That's it!

[oberkeat]

Or, if you're sensible, you go in with an open mind, just be yourself and interact with the person normally rather than try to put on an act and "impress" someone. You accept the fact that you may not like each other for whatever reason. If you're actually a decent, likable, appealing person then there's no need to worry. Why do you assume a guy is always at some sort of disadvantage here? That a woman "grants" him a two hour window in which he can do his "act?" If you're actually someone worth dating, this whole notion is totally spurious. If you're someone worth dating, women will want to spend time with you, not sit there like Simon Cowell telling you how poorly you performed. And not to mention you also have to like her. A women could be as equally concerned what the guy thinks about her. Why are you always imagining the situation from a disadvantaged perspective, that women have some conspiracy against you?

 

I've been out with plenty of women and can't recall ever being at all nervous about it. I'm usually excited to meet the person. The odds are that they are too.

 

 

The point is, in this dating culture the odds are stacked against single guys long before they ever meet the girl. Even if you like her, unless you make her feel butterflies the moment she first sees you, there will be no second date. That is dating on the most superficial level.

 

Settling for someone you have no attraction to is moronic, short-sighted, defeatist, and ultimately self-destructive. The modern dating landscape allows people who are worth dating to date each other and step over the ones who aren't worth dating. Survival of the fittest.

 

My married friend I have referenced in this thread would never call her relationship settling. She would never call it survival of the fittest, as if we are germs or carnivores. She is gorgeous, complains about getting hit on by guys all the time, and could have any guy she wanted. She gave her man a chance to get to know how wonderful she is as a person and vice versa instead of nexting him before she got to know him, which is sadly becoming less common the way dating is these days.

 

My huge regret about quitting dating is that I never met someone as awesome as she is. A girl who doesn't view men as disposable objects, or who doesn't next guys based on initial chemistry. A woman who realizes a solid relationship is a marathon, not a sprint. They're becoming very rare.

Edited April 6, 2016 by oberkeat

[neowulf]

I am making a practical argument here. Nothing to do with feeling owed anything. I am saying the way dating is structured today makes it damn near impossible for single men and women to form lasting fulfilling relationships.

 

Ok, yet there are loads of people here telling you that they manage just fine? How do you reconcile that? We all live in the same world? How is it that some people manage just fine in this "impossible" environment?

 

You cannot get to know people if you're nexting everyone you meet after one date that lasts five minutes. I am exaggerating slightly, but not by much. If I told you that you've got two hours to wow a girl and if you don't wow she's on to the next guy, you would be sweating bullets.

 

You had all afternoon, not 5 minutes? And no, I wouldn't be sweating bullets, because I'm not that emotionally invested in a woman I've just met. There's *always* another girl. There's *always* another date. That's my point. You're treating these dates like "DO OR DIE" affairs. They're really not.

 

That is an extremely tight window for a guy to operate in, no matter how good his game is. That's a lot of pressure, but that's the way dating is these days. I think it's sick. Expecting to feel an amazing spark within minutes of meeting someone and then nexting the person because you don't is simply unrealistic and ultimately self destructive.

 

The pressure you're feeling is self inflicted. You're placing that pressure on yourself. You're walking in with these huge, distorted expectations and being shattered when they fall through. It comes across as wildly desperate and desperation is never attractive.

 

Sadly that's how most people are doing dating today, and you're seeing the results in the escalating singles rate and declining marriage rate. People are becoming incapable of forming meaningful relationships. People's dating expectations have become completely unreasonable and unrealistic.

 

This will be the last post to you. Please understand, despite the harshness of my words, I'm *only* taking the time to write to try and help you.

 

I'm telling you, pleading with you. Revise your views. Your way of looking at this whole situation is poisoning any chance you'll have at finding what you want. It's not external. It's not "the dating scene". It's your attitude and view of it.

 

That's all the advice I've got left to offer. I always find it incredibly sad to see people give up so completely. I hope you'll take the time to read over these replies and at least consider they might contain some wisdom.

[Blanco]

I am making a practical argument here. Nothing to do with feeling owed anything. I am saying the way dating is structured today makes it damn near impossible for single men and women to form lasting fulfilling relationships. You cannot get to know people if you're nexting everyone you meet after one date that lasts five minutes. I am exaggerating slightly, but not by much. If I told you that you've got two hours to wow a girl and if you don't wow she's on to the next guy, you would be sweating bullets. That is an extremely tight window for a guy to operate in, no matter how good his game is. That's a lot of pressure, but that's the way dating is these days. I think it's sick. Expecting to feel an amazing spark within minutes of meeting someone and then nexting the person because you don't is simply unrealistic and ultimately self destructive. Sadly that's how most people are doing dating today, and you're seeing the results in the escalating singles rate and declining marriage rate. People are becoming incapable of forming meaningful relationships. People's dating expectations have become completely unreasonable and unrealistic.

