Online Dating: Swiping Right Or Left?

[JTMacc99]

31 minutes ago, ratgirlagogo said:

And aren't you looking for high-IQ chicks? And you certainly seem like a smart guy - so why in god's name are you presenting yourself (even to us)  as a knuckle-dragger?  Seriously? You're complaining about a woman who indicates that she reads books?

I am smart, and of course I'm interested in women who are smarter than me. Which narrows down my population quite a bit to be honest. 

Which is exactly why I think my opinion here has some validity. 

I am not complaining. I am stating that even the brightest of us glaze over when presented with a list of books that clearly appeal to female readers. In a dating profile I care a LOT about what makes her tick. I'm not normal. I want to understand her before reaching out. Don't give me a god damned research project to figure it out by listing a bunch of books no normal man is likely to have read. 

That is my entire point. Understand your audience. 

Metallica's Hero of The Day makes me angry about what war does to young men, Seether's Rise Above This makes me unbelievably sad about depression; Major League brings tears to my eyes when the Indians win the pennant (and I'm a Yankees fan).  Does any of that make sense to put in a dating profile? No. Men get why fucking Major League makes me emotional. Of all things.  Women think that's stupid or have never even seen the movie. Same idea as listing Vaclav and Lena as a favorite book. I'm sure she enjoyed it, but do you really think I read it? 

If you're going to do that, tell me WHY.  And then I'll list Major League brought a tear to my eye because the poor Indians fans have been loyal to that team since the 1950s and have never been rewarded. 

Art is art, emotions are emotions, and if a person is attempting to convey what art elicits what emotions in the effort to search for common ground, doesn't it make sense to use art likely to have been seen by the other person?

 

And on that note, @aradia22, I like you very much. I appreciate and understand your thought about listing your appreciation for a less popular artist over say the Beatles as a common interest. 

Let me share a story. It was 1993 and a friend and I were driving along when Smells Like Teen Spirit played on the radio. He said to me, "I don't understand why this is so popular and [insert the name of his favorite band that was not going wildly famous] is not."  And from that moment in my life I stopped judging people by what art they liked.

Because before that moment, I thought anyone who liked popular music didn't put a lot of thought into it. I put more effort into my interests than stuff everyone knows about.

And then just like that, everyone knew about it.

Art is subjective. Music, paintings, movies, books are all art and they all elicit emotions. 

When we are trying to find someone who connects with us as a romantic partner, it is far more important to find someone who shares the same emotions than the specific art that elicits the emotions. And because that's my opinion, I strongly advocate picking as generic as possible examples of what forms of art you appreciate.  

[aradia22]

@JTMacc99 To clarify, I wasn't talking about you specifically. It's just that most guys have something on their profiles (or perhaps I should say, a certain type of guy) about wanting a woman who is one or more of the following... smart, independent, ambitious, able to carry on a conversation, etc. And I think for a lot of them it's all hogwash. Let's not get into a game of pedantry but I pay much more attention when a guy has books (and sometimes movies) that I know are challenging or that I may not have even heard of. There's a difference between a guy who says he likes classical music and jazz and a guy who namechecks Rachmaninoff and Coltrane.

To me these are examples of notable book lists... and to be clear, it's not my main criteria but if it jumps out at me sometimes it can be a deciding factor.

Harry Potter, The Catcher in the Rye, To Kill A Mockingbird, 1984, The Great Gatsby... you stopped reading books in high school

Classic novels 200-500 pages... wants to seem literary, if not read for pleasure at least took some English classes in college

Joan Didion, Audre Lorde, Toni Morrison, Margaret Atwood... trying to pander or genuinely a great feminist ally (musical equivalent... Fiona Apple, Kate Nash, Joni Mitchell, Sara Bareilles, Jill Scott, etc.) 

Hemingway, Chuck Palahniuk, Infinite Jest, Bukowski... oh boy, got to be wary of this one

The Hunger Games, George R. R. Martin, The Martian, The Da Vinci Code, Gone Girl, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo... I read what's on the bestseller list or I travel a lot and pick up books at the airport.

You could do the same thing for music, movies, etc. The things you pick should say something about you. 

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, JTMacc99 said:

Men get why fucking Major League makes me emotional. Of all things.  Women think that's stupid or have never even seen the movie.

Many people who love sports, many people who loves sports movies, and many people who are moved by the depiction of being a hard-working underdog with decent skill and serious passion for something paying off despite the odds all get why that hilarious movie is also incredibly emotional when "The Indians win it, oh my god, the Indians win it!" 

I disagree with pretty much every opinion you've expressed since the "favorite book" discussion began (shared love of artistic expression being such an intimacy, I can't imagine not being interested in what - among all genres - moves a prospective partner or thinking they should choose only more-popular examples when making their list, and the whole female books/male books thing, complete with reference to things "no normal man" is likely to have read, is something with which I disagree even more strongly), but this erroneous blanket statement really stood out to me.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Bastet

[ZaldamoWilder]

On 7/8/2017 at 7:42 PM, Lantern7 said:

Is six the normal? I'm going by Batman's nine-pack in the Lego movie.

