Fucking Plenty of Fish

Boooo! :slight_smile:

I get the impression about ~10% of men on online dating sites are behind most of the dysfunction women say they put up with (abuse, belligerence, sexually aggressive messages, etc). It isn’t like everyone does that.

For men, internet dating is mostly a demoralizing waste of time no matter how you try to do it.

I personally loved internet dating (hey, I found my wife that way :slight_smile: ), but the dating sites were all quite different for me in terms of results. OKCupid sucked, but Match was a goldmine and had many more serious prospects. I agree with the poster who said that it helps for people to have a little skin in the game by going to a paid site. But mileage varies, obviously. Other male friends of mine reported the reverse outcomes. I’d give other sites a try if you’re still into the internet dating route, and just don’t take it too seriously.

Yeah, but it beats the alternatives.

That’s true of most all the sex-based badness in the world. Most women have been sexualy harassed. Very few men ever sexualy harass anyone. A tiny fraction of men are responsible for all rapes. Most men are decent to women, but most women have to put up with indecent men. Sometimes life sucks.

When it comes to rape, my understanding is that about ~8-10% of men will ever rape someone. Of that group, maybe 1-2% of men are serial rapists who commit 50-60%+ of all rapes (Look at cosby, who has been accused of rape by dozens of women). The rest in that group tend to only have 1 victim.

I’m going to assume the stats are the same for other sexual abuses. 8-10% of people do most/all of it, but even among that group there is 1-2% responsible for half or more of it.

Or they’re new at it and don’t yet understand the game. I was that way. What few responses I got resulted in lengthy exchanges of messages without any commitment to actually meet in person. I found it extremely frustrating – I didn’t sign up looking for pen pals.

I eventually gave up the whole online dating concept in frustration. I can understand women being cautious about meeting strangers they only know through a dating site, but sheesh, why are they signed up at all if they’re too afraid to go and meet someone?

Since we are discussing frustration with online dating, here is something I don’t get. I’ve known men who are extremely attractive, and I’ve known men who made good incomes (6 figures). I’ve also known men who set up fake profiles of attractive men or wealthy men.

Apparently in online dating as a man, having a decent income doesn’t matter nearly as much as being attractive. That is shocking to me, esp when the women are 30+ years old. You’d assume at that age a woman would care more about a man’s money than his looks (I could understand women in their early 20s caring more about looks than money, but older than that you’d assume it would be the opposite). But apparently an attractive man with an average job/income gets a far better response rate than an average looking man who makes 6 figures. I still can’t figure that one out. I’m going to assume women just look at the pics and don’t read the profiles.

Perhaps because those 30-plus-aged women are financially secure in their own right?

I can’t answer because I never put anything in my profiles mentioning income. OTOH, perhaps that’s among the reasons why I got such a poor response rate and very tentative responses.

Some are and some aren’t, but yes that could be a factor.

This describes perfectly my experience with internet dating, at least so far as mainstream dating is concerned. Basically if you’re a straight male looking for a straight female, you have three options in internet dating, none of which are good, or really work well. (Of course if I had the looks of David Beckham and the cash of Tony Stark things might have been different, but then could you imagine me sifting through endless pornbots on match to try to find a date?)

  1. Spend a lot of time crafting personalized, thoughtful messages to the women who you feel attracted to or who you think are a good match. This is what your female friends who get dates on the internet tell you to do. Result: you spend hours upon hours writing emails to women who never respond because they’re dealing with the mountains of messages sent by guys who use method #2.

  2. Spam every woman who meets even your minimum interest level with a form email. What happens is either you get a 2% response rate and those 2% mainly consist of the women you looked at and thought, eh, might as well send this one the boilerplate email too…or, like I did, you get a 0% response rate and you curse your ugly face and lack of Stark Industries largesse and abscond to the nearest bar to get lonely-smashed drunk.

  3. You go on a hybrid type site like eharmony which, at the time I was on it, only let you correspond with a very limited number of partners at a time. Then option #1 came back into play. But your pool was so limited that it was unlikely you’d meet someone you felt a bond towards. I dated about four women over two years through eharmony; of those four, I only saw two of them again, and neither of those two felt much of a spark on date #2. That was *successful *according to most eharmony vets I spoke with.