 

 

I think what I'm having trouble getting past is that you're using your own negative dating experiences over the last couple of years and projecting them onto the dating scene as a whole. If I were to read your posts in a vacuum with no outside knowledge of the things you speak on, I would infer that dating is in a dire state and that few people are building long-term relationships or getting married. But this simply isn't true.

 

I'm in my early 30s and starting to feel like the black sheep among my network of friends because I'm one of the few people who's not married, on track to get married, or in a long-term relationship. I get invited to or am a +1 at weddings for people my age or younger several times a year. I meet far more girls my age or younger or who in relationships than I do who are single. I know many people, men and women, who very much desire to be in a relationship and aren't; not because they continue to "next" everyone, but because they haven't met a good fit.

 

I have several close female friends who have confided in me how difficult dating is as a woman. If the guy isn't an outright jerk, then it's a "nice" guy who feels owed repeat dates and more and more of the woman's time, even after she's decided to exercise her right to not continue seeing them. Interestingly enough, it's usually the "nice" guy who have reacted in a more hostile manner than the guys who were just seeking easy sex.

 

I feel we are spinning our wheels after 10 pages and you still repeating things you were saying on Page 1 with no concessions to any of the numerous good points others have made in here. So I take my leave of this thread, but before I go, I leave you with this: I don't think you're a bad person. I doubt you beat women, cheat on them, sexually assault them, or do things to compromise their safety. That makes you a good human being treating other human beings like they're human beings. But it does not give you infinite sexual marketplace value.

 

To think that treating women like human beings entitles you to an allotted amount of time with any woman you have interest in is a slippery slope to navigate; one that slowly strips away your awareness that every person has their own rights as a person; rights that include not needing to have any real reason not to engage with you in a romantic fashion. This slippery slope can harden you, and make you bitter and resentful, not just toward women, but your fellow man, as well. Tread carefully. You're far too young to feel so cynical about the world around you.

[oberkeat]

Here's a legitimate question: what's preventing you from just getting over it and going out with someone who might actually want to see you again instead of sitting here complaining about one girl who didn't like you?

 

As long as we have a dating culture that is this dysfunctional, it will be a pointless waste of time to give dating another try. The results are predetermined. That's what I've learned from all the dates I've been on.

[frus69]

I don't understand those ranting posts, are you really telling us you are done dating, or do you want us to comfort you and encourage you to keep dating? Or you want us to join you to quit dating?

 

Because I don't see the point making an announcement to a bunch of internet strangers about your personal decision.

[normal person]

The point is, in this dating culture the odds are stacked against single guys long before they ever meet the girl. Even if you like her, unless you make her feel butterflies the moment she first sees you, there will be no second date. That is dating on the most superficial level.

 

But why would you want to be with someone who doesn't make you feel butterflies and conversely, why would you want to be with someone who doesn't feel that way about you? Everyone's goal is to find the person that does make you feel butterflies, not to settle for some bum who doesn't. Attraction is superficial, no one denies that. It's basic biology. I only want to be with people I'm attracted to and I assume it's the same thing for everyone else. Having a mutual attraction is what people desire in a relationship, otherwise it'd just be platonic. The odds are stacked just fine, everyone can use whatever assets they've cultivated in their life to appeal to other people.

 

My married friend I have referenced in this thread would never call her relationship settling. She would never call it survival of the fittest, as if we are germs or carnivores.

 

Just because she gave a guy a second chance doesn't mean she settled. If she got what she wanted in the end, good for her. That doesn't mean that situation wasn't without it's own unique set of circumstances, that it can be applied to all other situations, or that it's likely to work out that way for everyone else. You can shoot a basketball from half court and have it go in. That doesn't mean it's the most efficient or practical method to score points.

 

And yes, humans are animals with consciousness and rational thought. Social darwinism is very much in affect. The people with the most appropriate and desirable traits for the environment (money, health, beauty, resources, intellect, circumstances) have the best chance of producing offspring and ensuring their survival. Pretty obvious when you boil everything down.

 

My huge regret about quitting dating is that I never met someone as awesome as she is. A girl who doesn't view men as disposable objects, or who doesn't next guys based on initial chemistry. A woman who realizes a solid relationship is a marathon, not a sprint. They're becoming very rare.

