Contradictions of online dating - Article

[normal person]

So I see what you're saying there, there just things left unsaid.

 

Like some women will write in their profile, "If you're under 6 feet, don't contact me! Have bucked teeth, big nose, no hair" or something to that effect, where a lot of things are left unsaid, so they don't come off as shallow.

 

I've seen them, "Must have a full head of hair!" or "Clean shaven, no beards, goatees, etc" things like that.

 

Though some people have updated their profiles under duress maybe by actually making those additions.

 

Right. On top of that, everyone's got parameters that they can't quite articulate. If you just don't like someone's aura, attitude, look, vibe, or you just plain aren't attracted to the person (let's face it, we aren't attracted to most other people out there), then they don't meet your criteria on those hard-to-define default grounds as well. But that can't be represented in a search filter so those people require a manual removal.

Edited March 28, 2016 by normal person

[Mccoy321]

Maybe take a second look at the options available if that's your belief. The major sites for OLD or Apps are free. Could download tinder or badoo or whatever you want onto my phone now without paying a dime.

 

There's millions of users worldwide that use them as options. In fact, it's been shown that the majority of people in America use at least one form of online dating or socializing site in their day to day lives at least once.

 

You mention the theme of suckering the average joe to paying money in order to access higher quality women. Are you aware that women have to pay a fee to the sites that charge as well? There's no special circumstance that gives them membership for free which would disprove your accusation of baiting guys to open their wallets.

 

Being "more visible" doesn't make you more attractive. There are plenty of sites or apps where you're in control of who you connect with and where to look. It's common sense that if you don't put any effort or thought into your profile or presentation, or the wording used when messaging slmeone, that your chances will be diminished severely.

 

The only ones calling out OLD or saying people need to wake up and see what it really is are those who haven't seen it work for themselves.

I'd think that the evidence showing that it's a billion dollar industry, with millions of users across the world, and testimonials that can be read forever by those who found a partner or experienced success for the first time in their lives.. Would be enough to prove to you that the OLD approach is something that is a viable option no matter who you are, what you like, or where you're from.

 

Pointing fingers at the set up or reality of old is always easier than looking at yourself and figuring out what it might be in yourself that's preventing your progress . Just a suggestion

 

Yeah, Ashley Madison was doing pretty good business, until the Anonymous hack proved there was an infinitesimally small number of real women on there.

 

Most free sites make their money from advertising and having the people with no luck pay for the so called premium services. The good looking people don't need to pay as they get more messages than they can handle anyway. So who pays? Idiots who think that by being placed at the top of a search list, or suddenly can see an 'extended profile' they suddenly become more attractive to the opposite sex.

 

The deluded are the good looking people who are successful in OLD who believe it's as a result of their sparkling wit, or the mediocre women who get used by a hot guy for sex then can't figure out why being an easy lay made them a target.

[LookAtThisPOst]

No, it's not. Bottom line is attraction. Recall the horse woman you were willing to drive for? Not only is she drop dead gorgeous, she has her act together, as many who have an intense passion like that do. Can you offer the same? If not, it shows, at least as far as she could tell.

 

Summary. No one is obligated to meet anyone, no matter how one INSISTS they are a match on paper. Peaches75? Same deal.

 

I have to ask. Are you shooting way out of your league, attraction wise?

 

Not at all, in fact, I've contacted many average Jane types plenty of times.

[Mccoy321]

A study found that women can change their perception of a man's attractiveness based on his personality. Interestingly this is far less the case with men.

 

Numerous studies on speed dating data found that, on the basis of 3 minute dates, the most popular people were the most physically attractive. So add those two findings together and it seems that men moreso than women have a chance of compensating for less physically attractive features but it will take a lot longer than 3 minutes for this compensation to take effect.

 

Applied to the online dating realm where women don't have a lot to go on to make a decision about whether they are interested it suggests that yes, the physically attractive men are most likely to be successful, so if you aren't one of the lucky ones in that sense you are better off meeting women in real life where (for men at least) personality CAN make a difference.

 

Thus proving the point that OLD is pointless if you're not good looking.

[LookAtThisPOst]

Unfortunately, can't add to my previous post...

 

 

In fact the last women I was involved with was just that, cute, but on the average side...I lucked only because she doesn't care about looks and more so about personality.

[GemmaUK]

OP, I'm confused, Midwest asked you this:

 

I have to ask. Are you shooting way out of your league, attraction wise?

 

 

This was your full reply:

Not at all, in fact, I've contacted many average Jane types plenty of times.

 

 

In fact the last women I was involved with was just that, cute, but on the average side...I lucked only because she doesn't care about looks and more so about personality.

 

Sorry OP but this pretty much looks to me like you might just be shooting above your league. Talking leagues 'Miss On the Average Side and Cute' should be aiming for 'Mr On the Average Side and Cute' but you're putting yourself below that.

