Online Dating?

[ardour]

Waste of time posting it here, but at least a dozen studies support this.

Cupid on Trial
The 2 most attractive women received 83% of messages.
The 2 'average' looking women both received more messages than the 'most attractive' man.
The 'least attractive' woman received more messages than the bottom 3 males combined.

Tinder Experiment - 2 people of roughly equal attractiveness - she receives 2.6 times as many matches, 13.5 times as many messages.

For sake of argument, let's assume only half those messages are genuine, not offensive or lazy spam, that's still a hell of lot more potential romantic connections available to women.

The overweight guy in the first study who received zero messages after 4 months - do you think anyone cares whether he's bitter or not?

 

[VanillaCreme]

Waste of time posting it here, but at least a dozen studies support this.

Cupid on Trial
The 2 most attractive women received 83% of messages.
The 2 'average' looking women both received more messages than the 'most attractive' man.
The 'least attractive' woman received more messages than the bottom 3 males combined.

Tinder Experiment - 2 people of roughly equal attractiveness - she receives 2.6 times as many matches, 13.5 times as many messages.

For sake of argument, let's assume half those messages are genuine, not offensive or lazy spam, that's a hell of lot more potential romantic connections available to women.

The overweight guy in the first study who received zero messages after 4 months - do you think anyone cares whether he's bitter or not?

Why would he be? So what if he didn't get a message... Expecting one is putting too much faith into these dating apps and sites. I most likely wouldn't get any messages either. But I'd rather get none, than get 50 meaningless messages with people I wouldn't connect with at all. What's a real waste of time is wanting to get 100 messages from people you really don't care for.

 

[kamya]

Again, it's not shaming....unless you are ashamed of being bitter, of course.

Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.  Just ask the flat earthers, they believe the earth is flat...so by your logic, that must be true too.

Unfortunately YOU are on the flat earth side on this one. The actual evidence is not in your favor on this one. Which is the point I've been making for a few pages now.

It is still an attempt at shaming whether the person is actually ashamed or not... 

It's like saying "well its only guilt tripping if you have something that you should be feeling guilty about!"

 

[TheRealCallie]

Waste of time posting it here, but at least a dozen studies support this.

Cupid on Trial
The 2 most attractive women received 83% of messages.
The 2 'average' looking women both received more messages than the 'most attractive' man.
The 'least attractive' woman received more messages than the bottom 3 males combined.

Tinder Experiment - 2 people of roughly equal attractiveness - she receives 2.6 times as many matches, 13.5 times as many messages.

For sake of argument, let's assume  half those messages are genuine, not offensive or lazy spam, that's a hell of lot more potential romantic connections available to women.

The overweight guy in the first study who received zero messages after 4 months  - do you think anyone cares whether he's bitter or not?

Why would he be? So what if he didn't get a message... Expecting one is putting too much faith into these dating apps and sites. I most likely wouldn't get any messages either. But I'd rather get none, than get 50 meaningless messages with people I wouldn't connect with at all. What's a real waste of time is wanting to get 100 messages from people you really don't care for.

All this shows (especially with tinder) is that guys want to try to get laid more.  I'm sorry, but that's ALL it shows.  Men are looking for *** more than women are, so of course they are going to try more and message the "hot sexy girls."  Which is really why these "studies" are ******** and mean nothing. 
But okay, let's look at this.  I don't really feel those two women are all that much more attractive than the others.  What IS noticeably different is the quality of the pictures.  The "more attractive" two have pictures that are a **** ton better than the others.  The one employing more of a body shot, which shows her ****s and some skin (OMG, ****S AND SKIN *tongues be a wagging*) and the other is using a filter. 

Based on looks alone, I wouldn't give the 4th guy (the "best looking" guy) a second glance.  He looks like a pompous ******* to me. I would message the last guy.  The first guy scrunched up his face (I need to see the eyes), the second guy looks depressed as ****, the third guy I'm not sure but I don't like his eyes.  But the last guy looks kind and relaxed. 

But going off what Nilla said, why is it that people think dating apps are this magical fix?  Do you think you can hide your **** online and you can't in real life?  Fix your issues people...it's not them, it's you.  Make all the excuses you want, post all the stupid studies you want and call them proof, all you're doing is trying to force the blame away from yourself.  Sure, you're going to get rejected for ****** up reasons that have nothing to do with your issues, but those are shallow people you shouldn't really want anyway.  EVERYONE gets rejected.  How you deal with it and what you do as a result decides what will happen in the future.  A few of you have become negative and/or bitter and THAT is what is stopping you, for the most part.

 

[ardour]

Waste of time posting it here, but at least a dozen studies support this.

