Online Dating is a Joke - Thoughts?

[humblebumble]

I just wanted to say that online dating rarely ever works. I don't believe the stories where people say they met their true love on match.com or any dating for that matter. I don't really understand the popularity of online dating because the concept seems too superficial to me. Think of it this way, you are supposed to upload a picture of yourself and include your salary in your profile. It just makes relationships seem like business transaction and it shouldn't be that way.

[mlerose]

One of my friends met her husband on Yahoo! personals back in the late 90s. They've been married for almost 11 years now and have two kids.

[mothedrine]

I tend to agree but mainly because people have no idea what they actually want. What they think they want and the sort of people they're actually attracted to are rarely the same thing.

Actually, I should rephrase that. The people they say they want and the people they can actually have a relationship with are rarely the same thing. I suppose most folks DO have a good idea of what they're attracted to on a superficial level. But in terms of personality characteristics, you get bullshit like 'funny, good listener, blah, blah, yada, yada.'

[humblebumble]

Originally Posted by mlerose

One of my friends met her husband on Yahoo! personals back in the late 90s. They've been married for almost 11 years now and have two kids.

First of all, she is a female so obviously she is going get to meet a lot of people. It's different for men. Women get spammed with emails from men on dating sites. Women are in huge demand on dating sites so obviously they are going to more messages. And more messages means more opportunities. There are lots of variables that go into this, which is why I remain skeptical.

How many dates did she go on before meeting him? What was her situation? What was his situation? Did he post that he had a good job and a good salary? How desperate were they to find someone or get married? Like I said, there are many variables and I won't believe that statement at face value.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by humblebumble

I won't believe that statement at face value.

Uh, I believe mlerose that her friend found her husband-to-be online, and they now have two kids. Nothing particularly incredible there.

Obviously online dating has worked for a lot of people. Very well indeed for some people; more marginally for a lot more. That's pretty much established. The questions would be how well it works versus other ways of finding partners, and what are the differences between people that lead it to work better for some than others.

[Queen Tonya]

I met my husband on okcupid.

"Online Dating" is no different than any other type of dating, or way to meet people. It's like you're saying "I don't believe those stories of people meeting their true love at church, or the grocery store, or the bar." Yet, every couple met somewhere, right?

Online dating has the advantage of both people knowing they're there for the express purpose of meeting someone, so a come-on is likely to be met more positively than at the grocery store or post office.

[Salambo]

I met my husband playing Everquest.

[Solfy]

I don't believe it's any more or any less likely to work than other standard methods of meeting people. Like bars or single-people-activity clubs, it's just another way of shopping a pool of people also looking for a partner. The biggest drawback for the internet is that with the in-person stuff people are usually local, making the logistics simpler.

Dating by any means usually starts out superficially, and even when not done on the internet people are relying on things like appearance and clues to income/social status.

[humblebumble]

Originally Posted by Solfy

Dating by any means usually starts out superficially, and even when not done on the internet people are relying on things like appearance and clues to income/social status.

I definitely agree with this, and it sucks that it is the way it is. That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't think income/social status should have that much value, but it does. Also, it sucks that we focus so much on appearance, but I suppose it's always been that way.

[Scuba Ben]

Originally Posted by Salambo

I met my husband playing Everquest.

The current husband, or the ex whom you let Pee-raffe stalk?

[hajario]

I have had all kinds of success with on-line dating, if by "success" you mean met lots of cool women, made a bunch of friends, more than a few relationships and got laid a lot.

[Uthrecht]

I think it can work, but I'm really not able to answer this from experience. I met my wife by giving her a ride in my van when she was 15.

[mothedrine]

I'm probably not typical, but i'm interested in someone who is intelligent and curious. In terms of appearance, I'm more concerned with mannerism and behavior. I will admit that I'm not going to be attracted to someone who is morbidly obese. But within fairly broad parameters, a woman who can move in an elegant an alluring manner IS elegant and alluring. And I don't mean anything overt. It's all so subtle as to be almost subliminal.

I think that's something women need to understand. If you act the way you want to be perceived, at least SOME people will perceive you that way. The trick is having the balls to ignore everyone else. Oh, and that's the other thing I look for - balls. A marginally attractive woman who can pull off the whole elegance thing and essentially say fuck you to the rest of the world? Holy fucking shit. Sign me the fuck up.

[humblebumble]

Originally Posted by mothedrine

I think that's something women need to understand. If you act the way you want to be perceived, at least SOME people will perceive you that way. The trick is having the balls to ignore everyone else.

I'm perceiving myself as a cynic; therefore, I am a cynic.

[McNutty]

One advantage to meeting your wife using online dating: Sometimes, the very first time you hear her voice, like, ever, is when she calls you and starts by saying, "Hello, <yourname>? It's <hername>. You know, from the internet?" And she says that "the internet" part half-ominously, half with a you-know-what-I'm-talking-about wink.

And bam, you fall in love.

[mlerose]

Originally Posted by humblebumble

First of all, she is a female so obviously she is going get to meet a lot of people. It's different for men. Women get spammed with emails from men on dating sites. Women are in huge demand on dating sites so obviously they are going to more messages. And more messages means more opportunities. There are lots of variables that go into this, which is why I remain skeptical.

How many dates did she go on before meeting him? What was her situation? What was his situation? Did he post that he had a good job and a good salary? How desperate were they to find someone or get married? Like I said, there are many variables and I won't believe that statement at face value.

I think she was about 20 and he was about 25 when they met. Neither was desperate to find someone or fall in love or get married; they just wanted to meet people to date and ended up finding each other. Also, it was the late 90s- very early days of online dating, and the online dating cultures you see now hadn't really developed yet (your statements of "women get spammed by men, women have more opportunities" etc.).

I only posted my anecdote since you said you "didn't believe the stories." Granted, you don't know me or my friend, but I went to their wedding in 2001 and I see them both now (with their kids) and I know that for at least one couple out there, the story happened.

I met my husband online (though not through a dating site) and I honestly don't see how it's any different from meeting anyone to date in any sort of situation. Even if you don't post income or whatever in your dating profile, when you meet someone face-to-face you're going to get clues about their financial situation and (presumably) before you commit permanently you will find out what the person does for a living and approximately how much money they make.

Also, I have a small business that provides a particular service for weddings. I always ask the couples I work with how they met, and so far several of them met through online dating services. Granted, I don't know these people very well, but I've found I'm just as likely to hear the couples met on match, eharmony, or okcupid as I am to hear that they met through mutual friends or in a bar/club or whatever.

[mlerose]

Originally Posted by McNutty

One advantage to meeting your wife usingonline dating: Sometimes, the very first time you hear her voice, like, ever, is when she calls you and starts by saying, "Hello, <yourname>? It's <hername>. You know, from the internet?" And she says that "the internet" part half-ominously, half with a you-know-what-I'm-talking-about wink.

And bam, you fall in love.

FTFY.

This can happen any way you meet online. Like, on a message board about backpacking in Europe. Ahem.

[Salambo]

Originally Posted by Scuba Ben

The current husband, or the ex whom you let Pee-raffe stalk?

I've only been married once, to my husband. The last guy was a fiance, but we never pulled the trigger. I did meet him there, too. He and my now-husband were then-BFFs. :snark: <-- 'cos he looks like he's saying "ooooOOOOOoooo"

[humblebumble]

Originally Posted by mlerose

Also, it was the late 90s- very early days of online dating, and the online dating cultures you see now hadn't really developed yet (your statements of "women get spammed by men, women have more opportunities" etc.).

Wow, finally a familiar time period! You're telling me that women didn't get spammed with messages in the very first chat rooms from men? I definitely disagree with you there.

Originally Posted by mlerose

Even if you don't post income or whatever in your dating profile, when you meet someone face-to-face you're going to get clues about their financial situation and (presumably) before you commit permanently you will find out what the person does for a living and approximately how much money they make.

I agree, but it shouldn't matter. In an ideal world, it shouldn't matter, but it does. My point is that there is just way too much emphasis on being superficially perfect.

[mlerose]

Originally Posted by humblebumble

Wow, finally a familiar time period! You're telling me that women didn't get spammed with messages in the very first chat rooms from men? I definitely disagree with you there.

I'm saying that people posting/responding to personal ads on yahoo! personals in 1999 was probably not the same sort of online dating culture that has developed in the years since. As for chat rooms, I have no idea. I never went into chat rooms to do anything other that be silly with my teenage friends in 1994-ish.

[humblebumble]

I agree that yahoo! personals in 1999 was probably not the same sort of online dating culture that has developed.

[mlerose]

I agree, but it shouldn't matter. In an ideal world, it shouldn't matter, but it does. My point is that there is just way too much emphasis on being superficially perfect.

Take away the implied "straight men looking for straight women" and "income/profession" and insert "straight women looking for straight men" and "looks." Do you ignore photos when looking at women's online profiles?

