Do online dating sites really work and is it pathetic to use them? (boyfriend, marriages)

[david0966]

Originally Posted by ChessieMom

But that is exactly the point. If someone's social life does not consist of going to parties/bars/clubs etc., and they really have no desire to cut back on their other normal activities just to be more "social" just for the reason of meeting someone - well THAT seems more "forced" to me. OLD does work, quite well, for whole lot of people. I am one, and I know far too many others, to say that it doesn't work.

I agree with everything you said. I've moved around a lot in my life, and moving to a new location I didn't know anyone. I work crazy rotating shifts. I've never been interested in bars or nightclubs. I do enjoy seeing live music, and I did have success with when I was younger as I'd go out three or four nights a week to see bands. Cold approaches have never worked out very well for me. It's just not something I like doing. With OLD, I know something about that person already and more often than not, the person on the other end is actually interested in a relationship.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by lycos679

That would make online the #1 place to meet people, however, Match (Chadwick Martin Bailey 2010), Eharmony (Harris Interactive 2009), Pew, and Stanford all found numbers below 20%. The strange thing is the study you are referencing was funded by EHarmony (No conflict there) and either only included people between 30-50 or found the users were 30-50.

Well 30-50 is the demographic such studies should be looking at. 20 yos are in school and are going out all the time so they're not going to be using OLD much. They're in school and at parties/bars/clubs etc.

Originally Posted by lycos679

What's your point? Most people meet people just by living their lives.

Maybe the girls online didn't realize you were poor. Maybe you dressed nicer when you knew you were going to meet a girl vs not dressing nice when you went out. Maybe you just had a bunch of coffee dates. Maybe the girls were introverts. Maybe you weren't very social. Maybe you are only attractive to a select type of girl. Maybe you only like a select type of girl.

I don't think most people meet people just by living their lives in reality. If it is most people, it is by a small majority. Most people work at it. Especially guys.

And no to all the above reasons. The OLD and real life people know about what I earn; everyone knows I earn little once I talk about what my profession is. I don't really dress different for dates than I do for going out. I don't have a separate wardrobe. I always avoided coffee dates if I could. I'm talking about dating and having relationships. I tend not to date introverts. I went out and was social (that doesn't mean single women were there in my age range, they generally weren't) and I like a broad spectrum of types of women.

Originally Posted by david0966

I agree with everything you said. I've moved around a lot in my life, and moving to a new location I didn't know anyone. I work crazy rotating shifts. I've never been interested in bars or nightclubs. I do enjoy seeing live music, and I did have success with when I was younger as I'd go out three or four nights a week to see bands. Cold approaches have never worked out very well for me. It's just not something I like doing. With OLD, I know something about that person already and more often than not, the person on the other end is actually interested in a relationship.

This.

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Well 30-50 is the demographic such studies should be looking at. 20 yos are in school and are going out all the time so they're not going to be using OLD much. They're in school and at parties/bars/clubs etc.

That was exactly my point! However, I disagree that 30-50 is the most or only relevant population. The average age of first marriage is 26-28, so the teens and 20's are incredibly important population groups to study.

Originally Posted by timberline742

I don't think most people meet people just by living their lives in reality. If it is most people, it is by a small majority. Most people work at it. Especially guys.

And no to all the above reasons. The OLD and real life people know about what I earn; everyone knows I earn little once I talk about what my profession is. I don't really dress different for dates than I do for going out. I don't have a separate wardrobe. I always avoided coffee dates if I could. I'm talking about dating and having relationships. I tend not to date introverts. I went out and was social (that doesn't mean single women were there in my age range, they generally weren't) and I like a broad spectrum of types of women.

This.

I posted the data up thread. Most people meet their SO through their social network. OLD accounted for 3-13% depending on if you were married or living together and if you were a man or woman.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by lycos679

I posted the data up thread. Most people meet their SO through their social network. OLD accounted for 3-13% depending on if you were married or living together and if you were a man or woman.

You said through living their everyday lives. Now you're saying their social network. Those aren't synonymous.

I've met people through my social network before. It's never been on the course of living my everyday life.

You're also separating OLD from social networks. Another mistake. I, and many people I know, have created and our expanded our social networks from OLD. My best friend was someone I met from OLD. A huge percentage of my friends were people I met as friends of people I met dating on OLD. They are my social network, but they wouldn't have existed w/o OLD.

But stats like 11% of people have used OLD are really irrelevant, because that includes people not looking. 38% according to one link you posted of single and looking people have used them. That's the key.

People not looking are irrelevant. They've been removed from the pool.

[DennyCrane]

Originally Posted by ToTheOtherSide

Do online dating or hookup websites like eharmony, friendfinder, match etc... really work and do you feel it's odd that people use them?

