Dating websites are not for males - scientific proof.

Post Reply New Topic

I can definitely be different than other males; that just comes naturally. In fact, I've planned something to write when I start using dating sites next year. No idea if it will work, but it's worth a shot:

"Hi there. I'm new to dating sites, but I'm aware that gorgeous women such as yourself receive a lot of messages, so I need to think of a way to separate myself from the herd. Maybe if I write in BOLD, CAPITALIZED TEXT. DOES THIS STRIKE YOUR FANCY?"

Simply put if there is twice as many men on a dating site as women, if all women find someone that's only 50% of men, the other half remaining single.

I've also noticed another thing: Due to the higher amount of males and the tendency for males to make the first move in real life and online, there's a lot of pointless competition.

I'm on a few teen dating sites, one of them you can be friends with other users and it's like a facebook/networking type forum.

Pretty much every super attractive female has about 1,000 friends, probably around 75% being male. Every average/slightly above average female, same deal - about 75% of friends are male and they can have anywhere from 150-500.

Even the slightly unattractive/plain/homely gals, even the tiny number of friends they have, a good bulk of them are male.

1. If a heterosexual woman finds a relationship, then so does a heterosexual man. That's a tautology. What that kind of relationship is, and how long it lasts, is up to the individuals involved.

1a. I don't know what the gender split is among the heterosexual population, but I would suppose it is around 50/50. There might be slightly more one than the other (it certainly won't be exactly 50/50), but not that it's statistically significant.

1b. What has the marriage rate got to do with this?

2. There may well be more males on dating sites. By what mechanism does this make it 'easier'? And again, for every straight woman who gets a date from there, so does a man.

3. Yes, and men look for and find dates both online and offline too. And again. 1:1.



What the hell is your problem?

Here's where I reported what you said:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=237032&p=6943527#p6943527

I was staggered as to what such a comment was doing in our conversation. It didn't fit. The only way it could fit is if you were saying something like 'well, at least I'm not going around raping women if I can't get a date'. First, 'rape' is not part of the dating continuum. Second, you don't get a prize or congratulations for not raping.

The racist aspect took second place to that. It's a mess of confused thinking and assumptions, and even if I could untangle it, you wouldn't understand.

However, if a man does not find a relationship, it doesn't mean that there's a woman which also didn't find a relationship.


It's not 1:1 and it's significant.


And for every straight man who didn't get a date there's a woman which didn't get a date?

Of course, but since many more men than women are on dating sites, the result is still that more women than men succeed. I think many women still view dating sites as suspicious and that only (or mostly) men that cannot get a date IRL will be there. Much like contact ads decades ago, or arranged marriages even longer before that.



I agree completely.

I usually claim that I only get a really serious (and often mutual) crush on somebody once a decade. The circumstances this occurs in cannot replicated online, and it has nothing to do with matching traits, more like compatibility in communication style, something that no dating site offers tools to match.

Maybe dating site eventually will get better at match traits that are important, but right now it feels like it is superficial traits that are related to social identity that they match on, which has little relevance for neurodiverse people.

I'm not sure about that. Though similarly, if a women does not find a relationship, it does not mean there's a man who didn't. There is a necessary, tautologous link in the positive. Not so sure about the negative.



I said the split isn't 50/50, but it will be close. It is significant to the 'excess' population, but not really elsewhere. To be clear, I am talking here about the population at large, not on dating sites. Dating sites are a part of the whole of everything we might mean by 'dating'. Assuming a roughly equal male/female split in the population, and a roughly equal interest in becoming part of a couple, then maybe not 1:1, but close.

This is like the bleach that promises to kill 99% of bacteria or such. From one perspective, that's a lot. If we consider the millions of bacteria it didn't kill, it may not seem enough.



I don't know. It doesn't work in the negative, obviously. There's a tautologous link between a straight man getting a date and a straight woman doing so. Not so in the negative.

In the negative, it will depend on absolute numbers and the varying levels of interest within individuals. I mean, I don't think polyamorous situations will be significant. At the level of the individual, it quite depends what one is looking for.

Out of curiosity, I went and resurrected my OKCupid profile. It was active from December '09 to July '10. At the time, Mrs Hopper and I were separated, I was a single parent to two young children, I had no wealth, rented my house, no car, and was (and remain) of average looks. I didn't know I had asperger's at the time, but I knew I was odd, and made sure this was evident in my profile.

The thing I mostly remember was how many women simply didn't interest me. Hours spent going through profiles, 'No. No. No. No. No...'. But, the stats:

Women I messaged who didn't respond: 11

Women who messaged me and I didn't respond: 9

Women I messaged, who responded, and I stopped writing: 3

Women I messaged, who responded, and they stopped writing: 5

Women who messaged me, I responded, and I stopped writing: 5

Women who messaged me, I responded, and they stopped writing: 7

I also had a few dates with one woman (I gave up on that), and a year's relationship with another, which I also ended, though by that point it had fallen apart into a heaped mess and the only thing I could think to do, for both our sakes, was to walk away from it and break off contact.

I had a Plenty of Fish profile from February to August '09, though that's properly deleted rather than 'on hiatus'/dormant. I did get a few dates each with two women, though. One cooled it off as she lived too far away. No particular chemistry between us, either. The other took up with a more suitable man (closer in age and distance, more 'available'), and any friendship that could have been - I really enjoyed her company, and I think she mine - got lost in that.

But, given how selective I am, and how much of a particular interest/taste I am, I think it went pretty well.

Can't really compare with my "experiment", because I never uploaded a picture, and I think that makes most people uninterested. I never went through any random profiles, rather just looked at my matches, and quite a few of them could have been interesting if it was not just an experiment. Although, I clearly expressed my disinsterest for sex, and that I was polyamory, so that probably contributed to a higher quality of the matches. The only activity was one woman that messaged me about visiting her profile, which I didn't respond to.

I think that if a neurodiverse guy gets a lot of non-relevant matches, then he will need to reconsider the image he is giving in his answers to the questions on OkC.

It's not that men are any less successful. It's that men on dating websites seem to far outnumber the women on those same websites. If there are 100,000 men looking for a date, and only 1,000 available women, and 99% of the women find dates, then that means that 990 women have found dates, and so have 990 men!. Thus, the same numbers of men and women use a dating sight successfully.

However, by percentage, only 0.099% of the available men have found dates with 99% of the available women. You boys are focused on the percentages, rather than the raw numbers. It is not just your lack of desirability; it is the fact that there are too many of you competing for the same women (at a 100 to 1 ratio), and only one of you will "win the prize". The women can afford to be picky about the men they respond to, while any one man must somehow stand out from all of the others to catch that one woman's attention. It's an on-line version of "The Bachelorette".

So, to be competitive, you have to either step up your game, have your competition disqualified from the game, or find another game where you have the greater advantage.

For example? What are some dating "games" where there are much more women than men, and where women are generally neutral or positive to dating (attempts on work proved it to be generally a bad place)?

Most of successful guys I know date several girls at once, so 990 girls and say 330 guys.

The distribution on most sites isn't that skewed - the first graph in the following link shows the actual data from OkCupid: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-c ... der-woman/.

That was really interesting. I forgot OKC did those data blogs.

Particularly pertinent:



I make that 1000 men for every 1222 women.

More women than men. How about that.

Def Not for aspie males at least. I don't find initiating things online any easier, I mean I guess you can throw way more at the wall hoping something sticks and it's not face to face which has just as many negatives as positives. The internet is way more integrated into social media now so it is just way harder to meet and befriend people online nowadays, at least that's how I've been experiencing it. I used the internet since I was young kid, people just seemed a lot friendlier in general and more interested in making contact with like minded people from all over the globe but now social media dominates everything and online is an extension of our offline lives so if you were struggling before now you can't even escape online anymore.

Online dating seems pretty hopeless really, I mean if you can completely divorce yourself from feeling anything then maybe it could work, maybe it could work in real life that way too, I just don't think I can initiate and be rejected offhand hundreds of times without blowing my brains out. It's pretty much a hopeless situation. It's just a meat market, there is no way to compete against those better off than you and the shameless desperate. I just feel to much to be able to do that game, it would kill me.

Perhaps you could consider not getting worked up about the fact that lots of girls you message on internet dating sites not getting back to you?

It takes a nanosecond to send a flirt/message and a nanosecond to delete a flirt/message. You've expended so little energy/effort that it's not evn worth considering a lack of response to be rejection.

85% of US adults are or have been married to a person of the opposite sex, as per the last census (when gay marriage wasn't yet legal across the country). There are roughly equal numbers of men as women on OKCupid and POF. There's hope for you yet - so long as you don't stop trying!

It depends on what you want, and how you go about it. I could never approach a woman irl. And on the off chance there was a woman interested in me, there's a good chance I'd overlook or dismiss any signals she was giving out to see if I gave them back.

I found online dating gave me a space in which to set out who I was, and to reflect on what I was looking for.

If all you want is A Woman, that's going to come through in how you approach it, in the messages you send. In my experience, there was something encouraging in going through thousands of profiles which held no interest for me. Gave me a sense of my context. I'm very particular in people I like and get along with, and who get along with me. Doubly (at least) so for any romantic possibilities.