I’m a 39 year old single man who uses an online dating/personal ad service.
On paper, I’m a good catch. I’ve got a graduate degree, and I work in a prominent job in a local government agency. I own a nice house in a decent neighborhood. I’ve got all my hair. My height is average - 5’ 10". When I weighed myself yesterday, I tipped the scale at 165 pounds; 10 less than in January, and with about 10 more pounds of gut to lose. I’m fairly attractive, too. (No, I won’t psot a photo.)
However, in the world of online dating, it seems like I’m invisible. For every 10 to 15 letters I send out, I get only one response, which may or may not be positive. I compose literate, unique letters – not cut ‘n paste – with no content that could be considered offensive or sexual. I only pursue women that I feela re “in my league,” who are looking for someone with my stats; I won’t write to a woman who is looking for a man that is 5’ 11" or taller, 38 and younger, athletic, or with an income range that is above mine. Still … nothing.
Men everywhere online, including the SDMB, lament that “women never respond to personal ads.” Women usually respond with “it’s because we’re swamped.” I think this will lead to the eventual downfall of online dating services like Match.com and eHarmony.
Why? Men traditionally have made the first move when it comes to courting. On match.com, or any other online dating service, the same is true. In the real world, where the ratio of single women to men is about 51:49, women tend to get approached by men far more than women. What do you thik would happen when the ratio is 25:75, or 1:3?
Let’s play around with the numbers a bit. Let’s say you’ve got three times as many men as women on an online dating service; for the sake of argument, 1000 women and 3000 men. Let’s also assume they’re all paying members, and all in the same age group, in the same geographic area.
Of those 1000 women, 400 are considered average or better, or “datable” - a passable or better appearance, not overweight, educated, and no significant baggage. Let’s also say that 1200 of those 3000 men meet the same qualifications; average-looking or better, educated, middle-class income or higher.
Another assumption - those 1200 average-or-better men wrote to two women a day, almost always to one of those 400 average-of-better women. That’s 2400 e-mails from guys who are desirable on paper, going to 400 women, which means a woman will recieve six letters a day from decent guys - not to mention the e-mail from from those 1800 other guys that are “below the league” of the 1200 desirable women.
With six contacts from men every day, a woman on our imaginary online dating site will get 42 letters from “desirable” men a week. Who is she likely to pick? The top two most desirable. All things being equal, she’ll pick a guy who is 5’ 11" or taller over me, a guy with a $75,000 income over me, or a guy who is more athletic than me – of which there are plenty in the dating site, because I am not a special and unique snowflake. If I got a response, that means I beat out 40 other men; not very likely.
The next week, the woman will get 42 letters, again picking two to meet. And again, and again, and again, until she runs out of men at about 29 weeks or meets someone, whichever comes earlier. If she didn’t meet the man of her dreams after those 58 dates, she probably won’t go back and contact any of the men she previously rejected or ignored, she deleted their e-mail, it’s unlikely that any of the men will try to write again after being rejected or ignored, and besides, there’s probably going to be a new group of men cycling through that she can pick from.
Now I need help with the math.
400 average-and-up women go on a total of 800 dates in one week.
1200 average-and-up guys send out 16,800 messages as a group in one week.
800 of those e-mails recieve a positive response from the woman at the other end, and results in a date. Those receiving positive responses are likely to be the men with stats at the top end of the bell curve.
I wish I could complete the math, but the conclusion, and what I want to show: a few elite men - maybe the top 2% – go on a lot dates with 40% of the women, while the vast majority of the average-and-up men stay home alone.
Because so few men are dating so many women, they’ll be tagged “players,” and women will think less of the men they meet online. With most men getting ignored unless they “date down,” they’ll get frustrated and leave. A small group of men have a disproportionately large amount of dates, sexual encounters and relationships, nonopolizing the average-and-better women, while the larger group of average-and-better men will meet no suitable women. The model falls apart.
Well?
)
