Ready to throw the towel in with OLD.

[Desesperado]

OLD is bad in general. It's rather sad because I think when it started people had such hope that this was the avenue you could go through in order to find someone. But, like everything else, people take it and use it for other things and it became something it wasn't intended for to the point of abuse. But I digress ...

 

It's just a means of communication. Just because you say hello to someone while waiting at a bus stop doesn't mean that person is The One. That was true before OLD and afterward. And just because you meet the person face to face doesn't mean you're going to have a relationship either.

 

It's depressing, truly. But it's what it is. You do it because you can't think of anything else to do.

 

Yes odds of meeting irl aren't much better indeed, but I'd argue though OLD can irritate me, still where I live it opened meeting with people from further out my city, something you can never achieve otherwhise, that's the only plus I see.

I have made great friends through OLD, so have to see the good side and not think about it too much.

[JuneL]

I was simply trying to give you the simple arithmetic.

 

I was on OLD for like 3 weeks and received about 100 first messages. However, as was typical for most women, I replied to about 10% of them. Some of them asked me out almost immediately, which was way too soon for me to feel comfortable; others dragged the convo too long for my interest to sustain. At the end, I only went on very few dates. If I were a guy, I’d probably send out 100 first messages during those 3 weeks, probably get 10% responses, and some of the convo fizzled out and I might end up going on the same few dates. Btw, it takes exactly one man and one woman for a date to happen. So it can’t be the case that women on average go on a lot more dates than men, if there’s a roughly equal number of men and women on average. Again, I realize women (men) are on the short side for the younger (older) age range; again, I also realize women on average are much more less willing to do casual hookups.

 

No but if you're reasonably attractive, present yourself well, men will write to you because even though it's 2018 and OLD should have equalized roles in dating, reality is that the majority of women will still not initiate, so it's still up to men to send messages and try to get dates mostly.

But I mean women also want attractive men, so it goes both ways, attractive people of course have it easier.

 

So it's maybe not easier to get dates, as you some say they don't get many every year, but it sure is very draining when you're a man having to text a hundred females to get about 10 replies, which some are plain boring not making any effort and the rest might just disappear anytime.

This isn't fun this feels like constant rejection, when you text and text and don't get replied, I'd prefer not having to text so much have few messages but that were replied to, that's where to me it's more difficult for men, it is very draining because being a number's game, I'd say the odds are in favor of women getting texted, rather than men texting.

 

But actually I get enough dates, I figured out the hurdles, still this isn't always fun, I sometimes kind of want "vacation" from my dating...

[PRW]

I've met maybe 20 ladies off various sites ( Tinder, Bumble etc ) in that time, and none have gone past the 2nd date.

I don't know what I'm doing wrong.

I'm 39, avg height, I keep in shape, own my own place, good career, no hangups, things that I thought woman would like in a guy.

Most of my dates range from 30-35, mostly single mums as well.

I looked at late 20's but haven't had really any dates there, but 40 and up I'm not sure about, as I've never dated woman that age before.

Quite a few of them have been quite flakey, couple crazy, some we both knew 1st date it wasn't the right connection, where I have friends who have had 2 or 3 GF's in that time frame I've been single.

I really don't know what I'm doing wrong, kicks me in the guts a bit, as I feel I'll be single forever.

Attractive women have a huge selection on OLD because they get all the attention. Women who aren't so attractive may have a very hard time. Men across the board have a hard time because they ignore the less attractive women and all focus on the attractive one where they are in competition with 50-100 other guys at the same time. Then you throw in all the shallow, the crazies, the awkward, the insecure, list goes on,...it is a pretty big mess.

 

What are you doing wrong? Dunno without specific examples. If you described how you behaved or felt during a date I could suggest things, but keep in mind you are giving me permission to criticize you, and I will do that and will focus on you, not them, because you are the one I can work with, I can't work with them.

