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.
Timberline is like the only guy in the history of City-Data that says he likes OLD and gets a high rate of responses.. but he also lives in a super huge metro if I remember right. For a guy, anything over a 10 percent response rate is a good rate. Most guys say it's like 1 out of 100, if that. I can do better than 1 in 100 but who cares messages mean nothing to me, only meeting in RL matters. That's how someone proves they are serious.
We've had other posters, men, share their fairly positive experiences and success. One guy boasted about his success with women no matter where he met them. I think there are many factors involved, and area/region and other things play a role in one's success, or lack thereof.
I talked to, met and dated average-looking men, who make up most of the dating world, online or out in the wild. One guy in particular was fairly new to the online dating scene, late 30s, coming out of a long term marriage and relationship, went on several dates within the first several weeks. He's a cross between Shia Labeouf and Tom Hiddleston, and he got dates. (his hair at the time was neck length) His profile was one of my favorites. Top 5 out of hundreds, thousands, I browsed. And we met and went out. One of the most intriguing and interesting people.
I'd say most of the men I dated, that I met online, fit this bill. I found them attractive, but they weren't objectively good-looking or really handsome to the majority of people. They were regular guys, and looked like regular guys. Heck, one of my exes, that I met on OKC, someone here said he had a weak chin/jawline, and was mostly average-looking. And the same for the ex before him.
Timberline is like the only guy in the history of City-Data that says he likes OLD and gets a high rate of responses.. but he also lives in a super huge metro if I remember right. For a guy, anything over a 10 percent response rate is a good rate. Most guys say it's like 1 out of 100, if that.
I can do better than 1 in 100 but who cares messages mean nothing to me, only meeting in RL matters. That's how someone proves they are serious. I just met another flake on Match that wanted to waste time on the phone and texting for 2 weeks and would not commit to meeting in real life and she backed out on me twice.
That sounds realistic. And, of that 10% who reply to your first message, you're unlikely to get a 2nd or 3rd reply, with most.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,957,550 times
Reputation: 40635
I don't know why guys would bother with OLD if 10% was anywhere near the norm. Of course, if the norm is anything like the messages I see my lady friends get, that might explain it.
But most dudes I know seem to have a fair amount of luck on it. The bars are certainly full of first online dates most nights of the week from what I'm told by the industry staff I know, that has to mean something.
We've had other posters, men, share their fairly positive experiences and success. One guy boasted about his success with women no matter where he met them. I think there are many factors involved, and area/region and other things play a role in one's success, or lack thereof.
I talked to, met and dated average-looking men, who make up most of the dating world, online or out in the wild. One guy in particular was fairly new to the online dating scene, late 30s, coming out of a long term marriage and relationship, went on several dates within the first several weeks. He's a cross between Shia Labeouf and Tom Hiddleston, and he got dates. (his hair at the time was neck length) His profile was one of my favorites. Top 5 out of hundreds, thousands, I browsed. And we met and went out. One of the most intriguing and interesting people.
I'd say most of the men I dated, that I met online, fit this bill. I found them attractive, but they weren't objectively good-looking or really handsome to the majority of people. They were regular guys, and looked like regular guys. Heck, one of my exes, that I met on OKC, someone here said he had a weak chin/jawline, and was mostly average-looking. And the same for the ex before him.
They are very rare the majority of men have the same problems I do I agree where you live is a huge huge part of it. In the bad areas it's not even just average guys that have troubles it's guys that state they have good jobs and are physically attractive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C
That sounds realistic. And, of that 10% who reply to your first message, you're unlikely to get a 2nd or 3rd reply, with most.
Yes they send a closed response which doesn't take the conversation anywhere...like if you ask a question they just answer it with a short response, and don't follow up with any questions of their own. Meaning they aren't really interested in carrying on the conversation or just aren't willing to put the time into it because they are talking to so many other guys.
I've never used online dating because I found it to be a waste of time. But from what many men have told me you need thick skin because you'll be ignored and rejected a lot.
