As a wise man once said, you’re worse than a hopeless romantic, you’re a hopeful one.
The for-pay sites have long been excoriated for the number of fake and defunct profiles they have. So yeah.
Lol, yep! I keep dippin’ like Tantalus.
What does POF mean?
Plenty of Fish
No cite, but I remember reading an article online somewhere that advised people to write their online dating profiles in just this way (“I like X, but I can also enjoy the opposite of X!”) as it was supposedly more effective. I can’t speak to whether it is in fact more effective, but that advice is floating around out there and some people are presumably following it.
I’ve heard and read a version of this (“I’m successful. Why can’t I meet an equally successful man?”). I honestly have very little sympathy. I mean, you can date, or not date whoever you want. But if you’re excluding everyone who’s not as “successful” as you, and you’re very successful, you’re excluding a huge part of the dating pool. And for reasons that - to me - seem petty and vain. Is it really that horrible to date a nice hardworking guy who’s “below your station”? Not that I’d want to be that guy: I wouldn’t want to be with a woman who thought she was dating down.
IMO, it’s not unreasonable for successful women to want a man who is also successful*, just like people who spend a lot of time and energy on their appearance don’t want to get with someone who doesn’t. However, the problem is that the successful men don’t seem to prioritize success in women so less successful women end up with a good number of successful men and there’s not enough of them left for the successful women.
- That doesn’t mean that if you make 200k you should only go for men that make 250k+. 100k is also “successful”.
Assortative mating. People can do what they want but on a societal level it increases income inequality and reduces upward mobility. For all the scorn he gets, the high earning doctor that marries his young and hot secretary is doing much better for society, than when two doctors marry each other. Provided you think some level of income equality and upward mobility are things to strive for.
That’s not a bad thing. A society in which successful people only married successful people and unsuccessful people only married unsuccessful people wouldn’t be good.
Yeah because we all choose our partners in order to make the world a better place.
If you want to give poor people a better life, please find a better way to do so than getting them to marry someone rich.
Seems to me that it’s very hard to have an equal relationship if one person makes a lot more money and/or has better options in general.
True, but some people actually like unequal relationships. The less-successful person feels taken care of and doesn’t feel the need to shoulder responsibility while the more-successful person gets an ego boost.
With regard to women wanting a man that is more successful, I think a lot of it comes down to some pretty primitive primate dominance stuff. It’s also why most women want a man that is taller than she, and they often explicitly say so on their dating profiles. I’m 5’11" and have dated tall and intelligent women who said that it just didn’t feel right when they dated someone shorter. It’s not rational.
I think it’s asymmetrical, too. Women tend to care a lot whether the man makes more money, is more successful, and is taller than she. I think men care but care less. Especially in the matter of height: I think few guys would turn down a taller women whom they find really attractive, but I think a lot of women would. Of course, nothing is set in stone, and I dated a 6’ woman for a little bit, and she didn’t care.
So yes, the ultra-successful woman does put herself in a trick bag when the only man she’ll accept is Elon Musk or his equivalent.
The old saying is true: To men, women are sex objects; to women, men are success objects. A successful guy’s first priority is to get a hot woman. He may want other qualities, but he won’t settle for someone he doesn’t find attractive. In fact, I’ve never met a man who said he didn’t care about looks.
Another really bad one is the really attractive “Im a model” who spends three grammatically-error-prone paragraphs extolling her high intellect.
Can’t you just admit you’re an aesthetically-pleasing empty vessel and are seeking some muscle-bound F150-driving meathead to satiate you Kardashian-like aspirations in life?
“Tall”? Oh well, sucks to be you then.
iljitsch: I guess what I’m saying is I’m definitely not in the business of deciding what other people should want in a mate. I mean, I might have some opinion about it, but ultimately it’s just that: my opinion. In the grand scheme of things, people should probably disregard my opinion, and go for what they want.
But I think two things are incompatible: (1.) looking down on a man who wants a young, attractive woman, regardless of her social status; and (2.) thinking you’re entitled to a man who’s at least as successful as you, because you’re successful. If you’re into a man because of his social status: fine. But that’s no more or less shallow than being into a woman because of her looks.
Some of them do remind me of that 1990’s Jack in the Box commercial where Jack is at a fast food convention where he meets a Gen X slacker offering his services as a taster for $10,000.00 a bite. “Hey, I only need one customer!”
Sure, same here. But: there is such a thing as being too picky, and it’s important for people to know when they are. The stories of people recounting how they met that start with: “(s)he was nothing like the person I imagined myself ending up with, but…” are endless.
From what I’ve read people who are similar do best. So I do think men who go for much younger women and/or very different social status (whatever that is) are making a mistake.
People who require someone to be in the top 10% (or higher!) of some desirable characteristic (attractiveness, income, height) are too picky/shallow. Yes, if you bring that quality to the table yourself you can reasonably expect a partner to also be above average in the same area, but don’t cut off 99% of the population. And if you’re worse than average yourself and still want a hot, rich and tall model, you’re delusional.
When a female’s profile asks for a “generous” male, isn’t that a standard euphemism used by prostitutes, with the meaning “I’m a prostitute and I’m seeking paying customers” ?
Or does it simply mean “ISO sugar daddy” ?
(Is there a difference?)
I don’t know, but one of the profiles I looked at went about as far as I you could go, and still be within the rules of the site (I imagine). And she had a green bar, meaning she answered most messages. That was not usual.