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 vast majority of women who initiate communication with men (online or offline) are subpar looking. Attractive women have no need to initiate as they are busy dealing with hundreds of messages (online) or many in-person approaches.
Not necessarily. I had a decent looking woman initiate contact with me first on OkCupid a long time ago. She wasn't subpar looking by any means.
The vast majority of women who initiate communication with men (online or offline) are subpar looking. Attractive women have no need to initiate as they are busy dealing with hundreds of messages (online) or many in-person approaches.
You couldn't be more wrong. The woman I was talking about is gorgeous. Her problem was she didn't attract the kind of men she liked. She's pretty active (a runner and works out 5 times a week on top of running). She tends to attract the jock-type (ex high school and college jocks who are big into sports, etc) But she's actually very nerdy. She couldn't act herself around them because they thought it was "weird" for a woman to be interested in the things she was interested in. So instead of waiting around and dating a bunch of men who came on to her that she wasn't in interested in, she went out looking for a fellow geek/nerd. Now we are dating and she feels like she can be herself.
So it's not all about "sub par" so much as confident women who know what they want and go get it. Heck, isn't that what half of the guys here moan and whine about... men having to do all the "work" and then when a woman dares to come on to a man and make the first move, what happens, she's put down. It's "oh, she must be sub par." No wonder so many women are passive about this kind of thing if guys are going around labeling them negatively for it.
The vast majority of women who initiate communication with men (online or offline) are subpar looking.
I wouldn't know from experience, but my husband did state that a lot of the messages he received were from women he wasn't attracted to or well-matched with. I was the first "hottie" that messaged him first... over a span of many years. Again, according to his experience and tastes.
Quote:
Attractive women have no need to initiate as they are busy dealing with hundreds of messages (online) or many in-person approaches.
Hundreds a day? Nah. Check out the post Hive made about average number of messages/views for the top and below average of both sexes and you'll see that it is a myth that even the really attractive women receive hundreds a day. A lot of bitter/angry men like to tell themselves (and others) this as a way to feel better about their less than stellar experience. "I'm not getting messages because she's buried in messages. She just didn't see mine."
Even with those 15-20 messages a day after the first week or two of joining (higher number for new members until they become not so new) they're not always going to be quality messages or messages from matches. I sent messages to a lot of men. If I liked a man's profile I had no problem initiating a message. There were times I sent messages only to be told they thought about sending one, but chickened out because they expected I wouldn't respond. I also had "replies very selectively" on my OKC profile during my last stint. That alone could deter men from sending a message, so that meant I needed to take the lead, and I did.
And I was approached in-person both when I had my kids and when I was alone, but not by men I was interested in.
Thank her but don't just end it there. Compliment here ask here some about herself. We are vain creatures so get her talking about herself. Try not to be creepy though, ask some light questions about her style or her interests. Make sure they are gonna make her think, but nothing philosophical endless she is into that.
I don't have the book in front of me, but it was something like this:
Top men
3 messages/week
17 views/day
Top women
11 messages/day
263 views/day
Average men
1 message/month
9 views/month
Average women
1 message/day
22 views/day
If I remember, I'll dig it up and correct the numbers I do remember that the absolute least popular women were roughly on par with the absolutely MOST popular men.
Ok, I remembered to check the book. I corrected the numbers in bold above. There was a follow up article at one point discussing what they called the "golden ratio"; the total mean activity ratio for the bulk of the population (read: average) was 17:1 in favor of women. Meaning, for the biggest chunk of the bell curve, women got 17x as many messages and views as comparable men did. For both the top and bottom profiles (as rated by the other gender), the women got much more, as high as 41:1. So less attractive women got WAY more messages than less attractive men, and the same for the SUPER attractive. In the middle, it got closer to 17:1.
A woman messaging you first in online dating is probably transgender and therefore has a male "mentality" of messaging first, it's a dead givaway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ312
The vast majority of women who initiate communication with men (online or offline) are subpar looking. Attractive women have no need to initiate as they are busy dealing with hundreds of messages (online) or many in-person approaches.
You know, I have no doubt that many of the men who voice their frustrations on this forum about not being able to find a girlfriend have this mentality at the root of their problem.
On one hand, they complain about aloof someone who snub them and don't give them a change. Women who put little effort into finding a man and make the man do all the "work." Women who turn a cold shoulder to you.
On the other hand, they insult and belittle the women who do flirt, ask out on a date, meet a man halfway, etc, etc. They don't want these women because surely something must be wrong with them for not acting like total bee-otches.
In the end, they pursue the mean ones and shun the ones that like them and try to give things a chance and then complain that something is wrong with women and wonder why they are unlucky in love.
You know, I have no doubt that many of the men who voice their frustrations on this forum about not being able to find a girlfriend have this mentality at the root of their problem.
On one hand, they complain about aloof someone who snub them and don't give them a change. Women who put little effort into finding a man and make the man do all the "work." Women who turn a cold shoulder to you.
On the other hand, they insult and belittle the women who do flirt, ask out on a date, meet a man halfway, etc, etc. They don't want these women because surely something must be wrong with them for not acting like total bee-otches.
In the end, they pursue the mean ones and shun the ones that like them and try to give things a chance and then complain that something is wrong with women and wonder why they are unlucky in love.
I can't say whether this is true for all the guys unlucky in love, but it certainly isn't true for me. As long as I have something to respond to, I'll respond. Of course, IRL, if they are only using body language, I wouldn't see it, and they will not get a response from me.
I can't say whether this is true for all the guys unlucky in love, but it certainly isn't true for me. As long as I have something to respond to, I'll respond. Of course, IRL, if they are only using body language, I wouldn't see it, and they will not get a response from me.
It's not true for all guys of course. I just see these bitter types that insult the woman in my relationship saying she's "sub-par" or something must be wrong with her or she must be transgenders since she doesn't fit their distorted world view of women. It insults her and therefor insults me and I am sick of it. She messaged first and she's a beautiful woman both inside and out... nothing is wrong with her other than she just doesn't attract the type of man she likes. So she took matters into her own hands and went after who she wanted. Why is that so hard to believe?
And I also think this kind of attitude drips off of them (just like you can tell when a woman is a man hater before two words come out of her mouth). Then they wonder why women don't like them. Seriously, would you be interested in a woman who drips with envy, hate, and disgust for men? Why would women be interested in a man who is the same, like some of the guys on this forum? That is why some of these guys are unlucky... they cause their own bad luck.
Ok, I remembered to check the book. I corrected the numbers in bold above. There was a follow up article at one point discussing what they called the "golden ratio"; the total mean activity ratio for the bulk of the population (read: average) was 17:1 in favor of women. Meaning, for the biggest chunk of the bell curve, women got 17x as many messages and views as comparable men did. For both the top and bottom profiles (as rated by the other gender), the women got much more, as high as 41:1. So less attractive women got WAY more messages than less attractive men, and the same for the SUPER attractive. In the middle, it got closer to 17:1.
Last edited by PJSaturn; 10-11-2016 at 03:14 PM..
Reason: Off-topic.
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.
I do remember that the absolute least popular women were roughly on par with the absolutely MOST popular men.
