online dating and the paradox of choice

[zengirl]

I've known a number of guys who have OKCupid profiles and they all had at least one of these unattractive traits: not a lot of options in real life, unassertive and trouble with approaching women in real life, commitment phobic, needy and uncomfortable being single for any period, more sex driven than relationship driven, addicted to variety, not having a clear idea of what they want (even if they think they do), serial monogamist. All of which would be deal-breakers for me.

 

I've not experienced those issues, except perhaps serial monogamy depending on how you define it (I define it as someone who is regularly in relationships and has had several, choosing not to seek sex outside of relationships, so that I've seen yes; I've seen about 10,000 different definitions over the years; more on that later) with anyone I met from online, nor do I see them in any of my friends I know online. I actually wouldn't be friends with those types of people either (in many of the cases). I'm sure there's a wide variety out there, though, but those types of guys never had high match %s with me. I've heard the %s have gone higher and gone to crap lately, by comparison, though, but that's only in the past few months since they tweaked it.

 

Re: serial monogamy

 

Well, I think being a serial monogamist when you're young is perfectly normal to a degree. It depends on if it's blatantly intentional serial monogamy or not. Someone who doesn't want to get married, but seeks relationships. . . wouldn't be my cuppa, but someone who's still finding someone and has thus been a serial monogamist because he/she is still considering what they want. . . . I think that's basically everyone on their journey. Some people luck out and find it early is all, and some people don't start looking till later.

 

Depends on how you're using the term. Yes, my ex was a serial monogamist in that he constantly dived into new relationships (though he usually waited 6 months to a year in between, in recent years foregoing sex during that time; what made him a serial monogamist to me was that he wanted ONLY relationships and no casual sex), and he dived head-first. You always seemed pro diving head first to me, so I didn't realize you'd see that as a negative (I do, a bit, but a relationship with one romantic isn't always bad).

 

I'm sure if you did a statistical analysis of men who signed up for OKCupid vs. men who never put up a dating profile you'd find some marked differences. It's naive to think there wouldn't be a strong selection bias.

 

I don't think I'm being naive. I think I'm looking at the data sets I've seen and the data sets they provide on their blog (which are fairly straightforward and not super salesy) and the data sets I've seen elsewhere, rather than buying into your imaginary survey of data that hasn't been collected.

 

As for variety vs. special, both ends of the spectrum are dangerous and the healthiest perspective lies somewhere in between.

 

Agree. I've not experienced meeting men who wanted variety obsessively online. Have met a few in person, though I've met many more men over the years in person than online, so I'm not drawing huge conclusions from that.

 

I don't want to be with a guy who believes in something hokey like "soul mates," but I'd rather be with someone who believes that there are a number of compatible matches for each person, but not many and it takes a lot of searching.

 

Why set yourself up with a limiting belief like "a lot" of searching?

 

FTR, I believe there are a number of compatible matches for each person, and you will gradually discover a truly compatible one as you learn about yourself over time and find fulfillment in the world. And I like belief systems that are similar to or compatible with that. Not "anyone will do" and not "ugh, it's tough". I like optimism.

 

I certainly wouldn't want to date a guy who think it's reasonable to find someone you "love" on a site, break up, dip in the pool again and find another person you "love" within a couple of months, rinse repeat.

 

And I don't think that you can always judge things by length of time, looking from the outside. Of course, what you describe here sounds mechanical. But you can have a relationship, realize it doesn't work, fight it out together, and by the time the relationship fails be so over it, that it doesn't take months and months or years to get back to the place you want to be. In fact, that relationship can have TAUGHT you about yourself, provided you with great experiences, and invigorated you back on your path towards love and a fulfilling life.

 

Wasn't your ex-boyfriend who you met on OKC a serial monogamist? I wouldn't consider it very deep love if you were able to move on and fall in love again that fast. It wasn't from his end at least, and I think those feelings are usually mutual -- it's rare that someone is truly blindsided.

 

I moved on faster than he did, FTR. He expressed doubts and we broke up, but he was really not aiming for that apparently (he and I communicate differently, and had some other incompatibilities), and we were never able to make it work again because of my psychology and that event. He didn't get a new GF till last month (and it's already over) and didn't even date for months after apparently. I started dating a month after the official breakup---two months after the two-day breakup---but that's because we'd had almost a month of "trying to fix it" where I was already falling out of love.

