Online dating is pointless as a guy

Page 9 of 24 [ 379 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 24  Next

Aspiegrrrl
Butterfly
Butterfly

Joined: 29 Aug 2016
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 15

29 Aug 2016, 4:18 pm

Think of it like interviewing for a job you're 100% qualified for on paper but don't get. You don't get the job because you aren't qualified, but rather because somebody else is better qualified.

I think online dating is a lot like that - you've messaged a girl you feel you're compatible with, but she's decided there are others out there who she's more compatible with, so you don't get a reply.

I'd suggest sending very, very short first messages (How was your day? What is your fave [something mentioned in their profile]?) and assuming you will get 1 response for every 100 sent, ie being thrilled to get 3 replies out of 100 rather than angry you sent 10 messages with no replies at all.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,098
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

30 Aug 2016, 7:16 am

Aspiegrrrl wrote:
Think of it like interviewing for a job you're 100% qualified for on paper but don't get. You don't get the job because you aren't qualified, but rather because somebody else is better qualified.

I think online dating is a lot like that - you've messaged a girl you feel you're compatible with, but she's decided there are others out there who she's more compatible with, so you don't get a reply.

I'd suggest sending very, very short first messages (How was your day? What is your fave [something mentioned in their profile]?) and assuming you will get 1 response for every 100 sent, ie being thrilled to get 3 replies out of 100 rather than angry you sent 10 messages with no replies at all.


So in your reasoning, it's the woman who definitely chooses the man on dating sites, like how employer chooses the job seeker. An unemployed job seeker wouldn't think much whether the employer is a good or bad for him, he needs the money.

In other term, what you are saying is: men's pickiness/preferences have no value at all, they should just use shotgun spray strategy, aiming at as many targets as possible, in hoping to hit something.



Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 30 Aug 2016, 7:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

30 Aug 2016, 7:23 am

If I were on a dating site, I would try to "sound" as eloquent as possible.

The "right" sort of woman is the woman who would respond to what I write.



Cerberus_01
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 103
Location: Topeka, KS

30 Aug 2016, 8:14 am

I understand the frustration, but it's really not as bad as all that. I'm a moderately unattractive 28 year old that just started college, not fat but not buff and never work out, I'd call it soft skinny. I do okcupid and tinder, and here in college I'm constantly surrounded by 18-22 year olds who think i'm like 30 and with whom I share basically nothing.

However, I take basic efforts to clean myself up, advertise myself as available but am never pushy and always make sure to be always upfront with women and thank them even if they say they are not interested and otherwise shoot me down. I have a practiced 'old world charm' it's been called that I can call upon to impress, but above all I never ever lie or misconstrue myself. If that night I'm only interested in sex, I say so. If not, I say that too and in both cases I mean it. I by no means am a model, not a ab to be seen, and I don't have much in the bank but know how to manage what I have.

Sure, I get shot down a lot. And never in a million years will a cheerleader be interested, but If I am to be vulgar for a moment, I also get between 5 and 6 woman between 8 and 10 in a given year. One liked me so much that she's letting me live in her inheritance house without monetary reimbursement, so being calm, polite, and patient can yield great dividends.


_________________
Feel Free to PM me if you want, always bored and interested in talking to new people.


Aspiegrrrl
Butterfly
Butterfly

Joined: 29 Aug 2016
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 15

30 Aug 2016, 8:40 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aspiegrrrl wrote:
Think of it like interviewing for a job you're 100% qualified for on paper but don't get. You don't get the job because you aren't qualified, but rather because somebody else is better qualified.

I think online dating is a lot like that - you've messaged a girl you feel you're compatible with, but she's decided there are others out there who she's more compatible with, so you don't get a reply.

I'd suggest sending very, very short first messages (How was your day? What is your fave [something mentioned in their profile]?) and assuming you will get 1 response for every 100 sent, ie being thrilled to get 3 replies out of 100 rather than angry you sent 10 messages with no replies at all.


So in your reasoning, it's the woman who definitely chooses the man on dating sites, like how employer chooses the job seeker. An unemployed job seeker wouldn't think much whether the employer is a good or bad for him, he needs the money.

