General online and other dating discussion

[HillValley]

I think the problem here is most women don't seem to advocate wanting a really hot, physically attractive guy and instead are emphasizing that the non-superficial aspects are a lot more important. Sure some women do make it plain obvious that they want a really hot guy...but not all do. So then you're typical "nice guy" gets upset when he gets rejected because he thinks he has all these important non-superficial characteristics. It might be easier if women that really want a hot guy, make that clearly known in their online dating profiles That way I can avoid sending them a message....

 

Thank you. That's all I way saying.

 

Words and actions. If you want an attractive guy just stay so. There's nothing bad about saying what you want.

 

When people say, "I have a good job, I work out... Why can't I attract this and that"

 

It's not an equation. There's no formula. You can only control you.

[oberkeat]

Did you ever think that maybe she has her own standards and thoughts about what she wants in a partner and has every right to try and fulfill them?

 

She has the right to have her own standards. But that doesn't mean the way she's going about finding someone who meets those standards makes any sense. The instant spark requirement that many gals have these days is not only unrealistic, it's also crazy. These gals are expecting to feel an instant spark from a stranger, and if they don't feel it, they repeat the process with another stranger. That's insane.

 

 

To want to know a person, you have to first be attracted to them and find them appealing. If you don't, there's no point in getting to know them. Why don't you look on OKCupid and go out with every single girl in your city regardless of job, looks, and personality in order to get to know them? Answer that question without dodging it for the third time. You probably don't want to because you have no interest in them by looking at their profile. So you decided you don't want to go out with them because you have no interest in them and you aren't attracted to them.

 

And you know what? By not giving allowing every single girl in your city a fair "chance" to get to know you, you're just as guilty of the crime you've been bemoaning as anyone else.

 

No one ever suggested these gals should date every single guy in their city, which I think you know isn't possible. What I am saying is that with the ones they do choose to accept a date with, they need to be serious and mature about taking the time to get to know them, otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time. That's doesn't happen with the one and done dating style and the instant spark philosophy of dating that has become an epidemic among young women.

 

I keep reading about the disappointment these gals feel when they don't get that sparky feeling with a guy so they give up on him. What these women don't understand is that an instant spark is completely unrelated to a person's suitability for a relationship, and it does not equal love. It would be wonderful if most people who met online hit it off with the spark right away, and spend the next twenty years together, but that doesn't happen, and it is unreasonable for gals to expect it. It's time for women to let go of that love at first sight fairy-tale, and they would much better off for it.

 

I get the feeling that you don't respect a women's right to make up her own mind and decide what's right for herself. Call me old fashioned, but I think that's oppressive and misogynistic. I only go out with people I have interest in because I'm not so stupid to waste my time thinking that I might magically become attracted and interested in someone after 3 hours when I hadn't before. I realize people just want what's best for themselves and I want them to make their own decisions and pursue their own paths to happiness on their own terms, whatever they might be, without suggesting that I know what's better for them.

 

 

 

The concept is not offensive, it's just time consuming and impractical.

 

 

It's only a second date. If the person you meet grows on you, like what happened with the married friend I mentioned, and you end up spending the rest of your life with them, I'd say that's a big payoff for a minimal investment.

 

The notion that you think the natural evolution of society and technology that people are choosing to immerse themselves in willingly isn't expediting things is ludicrous. It's like you're saying "Why does everyone drive cars? Cars can crash sometimes so they're a bad idea. I tried a car once and I didn't like it. Therefore, everyone should have to walk everywhere."

 

Not ludicrous at all. How do you explain, with all this dating technology that there are proportionately more single people than there have ever been? It's because these dating apps are not the answer at best, and are making things worse at worst. They have taken the romance out of dating. They have complicated dating in ways we never predicted, making it easier for us to reduce human beings to just one option in a long pile of messages. Dating has become very impersonal.

 

What you still haven't answered is this: if people were unhappy with the way they're doing things, why would they continue to do them?

 

The answer is simple: because they don't know or haven't considered a better way. Because they haven't learned or realized that spark and love are completely unrelated.

