Online Dating Experiences

In My Humble Opinion
281

and MM, what’s worse is you contrived an OP asking for opinions, but act snarky and adversarial towards everyone who had a different experience than what you had. so when you asked what people’s experience was, you were being misleading. what you actually wanted was nothing more than people reassuring you that it’s a crappy, worthless endeavor. you have no tolerance nor acceptance for experiences that were more positive than your own. every instance of positive experience is met with great contrary debate from you.

so it would seem all you really wanted was confirmation of your bad experiences, and are unwilling to accept the others. …or statistics.
…or anything conflicting to your cynical, dogmatic belief it’s a useless waste of time.

this is the dope. we all have opinions, but some things have measurable matrices. this debate does as well. this method is extremely successful for a great portion of people. and it’s getting better with each passing year.

again, there’s nothing wrong with not liking it for yourself, staying away, etc–but saying the whole machine is broken and useless isn’t reality.

282

OK. Cool. Then with the studio shot thing, all I was doing was responding to your questions on what selection criteria I used to weed out certain people. One of them was photos that looked “too good,” and I gave you a couple different definitions for what that meant to me. One of them was that I preferred relaxed, every-day non-studio shots to studio ones. You were surprised that people used studio shots. Which is fine. I said “a good number of profiles” did use studio shots, to let you know that it wasn’t unusual, which is why it was one of the things I looked out for.

Somehow, this got read as studio shots were “the norm” on Match.com and that it was some kind of scam to get people to go out and get professional shots. Which I’m not exactly sure how that leap of logic occurred, when I was just explaining what my personal criteria was for reacting to profile photos.

ETA:

OK, cool. I really am trying to answer the questions as given.

283

What are the statistics? There were no cites to the statistics and even statistics are known to be notoriously fabricated.

It’s a major money-maker and could very well be a scam. Why do you need to pay money to find love? I’m at least glad there are free dating sites now.

It can work. I believe that anything is possible. However, think about this: What would happen if people met in real life instead of online? Would it change their over-all satisfaction?

That’s a straw man argument. Not cool.

Again, straw man, there is no connection.

What are the statistics? Also, anyone can make up statistics.

284

Yep, like I said, I misread your post. And that’s my bad.

285

You don’t. I found dates the regular way, too. The only LTR I’ve had through an online dating site is my wife.

286

And that’s great!

I agree that it is possible. I’ve already said that anything is possible. We are in no disagreement there. At least, I don’t think we are. Are we?

287

Well, I guess not. I think most of us with positive experiences are saying that it works well for some people, and it sucks for other people, just like other forms of dating work well for some, and not so much for others. That’s all.

288

dude are you blind? look at the parentheses at the end of the stats.
you can’t deny fucking reality. THOSE ARE THE CITES.

they charge for the overhead of a huge online aggregation of people by various search-functions.

it’s the same as paying for meat-space dating services, or paying to use ebay because they have a site with services, or paying to have your car’s oil changed. you’re paying for the service. you’re not paying for LOVE. that is up to you. you are only paying for the service structure, same as all things.

complaining that a service costs money and concluding it’s a scam is literally the same as complaining that anything costs money. it doesn’t make sense. to conclude it’s a scam would rely on the facts being it doesn’t ever supply what it claims to–which is patently false. it absolutely does what is promised for a very large proportion of users.

do you know what a scam is? is something a scam because it only works sometimes? is everything that doesn’t work for 100% of all clients a scam?

i am starting to believe you don’t know what online dating even is. do you understand all it is is a way for two human beings to realize each other exists, so they can meet in real life? which is where the actual relationship happens? you don’t date in cyberspace and meet in virtual parks with avatars like the SIMs or something. this is why online dating works–it’s nothing but a method that puts you in touch to potentially realize more people exist. it’s nothing different than going to the mall and meeting someone you never knew existed before. or church, or work or school or through family. except online, everyone knows that they are there for, so it’s not so awkward to walk up and say “hey, i’m jim–i would like to talk to you socially.”

so no, the satisfaction is the same, the EVERYTHING is the same. online is just another pool of resources to draw from. it’s not some weird outer-space robot dating in the cyber realm. it’s just a larger subset of people to introduce yourself to and meet and talk in person.

it’s called an analogy. do you know how analogies work? straw-men are other things. good lord, kid…

sixth time, Reading Rainbow:

you’re seriously not going to pretend the stats are a lie just to support your wrong-ass opinion. and it’s extremely taxing to even pretend to be nice to you when i have had to post the same stats with cites on the end of each one six times to get you to even acknowledge them. you are borderline on trolling here.

you are denying reality because it conflicts with your opinion. do you realize that is where we are now? to that stupid point? that you are so emphatically, dogmatically hung up on your own personal opinion that you are denying REALTY? “buuh. those stats don’t confirm my opinion. clearly the stats are lies.”

google them. google the stat with the cite. look into it. there are multiple studies that back up this data. because this is real life–which you are never going to be able to argue against.

289

They are claiming that 1/5 of all relationships start on-line. Match is just the largest on-line site.

Back when I was on there its was less than $20 a month. That’s not expensive at all and way less than most people would pay for one evening at a club. A lot of the sites that have been mentioned here are totally free.

On a different topic, I have two friends who are professional photographers. They have a sideline business of taking candid looking pictures for people to put on dating sites.

290

I’ve used online dating before and have dated people I’ve met on online dating sites.

Eeek! No, really? I had no idea, space man. Tell me more about this magical thing you call “The Internet.”

Superficially, yes. In actuality, it wasn’t. You presented the claim that I thought the movie industry is a scam. That’s not true. I’m not making that claim. The claim does not relate to online dating.

Right back at ya!

How do you know it’s wrong? What makes you right? Statistics make you right? Said sources make you right and makes my opinion wrong?

No, it’s your reality that conflicts with my opinion.

It’s an opinion. I’m allowed to disagree.

291

Well for me, anyway, it has almost always been a disaster. Most (not all, but most) of the women online are NOT looking for a relationship. Instead, most of them are “serial daters” and they are looking for money, rides, blah, blah. And when I have been honest with them, they flip out. They are NOT, 99 out of 100 times, going to find their knight in shining armor. Dating online is a meat market, pretty much. However, I did go on Christian Mingle and found out REAL quick that those “religious, God-fearing women” like to get their freak on, too!:smiley:

292

all of your other dickish replies being ignored, your opinion is that in general, online dating is a waste of time, is not successful, that anyone who achieves even modest success simply got lucky, and that paying for online dating is a scam.

am i mischaracterizing your opinion? correct me if i am wrong.
if i am correct in stating your opinion, let’s continue: in light of the statistics that conflict with your opinion, what is your debate? …that the stats are lies? that
Chadwick Martin Bailey Study, online Dating Magazine, Reuters, Herald News, PC World, and the Washington Post all fabricated fake stats and are liars?

…??

eta: you changed the quote. you seem to do that a lot.

anyway, you are allowed your own opinion. you are not allowed your own facts. you are denying the facts.
you are entitled to say it doesn’t work for everyone, that it isn’t right for obviously you and other people as well, but that it still works and is still successful and popular–popular because it clearly works well for a large enough set of people to be deemed a successful method of meeting new people.

you haven’t every once said ^that. you’ve been saying what i posted at the front of this post.

293

He has backed off on the claim that there are no successful people on dating sites.

294

For the record, you were being equally dickish.

I think that meeting real life is better and will probably yield better results. It would be a study that I could do in the future. I’m just not invested enough to provide cites for this. I have my opinion and you have your opinions all of which are fine.

I dated a person (from a dating site) who absolutely refused to mention that we met there. Maybe, that’s why I have the opinions I do. Anyway, it’s just my opinion. Take it with a grain salt.

I was never happy with the results that I got from online dating. Somehow, meeting in real life made more sense to me. I don’t know. Life is weird. It’s a sensitive topic.

EDIT: I’m always unsatisfied with my posts, and I feel a need to edit. It’s good there’s only a five minute edit window. :slight_smile:

295

on the last page he said likened it to “winning the lottery” and called it a scam, and said it’s POSSIBLE to have success insomuch as ANYTHING is possible.

that’s hardly a realistic standpoint in light of all the facts.

…he’s also spent several pages here characterizing every person’s post who had success as somehow anomalous to the norm.

so backing off from no success is still a far cry from the reality, and i would still call it dogmatic, especially in light of denial of actual statistics.

the thing is i have no dog in this fight–online dating felt weird to me and i bailed on it after meeting someone elsewhere and becoming more involved w her. i have no reason to tout online dating. i certainly never want to do it again. but it is measurably successful–and this is the dope. as i said some things have actual metrics for sorting out the facts. he started this thread not seeking legitimate experiences, but to confirm his opinion, and when that didn’t happen, he tried to pretend success was extremely unusual. now he wants to say the stats are lies.

this isn’t how the dope works. you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

296

yes. yes i was being dickish. it seems like your language.

but i dont’ want that to be the tone of the conversation. it’s NOT a sensitive topic. but for some reason the three of you have been attacking others, to what end i am unclear.

i posted a totally benign personal anecdote and pointed out that online dating tends to favor women just by the nature of reality. nothing about that even had a tone of opinion, yet fuzzy decided to say something extremely misogynistic and insulting to women, then add “…but you hate women more than me.”

that is a personal attack, and that set the tone for the rest of the debate. i can’t help that.

moving on–

when you say “meet in real life,” what do you mean? you mean learning someone exists in real life?

this is why i can’t understand the online-dating hate. even people i meet through real life experiences, it’s like the first things people do now–“oh cool i should add you on facebook.” that facilitates conversation and interaction in more passive ways, you can plan hanging out or group activities and relationships evolve. literally every new friend or romantic partner i have met either in real life or online has grown and been cultivated augmentarily by online methods.

i met my last gf online. i met her because she was friends of some clients i did some custom art for, and she started out maybe wanting to have something done. she contacted me via facebook, we became friends, were flirty and eventually met up under romantic pretense.

facebook served nothing more than the method of introduction. i could have met her through the clients at some point, maybe–but i don’t see what difference it would have made.

actually, scratch that–if we had just met under those circumstances, in life, it wouldn’t have been as conversational and wouldn’t have led where it did. i am certain of that.

but regardless, the relationship happens in person. you simply “meet” online. i have met toooons of people i’ve dated through facebook or online in whatever ways. making the connection is making the connection, and that happens in real life. online simply facilitated meeting.

in fact, the people i have been involved with who i knew previously from real life–we got back in touch because of online whatever. facebook or email or whatever.

“online” seems like a minor distinction to me. and for that reason, i can’t see how people can forge such negative opinions on the subject.

at any rate–there’s no reason for the conversation to be this heated. so i’m chilling out…

297

How in the world is this thread misogynistic? I’m confused. I’m not sure where you’re getting hating women from. :dubious:

Huh?

What? I’m really confused by your post. I mean meeting in the real world instead of meeting someone in cyberspace.

298

since the lady I’m chatting with has a horse, I’d have to say “no”.

299

go back to my first post. i posted no opinion, i simply said my experience was your average guy gets lost in the backscatter of the FLOOD of messages every girl receives. i said that by the nature of design, online dating favors women.

that’s all i said.

MoL immediately called me “dumb” and laughed at how stupid it was i could think options were a good thing.

Fuzzy said, “i can cheerfully say i think all women on online dating sites are socially inept losers, but you hate them more than i do.”

or something like that.

so can you see how after my first post, i was attacked? can you see how what fuzzy said was misogynistic and how he attacked me as being worse than even that?

i’m saying that is how they behave in this thread, and it is why it gets so heated and adversarial.

not to mention some of the sexist opinions other have posted, in particular stereotyping “all men” on dating sites as being sexually deviant pigs.

there is a way to discuss this stuff without being totally rude and overly opinionated about it.
and “meeting in real life…” is a confusing statement. i was put in touch with my gf via email and the conversation grew via facebook, but i knew OF her and she knew OF me because of friends/clients for artwork.

we “met” in real life, for the first time, getting a drink and going for a walk.

did we “meet in real life?” or did we “meet online?”

300

jeez guys this is getting boring now…

You meet on line but it is not until you meet IRL then a relationship can start. This works for some and not others, really its not that hard.