The Online Dating Thread 3..**READ 1ST POST Oct 2012**

Mental Mickey

Panthro wrote: »

Infracted because not once, but twice you went against a rule of the thread.
Do not let it happen again.
Panthro

Ok.......sorry:o

How long is that infraction for?

sharper

cloud_dancer wrote: »

I wouldn't have dated my ex if I saw him on an OD site. We had massively different interests and looks-wise he wasn’t the type I’d go for at all but there was this chemistry and attraction between us that drew me close.

I think this is the part where OD lets us all down. It gives us all the illusion we can pick out who we're attracted to without interacting with them. It puts everyone in a mode of paring down options and choosing who to invest time in.

My suspicion is that the types of things we all focus on like common interests are really just avenues through which natural chemistry can be explored. If two people have nothing to talk about it's hard for them to figure out if they have whatever the heck chemistry is between them.

I try to be open minded in terms of the people I talk to but a lot of folks are so focused on the "Exchange a couple of messages, then meet then decide if they 'feel it' and want another date" model that I don't think they really give anyone a chance or give any type of real appreciation for that person a chance to develop.

mood

Galvasean wrote: »

I've seen this attitude* in a few posters on this thread. There's no such thing! The whole 'out of my league' notion is silly. Have you guys SEEN the guy Charlize Theron is dating? Hope for us all...


*CLEARLY why no one messages me. They're too intimidated by my dashing good looks! :pac:

He is cute, not as good looking as her but still not bad.

riveratom

sharper wrote: »

I try to be open minded in terms of the people I talk to but a lot of folks are so focused on the "Exchange a couple of messages, then meet then decide if they 'feel it' and want another date" model that I don't think they really give anyone a chance or give any type of real appreciation for that person a chance to develop.

To be honest I think it still is probably the best model. It goes back to that undefinable quality of 'chemistry' - and it's either there or it isn't to a large extent. I prefer to exchange a few mails and then meet up, as it is impossible to tell whether you will have that bit of spark over the internet.

In fact, I actually spent a bit longer than usual emailing back and forth with a girl a couple of weeks back, and we met last week for a drink. And there was nothing there between us. It was a perfectly nice drink that we had, and we both found each other attractive since we had met in the first place (she had made first contact online) - but we both knew when parting ways that there was absolutely nothing there!

cloud_dancer

riveratom wrote: »

In fact, I actually spent a bit longer than usual emailing back and forth with a girl a couple of weeks back, and we met last week for a drink. And there was nothing there between us. It was a perfectly nice drink that we had, and we both found each other attractive since we had met in the first place (she had made first contact online) - but we both knew when parting ways that there was absolutely nothing there!

It's disappointing when that happens. Sometimes someone can seem so perfect for you "on paper" but it doesn’t translate into real life chemistry.

I’m hoping my weekend date doesn’t turn out the same way. I’ve stalled the other dates so I can just focus on one person at a time.

sharper

riveratom wrote: »

To be honest I think it still is probably the best model. It goes back to that undefinable quality of 'chemistry' - and it's either there or it isn't to a large extent. I prefer to exchange a few mails and then meet up, as it is impossible to tell whether you will have that bit of spark over the internet.

Sure but I think it's a very strong filter for who you're compatible with. People are looking at profiles with a view to a quick meet which means they very easily discard ones that don't immediately appeal to them.

Then in the meet they're very quickly discarding them if they don't immediately feel "something".

You're right that there's a balance between chatting forever and loading up expectations for a meet versus meeting quickly to see what happens but I get the feeling a lot of people on dating sites are trending too much towards the latter, going through a succession of people they never give much of a chance to and then getting burnt out with the whole thing.

A slight disclaimer is I'm the type of person people tend to like more when they get to know me than on initial meeting

Mr_Spaceman

cloud_dancer wrote: »

It's disappointing when that happens. Sometimes someone can seem so perfect for you "on paper" but it doesn’t translate into real life chemistry.

This is why it's really important to get offline after, say, 2-3 reasonable messages, get the digits and meet in real life as soon as possible.

cyrusdvirus

sharper wrote: »

Sure but I think it's a very strong filter for who you're compatible with. People are looking at profiles with a view to a quick meet which means they very easily discard ones that don't immediately appeal to them.

Then in the meet they're very quickly discarding them if they don't immediately feel "something".

You're right that there's a balance between chatting forever and loading up expectations for a meet versus meeting quickly to see what happens but I get the feeling a lot of people on dating sites are trending too much towards the latter, going through a succession of people they never give much of a chance to and then getting burnt out with the whole thing.

A slight disclaimer is I'm the type of person people tend to like more when they get to know me than on initial meeting

i have to say, i prefer the quick meet scenario.
No point in 'wasting' time getting your hopes with someone if there is no all elusive spark!.

Then again, some relationships come from the slow boil, and have a firmer footing....

I prefer the relatively quick meet myself.

cyrusdvirus

Mr_Spaceman wrote: »

This is why it's really important to get offline after, say, 2-3 reasonable messages, get the digits and meet in real life as soon as possible.

2 or 3 might be a bit short though.

2 or 3 messages in I am still 'shadow boxing'/ getting the feel for someone.

2 or 3 days of chatting, yeah.
not 2 or 3 messages.

maguic24

I would also like to add, that since I set up that fake account, I have noticed a lot of men (old, bald, fat) punching above their weight.

I described myself, as young, athletic, big breasted, bisexual and into kinky ****. I got 209 messages, couldn't actually believe it. I deleted the account just there, because there was 3 genuine couples looking for a 3some. I felt bad.

No matter what response I gave to the messages, they would continue to contact me. I set up the account yesterday, 209 messages. I didn't even have a picture up, so I could have been a giraffe for all they know.

sharper

maguic24 wrote: »

I described myself, as young, athletic, big breasted, bisexual and into kinky ****. I got 209 messages, couldn't actually believe it. I deleted the account just there, because there was 3 genuine couples looking for a 3some. I felt bad.

I'd assume an account like that was fake and not bother to talk to them. When evaluating how people interact with an account like that you have to remember they may either know or suspect it's fake and be having a laugh themselves.

HellFireClub

maguic24 wrote: »

I would also like to add, that since I set up that fake account, I have noticed a lot of men (old, bald, fat) punching above their weight.

I described myself, as young, athletic, big breasted, bisexual and into kinky ****. I got 209 messages, couldn't actually believe it. I deleted the account just there, because there was 3 genuine couples looking for a 3some. I felt bad.

No matter what response I gave to the messages, they would continue to contact me. I set up the account yesterday, 209 messages. I didn't even have a picture up, so I could have been a giraffe for all they know.

An interesting exercise would be to set up a website and throw them up there for everyone to see!

maguic24

sharper wrote: »

I'd assume an account like that was fake and not bother to talk to them. When evaluating how people interact with an account like that you have to remember they may either know or suspect it's fake and be having a laugh themselves.

Yeah that's what I thought too! It was an obvious fake, but I got forwarded pictures and numbers and everything......These people were actually being genuine.

sffc

maguic24 wrote: »

I would also like to add, that since I set up that fake account, I have noticed a lot of men (old, bald, fat) punching above their weight.

I described myself, as young, athletic, big breasted, bisexual and into kinky ****. I got 209 messages, couldn't actually believe it. I deleted the account just there, because there was 3 genuine couples looking for a 3some. I felt bad.

No matter what response I gave to the messages, they would continue to contact me. I set up the account yesterday, 209 messages. I didn't even have a picture up, so I could have been a giraffe for all they know.

Interesting to note that you only felt bad because of the three couples.
If a man is bald/fat middle- aged or all three does that make ok to be deceptive?

maguic24

sffc wrote: »

Interesting to note that you only felt bad because of the three couples.
If a man is bald/fat middle- aged or all three does that make ok to be deceptive?

I just imagined these men to have daughters the same age as me, which some of them did!!! I thought it was creepy, and no I didn't feel sorry for them at all, cheating on their wives. Ugh. These were men in their 40's who just weren't getting any, and looking for a no strings attached sexual encounter. At least the couples were in it together, they weren't cheating on one another per se.

riveratom

maguic24 wrote: »

I would also like to add, that since I set up that fake account, I have noticed a lot of men (old, bald, fat) punching above their weight.

I described myself, as young, athletic, big breasted, bisexual and into kinky ****. I got 209 messages, couldn't actually believe it. I deleted the account just there, because there was 3 genuine couples looking for a 3some. I felt bad.

No matter what response I gave to the messages, they would continue to contact me. I set up the account yesterday, 209 messages. I didn't even have a picture up, so I could have been a giraffe for all they know.

How are they punching above their weight when they don't know what you look like?! For all they know you could be old, bald and fat as well!! Or at least two of those!

maguic24

riveratom wrote: »

How are they punching above their weight when they don't know what you look like?! For all they know you could be old, bald and fat as well!! Or at least two of those!

Yeah exactly, I could have been, but they were going by the description, elsewise they would not have sent me a message.

Mr_Spaceman

maguic24 wrote: »

I just imagined these men to have daughters the same age as me, which some of them did!!! I thought it was creepy, and no I didn't feel sorry for them at all, cheating on their wives. Ugh. These were men in their 40's who just weren't getting any, and looking for a no strings attached sexual encounter. At least the couples were in it together, they weren't cheating on one another per se.

Middle-aged men using the internet for a discreet liaison shocker.

Well I never.

riveratom

maguic24 wrote: »

Yeah exactly, I could have been, but they were going by the description, elsewise they would not have sent me a message.

Yes but all of those adjectives could refer to someone who is all of those things, but not actually that attractive at all.

Anyway, I'm sure these guys are pretty much just chancers who copy and paste hundreds of messages in the desperate hope that someone will bite!!

Galvasean

Try to imagine yourself on a dating site. You get your first look at this "outgoing girl" as you like to call it. She moves like a bird, lightly, bobbing her head. And you try mailing because you think maybe her visual acuity is based on movement like a girl in a club. She'll lose you if you don't keep mailing. No, not the Online Dating woman. You mail at her and she just mails right back. And that's when the attack comes, not from the front, but from the side. The other two women, you didn't even know where there. Because the Online Dating woman is a pack hunter. She uses coordinated mailing patterns and she is out in force today. She mails at you with this: a six sentence sharp-witted mail. She doesn't bother sending you a quick-flirt, like a txt spker say. No no, she mails you on POF, or OKC or maybe across match.com
The point is, you are alive when they start to eat you. So, try to show a little respect. :cool:

riveratom

Galvasean wrote: »

Try to imagine yourself on a dating site. You get your first look at this "outgoing girl" as you like to call it. She moves like a bird, lightly, bobbing her head. And you try mailing because you think maybe her visual acuity is based on movement like a girl in a club. She'll lose you if you don't keep mailing. No, not the Online Dating woman. You mail at her and she just mails right back. And that's when the attack comes, not from the front, but from the side. The other two women, you didn't even know where there. Because the Online Dating woman is a pack hunter. She uses coordinated mailing patterns and she is out in force today. She mails at you with this: a six sentence sharp-witted mail. She doesn't bother sending you a quick-flirt, like a txt spker say. No no, she mails you on POF, or OKC or maybe across match.com
The point is, you are alive when they start to eat you. So, try to show a little respect. :cool:

Did you have a liquid lunch today Galvasean?

Galvasean

Nope, I'm just waiting for people to pick up on the reference.

sffc

maguic24 wrote: »

sffc wrote: »

Interesting to note that you only felt bad because of the three couples.
If a man is bald/fat middle- aged or all three does that make ok to be deceptive?

I just imagined these men to have daughters the same age as me, which some of them did!!! I thought it was creepy, and no I didn't feel sorry for them at all, cheating on their wives. Ugh. These were men in their 40's who just weren't getting any, and looking for a no strings attached sexual encounter. At least the couples were in it together, they weren't cheating on one another per se.

You didn't mention the fact that they were married in your original post - if that's what you meant that's entirely different .

Honey-ec

Galvasean wrote: »

Nope, I'm just waiting for people to pick up on the reference.

Jurassic Park. Give us a challenge, ffs!

miamee

Galvasean wrote: »

Nope, I'm just waiting for people to pick up on the reference.

<jumps in> Are you referring to yourself as a wildebeest being eaten by a pack of lions there or what? </jumps out>

maguic24

sffc wrote: »

You didn't mention the fact that they were married in your original post - if that's what you meant that's entirely different .

I posted beforehand about them being married, way back in the thread. I don't know, maybe I have just been under some stone, because it seems it's going on right, left and center. Middle aged men looking to cheat that is and cheating in general. I have obviously just been quite sheltered. I never thought people would go looking to cheat on their partner.

If it was a genuine middle aged man, who isn't the best looking, seeking a relationship, then no, it's not okay to be deceptive. And no, a man that fits this description did not contact me.

KTRIC

I've been chatting to a nice lady for a while now and we're meeting up for drinks soon. One thing that came up is her work. Not hugely important but when I asked what she did she skirts around the question. I have an idea what type of organisation she works for but that means nothing. I was hoping to get a better idea of the person and sometimes what they do for a living helps.

Would this set alarm bells off for anyone ?

Daveysil15

riveratom wrote: »

In fact, I actually spent a bit longer than usual emailing back and forth with a girl a couple of weeks back, and we met last week for a drink. And there was nothing there between us. It was a perfectly nice drink that we had, and we both found each other attractive since we had met in the first place (she had made first contact online) - but we both knew when parting ways that there was absolutely nothing there!

I've often wondered if the formality and awkwardness of a first date has something to do with that. If someone is nervous they may not be presenting themselves at their best. You can grow to like someone once you get to know them a bit better. If there's no spark there initially though, you're unlikely to want to meet them again.

maguic24 wrote: »

These were men in their 40's who just weren't getting any, and looking for a no strings attached sexual encounter.

An escort would be a better option for those guys.

cyrusdvirus

KTRIC wrote: »

I've been chatting to a nice lady for a while now and we're meeting up for drinks soon. One thing that came up is her work. Not hugely important but when I asked what she did she skirts around the question. I have an idea what type of organisation she works for but that means nothing. I was hoping to get a better idea of the person and sometimes what they do for a living helps.

Would this set alarm bells off for anyone ?

Nope.
Maybe she's currently unemployed and doesn't want you to think she's a gold digger.
Maybe she wants to keep her personal life separate from her professional life until she's met you and is comfortable to talk about it.

sffc

KTRIC wrote: »

I've been chatting to a nice lady for a while now and we're meeting up for drinks soon. One thing that came up is her work. Not hugely important but when I asked what she did she skirts around the question. I have an idea what type of organisation she works for but that means nothing. I was hoping to get a better idea of the person and sometimes what they do for a living helps.

Would this set alarm bells off for anyone ?

She's probably a Gaurd or a PO - think of the fun you'll have with the handcuffs :-)