[HillValley]

What SOME women do and like has nothing to do with the dating failures of random guys. It's really not appropriate for anyone to be frustrated over the choices of people they don't even know. NYB!!

 

It's not necessarily frustration on my part. It's wishing these people would stop falling into the same situation that will eventually turn toxic.

 

We are a collection of our experiences. That toxic relationship(s) will follow that person forward into other relationships when it wouldn't have if they'd just recognized the red flags from the get go.

 

It's just sad to see continuously.

 

again, I have to ask, why are you bringing cheating into this? There are threads on cheating. Women cheat on men, it's not just men who are cheaters. Anyway, nobody on this one is complaining about being cheated on.

 

Do you really think women who turn you down are then going out with douches who cheat on them? I doubt it. Most are probably looking for a guy with qualities they value AND TO WHOM THEY FEEL ATTRACTED.

 

I never said anything like that. I'm just using a type of situation where spark can lead you astray.

 

I'm merely pointing out how spark is nice but that shouldn't substitute for actually having someone who isn't toxic for you. It's great to find someone to be with but if being with that person makes you neurotic and not a better person, was that spark actually worth how it makes you feel.

 

And, just like looking for a job, there will be many many who fulfill all the requirements. The employer is going to pick the BEST FIT and the rest of the applicants are not getting that job.

 

 

 

:( You've totally lost me. If you want jobs and don't fulfill the requirements, it's not up to that employer to "give you a chance." They are going to choose from the applicants who fulfilled the requirements. It would be up to YOU to improve yourself and learn the required skills if you want to work in that job - or else expect to have jobs you actually are qualified for.

 

 

Well I certainly appreciate that! It's not common around here. The loudest complainers have entire threads about fat women if you'd care to look. They not only want a good woman, but one THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO. It's fine! Just don't be a hypocrite.

 

Anyway you seem like a good guy and I hope you find a good match for yourself, if that's what you want. But please try to ditch the idea that the women who don't go for you are probably choosing to get abused by somebody. They are probably just holding out for a man they feel attracted to!! It's not wrong!!

 

Let me just make something clear.

 

NOBODY OWES ANYONE A CHANCE.

 

My point was that if you are one of these people/companies complaining about your situation then do something about it. I'm not advocating someone should make a 180 in their dating types. I'm saying we all have bias so nudge yourself to try something new or take a chance on a employee that doesn't come the way you want.

 

How is that any different than what people say about finding a new hobby. You don't have to just start doing something you don't enjoy. If means pushing your boundaries( on your own terms). If you like running, then hike a trail you've never been to before instead of you doing the same 5 trails over and over.

 

If all you date are Wall Street bankers, then just date a insurance salesperson in the middle of all the dating mix. You don't owe them 3,4, or 10 dates. It's just about expanding your own experience about what you may actually like.

 

If I only made friends with people who are similar or familiar to me, I'd miss out on meeting really great people. Doesn't mean it's a failure if they don't become my BFFF.

[SwordofFlame]

What I am saying is that with the ones they do choose to accept a date with, they need to be serious and mature about taking the time to get to know them, otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time. That's doesn't happen with the one and done dating style and the instant spark philosophy of dating that has become an epidemic among young women.

 

The problem with your way of thinking is you think that your date already has enough invested in you from online messaging and one date to give dating you more time. In my opinion, that's completely false. The clock doesn't start ticking until you first meet in person. And if she doesn't think your in person persona matches your online persona, than why waste more time? You can figure that out on the first date or "meeting". You don't have this problem with offline dating....

[preraph]

 

I never said anything like that. I'm just using a type of situation where spark can lead you astray.

 

I'm merely pointing out how spark is nice but that shouldn't substitute for actually having someone who isn't toxic for you. It's great to find someone to be with but if being with that person makes you neurotic and not a better person, was that spark actually worth how it makes you feel.

 

Having sex with someone you are not attracted to is toxic to you immediately!