 

A short low cost book that I recommend a lot is "How to be a 3% Man" by Corey Wayne. It changed my life.

[nospam99]

... rewind ... play ...

 

With OLD you are supposed to be able to assume that the people whose profiles you see are searching for some kind of relationship. Other than speed dating or Craigslist personals, I am at a loss to think of any other scenario where you can make this assumption. It is 'almost a guarantee' that you will avoid awkward moments like approaching a faithful married person who just happens to be not wearing a ring in the supermarket, library, church, wherever. I think being able to make that assumption is enough of a 'value proposition' to 'put up with' OLD .... and so I do. Beyond that, I agree with the many LS posters who have described OLD as a numbers game. And I also agree that as a numbers game, it's frustrating. Sometimes I ask myself 'why am I still doing this'. But it's still easy for me to answer that 'the end game is a relationship' (granted that for some the end game is sex, but just as valid and arguably easier to achieve than a relationship).

[PRW]

I've met maybe 20 ladies off various sites ( Tinder, Bumble etc ) in that time, and none have gone past the 2nd date.

 

 

It is very difficult to get past the 1st or 2nd date for anyone,...except for the overzealous ones, but they burn out a few dates later when the excitement wears off. I consider myself someone who is more "street wise" and to a certain extent knows what I am doing, yet most of the time it is just one date per candidate, but probably three quarters of the time it is me that doesn't want the 2nd date with them. A few days ago, I even had to change my mind on one and cancel even before the first date, although that is pretty rare for me to do.

[PRW]

... rewind ... play ...

 

that, I agree with the many LS posters who have described OLD as a numbers game. And I also agree that as a numbers game, it's frustrating.

Easier for women to play the numbers when the guy is the one paying for the dates. While going through the numbers, you go through say 10 dates that go no where and with the average cost per date that might come out to $500-$750.

[d0nnivain]

Easier for women to play the numbers when the guy is the one paying for the dates. While going through the numbers, you go through say 10 dates that go no where and with the average cost per date that might come out to $500-$750.

 

That is why 1st OLD meetings should be a cup of coffee or something else cheap / free. I don't drink coffee so even assuming a cup of coffee is $5 & you buy yourself one too, that's a $10 date (not counting gas or parking) so for 10 1st dates the cost is $100 not $500

[PRW]

That is why 1st OLD meetings should be a cup of coffee or something else cheap / free. I don't drink coffee so even assuming a cup of coffee is $5 & you buy yourself one too, that's a $10 date (not counting gas or parking) so for 10 1st dates the cost is $100 not $500

 

 

I don't drink coffee either. But I don't believe in doing "day time" dates until a relationship starts to form. I want all dates to have a romantic vibe, not a friend vibe,...that is doing things on dates that you would do with a friend. If you act like a friend and do things with them a friend would do, it all loses the romantic feel to it, they start thinking of you only as a friend,...and you get friend zoned. I've seen it happen over and over to people. Save the friend behavor until after you are already exclusive.

 

 

 

Dates cost me $20 in gas alone due to my geography. I try to combine the timing of dates to other things I may be doing nearby. I also have reduced the number of dates and try to go for quality rather than quantity.

[BluEyeL]

It is very difficult to get past the 1st or 2nd date for anyone,...except for the overzealous ones, but they burn out a few dates later when the excitement wears off. I consider myself someone who is more "street wise" and to a certain extent knows what I am doing, yet most of the time it is just one date per candidate, but probably three quarters of the time it is me that doesn't want the 2nd date with them. A few days ago, I even had to change my mind on one and cancel even before the first date, although that is pretty rare for me to do.

 

Actually, if you want to, meaning if it's you who wants to go beyond 2nd date, there are things you can do to make that happen.