Lol!! I don't know what part of this sentence to be most mad about.

28 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

The original book comment and the subsequent follow up comments in later posts (in response to the feedback) have been greatly misconstrued. It was a valid point, both about books and sports, but it got lost in the shuffle to shut down those points. 

This.  I thought his original point was that your average bear isn't using something as specific as book titles to cast a deciding vote about their attraction, not whether the broader subject of common interests is important or even reflective of a potential match's intelligence.    I'm sure that in context and overall, it has some significance but:

19 hours ago, JTMacc99 said:

And while I'm at it, most men don't care what you read and we also don't care very much about your eyebrows past any uni-brow situations.

what man or woman who's already interested in the rest of your profile and likes your pictures goes:  he/she is really cute but, oooooh, Anna Karenina?  yeah no. 

[MrSmith]

On 7/8/2017 at 0:42 AM, aradia22 said:

This is his whole profile. That and one of those lifting the shirt to show off the abs photos. I'm thinking something mean about his self-summary. I bet you can figure out what it is. 

Would that be his misspelling of the word "college" apparently disagreeing with his claim that he's educated? :D

[MrSmith]

23 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I haven't filled out food because it ends up sounding like a crazy buffet and I'm not terribly picky. But it also points towards a dinner date and (for example) even though I like sushi, I don't want to go around having it with every guy on okc. 

LOL. If I had to create a profile, my preferences under food would read:

Quote

I'm a "human garbage scow" because I will eat any kind of food: Thai, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Greek, Italian, Mexican, etc. Basically, I'll ingest anything that looks and smells appetizing.

Hopefully, that would also tell you that I have a pretty good, self-deprecating sense of humor. LOL

[JTMacc99]

11 hours ago, aradia22 said:

To clarify, I wasn't talking about you specifically. It's just that most guys have something on their profiles (or perhaps I should say, a certain type of guy) about wanting a woman who is one or more of the following... smart, independent, ambitious, able to carry on a conversation, etc. And I think for a lot of them it's all hogwash. Let's not get into a game of pedantry but I pay much more attention when a guy has books (and sometimes movies) that I know are challenging or that I may not have even heard of. There's a difference between a guy who says he likes classical music and jazz and a guy who namechecks Rachmaninoff and Coltrane.

I'm perfectly okay with what you are doing with your screening process here. Each of us has an idea of what kind of person we will enjoy. I also think that you are wading through a much younger group of people than I am, with different goals, different life experiences, different expectations.

For example, in the last ten years I watched more animated entertainment than at any point in my life since I was ten. If I were to list my favorite movies and television shows from the last five years, Inside Out and Gravity Falls would be top five. I'm not putting that in my dating profile.

My screening process looks more at how they describe what they want, who they are, and if they can do it with a sense of self awareness and humor that all add up to smart. Because my age group has had more time to live and reflect on life, I get more real substance than just what kind of art they enjoy.  For example, here is a small section of a profile from someone who grabbed my attention:

Petite in stature, but strong, and chock-full of moxie. A survivor at the end of your popcorn flick. A smooth stone, with some weight to it; that you'd want to keep in your pocket.

I am very secure in myself, but I have some insecurities. I work out at home (but not as much as I should). A health guru of sorts. A well-informed, 8-year Vegan. A cook, cleaner, nurturer. I do not smoke, or take drugs; but I do drink cocktails socially on occasion. I wear a seat belt, hang up the towel, leave the sinks clean, and the house Feng-shui’ed.

A true Gemini. Give the sign a read, because it’s like a fun, reputable guideline to solidify all “this”. Overall, I feel I am someone that does not conform to what society deems normal. Certainly, a melting pot of many characteristics-but all good ones.

I seek to find my life partner, to build a life together. Domestic bliss on our terms. Crimson passion that cripples, and soothes. Equals that share a pure, raw, real, energy connection. A man that supports, teaches, and respects me, as I will in turn. 

When she got to books, movies, music, she gave a nice blend of actual examples and genres. She mentions movies I've never heard of, classics like North by Northwest and "classics" like Real Genius. A very appealing blend of things that we could share together and things that she could share with me. And it gives me the sense of things that I enjoy that seem like they're missing from her list.

By the time I got to the end of her profile, I had an excellent sense of her. It makes me want to go back and work on my own write up.

[NutMeg]

14 hours ago, ratgirlagogo said:

I can say that this is useful for both you and the Reading Female in that you truly don't belong together.  I certainly wouldn't have any interest myself in dating a guy who thought the book list you mentioned was  Completely Beyond the Pale even though none of those  titles would end up on my own top ten list.  And aren't you looking for high-IQ chicks? And you certainly seem like a smart guy - so why in god's name are you presenting yourself (even to us)  as a knuckle-dragger?  Seriously? You're complaining about a woman who indicates that she reads books?

