Wow you guys weren't lying that online dating sucks (2015, alcohol, tattoo)

[weezerfan84]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Oh, ok, never lived in something like that. 100k isn't urban in my book

I don't know how else to describe it, unless you just call it a town.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by weezerfan84

...
I have 3 things that I look for when reading a profile. It's my 3 biggest deal breakers. Do you drive your own car, do you live on your own (have made concessions for a roommate), and do you have a job or career? If you don't at least have 2/3 (I highly prefer 3/3), then there's no point in us even trying. It's not that I don't think these people are bad people, but I lack the patience to go backwards on these 3 things. To me these are the cost of admission objectives that every person my age (31) should have.

Well, I suppose that this reinforces that different people have different criteria! I'm older, and frankly at this point it's irrelevant to me whether my intended female partner has a car/house/whatever or not, whether she's a waitress or chairwoman of the surgery department at the local university, whether she's been independent since age 17 or at 40 still gets tucked into bed every night by mommy. Neither would I care to be evaluated by how many cars or houses I happen to own at the moment. I've never been much impressed by the American middle-class, by its values and mores and tribulations. And that, shall we say, has been an inordinate impediment in trying to date in America.

So many things that others value so highly, I find to be picayune and irrelevant. So often that which is precious, attractive and enticing to most, I find to be bland and repulsive - and vice versa. Indeed, online dating has been a poignant lesson in how I fail to decently partake of this society and of its core postulates. Persons of measured temperament and modicum of respect for professional decorum can find common ground in the workplace and in casual interaction even if they are fundamentally incompatible. But the pursuit of dating starkly emphasizes how we all genuinely differ.

[MrQdotJ]

Originally Posted by timberline742

A car? Interesting. Living in urban areas, a car never crossed my mind as a dating thing. I just got one for the first time in five years a few months back. It kind of sucked in the winter, and it just sits there almost all week.

I'll piggyback on the car statement. I live in the heart of Los Angeles, California. There is no feasible way to navigate the nooks and crannies of this city without personal transportation. Met a woman recently who "uber'd" everywhere. Talk about an expensive inconvenience. As I soon discovered, personal transportation was not the only thing she was lacking at the age of 35. Needless to say, it didn't last long. Picking this woman up everywhere we went go old, very fast. Idealy, people meet on an even playing field. Does anyone really want a fixer upper when it comes to something potentially romantic? Not me...

Not having a car in the city of Angels, is a major deal breaker for me.

[timberline742]

I've never lived in LA, but uber is far cheaper than owning a car, here in Boston, for the handful of times a month a car is needed. Heck, I think I could uber my normal places 4-8 times a week for less than owning a car, even one without payments. I think LA must be must more spread out. I definitely found that owning a car was a negative in SF and I got rid of mine 2 mos after moving there.

[NWGirl74]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

The #1 factor for me is the issue of reproduction: not having any children already, and not wishing to have any. That excludes the overwhelming majority of women in my area, and by "overwhelming" I mean something approaching 95%.

Still, in my area the number of suitable candidates dwindles to a tiny amount. Such is the nature of local variations.

I live in a large metro area with over 2.3 million people. If I do a search on my absolute ideal basic criteria*, I get 9 matches. If I include men who "might" want kids, it jumps to 31. So I need to re-evaluate and decide which of the things that are important to me I am willing to budge on. I am currently having a conversation with one of the 9 I can already tell is not going anywhere. I don't meet his age criteria.

*age 35-48, online within a week (i.e. active user), does not or rarely drinks, no drugs, no smoking, likes dogs (I have two, elderly little monsters), does not have nor want kids.

Originally Posted by Port Pitt Ash

Who care if you're a great match if there's a deal breaker lurking in their profile?

I look for their stance on religion and gay rights. I lost my faith in God when I was widowed at the age of 34 and I became an ordained minister specifically to marry my gay friends. So a God-fearing, gay hating, church going, devout Christian and I probably aren't going to be a good match.

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

It's almost as if there were a perpetual dating circuit of about 20-30 people, who upon exhausting mutual prospects find no further alternatives.

Originally Posted by weezerfan84

It's mostly the same people online, which is why you have to stop for a bit and let it flush. I truly don't think online churns profiles in urban areas like it can in metropolitan areas. I live in a more urban area and there's quite a few profiles that have been on and off the online circuit for over 5 years.