 

Our breakup wasn't about him or I being a jerk. It was about us not being compatible enough and experiencing dissonance thus me falling out of love (and he did too, eventually, though he had more trouble with that part, as he had it all mixed in with guilt and stress and such, because of the fight/breakup incident that he didn't mean or thought he didn't mean or whatever happened---I can't really share his experience fully, obviously, that's just what I've been told).

 

ETA: And I wouldn't have known he and I were not compatible had we not fallen in love. There's stuff you just don't find out until you get INTO a relationship and stuff you don't find out till you get deeper still into it, IMO. If we could all know who was compatible just by glancing at them or something, sure life would be easier, but for me, dating people is how I figure it out. And for many others, I think.

 

But I'd rather learn something and move on than think of past relationships as failures or burdens. I think of all my past relationships as gifts, frankly.

 

Skype/video chat isn't that different in my experience from chatting in real life. I've met people (non romantically) who I skyped with previously and it was always a very close approximation to the real thing. I'm confident we'll have chemistry in real life. That doesn't mean it'll work out. I'm more concerned about other things that might emerge in real life after a date or two, which I can't assess at this point.

 

FTR, I felt the same about my ex, and we did have chemistry. But you can Skype with someone you met on a dating site, too. It's certainly not impossible and loads of people do it these days (I don't unless I'm on another continent).

 

I disagree with this. It is hard to find somebody who is compatible, no matter who you are. It sounds like you're a bit of a serial monogamist or you're just not picky for the right things. A lot of people think they're picky but they look for the wrong qualities and don't really know what they want/need.

 

See my definition above for serial monogamy.

 

I don't go into a relationship with the pressure of "Is this the one" --- I go in with, "Is this guy awesome" (and he usually is, in his own way) and compatible with what I think I need. I'm sure I'm still learning what I really need, but I learn a little more in every relationship, and this one I'm in may be the one or it may not. Either way is okay by me. We are enjoying each other, and love is a wonderful gift whether the person is here for a reason, a season, or a lifetime.

 

To me, if you like people, and you meet people, it's not hard to meet people you really, really dig. Are they a high % of the people I meet? No. But I meet TONS of people. And I'm always optimistic someone great is coming. So he does.

Edited August 15, 2011 by zengirl

[torn_curtain]

There is something cold and clinical about the way in which you view people and love to which I can't relate.

[zengirl]

There is something cold and clinical about the way in which you view people and love to which I can't relate.

 

I'm sure you can't relate to it, but I question the reason. I don't see how it's cold and clinical to think my past loves were meaningful learning experiences and gifts that helped me find my path.

 

I will say my post is, of course, analytical, but we were analyzing. It's not like I sat around analyzing my falling out of love when it happened. That's just what I know in retrospect. At the time, it was, of course, painful. But I appreciate the pain as well. Pain is just needed growth. I just don't care to indulge and dwell on it in some twisted quest to prove I was in love.

 

I loved him. We didn't work. It ended. I was sad for a little while, but as soon as I could accept it, I started back towards my goal. My goal is not a particular man, so my broken relationship was not a failure towards my goal----my goal is fulfillment in a marriage-like relationship with a man who suits me. And I get closer each time because I love, I learn, and I accept.

 

If you're upset about lost love ages later, the pain mostly comes from not accepting it is lost. Acceptance cures pain. Now, granted, with my grief over my HS Sweetheart, it took me a long time to accept it, but it's harder to accept that someone dies suddenly, that young, than simply that someone isn't compatible for you in terms of what you need forever and was only for a season.

Edited August 15, 2011 by zengirl

[torn_curtain]

I'm sure you can't relate to it, but I question the reason. I don't see how it's cold and clinical to think my past loves were meaningful learning experiences and gifts that helped me find my path.

 

I will say my post is, of course, analytical, but we were analyzing. It's not like I sat around analyzing my falling out of love when it happened. That's just what I know in retrospect. At the time, it was, of course, painful. But I appreciate the pain as well. Pain is just needed growth. I just don't care to indulge and dwell on it in some twisted quest to prove I was in love.