Plus a thousand.  

I read this as I do read responses to posts in Unpopular Opinion (UO) threads. Meaning than in the latter case, an UO is just that, and I don't see the need for people to bash on it. It' supposed to be unpopular, for goodness' sake.  

Here I felt it's almost even worse. One guy tells you how he feels about profiles, what's important to him and what not. I'd say, as a casual reader of this forum more for sociological purposes than because of skin in the game, I find a man's opinion interesting. It's also interesting that there's a hailstorm falling on it. The opinion is interesting, but disagreeing about what may or may not have motivated it is beside the point. I'm more for applauding the honesty and hoping that maybe, somewhere, somehow, someone will understand that if a guy/girl is not into what you read, it doesn't have to mean that you have nothing in common. What does telling a guy he's wrong to think how he does accomplish? In this case, not much. It's almost like cutting a source of information because the information you receive in not what you expected.

FFS, if I had waited for men as well read as me and with the same range of genres and culture, I'd still be waiting. Instead, I had great long time stuff (love, passion, friendship or combination thereof) with a musician, a literature lover with different tastes than mine, a photographer, a choreographer and an inventor of highly technical things. We may not know the same things, but we share a passion for learning and creating, and it's been extremely rewarding and entertaining to get to know about each other's passions and learn more from each other. I'd totally be bored with a man who had exactly the same knowledge as me! 

[JTMacc99]

14 minutes ago, NutMeg said:

The opinion is interesting, but disagreeing about what may or may not have motivated it is beside the point. I'm more for applauding the honesty and hoping that maybe, somewhere, somehow, someone will understand that if a guy/girl is not into what you read, it doesn't have to mean that you have nothing in common.

Hmm... what motivated it? I don't know. Maybe I was bored. Maybe I thought it would be interesting after reading multiple profiles lecturing me that if I "Include any shirtless bathroom pictures, just say Hi, or don't have any current pictures" (because apparently those are things that only men would think is a good idea and we need to be instructed not to do so, as if THAT is going to stop them) I wanted to see what would happen if I threw out something that women are doing that didn't make sense to me in a dating profile. 

22 minutes ago, NutMeg said:

We may not know the same things, but we share a passion for learning and creating, and it's been extremely rewarding and entertaining to get to know about each other's passions and learn more from each other. I'd totally be bored with a man who had exactly the same knowledge as me! 

Nothing really to add here, other than yep.

I have to be honest here, even though it's more fun to just be a pain in the ass, I read the first couple paragraphs of the NY Times book review of Vaclav and Lena, which is the example I used when I started this mess. It says something along the lines of it is a terrific book, a whimsical, wrenching love story. If the person I was dating read this book and then told me I would like it, I would read it. It sounds really interesting. But I'm sticking by my inflammatory remarks that including as one of your favorite books without also giving some broader genres or titles more likely to be familiar to men, especially when you're trying to find common ground in a dating profile, is the female equivalent of a shirtless bathroom photo. 

[aradia22]

Quote

But I'm sticking by my inflammatory remarks that including as one of your favorite books without also giving some broader genres or titles more likely to be familiar to men, especially when you're trying to find common ground in a dating profile, is the female equivalent of a shirtless bathroom photo. 

Let's get it straight... the female equivalent of the shirtless bathroom photo is a photo in your underwear or a bikini or an overhead selfie with a lot of cleavage and duck face. ;)

[JTMacc99]

Ha!  

Although just out of curiosity, are there lots of male profiles stating that any women with bikini pictures should just swipe left?

[ZaldamoWilder]

35 minutes ago, JTMacc99 said:

Ha!  

Although just out of curiosity, are there lots of male profiles stating that any women with bikini pictures should just swipe left?

Not a one.   Unless of course, you're over 140lbs and/or Asian or Black.   ;)

[partofme]

That female profile posted above is part of the reason I always hated online dating, I could never write something like that about myself and honestly wouldn't want to because I think it sounds incredibly fake.  I had a three month membership with eharmony about 10 years ago and quit after two months because I hated the entire experience.

[aradia22]

Quote

Ha!  

Although just out of curiosity, are there lots of male profiles stating that any women with bikini pictures should just swipe left?

I haven't seen them in a while (maybe okc's algorithm is getting better or maybe guys are just adjusting their profiles) but roughly (and this is cleaned up language) I'd say it was either something like 'don't be a golddigger/sex worker' or 'don't show off your cleavage and expect to be treated with respect.' You can guess what the actual wording was like. I would say girls in their underwear or showing off cleavage in a particular way are more the equivalent of shirtless bathroom selfies. I think people of all genders or sexual orientations are allowed one or two photos at the beach or swimming even though everyone knows it's a bit of a thirst trap.