As I said, I live in a large metro area and I see this too. If I change my search settings from "online within the last week" to "online within the last month," the guy I met last spring pops up. Last time around, I emailed a guy who seemed familiar. After we went back and forth a couple of times, I realized that a few years ago, I had emailed him and he said he didn't think we'd be a good match and asked if I wanted to be a FWB. My friend was on and off the site for 8 years before meeting her current boyfriend last year. One of the men who first contacted me last year boasted in his profile that he's blocked over 300 women in the 10 years he's been on the site. I've been on and off the various sites for 5 years now.

Quite frankly, I am starting to think they just match you with anyone. I have that I am looking for someone who lives near me aged 35-48. One of my (very few) Quickmatches yesterday was a 51 year old who lives 200 miles away! Really, OKC? There is that much of a shortage of men in Portland you have to go that far out of my settings to send me a match?!

Originally Posted by MrQdotJ

I'll piggyback on the car statement.

I agree. Portland has a good transit system but it doesn't extend to the suburb I live in. A guy taking public transportation to see me would either have to spend 2-3 hours each way on a bus or I'd have to pick him up somewhere. I don't mind doing the driving if we're on my side of the river, but constantly being the chauffeur doesn't really appeal to me at this stage.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by NWGirl74

*age 35-48, online within a week (i.e. active user), does not or rarely drinks, no drugs, no smoking, likes dogs (I have two, elderly little monsters), does not have nor want kids.

You're in one of the best craft beer regions of the U.S., this criteria (and even if you weren't), it's going to decimate matches.

Check to see how many matches there are if you remove that and add "drinks socially", I'm guessing it would be many many many multiples higher.

[MrQdotJ]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I've never lived in LA, but uber is far cheaper than owning a car, here in Boston, for the handful of times a month a car is needed. Heck, I think I could uber my normal places 4-8 times a week for less than owning a car, even one without payments. I think LA must be must more spread out. I definitely found that owning a car was a negative in SF and I got rid of mine 2 mos after moving there.

Cheaper? Maybe, but the convenience factor trumps costs (for me at least). Los Angeles is just over 4K square miles. This is larger than the combined areas of the states of Rhode Island and Delaware. (Thanks Wikipedia) - In order to enjoy all that Los Angeles has to offer, a car is needed. There's a great waterfront lounge in Long Beach, which is 30 miles south of me. There is no viable public transportation option to get to this place. Not to mention, if there was, imagine leaving around midnight etc. Los Angeles is a "car town" - Plain and simple.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by MrQdotJ

Cheaper? Maybe, but the convenience factor trumps costs (for me at least). Los Angeles is just over 4K square miles. This is larger than the combined areas of the states of Rhode Island and Delaware. (Thanks Wikipedia) - In order to enjoy all that Los Angeles has to offer, a car is needed. There's a great waterfront lounge in Long Beach, which is 30 miles south of me. There is no viable public transportation option to get to this place. Not to mention, if there was, imagine leaving around midnight etc. Los Angeles is a "car town" - Plain and simple.

Yeah, different places are like that. Again, I don't know LA. I did visit Houston, and realized I could never live there (even with the horrid weather) because it is a car centric city. Each place is different, for sure.

[NWGirl74]

Originally Posted by timberline742

You're in one of the best craft beer regions of the U.S., this criteria (and even if you weren't), it's going to decimate matches.

Check to see how many matches there are if you remove that and add "drinks socially", I'm guessing it would be many many many multiples higher.

I do realize my preference for a fellow non-drinker is rather limiting. My late hubby was one as is my best friend and one of my tenants (and two former tenants come to think of it) so I know they do exist.

It's not a judgement thing. I'm allergic to both yeast and sulfites. I get a massive headache just sitting next to someone drinking red wine. I can drink vodka and gin but don't like the taste of either of them. I also have alcoholics running rampant on both sides of my family and on the rare occasions I do drink, I find that for days afterward, despite not enjoying it, I have strong desires to have another. So I have a strong preference to just not be around it. (*Shrugs*)

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by NWGirl74

I do realize my preference for a fellow non-drinker is rather limiting. My late hubby was one as is my best friend and one of my tenants (and two former tenants come to think of it) so I know they do exist.

It's not a judgement thing. I'm allergic to both yeast and sulfites. I get a massive headache just sitting next to someone drinking red wine. I can drink vodka and gin but don't like the taste of either of them. I also have alcoholics running rampant on both sides of my family and on the rare occasions I do drink, I find that for days afterward, despite not enjoying it, I have strong desires to have another. So I have a strong preference to just not be around it. (*Shrugs*)

And that makes total sense. It does. I don't want to be around weed (not that I'm opposed to it), just because I don't want to be around it, and that reduces my pool considerably. If I removed alcohol, I'd go from several hundred 90% matches within a 5 mile radius of me, to probably a dozen people. It's just the way it is.