 

In the context of a relationship, meeting someone once and then deciding whether or not you want to see them again isn't marathon or a sprint. It's deciding if the prize for winning that race is worth your time and energy and then opting to enter the race or not. If not, people want to look for a race they want to run. The "pace" is completely irrelevant, you're talking about two different things.

[normal person]

As long as we have a dating culture that is this dysfunctional, it will be a pointless waste of time to give dating another try. The results are predetermined. That's what I've learned from all the dates I've been on.

 

It's only "dysfunctional" if you're expecting every person you go out with to want to be in a relationship with you, which is totally ridiculous. Would you call a baseball player with a .300 batting average "dysfunctional?" That's considered a good average. But the circumstances of the game are such that being "good" equates to only being successful ~30% of the time. Dating is very similar in that regard. A large percentage of the people met you won't want to meet again and vice versa. That's just something everyone deals with. Yeah, maybe you get walked once in a while like your married friend who gave the guy a second chance. But you can't expect to get walked every time. And you can't expect to hit a grand slam every time. But if you play the game long enough, you'll get good enough to eventually win one way or the other. The only way you definitely won't win is if you throw your hands up and say "it's too hard, I quit!" which is what you've apparently decided to do.

Edited April 6, 2016 by normal person

[oberkeat]

But why would you want to be with someone who doesn't make you feel butterflies and conversely, why would you want to be with someone who doesn't feel that way about you? Everyone's goal is to find the person that does make you feel butterflies, not to settle for some bum who doesn't. Attraction is superficial, no one denies that. It's basic biology. I only want to be with people I'm attracted to and I assume it's the same thing for everyone else. Having a mutual attraction is what people desire in a relationship, otherwise it'd just be platonic. The odds are stacked just fine, everyone can use whatever assets they've cultivated in their life to appeal to other people.

 

People are starting from scratch night after night when all they really need is to slow down and take the time to get to know someone. Some people don't seem to accept the idea at all that attraction can build slowly. Some people don't seem to think it's dating unless people are treating eachother like disposable napkins.

 

Just because she gave a guy a second chance doesn't mean she settled. If she got what she wanted in the end, good for her. That doesn't mean that situation wasn't without it's own unique set of circumstances, that it can be applied to all other situations, or that it's likely to work out that way for everyone else. You can shoot a basketball from half court and have it go in. That doesn't mean it's the most efficient or practical method to score points.

 

There is nothing efficient or practical about the fast food dating culture that exists today. It is turning folks into serial daters and leaving more people single and frustrated than ever before. It is not leading to more fulfilling or stable relationships, and the statistics only support this.

 

And yes, humans are animals with consciousness and rational thought. Social darwinism is very much in affect. The people with the most appropriate and desirable traits for the environment (money, health, beauty, resources, intellect, circumstances) have the best chance of producing offspring and ensuring their survival. Pretty obvious when you boil everything down.

 

Lol, evolution applies to dating in no way shape or form. If only the wealthiest the most beautiful, or the most intellegent people only were allowed produce offspring, there would not be 7 billion people walking the earth. And they would be a lot sexier, wealthier and smarter. And dating would not be the mess that it is. The dating culture we have today rewards none of our good qualities. It is bringing out the worst in people and I'm not the only one who's said so in this thread.

 

 

In the context of a relationship, meeting someone once and then deciding whether or not you want to see them again isn't marathon or a sprint. It's deciding if the prize for winning that race is worth your time and energy and then opting to enter the race or not. If not, people want to look for a race they want to run. The "pace" is completely irrelevant, you're talking about two different things.

 

Pace is completely relevant. You cannot get to know someone with this superficial WARPspeed pattern that exists in dating. You cannot judge someone based on five seconds of dating, or a profile photo and brief bio. Getting to know someone requires far more time than modern attention spans these days can handle.

Edited April 6, 2016 by oberkeat

[oberkeat]

I don't understand those ranting posts, are you really telling us you are done dating, or do you want us to comfort you and encourage you to keep dating? Or you want us to join you to quit dating?

 

Because I don't see the point making an announcement to a bunch of internet strangers about your personal decision.

 

If I can convince some women reading this thread to give the next guy they date a second look instead of being too hasty and taking the convenient way out and giving into the instant gratification impulse, I think they would be surprised by the quality of relationships they find themselves in. If I can convince one gal out there that she does not have to settle for the dysfunctional dating standard that has taken over, then what I have been through will have been worth it.

[losangelena]

If I can convince some women reading this thread to give the next guy they date a second look instead of being too hasty and taking the convenient way out and giving into the instant gratification impulse, I think they would be surprised by the quality of relationships they find themselves in. If I can convince one gal out there that she does not have to settle for the dysfunctional dating standard that has taken over, then what I have been through will have been worth it.