In other term, what you are saying is: men's pickiness/preferences have no value at all, they should just use shotgun spray strategy, aiming at as many targets as possible, in hoping to hit something.



Not necessarily. If a girl was complaining she messaged men and rarely heard back, I'd make the exact same suggestion. I do think online dating requires a scattershot approach by everybody because the effort to send a one-line message or flirt is so very low and everybody is sending tons of such messages to the hoardes on dating sites.

A man's (or a woman's) preferences matter. But if a person has sent several hundred messages and hasn't received a single reply, rethinking the profile (better photos, more engaging text), the dating site they've chosen (try OKC if POF was a dud) and potentially readjusting their standards to something realistic (those roughly as conventionally attractive as yourself, electing to date divorced people or ones with kids).



BTDT
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,511

30 Aug 2016, 8:44 am

I think women would love to get romantic first messages that show a lot of effort, but since hardly anyone actually does that, most women have to settle for what they get.



Aspiegrrrl
Butterfly
Butterfly

Joined: 29 Aug 2016
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 15

30 Aug 2016, 9:07 am

BTDT wrote:
I think women would love to get romantic first messages that show a lot of effort, but since hardly anyone actually does that, most women have to settle for what they get.


I'd be creeped out by a "romantic" first message. Some dude who knows nothing but my profile attempting written romance would be icky and signal a lack of appropriate boundaries.

I am creeped out by a too long or too detailed or too sexual first message.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

30 Aug 2016, 10:48 am

I wouldn't get sexual unless a woman got sexual with me.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,949
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

30 Aug 2016, 12:24 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aspiegrrrl wrote:
Think of it like interviewing for a job you're 100% qualified for on paper but don't get. You don't get the job because you aren't qualified, but rather because somebody else is better qualified.

I think online dating is a lot like that - you've messaged a girl you feel you're compatible with, but she's decided there are others out there who she's more compatible with, so you don't get a reply.

I'd suggest sending very, very short first messages (How was your day? What is your fave [something mentioned in their profile]?) and assuming you will get 1 response for every 100 sent, ie being thrilled to get 3 replies out of 100 rather than angry you sent 10 messages with no replies at all.


So in your reasoning, it's the woman who definitely chooses the man on dating sites, like how employer chooses the job seeker. An unemployed job seeker wouldn't think much whether the employer is a good or bad for him, he needs the money.

In other term, what you are saying is: men's pickiness/preferences have no value at all, they should just use shotgun spray strategy, aiming at as many targets as possible, in hoping to hit something.


Yeah that is how it works, you choose people on dating sites you want to interact further with...I suppose it should be set up to where they don't choose? they just have to meet the first guy who messeges? Though I think some more well thought out messages are better than tons of short ones...because quality over quantity.

Also guys pickiness does come into play as it effects who they're willing to initially messege, if they respond to if she messeges first(I never got a response when I tried to messege guys first).


_________________
We won't go back.


Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

30 Aug 2016, 12:47 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
So in your reasoning, it's the woman who definitely chooses the man on dating sites, like how employer chooses the job seeker. An unemployed job seeker wouldn't think much whether the employer is a good or bad for him, he needs the money.

In other term, what you are saying is: men's pickiness/preferences have no value at all, they should just use shotgun spray strategy, aiming at as many targets as possible, in hoping to hit something.


Yeah that is how it works, you choose people on dating sites you want to interact further with...I suppose it should be set up to where they don't choose? they just have to meet the first guy who messeges? Though I think some more well thought out messages are better than tons of short ones...because quality over quantity.

Also guys pickiness does come into play as it effects who they're willing to initially messege, if they respond to if she messeges first(I never got a response when I tried to messege guys first).


Bingo.

Unless I missed a meeting, men don't hand their details and application essay to a central database, where it's sorted and filed with keyword associations, enabling any woman to pick any man she wants, with the men being given no choice but to go along with it.

