General online and other dating discussion

[normal person]

<Link to 2019 discussion>

 

Moderation note - Due to topic drift from a more personal dating issue, noted in attributed quotes referencing that discussion, into general dating discussion, moderation copied postings to a thread specifically designed to encourage such general discussion. Our old consolidated thread was stale so we'll start fresh here. This post happens to be the start point but is not indicative of this member starting this thread. Moderation did.

If you're not posting about a personal dating situation, rather making general comments about dating, this is your thread.

 

If you're posting about a personal dating issue and are seeking advice specifically about your issue, feel free to start a thread right here in our Dating Forum. Thanks!

 

 

People are starting from scratch night after night when all they really need is to slow down and take the time to get to know someone. Some people don't seem to accept the idea at all that attraction can build slowly. Some people don't seem to think it's dating unless people are treating eachother like disposable napkins.

 

Just because it can doesn't mean it will. People would rather trust their gut and move on. I can tell in less than 20 minutes if I want to see someone again or not. If I'm attracted to them and interested, I proceed. If I'm not, I don't see them again. My time is valuable. I have high standards. I'm not going to let people keep auditioning when they're not right for the part, I only have so much time to cast the role, and a hundred people waiting to be seen.

 

People know what they like and what they don't like. Let's say you try spicy food and you don't like the taste at all. Why would you take another bite? Maybe if you're just indifferent to the taste, you might take another. But if you can easily order a food you do like instead, there's no reason not to.

 

There is nothing efficient or practical about the fast food dating culture that exists today. It is turning folks into serial daters and leaving more people single and frustrated than ever before. It is not leading to more fulfilling or stable relationships, and the statistics only support this.

 

You have no evidence. Just because you're single and frustrated doesn't mean everyone is. People have access to people they didn't have before. People are being more selective. It's not up to you to determine if being selective is good or bad for an individual. If that's how they want to proceed, that's their choice. They can reap the rewards or lack thereof on their own terms without your judgment.

By the way, here's the link saying a third of new marriages now start online. For the third time: Study: More than a third of new marriages start online

 

Lol, evolution applies to dating in no way shape or form. If only the wealthiest the most beautiful, or the most intellegent people only were allowed produce offspring, there would not be 7 billion people walking the earth. And they would be a lot sexier, wealthier and smarter. And dating would not be the mess that it is. The dating culture we have today rewards none of our good qualities. It is bringing out the worst in people and I'm not the only one who's said so in this thread.

 

That's a dramatic oversimplification and your view of "good" qualities is entirely subjective within this context. People want to mate with the most powerful, athletic, good looking, affluent, healthy people they can find. Go ahead and argue that. Do you think Melania Trump is with Donald because he's so "good" and not for his power and billions of dollars? Do you think Tom Brady and Giselle Bundchen just got together coincidentally? How do you think they're together?

 

The number one priority of life on Earth is to stay alive. The second is to reproduce and make sure your offspring stay alive. Someone who's rich, strong, and powerful has a much better chance of survival than someone who's poor and weak. That's why people are attracted to money and power. It makes survival easier. Being "good" has nothing to do with any of that, that's why so called "good" guys like yourself end up so frequently befuddled as to why women don't like them for their "good" qualities. They're secondary when it comes to dating.

 

Pace is completely relevant. You cannot get to know someone with this superficial WARPspeed pattern that exists in dating. You cannot judge someone based on five seconds of dating, or a profile photo and brief bio. Getting to know someone requires far more time than modern attention spans these days can handle.

 

By that logic, you "should" go out with every single person with a profile on OKCupid because you can't get to know someone well enough through a profile picture or description. No **** you can't get to know someone that quick. Most people don't want to know most other people at all. And guess what? They have enough options that they don't have to and they're willing to take the risk of not meeting someone they have no attraction to. They only want to know the people who they find interesting and attractive. Whether or not they decide you're interesting or attractive to even click on your profile in the first place, or meet you in person, or meet you a second time doesn't matter. What people "should" do or the pace they "should" move at or the concessions they "should" make people are totally dubious because they have their own criteria and circumstances that govern their own lives. They don't live by your standards or expectations. There is no law that says you "should" give everyone a fair chance because life is so fair any everyone deserves your time and consideration. Maybe we should let everyone play in the NFL without a tryout or combine to make sure they fit the most basic requirements to perform at the level expected of them? Because life "should" be fair, right? Because we can't make judgments or assumptions on people to save time without actual confirmation that they're inadequate, right? Utter nonsense. You live in a fantasy world.

 

Why don't you go out with every woman who messages you? You "should," by tier logic. You don't have enough chance to know them otherwise and they owe you their time, right?

 

Your problem is that you can't respect peoples' ability to make up their own minds. You assume you know what's better for them and their circumstances than they do.

Edited September 9, 2019 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Clean up icons and clarify topical content; add link

[oberkeat]

You have no evidence. Just because you're single and frustrated doesn't mean everyone is. People have access to people they didn't have before. People are being more selective. It's not up to you to determine if being selective is good or bad for an individual. If that's how they want to proceed, that's their choice. They can reap the rewards or lack thereof on their own terms without your judgment.

By the way, here's the link saying a third of new marriages now start online. For the third time: Study: More than a third of new marriages start online

 

Actually, I do and the trends are disturbing. You may call it being more selective but the result is that stable successful romantic relationships are in decline in this country. That is because we have a dysfunctional dating culture that is making it harder and harder for people to form real romantic relationships:

 

Unmarried and single Americans now make up 27 percent of all households, up from 17 percent in 1970.

 

Single? You're not alone - CNN.com

 

The percentage of unmarried and single Americans actually outnumbers the number of married Americans.

http://nypost.com/2014/09/09/single-adults-now-outnumber-married-adults/

 

The birth rate in this country has hit historic lows:

 

Baby bust! Millennials' birth rate drop may signal historic shift

 

Fact Sheet: The Decline in U.S. Fertility

 

And according to my sources, online dating isn't helping:

5% of Americans who are currently married or in a long-term partnership met their partner somewhere online. Among those who have been together for ten years or less, 11% met online.

 

 

Online Dating & Relationships | Pew Research Center

 

 

That's a dramatic oversimplification and your view of "good" qualities is entirely subjective within this context. People want to mate with the most powerful, athletic, good looking, affluent, healthy people they can find. Go ahead and argue that. Do you think Melania Trump is with Donald because he's so "good" and not for his power and billions of dollars? Do you think Tom Brady and Giselle Bundchen just got together coincidentally? How do you think they're together?

 

The number one priority of life on Earth is to stay alive. The second is to reproduce and make sure your offspring stay alive. Someone who's rich, strong, and powerful has a much better chance of survival than someone who's poor and weak. That's why people are attracted to money and power. It makes survival easier. Being "good" has nothing to do with any of that, that's why so called "good" guys like yourself end up so frequently befuddled as to why women don't like them for their "good" qualities. They're secondary when it comes to dating.

 

Being rich strong and powerful has nothing to do with finding a relationship in this day and age, and you know it. There are millions of examples of overweight or poor people getting married for every one celebrity you could name.

 

 

By that logic, you "should" go out with every single person with a profile on OKCupid because you can't get to know someone well enough through a profile picture or description. No **** you can't get to know someone that quick. Most people don't want to know most other people at all. And guess what? They have enough options that they don't have to and they're willing to take the risk of not meeting someone they have no attraction to. They only want to know the people who they find interesting and attractive. Whether or not they decide you're interesting or attractive to even click on your profile in the first place, or meet you in person, or meet you a second time doesn't matter. What people "should" do or the pace they "should" move at or the concessions they "should" make people are totally dubious because they have their own criteria and circumstances that govern their own lives. They don't live by your standards or expectations. There is no law that says you "should" give everyone a fair chance because life is so fair any everyone deserves your time and consideration. Maybe we should let everyone play in the NFL without a tryout or combine to make sure they fit the most basic requirements to perform at the level expected of them? Because life "should" be fair, right? Because we can't make judgments or assumptions on people to save time without actual confirmation that they're inadequate, right? Utter nonsense. You live in a fantasy world.

 

Why don't you go out with every woman who messages you? You "should," by tier logic. You don't have enough chance to know them otherwise and they owe you their time, right?

 

Your problem is that you can't respect peoples' ability to make up their own minds. You assume you know what's better for them and their circumstances than they do.

 

People can decide for themselves, but I'm saying that the way we are doing things in this dysfunctional dating environment is not making us happier, and not equalling more healthy stable and fulfilling relationships, contrary to what you seem to believe. And if we want to reverse that trend a lot of gals will have to seriously reconsider the way they are going about dating, i.e. this superficial speed dating culture we have.

[Imajerk17]

If I can convince some women reading this thread to give the next guy they date a second look instead of being too hasty and taking the convenient way out and giving into the instant gratification impulse, I think they would be surprised by the quality of relationships they find themselves in. If I can convince one gal out there that she does not have to settle for the dysfunctional dating standard that has taken over, then what I have been through will have been worth it.

OP, I guarantee you that if this poor woman you went out on that date with were to read this thread, she will only be relieved that she didn't give you a "second look" after all.

 

The responses on this thread of yours are about unanimous. Do you realize how badly you are coming across? That you're this tightly wound here has to translate to real life, and it may be what gave her misgivings not to see you again.

[Toodaloo]

And according to my sources, online dating isn't helping:

 

So why are you bothering with it at all? Why all the fuss?

 

Why not just quit beating your head against a wall and change what you are doing?

[Kamille]

I'm someone who needs more than one date to figure out if I feel it for someone. Insta-sparks very rarely happen to me. So I tend to go on 2-5 dates with men, when I see there could be potential.

 

Even then, there have been instances when I knew on the first date that the date and I weren't compatible. It didn't make them horrible human beings. It just meant I knew before they did that we weren't a match (based on humour; differences in lifestyle; the general interaction).

 

When I started OLD, I read an advice book that pretty much said: Rule #1 of OLD: get comfortable with rejection. (Note: the book was geared towards women). That would be my advice to you: yes OLD, by increasing how many people we get to meet and date in the course of year also increases the amount of rejection we face. No big deal. It happens. I know you say you're quitting dating, but if ever you give it another shot, learn to accept rejection gracefully.

[oberkeat]

OP, I guarantee you that if this poor woman you went out on that date with were to read this thread, she will only be relieved that she didn't give you a "second look" after all.

 

The responses on this thread of yours are about unanimous.

 

I think people don't want to believe the dating scene has gotten as bad as it is. I think they want to think positively no matter how bad the truth is. But it's the unfortunate reality. The statistics I quoted above really show the consequences of the way dating is done today. The declining marriage and birth rate. The escalating singles rate. The dating scene itself has to change if we're going to reverse those trends.

[normal person]

Actually, I do and the trends are disturbing. You may call it being more selective but the result is that stable successful romantic relationships are in decline in this country.

 

"Stable" and "successful" romantic relationships declined steadily from the 1870s. Coincidentally, the only sizable drop offs in that figure were after WWII and every year from 1980 up to today, long before the current environment materialized.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/

 

That is because we have a dysfunctional dating culture that is making it harder and harder for people to form real romantic relationships:

 

Conjecture. Even if that's somewhat true, there are plenty of extraneous factors that affect numbers and the culture that creates the numbers. The economy, shifts in religious attitudes, shifts in cultural attitudes, etc. Divorce was unfathomable to lots of people a few decades ago. Now it's barely stigmatized. You have no evidence to suggest that peoples' relationships in earlier times were more stable and more successful just because they got married and didn't get divorced.

 

And according to my sources, online dating isn't helping:

5% of Americans who are currently married or in a long-term partnership met their partner somewhere online. Among those who have been together for ten years or less, 11% met online.

 

Wait, so you're saying it didn't help the 5% of people of the US (16 million total) or 11% (35 million) who it literally helped? Who entered into long term relationships or marriages when it was the only reason they met? So your argument is "It doesn't work. It's only worked for 35 million relationships that wouldn't have occurred without it?" Keep in mind that those figures don't even represent the whole population because not everyone uses online dating, and they haven't been using it with the same frequency people do today. So if even 15% of people use it seriously, that's a 48 million person sample size you take the success number from, not 322 million. Consider that in conjunction.