[Mccoy321]

OP, I'm confused, Midwest asked you this:

 

 

 

 

This was your full reply:

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry OP but this pretty much looks to me like you might just be shooting above your league. Talking leagues 'Miss On the Average Side and Cute' should be aiming for 'Mr On the Average Side and Cute' but you're putting yourself below that.

 

You do realise how OLD works? You message many people. The way people want to have it is always accusing unsuccessful guys of 'shooting above their league'. It's pretty obvious that the OP messages lots of women. Some above 'his league' and some who are not.

 

But it's nice to identify you as someone who believes in the rigid application of 'leagues' in the dating world. It's rare that a woman freely admits that that's how they view romantic interactions. I would hope you make this clear on any OLD profiles you have, so as not to encourage the uglies to waste your, and their, precious time.

[ZA Dater]

OP, I'm confused, Midwest asked you this:

 

 

 

 

This was your full reply:

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry OP but this pretty much looks to me like you might just be shooting above your league. Talking leagues 'Miss On the Average Side and Cute' should be aiming for 'Mr On the Average Side and Cute' but you're putting yourself below that.

 

Leagues, I have to love the reference to this. What is a league exactly and how is it constructed and who says who is in what league?

 

Is a league simply implying the OP must accept mediocrity based on his physical appearance. Or are you admitting OLD is primarily looks focussed?

[LookAtThisPOst]

You do realise how OLD works? You message many people. The way people want to have it is always accusing unsuccessful guys of 'shooting above their league'. It's pretty obvious that the OP messages lots of women. Some above 'his league' and some who are not.

 

But it's nice to identify you as someone who believes in the rigid application of 'leagues' in the dating world. It's rare that a woman freely admits that that's how they view romantic interactions. I would hope you make this clear on any OLD profiles you have, so as not to encourage the uglies to waste your, and their, precious time.

 

I don't know what Gemma is talking about as I have no earthly idea where she got the idea that I'm aiming "higher than my 'league'." as she puts it. If there even such a thing as leagues, but I'm sure she's referring to the "beautiful people" that she thinks one shouldn't even bother with.

 

I know I took a sociology class about classes though, that lower-middle wouldn't get along with upper-class in society. Things like that. I think that's the true definition of leagues and that's more of a compatibility thing.

 

In fact, usually my pointer is mostly aimed at women equal to me in my looks, but the the thing is, these very women don't realize their equals in looks. So they think, "He's cute, but, this next to him as a hunk!!"

 

They think they can do better.

 

Just Google "The Husband Store", it's so funny because it's SO true. ;-)

[insert_name]

Thus proving the point that OLD is pointless if you're not good looking.

 

Its not entirely pointless- just harder. Anyway, the point I was making is that women DO care about personality. Online dating is (unsurprisingly) not thr best avenue to convey personality.

[LookAtThisPOst]

Its not entirely pointless- just harder. Anyway, the point I was making is that women DO care about personality. Online dating is (unsurprisingly) not thr best avenue to convey personality.

 

Right, the trick is to get them to come out of their houses to see what you convey. Its' mostly just swipe, swipe, swipe.

[ZA Dater]

Its not entirely pointless- just harder. Anyway, the point I was making is that women DO care about personality. Online dating is (unsurprisingly) not thr best avenue to convey personality.

 

 

Really that's very refreshing to know.

[MissBee]

Right. On top of that, everyone's got parameters that they can't quite articulate. If you just don't like someone's aura, attitude, look, vibe, or you just plain aren't attracted to the person (let's face it, we aren't attracted to most other people out there), then they don't meet your criteria on those hard-to-define default grounds as well. But that can't be represented in a search filter so those people require a manual removal.

 

Such an excellent point!

 

Which is part of what people mean by "chemistry." It's often also some intangible things that cannot be defined on paper but you know it when you see and feel it and it motivates a large part of dating and relationships.

[Mccoy321]

Such an excellent point!

 

Which is part of what people mean by "chemistry." It's often also some intangible things that cannot be defined on paper but you know it when you see and feel it and it motivates a large part of dating and relationships.

 

Chemistry is just a euphemism for 'I think he/she is hot'. That's all.

 

 

The tyranny of this chemistry nonsense is why there are so many perpetually single people out there.

[hasaquestion]

Chemistry is just a euphemism for 'I think he/she is hot'. That's all.

 

 

The tyranny of this chemistry nonsense is why there are so many perpetually single people out there.

 

Why is it tyranny that people would chase relationships with people they are attracted to?

 

Generally, people are attracted to others who have value to offer them emotionally and physically. Having uncommon looks, charisma, or status makes you uncommonly valuable to others.