Meanwhile, while all of that is going on, you talk to your female friends whose complaints about dating sites consist of “I got 50 messages in my inbox and only 10 of them look like the guy I want.” Yes, another ten might be total creepers. But your odds of finding a good man in 50 are a little better than finding a good woman in four, and a whole lot better than finding a good woman in zero. I spent the first eight months on match sending out emails ranging from carefully written to casual to spam like and everything in between. I received zero replies. Not a single response to over 100 emails. Then I talked to a female friend of mine from high school who casually commented, “oh, I don’t like match, every time I log in I have to go through at least 20 messages.” I never logged into match again.

And I don’t mean to say “oh those mean old women on dating sites, they are so spoiled and don’t care about man’s struggle wah wah wah.”. Women have to deal with so much oppression and sexism and discrimination in dating as it is. The problem I see is that internet dating makes it worse for both sides. Men who have had success with dating habits IRL get a rude awakening online and some guys who are already not mentally able to handle rejection and who have a low opinion of women get hateful. Women get exposed to that " 10% creeper" fringe and rightfully recoil from all online encounters. It’s not a good scene for anyone.

I won’t doubt that SOME people find their mate online. I know many who have. But it’s interesting to hear stories which start out with “the first guy I met online was perfect and…” If she’d met that guy after six months of being hit on by sleazeballs who knows whether she would have taken that step to meet him in real life? In my situation, after eight months of getting no–and I mean no–contact from other women, my self-esteem was in negative figures and when I did get a date on eharmony my goals were so low (let’s make it through this date without spilling food all over her) that not seeing her again was a relief. Just wanted the date to end before it began. Bad self-esteem does that.

Internet dating does that. You can’t be going to a bar on a regular basis for eight months with NO contact at all, not even a “not interested.” And at some point you’d feel like you could at least start a conversation even if it went nowhere. Baby steps but miles ahead of sitting at your computer time and again looking at “Inbox: 0.”

Some MRA nutball might look at this situation and say, see, this is why beta males are so suppressed in this country, the world is designed for alphas and women, who hold all of the real power in society. This is ripe bullshit. For obvious reasons women are cautious about dating, experiences on the internet, and men who come on strong. I feel the entire premise of internet dating is a little flawed: “better human interaction through impersonal communication!” Someone’s going to get hurt in any kind of system like that. It just happens to lean on men a little more. Sucks for those of us on the bottom of the pile, but it’s not as if we’re not used to it–or, maybe, didn’t deserve it.

Having said that my only successful experience in dating sights was when my female partner and I managed to secure a six-month relationship with a second female through a site which…well, I won’t name it here but you can probably guess what kind of site it was. Hilariously, option #1 worked perfectly there. She was probably the only woman I wrote to who appreciated what I’d written. Who could have guessed?

Good post Cognoscant.

Yeah. I recall someone on another board discussing internet dating, he said it made him feel cheap. That is a good way to put it, internet dating can make many men feel cheap. It really isn’t worth it most of the time.

If you really want to fix internet dating, someone needs to make it so men can only send 5 messages a week. Doing that will prevent men from spamming women until they get inundated, plus it would make men put more thought into who/how they message. Plus it would make women appreciate messages more. I think that fix would do a lot to fix the internet dating system.

Supposedly the late 90s were the golden age for internet dating. Back then, from what I’ve heard, it was like meeting people in real life. If you talked to someone you usually got a response. But the system doesn’t work now.

I agree with the concept of limited messages for men on a dating website. I even suggested something like that somewhere else here recently.

Ironically, it seems to me that for the most part online dating is WORSE than any reasonable method in real life. Which kind of bugs me because the logical part of me thinks/thought that online dating would/could be so much better in many ways than the previous real life model. But then the idiots and assholes came along and ruined it.

You are right that random internet social contact /attempts at finding a date in general was WAY better in the early days than it is now. In that women would actually talk to men and that women could find men that would actually talk back to them

The gotcha to that was proximity. Unless you lived in a high density metro area, any random person you tried to meet and “date” online was most likely a few hour drive away.

