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 just taking what he knows from his experiences with women and applying them. For me, I've always been attracted to white women. I can spot a woman in my area that tends to only date black guys from a mile away. It's a look that they have. timberline is just using the same method online. He has a good idea of the women that will respond to his advances or will just message him first.
I take your approach mikelizard. I don't just say hi, but I keep my emails to just two or three sentences. I know that the women that are online who typically only date black guys have historically not been women that I've been romantically interested in. They tend to be attracted to a more thuggish type of black guy, which I am not. I send out more messages, because I'm looking for a woman who's black guy curious and not the woman who strictly says she only dates black guys. Just like I'm not going to waste my time messaging a woman that says she's only into white men. At that point, character matters, but they're paying attention to race first and foremost. My character doesn't matter, because they aren't intially attracted to black men.
With my experiences, the women I dated online all told me the same things. You may be black, but you don't act the stereotypical black that they've come into contact with. I'm likely more like the white guys they are interested in; however, my skin tone is darker and my hair is more curly.
Since about 70-75% of the general population is overweight and most women over 30 are moms, that sounds about right. Truth is guys that there isn't as much of a disparity as you seem to think. Since most men who OL date believe that women receive 100s of message for every one they get, women will no doubt lie about how many messages they get bc we don't want to be seen as undesirable. Yes, the hot young chicks under 25 no doubt receive a lot of messages, but the number declines quite a lot with age.
All a man my age would have to do to get an attractive date would be to message someone closer to his age but most of the reasonably decent looking ones my age are looking for someone 20 years younger. I think I look pretty good for my age, but I often get no responses when I message first, even though I don't often message the hotties unless we really have a lot in common. OL dating is probably hard on everyone's ego and if I were a man I'd try to ramp it up irl and learn to ask gals out bc I don't think many women message men first. I'm an exception though--I send at least as many as I receive.
Oh and have a friend critique your pix. I'm glad I did--I put up much better pix and the response was gratifying--have a couple of dates this weekend and one is younger than me, lol. Most men seem to be clueless about how women will interpret those pix so ask a woman friend.
What causes the disparity? Simple. MEN. Men, even married men, join dating sites and send messages to every attractive woman they see. It doesn't matter if they don't meet her requirements. They'll message her anyway because they figure they have nothing to lose. Over time, this'll cause a lot of women to leave the site, causing the ratio of men to women to become skewed. The women who remain discover they have tons of options, though not all of them are good. Don't blame women for being picky or not responding to your messages. If I were getting tons of messages a day, I'd ignore a lot of them too. Don't blame the dating site. They just set up a place for you to meet. They don't police it or tell women to reply to every message they get. You wanna assign blame? Look no further than other men. Men in general are why dating sites are so frustrating. You could be a perfect match for someone, but thanks to all the other idiots emailing her who don't even meet her requirements, your email gets lost in the pile. And finally, she gets fed up with guys wanting sex or creepy old guys wanting younger women or young guys wanting cougars. And so she just turns off her profile. Maybe dating sites should allow users to set what kind of men can even message them. I bet that would make online dating better for both genders.
I kind of think the same way too. It's not exactly why I left online dating (like I said, it didn't suit the way my personalty works with having to get to know a guy first, before dating. So I went back to socially meeting men). But there was a feeling of being overwhelmed and "who needs this." I may have lost a few good matches in the pile of spam (like I said, I automatically ignored a message if the guy didn't answer my profile math question). But what can you do? Who has time to read all that spam?
It's also been my experience when I was online dating. I would say 80% are 30+ overweight single moms. It was hard to find a woman around my age that didn't have 1-3 kids 20-30lbs overweight.
Help, I lost my quote when I wrote the above message!
The old personal site on The Onion Personals used to have this feature. If you messaged someone and you fell outside of their criteria (if they enacted this filter), the message wasn't delivered and you were told it wasn't.
I think this would help a lot too, but I'm sure there are business reasons they don't do it.