Cupid on Trial
The 2 most attractive women received 83% of messages.
The 2 'average' looking women both received more messages than the 'most attractive' man.
The 'least attractive' woman received more messages than the bottom 3 males combined.

Tinder Experiment - 2 people of roughly equal attractiveness - she receives 2.6 times as many matches, 13.5 times as many messages.

For sake of argument, let's assume  half those messages are genuine, not offensive or lazy spam, that's a hell of lot more potential romantic connections available to women.

The overweight guy in the first study who received zero messages after 4 months  - do you think anyone cares whether he's bitter or not?

Why would he be? So what if he didn't get a message... Expecting one is putting too much faith into these dating apps and sites. I most likely wouldn't get any messages either. But I'd rather get none, than get 50 meaningless messages with people I wouldn't connect with at all. What's a real waste of time is wanting to get 100 messages from people you really don't care for.

All this shows (especially with tinder) is that guys want to try to get laid more.  I'm sorry, but that's ALL it shows.  Men are looking for *** more than women are, so of course they are going to try more and message the "hot sexy girls."  Which is really why these "studies" are ******** and mean nothing. 
But okay, let's look at this.  I don't really feel those two women are all that much more attractive than the others.  What IS noticeably different is the quality of the pictures.  The "more attractive" two have pictures that are a **** ton better than the others.  The one employing more of a body shot, which shows her ****s and some skin (OMG, ****S AND SKIN *tongues be a wagging*) and the other is using a filter. 

Based on looks alone, I wouldn't give the 4th guy (the "best looking" guy) a second glance.  He looks like a pompous ******* to me. I would message the last guy.  The first guy scrunched up his face (I need to see the eyes), the second guy looks depressed as ****, the third guy I'm not sure but I don't like his eyes.  But the last guy looks kind and relaxed. 

But going off what Nilla said, why is it that people think dating apps are this magical fix?  Do you think you can hide your **** online and you can't in real life?  Fix your issues people...it's not them, it's you.  Make all the excuses you want, post all the stupid studies you want and call them proof, all you're doing is trying to force the blame away from yourself.  Sure, you're going to get rejected for ****** up reasons that have nothing to do with your issues, but those are shallow people you shouldn't really want anyway.  EVERYONE gets rejected.  How you deal with it and what you do as a result decides what will happen in the future.  A few of you have become negative and/or bitter and THAT is what is stopping you, for the most part.

 Perhaps try and understand it fully instead of jumping on the first thing in the summary. More messages were sent to almost all those women. 

The first three women received 135 in total. The first three men received 3. So the below average to average looking women received 45 times as many messages. But sure, nothing worthwhile to conclude from that.

What's stopping a lot of other guys from even trying this is partly awareness of these judgmental attitudes. Women reading negative character traits into your face and eyes and so forth. Not everyone's attractive, but reading that second paragraph made me wince. Whenever I read things like this from women it always comes across as brutal, as if they think the guy's they're dismissing are complete pieces of ****.

 

[user 139760]

So, in conclusion, if I'm reading this right, if you're a fat, ugly man, forget dating websites, or dating in general and just stay in your houses and never come out. And if you're a fat, ugly girl, get ready to **** with weirdos, because that's all you get.
Is that the punchline?

Kind of goes with my point all along; dating websites are horseshit. They cater to phantasies that are simply not reality and, judging from the two page argument, probably create hostile feelings and thoughts between people who wouldn't otherwise have any.
Or is it statistics and polls that do that? One wonders.

Regardless, just like the internet in general where people feel safe being horrible douches sometimes, people have less of a tendency to do so face to face. Doubly true of dating sites, where men feel free to be humping little rabbits and hope they win Pam Anderson's brunette cousin by attritition and/or lie about anything in order to get someone's pants off, while women feel free to think they can set their sites on Keanu Reeve's twin brother and hope he feeds her ice cream in bed everyday while riding in the limo dressed up as a princess AND be rough/soft when it counts, by telepathy, every 14 minutes.

So the best method of meeting someone is still by talking to them. Online dating apparently only creates frustration. In EITHER ***.

 

[TheRealCallie]

No, i did read it and I understand the point of the "study." But that's what I'm saying. MEN are more likely to want *** from online dating, so the women are obviously going to get more responses than the men. The two girls who got the most messages are showing some skin and/or using filters, so yeah, they are going to get the most because....*** appeal, filters, horny men. Women are, I think, more selective because not as many of them are going to want ***. Out of all of those men who messaged the women, how many of them do you think only messaged them because they want to get laid? Probably a **** ton, most of the messages were likely not people who were looking for a serious relationship in the long run. **** em and dump em, if you will.