Ah yes. Another thread designed to shame people for resorting to online dating to meet people. Why is it that some people feel the need to mock others for how they choose to meet someone? Do people feel a certain sense of superiority because they met their partner through friends instead of on Match? If someone tells me they met someone they like, I don't really care how they met. I'm just happy for them. There's nothing pathetic in using online dating sites. This is not the 1990s where people were embarrassed to admit they signed up to a dating site. But I will tell you what's pathetic. It's mocking the people who dare to try such an approach. Again, why do you care if someone else met their significant other on Match or eHarmony? It's not a reflection on the person or their dating skills. It's just an indicator of how hard it is for some people to find good dating prospects. As for the value of online dating, it's like any tool. What you get out of it depends a lot on how you use it. If you post a lame profile and no one shows interest or if you message people who've made it clear that you're not what they're looking for, then it's not the fault of Match that you come up empty. I know people who've gotten married to people they met online. And then I know people who've never even had a date with someone from a dating site. So there's no rule about whether it works or not. Asking whether online dating works is like asking whether joining a book club or works or whether volunteering works. The answer is that it depends on who you are, the group you join, and what you do from there.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by CarbonCountyLiving

Who told you that? Lol. People were usually introduced through family friends or met at socials, like dances and stuff.

Yes but originally you would know the person for a long time and romance would develop naturally. You didn't just ask somebody out when you first met them.

You keep saying that it isn't organic to date someone you just met, but that's how people have done it for a long time.

Not THAT long, though. Maybe the past 100 years. Back in the middle ages -- assuming you weren't a wealthy landowner -- your dating pool would be the people you knew in daily life, and you would just gradually get closer over a long period of time. This is more like "hookups" and is the normal way that people started relationships before the invention of things like the automobile and the telephone.

You don't have to do it that way, but stop getting it twisted and telling other people they are doing it wrong. It's perfectly organic to meet someone, be attracted to them, and begin a courtship.

I'm not saying you're doing something morally wrong necessarily, just that it isn't the natural way of doing it and certainly not something I feel comfortable with doing.

There are two main methods of meeting romantic partners: dating strangers and letting it happen organically with people you know. I prefer the latter method.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by lycos679

All you do is say "Hey, we should hang out sometime let me grab your number", "My friends and I are going to X,Y,Z, you should come", "We're going to an after party in about an hr, want to join?" Of course, you have to create interest first.

Yeah but that's not really an organic method. If you were already friends, and you're asking for a platonic meeting, yes.

You really wait years before having sex with people?? I can see waiting a few weeks or maybe even a month, but if nothing is developing in that time frame then I doubt anything is going to develop.

I've never had sex at all. But I would want it to happen with someone who is a close friend, yes. I want it to be meaningful.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Yes but originally you would know the person for a long time and romance would develop naturally. You didn't just ask somebody out when you first met them.

I have no idea where you get that. People met once and the guy asked them out. That was the norm in the 50s and 60s too. My dad met my mom at a military social event/dance and asked her out, that was quite common.

Not THAT long, though. Maybe the past 100 years. Back in the middle ages -- assuming you weren't a wealthy landowner -- your dating pool would be the people you knew in daily life, and you would just gradually get closer over a long period of time. This is more like "hookups" and is the normal way that people started relationships before the invention of things like the automobile and the telephone.

Who gives a crap how things happened when we were an agrarian society? How is that at all relevant? That society is long gone.

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

There are two main methods of meeting romantic partners: dating strangers and letting it happen organically with people you know. I prefer the latter method.

Well, I don't agree with that. The person isn't a stranger once you're a date or two in, that's when you decide if you want to keep hanging out with them.

Oh, how is that latter method that you prefer working for you? Well?

[CarbonCountyLiving]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Yes but originally you would know the person for a long time and romance would develop naturally. You didn't just ask somebody out when you first met them.



Not THAT long, though. Maybe the past 100 years. Back in the middle ages -- assuming you weren't a wealthy landowner -- your dating pool would be the people you knew in daily life, and you would just gradually get closer over a long period of time. This is more like "hookups" and is the normal way that people started relationships before the invention of things like the automobile and the telephone.

I'm not saying you're doing something morally wrong necessarily, just that it isn't the natural way of doing it and certainly not something I feel comfortable with doing.

There are two main methods of meeting romantic partners: dating strangers and letting it happen organically with people you know. I prefer the latter method.

It's all dependent on class and culture, but there are plenty of historical examples of quick courtships. Cultures that practice arranged marriages, for example--the couple often had never met prior to their wedding day. People even a century ago didn't have the luxury of a lengthy courtship. Shorter lifespans meant that they needed to pairbond quickly to produce a number of offspring. Also remember that, in certain societies, friendships between men and women were almost nonexistent--men spent time with men, women spent time with women, and mixed company was reserved for courtship and coupling.

If it feels unnatural to you, that's fine, but you are incorrect about it being unnatural as a whole.

[DennyCrane]

Online dating should be a treated as a supplement, not a primary method of meeting people. You start by using the traditional approach. Let friends, family, coworkers, etc. introduce you to people. The problem for many people, however, is that becomes very limited. Maybe you keep running into the same people and you didn't really hit it off with any of them. Online dating lets you expand the pool. Now you get to see profiles of people who you might not otherwise encounter in your everyday life. The traditional approach may have worked long before the internet came along, but it did require a certain amount of luck. Being in the right place at the right time as someone else. If that approach worked for everyone, online dating wouldn't be as popular as it is now or currently growing in popularity. The mistake that too many people make is in thinking online dating comes with some kind of guarantee. People sign up and think they're going to meet Mr. or Mrs. Right in a month and when they don't or when a person they meet from there ends up being a jerk or a flake, they blame the website, as if Match has control over the character of its members.