 

When people take a bit to get over losing somebody they love it's not usually because they choose to dwell in the pain. Most people aren't masochists. It's because losing a loved one simply takes time to get over, no matter how resilient you are. I really don't believe that you can be deeply in love with somebody and then deeply committed to somebody else within a couple of months. It just doesn't fit at all with my understanding of people. It would be speedier and more convenient that way, but emotions are messy. People vary in how long they take, sure, but the type of behavior you're describing is very extreme and seems off to me.

 

I loved him. We didn't work. It ended. I was sad for a little while, but as soon as I could accept it, I started back towards my goal. My goal is not a particular man, so my broken relationship was not a failure towards my goal----my goal is fulfillment in a marriage-like relationship with a man who suits me. And I get closer each time because I love, I learn, and I accept.

 

I had to laugh because of how robotic this sounds: "My goal is fulfillment in a marriage-like relationship with a man who suits me."

 

Say it out loud and tell me I'm wrong.

 

In all seriousness, I think it should be both about finding the right relationship AND the right man.

Edited August 15, 2011 by torn_curtain

[zengirl]

When people take a bit to get over losing somebody they love it's not usually because they choose to dwell in the pain.

 

Sure, it's natural for everyone to feel pain. But you're saying they should wait many months or longer, and to me, taking a very long time of it, if it's something as simple as a breakup where you actually understood what the problems were. . . it seems like you're not accepting what happened. You're not accepting that it needed to end. When you accept that it needed to end, there's still pain at first, but it lasts much less.

 

I suppose I would agree with long periods of pain if you never knew why your relationships ended and it was always surprising to you, but I'm not sure I call that functional or good. I mean, I was shocked by the HS Sweetheart's death (who wouldn't be?) but other relationships all ended because of problems that were known prior to the ending and that were reaching a boiling point.

 

Most people aren't masochists.

 

Probably not most, but a lot of people are.

 

It's because losing a loved one simply takes time to get over, no matter how resilient you are. I really don't believe that you can be deeply in love with somebody and then deeply committed to somebody else within a couple of months. It just doesn't fit at all with my understanding of people. It would be speedier and more convenient that way, but emotions are messy. People vary in how long they take, sure, but the type of behavior you're describing is very extreme and seems off to me.

 

I think my main point that you riffed off of earlier -- I have several -- was that people aren't generally deeply in love by the time they break up. If they are, that's unhealthy in many cases, because clearly the other person doesn't feel the same. I've not experienced that type of breakup (me super in love and someone else just not into it), and I don't think I've been on the other side of anything that extreme either. Most of my breakups arose out of circumstances or issues that were what they were and that were emerging over time.

 

The outlier is the death---that was sudden and out of nowhere, and it wasn't like a breakup at all because it took him off this planet. That took awhile.

 

So, I understand how someone who is totally blindsided can take awhile. At the same time, like you are skeptical about many things, unless we're talking death. . . I'm skeptical of how you could be totally blindsided by a breakup if you're truly a good partner who sees things as they really are and not how you wish they were.

 

I had to laugh because of how robotic this sounds: "My goal is fulfillment in a marriage-like relaitonship with a man who suits me."

 

It sounds spiritual to me, not robotic. It's a spiritual belief I have. Don't wish for the menu (the guy), wish for the meal (the fulfillment from the relationship with the guy)----it's rooted in zen and Taoist philosophy.

 

In all seriousness, I think it should be both about finding the right relationship AND the right man.

 

That's what I said. But if the guy didn't work out, he wasn't the right man.

[FitChick]

ZenGirl and Torn Curtain: I don't see the point in trying to prove that the other person is wrong and you are right. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for another person. Wishing it were so won't change it.

 

There have been couples who dated a year, got engaged for a year, married and had two children five years later, etc. All the "right" moves yet they still divorced. There are couples who met online in LDRs, only saw each other for a total of maybe two months over the space of a year and got married, with many leaving their countries. Years later they are happily married. There are no guarantees in life.

Edited August 15, 2011 by FitChick

[irc333]

Yeah, I think there is a SLEW of people, once their relationship is on the rocks or they've gotten into a big fight with a sig other.....they go online to meet others....it's a great "outlet" to make that person feel better.