[d0nnivain]

I don't drink coffee either. But I don't believe in doing "day time" dates until a relationship starts to form. I want all dates to have a romantic vibe, not a friend vibe,...that is doing things on dates that you would do with a friend. If you act like a friend and do things with them a friend would do, it all loses the romantic feel to it, they start thinking of you only as a friend,...and you get friend zoned. I've seen it happen over and over to people. Save the friend behavor until after you are already exclusive.

 

 

 

Dates cost me $20 in gas alone due to my geography. I try to combine the timing of dates to other things I may be doing nearby. I also have reduced the number of dates and try to go for quality rather than quantity.

 

Quality over quantity is fine.

 

A low key / cheap first meet / date doesn't have to be asexual or brightly lit. Granted the big chain coffee shops are not romantic but find a cute mom & pop one. One by me used to set out candles at night & sell dessert. You don't have to be relegated to plastic or metal chairs. Getting an ice cream & taking a stroll can be romantic. Meeting in a park & sharing a picnic of bread & cheese would be very romantic & cheap

[PRW]

Quality over quantity is fine.

 

A low key / cheap first meet / date doesn't have to be asexual or brightly lit. Granted the big chain coffee shops are not romantic but find a cute mom & pop one. One by me used to set out candles at night & sell dessert. You don't have to be relegated to plastic or metal chairs. Getting an ice cream & taking a stroll can be romantic. Meeting in a park & sharing a picnic of bread & cheese would be very romantic & cheap

 

 

Zoos can be good too, some are free. Seeing the animals, particularly if they have young ones in the spring, creates warm emotions which helps with the "vibe". Go late as to finish in the evening as the Zoo closes.

[Desesperado]

I was simply trying to give you the simple arithmetic.

 

I was on OLD for like 3 weeks and received about 100 first messages. However, as was typical for most women, I replied to about 10% of them. Some of them asked me out almost immediately, which was way too soon for me to feel comfortable; others dragged the convo too long for my interest to sustain. At the end, I only went on very few dates. If I were a guy, I’d probably send out 100 first messages during those 3 weeks, probably get 10% responses, and some of the convo fizzled out and I might end up going on the same few dates. Btw, it takes exactly one man and one woman for a date to happen. So it can’t be the case that women on average go on a lot more dates than men, if there’s a roughly equal number of men and women on average. Again, I realize women (men) are on the short side for the younger (older) age range; again, I also realize women on average are much more less willing to do casual hookups.

 

I understand what you say it sucks, but still you get a 100 messages doing nothing, while I get 3 or 4, so potentially you have more chances of dates than me, we allready said it's a numbers game. So I have to put energy in getting more replies just from the beginning...

 

I think from what you explain OLD isn't for you, a screen isn't telling you about chemistry, so meeting sooner is the logical way, otherwhise you're just wasting your time for no certainty. If a woman doesn't go on a date after a week, I'm done, because there's tons of women who are attention whores and will never ever have time, so either you're willing or I'm moving on, maybe think about that side of the story.

[LuckyM]

I know an older couple that got married from the computer dating. They both had grown children.

 

But I agree that it was a waste of time--for me and I had an excellent photo shoot. Tried all sorts of headlines. It's like horse racing. No winners.

 

I think it works best for singles who are not picky, not too choosy or demanding. Have no list of expectations. Willing to date someone ordinary or below average looking. I'm not saying you should try that.

[BluEyeL]

You know “standards and expectations “ , in my opinion should be first be applied to character and only to a small extent to looks. We walk around like we are all models and we are also smug thinking we have”expectations “ when we only speak of the very superficial traits, which don’t actually matter but to a small extent in a loving long term relationship. I for one don’t look as good as 20 years ago and neither will you in 20 years.

Edited August 25, 2018 by BluEyeL

[mossycup]

Of course just like at work when you really want your work to be recognized and get a promotion, what you do is wait for your boss to be nice and give it...

 

Sorry but dating is like everything in life, if you suck at it then you need to try more to get better, things don't fall from the sky like magic, few people nowadays meet that easily or by luck.

