GunslingerRoland Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Is that true how people set their filters? I can only speak for myself I set usually 31-37 (I'm 33), my preferred range, and height 5'10+ (I'm 5'7). Numbers are selected around my own stats. Online or offline if someone 5'9 or 30 or 38 or whatever number close to but outside of my range approaches me - yep, I'd consider him. So in that sense it doesn't matter that much, I just prefer to be informed what I'm getting into. I haven't seen any data to support that, but that is what I'd suspect... People put irrational importance on even numbers. Look at the thread in one of the other forums, because someone think they will lose their ability to write about young people the moment they turn 20. Especially with height, I've heard a lot of women say they'll only date over 6 foot, never heard a woman say she'd date any guy over 5'11. All in the even numbers. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Gr8fuln2020 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 I notice it seems common place for men to lie about their height, I am not joking but I say 95% of the men I met under 5,9 lie about their heights. I think that is worse than someone lieing about their age. Lying about someone's height is MORE important than one's age? Wow. Are you taller than the men that have lied? Or is 5'9 an arbitrary height? Link to post Share on other sites
joseb Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 (edited) Age unfortunately is a ‘magical’ number - it gives info when someone will retire, get infertile and die. It is quite possibly the most informative number one have for themselves. Yes and no. Some people retire at 67 (that's the age pension age here) but I know people retired, or partially at least, in their 40s. If you mean activity level, i know a guy who is 73 and doing an ironman. I work with guys in their 20s who couldn't run a mile to save their life Infertile? Guys have kids at any age, and yes women's fertility is limited but my friend just had one at 43 for example, and another is struggling to in her early 30s so it varies. Not everyone wants kids, but yes if you definitely do, that's important information. And outside logans run, we don't know what age we will die. Yes, there are averages, but then should we include biological age on profiles? BP numbers, cholesterol. What about IQ, EQ, Myers brigs, weight. Obcessing on age is what's causing people to fudge theirs. It also pigeon holes people into categories they don't belong in. Willingness to travel, food preferences, cultural interests, whether you want kids, what kind of environment you want to live in, drinking/smoking habits, sexual preferences, your career aspirations /work life balance, how much contact you like - all these I would value way above age when considering whether to date someone. Edited November 15, 2017 by joseb 5 Link to post Share on other sites
olivetree Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 (edited) I think if people want to fudge their numbers, then go for it. They'll just end up with someone more compatible to them (people okay with lying to get in the door) and save those that value honesty time as well so they can immediately next them (assuming the fibber comes clean right away). Yeah, the latter camp will waste their time writing messages and meeting up, but unless someone is quite sloppy, it can take months or even years to find out someone is a liar. Edited November 15, 2017 by olivetree Link to post Share on other sites
CryForNoOne Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 This thread illustrates why so many people who use OLD are miserable. The criteria for filtering potential dates is totally broken. Everyone is looking for "red flags" and "deal breakers". I'm so sick of reading those two phrases here. I hope this is idiosyncratic to LS and that this level of pickiness is not truly representative of single people today. If it is, then I'm screwed. We're all screwed... For me, that's not what relationship material is about. Before becoming single last year, my adult dating life basically consisted of 3 very long relationships. I fell deeply with each woman because of their strengths, not their weaknesses. Online, it's nearly impossible to gauge someone's strengths when there are so many exaggerations and outright lies about age, appearance, career etc... Everybody looks like they are so goddam happy, and they rock climb or kayak every weekend that theiy're not taking trips to Auckland or Nepal. If I had focused on those women's flaws when I had met them, I wouldn't have dated ANY of them. All this fibbing about age, height, and weight is a byproduct of a completely bull***** method of filtering people. Look for people who are exceptional at a few things, and tolerable in all other regards. You'll be so much happier than if you look for that unicorn who is above average in EVERYTHING. They do not exist... 2 Link to post Share on other sites