[oberkeat]

The problem with your way of thinking is you think that your date already has enough invested in you from online messaging and one date to give dating you more time. In my opinion, that's completely false. The clock doesn't start ticking until you first meet in person. And if she doesn't think your in person persona matches your online persona, than why waste more time? You can figure that out on the first date or "meeting". You don't have this problem with offline dating....

 

Sword, I agree with you that the clock doesn't start ticking until you first meet in person. But I think you can't call it quits after a decent first date. Some people get nervous on a first date and act unnatural. Not saying that's me, but it happens to a lot of girls and guys on dates. If a women really enjoyed chatting with a guy, but just isn't sure it felt romantic, it think there's no harm in going out with him again. I would argue that one date is not enough time to say it's okay to next a guy. I think two dates is reasonable, if you want to put a number on it.

Edited April 7, 2016 by oberkeat

[preraph]

I think the problem here is most women don't seem to advocate wanting a really hot, physically attractive guy and instead are emphasizing that the non-superficial aspects are a lot more important. Sure some women do make it plain obvious that they want a really hot guy...but not all do. So then you're typical "nice guy" gets upset when he gets rejected because he thinks he has all these important non-superficial characteristics. It might be easier if women that really want a hot guy, make that clearly known in their online dating profiles That way I can avoid sending them a message....

 

The problem here --besides assuming women aren't qualified to decide what's right for them but a strange man is - is that guys who go around thinking they're "nice guys" are also assuming any guy a woman is attracted to must automatically be a bad guy. This just isn't true. Actually, they're a lot less bitter and needy and jealous and desperate, and all those traits I just listed are far more likely to equate to danger for a woman or toxicity for a woman than a guy who's normal and secure. So you have it backwards. And women instinctually know this and select guys who aren't raging about not getting women.

[Rejected Rosebud]

Women are not getting the "best" guys in this dating market. Many of them are getting no guys.

I'm soon getting married!! :love: To a wonderful man who is super attractive to me!! He is the best man for me, I have no doubt.

 

Almost all my friends are in relationships, too.

 

What if I'd been spending my time having multiple dates with men I was not attracted to, or interested in, at all?? I would not be with this one. I shudder to think what a terrible waste of time.

[normal person]

She has the right to have her own standards. But that doesn't mean the way she's going about finding someone who meets those standards makes any sense. The instant spark requirement that many gals have these days is not only unrealistic, it's also crazy.

 

It's no more crazy than continuing to go out with people you have no interest in on the assumption that you might change your mind at some point, even when there's nothing else in it for you if you don't. By seeing more people, the odds are much better.

 

No one ever suggested these gals should date every single guy in their city, which I think you know isn't possible. What I am saying is that with the ones they do choose to accept a date with, they need to be serious and mature about taking the time to get to know them, otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time.

 

So tell us what criteria people must use to first decide who to go out with, then acknowledge the irony that selecting someone based on predefined criteria before one date is no different than dismissing someone on predefined criteria after one date. Unless you give everyone a chance regardless of your own personal preferences, you're selecting people on their appeal in conjunction with your tastes. You're doing the exact same thing as everyone else. You look at a profile, or see a stranger on the street, and you opt not to say anything, not to go out with them, or give them a chance.

 

I don't see why you think it's just fine to be able to have preferences and trust your gut about someone before you know them, but not after you meet and then know even more about them. That's moronic.

 

 

That's doesn't happen with the one and done dating style and the instant spark philosophy of dating that has become an epidemic among young women.

 

Men date the same way. You sound there's an all or nothing scenario between everyone. Either they meet and fall madly in love or never speak again. Hardly the case. If you're moderately interested in someone, you'll see them again if you think it's worth your time. If you're not interested in them at all, you won't. There are many varying degrees of interest and you endlessly trying to proclaim that there's only one is just laughable.

 

It's only a second date. If the person you meet grows on you, like what happened with the married friend I mentioned, and you end up spending the rest of your life with them, I'd say that's a big payoff for a minimal investment.

