Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My impressions on online dating have been echoed in the thread already. It's not a balanced venue. Too many men for the amount of women, which creates an artificial dynamic where the women are now afforded the ability to pick above their real world physical attraction stock. And let's not kid ourselves, from a woman's profile perspective of dozens responses a day, she ain't going for "thoughtful profile". She might go for that AFTER she's filtered into the "hotties". As a result however, they are bombarded by a large volume of men looking for a non-serious interaction, which doesn't help them find what most are looking for. Remember, online men are shotgun-sending these emails to anything that catches, which means women are getting a TON of responses, but they don't know they are literally "whatever catches" material, not exactly "highly sought after" in my book. And I've seen the inbox of a female acquaintance. The hits on women's inboxes border in the comical, dozens to hundreds a day. It's worthless as a serious venue for men. For casual interaction/sex, it's roughly equivalent to the bar/club crapshoot. Which if that's the motivation, then 34.99 ain't a bad deal (for women) over second hand smoke and long-term hearing damage.
The other thing that put me off about online dating is that there's not much in the way of good looking women (again, as a function of proportion to men), and many of these women are not really interested in meeting in person. I remember reading somewhere that when they did a polling online about what percentage of online women online men found attractive, it showed it followed a standard distribution (bell curve). But, when online women were asked to do the same about online men the trend followed a heavy right skewing. i.e. Most women online found most men "unattractive", which is the indirect result of having too many choices and the artificial feedback of feeling more "sought after" by dozens to hundreds of samples a day, when in the real world such interaction does not exist for these women as it does for their offline female peers who do have such feedback in real life and are THEREFORE NOT ONLINE. Fact is, these women are simply entertaining themselves for a 30 day free trial period while they attempt to re-engage and find men in the social circles their prized better-looking female friends snag boyfriends and husbands from; the true social circle where they won't be mocked (yes, even in 2011) for bottom-feeding off an online venue.
So it became clear to me I wasn't going to find my desired woman in an online venue, they simply aren't there. It's been great for getting winks and non-committal "winkish" emails....from women far far away and women I do not find sexually attractive...Other than that, pass. Fact is, 30+ childless women, single mothers are considered non-ideal choices (I'm divorced for full disclosure), thence online dating might fare better for them as there would be a stock of people willing to accept the "expectation lowering" of said condition and away from the ideal they are unlikely to find online. I don't mean to make light of people's circumstances but this is the callous nature of human interactions. I'm not being normative with the latter, merely making a positive observation.
I don't like the bar/club scene and I find trolling for chicks at church disingenuous (and largely, they are not there either). So I'm literally at the mercy of chance encounters at the Walgreens or through "friends" at this point. The latter might actually be the ticket, my latest invention involves befriending unattractive females as conduits for facebook contacts and potential hits within the nursing, teaching or hair dressing fields. I'm social engineering this b*tch LOL. I'm done being reminded my location sucks, I need mates willing to relocate regardless of location; portable non-demanding fields such as the above are ideal in order to bridge the gap of my geographical "undateability". That's another one online dating didn't help with. Location. All it did was reaffirm in my mind the unwillingness of desirable women to generally dwell within my zip code LOL. Oh well, not bagging groceries at the 'it' place just because pretty girls like to shop there. Daddy gotta get paid to keep the internet up
Everything you and I say can be applied to both methods.
Which is my whole point, that meeting someone online really isn't all that different than meeting them offline. You'll run into many of the same issues (lying, game playing, etc.). The problem I have is that people who've made the same arguments as you seem to be more forgiving about dating in the offline world. People lie online? OK, I won't do online dating anymore. People lie offline? It happens, but I'll keep dating. Seems pretty inconsistent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
True, but someone needs to catch your online profile in time before it is too late (you already found someone, no longer interested in online dating, etc.). Or, perhaps their email got sent to your spam folder.
You're still missing the point. One clearly relies on luck more than the other. person could join Match and stay on there for a month, a couple months, maybe even a year. But they're not going to be in a bar or club for that long. So you have a much smaller window of opportunity to meet them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
You are not going to meet too many Conservatives at a poetry slam or Thoreau reading, you dig?
Do all liberals go to poetry readings? No. So if I go to a poetry reading hoping to meet liberals, I'll only meet the ones who are into poetry. But what if they're not or just couldn't attend? By going online, I'm potentially coming across those liberals I didn't see at the poetry reading. You dig?
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
This is not a slam, but if you do not have the time to meet someone, how will you have the time to date them?
First of all, I never said I had no time to date. What I said was that my free time is limited. I don't want to waste it going on a bunch of first dates. But if I've already pre-screened someone and determined they meet my minimum requirements, I'll be more willing to spend my free time on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
And, also, doesn't it take time to write emails, chat on the phone, etc., too?
Yes, but far less than it does to go to bars, clubs, other events. I'm not the only person who gets home in the evening and doesn't always have the energy to go out. So do other working professionals. So what's the point in my going to try to meet someone on a Tuesday evening if the people I wanna meet are at home relaxing in front of the TV. Maybe those people don't feel like going out, but would be willing to talk on the phone, email, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
Nothing, except the assumption that it is a waste of time and money. Aren't you wasting time and money by paying for membership on one of these sites? Aren't you wasting time and money when you finally do agree to a date and it doesn't work out?
No, because once again, you're missing the point of what it is you're paying for. You're not paying to get a date or a guarantee that it'll work out. You're paying for access to the meeting place someone else set up and the fact that you can quickly search amongst its members. It's no different than paying a cover charge to get into a club.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
Just because "he" paid for the service does not mean that he is a stand-up guy. Nor does it mean the women who pay for it are, either. Con artists will go through great lengths in order to play their game. Paying for membership to a dating site is a small price if it can land them a rich man or woman or someone else they can take advantage of other ways. What better cover than the guise of being a "paying customer"?