 

Disagree with this. Unless you live in a severely depressed economy or experiencing blatant racism or sexism at work, or have a serious learning disability, hard work at work brings at least some success.

 

Whereas you can work endlessly at dating and get nowhere and waste your vital energy and feel your soul and self-esteem sucked out.

 

Why is this? Because dating is, for most people, the equivalent of being a physics research or a neurosurgeon or really smart entrepreneur - an incredibly complex job that requires a very specific type of personality to do it. Most jobs are either repetitive or straightforward. Higher professional jobs have a special skill set, but still there is enough repetition that you can learn a skill and practice it. In those jobs, success is possible for most people. But with the astronaut/celebrity type jobs, most people just couldn't do them successful not matter how hard they "worked".

 

Getting people to fall in love with you is eitehr totally random, or has nothing to do with effort and everything to do with traits that you were born with and can do nothing to change, or if you are one of those rare people who can make anyone fall in love with you (lucky people! - the astronauts of dating).

 

My point is, for most people, "working" at dating is like a person who is best equipped to work on a factory line trying to to do advanced mathematics or perform on Broadway. You can come back every day or night, and fail and fail and fail. Work has nothing to do with dating.

 

Love is purely, IMO, circumstantial, except for a very few people who are actually good at understanding and engaging socially, and those people are a) married or b) putting those skills to use as high paying sales people.

 

Yes, in that sense, OLD is a numbers game: like the lottery. Yeah, if you put enough money in the machine, eventually you'll cash out maybe a 100 bucks here ore there, but only after putting thousands in. Or once in a while, you win the jackpot! Yay you! Your efforts had nothing to do with that! You are just lucky.

 

If you are dating over 35, all of the above times a thousand percent.

 

In summary: unless you are good with people, don't look at dating as a job. If you are good with people, you probably already have a partner or are happily having sex with a different person every night like a swinging single.

 

If you are like 95% of people, acknowledge you are way out of your depth in dating, and just wait for life to happen to you, either by mindlessly going on a million dates, or just watching Star Trek every night and then one day you meet someone at grocery store and marry them.

 

Also, apologies if this is bitter. Truth is, none of us understand dating or love. This is just my current theory based on my abject failure to find or keep a good partner. I'm not really a person to take advice from.

Edited August 25, 2018 by mossycup

[BluEyeL]

Disagree with this. Unless you live in a severely depressed economy or experiencing blatant racism or sexism at work, or have a serious learning disability, hard work at work brings at least some success.

 

Whereas you can work endlessly at dating and get nowhere and waste your vital energy and feel your soul and self-esteem sucked out.

 

Why is this? Because dating is, for most people, the equivalent of being a physics research or a neurosurgeon or really smart entrepreneur - an incredibly complex job that requires a very specific type of personality to do it. Most jobs are either repetitive or straightforward. Higher professional jobs have a special skill set, but still there is enough repetition that you can learn a skill and practice it. In those jobs, success is possible for most people. But with the astronaut/celebrity type jobs, most people just couldn't do them successful not matter how hard they "worked".

 

Getting people to fall in love with you is eitehr totally random, or has nothing to do with effort and everything to do with traits that you were born with and can do nothing to change, or if you are one of those rare people who can make anyone fall in love with you (lucky people! - the astronauts of dating).

 

My point is, for most people, "working" at dating is like a person who is best equipped to work on a factory line trying to to do advanced mathematics or perform on Broadway. You can come back every day or night, and fail and fail and fail. Work has nothing to do with dating.

 

Love is purely, IMO, circumstantial, except for a very few people who are actually good at understanding and engaging socially, and those people are a) married or b) putting those skills to use as high paying sales people.

 

Yes, in that sense, OLD is a numbers game: like the lottery. Yeah, if you put enough money in the machine, eventually you'll cash out maybe a 100 bucks here ore there, but only after putting thousands in. Or once in a while, you win the jackpot! Yay you! Your efforts had nothing to do with that! You are just lucky.