 

Being rich strong and powerful has nothing to do with finding a relationship in this day and age, and you know it. There are millions of examples of overweight or poor people getting married for every one celebrity you could name.

 

It has everything to do with selectivity and finding the best relationship available. Everyone is trying to get the best partner they can. I'm not saying fat, poor, people don't get married. The reasons rich, powerful, beautiful people intermarry is because they can. They have the resources to justify being with someone on their level. The reason overweight poor people intermarry is because they have to because they can't do any better. The overweight, uneducated welfare bum isn't married to Giselle Bundchen not because he doesn't like her, it's because he doesn't have a chance in hell with her. Your theory might have some credibility if you showed significant examples or stats of people with resources like wealth, beauty, and power marrying people who were poor, ugly, and weak. But it doesn't happen, that's the point. People generally intermarry with the same socioeconomic status and looks. So if you have more or better resources like money or looks ("more desirable traits"), the more likely you are to end up with someone else with more or better resources. Show me significant examples otherwise and I'll eat my words.

 

People can decide for themselves, but I'm saying that the way we are doing things in this dysfunctional dating environment is not making us happier, and not equalling more healthy stable and fulfilling relationships, contrary to what you seem to believe. And if we want to reverse that trend a lot of gals will have to seriously reconsider the way they are going about dating, i.e. this superficial speed dating culture we have.

 

Just because it's not making you happy doesn't mean it's not beneficial for millions of other people who have figured it out. If people didn't think their methods were making them happier, they wouldn't be doing things that way. People are happier with the selectivity and options than they are settling, and that's why it's done the way it is and not in some antiquated fashion. Why else would people do it the way they do if they didn't enjoy it and it didn't bring them happiness?

[Toodaloo]

I think people don't want to believe the dating scene has gotten as bad as it is. I think they want to think positively no matter how bad the truth is. But it's the unfortunate reality. The statistics I quoted above really show the consequences of the way dating is done today. The declining marriage and birth rate. The escalating singles rate. The dating scene itself has to change if we're going to reverse those trends.

 

You make it sound as though people who are single are infected with some sort of contagious disease...

 

[]

 

The dating scene is NOT that bad. I am on it! I should know! Yes it is sometimes heart breaking, yes it is sometimes a drag but for the most part its fun and enjoyable even if it has yet to yield any results!

 

Statistics can be read any number of ways. They can be twisted and turned.

 

There are some fabulous men and women out there just waiting to meet each other.

 

[]

[MidwestUSA]

Anyone who wants to experience the 'good old days' of dating should agree to

 

Get rid of their computer

Trash the xBox and PS4

Throw away the cell phone

Dial a rotary phone that shares a party line

Write letters to pen pals and WALK them to a corner mailbox

Ride your bicycle everywhere

Get a poker group together and meet once a month

Go to church

Go to the library when you need to look something up

Sit at a good old soda fountain, if you know what that is

 

Can we bring back drive in theaters?

 

 

If you get my drift, what one is experiencing as 'dating woes' is directly related to the advances of technology.

 

All of the 'organic' ways of meeting anyone have gone out the window, because people have their heads in their electronic devices 24/7[]

[Toodaloo]

You have just described my life! []

[central]

From what I've read, the declining birth rate is a function of a more educated, wealthier society. This has been the trend for all countries where the standard of living has improved and women have more education.

 

 

The declining marriage rate just reflects the fact that marriage isn't a necessity for men or women to thrive in this culture. Both can be independent - women no longer need a man to earn an income. And they don't need husbands. 40% or more children are born to single mothers. It may not be ideal, but it apparently works well enough, especially if the father is involved in their lives.

 

 

As for men, they are seeing the legal downsides of marriage, especially when divorce comes into the picture. There are few advantages to marriage. The legal system is still weighted in favor of women - or many judges still are - even when the laws are gender neutral.

[WaitingForBardot]

For some reason this thread's got me fantasizing about a world where every woman is required to give me a fair shot. Whomever my heart desires, or my gaze lands upon, is required to give me their full attention until I decide it's enough...

 

Lewis Grizzard got it right: "Sex hasn't been the same since women started enjoying it."

 

 

[]

[joseb]

I think people don't want to believe the dating scene has gotten as bad as it is. I think they want to think positively no matter how bad the truth is. But it's the unfortunate reality. The statistics I quoted above really show the consequences of the way dating is done today. The declining marriage and birth rate. The escalating singles rate. The dating scene itself has to change if we're going to reverse those trends.

 

You are going on about this escalating singles rate and declining marriage and birth rate as if it is some terrible disease that must be wiped out.

 

What's so wrong with people being single? Maybe they realise that it's a nice way to live.

 

What's so wrong with a declining birth rate? Maybe people realise they don't have to overpopulated the planet to leave a legacy.

 

What's so wrong about a declining marriage rate? Maybe people realise it's becoming an outdated and pointless tradition that can easily result in financial ruin.

 

Personally I welcome these tends.

[normal person]

I think people don't want to believe the dating scene has gotten as bad as it is. I think they want to think positively no matter how bad the truth is.

 

The only people who are worried about it are the people who it doesn't benefit, like the people with nothing desirable to offer. And no offense, but if you don't have anything desirable to offer, and the circumstances don't benefit you for those reasons, that doesn't make it "bad." That just makes it natural selection. The people with things to offer other people will use it with success and view it as a Godsend. The people who have resources naturally or worked to achieve them get rewarded, the people who don't have those things naturally or didn't work for them don't. No, it's not entirely fair, but it's not entirely unfair either. You can't help the circumstances you're born into, but you can always do more to improve yourself. If you didn't have the capacity to figure our how to improve, or the will to do what's necessary to succeed, you don't get selected. Natural selection.

 

Here's the thing, if someone exercises selectivity and successfully finds a match, they and the person they select will ultimately think the process is for the better. They'll think all the schooling, hours at the gym, developing an interesting life, etc paid off for them. They'll think it's perfectly fair that they worked for something, succeeded at it, and were rewarded for it.

 

But if someone exercises selectivity and decides that you aren't good enough for them, then of course you will think that it's terrible and superficial, unfair, and elitist, as I suspect is why you're ranting so hard. It creates an environment where the best traits are rewarded by selection and the lackluster or unappealing traits aren't selected.

 

If this girl had looked at you the first time and in 10 seconds told you how impressive it was that you're a surgeon, how smart you must be to do that, how funny your profile was, how nice your car is, and how she thought you were both going to have a great time, my guess is that you wouldn't be complaining that it's superficial and that she didn't even try to get to know you for longer than 2 hours. You'd just willingly accept the circumstances and resources that you worked so hard for.

 

Everyone wants what's best for themselves and they don't want to settle. So as I explained, like Darwinism, it benefits the people with the most desirable traits; the ones that are most likely to be selected. Natural selection. If you naturally have them or worked hard to acquire them, you get selected. If you don't naturally have them and/or haven't worked hard to acquire any, you won't get selected and might start complaining about how no one gives you a chance that life isn't fair. Like you have here.

 

Evolution benefits the more desirable, "better" traits. As I've said, the solution is very apparent. If you want better success, be a better person. Success, power, strength, health, beauty, and other resources are "better" and more attractive than the lack of those things. And the more you have, the better. If you want to be more successful, get more of those things. You have to adjust yourself to the environment. The environment won't adjust to you no matter how hard you complain about it.

[oberkeat]

"Stable" and "successful" romantic relationships declined steadily from the 1870s. Coincidentally, the only sizable drop offs in that figure were after WWII and every year from 1980 up to today, long before the current environment materialized.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/

 

 

 

Conjecture. Even if that's somewhat true, there are plenty of extraneous factors that affect numbers and the culture that creates the numbers. The economy, shifts in religious attitudes, shifts in cultural attitudes, etc. Divorce was unfathomable to lots of people a few decades ago. Now it's barely stigmatized. You have no evidence to suggest that peoples' relationships in earlier times were more stable and more successful just because they got married and didn't get divorced.