 

If you want to be chased around you have to stand out for something. That's how everything in life works. Jobs, college applications, etc. There's more to life that getting chased around, but the corollary is that if that's what you want that, then you've got to work on standing out and being your best self. Marriage and relationship statistics demonstrate that having a relationship without 'standing out' is eminently common and possible anyway.

 

I guess what I don't understand is how people treat "people are attracted to people they find attractive" as some kind of big reveal or plot twist. Its always been that way.

 

Part of the problem is that Loveshack can be a bit of an echo chamber. I'm 5'10" - before I joined this site a year ago it has never occurred to me that my height makes me less attractive than other people. Or that if I were to invite a girl/woman to my place, it means I'm planning on f**king her. On here things start as common and become 'True' with a capital T.

 

EDIT: I joined this site two years ago.

Edited March 30, 2016 by hasaquestion

[normal person]

Chemistry is just a euphemism for 'I think he/she is hot'. That's all.

 

 

The tyranny of this chemistry nonsense is why there are so many perpetually single people out there.

 

I'd argue that lack of chemistry is exactly why there are so many perpetually single people out there -- it's very difficult for some people to find someone they're attracted to on a physical, personal, and circumstantial level. If the only criteria for a relationship was mutual sexual attraction, we'd all be paired up at age 16. There's much, much more that goes into selecting a partner.

 

Don't tell me you've never been involved with someone and had it not work out because you just didn't see it going anywhere. It's happened to everybody. At some point, logic and personal differences override the sexual attractions and biological urges.

[ZA Dater]

Chemistry is just a euphemism for 'I think he/she is hot'. That's all.

 

 

The tyranny of this chemistry nonsense is why there are so many perpetually single people out there.

 

Sad but true.

[normal person]

Sad but true.

 

Not at all.

 

Saying "I think this person is attractive" is attraction.

 

Saying "I get along with this person because we have similar values, goals, personalities, standings in life, etc" is chemistry.

 

For example, maybe there's a stripper you find attractive purely on a sexual level. Let's say she finds you attractive too. Would you, as a middle manager for some insurance company (hypothetical), presume that you have much in common with this girl, or that there's "chemistry?" On that circumstance alone, I'd bet against it. Some people just get along a lot better than others. That's why you have friendships with some people and not others. You have better chemistry -- you have more fun, shared interests, shared values, shared ideals, shared values. But are you attracted to your platonic friends based on their physical appearances?

 

Chemistry is the non-sexual component of a relationship, not the sexual one.

[hasaquestion]

Not at all.

 

Saying "I think this person is attractive" is attraction.

 

Saying "I get along with this person because we have similar values, goals, personalities, standings in life, etc" is chemistry.

 

For example, maybe there's a stripper you find attractive purely on a sexual level. Let's say she finds you attractive too. Would you, as a middle manager for some insurance company (hypothetical), presume that you have much in common with this girl, or that there's "chemistry?" On that circumstance alone, I'd bet against it. Some people just get along a lot better than others. That's why you have friendships with some people and not others. You have better chemistry -- you have more fun, shared interests, shared values, shared ideals, shared values. But are you attracted to your platonic friends based on their physical appearances?

 

Chemistry is the non-sexual component of a relationship, not the sexual one.

 

I've always interpreted "chemistry" when its used on here to be the totality of attraction. Physical and otherwise.

 

My observation is that people don't know how to explain exactly why they are attracted to other people. Its deeply psychological, relates to primal instincts and subconscious factors, and its not feasible to break down. So people just appropriated a random other word, in this case chemistry, to stamp it with.

[normal person]

I've always interpreted "chemistry" when its used on here to be the totality of attraction. Physical and otherwise.

 

My observation is that people don't know how to explain exactly why they are attracted to other people. Its deeply psychological, relates to primal instincts and subconscious factors, and its not feasible to break down. So people just appropriated a random other word, in this case chemistry, to stamp it with.

 

I think the only difference here is semantics or nomenclature, but it's good to clarify.

[Mccoy321]

Not at all.

 

Saying "I think this person is attractive" is attraction.

 

Saying "I get along with this person because we have similar values, goals, personalities, standings in life, etc" is chemistry.

 

For example, maybe there's a stripper you find attractive purely on a sexual level. Let's say she finds you attractive too. Would you, as a middle manager for some insurance company (hypothetical), presume that you have much in common with this girl, or that there's "chemistry?" On that circumstance alone, I'd bet against it. Some people just get along a lot better than others. That's why you have friendships with some people and not others. You have better chemistry -- you have more fun, shared interests, shared values, shared ideals, shared values. But are you attracted to your platonic friends based on their physical appearances?

 

Chemistry is the non-sexual component of a relationship, not the sexual one.

 

Well here's the problem is that no one can agree what chemistry even is. To me, the idea of chemistry is the sexual component. What you're talking about is compatibility.