 

I had a feeling that some women that dated me did this.....one mentioned how she had a boyfriend that was constantly verbally abusive to her and I think also physically, and that she finally broke up with him after the 20th time.

She used to email me photos of herself in her lingerie, too.

 

We got together for a couple of dates, got intimate and then she disappeared or was non-responsive to calls.

 

Who is to know if she got back together with her ex. Usually someone has something to hide if they disappear and give not even a, "I don't think we'd make a good match" excuse. Plain nada.

 

Online dating sites can prove to helpful to those who prefer to be elusive about someone else they're already with.

 

I knew of one guy that dated around 3 different women located in different geographical areas of where he lived. One lives like an hour north of him, another an hour south, another in another direction.

 

It was a way for him to date without them knowing about each other.

 

 

There are also women who, at the first sign of trouble in their relationship, start perusing OKC for potential dates.

 

OLD serves multiple purposes (some good, some bad), but the legitimate purpose hopefully won't get permanently overshadowed by the catalog shoppers and/or the insta-rebounders. Really, at the end of the day, it's no different than any other method for finding a guy...it's just a much bigger initial net.

[zengirl]

ZenGirl and Torn Curtain: I don't see the point in trying to prove that the other person is wrong and you are right. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for another person. Wishing it were so won't change it.

 

There have been couples who dated a year, got engaged for a year, married and had two children five years later, etc. All the "right" moves yet they still divorced. There are couples who met online in LDRs, only saw each other for a total of maybe two months over the space of a year and got married, with many leaving their countries. Years later they are happily married. There are no guarantees in life.

 

I'm not saying my way is right. I am simply saying there's nothing wrong with it, and it makes me happy. I think, as long as you're good to others, and you do what makes you happy, any way can be right.

 

And I agree that there are no guarantees.

[torn_curtain]

Sure, it's natural for everyone to feel pain. But you're saying they should wait many months or longer, and to me, taking a very long time of it, if it's something as simple as a breakup where you actually understood what the problems were. . . it seems like you're not accepting what happened. You're not accepting that it needed to end. When you accept that it needed to end, there's still pain at first, but it lasts much less.

 

 

Nah, I think people should wait as long as they need. They shouldn't wait for some arbitrary amount of time that they think is healthy. They should start dating again when they feel pretty much over the breakup. But if somebody feels ready after a few weeks or so I don't think they were really in love, at least not deeply.

 

I'm skeptical of how you could be totally blindsided by a breakup if you're truly a good partner who sees things as they really are and not how you wish they were.

 

Right, and that's my point -- it's rare to be blindsided because if the bond is weak for one partner it's usually for the other as well. It doesn't sound to me like you and your ex were that deeply in love, hence why his detachment didn't shock you or take long to get over because the bond wasn't that deep.

 

It sounds spiritual to me, not robotic. It's a spiritual belief I have. Don't wish for the menu (the guy), wish for the meal (the fulfillment from the relationship with the guy)----it's rooted in zen and Taoist philosophy.

 

That's what I said. But if the guy didn't work out, he wasn't the right man.

 

Have you ever taken the Myers Briggs? I'd be curious to know how you score. I'm guessing ENTJ?

 

I usually score INFP. My guy is INFJ.

[rightfield]

I'm sure you can't relate to it, but I question the reason. I don't see how it's cold and clinical to think my past loves were meaningful learning experiences and gifts that helped me find my path.

 

I will say my post is, of course, analytical, but we were analyzing. It's not like I sat around analyzing my falling out of love when it happened. That's just what I know in retrospect. At the time, it was, of course, painful. But I appreciate the pain as well. Pain is just needed growth. I just don't care to indulge and dwell on it in some twisted quest to prove I was in love.

 

I loved him. We didn't work. It ended. I was sad for a little while, but as soon as I could accept it, I started back towards my goal. My goal is not a particular man, so my broken relationship was not a failure towards my goal----my goal is fulfillment in a marriage-like relationship with a man who suits me. And I get closer each time because I love, I learn, and I accept.

 

If you're upset about lost love ages later, the pain mostly comes from not accepting it is lost. Acceptance cures pain. Now, granted, with my grief over my HS Sweetheart, it took me a long time to accept it, but it's harder to accept that someone dies suddenly, that young, than simply that someone isn't compatible for you in terms of what you need forever and was only for a season.