Jerry Seinfeld famously compared dating to job interviews (“although there is a chance you’ll end up naked after (dating)”). I feel like modern Internet dating suffers from the same problem as modern job applications. It’s way too easy to apply to 100 jobs at a time now…and people do it. Used to be that it took all day to apply for one job, not even counting the time it took to track down transcripts, letters of reference, etc.

Now HR departments get flooded with hundreds of applications for jobs they were lucky to get a handful for 20 years ago. So what happens? A large number of those apps are sent by no-hopers who apply for everything. You can put a filter on the applications, but it doesn’t always work. So either you spend all day every day looking at applications, or you throw out a large proportion of applications, some of which might have been good. Or you just end up hiring Bill the CEO’s cousin’s friend. So before you might have had one great candidate, a few good ones, and the rest ignorable, and you relatively quickly identify the great candidate. Now you get one great candidate, several good ones, but an ocean of lousy to horrible candidates and you hope HR finds the great candidate in a sea of muck.

That’s the reality of dating for straight women on the internet. There are really not that many better men out there,it’s just a whole lot harder to find them. So wide swaths of emails are totally ignored, because the alternative is spending hours looking through messages, many of which are offensive, creepy, or pornographic.

I do feel in reading about the process that internet dating is somewhat broken and bereft of good new ideas. An idea like yours (maximum of five messages a week, though I would suggest five connections a week instead) might work. But people looking for love are going to be drawn to a site promising UNLIMITED COMMUNICATION!!! over a site like that. And women used to overflowing inboxes might start thinking “but on this site I’m lucky to get a message a week, this sucks.” And the newer sites like Tinder are SO instant gratification, this would be hard to compete with.

It would be hard for me to recommend a dating site to anyone who was looking for love to be honest. I would suggest instead to learn oneself first. What do you like doing? What do women you like like doing? How do those things overlap? Then do those things and let nature take its course. At the least you’ll be doing something fun with others,which internet dating is not.

Damn. Cogno NAILS it again.

He’s like the Doctor Phil of online (attempted) dating :slight_smile:

Another unpleasant side effect of HR getting tons and tons of applications is that they can afford to become extremely picky and demanding. That is a natural consequence of it being an employers market. You can demand people be trained in a wide range of skills, have advanced education, total loyalty and only offer them $10/hr in exchange for it. Then you can get upset because ‘there are no good applicants left’ who are willing to put in the work in exchange for the reward being offered.

Back in the offline world, the gender ratio is 1:1. On the internet a woman may have an endless number of men throwing themselves at her, but back in concrete life (assuming monogamy still exists) the highest quality minority of men are going to commit to the highest quality minority of women. A woman who, when taken as a total package, is a 5/10 isn’t going to land a committed, monogamous relationship with a man who is an 8/10 unless she has an amazing personality (and most human beings do not have amazing personalities). So the men feel cheap and unwanted, and the women are unrealistically demanding or holding out for unobtainable men because the artificial market of online dating skews their perception. It is a terrible system.

Part of me also feels (and this could just be bitterness) that any man who has real life options is going to pick them over online dating since real life options tend to be more productive than online ones. Plus a man who is comfortable in his own skin and comfortable being single will probably be quicker to give up on online dating. So in a way, it seems like online dating holds more appeal to men who do not have an offline social life/social network, and men who feel they ‘need’ a partner. Both of those things seem like they would cause lower quality men to be the ones more likely to stick to online dating (and I say that as someone who has tried online dating). Men who are more likely to have active social lives, who value their time, who have more self respect, who are more comfortable in their own skin and able to feel whole and complete even when single, etc. seem like they are more likely to give up on online dating quicker. The point is, the system is dysfunctional.

Sucks, being stuck in the “chum zone”.

I’m not quite sure how to reconcile this paragraph with the rest of your post. During the period when you were sending out messages and getting no replies, were you with this one partner and looking for the second to join you both, or were you single and looking for the first partner? And if you were looking for a poly arrangement, was that in your profile or the messages you sent?