 

Why do you assume the women dating this date that way?

 

Did you miss the post where I said I once went out FIVE TIMES with a guy I was unsure about?

 

Go on, keep attributing this problem solely to women. See how far that gets you.

[normal person]

People are starting from scratch night after night when all they really need is to slow down and take the time to get to know someone. Some people don't seem to accept the idea at all that attraction can build slowly. Some people don't seem to think it's dating unless people are treating eachother like disposable napkins.

 

Just because it can doesn't mean it will. People would rather trust their gut and move on. I can tell in less than 20 minutes if I want to see someone again or not. If I'm attracted to them and interested, I proceed. If I'm not, I don't see them again. My time is valuable. I have high standards. I'm not going to let people keep auditioning when they're not right for the part, I only have so much time to cast the role, and a hundred people waiting to be seen.

 

People know what they like and what they don't like. Let's say you try spicy food and you don't like the taste at all. Why would you take another bite? Maybe if you're just indifferent to the taste, you might take another. But if you can easily order a food you do like instead, there's no reason not to.

 

There is nothing efficient or practical about the fast food dating culture that exists today. It is turning folks into serial daters and leaving more people single and frustrated than ever before. It is not leading to more fulfilling or stable relationships, and the statistics only support this.

 

You have no evidence. Just because you're single and frustrated doesn't mean everyone is. People have access to people they didn't have before. People are being more selective. It's not up to you to determine if being selective is good or bad for an individual. If that's how they want to proceed, that's their choice. They can reap the rewards or lack thereof on their own terms without your judgment.

By the way, here's the link saying a third of new marriages now start online. For the third time: Study: More than a third of new marriages start online

 

Lol, evolution applies to dating in no way shape or form. If only the wealthiest the most beautiful, or the most intellegent people only were allowed produce offspring, there would not be 7 billion people walking the earth. And they would be a lot sexier, wealthier and smarter. And dating would not be the mess that it is. The dating culture we have today rewards none of our good qualities. It is bringing out the worst in people and I'm not the only one who's said so in this thread.

 

That's a dramatic oversimplification and your view of "good" qualities is entirely subjective within this context. People want to mate with the most powerful, athletic, good looking, affluent, healthy people they can find. Go ahead and argue that. Do you think Melania Trump is with Donald because he's so "good" and not for his power and billions of dollars? Do you think Tom Brady and Giselle Bundchen just got together coincidentally? How do you think they're together?

 

The number one priority of life on Earth is to stay alive. The second is to reproduce and make sure your offspring stay alive. Someone who's rich, strong, and powerful has a much better chance of survival than someone who's poor and weak. That's why people are attracted to money and power. It makes survival easier. Being "good" has nothing to do with any of that, that's why so called "good" guys like yourself end up so frequently befuddled as to why women don't like them for their "good" qualities. They're secondary when it comes to dating.

 

Pace is completely relevant. You cannot get to know someone with this superficial WARPspeed pattern that exists in dating. You cannot judge someone based on five seconds of dating, or a profile photo and brief bio. Getting to know someone requires far more time than modern attention spans these days can handle.

 

By that logic, you "should" go out with every single person with a profile on OKCupid because you can't get to know someone well enough through a profile picture or description. No **** you can't get to know someone that quick. Most people don't want to know most other people at all. And guess what? They have enough options that they don't have to and they're willing to take the risk of not meeting someone they have no attraction to. They only want to know the people who they find interesting and attractive. Whether or not they decide you're interesting or attractive to even click on your profile in the first place, or meet you in person, or meet you a second time doesn't matter. What people "should" do or the pace they "should" move at or the concessions they "should" make people are totally dubious because they have their own criteria and circumstances that govern their own lives. They don't live by your standards or expectations. There is no law that says you "should" give everyone a fair chance because life is so fair any everyone deserves your time and consideration. Maybe we should let everyone play in the NFL without a tryout or combine to make sure they fit the most basic requirements to perform at the level expected of them? Because life "should" be fair, right? Because we can't make judgments or assumptions on people to save time without actual confirmation that they're inadequate, right? Utter nonsense. You live in a fantasy world.

 

Why don't you go out with every woman who messages you? You "should," by tier logic. You don't have enough chance to know them otherwise and they owe you their time, right?

 

Your problem is that you can't respect peoples' ability to make up their own minds. You assume you know what's better for them and their circumstances than they do.