 

While that may be the case sometimes, the thought of trusting your instincts the first time around is still more favorable than wasting your time with people you don't know. Yeah, if that happens, it's a good investment. But consider the odds. If you keep buying lottery tickets for a year and finally win the jackpot, you'll say it was a good investment. The million other people who bought lottery tickets for a year and didn't win wouldn't say the same. It's like saying you won't quit smoking because you might get hit by a car and die anyways -- but what're the consequences if you don't get hit by a car and die?

 

Not ludicrous at all. How do you explain, with all this dating technology that there are proportionately more single people than there have ever been? It's because these dating apps are not the answer at best, and are making things worse at worst. They have taken the romance out of dating. They have complicated dating in ways we never predicted, making it easier for us to reduce human beings to just one option in a long pile of messages. Dating has become very impersonal.

 

Running in circles here. Once again, being single isn't bad. It's often a choice. Smart people would rather be single than be with the wrong person. Not to mention any number of other complex factors that no one has the answer to. But assuming modern relationships are dead and modern dating is the sole reason is presumptuous.

 

The answer is simple: because they don't know or haven't considered a better way. Because they haven't learned or realized that spark and love are completely unrelated.

 

I just laughed. All this stuff you're on about is because people never considered anything else? Ok, how about this? All you have to do is tell people to do things differently, and if they want to, they'll do it. But if they're happier their current methods, you have to accept their decision and stop acting like you know what's better for them. The end. Good luck.

[Rejected Rosebud]

Sword, I agree with you that the clock doesn't start ticking until you first meet in person. But I think you can't call it quits after a decent first date.

 

You're just going to have to accept that many women (and men but that's not pertinent to you) are not looking for merely "decent" and they'll keep looking, thank you very much!

 

I know you're done with dating, but if you start again, you'll need to focus on women with very low standards, if you expect them to hang around for "decent."

[Rejected Rosebud]

 

 

I never said anything like that. I'm just using a type of situation where spark can lead you astray.

 

I'm merely pointing out how spark is nice but that shouldn't substitute for actually having someone who isn't toxic for you.

 

That is not down to a woman wanting to feel attracted to a man. It's down to being a poor chooser of men. I certainly feel a big spark for my man, and he's a wonderful human being. I don't feel attracted to losers. Women with good self esteem don't. We can have a great guy to whom we are also attracted.

 

Same goes for the good men as well, of course.

 

My point was that if you are one of these people/companies complaining about your situation then do something about it. I'm not advocating someone should make a 180 in their dating types. I'm saying we all have bias so nudge yourself to try something new or take a chance on a employee that doesn't come the way you want.

 

If someone wants to be in a relationship so badly that they'd prefer to be with someone they're not attracted to than to be alone, then that's what they'll do. Some people need to feel attracted to be in a relationship that is supposed to include sex. Most people, I bet.

 

 

 

How is that any different than what people say about finding a new hobby. You don't have to just start doing something you don't enjoy. If means pushing your boundaries( on your own terms). If you like running, then hike a trail you've never been to before instead of you doing the same 5 trails over and over.

 

Doing a hobby doesn't equate to having a romantic and sexual relationship.

 

Nobody on this thread is talking about doing the same thing over and over. Well, except for that one guy (who can't get any girls interested in him). The rest of us participating here seem to be just fine with needing a person we're attracted to if we're going to be in a romantic / sexual relationship with them - even if it takes a long time to find that.

 

If I only made friends with people who are similar or familiar to me, I'd miss out on meeting really great people. Doesn't mean it's a failure if they don't become my BFFF.

 

Well, clearly you don't care whether you're attracted to a person or not. That makes the world of dating and finding a partner very easy for you. I think the majority of us need to have the attraction part in order to go to that level. It's not the same as having a variety of types of friends.

[TooLegitToQuit]

I dunno oberkeat if "the way women date today" bothers you this much, then put it in your profile. Perfectly serious here. Say you really want to give things a fair chance to develop and you feel you need more than one date to do so, and you are looking for a woman who feels likewise.