But yeah, for online dating, appearances ARE important, so if you look depressed as **** like the one guy, with the eyes downcast and the lack of expression, it's going to turn people off. A leering look on your face (the third guy) is also going to turn a lot of people off. I'm honestly not sure why the 4th guy got more than the last guy. You HAVE to be aware of what you are portraying in your pictures for online dating.

This is precisely the reason I don't like online dating, because you kind of have to go by looks and one bad picture will seriously diminish any chance you have. But for people who are negative, it's almost better, because you don't send negative vibes out on first meeting, you can take your time and get to know them, maybe gain a tiny bit of confidence before actually meeting them. BUT, you HAVE to have a good profile pic. You HAVE to have some kind of expression on your face without having it be leering or creepy or depressed. That's true for men and women. Aside from that, you do have to have a decent profile for those who actually read them.

So yeah, I think these studies are ******** and they don't really mean anything because they aren't including all the factors. Yes, there are women out there who want *** and only *** from online dating, but the men who do far outweigh the women that do. Women get more opportunities to have ***, not to have lasting, meaningful relationships.

 

[kamya]

So now the goalposts have moved to whether or not men are only interested in *** or not. Or whether or not recognizing the disadvantages men face on dating apps means that you are suddenly negative and depressed in all of your interactions. THATS the REAL reason for the bad luck! Its all you! It couldn't possibly just be the way **** is.

 

[ardour]

The third man looks like he's trying to smile. He's not leering (ugh.. what?). Perhaps bit nervous and forced. Maybe you just have a problem with his FACE? This is typical of a lot comments you see from women, reading all sorts of negative **** into faces they don't find attractive. Despite the stereotype of men being arseholes a lot of us are polite enough to remain vague about women who's appearance we're not into. Women tend to be brutally blunt and specific about what they don't like.

And both overweight man and woman look pleasant and relaxed, yet she receives 11 and he receives 0. But sure, all 11 messages have got to be **** pics or sleazy fat fetish pick-ups or something. Waste to time. You are incapable of conceding anything.

 

[TheRealCallie]

The third man looks like he's trying to smile. He's not leering (ugh.. what?). Perhaps  bit nervous and forced. Maybe you just have a problem with his FACE? This is typical of  a lot comments you see from women, reading all sorts of negative **** into faces they don't find attractive. Despite the stereotype of men being arsholes a lot of us are polite enough to  remain vague about women who's appearance we're not into.  Women tend to be brutally blunt and specific about what they don't like.

And both overweight man and women look pleasant and relaxed, yet she receives 11 and he receives 0.  But sure, all 11 messages have got to be **** pics or sleazy fat fetish pick-ups or something.  Waste to time. You are incapable of conceding anything.

No, it's his eyes and the smile that make him look like he's leering.  And honestly I do think he's attractive. The first thing I look at in someone is the eyes.  I don't really care about much else.  You can tell a lot about a person from their eyes. 

I'm incapable of conceding anything?  What have you or kamya conceded?  How many men do you think go around judging women on their *** or their ****s or their weight or their plainness?  The answer would be a lot.  And no, they aren't all that vague about it. I don't see you conceding to that. But again, men are mostly just looking for *** with online dating.  Even overweight people are another notch on the bedpost and that guy is more overweight than the woman.
And I'm pretty sure I said women get more opportunities, just for having ***, not a relationship, I would kind of call that conceding a little.

 

[Xpendable]

Stop generalizing men, star conceding more.

 

[TheRealCallie]

Start reading what I write, I didn't generalize anything.

 

[Xpendable]

How many men do you think go around judging women on their *** or their ****s or their weight or their plainness?  The answer would be a lot.  And no, they aren't all that vague about it. I don't see you conceding to that. But again, men are mostly just looking for *** with online dating.  Even overweight people are another notch on the bedpost and that guy is more overweight than the woman.

 

[TheRealCallie]

How many men do you think go around judging women on their *** or their ****s or their weight or their plainness?  The answer would be a lot.  And no, they aren't all that vague about it. I don't see you conceding to that. But again, men are mostly just looking for *** with online dating.  Even overweight people are another notch on the bedpost and that guy is more overweight than the woman.

Yeah?  That's not generalizing. That's saying a lot of men only want *** from online dating.  That's not a generalization, it's a fact....

https://www.webmd.com/***/features/***-drive-how-do-men-women-compare#1
There are more, but this is one of the more trustworthy sites for information.

 

[kamya]

Oh so NOW we're all about facts and sources. =P All we had to do was start generalizing men instead of women. 

Also all that link talks about is the difference between the *** drives of men and women. I don't see any mention about men ONLY being interested in *** when it comes to online dating. Actually it doesn't mention dating at all really.