First of all, I never said it guarantees that the people on it are being honest. I said it makes it more likely that they are. Seriously, please read before you post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
You only hear of the success stories because they are news-worthy, and they get people to pay for membership.
As opposed to forums like this where you hear a disproportionate number of horror stories? That's the problem with places like this. People are more likely to talk about their bad experiences which effectively skews people's perceptions of what those sites are really like. So between the overly positive marketing you see on TV and the overly negative posts you see on here, the reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
The problem with dating in bars and night clubs is simple. 90% of the women are there hoping to meet their future husband. And 90% of the men are there hoping to get boinked that night. And hopefully not with that chick they boinked last night.
Online dating? See above.
I have to agree with this. I know ONE person who met and married someone from Match.com... the others? So far my friend who is 41, single, and childless, educated, good job as a special ed teacher, has met nothing but well, jerks. A couple of them wer bitter divorced guys with a few kids who wanted to get laid but never wanted to be in a relationship ever again after being married and divorced, and some of the other singles guys were, well, just like the POF crowd, looking to get laid.
It's like paying for a slightly better version of POF.
Too many men for the amount of women, which creates an artificial dynamic where the women are now afforded the ability to pick above their real world physical attraction stock. And let's not kid ourselves, from a woman's profile perspective of dozens responses a day, she ain't going for "thoughtful profile". She might go for that AFTER she's filtered into the "hotties". As a result however, they are bombarded by a large volume of men looking for a non-serious interaction, which doesn't help them find what most are looking for.
I beg to differ. I sifted through probably 100 male profiles over the span of 2 weeks and found only 2 that I might be willing to have future physical relations with based on looks alone. The fact that there were 98 unattractive men did not skew my perceptions of average attractiveness. In fact I felt like I was ready to settle for somebody who was just tolerable. And I did try to talk to those whom I felt were not very attractive, but my attempt was short-lived.
Good news is, you only need that one "attractive" guy/gal (i.e. equally attractive as you) to make a match.
I'm fairly certain that most of those 98 guys are still looking because they have not learned to lower their standards of physical attraction to a realistic level.
Another thing I had difficulty with was finding somebody of equal educational levels, and so that criteria got tossed out... in the end that was a good move actually because one nerd in the family is enough.
I have to agree with this. I know ONE person who met and married someone from Match.com... the others? So far my friend who is 41, single, and childless, educated, good job as a special ed teacher, has met nothing but well, jerks. A couple of them wer bitter divorced guys with a few kids who wanted to get laid but never wanted to be in a relationship ever again after being married and divorced, and some of the other singles guys were, well, just like the POF crowd, looking to get laid.
It's like paying for a slightly better version of POF.
I know at least 10 couples that were a result of a paid online dating site (match or eHarmony). I think there must be a certain segment of the population that it simply does not work for, at all. Thankfully, I am not a member of that segment.
This is not a slam, but if you do not have the time to meet someone, how will you have the time to date them?
Taking time to go places to meet people is quite different than spending time with your SO. We simply spend our time together...whether it's cooking, or grocery shopping, or camping. I have practically no time (or desire!) to go hang out in dance club, or take night classes in some "male-centric" subject, or spend the evening perusing the aisles of the local hardware store. But hanging out with my guy running errands on the weekend, visiting friends, going to the beach, or whatever...that's effortless. It's simply "sharing time"...totally different than trying to find places to go to meet someone. For people that are older (at least in my case) with a house to maintain, and a kid to raise, and a full-time job...meeting new people becomes much more of a challenge. Online dating sites are a wonderful option.
So far my friend who is 41, single, and childless, educated, good job as a special ed teacher, has met nothing but well, jerks. A couple of them wer bitter divorced guys with a few kids who wanted to get laid but never wanted to be in a relationship ever again after being married and divorced, and some of the other singles guys were, well, just like the POF crowd, looking to get laid.
It's like paying for a slightly better version of POF.
You run into the same set of issues that you would in the offline world. Lying, people who play games, people only wanting sex, etc. So if those are valid reasons not to pursue online dating, shouldn't they also be valid reasons not to pursue offline dating as well? Most people would say no, which suggests that they're actually holding the online world to a higher standard than the real world, which is probably why so many people come away feeling disappointed. Framing it as online vs. offline is too simplistic. Even within the real world, there's a lot of variety. If you were looking to marry a good Christian girl, you're more likely to go to church than a bar to find her. Likewise, if you go online, where exactly you go depends on what you're looking for. I would never look for a wife on CL cause I know it's just a place for hookups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miyu
I'm fairly certain that most of those 98 guys are still looking because they have not learned to lower their standards of physical attraction to a realistic level.
Which really has nothing to do with being online. These people are probably like this in the real world as well, holding out for the supermodel that'll never come along. They can go online, still not find her, and then blame online dating for it, as if Match goes out and finds those people.
I would think one of the reasons Match works so well is that there is a fee to join. People who are just looking to get laid will more than likely not want to pay a fee. In same sense, those who are serious about relationships would pay because its less likely you'll find the creepy just-want-to-bang-some-chicks type dudes on there. Usually those types would flock to free sites.
I would think one of the reasons Match works so well is that there is a fee to join. People who are just looking to get laid will more than likely not want to pay a fee. In same sense, those who are serious about relationships would pay because its less likely you'll find the creepy just-want-to-bang-some-chicks type dudes on there. Usually those types would flock to free sites.
I agree, but the naysayers will be quick to point out that the people who pay that fee are either desperate or are players who don't mind paying a small fee.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lol