 

Your posts are very analytical, and since I'm an anlytical kinda guy, I find them fascinating. I get it. Thanks for all of the detail, I'm learning some things reading your stuff.

[zengirl]

Nah, I think people should wait as long as they need. They shouldn't wait for some arbitrary amount of time that they think is healthy. They should start dating again when they feel pretty much over the breakup. But if somebody feels ready after a few weeks or so I don't think they were really in love, at least not deeply.

 

Right, they weren't in love deeply AT THAT POINT. What I'm saying is you can be in love deeply and start coming out of love even while in the relationship. Totally happens.

 

Right, and that's my point -- it's rare to be blindsided because if the bond is weak for one partner it's usually for the other as well. It doesn't sound to me like you and your ex were that deeply in love, hence why his detachment didn't shock you or take long to get over because the bond wasn't that deep.

 

This is untrue. Our bond was pretty deep, and we are likely still bonded in some ways---bonds often outlast relationships. Being "bonded" to someone, for me, doesn't mean the relationship is healthy or good or worth continuing. His breakup comment was said out of dissonance and frustration at our incompatibilities---it was said in the heat of a fight, not something he showed up with, having mulled over and decided he wasn't attached to me. (This is all from what I know to be true at least, which, if imperfect, is certainly more than what you know of our relationship.) In fact, after thinking on it, he decided he WAS too attached to me to break up with me. But the breakup comment was more sound, really, because our incompatibilities weren't going to go away.

 

In short: Love was not our problem. But once I realized we had a problem, it was hard not to fall out of love with him. Not all people are like that, and I wasn't always. I just think that if there is major dysfunction, then why continue nurturing love. And love is a verb---you have to keep choosing to DO it.

 

But that's my view on love. I don't mind you discussing my breakup, really, but I do dislike having my life mischaracterized. You don't get to decide which loves in my life were deep or not, nor does anyone else, but me and the other lover involved. If you ask either of us, we were deeply in love at one point. Just not after all the fighting of those three hellish weeks where we started realizing all our smaller incompatibilities came to something larger. That realization sucks, but I've always been more a rip the bandaid off type gal than a peel it off slowly.

 

Have you ever taken the Myers Briggs? I'd be curious to know how you score. I'm guessing ENTJ?

 

I usually score INFP. My guy is INFJ.

 

I have several times, and I'm probably borderline on everything but the E. I've gotten every single other potential score. The E is the only thing consistent. And I'd agree with that. My styles are very flexible and my personality reasonably dynamic (the middle path is all about balancing opposites), except for the extroversion.

 

I don't find that test particularly telling. There's another personality test I took in a job interview (Caliper) that I found really revealing, but it's pricey.

[Star Gazer]

You don't get to decide which loves in my life were deep or not, nor does anyone else, but me and the other lover involved.

 

I agree.

 

T_C, it's really unfair for you to attempt to tell ZG that she wasn't in love. Plus, you might want to consider that after what she's been through (having her fiance die 3 weeks before the wedding), other relationships that end on her terms with the two people still alive, it makes a lot of sense that it would be a lot easier for her to get over short-term (6 months or less) relationships.

 

I think you also ought to be careful, as if your current relationship ends - one in which you declare yourself to be soooo in love - you'll be a staunch hypocrite if you end up dating within a few months after the breakup.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I don't believe it actually is a paradox. Online dating is for dating. Dating means ... not much more than dating. If somebody is in the mood to go through a lot of people for any reason, online dating might facilitate that, but back in the 70's I guess they got the same results from "singles bars."

 

 

There have been couples who dated a year, got engaged for a year, married and had two children five years later, etc. All the "right" moves yet they still divorced.

 

Yes. And the horrendous divorce statistics we are regaled with today are not at all greatly impacted by online dating, yet.

 

 

One problem I have with online dating is you often end up selecting for the wrong traits and possibly skipping over people who might be better matches

 

I assure you that it's just as easy, and likely, for many of us to select for the "wrong traits" if we meet in person, as well.