We've had other posters, men, share their fairly positive experiences and success. One guy boasted about his success with women no matter where he met them. I think there are many factors involved, and area/region and other things play a role in one's success, or lack thereof.
I talked to, met and dated average-looking men, who make up most of the dating world, online or out in the wild. One guy in particular was fairly new to the online dating scene, late 30s, coming out of a long term marriage and relationship, went on several dates within the first several weeks. He's a cross between Shia Labeouf and Tom Hiddleston, and he got dates. (his hair at the time was neck length) His profile was one of my favorites. Top 5 out of hundreds, thousands, I browsed. And we met and went out. One of the most intriguing and interesting people.
I'd say most of the men I dated, that I met online, fit this bill. I found them attractive, but they weren't objectively good-looking or really handsome to the majority of people. They were regular guys, and looked like regular guys. Heck, one of my exes, that I met on OKC, someone here said he had a weak chin/jawline, and was mostly average-looking. And the same for the ex before him.
While it seems a lot of men write crappy profiles and send crappy messages, do you think those same men all have the ability to write a great profile or to be intriguing? I don't mean any snark by asking that, and I suspect you're giving that example to point out that a variety of things can contribute to success socially. My point is that many of those factors are not available to all men simply through effort or study. Some, and perhaps many of the men writing bad profiles now can only get to OK with a lot of additional effort. I mean, are most people (men or women) intriguing? Really? And of those who are intriguing, how many can convey that in a dating profile?
By all means be intriguing and let that shine through in your profile if you've got that going on, but it may not be a solution for most men.
Now it may be that compared to some of the weak profiles men write and the lousy messages they send, a basic but informative profile with a couple of decent (representative) pics and a message comprised of full sentences may make a difference, and that's achievable. I just wonder if telling guys who are struggling that they need to be fabulous may be setting the bar too high.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,957,550 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by 49ersfan27
I've never used online dating because I found it to be a waste of time. But from what many men have told me you need thick skin because you'll be ignored and rejected a lot.
You say over and over it is a waste of time, yet you've never tried it. We got it.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,957,550 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by homina12
While it seems a lot of men write crappy profiles and send crappy messages, do you think those same men all have the ability to write a great profile or to be intriguing? I don't mean any snark by asking that, and I suspect you're giving that example to point out that a variety of things can contribute to success socially. My point is that many of those factors are not available to all men simply through effort or study. Some, and perhaps many of the men writing bad profiles now can only get to OK with a lot of additional effort. I mean, are most people (men or women) intriguing? Really? And of those who are intriguing, how many can convey that in a dating profile?
By all means be intriguing and let that shine through in your profile if you've got that going on, but it may not be a solution for most men.
Now it may be that compared to some of the weak profiles men write and the lousy messages they send, a basic but informative profile with a couple of decent (representative) pics and a message comprised of full sentences may make a difference, and that's achievable. I just wonder if telling guys who are struggling that they need to be fabulous may be setting the bar too high.
This is a good question, without a good answer. Sure, it can easily be said that OLD is probably better for better looking people (last person I was serious about is a total total babe, only 33, and when she opens her profile up she gets TONS of great (and not so great) messages. It's easy for her.), but is also better for those than can write decently, and for those that can tell a story or spin a narrative. Not everyone can. For those who aren't great looking AND they aren't all that adept at communicating via the written word are at a severe disadvantage with OLD. I have no idea what the solution is there, if there is one.
Oh, and I don't think people need to be fabulous, obviously. I'm far from it, and most people that I know that use it are just normal, everyday people, but even if one isn't "fabulous" they can at least be passionate. About something. If they can then convey that passion or passions through their profile they have a big head start, but as you're alluding to, that's a pretty big IF.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,957,550 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by 49ersfan27
I prefer meeting women in person. Is that a problem?
The problem is you stating something is a waste of time, despite never having tried it. The reality is you have no idea if it is or is not.
I've never tried lots of things (see scuba diving, marathons, etc) yet I wouldn't never then say they are a waste of time.... because, duh, I've never tried them.
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.