I think POF has this feature. I emailed someone a while back and the email was filtered. Came back saying this user isn't accpeting emails from your ethnicity. I got my answer immediately and just kept it moving.
I'd like to meet an average built guy with no kids. About 70-85% of the matches I get on OKC are overweight, single fathers. It can go both ways.
That's mostly what I got too, on all the sites. I don't want an obese man or a dad. I didn't really mention the obesity but did say something about being in shape and wanting someone into fitness and sports. Men ignored all of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane
What causes the disparity? Simple. MEN. Men, even married men, join dating sites and send messages to every attractive woman they see. It doesn't matter if they don't meet her requirements. They'll message her anyway because they figure they have nothing to lose. Over time, this'll cause a lot of women to leave the site, causing the ratio of men to women to become skewed. The women who remain discover they have tons of options, though not all of them are good. Don't blame women for being picky or not responding to your messages. If I were getting tons of messages a day, I'd ignore a lot of them too. Don't blame the dating site. They just set up a place for you to meet. They don't police it or tell women to reply to every message they get. You wanna assign blame? Look no further than other men. Men in general are why dating sites are so frustrating. You could be a perfect match for someone, but thanks to all the other idiots emailing her who don't even meet her requirements, your email gets lost in the pile. And finally, she gets fed up with guys wanting sex or creepy old guys wanting younger women or young guys wanting cougars. And so she just turns off her profile. Maybe dating sites should allow users to set what kind of men can even message them. I bet that would make online dating better for both genders.
Exactly. I'm sure some quality men fitting my requirements contacted me but after several hundred messages from older men, dads, perverts, etc I got disgusted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelizard860
And since you have ZERO idea if there will be chemisty, what's wrong with mass emailing and just saying hi? It's no different than walking into a bar so everyone can see you. Women will likely not see you unless you email them. There's a ton of guys on there
Mass emailings are boring. I would delete those because the person wasn't contacting me because they liked me they wanted anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepka
Since about 70-75% of the general population is overweight and most women over 30 are moms, that sounds about right. Truth is guys that there isn't as much of a disparity as you seem to think. Since most men who OL date believe that women receive 100s of message for every one they get, women will no doubt lie about how many messages they get bc we don't want to be seen as undesirable. Yes, the hot young chicks under 25 no doubt receive a lot of messages, but the number declines quite a lot with age.
All a man my age would have to do to get an attractive date would be to message someone closer to his age but most of the reasonably decent looking ones my age are looking for someone 20 years younger. I think I look pretty good for my age, but I often get no responses when I message first, even though I don't often message the hotties unless we really have a lot in common. OL dating is probably hard on everyone's ego and if I were a man I'd try to ramp it up irl and learn to ask gals out bc I don't think many women message men first. I'm an exception though--I send at least as many as I receive.
It really bothered me when I got rejected. I'm not used to it but it happened a lot online. I was disgusted that the bottom of the barrel men were contacting me, men NOT fitting my requirements.
Since about 70-75% of the general population is overweight and most women over 30 are moms, that sounds about right. Truth is guys that there isn't as much of a disparity as you seem to think. Since most men who OL date believe that women receive 100s of message for every one they get, women will no doubt lie about how many messages they get bc we don't want to be seen as undesirable. Yes, the hot young chicks under 25 no doubt receive a lot of messages, but the number declines quite a lot with age.
All a man my age would have to do to get an attractive date would be to message someone closer to his age but most of the reasonably decent looking ones my age are looking for someone 20 years younger. I think I look pretty good for my age, but I often get no responses when I message first, even though I don't often message the hotties unless we really have a lot in common. OL dating is probably hard on everyone's ego and if I were a man I'd try to ramp it up irl and learn to ask gals out bc I don't think many women message men first. I'm an exception though--I send at least as many as I receive.
Oh and have a friend critique your pix. I'm glad I did--I put up much better pix and the response was gratifying--have a couple of dates this weekend and one is younger than me, lol. Most men seem to be clueless about how women will interpret those pix so ask a woman friend.