 

You might get messaged by women who share your viewpoint on this. I do wonder if you will actually put your money w your mouth is and go out w women who contact you even if their looks aren't doing it for you. After all, if you really can't tell whether someone is right for you going by only one date then you surely can't tell whether someone is right for you going by looks, right?

Edited April 7, 2016 by TooLegitToQuit

[TooLegitToQuit]

Your attitude though is quite disconcerting. If my 16-year-old nephew were going on like this I'd tell him to stop whining, nevermind a 29-year-old male.

[TooLegitToQuit]

I am a guy. I went on a first date last week. I wasn't feeling it. I knew by now that if I am not feeling something by one date in that it won't work. Still I made it a point to ask the woman about herself and be interested in the conversation all the way through the end of our time together. I mean who knows something may spark during the date.

 

Was I supposed to sulk instead through the first date to make sure I didn't lead her on? Or am I supposed to waste HER time as well as mine--and lead her on--by going on a second date with her? Seems to me that the kind thing to do is let her find a guy where the attraction is present and mutual.

 

I don't think you really thought your expectations through oberkeat.

Edited April 7, 2016 by TooLegitToQuit

[HillValley]

That is not down to a woman wanting to feel attracted to a man. It's down to being a poor chooser of men. I certainly feel a big spark for my man, and he's a wonderful human being. I don't feel attracted to losers. Women with good self esteem don't. We can have a great guy to whom we are also attracted.

 

Same goes for the good men as well, of course.

 

No not always. Anyone can fall into going on a first date with a loser. It's not like they were signs on their foreheads. Whether or not you choose to keep continuing on despite seeing that it isn't right just because some you like that spark/feeling. You aren't being honest with yourself.

 

If someone wants to be in a relationship so badly that they'd prefer to be with someone they're not attracted to than to be alone, then that's what they'll do. Some people need to feel attracted to be in a relationship that is supposed to include sex. Most people, I bet. .

 

It feels like you are acting like there's no other option. There can be a spark and it still be a wrong relationship. That's what I'm trying to tell you. People who are married for 20 years can have had the spark and still be a terrible marriage.

 

A spark isn't a cure all for a bad relationship.

 

 

 

 

 

Doing a hobby doesn't equate to having a romantic and sexual relationship.

 

Nobody on this thread is talking about doing the same thing over and over. Well, except for that one guy (who can't get any girls interested in him). The rest of us participating here seem to be just fine with needing a person we're attracted to if we're going to be in a romantic / sexual relationship with them - even if it takes a long time to find that.

That isn't the point of the hobby analogy. The point is doing something for yourself, for your own self-esteem. For your own enjoyment.

 

 

 

I NEVER SAID ATTRACTION ISN'T WHAT A PERSON SHOULD BE GOING AFTER.

 

Again, Attraction comes in many forms so why people not open themselves up to more options if they aren't seeing the results they want?

 

There's a huge difference between making a choice for your own happiness to open up to different kinds of attractions vs. being guilted into it cause a "nice guy" thinks you should go out. You don't owe anyone a date.

 

 

Well, clearly you don't care whether you're attracted to a person or not. That makes the world of dating and finding a partner very easy for you. I think the majority of us need to have the attraction part in order to go to that level. It's not the same as having a variety of types of friends.

I guess I'm not being clear cause that's 100% not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's a multitude of ways to get that spark. It might not appear on first sight, it might not appear until after the third date, or it might not appear until later on.

 

Sometimes it's there at the start.

 

I'm saying that depending solely on it like it's some magic fairy dust could be a problem for some people cause it won't appear immediately or it may lead you into a toxic relationship.

Edited April 7, 2016 by HillValley

[Rejected Rosebud]

 

No not always. Anyone can fall into going on a first date with a loser. It's not like they were signs on their foreheads. Whether or not you choose to keep continuing on despite seeing that it isn't right just because some you like that spark/feeling. You aren't being honest with yourself.

I don't know what you're even talking about here, but please hold yourself back from telling me I'm not being honest with myself.