 

I think chemistry is just invoked when women feel under pressure not to appear shallow. 'It wasn't his looks, there just wasn't any chemistry'.

[Mccoy321]

Why is it tyranny that people would chase relationships with people they are attracted to?

 

Generally, people are attracted to others who have value to offer them emotionally and physically. Having uncommon looks, charisma, or status makes you uncommonly valuable to others.

 

If you want to be chased around you have to stand out for something. That's how everything in life works. Jobs, college applications, etc. There's more to life that getting chased around, but the corollary is that if that's what you want that, then you've got to work on standing out and being your best self. Marriage and relationship statistics demonstrate that having a relationship without 'standing out' is eminently common and possible anyway.

 

I guess what I don't understand is how people treat "people are attracted to people they find attractive" as some kind of big reveal or plot twist. Its always been that way.

 

Part of the problem is that Loveshack can be a bit of an echo chamber. I'm 5'10" - before I joined this site a year ago it has never occurred to me that my height makes me less attractive than other people. Or that if I were to invite a girl/woman to my place, it means I'm planning on f**king her. On here things start as common and become 'True' with a capital T.

 

EDIT: I joined this site two years ago.

 

By tyranny I mean the idea that overwhelms the dating world telling people that if you don't feel 'chemistry' that he/she's not right for you. I think many people jump from date to date waiting to feel something non-existent.

[salparadise]

By tyranny I mean the idea that overwhelms the dating world telling people that if you don't feel 'chemistry' that he/she's not right for you. I think many people jump from date to date waiting to feel something non-existent.

 

Perhaps you've just never felt it. If you had then you wouldn't be denying its existence. It's definitely more than sexual attraction/compatibility factors, but it does enhance sexual attraction. I agree with hasaquestion when he say its deeply psychological, relates to primal instincts and subconscious factors. It's complex and we don't understand it, so we can't explain it. Part of it is personality type as well, but you can't boil it down to that. I sometimes use the analogy that we're attuned to the same frequency or wavelength. Aligned in ways that are intuitive, not quantifiable.

[Mccoy321]

Perhaps you've just never felt it. If you had then you wouldn't be denying its existence. It's definitely more than sexual attraction/compatibility factors, but it does enhance sexual attraction. I agree with hasaquestion when he say its deeply psychological, relates to primal instincts and subconscious factors. It's complex and we don't understand it, so we can't explain it. Part of it is personality type as well, but you can't boil it down to that. I sometimes use the analogy that we're attuned to the same frequency or wavelength. Aligned in ways that are intuitive, not quantifiable.

 

So, pseudo-scientific, quasi-religious rubbish then?

 

 

Thought so.

[LookAtThisPOst]

Perhaps you've just never felt it. If you had then you wouldn't be denying its existence. It's definitely more than sexual attraction/compatibility factors, but it does enhance sexual attraction. I agree with hasaquestion when he say its deeply psychological, relates to primal instincts and subconscious factors. It's complex and we don't understand it, so we can't explain it. Part of it is personality type as well, but you can't boil it down to that. I sometimes use the analogy that we're attuned to the same frequency or wavelength. Aligned in ways that are intuitive, not quantifiable.

 

Believe me, I've felt chemistry, but it was on rare occasions and was SURE that "Yep, there WILL be indeed a 2nd date", but she ghosted or went from hot to cold an in instant.

 

I recall a time where I met a woman online that If felt real chemistry with. We GOT each other, humor, ways of thinking, etc. One of those

 

"Finish each others sentences" feelings/situations.

 

It happened via email, then on the phone, and I was thinking, "Hm, if we meet in person, I wonder if it'll end there like most people say."

 

It ramped UP in person. Couldn't believe it myself, but I was feeling "chemistry" for the first time.

 

To me chemistry is not only attraction, but the feeling of "clicking" with someone, too. (if I'm spelling that right.) She was grinning from ear to ear when she was in my presence, couldn't' get her to stop smiling.

 

Was the first time I actually kissed a woman on a first date that I met online, it felt quite "magical".

 

When I got home SHE called ME., to see if I made it home alright...and we talked a while.

 

I was like, "Yep, DEFINITE 2nd date"

 

Called her to set up another date, was beaming with happiness, etc. Really boosted my confidence level.

 

When she answers the phone, she sounded very "wooden", callous a little, not *itchY...just unfeeling...something didn't sound right in her voice.

 

Told me she was busy with some crap around the house and she'd get back to me.

 

She ghosted.

 

So there you go, chemistry is but a fleeting feeling for some people and I took it at face value when I thought, "Wow, this is what this 'chemistry' thing that people have been talking about on dating message boards all the time, and I felt it!"

 

But, doesn't surprise me that it's a fleeting feeling.