 

If you are dating over 35, all of the above times a thousand percent.

 

In summary: unless you are good with people, don't look at dating as a job. If you are good with people, you probably already have a partner or are happily having sex with a different person every night like a swinging single.

 

If you are like 95% of people, acknowledge you are way out of your depth in dating, and just wait for life to happen to you, either by mindlessly going on a million dates, or just watching Star Trek every night and then one day you meet someone at grocery store and marry them.

 

Also, apologies if this is bitter. Truth is, none of us understand dating or love. This is just my current theory based on my abject failure to find or keep a good partner. I'm not really a person to take advice from.

I disagree. You can actually learn more and work harder and get better at dating. But most people simply don't want to do it. If I told you now what you need to do to improve your odds, you'd argue with me to the end of time because you won't like what you'll hear and you won't want to put in the required work. In dating you don't do whatever you want and whatever you feel like doing, it takes some more than that and these things can be learned by people who actually want to learn and put in that effort you're saying it's useless.

[nospam99]

I wasn't sure where to 'throw in' my observation (which follows). I decided to put in in this thread since it's the most current one discussing OLD.

 

I'm a 64 y/o male and been doing OLD for 11 months. I'm at the point where in order to find 'new' women to contact I've 'reached the bottom of the barrel'. That being the case, for the last couple of months most of my attempts to contact have been going out via match.com. Subjectively I 'felt' that I wasn't getting as good a response rate on match as I had before. So I did some counting - not by hand but with Excel. It wasn't that difficult because with almost 200 contact messages sent I had already been using Excel just to keep track.

 

The calculations bear out my subjective impression. On match I'm getting a little less than a 30% response rate. On all other 'platforms', primarily POF but including a small number of attempts on ourtime, OKC, and eharmony and via speed-dating, I'm getting a slightly better than 40% response rate. On the other hand, a higher proportion of match responses lead to meetings (36%) compared to responses on the other platforms (14%). Yes, it's a 'numbers game'.

 

Users of OLD can use this observation as they will. It is, after all, just my personal experience. In spite of the lower response rate, match.com has a MUCH larger population of 'prospects'. Of course that has to be 'taken with a grain of salt' because match also is notorious for zombie profiles and profiles belonging to users who won't respond because they don't feel like paying the 'membership fee'.

Edited August 26, 2018 by nospam99

[Larry56]

I don't drink coffee either. But I don't believe in doing "day time" dates until a relationship starts to form. I want all dates to have a romantic vibe, not a friend vibe,...that is doing things on dates that you would do with a friend. If you act like a friend and do things with them a friend would do, it all loses the romantic feel to it, they start thinking of you only as a friend,...and you get friend zoned. I've seen it happen over and over to people. Save the friend behavor until after you are already exclusive.

 

Dates cost me $20 in gas alone due to my geography. I try to combine the timing of dates to other things I may be doing nearby. I also have reduced the number of dates and try to go for quality rather than quantity.

 

There is no such thing as a romantic date or a friendly date. They are both the same. I was a playboy for 5 years and I can tell you that women were just as ready to have sex after one 30 minute coffee date vs 2 hour dinner date. It made literally no difference. The only difference is whether they like you in person as much as they did 'online'.

 

The problem with the OP is that he's relying on these dating sites too much. and I can imagine his problem being that he's of average attractiveness (which the vast majority of guys are considered in this day and age). It may be how you look eg genetics but it might be cause you dress badly. It also might be your voice and what you talk about.

 

What you wanna do is first date down (go for chicks who aren't your usual type) get some options going to give you energy so you're not so needy when you meet a better person. Also...flirt with women in person. I do this every week, I just have a casual conversation with a lady (at least two or three)...and then...eventually you get some girls wanting to mess with you.