Edited April 6, 2016 by normal person

[oberkeat]

You have no evidence. Just because you're single and frustrated doesn't mean everyone is. People have access to people they didn't have before. People are being more selective. It's not up to you to determine if being selective is good or bad for an individual. If that's how they want to proceed, that's their choice. They can reap the rewards or lack thereof on their own terms without your judgment.

By the way, here's the link saying a third of new marriages now start online. For the third time: Study: More than a third of new marriages start online

 

Actually, I do and the trends are disturbing. You may call it being more selective but the result is that stable successful romantic relationships are in decline in this country. That is because we have a dysfunctional dating culture that is making it harder and harder for people to form real romantic relationships:

 

Unmarried and single Americans now make up 27 percent of all households, up from 17 percent in 1970.

 

Single? You're not alone - CNN.com

 

The percentage of unmarried and single Americans actually outnumbers the number of married Americans.

http://nypost.com/2014/09/09/single-adults-now-outnumber-married-adults/

 

The birth rate in this country has hit historic lows:

 

Baby bust! Millennials' birth rate drop may signal historic shift

 

Fact Sheet: The Decline in U.S. Fertility

 

And according to my sources, online dating isn't helping:

5% of Americans who are currently married or in a long-term partnership met their partner somewhere online. Among those who have been together for ten years or less, 11% met online.

 

 

Online Dating & Relationships | Pew Research Center

 

 

That's a dramatic oversimplification and your view of "good" qualities is entirely subjective within this context. People want to mate with the most powerful, athletic, good looking, affluent, healthy people they can find. Go ahead and argue that. Do you think Melania Trump is with Donald because he's so "good" and not for his power and billions of dollars? Do you think Tom Brady and Giselle Bundchen just got together coincidentally? How do you think they're together?

 

The number one priority of life on Earth is to stay alive. The second is to reproduce and make sure your offspring stay alive. Someone who's rich, strong, and powerful has a much better chance of survival than someone who's poor and weak. That's why people are attracted to money and power. It makes survival easier. Being "good" has nothing to do with any of that, that's why so called "good" guys like yourself end up so frequently befuddled as to why women don't like them for their "good" qualities. They're secondary when it comes to dating.

 

Being rich strong and powerful has nothing to do with finding a relationship in this day and age, and you know it. There are millions of examples of overweight or poor people getting married for every one celebrity you could name.

 

 

By that logic, you "should" go out with every single person with a profile on OKCupid because you can't get to know someone well enough through a profile picture or description. No **** you can't get to know someone that quick. Most people don't want to know most other people at all. And guess what? They have enough options that they don't have to and they're willing to take the risk of not meeting someone they have no attraction to. They only want to know the people who they find interesting and attractive. Whether or not they decide you're interesting or attractive to even click on your profile in the first place, or meet you in person, or meet you a second time doesn't matter. What people "should" do or the pace they "should" move at or the concessions they "should" make people are totally dubious because they have their own criteria and circumstances that govern their own lives. They don't live by your standards or expectations. There is no law that says you "should" give everyone a fair chance because life is so fair any everyone deserves your time and consideration. Maybe we should let everyone play in the NFL without a tryout or combine to make sure they fit the most basic requirements to perform at the level expected of them? Because life "should" be fair, right? Because we can't make judgments or assumptions on people to save time without actual confirmation that they're inadequate, right? Utter nonsense. You live in a fantasy world.

 

Why don't you go out with every woman who messages you? You "should," by tier logic. You don't have enough chance to know them otherwise and they owe you their time, right?

 

Your problem is that you can't respect peoples' ability to make up their own minds. You assume you know what's better for them and their circumstances than they do.

 

People can decide for themselves, but I'm saying that the way we are doing things in this dysfunctional dating environment is not making us happier, and not equalling more healthy stable and fulfilling relationships, contrary to what you seem to believe. And if we want to reverse that trend a lot of gals will have to seriously reconsider the way they are going about dating, i.e. this superficial speed dating culture we have.

Edited April 6, 2016 by oberkeat

[Imajerk17]

If I can convince some women reading this thread to give the next guy they date a second look instead of being too hasty and taking the convenient way out and giving into the instant gratification impulse, I think they would be surprised by the quality of relationships they find themselves in. If I can convince one gal out there that she does not have to settle for the dysfunctional dating standard that has taken over, then what I have been through will have been worth it.

OP, I guarantee you that if this poor woman you went out on that date with were to read this thread, she will only be relieved that she didn't give you a "second look" after all.

 

The responses on this thread of yours are about unanimous. Do you realize how badly you are coming across? That you're this tightly wound here has to translate to real life, and it may be what gave her misgivings not to see you again.

[Toodaloo]

And according to my sources, online dating isn't helping:

 

So why are you bothering with it at all? Why all the fuss?