 

 

 

It feels like you are acting like there's no other option. There can be a spark and it still be a wrong relationship. That's what I'm trying to tell you. People who are married for 20 years can have had the spark and still be a terrible marriage.

 

A spark isn't a cure all for a bad relationship.

I feel like you and I aren't even participating in the same conversation. I certainly never said that a "spark" equals a good potential relationship.

 

What I KEEP saying is that most people (every single person I know) is NOT INTERESTED in pursuing a romantic / sexual relationship with a person they feel NO ATTRACTION for.

 

Do you understand?

 

 

I guess I'm not being clear cause that's 100% not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's a multitude of ways to get that spark. It might not appear on first sight, it might not appear until after the third date, or it might not appear until later on.

 

Sometimes it's there at the start.

 

Do you understand how insulting it is to women to read on this thread that we are somehow incapable of knowing whether we are interested in a guy or not? If we think there is potential many of us WILL go ahead and spend no time. When we KNOW 100% it's a NO - regardless of the guy's credentials or his own high opinion of himself - we are going to walk, and that's the right thing for everybody.

[normal person]

Hey Oberkeat, this article came out today and it's very relevant to this whole thing, definitely worth a read: http://priceonomics.com/online-dating-and-the-death-of-the-mixed/

 

Some excerpts:

 

Study after study supports the idea of “assortative mating”: the hypothesis that people generally date and marry partners who are like them in terms of social class, educational background, race, personality, and, of course, attractiveness.

 

To use fratboy vernacular: 7s date other 7s, and a 3 has no chance with a 10.

 

Which illustrates my point that everyone thinks there's no point in seeing someone again if you have no interest in them. You can do better, you'll have no interest in dating down, and likely not able to date up. The natural order of things will leave you someone who's roughly equivalent to you.

 

At the start of the semester, they asked students in small classes to rate the desirability of their classmates. (Desirability could incorporate non-physical attributes as well as good looks.) When the researchers looked at the ratings, they found that most students agreed on who was hot and who was not.

 

Three months later, though, the researchers asked the same students to rate their classmates again. Lo and behold, many of the ratings had changed: the students’ opinions of who was datable had been informed by time together in class. Over time, personality had more of an impact on how desirable someone was.

 

More importantly, the students no longer agreed. Their rankings reflected their personal preferences about the non-physical attributes of the other people in the class. Where one classmate might find a student’s earnestness in class endearing, another might dislike it.

 

While this may be tempting to say "the more you get to know someone, the better chance you have of liking them," that's not necessarily true because you have just as good of a chance as disliking them more as well. No net change. Inconclusive.

 

In this case, the data is clear that men’s preferences are much more homogenous than women’s. “There are women who 95% of men say yes to, and there’s nothing like that for men,” says McLeod. “A man is really attractive if 40% of women say yes.”

 

Interesting to note.

 

Americans increasingly marry someone they met on a first date rather than a high school sweetheart. And that can make the dating market a more brutal and competitive process.

 

Note this in spite of all that posts you made saying that women weren't finding anyone at all and that the current dating culture was ruining everything. The graph included shows that more than 20% of straight couples met online, almost as many as at a bar or restaurant, and almost twice as many as through co-woerks, in college, through family, neighbors or church.

 

http://pix-media.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/1161/ScreenShot2016-04-07at2.38.46PM.png

 

 

So what're your thoughts now?

[joseb]

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

[oberkeat]

Hey Oberkeat, this article came out today and it's very relevant to this whole thing, definitely worth a read: http://priceonomics.com/online-dating-and-the-death-of-the-mixed/

 

Which illustrates my point that everyone thinks there's no point in seeing someone again if you have no interest in them. You can do better, you'll have no interest in dating down, and likely not able to date up. The natural order of things will leave you someone who's roughly equivalent to you.

