I believe you’re assuming facts not in evidence.
No shit. The irony is lost, apparently.
A lot of my fellow gay men are quite racist, so on some of the sites I’m on, I put “white” in the Race field to fuck with 'em–like Barack Obama, I “look black” but have more than enough white ancestry to validly be able to call myself “white”.
That’s the exception rather than the rule, however–on most sites I simply leave said field blank, write in “Human” (after all, that’s what we ALL are, damn it), or–for the sites that force the selection–select “mixed”.
The overall point of this is to highlight the absurdity of not only racism, but the concept of “race” itself. I do, in fact, plan to write in “Human” on my 2020 Census form.
This does not hinder me on said sites, as for mature guys–the only kinds of guys I bother with–race is a non-factor. The tirades from the “but it’s just a preference!” set I sometimes find in my inbox related to my policy bring me many laughs… 
One was a “thanks but I already found someone” response and the other two were the kind that after a few messages the conversation went nowhere. And it does crush your confidence when your “strike up a conversation” success rate is so abysmal.
But I did fair better on pay sites, I guess people actually try harder when they are paying for it? Or at least take it more seriously.
I’ve always wondered how a site that charged a decent amount for EVERY message that you sent out would fair. Maybe if folks couldn’t spam the crap outa everyone else maybe people would actually just communicate with people that make sense to communicate with.
I imagine it would fare quite poorly, since nobody would use it.
As someone who had a lot of positive attention on online dating sites, I’ll give you my 2 cents.
As a man, the whole thing isn’t about you. Your profile shouldn’t be about what YOU want, or what YOU find attractive. The whole thing ought to basically be an advertisement about how awesome you are for them.
It’s worth doing some “market research” by looking at a lot of profiles of people who fall into the categories you want to date and seeing if there are any common themes. For example, back when I was doing online dating, the late 20/early 30-somethings I was interested in mostly seemed to want to go out on the town, as well as have nice dinners.
So I tweaked my profile to say that I liked to do those things (which was actually true, but I didn’t have that explicitly listed in my profile.
Before I essentially turned my profile into an advertisement for myself, I got zilch- no replies, no unsolicited winks, etc… Afterward, I got plenty of winks and emails, although still not too many replies from anything I sent. I met enough girls on the site to keep myself fairly constantly dating for the better part of 2 years, and met my wife that way as well.
Mans what’s with all these Craigslist hooker ads? You weren’t supposed to have a penis!
Yes, the Internet tends to objectify people and reduce them to profiles to be skipped over with a click. In other online interaction it’s the same as well - people often say ruder things online than they would face to face.
Even though a guy or girl is bellow average doesn’t mean that they are satisfied with an below average mate. Attractive doesn’t change just because you put on some weight or your face leaves something to be desired. So people will guild the Lilly in order to find a more attractive person. Most give in and date at their “level” but the world is full of hot women married to lower level men who aimed high and got there.
I think this is a major issue for guys. Guys who are a solid 2 or 3, won’t look at a female who is less than an 8 in their eyes. They somehow think the world owes them a Supermodel and won’t consider the 4 who lives on their block. Women are much more forgiving IME for the less than Adonis looks of men.
Took the words, as they say.
This is totally brilliant (as are most things David Wong writes):
5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women
And it goes on from there.
Wait a second Stoid, are you suggesting that there’s something wrong with men only dating, or trying to date women who are more physically attractive than they are?
It is foolish to only try to date someone out of your league and then bemoan how hard it is to get a date.
But I don’t think it is wrong to try to woo someone who is more physically attractive than you are, provided you are similarly matched in other respects.
Nope, you guys are wrong. Totally wrong. None of you guys know what I look like or the kinds of women I hit on. I have no problem dating women who are 5s, I consider myself a 5-6. I’m not going to physically describe the women I message, but trust me they are not models. They are average looking and I am ok with that.
My point (which was a distraction from the thread sadly) is that due to the level of attention women get in online dating sites, most won’t notice you unless you are exceptionally attractive. People were acting like a 5% response rate to messages was high earlier in the thread (some guy sent out 60 messages and got 3 replies, people acted like that was a high response rate), and like I said truly attractive men can pull 50%+ response rates to their messages regardless of message quality.
Online dating sites are actually the female version of the situation you two are talking about. Women have always complained that average looking men will only talk to models, and online dating sites are like that but the genders are reversed (average women holding out for above average men and generally not even considering men who are on their level). I have to say, it sucks. Maybe I’m bitter, but I’m not wrong.
During a brief period of my life when I tried online dating, I did notice that most women on the site I was using (a big, national one) had very specific, and quite high, income requirements for prospective dates, no matter what their own income was (or if they even had an income). I found this interesting.
I’m not unhappy or angry or an MRA or anything like that, I just found it really interesting that a significant number of women in my age range (40s, then) who made, say $50,000 a year (if they stated an income at all) were quite clear that they weren’t interested in men with incomes of less than, say, $150,000. Or even higher.
Amateurish to mislead during a meeting initiated online. Just from my own experience, women become very truthful about their appearances with a prospect, especially if the talk turns to sex.
“I’m a bit chubby, is that OK?”
“I’m less than five feet tall.”
“I’m dark skinned.”
And so on.
This is (IMO) nonsense if you’re saying it’s a general rule. In my experience this is ONLY true for women who are on the downward slope of attractiveness themselves via age, natural plainness, weight etc. Women who have options via youth, beauty etc. are extremely, almost absurdly, selective on appearance, but will make sometimes make adjustments or allowances if the man has enough represented fame or status to seem worthwhile.
And speaking as an adult man, men often choose a woman of average looks if your looks are convergent with that level and/or she seems like an interesting person. There may be some schlubby trolls demanding hot women without sharp knees, but most rational adult men have enough sense to know what their realworld options are and choose accordingly.
In the end everybody settles or stays single.
One in five marriages begin online. I married someone I met via online dating. Half of the people I know met their spouse via online dating. Maybe I just know a bunch of 10s, but I don’t think that is it. Somewhere, somehow, millions of people are using online dating effectively.
And if almost all the guys are catfishing, it seems like there’d be a lot more bitter, pissed-off single women out there.
Maybe women all just silly little fools, though.