 

Why not just quit beating your head against a wall and change what you are doing?

[Kamille]

I'm someone who needs more than one date to figure out if I feel it for someone. Insta-sparks very rarely happen to me. So I tend to go on 2-5 dates with men, when I see there could be potential.

 

Even then, there have been instances when I knew on the first date that the date and I weren't compatible. It didn't make them horrible human beings. It just meant I knew before they did that we weren't a match (based on humour; differences in lifestyle; the general interaction).

 

When I started OLD, I read an advice book that pretty much said: Rule #1 of OLD: get comfortable with rejection. (Note: the book was geared towards women). That would be my advice to you: yes OLD, by increasing how many people we get to meet and date in the course of year also increases the amount of rejection we face. No big deal. It happens. I know you say you're quitting dating, but if ever you give it another shot, learn to accept rejection gracefully.

[oberkeat]

OP, I guarantee you that if this poor woman you went out on that date with were to read this thread, she will only be relieved that she didn't give you a "second look" after all.

 

The responses on this thread of yours are about unanimous.

 

I think people don't want to believe the dating scene has gotten as bad as it is. I think they want to think positively no matter how bad the truth is. But it's the unfortunate reality. The statistics I quoted above really show the consequences of the way dating is done today. The declining marriage and birth rate. The escalating singles rate. The dating scene itself has to change if we're going to reverse those trends.

[normal person]

Actually, I do and the trends are disturbing. You may call it being more selective but the result is that stable successful romantic relationships are in decline in this country.

 

"Stable" and "successful" romantic relationships declined steadily from the 1870s. Coincidentally, the only sizable drop offs in that figure were after WWII and every year from 1980 up to today, long before the current environment materialized.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/

 

That is because we have a dysfunctional dating culture that is making it harder and harder for people to form real romantic relationships:

 

Conjecture. Even if that's somewhat true, there are plenty of extraneous factors that affect numbers and the culture that creates the numbers. The economy, shifts in religious attitudes, shifts in cultural attitudes, etc. Divorce was unfathomable to lots of people a few decades ago. Now it's barely stigmatized. You have no evidence to suggest that peoples' relationships in earlier times were more stable and more successful just because they got married and didn't get divorced.

 

And according to my sources, online dating isn't helping:

5% of Americans who are currently married or in a long-term partnership met their partner somewhere online. Among those who have been together for ten years or less, 11% met online.

 

Wait, so you're saying it didn't help the 5% of people of the US (16 million total) or 11% (35 million) who it literally helped? Who entered into long term relationships or marriages when it was the only reason they met? So your argument is "It doesn't work. It's only worked for 35 million relationships that wouldn't have occurred without it?" Keep in mind that those figures don't even represent the whole population because not everyone uses online dating, and they haven't been using it with the same frequency people do today. So if even 15% of people use it seriously, that's a 48 million person sample size you take the success number from, not 322 million. Consider that in conjunction.

 

Being rich strong and powerful has nothing to do with finding a relationship in this day and age, and you know it. There are millions of examples of overweight or poor people getting married for every one celebrity you could name.

 

It has everything to do with selectivity and finding the best relationship available. Everyone is trying to get the best partner they can. I'm not saying fat, poor, people don't get married. The reasons rich, powerful, beautiful people intermarry is because they can. They have the resources to justify being with someone on their level. The reason overweight poor people intermarry is because they have to because they can't do any better. The overweight, uneducated welfare bum isn't married to Giselle Bundchen not because he doesn't like her, it's because he doesn't have a chance in hell with her. Your theory might have some credibility if you showed significant examples or stats of people with resources like wealth, beauty, and power marrying people who were poor, ugly, and weak. But it doesn't happen, that's the point. People generally intermarry with the same socioeconomic status and looks. So if you have more or better resources like money or looks ("more desirable traits"), the more likely you are to end up with someone else with more or better resources. Show me significant examples otherwise and I'll eat my words.

 

People can decide for themselves, but I'm saying that the way we are doing things in this dysfunctional dating environment is not making us happier, and not equalling more healthy stable and fulfilling relationships, contrary to what you seem to believe. And if we want to reverse that trend a lot of gals will have to seriously reconsider the way they are going about dating, i.e. this superficial speed dating culture we have.

 

Just because it's not making you happy doesn't mean it's not beneficial for millions of other people who have figured it out. If people didn't think their methods were making them happier, they wouldn't be doing things that way. People are happier with the selectivity and options than they are settling, and that's why it's done the way it is and not in some antiquated fashion. Why else would people do it the way they do if they didn't enjoy it and it didn't bring them happiness?