 

Actually, I really do agree that many people approach online dating in a way that almost sets them up for failure, and it does provide a lot of opportunity (for failure, often) to folks who otherwise would not have it ... because it is good for socially awkward, shy, or whatever people who are not good at approaching others in real life.

 

Bottom line is, relationships have been failing at an alarming rate for decades now. OLD is just another way to launch more relationships that are destined for failure. And it can be a way for people to meet who can have a lasting relationship, as well.

[torn_curtain]

 

Actually, I really do agree that many people approach online dating in a way that almost sets them up for failure, and it does provide a lot of opportunity (for failure, often) to folks who otherwise would not have it ... because it is good for socially awkward, shy, or whatever people who are not good at approaching others in real life.

 

Bottom line is, relationships have been failing at an alarming rate for decades now. OLD is just another way to launch more relationships that are destined for failure. And it can be a way for people to meet who can have a lasting relationship, as well.

 

But I don't think it's just a matter of the meeting spot changing from bars to the internet; I think the popularity of online dating is symptomatic of a cultural shift in which people are actually approaching relationships in a different way than they were in the past. This is on average of course.

[zengirl]

I agree.

 

T_C, it's really unfair for you to attempt to tell ZG that she wasn't in love. Plus, you might want to consider that after what she's been through (having her fiance die 3 weeks before the wedding), other relationships that end on her terms with the two people still alive, it makes a lot of sense that it would be a lot easier for her to get over short-term (6 months or less) relationships.

 

I think you also ought to be careful, as if your current relationship ends - one in which you declare yourself to be soooo in love - you'll be a staunch hypocrite if you end up dating within a few months after the breakup.

 

(Slight amendment (you know my obsession with the facts): Technically, if you're talking about the relationship mentioned in this thread, it was a little over 9 months long. 8 months of it good. Not that it matters to your point, but FTR.)

 

And yes, relationships that end with closure, and both people alive, just don't seem that bad to me. Saddening? Sure. But I don't need to re-write it or indulge in ages of pain over it. I can easily accept that things end. All but one relationship in my life will end, and even that one will end in death---whether it's mine or his. Life is about accepting impermanence.

 

Bottom line is, relationships have been failing at an alarming rate for decades now. OLD is just another way to launch more relationships that are destined for failure. And it can be a way for people to meet who can have a lasting relationship, as well.

 

Yeah, I'd say this. Plenty of relationships formed all kinds of ways fail and plenty succeed, and different people approach OLD differently from others because different people approach dating in general differently from others.

Edited August 15, 2011 by zengirl

[sm1tten]

One thing I've also noticed is that online dating makes people really effing lazy. "I spent all this time making a profile, doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about me?" Well, no. Coupled with "I spent time writing to you, don't I deserve a date?" Still, no.

[Casablanca]

One thing I've also noticed is that online dating makes people really effing lazy. "I spent all this time making a profile, doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about me?" Well, no. Coupled with "I spent time writing to you, don't I deserve a date?" Still, no.

It can make people more "picky", but it also helps sift out those I wouldnt call a second time if I got their number at a party or bar where I really didnt get a chance to know them (so unlike a coworker, a friend, someone I volunteer with, etc).

 

I get a girl's number, she could be perfect, but if she has a kid, I'd let her know that I'm not interested in dating anyone with kid at this point in my life and be done with it...I see this person online, I never even message them because of it. It really just all depends on how you approach it and I'd say there are people of both genders that approach online dating in a good way and in a bad way

[Zaphod B]

Online dating really is nothing more than a man catalog for women.

 

The only men that get anywhere online are the most desired one. Regular dudes shouldn't even bother.

 

I consider myself a "regular dude" and have lots of success with online dating.

[Zaphod B]

I think one reason it seems mechanical and fast is because it’s simply a sped up version of the old traditional methods. You go through so many people so fast, whereas before it probably took you a lot longer. I think it’s great, because it can get you to the right person a lot sooner.

 

Having said that though, ptp does raise a good point about the fact that because of the huge amount of choice it’s very easy to cast aside someone that doesn’t blow your mind straight away. That’s probably a negative about the whole thing.

[zengirl]

One thing I've also noticed is that online dating makes people really effing lazy. "I spent all this time making a profile, doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about me?" Well, no. Coupled with "I spent time writing to you, don't I deserve a date?" Still, no.