 

Certainly we don't need a study to prove that people generally date people who are similar to themselves. There's that old joke that if couples are together long enough they start to look like each other. I fail to see though how this relates in anyway to your argument that modern relationship formation/dating has everything to do with Darwinian style theories on natural selection applied to human social behavior. Again, you seem to be making a completely different point here, which is that like attracts like. In any case, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

 

 

"At the start of the semester, they asked students in small classes to rate the desirability of their classmates. (Desirability could incorporate non-physical attributes as well as good looks.) When the researchers looked at the ratings, they found that most students agreed on who was hot and who was not.

 

Three months later, though, the researchers asked the same students to rate their classmates again. Lo and behold, many of the ratings had changed: the students’ opinions of who was datable had been informed by time together in class. Over time, personality had more of an impact on how desirable someone was.

 

More importantly, the students no longer agreed. Their rankings reflected their personal preferences about the non-physical attributes of the other people in the class. Where one classmate might find a student’s earnestness in class endearing, another might dislike it."

 

While this may be tempting to say "the more you get to know someone, the better chance you have of liking them," that's not necessarily true because you have just as good of a chance as disliking them more as well. No net change. Inconclusive.

 

The problem with the study you chose to cite is that going on a second date with someone after an OK first date and being trapped in a classroom with someone for three months, which is the method the researchers were using, are two completely different things! Surely there's a point at which too much exposure to the same person becomes detrimental, but there's nothing in the study that suggests that a simple two or three hour second date meets that threshold. I go back to my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

 

 

Note this in spite of all that posts you made saying that women weren't finding anyone at all and that the current dating culture was ruining everything. The graph included shows that more than 20% of straight couples met online, almost as many as at a bar or restaurant, and almost twice as many as through co-woerks, in college, through family, neighbors or church.

 

http://pix-media.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/1161/ScreenShot2016-04-07at2.38.46PM.png

 

 

So what're your thoughts now?

 

My thoughts are that 1) The 20% number is exaggerated and 2) even if it isn't, statistics are completely meaningless without context. There's nothing in the graph that proves that the declines in the other methods people use to meet their partners are a result of online dating being a better method. There are undoubtedly other factors at play here. Take work for example: the fact that fewer people are meeting at work then they were 40 years ago probably has a lot to do with the declines in male participation in the workforce, and that dating in the workplace has become less socially accepted because of sexual-harassment lawsuits, bands on workplace relationships, etc. Fewer people are meeting at church, because obviously in our increasingly secular society, fewer people are attending church in the first place. I see no evidence in this graph that online dating is making dating any better or easier.

 

Since you're recommending studies, Let me recommend one I find really enlightening: New Study Says Couples Who Meet Online May Be More Likely To Break Up

 

The study compared couples who met either offline or on dating sites, and found evidence suggesting that 1) couples that met online were more likely to break up 2) couples that met online were less likely to marry and most importantly 3) The buffet of options these dating sites offer actually inhibits relationship formation through grass is greener syndrome. A quote from the woman writer where she admits:

 

Through my experience online, I was accepting a lot of invitations from different people, but I was not locking myself in with anyone. I knew that more and more people were joining the website, so maybe I’d find someone more befitting for me tomorrow.

 

Nothing can replace the old-tested principles of time and intimacy and letting things develop.

 

I couldn't agree more. This goes back to my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

Edited April 9, 2016 by oberkeat

[MidwestUSA]

 

I go back to my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

 

This goes back to my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

 

Point taken. I'll repeat what others have said by modifying your own statement: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable IF BOTH PARTIES ARE WILLING.

 

No one owes you anything. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? It's simple.

 

Two to three hours is quite generous for a first date.

[WaitingForBardot]

...my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

 

...my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

...my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

Perhaps not unreasonable, but it requires that she agrees it was a decent date. Your perspective alone is insufficient to establish this as the case.

 

And although maybe not unreasonable, a decent first date would not do it for everyone. It takes much more than decent to interest me in a second date.

[Emilia]

I think the problem here is most women don't seem to advocate wanting a really hot, physically attractive guy and instead are emphasizing that the non-superficial aspects are a lot more important. Sure some women do make it plain obvious that they want a really hot guy...but not all do. So then you're typical "nice guy" gets upset when he gets rejected because he thinks he has all these important non-superficial characteristics. It might be easier if women that really want a hot guy, make that clearly known in their online dating profiles That way I can avoid sending them a message....