olivetree Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 This thread illustrates why so many people who use OLD are miserable. The criteria for filtering potential dates is totally broken. Everyone is looking for "red flags" and "deal breakers". I'm so sick of reading those two phrases here. I hope this is idiosyncratic to LS and that this level of pickiness is not truly representative of single people today. If it is, then I'm screwed. We're all screwed... For me, that's not what relationship material is about. Before becoming single last year, my adult dating life basically consisted of 3 very long relationships. I fell deeply with each woman because of their strengths, not their weaknesses. Online, it's nearly impossible to gauge someone's strengths when there are so many exaggerations and outright lies about age, appearance, career etc... Everybody looks like they are so goddam happy, and that they rock climb or kayak every weekend that their not taking trips to Auckland or Nepal. If I had focused on those women's flaws when I had met them, I wouldn't have dated ANY of them. All this fibbing about age, height, and weight is a byproduct of a completely bull***** method of filtering people. Look for people who are exceptional at a few things, and tolerable in all other regards. You'll me so much happier than if you look for that unicorn who is above average in EVERYTHING. They do not exist... I see what you're saying, though a lot of what other people find attractive is not attractive to me. Braggy, popular, busy --> not for me. However, I'm pretty stringent on telling the truth after dating people who bend it far too frequently. The only real option is to be yourself. People find out soon enough anyway. I'd rather someone discover I'm better than they thought than to be disappointed I'm not this "ideal" I projected in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites
No_Go Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 That's true, people put importance on 'milestone' ages (21, 25, 30, 40 etc). For height - now you heard one I put 5'10 as a restriction (and I'm flexible for the right person). I haven't seen any data to support that, but that is what I'd suspect... People put irrational importance on even numbers. Look at the thread in one of the other forums, because someone think they will lose their ability to write about young people the moment they turn 20. Especially with height, I've heard a lot of women say they'll only date over 6 foot, never heard a woman say she'd date any guy over 5'11. All in the even numbers. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Do you really blame them? not really Society loves young and ultra young women, older women not so much... indeed. all men love ultra young women and all women love ultra young women. that's why they are so popular 1 Link to post Share on other sites
smackie9 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 not really indeed. all men love ultra young women and all women love ultra young women. that's why they are so popular That's why if I was single I would be hittin the cougars.co m 1 Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 That's why if I was single I would be hittin the cougars.co m Link to post Share on other sites
amaysngrace Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 I lied about my age here on loveshack way back when because people thought I posted like a younger person and I was embarrassed to admit my real age so I lied by five years. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
No_Go Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Yes and no. Some people retire at 67 (that's the age pension age here) but I know people retired, or partially at least, in their 40s. If you mean activity level, i know a guy who is 73 and doing an ironman. I work with guys in their 20s who couldn't run a mile to save their life Infertile? Guys have kids at any age, and yes women's fertility is limited but my friend just had one at 43 for example, and another is struggling to in her early 30s so it varies. Not everyone wants kids, but yes if you definitely do, that's important information. And outside logans run, we don't know what age we will die. Yes, there are averages, but then should we include biological age on profiles? BP numbers, cholesterol. What about IQ, EQ, Myers brigs, weight. Obcessing on age is what's causing people to fudge theirs. It also pigeon holes people into categories they don't belong in. Willingness to travel, food preferences, cultural interests, whether you want kids, what kind of environment you want to live in, drinking/smoking habits, sexual preferences, your career aspirations /work life balance, how much contact you like - all these I would value way above age when considering whether to date someone. TBH the more bio-information the better. I see why it is not encouraged but someone stating they want kids but being on the upper age limit for being able to have kids... it is a contradiction. They all come 'but one woman said her third cousin had a baby at 49' ... um yeah... Weight and IQ, even Myers Briggs and EQ can be gauged from a well-populated profile. I'd prefer data than the need to infer, but if I can't infer because the profile is too empty - I'd not bother meeting the person... Willingness to travel, food preferences, cultural interests, even amount of contact - to me these are just trivia facts. Nice but non-essential... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts