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.
The people that used to be into like Ed Hardy wear?
Eh, good chicks aren't into those jerks.
Some might be. It's not really so much as "good chicks", so much as a certain type of typically fit woman who puts attention into her appearance in a fairly "middle-American" way. To say these types of women are inherently bad women would be assumptive, but from my experience and observations, if I see someone that fits that mantle with pictures of herself at the lake or whatever, even if she seems nice, I ain't getting a reply or even a profile view. Few stray from dating bags so far as I can tell.
I'll keep not judging books by covers (I don't think all D-bags are bad guys either, questionable taste maybe), but I'll continue to conserve my energy and work these women absolutely last, even if many are attractive and might sound interesting.
Interesting how universal the turn-offs can be when it comes to online dating.
The disqualifiers are seemingly universal, as listed in this thread, because the preponderance of us (the thread participants) tend to fall into a particular collection of traits and values. In Ohio, some one third of adults are smokers. But of all participants in this thread who have mentioned smoking, none smoke. Three quarters of American adults don't have a 4-year college degree. Yet so many of the thread participants are college graduates, and would prefer likewise for their prospective partners. Presumably some substantial portion of Americans would only be willing to date persons of their own race, yet racial discrimination is widely panned in this thread (with one notable exception, where the poster decried the preference of some men of her own race, to date from within other races). We hear of so many persons interested in one-night-stands via online dating, yet nearly everyone in this thread is aiming for some form of long-term relationship. Some 80% of Americans self-identify as being Christian, yet most respondents in this thread are secular. And so on.
In other words, this Forum is better educated, more secular, likely more progressive socially than the mainstream in modern America; also, amongst the portion of the populace currently not in long-term relationships, this cohort is likely more interested in the long-term, than their broader peer group.
This picture just reminded me of a forum I landed on when Googling for something. I think it was forum.bodybuilding.com or something. The way those guys talk about women on that site...it's like, sure, you may you have abs, but your brain must be the size of a pea the way you talk about women or any subject for that matter.
The disqualifiers are seemingly universal, as listed in this thread, because the preponderance of us (the thread participants) tend to fall into a particular collection of traits and values. In Ohio, some one third of adults are smokers. But of all participants in this thread who have mentioned smoking, none smoke. Three quarters of American adults don't have a 4-year college degree. Yet so many of the thread participants are college graduates, and would prefer likewise for their prospective partners. Presumably some substantial portion of Americans would only be willing to date persons of their own race, yet racial discrimination is widely panned in this thread (with one notable exception, where the poster decried the preference of some men of her own race, to date from within other races). We hear of so many persons interested in one-night-stands via online dating, yet nearly everyone in this thread is aiming for some form of long-term relationship. Some 80% of Americans self-identify as being Christian, yet most respondents in this thread are secular. And so on.
In other words, this Forum is better educated, more secular, likely more progressive socially than the mainstream in modern America; also, amongst the portion of the populace currently not in long-term relationships, this cohort is likely more interested in the long-term, than their broader peer group.
It's a tough crowd!
I would also add that most don't have kids here and don't want to date parents or don't want kids. What I found online was majority either people already had kids or wanted them. I found that those who definitely didn't want kids usually just wanted casual relationships. In real life I see something different with lots of couples who don't have kids (by choice or circumstance), people who don't have kids but are single etc. In real life I know more men without kids who are single versus single dads and in fact the single dads I know offline rarely do online either because they have no time, don't want a relationship, or have a relationship (usually not from online either).
The disqualifiers are seemingly universal, as listed in this thread, because the preponderance of us (the thread participants) tend to fall into a particular collection of traits and values. In Ohio, some one third of adults are smokers. But of all participants in this thread who have mentioned smoking, none smoke. Three quarters of American adults don't have a 4-year college degree. Yet so many of the thread participants are college graduates, and would prefer likewise for their prospective partners. Presumably some substantial portion of Americans would only be willing to date persons of their own race, yet racial discrimination is widely panned in this thread (with one notable exception, where the poster decried the preference of some men of her own race, to date from within other races). We hear of so many persons interested in one-night-stands via online dating, yet nearly everyone in this thread is aiming for some form of long-term relationship. Some 80% of Americans self-identify as being Christian, yet most respondents in this thread are secular. And so on.
In other words, this Forum is better educated, more secular, likely more progressive socially than the mainstream in modern America; also, amongst the portion of the populace currently not in long-term relationships, this cohort is likely more interested in the long-term, than their broader peer group.
It's a tough crowd!
I agree with most of this, except the one night stand part. Maybe from the male contingent (which I can't speak for as I never browsed male profiles for more than 15 minutes or so) but having FWB as a parallel option for a while on OLD, I came across EXTRORDNARILY few women open to it in their 'looking for' and/or mentions in their profiles of it. Far, far more couples looking for a third for a threesome, then a poly here-and-there. Studies have debunked the prevalence of the hook-up culture as well. It's pretty well reflected so far as I can tell in OLD profiles.
Also, I got a more balanced vibe so far as secular vs. religious goes. No overwhelming balance either way. There's a lot of "x religion but but not serious about it" whatever the crap that means.
So you made it past the head shot and now it comes time read the profile
If I ever see the famous Marilyn Monroe quote “If you can’t handle me at my worst you don’t deserve my best” I’m out.
I just have to ask what kind of woman puts the quote from a drug addled adulterous women?
Clichees, platitudes, anger and bitterness, topless pics, inability to write in complete sentences, but moreso lack of proper grammar and spelling, and those who feel the need to point out the obvious, as most often, the opposite of that is true for them. Those are instant deal breakers.
I don't do online dating, but I have looked at some profiles on various websites, and one thing that's a turn-off is the whole "I'm very driven, ambitious, and I'm looking for someone who's got a winning personality" crap. You would think that somebody with those qualities wouldn't need to resort to online dating websites.
Back in the days of Myspace, I once browsed the profiles of some of the men in my city. This one guy, had the following statement under the section titled "Who I'd like to meet":
"Intelligent athletic women with witty confident personalities who are entertaining."
Instant dis-qualifiers for me are large tattoos, especially if she has them on her arms..And pretty much any thing that can be called 'body modifications', like ear gauges, but also including large breast implants, lip injections, botox etc.
Taking off your shirt just for the photo (for example, being shirtless in a bathroom, as opposed to being shirtless on the beach)
Too many photos with a drink in your hands
Smoker
Poor grammar/spelling
Even the slightest hint of narcissism
Extreme sports
A lie. Of any kind. (A photo could be a lie)
Poor grooming
Extreme grooming (waxed eyebrows, makeup)
If you have a girl/girls in every photo
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.
Few stray from dating bags so far as I can tell.
