screening based on their character and not looks?

[Curiousroxy86]

I have decided to try to screen the online suitors by character and not looks which I'll admit is different for me. Usually if I pull up the profile of a guy who message me and I am not attracted at all by the way he looks I'll ignore the message. Well I've decided to try something a little different. Instead I'll judge their profile, message, etc by what's reflected more so on the inside. So if anything about his profile, message screams "player" "douche" "thug" "not wanting a relationship+" "mean" "arrogant" and insert any other negative qualities I don't want or need in a relationship then I won't respond.

 

Does anybody else do this (qualities only and not by looks at all) and if so what's the experience like? I'm a little unsure because the few That message me I've turned my nose up at their picture and wanted to pass so bad but I'm trying something different lol.

[d0nnivain]

Recognizing that what you have been doing isn't working & changing that is a good idea. At this point all you are risking is a message. I applaud your decision to try something different. Who knows, maybe it was a bad picture? Also a lot of people look better when you see them through your heart & not just your eyes.

[carhill]

While online dating, and dating in general, has changed over the years, my first experience with 'no picture' dating occurred not so much on purpose but because pictures with dating profiles were pretty rare at the particular time and place since digital cameras and scanners were expensive and few people had them.

 

Hence, after reading the profile, contacting the person and getting to know them over a period of weeks via correspondence, I was pleasantly surprised to receive a small picture in an email with an apology for the poor quality. That particular interaction turned into one of my LTR's and the one I now term 'the one that got away' because, well, I was a dope.

 

Anyway, IMO try different things and accept the results. Sometimes words can paint a clearer picture of a person than images can.

 

BTW, back in the day I did have one of those early digital cameras and I think my old dating profile picture from that era is still circulating the internet. I noticed some wonderfully pleasant person created a fake forum profile (not on LoveShack) with it and my real name awhile back. One more reason to not put pictures with dating profiles or on the internet at all

 

Hope it works out!

[normal person]

I have decided to try to screen the online suitors by character and not looks which I'll admit is different for me.

 

Is there any reason you can't do both? I understand that you don't want a guy with certain characteristics, and that's good, but at some level you have to be attracted to him physically, right? That's why people have pictures. To me, a terrible message from a really cute woman is just as bad as a great message from one who's not attractive. I need both components, not one or the other. That's just me.

 

 

Also, just food for thought: it's much easier for people to misrepresent themselves with words than it is with pictures.

[carhill]

Who am I?

 

What characteristics would one impute to this nice image? Character? Achievements? Humor? Responsibility? Relationship stability?

 

TBH, especially as an older guy having gone through the entire progression of dating from long before the internet existed, I see today's OLD as more of a Sears and Roebuck catalog than relationship/romance-focused. However, it does have one thing in common with real life, in that our first impressions of a person in real life are through our eyes. That's before we're up close and personal, before we hear them, smell them, or experience them in any substantive way. Would I dismiss a woman in real life if not finding her image attractive? Probably! Have I been dismissed for same? Yup! Looks is not a protected class and discrimination is encouraged!

 

I'll be interested to read the results of the OP's experiment.

[Curiousroxy86]

Is there any reason you can't do both? I understand that you don't want a guy with certain characteristics, and that's good, but at some level you have to be attracted to him physically, right? That's why people have pictures. To me, a terrible message from a really cute woman is just as bad as a great message from one who's not attractive. I need both components, not one or the other. That's just me.

 

 

Also, just food for thought: it's much easier for people to misrepresent themselves with words than it is with pictures.

 

I can and I did focused on both. In the past a guy I wasn't attracted to physicially would not get a response, my number, or date. I wouldn't even bother to get to know him in that way. However I wanted to try a new approach and see what it would be like. I don't plan to force myself in an exclusive relationship with someone I abhor. But I do want to focus more on the inside and just se what type of results would I get. I can't guarantee I won't go back to making looks a factor. Just for now I want to judge guys who come my way by if there nice, respectful, etc.

[Curiousroxy86]

Who am I?

 

What characteristics would one impute to this nice image? Character? Achievements? Humor? Responsibility? Relationship stability?

 

TBH, especially as an older guy having gone through the entire progression of dating from long before the internet existed, I see today's OLD as more of a Sears and Roebuck catalog than relationship/romance-focused. However, it does have one thing in common with real life, in that our first impressions of a person in real life are through our eyes. That's before we're up close and personal, before we hear them, smell them, or experience them in any substantive way. Would I dismiss a woman in real life if not finding her image attractive? Probably! Have I been dismissed for same? Yup! Looks is not a protected class and discrimination is encouraged!

 

I'll be interested to read the results of the OP's experiment.

I'll keep posted! Looking for nice, respectful, interested in ltr+, sane, Christian values...just to name a few

[carhill]

OP, with the portal you use, are there dating profiles which have no pictures? I presume that's fairly uncommon now but, if you run across some, those would be a great way to try this idea out. Then the process would be not so much overlooking their picture but rather being like a blind person sussing out another person through other senses. Perhaps try a few of those if you can find them and see what happens.

[JuneJulySeptember]

It's your life. Only you can make that decision.

 

I almost always give women the benefit of the doubt no matter what they look like. But that's my life. I have my own reasons.

 

But in an abstract sense, I think people almost never end up with the best match for them because of looks.

 

Like ... there's somebody out there who is your best friend. Who laughs at all of the same jokes you do, watches the same shows, roots for the same sports, shops at the same stores, listens to the same music, etc. Has the same values, and treats others the same way. But you won't ever date them because you are not attracted to them, or vice versa.

[salparadise]

I don't see how you could totally ignore the attraction factor, but I do commend you for putting the emphasis on character first.

 

I've gone about it from both angles from time to time. Ultimately I decided that I need both. Instead of browsing sites for hotties I'd, give their profiles a read if they look interesting, cute or acceptable. I'd immediately pass if I saw signs of cynicism, entitlement or if she went on in a certain distasteful manner about what she expects. I give extra attention to the ones who are thoughtful, genteel and articulate.

 

But I'm a guy and I think we give women more latitude overall. As was discovered by Christian Rudder in analyzing the okc data, women deem eighty percent of men to be below average. If you combine that with many women's demand for a hot guy it means that only a small, small percentage would be contenders. Adjusting your acceptance threshold such that about half of the men would be acceptable in terms of looks should expand your pool of candidates considerably. But i also think that men in general aren't as good at writing profile essays as women, so you might have to factor that in as well.

 

Anyway, looking forward to hearing how it works out.

[Curiousroxy86]

OP, with the portal you use, are there dating profiles which have no pictures? I presume that's fairly uncommon now but, if you run across some, those would be a great way to try this idea out. Then the process would be not so much overlooking their picture but rather being like a blind person sussing out another person through other senses. Perhaps try a few of those if you can find them and see what happens.

 

Lol this may sound contradictory but the guy has to have a picture.guys with no pic messaging me make me think married or fake.

[Curiousroxy86]

It's your life. Only you can make that decision.

 

I almost always give women the benefit of the doubt no matter what they look like. But that's my life. I have my own reasons.

 

But in an abstract sense, I think people almost never end up with the best match for them because of looks.

 

Like ... there's somebody out there who is your best friend. Who laughs at all of the same jokes you do, watches the same shows, roots for the same sports, shops at the same stores, listens to the same music, etc. Has the same values, and treats others the same way. But you won't ever date them because you are not attracted to them, or vice versa.

what have those experiences been like? Giving those women the benefit of the doubt?

and that point you made about being very compatible with someone but not attractive to one is a good point. I remember my first year at college I friend zoned a wonderful guy who we were so compatible on so many levels and I always regretted never dating him

[Curiousroxy86]

I don't see how you could totally ignore the attraction factor, but I do commend you for putting the emphasis on character first.

 

I've gone about it from both angles from time to time. Ultimately I decided that I need both. Instead of browsing sites for hotties I'd, give their profiles a read if they look interesting, cute or acceptable. I'd immediately pass if I saw signs of cynicism, entitlement or if she went on in a certain distasteful manner about what she expects. I give extra attention to the ones who are thoughtful, genteel and articulate.

 

But I'm a guy and I think we give women more latitude overall. As was discovered by Christian Rudder in analyzing the okc data, women deem eighty percent of men to be below average. If you combine that with many women's demand for a hot guy it means that only a small, small percentage would be contenders. Adjusting your acceptance threshold such that about half of the men would be acceptable in terms of looks should expand your pool of candidates considerably. But i also think that men in general aren't as good at writing profile essays as women, so you might have to factor that in as well.

 

Anyway, looking forward to hearing how it works out.

I may end up coming to that same conclusion as you. Who knows. It's all very new but I'll definitely keep you all posted in this thread. My profile is actually quite vague so I don't mind if a guys profile is vague. I'm fine with getting to know the person on a date or in conversation. I just want to avoid profiles and conversations and ultimately people that scream douche, thug, idiot, player, full of himself....

[JuneJulySeptember]

what have those experiences been like? Giving those women the benefit of the doubt?

and that point you made about being very compatible with someone but not attractive to one is a good point. I remember my first year at college I friend zoned a wonderful guy who we were so compatible on so many levels and I always regretted never dating him

 

Well ,first off I'll mention that unlike a lot of people, my attraction is a broad spectrum. So, even a woman who isn't 'that attractive' may still be attractive to me somewhat. It's not a yes or no for me, but a sliding scale. Big boobs help. Just being honest.