[Solfy]

Originally Posted by humblebumble

First of all, she is a female so obviously she is going get to meet a lot of people. It's different for men. Women get spammed with emails from men on dating sites.

The odds are good, but the goods are (often) odd. Just because a woman is getting hit up a lot in a chat room, on an online dating site, or in a bar, doesn't mean she's sitting in the catbird seat. It often means she's got to blow a lot of time wading through the ones who clearly have nothing in common with her who are using a shotgun approach to meeting someone.

Just because a posted job gets 100 resumes, it doesn't mean HR has 100 qualified candidates to interview.

This may come across as harsher than intended, but when I see someone complaining about the superficiality of dating, I tend to assume they are either ugly as a troll doll (unlikely) or an average person with a real wet-blanket personality. Negativity and a defeatist attitude are turn-offs as strong, if not stronger than, appearance flaws.

[Salambo]

I remember being 16, in 1995, hopping into a sex chat room in mIRC (TEE HEE!), and being naive enough to think that if I confessed to being 16, no one would take me seriously or want to talk to me. So I claimed to be 27. Lots of private messages, fine. But then I got bored and went to a different sex chat room. I enter, get hit with a/s/l up front, and tell the truth. Instant PM spam hell, windows popping up all over the place. I laughed and peeked at a few before closing everything down. Most just said the standard "you wanna cyber?" But my favorite one just said, "I'm gonna fuck you now. Slam slam slam"

When I went to close the window, he was still typing it out, row after row: "slam slam slam"

[humblebumble]

Originally Posted by mlerose

Take away the implied "straight men looking for straight women" and "income/profession" and insert "straight women looking for straight men" and "looks." Do you ignore photos when looking at women's online profiles?

Haha, good point. You win. But why do we pay so much attention to superficial qualities?

[hajario]

Originally Posted by humblebumble

I agree, but it shouldn't matter. In an ideal world, it shouldn't matter, but it does. My point is that there is just way too much emphasis on being superficially perfect.

In some vague way I agree on an intellectual level that it's unfair that women my age are looking for tall, reasonably fit men who are professionals with a decent income.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by Solfy

The biggest drawback for the internet is that with the in-person stuff people are usually local, making the logistics simpler.

Normally you can filter your online searches so that you're only looking at more-or-less local people there too.

The biggest drawback I see is that online expressions often have a pretty loose correlation with the things that make people attractive or good to be with IRL. Some perfectly wonderful people just aren't good at putting themselves or what they like into writing. Others wouldn't be comfortable enough to put it out there for strangers to browse through. It is kind of like listing yourself on eBay. (I can imagine my ideal woman not deigning to do online dating at all, but if she was going to, she'd do it with wit and good vocabulary.)

I've had some success with online dating, even with a very diffident approach. Maybe if I was more serious about it I'd feel differently, but I think of it as being a pretty random way to get a phone number. The phone call leads to the IRL meeting, and it's only the IRL meeting that I think of as "meeting" the person. After that it's just dating.

Actually, just comparing the courses of dating from first IRL meeting onward, the small set of women I found online yielded better per capita results than the larger set I met other ways. It feels sort of weird to say that, but it's the truth. Does that show that the few who get through the heavy filtering of the process to that point have something to them?

[Mustard Stain]

Back when I was single, I actually had pretty good luck with on-line dating and I'm still friends with some of the women I met. (Those "better friends than lovers" kind of things.) I found it generally good for meeting women with generally compatible or common interests as me and weeding out the riff-raff. But it only worked when the nice ladies were reasonable communicators. Most of the time is was a really time consuming process to separate the wheat from the chaff.

IMO, there were three main issues that made online dating forums stupid and difficult. This is from the perspective of a non-sleazy dude - me! - looking at normal women's profiles (plus, it was back in like 2002):

1) People who don't ask what they are looking for. - Either they don't actually know (fair enough) or they just suck at asking for what they want. Online dating is anonymous enough that you can be ruthless and uncompromising and actually ask for exactly what you want in another person.

I saw way, way too many vague profiles that said:" I'm looking for a fun, decent man who shares my values." Well sweetheart, it helps if you mention what your values are and what "fun" means to you. Are you a Baptist, teetotaller who thinks gardening is fun? Because I like beer and my version of fun tends to involve fast moving water and needs a helmet.

2) People who aim to please. - These are the ones who've constructed their profiles to avoid turning off anyone. They are the ones who choose "trying to quit" even if they are regular smokers. They click on "likes animals" even though they are deathly allergic to dogs, and "undecided" when it comes to profile questions about want kids when not wanting kids would actually be a dealbreaker.