[ratgirlagogo]

11 hours ago, JTMacc99 said:

have to be honest here, even though it's more fun to just be a pain in the ass, I read the first couple paragraphs of the NY Times book review of Vaclav and Lena, which is the example I used when I started this mess. It says something along the lines of it is a terrific book, a whimsical, wrenching love story. If the person I was dating read this book and then told me I would like it, I would read it. It sounds really interesting. But I'm sticking by my inflammatory remarks that including as one of your favorite books without also giving some broader genres or titles more likely to be familiar to men, especially when you're trying to find common ground in a dating profile, is the female equivalent of a shirtless bathroom photo. 

First of all, without knowing you at all outside of this site, and especially this basement part of this site, I like you a lot personally in this limited online way that I know you.  And perhaps you have forgotten if indeed you ever knew that I am  a librarian ( and  a published children's author also, not like that means anything in this or any other context) so books are more meaningful to me than they are perhaps to you.  But that was in fact my entire point.  Speaking as someone who's been a librarian since dinosaurs walked the earth - books matter much more to some people than to others.  Anyone who gave that specific a reading list (rather than saying - "l like books that have heart-wrenching stories!" or (one I get a lot) "I am looking for books that really make me cry uncontrollably" - is narrowcasting in their dating search.  I am not myself in fact looking for books that elicit any specfic emotional reaction - I'm looking for something very different. If you don't have a response to her book list, move on.  She isn't looking for a "general" type of booklover or a "general" type of guy.  She just told you so, pretty straightforwardly.  

 

11 hours ago, NutMeg said:

The opinion is interesting, but disagreeing about what may or may not have motivated it is beside the point. I'm more for applauding the honesty and hoping that maybe, somewhere, somehow, someone will understand that if a guy/girl is not into what you read, it doesn't have to mean that you have nothing in common. What does telling a guy he's wrong to think how he does accomplish? In this case, not much. It's almost like cutting a source of information because the information you receive in not what you expected.

 My criticism here (and please understand it's because I really do want JTMAcc99 to succeed in this quest) is that it's not that he's saying that he's not into what they read, it's that he believes (his words) that NO man is going to care about the specifics of what a woman is reading.  For some people this may be true enough but it sure as shit would not be true for me or a lot of other women who are more involved in literature.  And that's OK.  As I said, they really don't belong together so that's also a  good thing.

On 7/11/2017 at 0:43 AM, JTMacc99 said:

list of books that clearly appeal to female readers. In a dating profile I care a LOT about what makes her tick. I'm not normal. I want to understand her before reaching out. Don't give me a god damned research project to figure it out by listing a bunch of books no normal man is likely to have read. 

BTW why do you think no '"normal" men would have read this list of books - especially since three of them were written by men?

Edited July 12, 2017 by ratgirlagogo

[aradia22]

Well, it happened. I've found the profile of a straight man whose hobby is pole dancing. https://www.okcupid.com/profile/Missingno_

[aradia22]

[aradia22]

New first message

Quote

Good morning madam,
How is the lovely morning treating you so far?

I'm surprised he didn't call me "milady." Some fun profile typos...

Quote

I hate writhing about myself, it feels I'm doing a school paper or something -_-.

Six things I could never do without
Sarcasam

You should message me if

You can deal with sarcasam

He did it twice so that must be how he thinks you spell sarcasm. Or he's playing a very deep game...

[smeds]

Now I want to watch Major League again.  The groundskeepers are awesome.

Topic: I give you all a lot of credit for putting yourself out there.  Even though I know several people that have met their spouse online, the skeptical New Yorker in me still thinks it is loaded with serial killers and robbers.  I blame my Mom.  Anytime I visit my parents, she either has on Criminal Minds or the ID channel.

[Lantern7]

Revamped my profile on OKC. No bites yet,and nobody is responding to my messages. Basic needs: non-smoker, doesn't live that far away, good compatibility percentage. I don't need it to be so high, but I'm not sending out queries to every profile I see. What do you guys/gals look for on OKC? Do percentages and other stats matter?

A guy my size cannot pole dance. Dancing in the style of Poland? Maybe.

[JTMacc99]

38 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

Do percentages and other stats matter?

My gut feeling is no. Be yourself, if you reach out to someone, just demonstrate that you actually read her profile and show that there is a reason you think she is interesting .

[roseslg]

48 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

Revamped my profile on OKC. No bites yet,and nobody is responding to my messages. Basic needs: non-smoker, doesn't live that far away, good compatibility percentage. I don't need it to be so high, but I'm not sending out queries to every profile I see. What do you guys/gals look for on OKC? Do percentages and other stats matter?

A guy my size cannot pole dance. Dancing in the style of Poland? Maybe.

My husband and I were a 95 percent match.  The ones who I matched low with were usually for a reason.   Stay above 80?   

 

Its a numbers game, at least that's what every male friend told me.   Couldn't bring myself to message random folks when we didn't seem compatible.

[aradia22]

Quote

My gut feeling is no. Be yourself, if you reach out to someone, just demonstrate that you actually read her profile and show that there is a reason you think she is interesting .

Yes and no. It's not a deal breaker if I look at the questions and it's just silly things or inconsequential things. Or if you didn't answer that many questions/we didn't answer the same questions (since skipping is an option). But often times a low percentage points to a key area of incompatibility (religion, sex, etc.) or wild incompatibility (smoker, hates discussing politics, hates reading, only wants to hook up, etc.). I think if a girl is interested in you after you send a message and you have a low % she might at least investigate why. But that's just me. Other stats? Height is important. I don't need a giant but I need someone taller than me and I need him to not lie about his height. A lot of guys put 6' because they know it's desirable. Except I can tell from your photos roughly how tall you are, especially if they're all selfies. I don't pay too much attention to the other stats besides age unless we're actually going on a date. 

It's hard to know how to help @Lantern7 without knowing what your profile/photos are like and what kinds of messages you're sending.

[JTMacc99]

That's a good point about the specific areas of incompatibility. I had an 80+% match with a person who reached out to me, but a really low lifestyle match. Turns out she was all about the 420. 

Yeah.... no. Not my thing. 

[StatisticalOutlier]

On Tuesday, August 1, on Adam Ruins Everything, he'll take on online dating algorithms. 

http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/index.html

[Lantern7]

@aradia22: If you have an OKC account, I can send my profile. I can't show those to non-members. And I feel like I'm polite when I'm sending messages. I'm not insistent . . . I tell them that I like the profile, I invite them to check mine out, and I add a brief description of who I am and what I'm looking for. It's not something that I copy-and-paste with every profile I see.

[aradia22]

Of course I have an okc account @Lantern7 Where do you think I'm meeting all these winners? ;)

I do think that even if it's not something you copy-paste for everyone, unfortunately if it sounds anything like those kinds of messages that girls receive (sometimes in droves, I imagine) they might write it off. But you know, I give you credit for writing more than some variation of "Hi" or "Hi, how are you." You're already ahead of the pack.

[Lantern7]

@aradia22: Send me a PM with your e-mail, and I'll send the URL. Does that sound good? [smiley face would be here]

[aradia22]

@Lantern7 You could just PM me the url and cut out a step.

[JTMacc99]

21 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

On Tuesday, August 1, on Adam Ruins Everything, he'll take on online dating algorithms. 

http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/index.html

Adam Ruins Everything has been recommended to me by a couple of friends. I'll definitely be watching this episode, as annoyance levels are starting to outpace the optimism.

Regardless of the flaws in the dating sites themselves, I've been thinking about the flaw it creates in the process of basic human interaction. Specifically how easy it is to just walk away from a conversation. If two people are talking to each other face to face, one almost NEVER waits for somebody to finish a statement, turns around and walks away never to be heard from again. That would just be incredibly rude. But that's the way the majority of these online conversations come to an end. It's not the way social interactions are supposed to work.

Or at least that's my gut feeling on it. Sure, some conversations go the way of "Ew. I'm blocking this guy", but I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about regular chit chat about interests, pets, whatever, and then one person just stops answering. It's just SO easy to do.

It feels like there is just a lot of fruit left rotting on the vine in this world.

[aradia22]

Quote

Adam Ruins Everything has been recommended to me by a couple of friends. I'll definitely be watching this episode, as annoyance levels are starting to outpace the optimism.

Side note on ARE, I think they have some worthwhile segments but for the most part I find it kind of tedious. They definitely don't do enough research on certain topics or it's really about semantics and then the smugness really gets to me. Like, maybe don't assume your audience is stupid. 

I get what you mean about fruit left rotting on the vine and yet... in a way I think that's better. Of course, it's different if you go out on a date and someone just bounces or if you finish the date and then that person goes silent and ghosts you, never to be heard from again. But there's something to the ease of being able to engage with someone, realize it's not working, and split sooner rather than later after investing time, money, effort, etc. in going on a date when you already know it's not going to amount to anything. It's more like realizing you don't like grapes and leaving someone else to pick them instead who loves grapes.

[JTMacc99]

I think that makes sense @aradia22 in that it allows us to have the time to realize that it's not working and split as opposed to investing time.

I'm getting a little more into the weeds with this thought. I'll give you the example. 

I had not one, but two conversations start up the middle of last week.

One was somebody getting back to me after a month where a started conversation didn't get far. (No worries about that, it was just nice that she actually acknowledged my reaching out to her.) She said to me that I seemed interesting and she wasn't sure why she let our conversation drop. She answered a question I had asked back them. We then exchanged a couple of notes with her last one late Thursday evening being a really long one telling me a bunch of stories and asking me a question or two in return. I responded with my own message on Friday morning.

The other was from somebody I had sent a note two probably a week earlier but she didn't seem to be a particularly active user. Also on Wednesday she responded to my opening hello fairly enthusiastically. In there was that I seemed interesting, can spell, am cute and LOCAL. We also exchanged a couple notes about common interests and asked and answered questions. On Friday morning she also sent me a nice note as well as making a cute comment about one of my pictures with my dog Danny. I responded to that one lunch time on Friday.

Neither one of them even opened my responses until Monday. Neither has responded. This is a new one for me. Usually I just assume I said something stupid and ended the conversation. (I say stupid things sometimes, you don't have to look far around PTV to find examples.) But this time they were both the last ones to write long and engaged messages to me before deciding that they didn't want to be bothered reading what I said back to them.

So here's my point. I have absolutely no attachment to either of them. I've never looked them in the eye. I just move on.

But wow, what a strange way to have conversations. Neither side even thinks twice about dropping a relatively promising conversation. We each took the chance that the other person isn't going to be a creepy stalker. We discovered some common interests. And then it just ends without so much as a "See ya!" It's just too easy to ignore the most basic rules of social interaction online. I wonder if the behavior will start creeping into the way we talk to each other in person.

(Philosophical JTMacc tends to drone on. I reserve the right to go back and delete this entire idiotic post at some point.)

[aradia22]

Oh, OK @JTMacc99 We're in two different boats. Let me explain from my perspective before I tackle yours. So for me, I don't know if it's age or something else about who I happen to be attracting/engaging with but I have a lot of boring af small talk conversations and often I find that the pressure is on me to be engaging and entertaining and clever. And sometimes I'm just not in the mood for cleverness contests. Or maybe I wasn't super interested in the guy (fine photos but not incredibly attractive or somewhat... tricky... you know, distance shots, slightly blurry, sunglasses, only one photo, etc. though I usually don't bother with those/or maybe a short profile where one or two things popped but nothing that really sets him apart) and the boring conversation just lets me know there's nothing to pursue there. That's the thing with so many of those guys who barely fill out their profiles but tell you to ask them anything you want to know. They suck at conversations and they have nothing to say. Either way, I want to find someone I enjoy talking to. It's my job to entertain people at work. I don't need to do it on my off time... that is, in a way that feels like it's also work.

In your case, I would maybe not overthink. Again, your prospective matches are older. If they took so long to open the messages, maybe they were just busy. Kids, job, life... Not everyone is on these sites all the time. It's different from someone ignoring a text which they would see without opening an app or website. I would also say the same thing I said to @Lantern7 which is that sometimes your matches are juggling conversations with other people or farther along in their relationships with those other people and that sucks but it's a fact of online dating.

[Bastet]

51 minutes ago, JTMacc99 said:

Neither one of them even opened my responses until Monday.

Is not reading a message (that one knows is just chit chat, not something time-sensitive) for two days - especially when those two days are the weekend - really that unusual, or problematic?

[theredhead77]

I find all these perspectives and tolerances so interesting. I have such a low tolerance level I'm probably missing something worthwhile. Or not.

Generic / fishing messages = delete

Empty profile = pass

Match lower than 80% = pass

Images with sedated wild animals, or where I can't tell who you are  / all mirror selfies= delete Editing software is free and plentiful. Post photos with your friends and cover their faces, if needed.

Regarding communication - if someone only responds during the work day or only during the week I'll start to wonder why he can't also reply in the evening or on the weekends. I get people are busy once they get home but also who are you sneaking around on if you only reply while you're at work?

[JTMacc99]

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

Is not reading a message (that one knows is just chit chat, not something time-sensitive) for two days - especially when those two days are the weekend - really that unusual, or problematic?

It is odd in that there was an active conversation for a day and a half, and in that they fired off a message that literally asked me questions continuing the conversation, and then taking 72 hours to see what I said. It's not like they weren't active on the app over the weekend. 

Again, I'm not insulted by the lack of interest. I'm just trying to make a general observation that online conversations are breaking the normal conventions of how we communicate. What I described above seems to be something like when somebody asks you a question and then turns around and starts talking to somebody else as you're answering the question. It's just strange how easy it is to be engaged in a "conversation" and at the same point to completely lose interest in it. 

[Bastet]

20 minutes ago, JTMacc99 said:

I'm just trying to make a general observation that online conversations are breaking the normal conventions of how we communicate. What I described above seems to be something like when somebody asks you a question and then turns around and starts talking to somebody else as you're answering the question. It's just strange how easy it is to be engaged in a "conversation" and at the same point to completely lose interest in it. 

I don't think it breaks the conventions of how we communicate electronically, though.  It would, indeed, be bizarre to be posed a question in person, and without explanation wander off to do something else for two days before coming back to answer it.  Yet I don't think that's strange at all in email (or whatever form electronic communication via a dating site takes) when there's nothing specific about the situation that means a timely response is needed.  So, yes, I agree that the rules have pretty much always been different for electronic correspondence than they are for in-person conversation (just as they've always been for written versus verbal), and, yes, I think an increasing number of those accepted rules for electronic communication are improper deviations from basic courtesy, and are influencing the way we as a society communicate in general. 