 

At a certain point in the 20th century, the declining birth and marriage rate and the escalating singles rate stop being a product of gender equality and start becoming a symptom of our dysfunctional ideas regarding dating and relationships. Are you saying these converging trends are just coincidence? No way.

 

 

Wait, so you're saying it didn't help the 5% of people of the US (16 million total) or 11% (35 million) who it literally helped? Who entered into long term relationships or marriages when it was the only reason they met? So your argument is "It doesn't work. It's only worked for 35 million relationships that wouldn't have occurred without it?" Keep in mind that those figures don't even represent the whole population because not everyone uses online dating, and they haven't been using it with the same frequency people do today. So if even 15% of people use it seriously, that's a 48 million person sample size you take the success number from, not 322 million. Consider that in conjunction.

 

5 percent is far less than the 22 percent you quoted for us earlier. You might split hairs over how many people that actually is, but the fact is online dating did not get the job done for the vast majority of coupled people out there. If an auto repair shop quoted a 5% success rate, they would not be in business very long.

 

 

It has everything to do with selectivity and finding the best relationship available. Everyone is trying to get the best partner they can. I'm not saying fat, poor, people don't get married. The reasons rich, powerful, beautiful people intermarry is because they can. They have the resources to justify being with someone on their level. The reason overweight poor people intermarry is because they have to because they can't do any better. The overweight, uneducated welfare bum isn't married to Giselle Bundchen not because he doesn't like her, it's because he doesn't have a chance in hell with her. Your theory might have some credibility if you showed significant examples or stats of people with resources like wealth, beauty, and power marrying people who were poor, ugly, and weak. But it doesn't happen, that's the point. People generally intermarry with the same socioeconomic status and looks. So if you have more or better resources like money or looks ("more desirable traits"), the more likely you are to end up with someone else with more or better resources. Show me significant examples otherwise and I'll eat my words.

 

Your argument wasn't that like attracts like. Your argument was that wealth, beauty, power and the fight for survival has everything to do with relationship formation, which no one dating today would agree with.

 

Just because it's not making you happy doesn't mean it's not beneficial for millions of other people who have figured it out. If people didn't think their methods were making them happier, they wouldn't be doing things that way. People are happier with the selectivity and options than they are settling, and that's why it's done the way it is and not in some antiquated fashion. Why else would people do it the way they do if they didn't enjoy it and it didn't bring them happiness?

 

As I said, I'm not the only one out there who are finding out how poisonous this dating culture has become. These boards are a treasure trove of folks who are frustrated and disappointed with dating, the statistic trends we're seeing regarding coupledom back it up. It's not just me.

[oberkeat]

Everyone wants what's best for themselves and they don't want to settle. So as I explained, like Darwinism, it benefits the people with the most desirable traits; the ones that are most likely to be selected. Natural selection. If you naturally have them or worked hard to acquire them, you get selected. If you don't naturally have them and/or haven't worked hard to acquire any, you won't get selected and might start complaining about how no one gives you a chance that life isn't fair. Like you have here.

 

Evolution benefits the more desirable, "better" traits. As I've said, the solution is very apparent. If you want better success, be a better person. Success, power, strength, health, beauty, and other resources are "better" and more attractive than the lack of those things. And the more you have, the better. If you want to be more successful, get more of those things. You have to adjust yourself to the environment. The environment won't adjust to you no matter how hard you complain about it.

 

You have an ideological rigid philosophy about how Darwinism applies to dating. It doesn't in any way. If "success, power, strength, health, beauty, and other resources" were the deciding factors in dating, all married or coupled people would be successful, powerful, strong, healthy and beautiful. But they are not. Evolutionary arguments do not apply.

[oberkeat]

You are going on about this escalating singles rate and declining marriage and birth rate as if it is some terrible disease that must be wiped out.

 

Not at all. I just think it's ironic that all these dating apps, communication technology, etc. was supposedly created and marketed to us to improve our access to and ability to find relationships, while the reality is it's doing the exact opposite according to all the trends I've been quoting here, and that many people do not even realize it.