Could it be that maybe most men are interested in *** AND also relationships?

 

[ardour]

^^Except, ahh...

https://www.datingsitesreviews.com/...r-study-shows-its-users-are-looking-to-commit

"The study found a particularly interesting statistic that seems to go against a lot of online dating assumptions. In the age of unsolicited messages and photos, a frequent complaint of women is that too many men are sending unwanted sexts, and it’s a huge turnoff. Shockingly, Tinder found this assumption about men to be false, with men and women both admitting to sending unsolicited sexts in equal amounts – 50% of the time for each."

 

[Paraiyar]

How many men do you think go around judging women on their *** or their ****s or their weight or their plainness?  The answer would be a lot.  And no, they aren't all that vague about it. I don't see you conceding to that. But again, men are mostly just looking for *** with online dating.  Even overweight people are another notch on the bedpost and that guy is more overweight than the woman.

Yeah?  That's not generalizing. That's saying a lot of men only want *** from online dating.  That's not a generalization, it's a fact....

https://www.webmd.com/***/features/***-drive-how-do-men-women-compare#1
There are more, but this is one of the more trustworthy sites for information.

Yeah I'm going to disagree with you on this Callie, that is as much as a generalization as anything else that's been said on the thread, and I don't see anything in your link that actually proves that men mostly use online dating just for ***.

 

[kaetic]

I think I'm confused about the argument... Are you against online dating or just dating in general? Personally I didn't see anything wrong with any of the photos in the study that was posted.
I get that you think you have a huge disadvantage. And maybe you do, idk. But, from the earlier posts it sounded more like you psych yourselves out and then you don't even give yourselves a shot.

 

[TheRealCallie]

How many men do you think go around judging women on their *** or their ****s or their weight or their plainness?  The answer would be a lot.  And no, they aren't all that vague about it. I don't see you conceding to that. But again, men are mostly just looking for *** with online dating.  Even overweight people are another notch on the bedpost and that guy is more overweight than the woman.

Yeah?  That's not generalizing. That's saying a lot of men only want *** from online dating.  That's not a generalization, it's a fact....

https://www.webmd.com/***/features/***-drive-how-do-men-women-compare#1
There are more, but this is one of the more trustworthy sites for information.

Yeah I'm going to disagree with you on this Callie, that is as much as a generalization as anything else that's been said on the thread, and I don't see anything in your link that actually proves that men mostly use online dating just for ***.

No, it doesn't actually talk about online dating.  But it DOES say that men THINK about *** more and avidly SEEK *** more.  So why wouldn't that translate over to the online world too?  It gives men more options. I'm not saying there aren't guys that are genuinely looking for a relationship.  All I'm saying is that men, more than women, want ***, so to follow these studies about how women get more responses than men is not exactly....trustworthy because you don't know the content of said messages or what the guys wrote and really want. 
So yeah, women get more opportunities to have ***, but not to have actual relationships.

 

[user 139760]

I think I'm confused about the argument... Are you against online dating or just dating in general? Personally I didn't see anything wrong with any of the photos in the study that was posted.
I get that you think you have a huge disadvantage. And maybe you do, idk. But, from the earlier posts it sounded more like you psych yourselves out and then you don't even give yourselves a shot.

Well, to answer your question, I'm personally against lol.

Immediate results are online dating proving 12 page arguments on how men and women apparently have it easier than each other or vice versa, with accusations of generalisations back and forth.
In the meantime, yesterday night I had a very pleasant chat with a nice young lady I accidentally bumped into while coming back from work. I apologized and offered her coffee, which she declined, but I did accompany her to the subway entry and we had a very pleasant conversation. Didn't take her phone number or anything, it was just a chance meeting, but the way she smiled at me shortly before parting made me think maybe she was disappointed I didn't.
Now, as far as I remember, she didn't yell stalker or take out her cell. Also, she MAY have assumed I was fishing for ***, but I wasn't and it wasn't a part of the discussion we had (which ended up being rather profound, the implications and turnings of morality in movies) so, as such, I feel this chance encounter was a lot less intimidating, or insulting or impersonal than a dating website.
Ironically, while I was talking with her, I thought about this thread and everyone on it. Looking at her and remembering what I looked like, I imagined if we had been on a dating website, she NEVER would have responded to my messages. Even though I was obviously not totally repulsed by her. Which kind of illustrated my point to me, that dating websites are much too artificial, a conduit for people's fantasies much more so than the realities that are behind each individual.
This subject could probably be argued for 20 more pages. It will not change the reality of it. And the reality of it is, if you're looking for a real life relationship, it helps to not do so on a computer.