[Desesperado]

I disagree. You can actually learn more and work harder and get better at dating. But most people simply don't want to do it. If I told you now what you need to do to improve your odds, you'd argue with me to the end of time because you won't like what you'll hear and you won't want to put in the required work. In dating you don't do whatever you want and whatever you feel like doing, it takes some more than that and these things can be learned by people who actually want to learn and put in that effort you're saying it's useless.

 

Exactly I see this all the time, people don't want to see the reality it's easier to explain their failure by saying it's all random and they have no effect on their dating life, it's pure luck or something...

 

But you cannot argue that statistically if you actively meet 10 people every month, against letting luck work and meeting 2 randomly, you have better odds of meeting someone compatible with working on it actively.

Then why is it so difficult to grasp, with all the stress and emotions of meeting someone new, which we all experience to different levels, that meeting more people gives you experience and makes you better at it and less stressed. I train martial arts and am currently brown belt, took 5 years of training to be here, if I didn't train how am i supposed to actually learn techniques and improve, it's not luck that will suddenly makes you a brown belt, just as not working on meeting people won't make you more comfortable and less stressed about it, denying it is like saying the sun doesn't get up in the morning, or that all pro sportsmen get there by magic !

 

And for work, unless you work in a strange fairyland where everyone is nice and empathetic, not asking for a promotion is more likely not to get one, competences alone won't get you anywhere if you're passive about what you want !

Edited August 26, 2018 by Desesperado

[JuneL]

I actually agree that meeting sooner after a few basic messages from each party is the way to go.

 

Those 3 weeks were my “warming up” to see how OLD was like. I was going to give a real try again, if my bf and I didn’t start dating.

 

Also, receiving hundreds of messages may not be a blessing. You want to position in such a way so that you get messages from the right matches. Personally I value intelligence (I know this is subjective) and open-mindedness, so I was positively surprised by the decent/good looks of most of the guys I was talking to.

 

I was also lucky that I didn’t get any sexual messages. But I found it strange and even a little uncomfortable that pretty much all the guys I chatted with felt the need to compliment me on my looks. Why would a guy send a first message if he didn’t find the girl attractive to him?

 

I understand what you say it sucks, but still you get a 100 messages doing nothing, while I get 3 or 4, so potentially you have more chances of dates than me, we allready said it's a numbers game. So I have to put energy in getting more replies just from the beginning...

 

I think from what you explain OLD isn't for you, a screen isn't telling you about chemistry, so meeting sooner is the logical way, otherwhise you're just wasting your time for no certainty. If a woman doesn't go on a date after a week, I'm done, because there's tons of women who are attention whores and will never ever have time, so either you're willing or I'm moving on, maybe think about that side of the story.

[Desesperado]

I was also lucky that I didn’t get any sexual messages. But I found it strange and even a little uncomfortable that pretty much all the guys I chatted with felt the need to compliment me on my looks. Why would a guy send a first message if he didn’t find the girl attractive to him?

 

Because as I said, a screen and bio doesn't tell you about chemistry, some people suck at writing, so as a guy of course I don't write to people I find ugly, but I'm open to surprises, don't need to only contact "hot blondes" I remain open minded !

[BluEyeL]

Exactly I see this all the time, people don't want to see the reality it's easier to explain their failure by saying it's all random and they have no effect on their dating life, it's pure luck or something...

 

But you cannot argue that statistically if you actively meet 10 people every month, against letting luck work and meeting 2 randomly, you have better odds of meeting someone compatible with working on it actively.

Then why is it so difficult to grasp, with all the stress and emotions of meeting someone new, which we all experience to different levels, that meeting more people gives you experience and makes you better at it and less stressed. I train martial arts and am currently brown belt, took 5 years of training to be here, if I didn't train how am i supposed to actually learn techniques and improve, it's not luck that will suddenly makes you a brown belt, just as not working on meeting people won't make you more comfortable and less stressed about it, denying it is like saying the sun doesn't get up in the morning, or that all pro sportsmen get there by magic !