[WaitingForBardot]

You have an ideological rigid philosophy about how Darwinism applies to dating. It doesn't in any way. If "success, power, strength, health, beauty, and other resources" were the deciding factors in dating, all married or coupled people would be successful, powerful, strong, healthy and beautiful. But they are not. Evolutionary arguments do not apply.

 

Your conclusion here is flawed. These traits would be the final deciding factors all other things being equal, but they never are. It in no way negates the role of evolutionary factors in mate selection.

[lilmissjava]

People are much more accessible now, more than any other time in history.

 

The sad sad truth is that we can see people at our fingertips even if they live a thousand miles away. It's all so impersonal now.

 

We don't want to deal with the troublesome relationship so we escape into cyberspace. Dealing with real life issues is becoming a thing of the past. Now we have become so intertwined with the lack of digital communication in relationships as opposed to in person communication. Why didn't she text me? Why won't he add me on Facebook? etcetera and so forth.

 

Why would we want to deal with these problems when we can click and tap our way to a new relationship?

 

And the cycle continues... smh.

[normal person]

At a certain point in the 20th century, the declining birth and marriage rate and the escalating singles rate stop being a product of gender equality and start becoming a symptom of our dysfunctional ideas regarding dating and relationships. Are you saying these converging trends are just coincidence? No way.

 

Considering it "dysfunctional" is subjective. Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work. It works for successful people, it doesn't work for unsuccessful people. If you're successful, it's functional.

 

5 percent is far less than the 22 percent you quoted for us earlier. You might split hairs over how many people that actually is, but the fact is online dating did not get the job done for the vast majority of coupled people out there. If an auto repair shop quoted a 5% success rate, they would not be in business very long.

 

Finding the perfect person is hard to begin with. People get married to the wrong person and realize they weren't selective enough in marrying that person and then opt to divorce. Hence why the divorce rate has pretty much kept pace with the marriage rate long before the current dating conditions.

 

See my batting average analogy in a previous post. An auto repair shop is expected to succeed at a high rate. Dating, while it's as efficient as it's ever been, still can't produce a 100% success rate under any format, and has never been able to. Meeting the right person still might take thousands of dollars and many years. Fixing a car can be done be done much cheaper, much quicker, and you wouldn't expect them to not have the right part because they just can't find it anywhere. If you need a new carburetor, they have it there to install. If you need a girl with a particular sensibility and look, you can't just "buy" her, not in the way we're talking about, anyways. Finding her is not akin to auto repair.

 

It's like expecting a hitter to hit a home run every time. It's not plausible given the circumstances of the environment. For an auto mechanic, a 100% success rate is very plausible.

 

Your argument wasn't that like attracts like. Your argument was that wealth, beauty, power and the fight for survival has everything to do with relationship formation, which no one dating today would agree with.

 

You don't understand. Wealthy, beautiful, powerful people intermarry because they can. Unattractive unsuccessful people surely want to marry wealthy, beautiful, powerful people, but they usually can't. Because those wealthy, better looking people can do better.

 

Money and power give you the best chance of survival. It's not that like attracts like, it's that the best attracts everyone, and the environment creates circumstances that like ends up with like because like can't do better and has no incentive to do worse. No one wants to be with a fat, unambitious, unemployed person, not even other fat, unambitious, unemployed people. Everyone would rather marry better looking, wealthier people with more desirable traits. They just can't, and that can be extrapolated to every level. The girl you went out with thought she could do better than you, so she has no reason to go out with you again. You learned that you can't go out with her even though you want to, because she has no reason to date down to your level. Better attracts everyone, benefits the best, and usually leaves like with like circumstantially.

 

As I said, I'm not the only one out there who are finding out how poisonous this dating culture has become. These boards are a treasure trove of folks who are frustrated and disappointed with dating, the statistic trends we're seeing regarding coupledom back it up. It's not just me.

 

First of all, people come to these boards to seek advice and ease their frustration. That's the point. So by design these boards are largely skewed towards people with problems. No one decides to register an account and start a thread just to say "Everything's going great and I have no problems."

