OLD and the paradox of choice

[Chilli]

When l was on it it was the actual "lack" of choice that struck me.

After divorce l met lots of women but that was really mostly just out of boredom .

lt was nothing to give one the flick and be talking to 3 more an hour later and on and on just for something to do.

But really , not one of them turn out to be anyone l would have just naturally gone for in RL.

Although there was just this one , but she disappeared anyway.

 

Forums aren't bad though , you get to know and feel some people a bit in a forum, sometimes a lot, l met my gf in a forum and know quite a few other people that have met from forums.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Chilli

[carnelian]

I stand by everything I said. In your profile says NormalPerson is a male. Hard to believe because it sounds like a female point of view entirely.

 

The fact that you refer to this as a marketplace with humans on the table so to speak, shows me you have a capitalist point of view which is a cold and insensitive way of perceiving this. An d very shallow. I have been a careful observer and participant for longer than most folks on this site and I resent this capitalistic perspective. Why don't you rate people like stocks and bonds too?

Online dating does not have to be a last resort, of course. You should read the long long list of complaints by both sexes about POF on the internet. Actually, I agree with many of your points--I was generalizing.

 

You are relatively young?

[elaine567]

I have found that age, height, money and religion to be important to them.

Some girls will look for any excuse, even mediocre writing skills, to hit the delete button.

 

They are not looking for "excuses" they are looking for men who they feel they have a chance to get along with.

Who wants to date a guy who is the wrong age, the wrong height or the wrong religion. Who wants to date guys who can hardly pay for the coffee, or who are way below them in the pay scale, who wants to date guys whose writing skills are mediocre?

Everyone is looking for the best match that they can get, I do not see many men willing to compromise on their particular specifications, so why should women have to do that?

[normal person]

I stand by everything I said. In your profile says NormalPerson is a male. Hard to believe because it sounds like a female point of view entirely.

 

Just because I think some men give women power or leverage doesn't mean I endorse it, like it, do it myself, etc. That's only what I see as an objective observer. I make decisions based on facts and observations and I leave my feelings and emotions out of it because they're irrelevant and things will happen regardless of how I feel about them. Certainly wouldn't call that a "female" point of view just because it happens to illustrate the fact that some women have the power to pick and choose. It just sounds realistic, to me. I left my emotions out of it -- not to generalize, but that's hardly "female."

 

The fact that you refer to this as a marketplace with humans on the table so to speak, shows me you have a capitalist point of view which is a cold and insensitive way of perceiving this. An d very shallow.

 

It might be a bit harsh, but feelings and sensitivity are totally ancillary to this. Reality isn't affected by how you feel about it. Being sad or upset won't change the circumstances. Just because it doesn't feel all warm and fuzzy doesn't mean it also isn't true. Y'got me. I'm shallow. Does it change anything?

 

Do you go out with everyone who messages you, or everyone with a profile? No? You don't like every single person? Well, then you rate and assign value to people too. You just don't vocalize it. You make the same discriminations, you just try and put a nice face on it and then denounce people who come out and happen to call a spade a spade as "shallow." Everyone rates people, I'm just honest about it and I won't pretend I don't for fear of seeming insensitive. If you evaluate potential matches, you're shallow. Everyone does it, therefore everyone is shallow. You can use "sexual marketplace" or whatever analogy doesn't seem so bad to you, but it's all the same.

 

Consider this: At one point most people have rated someone else on a scale of 1 to 10. Would you call that insensitive and shallow? Because it is, yes, you're right. Does admitting that then make everyone a 10? No. We still have to deal with the undeniable reality of the situation that there are varying degrees of desirability. All I'm doing is describing those degrees and nuances in more detail. A 24 year old model in Los Angeles is going to be viewed much differently than a 55 year old diabetic mother of 3 in Topeka. Sexual market value. I'm far from the first person to use this term or make the observation. How else would you explain why certain people are more desirable than others?

 

I have been a careful observer and participant for longer than most folks on this site and I resent this capitalistic perspective.

 

That's totally fine, you can have your opinions too. Mine is the only one that makes sense to me. If you or anyone else could convince me otherwise, I'm sure my position could evolve. I don't care what the truth is, I just want to know it. And I haven't heard a better explanation yet.

 

Why don't you rate people like stocks and bonds too?

I'll even oblige you. I'm long on the 24 year old model in Los Angeles, and I'm short the 55 year old diabetic in Topeka. Are you trying to tell me their likely to be equally as desirable?

 

Online dating does not have to be a last resort, of course. You should read the long long list of complaints by both sexes about POF on the internet. Actually, I agree with many of your points--I was generalizing.

 

You are relatively young?

 

Link it and I'll give my thoughts, but I doubt you'll want them. At the end of the day, I just want to know the truth and make decisions based off that. I'd rather be practical, pragmatic, and prepared than feel warm, fuzzy, and confused. You're free to have your qualms with that, to each their own.

 

31 / male / day trader.

[Chilli]

Day trader , cool , l tried it for a few years but l got hit nasty in the crash and with other things going on , got out of it.

 

But funny , don't worry about writing skills you'd be wasting your time because from what l saw and l talked to a lot , l wondered if some even went to school.True..

 

One more thing ,they did some polls , like they do with everything , l know,.

But it was something like 7 out of 10 women on date sites just look at the picture.

And l can actually vouch for that because l dunno how many l talked to that asked me all sorts of things that were right there on my page.

Even simple things like age or how many kids.

lt was pretty clear mostly , hardly any of them even read a word , just like the polls .

[normal person]

One more thing ,they did some polls , like they do with everything , l know,.

But it was something like 7 out of 10 women on date sites just look at the picture.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the figure for men was 8 or 9. And let's be honest, if you go into a bar and there are 10 people in there, you're going to single out the 2 or 3 you find most attractive first and then see if you like what they have to say. Just like OLD, man or woman, you look through a search until you find someone who excites you physically -- then you read the profile. It's not like you read all the profiles and then check to see what they look like. It's a shallow endeavor just about any way you look at it.

[Miss Spider]

Then, as far as your own dating life is concerned, feel free to make looks matter less.

 

how do I do that?

[CryForNoOne]

how do I do that?

 

It's not easy. I just concluded a string of 6 OK Cupid dates and the one that I'm pursuing is the most attractive one. I probably would have gone on a second date even if she was just OK, but I actually like her personality most as well and she's totally into me. I'm hooked. I wish it wasn't that way but I don't know how to unprogram myself. I'm going to think about her morning noon and night for a little while. I can tell she is going to do the same, which is when dating is really fun...

[Miss Spider]

Make other things your priority. Most single people I know these days prioritize looks above all else and then act surprised when they can't meet anyone decent. Well, it shouldn't be surprising when you are just looking for someone hot and then hoping they will be decent. Instead, look for someone decent. Pretty simple stuff.

 

I seek both. Looks are an important part of attraction to me. I can't help it.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[Miss Spider]

That's one thing I just don't get about most women these days. For me, it is not so black and white. There is more than just attractive and not attractive. Sure, some women I find repulsive, and I would not date those, but there is a huge amount of women that fall between repulsive and instant erections. I'd date pretty much anyone in that group.

 

See, I don't get that. I don't consider anyone 'repulsive' physically speaking. There's just who I'm physically/sexually attracted to and what I am not. If I'm not physically/sexually attracted to them, I don't date them. I know that pretty quickly.

 

I also don't get the instant erection thing. I think some things people will never understand about each other.

[Miss Spider]

I think you described basically the same thing as me, except you find a wider array of people physically attractive. The video that Normal Person posted attempts to explain this, but I don't know if I buy it. I just find less people attractive than you. Sure, it is harder to date which is a bit sad, but there's is actually no point in me dating a guy I am not attracted to. I want to be with someone I am totally feeling, their looks and personality. I think most people do that. Most people want to do as good as they believe they can

 

Low testosterone in men can make them find fewer women attractive because their drive is lower.

source?

Edited August 25, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[bluefeather]

I don't think it is about looks, even when we are talking about looks, but rather, what the looks represent. To assist with this idea, I would say: certain looks might be attractive because it means ____ to you. Fill that in with "edgy," "rich," "openly sexual," "loving," etc. The issue is that anyone can make themselves look a certain way, just by putting on a costume. And that costume can trick anyone's brain into thinking the person has any of the above-stated qualities. But what if you could actually see the real qualities in a person, regardless of what costume he or she was wearing?