 

Anyway, there was a woman that I met online and she saw that I had viewed her profile and she messaged me later. From her pics, there was almost no attraction, and I met her a couple of times, and there wasn't really too much. But she was really cool, and really nice, and we could talk easily, and I decided to keep it going. Ends up, she ended it.

 

At the end of the day, I've gone out with more attractive women, and their personalities were total opposite of mine. So, I don't view it as a loss.

 

When I get to the point which is "Hmm, they're cool but I'm not that physically attracted." or "Hmm, she's attractive, but we're just too different.", I will decide then. Life's all about taking crossroads.

Edited April 13, 2016 by JuneJulySeptember

[Curiousroxy86]

Well ,first off I'll mention that unlike a lot of people, my attraction is a broad spectrum. So, even a woman who isn't 'that attractive' may still be attractive to me somewhat. It's not a yes or no for me, but a sliding scale. Big boobs help. Just being honest.

 

Anyway, there was a woman that I met online and she saw that I had viewed her profile and she messaged me later. From her pics, there was almost no attraction, and I met her a couple of times, and there wasn't really too much. But she was really cool, and really nice, and we could talk easily, and I decided to keep it going. Ends up, she ended it.

 

At the end of the day, I've gone out with more attractive women, and their personalities were total opposite of mine. So, I don't view it as a loss.

 

When I get to the point which is "Hmm, they're cool but I'm not that physically attracted." or "Hmm, she's attractive, but we're just too different.", I will decide then. Life's all about taking crossroads.

very interesting thank you for sharing. I'll have to see how this plays out. I don't want to lead any guys on which is why I plan to take this very slow.

[carhill]

Lol this may sound contradictory but the guy has to have a picture.guys with no pic messaging me make me think married or fake.

Ha, ha, you'll have to work that out for yourself. I had far better luck dating women with no pictures than asking women out in real life and, yup, going out, and them turning out to be married. The ones with no pictures on OLD were the single ones. In fact, every woman I dated through OLD, including the one I married, and there were a lot of them, all were single. Not a married one in the bunch. Maybe times change, IDK!

[JuneJulySeptember]

very interesting thank you for sharing. I'll have to see how this plays out. I don't want to lead any guys on which is why I plan to take this very slow.

 

 

I see.

 

That's actually quite considerate of you.

 

For me, I never assume that because a woman accepts a date, that she is attracted to me.

 

I would only say that, after 3 or 4 dates or so, you've gotta make a decision. I've met women who keep going on dates without making a decision.

 

And women who string guys along. Don't do that.

[Erik30]

There are datingsites which allow users to talk to eachother, but you can't see their pictures until you've exchanged a couple of messages, or have liked the same things/gave the same answer to certain questions.

 

The pictures start out pixelated, but they slowly become clear the more you interact with the person. So you actually have to get to know the person somewhat before you see what they look like.

 

Maybe you could try something like that.

[JuneJulySeptember]

There are datingsites which allow users to talk to eachother, but you can't see their pictures until you've exchanged a couple of messages, or have liked the same things/gave the same answer to certain questions.

 

The pictures start out pixelated, but they slowly become clear the more you interact with the person. So you actually have to get to know the person somewhat before you see what they look like.

 

Maybe you could try something like that.

 

Where? What? I'm interested.

 

What I'm thinking is that as soon as the other person sees your picture,they're like CYA! You get a similar rejection rate to Match, eHarmony, POF.

 

But then again, why would somebody sign up for such a site if they were just gonna next you when they see your pic right?

 

I did see an article about a website that prohibited pics, but it went under.

Edited April 14, 2016 by JuneJulySeptember

[Erik30]

Where? What? I'm interested.

 

What I'm thinking is that as soon as the other person sees your picture,they're like CYA! You get a similar rejection rate to Match, eHarmony, POF.

 

But then again, why would somebody sign up for such a site if they were just gonna next you when they see your pic right?

 

I did see an article about a website that prohibited pics, but it went under.

 

It's called "Paiq." I don't know if it's available in every country, but I'm sure there are some sites who copied from them.

 

I think it's mostly meant for people who are sick of apps like Tinder and all the other sites who only seem to focus on looks. So yeah, a lot of people will give someone a shot because it's too much trouble to go through. (unless they're totally not attracted) I think the users on toe sites are a bit more open minded when it comes to looks

[Curiousroxy86]

Just to give a update!

 

Lol it's little difficult not to revert to my old ways of ignoring guys that's not appealing physically. Lol I hit and miss respond. I do overlook the ones who is throwing up gang signs, the bird, holding alcohol, sagging, looks like their illegally smoking, or is old enough to be my dad.

 

*shrugs*

 

I'll keep posted if I go on a date with any of em

Edited April 17, 2016 by Curiousroxy86