 

Well, that is silly, and I do find it kind of amusing (and annoying) when people do that. And half the time people who say stuff like that have less detailed profiles than I do!

 

Another pet peeve of mine are people who do OLD and either write in their profiles or say to me later, "I'm bad at talking about myself."

 

First of all: No, you're bad at writing. If you're bad at anything, you're bad at writing. I promise you that you've been talking about yourself since you were 3 and that you spend an inordinate amount of time (like every other human being) each day talking about yourself. You just don't like putting it in writing and seeing it look so. . . different from what you think it is.

 

Second of all: Even if you write something great now, you're pre-disposing people to think it's bad.

 

Third of all: Stop trying to get a handicap. This isn't golf. You'll do how you do, and it's annoying when you make excuses for yourself.

 

But that's obviously a pet peeve of mine. And I like OLD for this reason, too, because it can show me who is comfortable writing. Being comfortable writing about yourself and putting it out there is extremely compelling to me.

 

I think one reason it seems mechanical and fast is because it’s simply a sped up version of the old traditional methods. You go through so many people so fast, whereas before it probably took you a lot longer. I think it’s great, because it can get you to the right person a lot sooner.

 

I'd agree with this. I think it helps you find people you wouldn't otherwise find, but the early dating stages are a little more advanced. But I don't find this ONLY to be true of dating sites. Nowadays FB interaction speeds up the early stages of dating as well, so anyone you friend who can see a general overview of your life (and you theirs) is going to have similar speediness. All it does is add more information sooner.

[FitChick]

I like OLD for this reason, too, because it can show me who is comfortable writing. Being comfortable writing about yourself and putting it out there is extremely compelling to me.

 

Level of education and ability to communicate are very important to me and that is generally reflected in writing. Of course, you shouldn't confuse bad typing with bad writing. Some people don't like to type while I prefer it because I can edit myself. Eventually you have to talk so it's not really a big problem.

[torn_curtain]

Well, that is silly, and I do find it kind of amusing (and annoying) when people do that. And half the time people who say stuff like that have less detailed profiles than I do!

 

Another pet peeve of mine are people who do OLD and either write in their profiles or say to me later, "I'm bad at talking about myself."

 

First of all: No, you're bad at writing. If you're bad at anything, you're bad at writing. I promise you that you've been talking about yourself since you were 3 and that you spend an inordinate amount of time (like every other human being) each day talking about yourself. You just don't like putting it in writing and seeing it look so. . . different from what you think it is.

 

Second of all: Even if you write something great now, you're pre-disposing people to think it's bad.

 

Third of all: Stop trying to get a handicap. This isn't golf. You'll do how you do, and it's annoying when you make excuses for yourself.

 

But that's obviously a pet peeve of mine. And I like OLD for this reason, too, because it can show me who is comfortable writing. Being comfortable writing about yourself and putting it out there is extremely compelling to me.

 

I'd agree with this. I think it helps you find people you wouldn't otherwise find, but the early dating stages are a little more advanced. But I don't find this ONLY to be true of dating sites. Nowadays FB interaction speeds up the early stages of dating as well, so anyone you friend who can see a general overview of your life (and you theirs) is going to have similar speediness. All it does is add more information sooner.

 

The bottom line for me is that when I imagine the type of guy I want to be with and ask myself would he sign up for OKCupid, the answer is immediately no. He's the kind of guy who would distrust online dating and see the whole principle behind it as mechanical and creepy. He would also be a free thinker who didn't fall in easily with trends. He would also be private. He would find summing himself up in a short blurb silly and distasteful, and not because he was incapable of describing himself or a bad writer. He also wouldn't be desperate to find a girlfriend and most definitely not prowling for sex online. He would have plenty of options in real life, and while he might want to find a SO eventually he would be quite comfortable being single for long periods.

 

The only way I can imagine my kind of guy signing up for a site like OKCupid was if it became so much the norm that EVERYONE had a profile up, and it would seem totally antiquated and actually interfere with his life not to (like resisting using a cell phone). Or maybe if all his friends were doing it and kept pushing him he might put up a profile for like a few weeks but then take it down once he realized it wasn't for him. I would especially be wary of a guy who put a lot of time into polishing his profile.