 

That is hard to explain, but it isn't a case of sacrificing looks. It has more to do with being able to see the attractive qualities that one isn't used to seeing. It is an ability that might have to be learned. Think of that term, "I don't know what she sees in him." Well that's because it's true - they don't know. Some people miss sexy qualities completely, while they are looking for a "beard," or "bewbs." Everyone's got types. I have types too. But my physical attraction filter is dwarfed by the filter I use when I look into their eyes and they share who they really are on a spiritual level. That's when I can see a light that glows brighter than anything one can do to his or her body. This is an oversimplified way of putting it, but it's the best way I can describe what I am trying to say right now.

 

For people who are prioritizing washboard abs, or supermodel looks that will last for however long can be kept up, you do you. But you might be missing a lot that is right there in front of you.

[Miss Spider]

Ah, but does that always have to mean the best looking person? Best doesn't always equal best looking.

 

 

 

Instinctively, yeah. I believe we want the person who is best match for us physically, among other things, but other factors come into play. One of these factors, and what Dan Ariely posits, is how people adjust to what they can attain. I think overall people are realistic about this. I'm not only pining after the most attractive man I've ever seen or the smartest man in the world. But I do need to be attracted to him physically and find him sufficiently intelligent. He doesn't need to know 7 languages, but he needs to have a good heart. He needs to be the best for *me*.

 

source is me, Enigma32, genius.

well, can't argue with that

[Miss Spider]

I get it, in a way. I remember when I was dating one really gorgeous girl, in particular, just being with someone that hot felt good. Random people look at you differently. You can see the looks of respect you get just walking into a room with someone like that. I remember my guy friends used to always ask me relationship advice because they wanted to know how TF to get a girl like that for themselves. I was proud that someone as beautiful as her would want to be with me. It just felt good. I was also an idiot because none of that means anything. People put far too much emphasis on physical beauty. Someone pretty, everyone kisses their butt, treats them better, gives them whatever they want. Pretty people can act like a douche because people will let things go when you're hot.

 

I no longer give a crap how hot someone is. I am not impressed. I think my job gave me some perspective on it. I can't go a couple days without some gorgeous girl trying to use her good looks to get one over on me. Now I don't give a crap and that attitude has invaded my thoughts on dating. I'm not impressed by how hot a girl is anymore. I'm impressed when she is a good person. Is interesting, or kind, funny, anything. That's what I look for, and if she is hot too, good. If not, I really don't care.

 

 

Wait, how did needing physical attraction translate to needing someone to flaunt(???), but I'm probably not the best at explaining this. It's complex and hard for me to grasp. I don't know what constitutes "hot", but the guys I am typically physically attracted to don't turn heads.. It's nice (for you, at least) that you don't prioritize looks unless the person is obese or so. I suppose people could say you are shallow to do that. I don't think you anymore shallow than the majority of us, as sad as it is. Another huge factor in what influences attraction comes down to priorities, but I don't believe I have direct control over that and maintain I am not making a mistake by skipping over guys I don't find physically attractive. Funny, nice, interesting are perfect qualities for a platonic relationship to me, but I wouldn't date a guy who didn't physically appeal to me because that's a huge component in sexual attraction for me in the initial stages and sex is important to me in a rship.

 

Others have tried. It doesn't usually end well for them ;-)

 

The info I gave you is true, but I just don't feel like source searching at the moment.

Yeah, sorry. It may be valid, but I only question it because it doesn't seem to make much sense. I understand Total T levels can influence sex drive/libido, but finding a narrower amount of women attractive? If a person had an outrageously high libido (which is influenced by more than just test.), then I can see him sleeping with more women simply because he's really horny, attraction aside.

 

Anyway, I enjoyed this discourse w you. TY

Edited August 25, 2017 by Cookiesandough
TOTAL T NOT ONLY FREE T

[bluefeather]

I wonder if the OP took a piece from the book called The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less. I just looked it up from having a small case of anxiety on the abundance of choice. Not regarding dating. I don't really care about that right now. It is on what kind of artistic outlet to pursue. I am having trouble typing about it right now, but this kind of communication is really helping with the venting system. Hmm. I think I may look into reading that book...