[Toodaloo]

I think people don't want to believe the dating scene has gotten as bad as it is. I think they want to think positively no matter how bad the truth is. But it's the unfortunate reality. The statistics I quoted above really show the consequences of the way dating is done today. The declining marriage and birth rate. The escalating singles rate. The dating scene itself has to change if we're going to reverse those trends.

 

You make it sound as though people who are single are infected with some sort of contagious disease...

 

[]

 

The dating scene is NOT that bad. I am on it! I should know! Yes it is sometimes heart breaking, yes it is sometimes a drag but for the most part its fun and enjoyable even if it has yet to yield any results!

 

Statistics can be read any number of ways. They can be twisted and turned.

 

There are some fabulous men and women out there just waiting to meet each other.

 

[]

Edited April 6, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[MidwestUSA]

Anyone who wants to experience the 'good old days' of dating should agree to

 

Get rid of their computer

Trash the xBox and PS4

Throw away the cell phone

Dial a rotary phone that shares a party line

Write letters to pen pals and WALK them to a corner mailbox

Ride your bicycle everywhere

Get a poker group together and meet once a month

Go to church

Go to the library when you need to look something up

Sit at a good old soda fountain, if you know what that is

 

Can we bring back drive in theaters?

 

 

If you get my drift, what one is experiencing as 'dating woes' is directly related to the advances of technology.

 

All of the 'organic' ways of meeting anyone have gone out the window, because people have their heads in their electronic devices 24/7[]

Edited April 6, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Unecessary and inflammatory content redacted and member moderated

[Toodaloo]

You have just described my life! []

Edited April 6, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Redacted full quote of immediately preceding post and redacted response to edited content

[central]

From what I've read, the declining birth rate is a function of a more educated, wealthier society. This has been the trend for all countries where the standard of living has improved and women have more education.

 

 

The declining marriage rate just reflects the fact that marriage isn't a necessity for men or women to thrive in this culture. Both can be independent - women no longer need a man to earn an income. And they don't need husbands. 40% or more children are born to single mothers. It may not be ideal, but it apparently works well enough, especially if the father is involved in their lives.

 

 

As for men, they are seeing the legal downsides of marriage, especially when divorce comes into the picture. There are few advantages to marriage. The legal system is still weighted in favor of women - or many judges still are - even when the laws are gender neutral.

[WaitingForBardot]

For some reason this thread's got me fantasizing about a world where every woman is required to give me a fair shot. Whomever my heart desires, or my gaze lands upon, is required to give me their full attention until I decide it's enough...

 

Lewis Grizzard got it right: "Sex hasn't been the same since women started enjoying it."

 

 

[]

Edited April 6, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Response to deleted content redacted

[joseb]

I think people don't want to believe the dating scene has gotten as bad as it is. I think they want to think positively no matter how bad the truth is. But it's the unfortunate reality. The statistics I quoted above really show the consequences of the way dating is done today. The declining marriage and birth rate. The escalating singles rate. The dating scene itself has to change if we're going to reverse those trends.

 

You are going on about this escalating singles rate and declining marriage and birth rate as if it is some terrible disease that must be wiped out.

 

What's so wrong with people being single? Maybe they realise that it's a nice way to live.

 

What's so wrong with a declining birth rate? Maybe people realise they don't have to overpopulated the planet to leave a legacy.

 

What's so wrong about a declining marriage rate? Maybe people realise it's becoming an outdated and pointless tradition that can easily result in financial ruin.

 

Personally I welcome these tends.

[normal person]

I think people don't want to believe the dating scene has gotten as bad as it is. I think they want to think positively no matter how bad the truth is.

 

The only people who are worried about it are the people who it doesn't benefit, like the people with nothing desirable to offer. And no offense, but if you don't have anything desirable to offer, and the circumstances don't benefit you for those reasons, that doesn't make it "bad." That just makes it natural selection. The people with things to offer other people will use it with success and view it as a Godsend. The people who have resources naturally or worked to achieve them get rewarded, the people who don't have those things naturally or didn't work for them don't. No, it's not entirely fair, but it's not entirely unfair either. You can't help the circumstances you're born into, but you can always do more to improve yourself. If you didn't have the capacity to figure our how to improve, or the will to do what's necessary to succeed, you don't get selected. Natural selection.

 

Here's the thing, if someone exercises selectivity and successfully finds a match, they and the person they select will ultimately think the process is for the better. They'll think all the schooling, hours at the gym, developing an interesting life, etc paid off for them. They'll think it's perfectly fair that they worked for something, succeeded at it, and were rewarded for it.