The two-day delay in reading just doesn't fall in that category for me, so that's why the emphasis stood out to me.  Never coming back to a conversation that had been ongoing and somewhat in-depth does, though.  I would think if they'd met someone they want to date exclusively for now, gotten bogged down with life and decided they didn't want to pursue anything right now, or just lost interest for some reason, they'd drop a quick note stating that.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Bastet

[JTMacc99]

4 minutes ago, Bastet said:

I would think if they'd met someone they want to date exclusively for now, gotten bogged down with life and decided they didn't want to pursue anything right now, or just lost interest for some reason, they'd drop a quick note stating that.

I agree, but I had this discussion elsewhere and for sure people use that note as a negotiating point for why the conversation shouldn't end. 

So while I wouldn't mind getting the note, and would accept it, that doesn't mean that the next person wouldn't see the note and respond in an attempt to keep the conversation going.

And I see how that particular issue contributes to what I'm seeing. It's definitely less trouble to just ghost out on somebody you've never met than to get bogged down in a explanation of WHY you're done with the conversation.

Heh. I'm convincing myself why what I originally brought up isn't actually that odd in this form of communications.

[ennui]

On 8/1/2017 at 1:15 PM, Bastet said:

I would think if they'd met someone they want to date exclusively for now, gotten bogged down with life and decided they didn't want to pursue anything right now, or just lost interest for some reason, they'd drop a quick note stating that.

In real life dating, people say "I'll call you," and then you never hear from them again. Why would online be any different?

[aradia22]

Quote

My self-summary

6 ft. Strong as shit. I'm just here to be dirty. Don't waste your time

Points for honesty

Quote

My self-summary

Sup only looking for jui jitsu girls

You should message me if

You're into jui jitsu and know how to triangle choke somebody

Different guy. This is his entire profile. First of all, it's "jiu jitsu." Secondly, um... what? Is this some new internet slang the kids are using? 

[aradia22]

I have not been on a date since June. I feel like this summer weather (and relatively free schedule) is going to waste. 

[ratgirlagogo]

4 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

I have not been on a date since June. I feel like this summer weather (and relatively free schedule) is going to waste. 

I'm sure it's frustrating but dates with the likes of the two prizes you just quoted above would be even more disturbing wastes of - not just time.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 8/1/2017 at 11:49 AM, JTMacc99 said:

In there was that I seemed interesting, can spell, am cute and LOCAL.

In an early email exchange, I congratulated Mr. Outlier on correctly spelling "minuscule" and he admitted it was spell-checker.

 

Quote

Neither one of them even opened my responses until Monday. Neither has responded.

Eww.  You can tell if/when someone opens your response?  I'm pretty sure that wasn't possible 20 years ago, thank heavens.  I don't think it would be anybody's business when I opened a response. 

 

On 7/31/2017 at 4:50 PM, aradia22 said:

Side note on ARE, I think they have some worthwhile segments but for the most part I find it kind of tedious. They definitely don't do enough research on certain topics or it's really about semantics and then the smugness really gets to me. Like, maybe don't assume your audience is stupid.

I think they assume the audience is uninformed, or ignorant, and not necessarily stupid. 

[JTMacc99]

1 hour ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

Eww.  You can tell if/when someone opens your response?  I'm pretty sure that wasn't possible 20 years ago, thank heavens.  I don't think it would be anybody's business when I opened a response. 

Yep. It's a feature. Online dating is not for the faint of heart. BTW, neither of them ever wrote back. Can I call 168 hours an unusual delay? However, and this is amazing, one of them just "liked" me on a different app. Today.

It's crazy out here. 

[possibilities]

I've been checked out of here for a while but I just caught up and I wanted to add something to the "book titles" discussion.

One of the things I like about people listing stuff they like is that it gives you something besides generic small talk to break the ice.

I like to talk about art/books/music, and it doesn't have to be just whether we like the same things, but it can also be a way of starting a conversation, to bring up the other person's interests and ask them about it.

One of the things I look for in other people is for them to take an interest in me, and want to know more about me. And I also like to find out about what they're into, not only to see if we're into the same stuff, or to use it to judge their personality or something, but just because it's like filling in a picture and it becomes a way of expressing your interest in the other person, if you ask them about things they find meaningful.

I have had relationships with people who had different tastes than mine, and it's fine. It's interesting to me. I like to see things through their senses and it makes me feel close to them.

So talking about what you read, or listen to, or whatever, to me it's just another type of data to use to get to know the person. It's not about whether that makes them a good or bad match, it's about giving you points of interest or ways to connect.

In reflecting on this conversation, I've also been thinking about what DO people want to see in a profile? We've had a fair share of mocking what offends us, but the problem I have is that most profiles leave me nothing whatsoever to pique my interest. I'm not necessarily offended, I'm just not finding anything to connect to. It's like they're not telling me ANYTHING. I am not interested in anyone based on their photo alone, or whatever platitudes they can toss into the sales pitch. I need something, almost anything, that shows me something that I can remember about you that seems like you are a real person and not a total abstraction.

