One thing I keep running into is men messaging me that are very religious. I’m an atheist, and I just can’t see dating a Baptist or Catholic or anybody that has a strong belief system like those do. Yet I don’t want to limit my matches drastically by completely eliminating anyone who doesn’t identify as agnostic or atheist. Does anyone else run into that conundrum?
Honestly, I wouldn’t worry about “income” – I never filled it out either, because it’s not anyone’s business, and I’m really not interested in someone who’d actually use that as a relationship criteria anyway.
I don’t, personally, assume “something to hide” if that field is blank – there could be a lot of reasons why, including not being interested in golddiggers, having a variable income because you’re a consultant, whatever. Going into this I accept the fact that I’m still not going to know everything about a person up front, and will have to do some legwork in person. Hell, there’s a whole lot of stuff about me which would be too complicated to try to explain in a profile (and would make the profile approximately the same length as Ulysses). Which I prefer, actually – other than very basic stuff, it’s nigh impossible to get a complete picture of an actual, whole person from a collection of data points.
This is the one thing that drives me absolutely nuts about OKC. If I search for people who are “single”, I also get people who are “available.” If I wanted people who are “available,” don’t you think I’d search for that instead?
And there are people who ignore it even if you do include it in your profile. I don’t bluntly say “No polys,” but I DO say that I’m looking for someone who can become my first priority AND feels the same about me, AND that I’m absolutely uninterested in being one of a collection of female sexual partners. I still get messages from guys who want me to be the third in their triad. Other than writing POLYS FUCK OFF (and no, I won’t do that even if tempted to! :p) I really have no idea how to make it clearer.
Which leads to a question of my own, actually: since my multiple sexual orientations are complex and don’t fit within any of the “standard categories,” I have a really hard time describing that in a way that’s both brief and truly accurate. For the time being, I’ve opted to remain on the “brief” end of the spectrum – and so far with the people I’ve met in person, if it gets to a point where we’re talking about it, they haven’t been completely turned off by it – but I wonder if I should try to be more accurate (at the cost of a much longer profile), or just put it as TMI for the very very first introduction, and we can get into the details later should we need to.
Basically, I don’t want to come across as having been hiding something, because that’s not my intent.
Absolutely - it’s entirely subjective. And if you’re the type that would get offended by that profile, then clearly the two of you aren’t a good fit. I wasn’t trying to imply you were wrong in your opinion, just wondering why you would automatically think that.
It’s a dicey one - problem is that there are people that can self-identify as Christian, or Jewish, or whatever, but not be all up in your face about it - or even really practice. So you don’t want to exclude those, but at the same time, I’m the same way as you - I can’t see myself with someone that is a cheerleader for God (for any religion).
I base the prelim stuff based on their profile. If they mention “faith” “god” or “higher power”, then I click the “close” button real quick.
Oh, okay, I guess I will answer, then.
I’m not trying to specifically pick on BigT, but I would never message someone with a profile like this, because I feel like he’s insinuating that if I don’t find his “joke” funny, I have no sense of humor, that all women on that site are boring, that all attractive women have no personalities, and that I have to prove myself to him. Even if that’s not what he means, that’s what I am getting from it.
I identify myself as straight in my orientation, but there are statements throughout my profile that indicate that it’s more complicated than that, and are impossible not to pick up on unless you’re just not reading the profile.
Alternatively, I’ve seen people say “I am listed as X, but that’s what’s most appropriate or least inappropriate. It’s a lot more complicated than that. Feel free to message me if you’re interested and/or want to know more”
Why is it such a big deal to just say “no thanks” if someone who is poly contacts you (or just ignore them, if that’s your preferred MO)? Same as if anyone else contacted you who you weren’t interested in, for whatever reason.
If I saw a bunch of stuff in someone’s profile about how complex their sexual orientations are, I’d roll my eyes and move on. Human sexuality is generally complex: I don’t need the drama from someone who feels like they are somehow special or more complex than the rest of us. Now, it could be that you really are special, and not a drama queen about it at all, but I’m just saying that would be my reaction to seeing that in a profile. So my $0.02 is that if you feel the need to be upfront about it, save it for the first or second email you exchange. Or, since waiting until you actually meet seems to be working out for you, keep doing that.
Also, in preview, what Aesiron said. 
Someone asked if I really meant I was looking for friends or activity partners or if that was a lead in to “for now, until I get to know you”. I explained. You then asked why I didn’t make a point of saying “No Polys” in my profile - I explained that.
It’s not a big deal; but it is the primary reason I don’t use OKC as a serious dating site - for me, the ratio of poly men to non is too high and I don’t find that site a good use of my time.
I really asked no such thing.
I find those two statements to be contradictory.
I guess I’m just amazed that you would be contacted by poly men so frequently – more frequently than non-poly men, or other men who you’re just not interested in – that it became a “thing.” :shrugs:
My feelings about kids don’t necessarily fall into one of their multiple choice answers. I don’t have any kids of my own, or younger brothers or sisters, so I haven’t been in a position to really know them or look after them. I know that kids aren’t just small adults. I try to remember how I was when I was young; what things confused me, what answers I wanted. It’s not important to me to be a father, but if I ever am, it’s important to me to do it well. I wouldn’t get serious with someone who had children without considering them, but it’s not a deal-breaker either way.
Well of course, that’s exactly what I do. I think I’m “allowed” to feel irritated that people ignore my clearly-stated preferences, however. I think it’s dismally rude, at the very least; at worst it’s an indication of the type of guy who thinks “no” means “maybe.” Either way, it’s a waste of the guy’s time, and mine, since I’ve already said I’m not interested, and being rude isn’t going to 1> convince me to change my mind (and neither will anything else), nor 2> convince me that you’re someone I want to interact with at all.
Some of these guys are remarkably persistent, too. With one I ignored the first message. Within a week or so I had to block him, too, because he kept IMing and messaging trying to get my attention. Giant-ass red flag.
Thanks… that’s the way I’ve been leaning, I just wanted a reality check that it doesn’t come across as misleading.
My mistake. I took this sentence "I didn’t do a literary critique of your profile, but I don’t remember seeing anything that said “no poly guys.” to be tacit question as to why I didn’t put that in my profile in the first place.
You’re welcome to that, but my finding OKC an ineffective use of time isn’t the same a saying I find it a big deal.
Often enough in the past when I did attempt to use as a online dating site for me to be discouraged. Again, I’m not, despite what you may think, whining about it - just expressing my personal experience/opinion with OKC. As they say, YMMV.
Deal with it, or send the canned rejection letter? It’s about all you can do. Nonobservant or C&E Christians often self-identify as “Christian-Protestant” because they were baptized. It doesn’t mean they’re going to hand you Chick tracts and spray you with holy water.
When I was still doing the online dating thing, in the test in the religion area of my profile, it read “If you’re evangelical or want to save me, we won’t be a good match.” That didn’t completely stop the thumpers, but it reduced their numbers a lot.
There might be classifications for “Spiritual, but not religious” or “Other”, depending on the site. I’ll admit that as an agnostic-but-deist-leaning Jew, seeing the label “Atheist” in a profile was a bit of a turn-off, because I didn’t want to date a frothing SDMB-style atheist. I assumed the worst, just as atheists might when they see “Christian-Protestant”.
Around these parts, 75% of the population is Catholic, and they tend to be more devout than in other places, but there’s also a large number of non-practicing or C&E Catholics that don’t watch EWTN or cycle through the Rosary for hours on end. There are Christian sects whose practitioners tend to be more devout or evangelistic than mainstream Lutherans or Presbyterians; it might be good to ask if the profile is otherwise a good match.
I’m a deist-leaning-lapsed Catholic (I checked “spiritual but not religious”) and I too was leery of getting matched with a Dawkins/Hitchens type. But you’re probably better off letting your filters open up and see what happens. I just got back from a wonderful date with a “neither spiritual nor religious” (ie, atheist).
And to echo a previous post: the average American is overweight. Haven’t you seen all those news segments that show all bellies and no faces?
Neither do mine. I like kids, but don’t want any of my own, and am honestly not sure how I’d feel about someone else’s being a permanent part of my life (it would totally depend on the guy and the kids). But for the purposes of the profile I say that I love kids – which I do – and figure the rest can be discovered/discussed as I get to know someone. I see those sidebar factoids as jumping off points, not “this is the only answer I’ll ever get to provide to this question” points. Therefore, when someone opts to not even provide a jumping off point, I figure they’re hiding something – either because they’re ashamed of it, or they think it’ll look bad/result in fewer messages.
Apparently, though, I’m the only person who ever reads anything negative into those things being blank, so take this with a few grains of salt.
I never said (or implied) that you weren’t “allowed” to feel anything. :rolleyes: I was just trying to understand why poly guys were such a particular source of irritation for both you and Mauvaise, when there are TONS of guys out there who ignore clearly-stated preferences and send messages anyway. Hell, I have yet to get a message from anyone who hasn’t ignored at least one thing in my “you should write to me if” statement. It’s now clear, though, that for both of you the poly guys ignore your preferences way more often than any other guys. Just surprised me, that’s all.
Nope. If it was any question, it was a “why did you expect poly guys to be mindreaders” one.
Wow, I really seem to have hit a sore spot with both you and Kaio! Where/when did I say – or even imply – that I thought you were whining? As I say above, I was just surprised that either of you would have such an issue with poly guys in particular when there are so many stupid guys out there. Sorry for putting you both on the defensive!
Same here! Well, mostly: I’m an agnostic former Catholic who believes in faith, and when I see “atheist” part of me does wonder if I’m going to wind up with some dude who has a hardon for organized religion and can’t separate it from god. But it hasn’t ever kept me from messaging someone who otherwise sounded interesting.
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I said nothing of the kind. I never qualified that “only poly people” who ignore my profile irritate me; I did say that people (no qualification) that ignore my profile irritate me. As does anyone who ignores what I actually said in favor of what they wanted me to say. :dubious:
You seem to putting way more stock into this poly thing than we are, my friend. Why does it bother you so much – to the point of manufacturing an argument over it? Putting words in our mouths? Telling us how we feel? Setting up strawmen? Really? That’s a bit overboard, don’t you think?
I have no idea why you think this is worth picking a fight over.
Not to be a stick in the mud, but can we get off the symantics and get back to online dating advice…
Anyways…
I’d have no problem dating someone that was religious, even very religious so long as they don’t expect me to participate with them and don’t have a problem with me not being religious. I “block from search”/hide anyone who’s profile says something along the lines of “I have deep faith in God and expect my partner to feel the same” but there’s plenty of people that say “I have a deep faith in God, but it’s alright if my match doesn’t” and there’s lots of in between.
And back to what I was saying at the top of this thread. The girl that would send me an email, I’d respond and then wouldn’t hear back for two weeks, the one that I send my phone number to. Still haven’t heard from her, but she did look at my profile again today. 
Each time she looked at my profile, I got an email a day or two later, so we’ll see what happens.
Semantics.
As for religious people- I’m perfectly willing to date a girl who’s religious. I don’t even mind if she attempts to convert me (been there, done that- hilarity ensues). But just this last Saturday I had a short conversation with a Christian girl. She mentioned going to bed early so she could go to church in the morning. I told her to “do some sinning for me” and said goodnight. Her response was something along the lines of “Eh, no thanks. I don’t like sinning.” My response? You shouldn’t even have to ask: “Then you’re doing it wrong.” She didn’t take kindly to that. So in hindsight I guess I’d prefer if the religious girls I date don’t take their religions too seriously.
Maybe I don’t like Norton either.
shut up:D
I’ve got a question for y’all: What do you interpret “activity partners” to mean?
I’ve always viewed “activity partners” on OKC to be a kind of FWB euphenism. But it seems like some of you view it as actually being someone you could go do more G-rated activities with like go to a ball game or watch a movie.
How about the rest of you - what has been your take?
I’ve never thought of ‘activity partners’ as FWB. I treat it as a redundancy of ‘new friends.’