kolleamm Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Exactly, instead of being honest that they simply didn't like the look of the guy they spin it round on him and try and make him ashamed of his behaviour by calling him a word that has connotations with being a social pariah. Usually from something that was quite innocuous. Nice. That being said, everything is considered creepy these days though, it's got kinda ridiculous and seems to suggest more about the person saying it than the recipient. I think in general there is a lack of accountability about female nature. Men are flawed and we are aware of that, but whenever anything paints female nature in a bad light there is so much effort to either justify or deflect. For me it's like "wow, women tolerate douchebaggery from hot guys- who woulda thunk it!" - its yesterday's news. What bugs me is how women try and deny it. If I had £1 for every time I have seen girls tell guys not to use a 'douchebag' pic of their abs for a profile pic...then OKC reveals that the highest first response percentage went to the guys with their abs out! But I'm sure it was actually the well written opening message that won them over *rolls eyes*. And as another poster said, you then get the flip side where guys are told the reason they got no replies was because they didn't do something right in their message...the only thing they didn't do right was not having a six pack. In fact the 6 pack is almost like the 'Philosopher's Stone' of OLD, turning crap messages into gold since time immemorial. Definitely, I agree with all of this. Since practically the beginning of time women have all wanted a tall strong guy to defend them from the dangers of the world, such as lions etc. Protection back then was a must, and quite simply having a nice guy didn't cut it, and thus the trend carried on to the present day. It's really quite obvious to me that the whole creative/meaningful message excuse is quite simply to keep guys going in circles. It's used to soften the blow of "sorry I'm not interested". Now I'm sure many women on here will be ready to defend that personality really does matter and it does, but without looks it means jack squat. Link to post Share on other sites
jay1983 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Skip to page 28 to see the same thing done using an ugly guy. It's crazy. Link to post Share on other sites
Priv Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Definitely, I agree with all of this. Since practically the beginning of time women have all wanted a tall strong guy to defend them from the dangers of the world, such as lions etc. Protection back then was a must, and quite simply having a nice guy didn't cut it, and thus the trend carried on to the present day. It's really quite obvious to me that the whole creative/meaningful message excuse is quite simply to keep guys going in circles. It's used to soften the blow of "sorry I'm not interested". Now I'm sure many women on here will be ready to defend that personality really does matter and it does, but without looks it means jack squat. And us men are looking for a perfect waist to hip ratio. Also 'unfair' to those women who don't have that. What is wrong with needing physical attraction? Link to post Share on other sites
jay1983 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 And us men are looking for a perfect waist to hip ratio. Also 'unfair' to those women who don't have that. What is wrong with needing physical attraction? 1. Most of us men would date an average girl if she took care of her self. Thus we also message them to no avail. 2. The dishonesty of what women are attracted to and why they don't respond to messages. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
kolleamm Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 And us men are looking for a perfect waist to hip ratio. Also 'unfair' to those women who don't have that. What is wrong with needing physical attraction? Nothing, I'm just trying to prove that personality means nothing without it since so many women on here give it more credit than it should have. Link to post Share on other sites
Priv Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 1. Most of us men would date an average girl if she took care of her self. Thus we also message them to no avail. 2. The dishonesty of what women are attracted to and why they don't respond to messages. Don't know about the whole not replying to messages thing (but do you really want to know you look unattractive to her? I guess it is the kind thing to do to not say that, but I am not yet corrupted by OLD ) but I do not date women I find average. In my eyes all my exes were gorgeous women at the time. Link to post Share on other sites
Priv Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Nothing, I'm just trying to prove that personality means nothing without it since so many women on here give it more credit than it should have. Can't find fault in that statement. Anyone saying it does not matter I would take with a grain of salt. Ummm... scratch that, a bottle of salt. Link to post Share on other sites
Eivuwan Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 I think we keep forgetting that people who hang out on loveshack are likely not representative of the overall population for various reasons. I think the people who did have success with OLD are not here complaining about it. I think we should be careful about generalizing the experience of a few people or several people to what happens on OLD in general. I've had a decent amount of success with OLD and found someone through eharmony that I really clicked with. The relationship didn't work out in the end, but at least I got one and I'm confident that I will get another one in the future when I feel ready to date again. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