The things that matter ultimately are compatible relationship goals (for ex casual hooking up vs marriage), lifestyle (jet setters vs homebodies, wants/has children vs doesn't want children, stuff like that), dealbreakers (smoking/non-smoking, various kinks/sexual style, geographic proximity, etc), and how you treat each other. How you treat someone I think is hard to determine from a profile, but how you engage over the course of getting to know someone will reveal that, and anything you can engage about will bring it to light.

I don't know if I'm articulating this clearly. It's just that my frustration with online dating in general is that I think that it's a very inaccurate way to get a sense of someone, just from reading their profile.

I read the profile of a friend of mine and never would have imagined in a million years that we'd be friends. And sometimes I've matched very high with someone and then we just didn't hit it off AT ALL, not necessarily for some concrete reason-- you can screen those blatant things in the dealbreaker category via questionnaires (except that lots of people lie), but you can't really get what I can only inadequately describe as "an energetic hit" of them until you start to really interact.

When I've met people in person, that process happens WAY faster and more accurately than anything I've experienced online.

I don't know what to do about it, I'm just venting my general disgruntledness with the entire process.

[Lantern7]

On 8/1/2017 at 3:33 PM, theredhead77 said:

Images with sedated wild animals, or where I can't tell who you are  / all mirror selfies= delete Editing software is free and plentiful. Post photos with your friends and cover their faces, if needed.

I fed a panda through a cage near an enclosure. It was raining, and that zoo probably didn't want wet panda fur. He was chowing on bamboo, so it didn't look like he cared. My mother took a picture of me . . . but I'm wearing yellow lab tech stuff, so it wouldn't be good for my profile. Also, pandas always look sedated, especially the grown ones.

I'm not getting anywhere with OKC lately. I'm not angry, but I get to points when I like I feed like needing a "win," even if it's somebody nice saying hi. And why do non-subscribers get a button for likes for them? That's cruel. "Hi! This many people want to get to know you . . . .but since you're not paying, we ain't gonna show you. Cheap-ass bastard!"

[aradia22]

@Lantern7 I'm fairly sure even if you haven't paid, you get the message when there's a mutual like. Someone else will have to weigh in on that.

For me, no one worthwhile is writing to me. I can't be bothered to engage with every "Hi, how are you" right now. (The way I do when I'm particularly restless and/or bored.) I feel like my best bet would be to write to my mutual likes and for every 15 messages, I might get one or two bites. But I'm just... not in the mood to expend all that energy.

[Moose135]

11 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

"Hi! This many people want to get to know you . . . .but since you're not paying, we ain't gonna show you. Cheap-ass bastard!"

Yes, they do it that way to get you to cough up the bucks for a paid membership.  That's why so many profiles say something along the lines of "I'm not a paid member and can't see Likes, so message me..."

 

10 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

@Lantern7 I'm fairly sure even if you haven't paid, you get the message when there's a mutual like. Someone else will have to weigh in on that.

Yes, if you like someone and they already have liked you, you do get a message that there is a mutual like.

[Lantern7]

I reconnected with somebody who was also a "mutual like" that also tweaked her profile. She seems nice. Maybe I'll try harder to meet her . . . in the sense of putting in effort.

Here I am with the guy they nicknamed "Knucklehead." Needless to say, I wouldn't use that picture. Oh, and he got moved to China, so he's living the good life.

[aradia22]

RE: Adam Ruins Everything

Watched the episode. On algorithms, they admit that they're matching people based on personality and shared interests but say that doesn't work better than matching people at random because that's not a guarantee of romantic compatibility. Sure, but again I'm clearing through a baseline of incompatible people before digging through all the possible good matches. I want to knock out anyone with big dealbreakers (e.g. smoking) or someone who I disagree with wildly (generally on social issues). I don't believe you're looking for one special soulmate who was created to be with you. I believe you could be happy with any number of people through attraction, shared experience, commitment, etc. Obviously an algorithm won't do all the work for you but it's a place to start. 

I also already knew the thing about alpha males (and I'm iffy on a lot of soft science stuff in general) but I really enjoyed the bridal party representing matriarchal bonobos.

Yeah, putting too much importance on Myers Briggs is dumb. In fact, most profiles that even include it tend to make a joke about it these days. Also, like astrology, you pick out the parts you like or the ones that seem to apply to you based on how you see yourself to confirm the validity of the test (while ignoring the parts that don't seem to apply). Like "psychic" con artists. (Not related to dating, but I am curious about how much the companies and colleges that employ it factor it into their decisions. Of course, that statistic was from 1993, so hopefully things have improved and possibly that statistic is much lower now.)

The biggest lie was actually the attempt at sentimentality at the end. Everyone doesn't "eventually find love." A lot of people end up alone. You have to learn to be OK with that. Side note: if you're ever looking for romantic advice, I generally enjoy reading the Ask Polly columns.