 

That wouldn't screen out the weirdos with zero self-awareness. Only the good quality modest men most of us want. So self-defeating strategy.

[Emilia]

Hey Oberkeat, this article came out today and it's very relevant to this whole thing, definitely worth a read: Online Dating and the Death of the 'Mixed-Attractiveness' Couple

 

Some excerpts:

 

Which illustrates my point that everyone thinks there's no point in seeing someone again if you have no interest in them. You can do better, you'll have no interest in dating down, and likely not able to date up. The natural order of things will leave you someone who's roughly equivalent to you.

 

While this may be tempting to say "the more you get to know someone, the better chance you have of liking them," that's not necessarily true because you have just as good of a chance as disliking them more as well. No net change. Inconclusive.

 

Interesting to note.

 

Note this in spite of all that posts you made saying that women weren't finding anyone at all and that the current dating culture was ruining everything. The graph included shows that more than 20% of straight couples met online, almost as many as at a bar or restaurant, and almost twice as many as through co-woerks, in college, through family, neighbors or church.

 

http://pix-media.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/1161/ScreenShot2016-04-07at2.38.46PM.png

 

So what're your thoughts now?

 

I don't think the article is right at all. It's common for women in their 30s to start dating down in terms of looks if they want to get married. Might not be a thing for casuals but for LTRs in 30+ adults mixed looks is very common. I see this in people more that use OLD because they don't have the social circle and the opportunities - if they don't want to date someone new every week.

 

I'm actually surprised you are such an advocate for OLD, I get the impression you are social enough not to need it. It's hard to find quality online.

[oberkeat]

Point taken. I'll repeat what others have said by modifying your own statement: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable IF BOTH PARTIES ARE WILLING.

 

Perhaps not unreasonable, but it requires that she agrees it was a decent date. Your perspective alone is insufficient to establish this as the case.

 

Lol, here you two are just being argumentative. By "decent first date", obviously we mean the date wasn't miserable for either person, and that both parties had fun.

 

although maybe not unreasonable, a decent first date would not do it for everyone. It takes much more than decent to interest me in a second date.

 

My argument is that your standard here is really unrealistic and ultimately self destructive. As someone else said, if you next all the guys you date because you didn't feel earth shattering chemistry with them on the first date, you are missing out on a lot of great people and great relationships, primarily because that type of spark is extremely rare, and is no indication of the potential or suitability for a great relationship.

 

You're just going to have to accept that many women (and men but that's not pertinent to you) are not looking for merely "decent" and they'll keep looking, thank you very much!

 

I know you're done with dating, but if you start again, you'll need to focus on women with very low standards, if you expect them to hang around for "decent."

 

See my comment above.

 

No one owes you anything. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? It's simple.

 

When did I say anything about being "owed" anything? This isn't about being owed this or that. This is about what makes sense. And nexting all the guys you date after decent first dates makes no sense and is self destructive. If you cut out on a guy just because you didn't feel earth shattering chemistry on the first date, you are missing out on a lot of great people and great relationships because you called it quits prematurely. A lot of gals need to slow down, take their time and be patient. Something (Hollywood, trashy romance novels, shorter attention spans, who knows) has convinced them to expect the moon and the stars on the first date.

Edited April 9, 2016 by oberkeat

[BlueIris]

Perhaps not unreasonable, but it requires that she agrees it was a decent date. Your perspective alone is insufficient to establish this as the case.

 

Yes x10.

 

Lol, here you two are just being argumentative. By "decent first date", obviously we mean the date wasn't miserable for either person, and that both parties had fun.

 

rolleyes ?!?!

OP, Some people are just good dates no matter who they’re with. They’re nice, happy, friendly and inquisitive with everyone. They make other people feel good. Read Emily Post, Miss Manners or Dale Carnegie.