jay1983 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (but do you really want to know you look unattractive to her? I guess it is the kind thing to do to not say that, but I am not yet corrupted by OLD ) It's not about me. It's about them only only being attracted to male models. This is good to know for all the guys who's self esteem has been destroyed by OLD and think they're ugly. When in reality, it's not them and girls today have very unrealistic expectation. I do not date women I find average. In my eyes all my exes were gorgeous women at the time. To each his own, I find average attractive. All they need are decent looks and a personality. 50/50 1 Link to post Share on other sites
jay1983 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 I think we keep forgetting that people who hang out on loveshack are likely not representative of the overall population for various reasons. I think the people who did have success with OLD are not here complaining about it. I think we should be careful about generalizing the experience of a few people or several people to what happens on OLD in general. I've had a decent amount of success with OLD and found someone through eharmony that I really clicked with. The relationship didn't work out in the end, but at least I got one and I'm confident that I will get another one in the future when I feel ready to date again. I know more people on LS who've had success with OLD than I do in RL. Seriously, only 1 couple I know met online. Link to post Share on other sites
Priv Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 It's not about me. It's about them only only being attracted to male models. This is good to know for all the guys who's self esteem has been destroyed by OLD and think they're ugly. When in reality, it's not them and girls today have very unrealistic expectation. To each his own, I find average attractive. All they need are decent looks and a personality. 50/50 With that I meant that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You might not even give some of the women I have dated a second look. I found them incredibly attractive (and I am speaking first impression only, I never found a woman more attractive after getting to know them, which is a phenomena often talked about but I don't experience). But someone I consider average looking I would not date, that would just be settling. I guess the same goes for women too. Link to post Share on other sites
jay1983 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 With that I meant that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You might not even give some of the women I have dated a second look. I found them incredibly attractive (and I am speaking first impression only, I never found a woman more attractive after getting to know them, which is a phenomena often talked about but I don't experience). But someone I consider average looking I would not date, that would just be settling. I guess the same goes for women too. My bad, I gotcha. Link to post Share on other sites
the tank Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Skip to page 28 to see the same thing done using an ugly guy. It's crazy. Yeap it's crazy. And these girls will be all over the hot guy. This thread speak the truth. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
azureorb Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I know more people on LS who've had success with OLD than I do in RL. Seriously, only 1 couple I know met online. I don't look at online dating as that bad. I think people look down on it because it's too easy. I'm 5'7" -- only 5'7", and in my mid-30s, and I too do better IRL. And I don't have the BEST pictures -- although, they're not Bad. I get a genuine, initiated by the girl "you look better in person" 30% of the time, "you look better in person" when I ask if I look like my pics 30% of the time, and the other 40% of the time, it's usually "yeah". So with that said, I COULD have something better. And I live in a pretty white city -- and I look a little ethnic in my look (I'm half Italian). SO what gives? Am I a super star online? NO. Not at all. But I have my successes... You don't say "what's up" to girls and expect responses. Better for Tinder, but for dating sites -- not good unless you're out of their league and/or a HOT guy (which I'm not). You point something out in their profile, you think they seem cool so you thought you'd right -- and ask a question. It's harder on Free sites. But you just have to hit a ton of them. Takes time. But you'll get some responses. You need to separate yourself from just-another-message. Sure, you'll bat .100 for responses if you have some taste, and bat .050 for some conversation... and bat .025 -- to meet up and kick things off. OK. So that's 1 in 40 to get dateS with -- for girls who are cute at least (and include hot ones too). IRL, it'll be more like 1 in 10-20 -- depending on your read if they're single, there's a vibe, etc. Go to a pay site like Match? Your odds are somewhere in-between if you play your cards right. But again, this does depend on the girl compared to you. If you're a 6/10 IRL, your odds will be much lower if you're hitting 7+ only. Problem with online is that it's a MUCH steeper climb to go for girls a notch above you. But it can be done. Link to post Share on other sites
irc333 Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 You'd be surprised when I Googled "Online Dating Site Reviews" I would see tons of men complaining about men not responding to them. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts