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

sharper

smallgarden wrote: »

but it goes back to the schoolyard where all the boys in your class all fancied the hottest girl in the class, you cant all get her so there are going to be alot of dissapointed guys in that class

I know it sounds suspicious and unbelievable but the fact that practically every single guy is making a similar complaint tells you something about the average male experience on dating sites.

Taking your analogy above, physical space puts limits on the number of people that can interact with each other and puts some control on the ratios.

On an online site there are no limits and nothing to control the ratio. In short there are enough guys that every girl is the "hottest girl in the class" with a lot of choice in terms of who's on the site. Now what's actually available may not be what she wants but she certainly has a strong ability to choose in terms of what's there.

I think it's fair to say all the guys posting here are quite different (as are the girls) and it's quite likely we all value different things in partners and pursue different types. We don't all go to school together or have existing relationships which would suggest we all like the same thing or would feel pressure to like the same thing.

It is entirely possible that we all make the same basic mistake without knowing it but then it's back to the communication/expectation issue that we all run into anyway.

cyrusdvirus

mood wrote: »

I explained that I used to send a thanks but no thanks message to a guy i wasn't interested in and it did lead to loads of abuse or begging. One guy kept asking why and I tried explaining etc. I noticed he then started to lie on his profile editing out anything I had said weren't for me. It was all very strange.

Ewwwww..did he have a Scream poster??

That sort of behaviour indicates a couple of things to me...

1) The bloke put down what he thought would be cool in his profile
2) he thought you were the only one for him
3) he got issues!!

mood

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well I've finally decided to hang up my OD boots and retire undefeated from the business! I'm doing it in pursuit of an offline development that has an awful lot of history to it, but to my mind, is definitely worth one last try, and I'm conveniently setting aside the views I have in my head regarding OD and it being an absolute and utter waste of time for both parties, both men and women, (sure I would say that now, wouldn't I?!?!?).

I do think however, and I can only state my views as a male user of the site, that the vast majority of women who are on the site in their 30's, are in their 30's and single for a reason, and that is that they have been simply too fussy over the years. I don't extend that commentary to those my own age on this thread who say that they are looking for a relationship, I fully accept that they are, I'm not trying to walk away with the ball, but nobody has been able to explain to any degree, what the story is with so many women in their 30's who simply do not want to reply to mails, and as I said yesterday, it isn't just me, it's guys in general who are having this problem.

I happen to have a few aunties in my family who have been guilty of the same approach to men, for years when I was young and before I was born, they spurned the advances of men who were by all accounts respectable, handsome and reliable men, some of them were actually quite successful in their own right, and now they are all in their 60's and single and bitter and life has passed them by while they all sat around like fools for the likes of Brad Pitt or George Clooney to walk by and sweep them off their feet.

So there ya go, I'm sure I'll be seen as controversial but sure I have to be honest about how I've found the whole thing at the same time, and I'm not trying to poke female posters in the eye here, as I've said, the posters I've seen on here seem to be genuine decent folks looking for a partner, so best of luck to all with it.

I'm in that age bracket but I am not too fussy. But I can't get into a relationship with someone who wants different things than I do or someone who I have no attraction to what so ever or someone who is rude etc. I could say the same of single men in there 30s who are on dating sites but that would be a major generalisation and very unfair.

AnnyHallsal

I feel genuinely sorry for decent guys on dating sites who are having no luck, but I think they should persevere. I'm not blowing my own trumpet but, as someone who gets a fair few messages, on the few occasions I haven't received a reply from someone I liked, it's stung, so I can imagine that magnified.

I reckon online dating is only really good for super hot women just after a shag. Everyone else has a rough time because either the market doesn't want what they're selling, or isn't selling what they want to buy

mood

gatecrash wrote: »

Ewwwww..did he have a Scream poster??

That sort of behaviour indicates a couple of things to me...

1) The bloke put down what he thought would be cool in his profile
2) he thought you were the only one for him
3) he got issues!!