I think a lot of the hundreds of messages vs. not as many has to do with the site as well as the woman's age too. On OKCupid I got 170 messages in the first 24 hours. There, I just deleted the spam. But that's a free site and I have no doubt that some of the spam coming in wasn't even from real guys looking to date--it was "real spam".
On Match (paid site) I didn't really pay attention to winks, but messages, I got maybe 40-50 a week. Most were canned spam messages, but on Match, I actually read them and looked at the guy's profile too (at least until I joined OKC). Never responded though because none were really a match for me (too old, lived too far away, etc). But I was still able to get maybe a date or two a week from "real" messages.
For what it's worth, most of the messages I sent out on either site went unreturned too. I didn't send out too many though... usually just the men I was really interested in (lol, they were all scuba divers . I have a one track mind it would seem).
I think a lot of the hundreds of messages vs. not as many has to do with the site as well as the woman's age too. On OKCupid I got 170 messages in the first 24 hours. There, I just deleted the spam. But that's a free site and I have no doubt that some of the spam coming in wasn't even from real guys looking to date--it was "real spam".
On Match (paid site) I didn't really pay attention to winks, but messages, I got maybe 40-50 a week. Most were canned spam messages, but on Match, I actually read them and looked at the guy's profile too (at least until I joined OKC). Never responded though because none were really a match for me (too old, lived too far away, etc). But I was still able to get maybe a date or two a week from "real" messages.
For what it's worth, most of the messages I sent out on either site went unreturned too. I didn't send out too many though... usually just the men I was really interested in (lol, they were all scuba divers . I have a one track mind it would seem).
That was the issue I had with Match in my area. It was great for the first week and then just dead. I have deactivated my account, but I still get the same daily message about who they recommend for me. Since my search area isn't very broad (roughly 50 miles) I'm out matches that have logged in in the last week by the time I get to page 3. Most of the daily matches were women that haven't logged on in forever. The BIG KNOCK I have against Match is you can't tell who has a subscription, had a subscription and disabled it, or just created a profile to browse. All three scenarios are shown the same way on the site, which when you're a pay site, it's motivating to get other users to sign up. People aren't going to sign up for a service that's pretty barren on potential.
Match does a good job of falsifying who's truly active and who's not. If they flagged the profiles that never purchased a subscription or purchased subscription, but didn't renew it, the site wouldn't be able to afford commercials. I'd say for the 100 profiles I could see in my area, maybe 30 are actually active. What match does is pretty misleading, but I guess they've figured out that it's not misrepresenting, since the people created the profiles with the INTENT to subscribe. Heavy influence on the word intent.
No you cannot. You cannot have chemistry with someone by looking at their photo.
It doesn't have to be in person, but it involves interacting with each other, and by interacting, discover a connection between the two - chemistry.
I love when someone tells me my own feelings.
I can absolutely tell if there's going to be that initial spark by looking at pictures. As far as getting along/being friends with the person then obviously I have to meet them. But actually I could tell from a phone call on that one as well. So a phone call and clear pics or better yet video and 100 PERCENT I can tell if there will be an initial spark.
I've never met a woman online who looked like her pics and her pics were smoking hot that I didn't have immediate strong chemistry with.(her feeling it back is a different story...lol) That's what I mean by spark/chemistry and that's what women mean when they can tell in 30 seconds about a spark. Sexual immediate attraction vs. no attraction
I'm guessing you're a woman? Most men wouldn't argue with me about this because they feel the same way and their brains are wired the same as mine.
There will almost never be a "connection" if there's no immediate attraction. The "connection" is your brain playing tricks on you with hormones. And a "connection" is definetly a female term. I'm not being negative against females. Just saying men and women are different. Their brains are wired differently and it's important to be self aware of your own sexual instincts. It will make you a smarter person in the dating world. More mature.
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 have a one track mind it would seem).