I've overlooked thousands of women on dating sites who were of no interest to me. Doubtless I have been overlooked by thousands of women in return. Unless I'm really, really interested in someone who isn't interested in me (which is doubtless a pisser), I don't see the cause for concern.

I cannot imagine a scattergun approach to online dating, because I cannot imagine a woman's character and interests and outlook being anything other than vital to my interest in her.

My first girlfriend I got with because I just wanted A Girlfriend. It was a good, if awful, lesson to learn early on.


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,098
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

30 Aug 2016, 3:37 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aspiegrrrl wrote:
Think of it like interviewing for a job you're 100% qualified for on paper but don't get. You don't get the job because you aren't qualified, but rather because somebody else is better qualified.

I think online dating is a lot like that - you've messaged a girl you feel you're compatible with, but she's decided there are others out there who she's more compatible with, so you don't get a reply.

I'd suggest sending very, very short first messages (How was your day? What is your fave [something mentioned in their profile]?) and assuming you will get 1 response for every 100 sent, ie being thrilled to get 3 replies out of 100 rather than angry you sent 10 messages with no replies at all.


So in your reasoning, it's the woman who definitely chooses the man on dating sites, like how employer chooses the job seeker. An unemployed job seeker wouldn't think much whether the employer is a good or bad for him, he needs the money.

In other term, what you are saying is: men's pickiness/preferences have no value at all, they should just use shotgun spray strategy, aiming at as many targets as possible, in hoping to hit something.


Yeah that is how it works, you choose people on dating sites you want to interact further with...I suppose it should be set up to where they don't choose? they just have to meet the first guy who messeges? Though I think some more well thought out messages are better than tons of short ones...because quality over quantity.

Also guys pickiness does come into play as it effects who they're willing to initially messege, if they respond to if she messeges first(I never got a response when I tried to messege guys first).


You are twisting my words and putting me in a negative light (you are implying that I have entitlement issues) - and I will not allow you to do that:

No one said women should meet the first guy who messages them.
I was talking about a man's preferences perspective.

A man who sends short-messages 100s hoping to get 1 and 3 replies is yes, in my opinion, is a man who's deseperate for any gf - and his only filtering criteria is probably the looks.



Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

30 Aug 2016, 7:57 pm

Men pick which women to message, and the women they message then pick which men to respond to.

Women pick which men to message, and the men they message pick which women to respond to.

I think one's approach on dating sites depends on two things.

1. What you want.

2. What you want the ones you want to want (ideally you, or some version of you that is within easy change) and your ability to convey this.

A man whose (say, short and generic) messages seem to suggest he's taking a scattergun approach in search of A Girlfriend may not be taken to kindly by women who do not want to simply be A Girlfriend, and/but are hoping to in some way to be picked out for qualities they see and value in themselves (most of them, indeed most people, I'd guess). On the other hand, if he happens upon a woman who wants A Boyfriend and has so far had little interest, he may find a successful match, and they can try and build a relationship on the foundation of their mutual fear of being alone and so willing to be with pretty much anyone.


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

30 Aug 2016, 8:09 pm

i think the best approach for a first message is a short but expressive one. like, say, the girl is clearly enthusiastic about travel and star wars, and so are you. then you say something like "the weather is brutal here today. makes me want to take a trip to tatooine. how's the weather over there today? :)"


_________________
404


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,949
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

31 Aug 2016, 11:53 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aspiegrrrl wrote:
Think of it like interviewing for a job you're 100% qualified for on paper but don't get. You don't get the job because you aren't qualified, but rather because somebody else is better qualified.

I think online dating is a lot like that - you've messaged a girl you feel you're compatible with, but she's decided there are others out there who she's more compatible with, so you don't get a reply.

I'd suggest sending very, very short first messages (How was your day? What is your fave [something mentioned in their profile]?) and assuming you will get 1 response for every 100 sent, ie being thrilled to get 3 replies out of 100 rather than angry you sent 10 messages with no replies at all.


So in your reasoning, it's the woman who definitely chooses the man on dating sites, like how employer chooses the job seeker. An unemployed job seeker wouldn't think much whether the employer is a good or bad for him, he needs the money.