 

But if someone exercises selectivity and decides that you aren't good enough for them, then of course you will think that it's terrible and superficial, unfair, and elitist, as I suspect is why you're ranting so hard. It creates an environment where the best traits are rewarded by selection and the lackluster or unappealing traits aren't selected.

 

If this girl had looked at you the first time and in 10 seconds told you how impressive it was that you're a surgeon, how smart you must be to do that, how funny your profile was, how nice your car is, and how she thought you were both going to have a great time, my guess is that you wouldn't be complaining that it's superficial and that she didn't even try to get to know you for longer than 2 hours. You'd just willingly accept the circumstances and resources that you worked so hard for.

 

Everyone wants what's best for themselves and they don't want to settle. So as I explained, like Darwinism, it benefits the people with the most desirable traits; the ones that are most likely to be selected. Natural selection. If you naturally have them or worked hard to acquire them, you get selected. If you don't naturally have them and/or haven't worked hard to acquire any, you won't get selected and might start complaining about how no one gives you a chance that life isn't fair. Like you have here.

 

Evolution benefits the more desirable, "better" traits. As I've said, the solution is very apparent. If you want better success, be a better person. Success, power, strength, health, beauty, and other resources are "better" and more attractive than the lack of those things. And the more you have, the better. If you want to be more successful, get more of those things. You have to adjust yourself to the environment. The environment won't adjust to you no matter how hard you complain about it.

[oberkeat]

"Stable" and "successful" romantic relationships declined steadily from the 1870s. Coincidentally, the only sizable drop offs in that figure were after WWII and every year from 1980 up to today, long before the current environment materialized.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/

 

 

 

Conjecture. Even if that's somewhat true, there are plenty of extraneous factors that affect numbers and the culture that creates the numbers. The economy, shifts in religious attitudes, shifts in cultural attitudes, etc. Divorce was unfathomable to lots of people a few decades ago. Now it's barely stigmatized. You have no evidence to suggest that peoples' relationships in earlier times were more stable and more successful just because they got married and didn't get divorced.

 

At a certain point in the 20th century, the declining birth and marriage rate and the escalating singles rate stop being a product of gender equality and start becoming a symptom of our dysfunctional ideas regarding dating and relationships. Are you saying these converging trends are just coincidence? No way.

 

 

Wait, so you're saying it didn't help the 5% of people of the US (16 million total) or 11% (35 million) who it literally helped? Who entered into long term relationships or marriages when it was the only reason they met? So your argument is "It doesn't work. It's only worked for 35 million relationships that wouldn't have occurred without it?" Keep in mind that those figures don't even represent the whole population because not everyone uses online dating, and they haven't been using it with the same frequency people do today. So if even 15% of people use it seriously, that's a 48 million person sample size you take the success number from, not 322 million. Consider that in conjunction.

 

5 percent is far less than the 22 percent you quoted for us earlier. You might split hairs over how many people that actually is, but the fact is online dating did not get the job done for the vast majority of coupled people out there. If an auto repair shop quoted a 5% success rate, they would not be in business very long.

 

 

It has everything to do with selectivity and finding the best relationship available. Everyone is trying to get the best partner they can. I'm not saying fat, poor, people don't get married. The reasons rich, powerful, beautiful people intermarry is because they can. They have the resources to justify being with someone on their level. The reason overweight poor people intermarry is because they have to because they can't do any better. The overweight, uneducated welfare bum isn't married to Giselle Bundchen not because he doesn't like her, it's because he doesn't have a chance in hell with her. Your theory might have some credibility if you showed significant examples or stats of people with resources like wealth, beauty, and power marrying people who were poor, ugly, and weak. But it doesn't happen, that's the point. People generally intermarry with the same socioeconomic status and looks. So if you have more or better resources like money or looks ("more desirable traits"), the more likely you are to end up with someone else with more or better resources. Show me significant examples otherwise and I'll eat my words.

 

Your argument wasn't that like attracts like. Your argument was that wealth, beauty, power and the fight for survival has everything to do with relationship formation, which no one dating today would agree with.

 

Just because it's not making you happy doesn't mean it's not beneficial for millions of other people who have figured it out. If people didn't think their methods were making them happier, they wouldn't be doing things that way. People are happier with the selectivity and options than they are settling, and that's why it's done the way it is and not in some antiquated fashion. Why else would people do it the way they do if they didn't enjoy it and it didn't bring them happiness?

 

As I said, I'm not the only one out there who are finding out how poisonous this dating culture has become. These boards are a treasure trove of folks who are frustrated and disappointed with dating, the statistic trends we're seeing regarding coupledom back it up. It's not just me.