gets me is the bogus rationalizations as opposed to just owning it. Men do it too OLD, just not to the same extent women do.

 

If more people were good citizens OLD, the skepticism you express would be reduced. Last time I did it, I got a 7/10 response to initial emails and after five dates from among those, realized it was too many. I made it a point to send most of those (the ones I didn't want to see further) a follow up email "I have become too busy to date atm," without telling them I had become too busy with interest from the site and hurting their feelings or seeming arrogant or gloating. I also ALWAYS respond to thoughtful emails from women, no matter what they look like or how badly written the emails are. I use a stock "rejection template" that only takes a second or two to paste in. If I ever received some nasty follow up, I'd simply block the user. It doesn't take that much time to be relatively polite doing OLD.

 

If more people doing OLD would simply adhere to a common sense approach to the site, "I signed up for a dating site to meet people, so I should act accordingly and not let anonymity color my behavior in ways I wouldn't behave in my IRL community," the OLD world would be a much better place.

 

Of course there are cheezy aspects of OLD business models, there are same aspects in all business models in all industries. It doesn't mean the product or service is not a valuable one, one simply has to navigate around the BS through experience. I plan on using OLD again in the near future, and just wish users at large would grow the f up and act like adults.

[Janesays]

I'm suspicious of the "hurts my feelings" excuse not to use the site's simple "rejection/block" functionality because many of the initial emails are of the same offensive type. If she is so offended by rude emails from men, then she is obviously too sensitive for OLD as a whole, and should use more regular methods.

 

Perhaps you're right. Either way, the point is moot since I'm happily no longer single.

 

In short, that excuse is bogus.

 

So far in this thread, you have called me rude, lazy, and now a liar. I have not insulted you once. I'd like you to stop please. You claim to not believe me when I say that a good portion of men I messaged online engaged in really nasty behavior when corresponding with me, yet you turn a blind eye when examining your own behavior. Part of the reason women quit responding to men online is because it's fairly difficult to have a polite, respectful discussion with someone who is quick to sling mud towards those with a different point of view.

 

You may say I have a really high opinion of myself, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm a nice person who tries her best to treat the people in her life (strangers included) well. When I have done nothing to receive shoddy treatment, I have the right to avoid exposing myself to that nonsense. You have a right to disagree with me. All I ask is that you do so without being insulting. Please.

[dasein]

I haven't done online dating, so I don't know how these things work.

 

I have dated 30+ women from OLD (match) over the years, and dated two women who for some reason, gave me their pswds and encouraged me to read the stuff they were getting. 80-90% of it is "You're hot" or "You suck" "Your tits are fake," (never saw anyone called a cvnt, those types tend to get banned quickly) a form letter, or a mail from someone so far outside the woman's stated parameters, usually on age, as to be ridiculous. 10-20% of it is legit personal emails of a couple paragraphs. No reason at all for 80-90% of it to be responded to, so the "carpal tunnel" stuff is rationalization.

 

For those 10-20% legit mails from men who fit the woman's parameters, there is a two click function on the site to say "I'm not interested." If a bad reply were received after that, there is a simple block/ignore function like on FB. I found it far more likely that women I was dating would be harrassed by men they had dated once and decided not to continue with rather than them getting lots of vulgar mail from site members. It could be different on free sites.

[dasein]

So far in this thread, you have called me rude, lazy, and now a liar. I have not insulted you once. I'd like you to stop please.

 

Spare the indignation and shaming, I called your excuses for rude behavior doing OLD rationalizations, and have no idea whether or to what extent you are rude and lazy IRL generally.