Usually profiles like this end up presenting the same problems as #1 because they end up so vague, that you can' t tell if you're a match and there's nothing special that jumps out as being unique. Plus, they're already compromising too much from the get go. I think people figure they just need to get a foot in the door, and if they find true love there will be adaptation and compromise. That may be true in the later stages of a relationship, but when you meet someone, you still need to start from common ground and not with a plan of modifying yourself to meet his/her expectations. To me, these "Oh, I like whatever you like" profiles were the biggest time suckers.

3) People who don't read your damn profile. My profile used to mention that I spent almost every weekend in the summer paddling, orienteering (which I was into at the time), and I was looking for a woman who could kick my ass on a mountain bike. I got a nice, friendly message from a pretty woman, but then I read her profile in which she proclaimed she was anti-outdoorsy and was so uninterested in active lifestyle stuff that she proudly "didn't even own a pair of running shoes."

Now that's fine and dandy for her, she was a die-hard urbanite - a city girl through and through who modelled her life after Sex and the City. So WTF was she thinking she'd do with scruffy the likes of me and my farmer's tan?

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by Solfy

The odds are good, but the goods are (often) odd. Just because a woman is getting hit up a lot in a chat room, on an online dating site, or in a bar, doesn't mean she's sitting in the catbird seat. It often means she's got to blow a lot of time wading through the ones who clearly have nothing in common with her who are using a shotgun approach to meeting someone.

True, but this is still a detriment, because women get to the point where sifting through their match.com inbox is like sifting through their spam folder. Some I've talked to have said they just don't even try to read it all. So you have to operate under the assumption that you're sending some emails that might hit the mark but simply never get opened due to being lost in the noise.

One thing that I think helped me when I was doing it was that I didn't send the same message to any two women. This took a ton more time, and maybe it was silly, but I felt like if I gave each one my individual attention, even if I'm saying mostly the same stuff, that will come through as more genuine. I'll be in different moods when I write them, I'll let things I know about the recipient influence which anecdotes get left in and which get cut, and I'll just generally keep things changing enough to be a bit more interesting. It also just feels a lot less pathetic to carefully pick recipients and write them individually than it does to make a big list sorted by boob size, hotness, and number of profile spelling errors and copypaste the same canned message to the top 20.

[Solfy]

Originally Posted by McNutty

True, but this is still a detriment, because women get to the point where sifting through their match.com inbox is like sifting through their spam folder. Some I've talked to have said they just don't even try to read it all.

That's kind of my point. Just because women get a lot more offers/interest in these situations doesn't mean they've got a ton more people to meet/date vs. the average guy. Comparing number of messages in an in-box may make it look like guys are getting the short end of the stick, but when you separate the wheat from the chaff I suspect it's a more even playing field.

[Salambo]

Yeah, it's not like all those floods of emails are like "oh, she gets her pick of the litter!" No, it's more like, "oh, she has to sort through the litter box." And separate the creeps, weirdos, one night stands, txt speak, spam, candidates for domestic abuse charges, rude assholes, then after throwing out all the rest that are completely unreadable, choose someone who seems normal and sane, and still pray she doesn't get robbed, raped, or murdered.

It's fun!

[GreyCloud9]

Originally Posted by mlerose

One of my friends met her husband on Yahoo! personals back in the late 90s. They've been married for almost 11 years now and have two kids.

WOW, this story exactly, except they have no kids.

[Mako]

Just out of interest humblebumble, are we differentiating between people who met on a dating site and people who just happened to meet online (in say a forum)? Because I'm seeing a bit of blurring of the lines in the replies.

[humblebumble]

I was mainly referring to dating sites rather than people who met on a message board or in an online game.

[Mateomasfeo]

It has never worked for me, but then again, I am old, ugly and rude...

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by Solfy

That's kind of my point. ... Comparing number of messages in an in-box may make it look like guys are getting the short end of the stick, but when you separate the wheat from the chaff I suspect it's a more even playing field.

That would be fine if the separating process was flawless, but when you've got 99% spam, it's difficult to pick through it and find all the non-spam reliably. From the guy's perspective, I might know I'm only competing with a handful of other guys who are are as thoughtful and brilliant as I am, but it's still pretty demoralizing to know that my wheat is reasonably likely to get thrown out with the chaff accidentally.

[mothedrine]

This is another thing I hate about these sites and why I only rarely send pm's to women when join one. Do I really want to feel like just another piranha trying to feed on the latest piece of meat floating by? Not really.