 

Do you disagree that the less desirable traits you have, the less success you will have? Explain to me how that's poisonous and not just the natural order of things.

[normal person]

Not at all. I just think it's ironic that all these dating apps, communication technology, etc. was supposedly created and marketed to us to improve our access to and ability to find relationships, while the reality is it's doing the exact opposite according to all the trends I've been quoting here, and that many people do not even realize it.

 

"Finding a relationship" is not the end goal for most people. The end goal is finding a relationship with someone their perfect match, and that isn't easy. I'd rather be selective and take my chances waiting for someone I actually love than settle and get married to someone I don't.

 

Why are divorce rates so high? If people were selective enough the first time around, maybe they wouldn't have married the wrong person.

 

There's nothing wrong with selectivity. Selective people can deal with the consequences of their actions, good or bad. People who would rather not be selective are free to do as they please. I don't see what the problem is.

[elaine567]

I guess in the "good old days", many were equally frustrated with dating, plenty old spinsters and bachelors attest to that. Not everyone "chose" to be single, some did, but for others marriage just didn't happen for them.

There was no "Golden Age"" where it didn't really matter who anyone dated, or that all women settled for any guy that just showed up.

Money, appearance, education, class, family, personality all still mattered, the "best" ones were still sought after and those that did not make the grade "settled" or remained alone.

People still filtered out those they did not like or they thought unsuitable.

We may have technology to find all those "amazing" people out there for us, but the bottom line is that it is all down to human interaction in the end, and if there is no "spark" or nothing in common or no interest, then the relationship could not develop whether we are talking 1916, 1956, 1986 or 2016.

[PrettyEmily77]

Not at all. I just think it's ironic that all these dating apps, communication technology, etc. was supposedly created and marketed to us to improve our access to and ability to find relationships, while the reality is it's doing the exact opposite according to all the trends I've been quoting here, and that many people do not even realize it.

 

Never done OLD and still managed to find all my LTRs (present one included) theold fashioned way. I like people in general and have no issue striking a conversation with anyone anywhere without expectation or agenda.

 

As a non-OLD user, I assumed modern technology is a tool to help us meet people, not to improve access to relationships; that part's still down to us.

[oberkeat]

"Finding a relationship" is not the end goal for most people. The end goal is finding a relationship with someone their perfect match, and that isn't easy. I'd rather be selective and take my chances waiting for someone I actually love than settle and get married to someone I don't.

 

Why are divorce rates so high? If people were selective enough the first time around, maybe they wouldn't have married the wrong person.

 

There's nothing wrong with selectivity. Selective people can deal with the consequences of their actions, good or bad. People who would rather not be selective are free to do as they please. I don't see what the problem is.

 

I never said anywhere that finding any relationship should be the end goal for most people. But for those folks who are seeking a meaningful relationship, the sad reality is that they are facing a dating culture that is actively working against them because of the need for instant gratification. They are encountering a dating culture that is more hostile more superficial and less conducive to forming stable successful relationships than it has ever been. A lot of gals have a dating style that is keeping them single and keeping them from getting to know great guys and vice versa. They are jumping the gun and nexting guys way too fast because of the misguided belief in instant spark. It's not an issue of selectivity. Two dates before you decide to move on is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is going out into the dating world expecting to be wowed within minutes of meeting someone, and then if they don't repeating the process night after night, year after year. It's crazy.

[Rejected Rosebud]

For some reason this thread's got me fantasizing about a world where every woman is required to give me a fair shot. Whomever my heart desires, or my gaze lands upon, is required to give me their full attention until I decide it's enough...

 

Lewis Grizzard got it right: "Sex hasn't been the same since women started enjoying it."

[]

 

Something that especially disturbs me, and which the most unhappy "nice guy" recently posting about the decline dating in modern times has not addressed:

 

Why, in these discussions, is it up to the women to give the undesirable (to them) men a "fair trial," but not vice versa?

 

Will someone please address this? Why aren't women who are deemed undesirable supposed to be given many chances to warm the guys' hearts?

 

That rarely, if ever, comes up here. Please explain!