 

When I think of all the desirable guys I know -- and by desirable I mean smart, successful, kind, confident, good looking -- none of them have an OKC profile or ever would. I think this explains why I had so much trouble finding anyone who looked enticing when I was on the site.

 

I guess I know some tech-y guys who are very introverted and spend all their time on their computers who signed up for the site. But I'm not attracted to absent-minded professor types.

Edited August 16, 2011 by torn_curtain

[Casablanca]

I'd agree with this. I think it helps you find people you wouldn't otherwise find, but the early dating stages are a little more advanced. But I don't find this ONLY to be true of dating sites. Nowadays FB interaction speeds up the early stages of dating as well, so anyone you friend who can see a general overview of your life (and you theirs) is going to have similar speediness. All it does is add more information sooner.

I think it depends on the person...I try to get a phone number after 3 or 4 messages from me and then start the normal process....meet up...talk a few times a week on the phone, go out on a couple dates and go there....I really only use OLD to meet people I normally wouldnt who I feel would be a good match with me and who I'm interested in dating in the old school way.

[zengirl]

The bottom line for me is that when I imagine the type of guy I want to be with and ask myself would he sign up for OKCupid, the answer is immediately no. He's the kind of guy who would distrust online dating and see the whole principle behind it as mechanical and creepy. He would also be a free thinker who didn't fall in easily with trends. He would also be private. He would find summing himself up in a short blurb silly and distasteful, and not because he was incapable of describing himself or a bad writer. He also wouldn't be desperate to find a girlfriend and most definitely not prowling for sex online. He would have plenty of options in real life, and while he might want to find a SO eventually he would be quite comfortable being single for long periods.

 

The only way I can imagine my kind of guy signing up for a site like OKCupid was if it became so much the norm that EVERYONE had a profile up, and it would seem totally antiquated and actually interfere with his life not to (like resisting using a cell phone). Or maybe if all his friends were doing it and kept pushing him he might put up a profile for like a few weeks but then take it down once he realized it wasn't for him. I would especially be wary of a guy who put a lot of time into polishing his profile.

 

When I think of all the desirable guys I know -- and by desirable I mean smart, successful, kind, confident, good looking -- none of them have an OKC profile or ever would. I think this explains why I had so much trouble finding anyone who looked enticing when I was on the site.

 

I guess I know some tech-y guys who are very introverted and spend all their time on their computers who signed up for the site. But I'm not attracted to absent-minded professor types.

 

What you described above and what you describe in bolded totally don't mesh to me. What you describe above (cynical/not interested in finding people/skeptical/can't summarize himself)---I totally agree THAT guy is not on OKC, certainly not for long, as it wouldn't work for him! But it has nothing to do with how he looks or how smart he is. Loads of smart, successful, kind, confident, good-looking men are on dating sites, and I know tons of them that are. I'm sure I could find some in any major metro area.

 

I'm not sure why you feel the need to describe away why a site didn't work for you with "Well, there were no good guys on there anyway." Those grapes are sour.

[torn_curtain]

What you described above and what you describe in bolded totally don't mesh to me. What you describe above (cynical/not interested in finding people/skeptical/can't summarize himself)---I totally agree THAT guy is not on OKC, certainly not for long, as it wouldn't work for him!

 

No, that's just your spin. You're putting words in my mouth I didn't use. The type of guy I'm thinking of isn't cynical or uninterested in meeting people. He is skeptical of things like online dating, but I think a degree of skepticism is healthy. I certainly wouldn't want to date someone who was blindly optimistic, fell in with whatever his friends were doing or just wasn't alert.

 

But it has nothing to do with how he looks or how smart he is. Loads of smart, successful, kind, confident, good-looking men are on dating sites, and I know tons of them that are. I'm sure I could find some in any major metro area.

 

This hasn't been at all my experience, not where I live.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to describe away why a site didn't work for you with "Well, there were no good guys on there anyway." Those grapes are sour.

 

I don't have sour grapes since my expectations weren't high to begin with. I find the topic interesting because I'm interested in cultural trends and I think online dating reflects a disturbing shift in our culture.

Edited August 16, 2011 by torn_curtain