[Elyanna]

Originally Posted by Salambo

I remember being 16, in 1995, hopping into a sex chat room in mIRC (TEE HEE!), and being naive enough to think that if I confessed to being 16, no one would take me seriously or want to talk to me. So I claimed to be 27. Lots of private messages, fine. But then I got bored and went to a different sex chat room. I enter, get hit with a/s/l up front, and tell the truth. Instant PM spam hell, windows popping up all over the place. I laughed and peeked at a few before closing everything down. Most just said the standard "you wanna cyber?" But my favorite one just said, "I'm gonna fuck you now. Slam slam slam"

When I went to close the window, he was still typing it out, row after row: "slam slam slam"

So that's where your username comes from, eh? :P

I've seen online dating work for others, most recently a middle-aged widowed co-worker who met a nice man from Texas. They married last fall.

I didn't meet my husband online, but it's safe to say we bonded through online activities--I think our first one on one time was spent giggling like dorks at Stumbleupon offerings.

[Salambo]

Maybe he was calling my name? It would have been weirdly funnier if he had been saying "salam salam" instead.

Useless fact: My original online user handle was "Peanut", because that was my nickname in high school. I changed it soon after because there were a billion other Peanuts out there, even in the mid-90's.


...LAWLZ: "peanut peanut peanut"

[Komnenos]

I opted out of the dating world a few years ago (and opted into the world of regular sex outside of the relationship game) but I've checked out dating sites. By far the biggest problem I see with them as a man is the women on there are basically un-dateable in their weirdness and social / etc problems in almost 80-85% of the cases.

When I first started looking around dating sites I expected the women would just be too ugly, but the truth is you have a range of ugly women to hot women, with most of them being "just average" (which is a good microcosm of the real world, of course.)

I also think there are a lot of gold diggers on these sites, I got very different response rates when I included a brief paragraph about my work / financial situation versus when I just mentioned what field I was in. A lot of the increase was single mothers with low income jobs.

[dogbutler]

Originally Posted by hajario

In some vague way I agree on an intellectual level that it's unfair that women my age are looking for tall, reasonably fit men who are professionals with a decent income.

Maybe that's why I fianlly got a hit online.

[humblebumble]

Women are just too picky on dating sites. At least, they are in my experience. There are many women looking for people with six figure salaries, but I guess it has always been that way even in the real world.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 2

[THespos]

Originally Posted by GreyCloud9

WOW, this story exactly, except they have no kids.

I met my wife on Match.com. We have two little ones. (see avatar)

[Pere]

Originally Posted by Komnenos

I opted out of the dating world a few years ago (and opted into the world of regular sex outside of the relationship game) but I've checked out dating sites.

What world is this that involves regular sex but no dating, relationships, or websites?


Ohh, whores.

[Salambo]

There are women who enjoy no-strings attached sex.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by Salambo

There are women who enjoy no-strings attached sex.

The best kind of date.



Not really. But it's one kind.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by humblebumble

Women are just too picky on dating sites. At least, they are in my experience. There are many women looking for people with six figure salaries, but I guess it has always been that way even in the real world.

Yep. Evidence that hard work pays off.

Originally Posted by Salambo

There are women who enjoy no-strings attached sex.

At least they told me they enjoyed themselves.

[humblebumble]

How is that evidence that hard work pays off? I don't get it.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 2

[hajario]

I worked very hard to get two engineering degrees. I am in the middle of a successful career and that took an incredible amount of hard work. These things got me to the point where I make a good living. I'm no workaholic like my father but I am a dedicated worker. This has paid off because that combined with my careful money management has made me financially comfortable.

Chicks did this.

[humblebumble]

*Sigh* I wish I had a job. I worked extremely hard for my master's and that took a lot of hard work for me because I'm actually a pretty slow person (and I'm willing to admit it). And yes, I realize I'm not the best at interacting with people because I'm not gifted with charisma and wit (seems that's what it takes to get a job these days, at least for me).

It just sucks that in this economy, my value as a person relies on the amount of money I earn. This is why I fail at dating because I just can't impress people with that. Additionally, I just find that I have nothing in common with many people. I can't hang out with people who like anime because they end up liking anime a lot more than me. I also can't hang out with people who enjoy video games because they are a lot better at video games than me (not to mention our different tastes in video games). I don't go to bars because I drink beer while watching movies, cartoons, or anime. And seriously, who doesn't like bars besides me? I'm introverted, and I'm set in my ways.