 

And for work, unless you work in a strange fairyland where everyone is nice and empathetic, not asking for a promotion is more likely not to get one, competences alone won't get you anywhere if you're passive about what you want !

We are on the same page about this and I like your analogy. I always say that anything big and worth having in life requires effort and discipline.

 

I have to say though that because you potentially can meet 10 people in the same amount of time required to have met 1 or 2 maybe in real life, the stress is higher onlie, because you will deal with being let down more simply by having more interactions that are not successful. In rea life I personally didn't meet anyone and thus it wasn't stressful that way ) In other words, meeting more people, or trying to, puts you out of your comfort zone, while home watching Netflix it's pretty stress free. You have nothing (in terms of pontentially datable people) but you're not stressed.

[Desesperado]

We are on the same page about this and I like your analogy. I always say that anything big and worth having in life requires effort and discipline.

 

I have to say though that because you potentially can meet 10 people in the same amount of time required to have met 1 or 2 maybe in real life, the stress is higher onlie, because you will deal with being let down more simply by having more interactions that are not successful. In rea life I personally didn't meet anyone and thus it wasn't stressful that way ) In other words, meeting more people, or trying to, puts you out of your comfort zone, while home watching Netflix it's pretty stress free. You have nothing (in terms of pontentially datable people) but you're not stressed.

 

You are right and I guess that's why I'm so detached nowadays, from women not replying or wanting more dates, I've done it so much that I eventually got quite immune to this stress of being let down !

My single life is enough for me too, I know some people don't get it, in order to be happiest, you have to have a fulfilling single life for yourself alone.

Only then will you be able to be happy with someone !

[PRW]

The calculations bear out my subjective impression. On match I'm getting a little less than a 30% response rate. On all other 'platforms', primarily POF but including a small number of attempts on ourtime, OKC, and eharmony and via speed-dating, I'm getting a slightly better than 40% response rate. On the other hand, a higher proportion of match responses lead to meetings (36%) compared to responses on the other platforms (14%). Yes, it's a 'numbers game'.

That is actually a pretty good response rate for men, particularly for your age group. Congrats! I think it is great you are monitoring your results so well too.

[PRW]

There is no such thing as a romantic date or a friendly date. They are both the same. I was a playboy for 5 years and I can tell you that women were just as ready to have sex after one 30 minute coffee date vs 2 hour dinner date.

 

I disagree. It isn't about "time spent" it is about the environment (atmosphere). I'm also not talking about a playboy getting "laid" and being a PUA. I'm talking about someone trying to build a relationship and not end up in the Friend Zone. So I stand by my point on that, you're trying to put me in a different context.

 

The problem with the OP is that he's relying on these dating sites too much. and I can imagine his problem being that he's of average attractiveness (which the vast majority of guys are considered in this day and age). It may be how you look eg genetics but it might be cause you dress badly. It also might be your voice and what you talk about.

 

I agree 100%. I saw an article a while back (maybe a video?) where somewhere around 80% of single women consider 80% of the single men to be below average in "looks". That is kinda screwed up. Of course it isn't logical, because by definition 50% of men would be average looking. What it really means is that 80% of women just aren't satisfied with an average looking guy and they want a guy who's attractiveness is in the top 20%,...even if the woman herself may only just barely be above 20% on her own looks.

 

What you wanna do is first date down (go for chicks who aren't your usual type) get some options going to give you energy so you're not so needy when you meet a better person. Also...flirt with women in person. I do this every week, I just have a casual conversation with a lady (at least two or three)...and then...eventually you get some girls wanting to mess with you.

I kinda do that too. I'm not as worried about being "in a relationship" as I used to be (nearing my late 50's). I just like to have a good time and go to a lot of singles meetups. I'm more likely now to flirt around with a lot of different types of women, but I do have to feel some attraction or it just doesn't work for me.