No. I think he assumed if I didn't want to meet a smoker for example that other women wouldn't so he lied and about more serious things than smoking!

smallgarden

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/results-from-an-online-dating-experiment/ this confirms mens belief in od alright but its just the same as irl that you have to make some effort to get a result, where if youre really pretty you dont but if youre not really pretty you wont get loads of responses so were both right

AnnyHallsal

smallgarden wrote: »

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/results-from-an-online-dating-experiment/ this confirms mens belief in od alright but its just the same as irl that you have to make some effort to get a result, where if youre really pretty you dont but if youre not really pretty you wont get loads of responses so were both right

This is why every girl desperately wants to be beautiful ...

Nothing's changed. The most socially advantageous things to be are a beautiful woman or a powerful man.

The men on this thread should read that article - It's universal. No matter how good looking the man, they essentially don't get messages.

Prick!

Mr_Spaceman wrote: »

I hear what everyone is saying, but the point I'm making is that, personally, I'd rather be ignored. In the OD minefield, honesty isn't always the best policy.

I'm not interested in hearing about 'some other guy' while being let down gently. It's extra head-wrecking, ego-flattening bollocks I can do without.

You should put it on your profile that if they're not interested not to mail back

cyrusdvirus

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

This is why every girl desperately wants to be beautiful ...

Nothing's changed. The most socially advantageous things to be are a beautiful woman or a powerful man.

The men on this thread should read that article - It's universal. No matter how good looking the man, they essentially don't get messages.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Got flagged as porn by my work filter!!!

Anny, i'm blaming you if i get a phone call!!! :D

AnnyHallsal

gatecrash wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Got flagged as porn by my work filter!!!

Anny, i'm blaming you if i get a phone call!!! :D

Twasn't me, twas smallgarden!

cyrusdvirus

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Twasn't me, twas smallgarden!

You told us to read it!! :P

riveratom

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

This is why every girl desperately wants to be beautiful ...

Nothing's changed. The most socially advantageous things to be are a beautiful woman or a powerful man.

The men on this thread should read that article - It's universal. No matter how good looking the man, they essentially don't get messages.

This part, I think, really sums it up:

Differential online messaging rates between men and women, when a bare bones written profile and photo are all the viewer has to go on, prove that looks in a potential mate simply aren’t as important for women as they are for men. If they were, women would be messaging the two hottest men at the same rate that the men messaged the two hottest women. But women need a LOT MORE from their men than just a nice-looking face. Women need a whole plethora of signals of high value mate quality, and that includes to a great degree men’s personality traits, vibe and attitude.

This totally resonates with me. As a guy, the fundamental is - 'do I fancy this girl'. If yes, then everything else is a bonus to a large extent and I am very open to the kind of personality she might have.

Whereas for a girl, she might actually fancy you physically, but if all the other elements are making her feel 'it', then you may just not get a reply, or contact could stop if someone else comes along! And because she has a much larger pool of people expressing interest in her on a dating site, the odds of you getting a reply decrease. The flipside of that is that if you do a get a reply and get to dating an attractive girl, then as a bloke you have beaten off a lot of competition!

I think broadly speaking, at the early 'chase' stage, it's easier for women. After that, men tend to have all the advantages (especially regarding the age thing referenced in that article, and how it's a bigger risk if something doesn't work out for a woman).

mood

riveratom wrote: »

This part, I think, really sums it up:

Differential online messaging rates between men and women, when a bare bones written profile and photo are all the viewer has to go on, prove that looks in a potential mate simply aren’t as important for women as they are for men. If they were, women would be messaging the two hottest men at the same rate that the men messaged the two hottest women. But women need a LOT MORE from their men than just a nice-looking face. Women need a whole plethora of signals of high value mate quality, and that includes to a great degree men’s personality traits, vibe and attitude.

This totally resonates with me. As a guy, the fundamental is - 'do I fancy this girl'. If yes, then everything else is a bonus to a large extent and I am very open to the kind of personality she might have.

Whereas for a girl, she might actually fancy you physically, but if all the other elements are making her feel 'it', then you may just not get a reply, or contact could stop if someone else comes along! And because she has a much larger pool of people expressing interest in her on a dating site, the odds of you getting a reply decrease. The flipside of that is that if you do a get a reply and get to dating an attractive girl, then as a bloke you have beaten off a lot of competition!

I think broadly speaking, at the early 'chase' stage, it's easier for women. After that, men tend to have all the advantages (especially regarding the age thing referenced in that article, and how it's a bigger risk if something doesn't work out for a woman).

As a women I would very rarely fancy a man based on looks alone and possible have not since I was a teenager. They has to be a connection for want of a better word. Personality is more important for me. I have often meet men who I was not attracted to at first but once it was clear we got on that all changed and I did fancied them. For most men is it more clear cut and based on looks, at least at first.

Dermo73

riveratom wrote: »

This part, I think, really sums it up:

Differential online messaging rates between men and women, when a bare bones written profile and photo are all the viewer has to go on, prove that looks in a potential mate simply aren’t as important for women as they are for men. If they were, women would be messaging the two hottest men at the same rate that the men messaged the two hottest women. But women need a LOT MORE from their men than just a nice-looking face. Women need a whole plethora of signals of high value mate quality, and that includes to a great degree men’s personality traits, vibe and attitude.

This totally resonates with me. As a guy, the fundamental is - 'do I fancy this girl'. If yes, then everything else is a bonus to a large extent and I am very open to the kind of personality she might have.

Whereas for a girl, she might actually fancy you physically, but if all the other elements are making her feel 'it', then you may just not get a reply, or contact could stop if someone else comes along! And because she has a much larger pool of people expressing interest in her on a dating site, the odds of you getting a reply decrease. The flipside of that is that if you do a get a reply and get to dating an attractive girl, then as a bloke you have beaten off a lot of competition!

I think broadly speaking, at the early 'chase' stage, it's easier for women. After that, men tend to have all the advantages (especially regarding the age thing referenced in that article, and how it's a bigger risk if something doesn't work out for a woman).

I feel better knowing every other guy in the world of OD is having as tough a time as me getting unsolicited messages :cool:

smallgarden

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Twasn't me, twas smallgarden!

my bad!

AnnyHallsal

I have a third date tonight. It's the crucial "do we have enough chemistry" decider.

HellFireClub

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I have a third date tonight. It's the crucial "do we have enough chemistry" decider.

Is that not first date stuff, the chemistry?!?

riveratom

Dermo73 wrote: »

I feel better knowing every other guy in the world of OD is having as tough a time as me getting unsolicited messages :cool:

Well, for some reason (maybe it's the chilly weather starting to set in , I am getting more first-contact messages this past couple of weeks - even from POF girls!!

cyrusdvirus

smallgarden wrote: »

my bad!

Ah i'm only playing!!

I'm one of the IT lads in here anyway, so would be quietly confident that i can hide any references to it if it does come up!!

AnnyHallsal

HellFireClub wrote: »

Is that not first date stuff, the chemistry?!?

In this instance, there was chemistry on date 1, not so much on date 2. He's a lovely guy so I'm hoping date 3 will be more like date 1 than 2.

smallgarden

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

In this instance, there was chemistry on date 1, not so much on date 2. He's a lovely guy so I'm hoping date 3 will be more like date 1 than 2.

ive found that can happen too, first date chemistry, 2nd not so much,3rd the decider,ive found when i go on cinema date for 2nd or 3rd it just goes pearshaped

HellFireClub

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

In this instance, there was chemistry on date 1, not so much on date 2. He's a lovely guy so I'm hoping date 3 will be more like date 1 than 2.

I had the same set up with a date about 2 months ago. Best 1st date ever, really got my hopes up, second date, not as much at all. Fair play to you for giving it another shot, I left it at date 2 when I found the same thing happening.

AnnyHallsal

smallgarden wrote: »

ive found that can happen too, first date chemistry, 2nd not so much,3rd the decider,ive found when i go on cinema date for 2nd or 3rd it just goes pearshaped

Twas the cinema too :eek: It would definitely put me off going to the cinema on an early date. I wonder if the theatre's the same? :pac:

smallgarden

HellFireClub wrote: »

I had the same set up with a date about 2 months ago. Best 1st date ever, really got my hopes up, second date, not as much at all. Fair play to you for giving it another shot, I left it at date 2 when I found the same thing happening.

ive gone with the giving it another shot and theres nothing worse than being on a date and confirming it to yourself its not going anywhere,thats when they ask to hold your hand in cinema and it becomes ridiculosly awkward. i wonder if generally women are my open to getting to know someone in person and giving it a chance once theyve met than men who might make quicker judgements. maybe maybe not

miamee

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Twas the cinema too :eek: It would definitely put me off going to the cinema on an early date. I wonder if the theatre's the same? :pac:

Quite possibly although at least at most theatre (depending on length) there is an interval - far more civilised

AnnyHallsal

smallgarden wrote: »

ive gone with the giving it another shot and theres nothing worse than being on a date and confirming it to yourself its not going anywhere,thats when they ask to hold your hand in cinema and it becomes ridiculosly awkward. i wonder if generally women are my open to getting to know someone in person and giving it a chance once theyve met than men who might make quicker judgements. maybe maybe not

I don't like the idea of dismissing someone too quickly. In real life people have the opportunity to grow on you, so if someone's kind and interesting and good company, it would be great to have the chance to see if something can develop, even if it isn't there immediately. In practise, it's difficult.

hollypink

miamee wrote: »

Quite possibly although at least at most theatre (depending on length) there is an interval - far more civilised

Yes, I'd agree about the theatre; at least you have an opportunity to interact at the interval, but in either case, you're sitting for quite a lot of time in silence beside someone you don't really know, which is something I've found a bit awkward in the past.

mood

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Twas the cinema too :eek: It would definitely put me off going to the cinema on an early date. I wonder if the theatre's the same? :pac:

Cinema is a killer. Bet avoid for as long as possible I think.

HellFireClub

smallgarden wrote: »

ive gone with the giving it another shot and theres nothing worse than being on a date and confirming it to yourself its not going anywhere,thats when they ask to hold your hand in cinema and it becomes ridiculosly awkward. i wonder if generally women are my open to getting to know someone in person and giving it a chance once theyve met than men who might make quicker judgements. maybe maybe not

I suppose I stupidly still expected to be somehow caught up in a crazily intense romance/crush/mushy thing that just caught me by surprise and swept me off my feet, is that isn't too girly a thing to say. For a few moments on the first date, I thought maybe that could happen, maybe, just maybe, this could be it. Then on the second date, she seemed at times distracted, which could have been completely down to other things that happened that day or her job or whatever, but it wasn't the big "thing" that it felt like on the first date in terms of where my gut feeling was at. There was definitely a 3rd date in it, but it didn't happen for better or for worse, when we kissed at the end of the date, she didn't seem into it at all, which I read as her not being much into me at all. So that was that, sure nobody died...

AnnyHallsal

HellFireClub wrote: »

I suppose I stupidly still expected to be somehow caught up in a crazily intense romance/crush/mushy thing that just caught me by surprise and swept me off my feet, is that isn't too girly a thing to say. For a few moments on the first date, I thought maybe that could happen, maybe, just maybe, this could be it. Then on the second date, she seemed at times distracted, which could have been completely down to other things that happened that day or her job or whatever, but it wasn't the big "thing" that it felt like on the first date in terms of where my gut feeling was at. There was definitely a 3rd date in it, but it didn't happen for better or for worse, when we kissed at the end of the date, she didn't seem into it at all, which I read as her not being much into me at all. So that was that, sure nobody died...

This is just my advice, but with a first date as good as that I reckon you should have given it the benefit of the doubt and had one more go. Not immediately even, maybe a week or two later. She could have been distracted for any reason or, yeah, she might not have been that into you.