In other term, what you are saying is: men's pickiness/preferences have no value at all, they should just use shotgun spray strategy, aiming at as many targets as possible, in hoping to hit something.


Yeah that is how it works, you choose people on dating sites you want to interact further with...I suppose it should be set up to where they don't choose? they just have to meet the first guy who messeges? Though I think some more well thought out messages are better than tons of short ones...because quality over quantity.

Also guys pickiness does come into play as it effects who they're willing to initially messege, if they respond to if she messeges first(I never got a response when I tried to messege guys first).


You are twisting my words and putting me in a negative light (you are implying that I have entitlement issues) - and I will not allow you to do that:

No one said women should meet the first guy who messages them.
I was talking about a man's preferences perspective.

A man who sends short-messages 100s hoping to get 1 and 3 replies is yes, in my opinion, is a man who's deseperate for any gf - and his only filtering criteria is probably the looks.


Not really sure what I twisted, you seemed to be criticizing that women choose to interact or not interact with men on dating sites, so figured the implication was they shouldn't choose and should just be obligated messege back and further interactions with any guy who messages them.


_________________
We won't go back.


Aspiegrrrl
Butterfly
Butterfly

Joined: 29 Aug 2016
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 15

31 Aug 2016, 12:25 pm

Hopper wrote:
Men pick which women to message, and the women they message then pick which men to respond to.

Women pick which men to message, and the men they message pick which women to respond to.

I think one's approach on dating sites depends on two things.

1. What you want.

2. What you want the ones you want to want (ideally you, or some version of you that is within easy change) and your ability to convey this.

A man whose (say, short and generic) messages seem to suggest he's taking a scattergun approach in search of A Girlfriend may not be taken to kindly by women who do not want to simply be A Girlfriend, and/but are hoping to in some way to be picked out for qualities they see and value in themselves (most of them, indeed most people, I'd guess). On the other hand, if he happens upon a woman who wants A Boyfriend and has so far had little interest, he may find a successful match, and they can try and build a relationship on the foundation of their mutual fear of being alone and so willing to be with pretty much anyone.


I don't think any first email from any total stranger on any dating site could possibly aim to make me feel special and valued. That's also not what I look for in a first email.

To me, online profiles provide enough d tail to either repulse me completely or consider corresponding with the person to obtain more info.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,949
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

31 Aug 2016, 1:03 pm

Aspiegrrrl wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Men pick which women to message, and the women they message then pick which men to respond to.

Women pick which men to message, and the men they message pick which women to respond to.

I think one's approach on dating sites depends on two things.

1. What you want.

2. What you want the ones you want to want (ideally you, or some version of you that is within easy change) and your ability to convey this.

A man whose (say, short and generic) messages seem to suggest he's taking a scattergun approach in search of A Girlfriend may not be taken to kindly by women who do not want to simply be A Girlfriend, and/but are hoping to in some way to be picked out for qualities they see and value in themselves (most of them, indeed most people, I'd guess). On the other hand, if he happens upon a woman who wants A Boyfriend and has so far had little interest, he may find a successful match, and they can try and build a relationship on the foundation of their mutual fear of being alone and so willing to be with pretty much anyone.


I don't think any first email from any total stranger on any dating site could possibly aim to make me feel special and valued. That's also not what I look for in a first email.

To me, online profiles provide enough d tail to either repulse me completely or consider corresponding with the person to obtain more info.



Well perhaps it was just a coincidence but most short messages I got came from guys with little to no info on their profile about them. On a couple occasions I messaged back people who did have more on profiles, but that usually just turned into them seeming to have nothing to say and me trying to strain to come up with stuff to keep the conversation going which was exhausting...So I gave up on those when it seemed to me they'd never initiate anything or contribute to decision making as far as activites to do and such.

I'd be a wreck if all that was up to me all the time. So perhaps I was also looking for someone who showed they were a bit better at initiation and decisions. So I certainly probably have some bais against the short message approach, especially if one is expecting the girl they message to do all the talking I mean it's frustrating to feel like you're fighting to keep an interaction going.


_________________
We won't go back.