Not interested or just out of your league?

Chazz Michael Michaels

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I agree, especially if they have feck all in their description.

I was talking to some mates about dating last night, and I said that it takes about two months to get enough information about a person to begin to figure out who they are. Its simply a lottery, who you pick.

Pawwed Rig

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I agree, especially if they have feck all in their description.

If they have feck all in their description then there is no reason to contact them.

Daveysil15

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

I was talking to some mates about dating last night, and I said that it takes about two months to get enough information about a person to begin to figure out who they are. Its simply a lottery, who you pick.

Do you mean two months chatting online, or two months after you've met them in person? I think that's too long to be chatting to someone online. I prefer to meet a person soon and see if there's chemistry then, rather then spending ages messaging back and forth. Sometimes you can get lost in translation.

The thing is though, a person could have very similar interests to yourself but then when you meet you just don't click. So I think the whole hobbies/interests and the general about me section don't really count for a whole lot.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Do you mean two months chatting online, or two months after you've met them in person? I think that's too long to be chatting to someone online. I prefer to meet a person soon and see if there's chemistry then, rather then spending ages messaging back and forth. Sometimes you can get lost in translation.

The thing is though, a person could have very similar interests to yourself but then when you meet you just don't click. So I think the whole hobbies/interests and the general about me section don't really count for a whole lot.

In person, I mean.

Daveysil15

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If they have feck all in their description then there is no reason to contact them.

Well if she looks attractive in her photos I'll probably still contact her. That may sound a bit shallow, but you can't really judge someone's personality over the internet. She could have an extensive and interesting profile, but may not be as nice as someone with a basic profile. If you're going to dismiss every profile that's lacking info you could be missing out on some good dates.

Pawwed Rig

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Well if she looks attractive in her photos I'll probably still contact her.

That's what I mean. If you base your decisions about who you date solely on looks then you must realise that there is a very low chance of success? The main benefit of online dating is that you can screen your potential matches so you can have a sense of compatibility before contacting them.

Choosing by looks by definition means that you are settling as unless you manage to bag the most beautiful woman in the world then anything else is second best.

For example, given the option I would choose not to date Beyonce or Paris Hilton or (insert Hollywood babe of your choice) as I know that after the initial infatuation they would annoy me no end and a relationship would not last. This leads to my main point in that leagues are all well and good where you want a 'wham bam thank you ma'am' in a meat market night club but if you are looking long term then leagues do not exist.

Daveysil15

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That's what I mean. If you base your decisions about who you date solely on looks then you must realise that there is a very low chance of success? The main benefit of online dating is that you can screen your potential matches so you can have a sense of compatibility before contacting them.

Choosing by looks by definition means that you are settling as unless you manage to bag the most beautiful woman in the world then anything else is second best.

For example, given the option I would choose not to date Beyonce or Paris Hilton or (insert Hollywood babe of your choice) as I know that after the initial infatuation they would annoy me no end and a relationship would not last. This leads to my main point in that leagues are all well and good where you want a 'wham bam thank you ma'am' in a meat market night club but if you are looking long term then leagues do not exist.

I don't base my decisions solely on looks; that's what I start off with. A nice personality is important too, but like I said, you can't really judge a person's personality over the internet. There has to be physical attraction first. So if I see a girl who looks attractive in her photos I can arrange to meet her and she may end up having a great personality too, or maybe not. But I wouldn't do it the other way around. It's like when you see a girl in a bar or club. Her personality is not the first thing that draws you in. It starts with the physical attraction and then you go from there.

Pug160

I agree that some people are more photogenic than others, but in my experience, women nearly always look a bit better in photos. If someone has loads of photos to choose from, there are usually a few of those that are decent, even if the person doesn't photograph well in general. Although in fairness, we all like to pick the best ones. I find it interesting that cameras do 'lie' sometimes though. I think I've read that it might have something to do with a camera only having one 'eye', whereas we have two. I have no knowledge when it comes to photography, so maybe someone else can offer some possible explanations.

Rhotheta

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That's what I mean. If you base your decisions about who you date solely on looks then you must realise that there is a very low chance of success? The main benefit of online dating is that you can screen your potential matches so you can have a sense of compatibility before contacting them.

Choosing by looks by definition means that you are settling as unless you manage to bag the most beautiful woman in the world then anything else is second best.

For example, given the option I would choose not to date Beyonce or Paris Hilton or (insert Hollywood babe of your choice) as I know that after the initial infatuation they would annoy me no end and a relationship would not last. This leads to my main point in that leagues are all well and good where you want a 'wham bam thank you ma'am' in a meat market night club but if you are looking long term then leagues do not exist.

This is a bizarre assumption to make, no one said they only base their decisions on looks. You can decide after getting to know someone over time if they have a personality that you like but still initially screen them so they pass the minimum looks threshold.

Pawwed Rig

Rhotheta wrote: »

This is a bizarre assumption to make, no one said they only base their decisions on looks. You can decide after getting to know someone over time if they have a personality that you like but still initially screen them so they pass the minimum looks threshold.

They did. Most recently here

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Well if she looks attractive in her photos I'll probably still contact her.

where the poster said that he would contact a person based on looks even if there was no other information available.

Browsing the rest of the thread shows up other examples where people act on looks alone.
Now a minimum looks threshold is a different point altogether however the predominant premise of this thread is one of leagues based on some guys belief that they are 'not good enough' for certain women just because they don't consider themselves up to standard in terms of appearance

Rhotheta

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They did. Most recently here
where the poster said that he would contact a person based on looks even if there was no other information available.

Browsing the rest of the thread shows up other examples where people act on looks alone.
Now a minimum looks threshold is a different point altogether however the predominant premise of this thread is one of leagues based on some guys belief that they are 'not good enough' for certain women just because they don't consider themselves up to standard in terms of appearance

Contacting a person isn't deciding that you want a relationship with them. That decision can be made after getting to know them over time.

Daveysil15

Pug160 wrote: »

I have no knowledge when it comes to photography, so maybe someone else can offer some possible explanations.

It's to do with lighting and angles. A slight tilt of the head or positioning of the shoulders can make a huge difference in a photo. A lot of girls know how to take advantage of this. Often I'd see a group of girls in a night club getting their photo taken and they all pose the same way. Although in saying that, a lot of dating profiles have terrible photos.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They did. Most recently here
where the poster said that he would contact a person based on looks even if there was no other information available.

Well you can always chat to the person to get that "information." It's not that big of a deal really. I wouldn't be limiting my success either, quite the opposite actually as I wouldn't be dismissing profiles because of a lack of information.

astonaidan

I dont think anyone can honestly say they dont first approach a girl and looks not be the first thing, whether online or in person.
Now we all have a different taste so horses for courses and all that but looks start off as the main thing
Ive met girls who are stunners like real stunners and after hanging out with them for a while they have driven me up the wall and I will lose attraction for them
Now Ive met girls that are not so much stunners(Still pretty) but the more I got to know them the more attractive they came and would be higher up the table for me in the end that really good looking girls.
Like guys can say they dont do this, but they are lying to them selfs, Id say first move is 90% looks based, online about 70%

ancapailldorcha

astonaidan wrote: »

I dont think anyone can honestly say they dont first approach a girl and looks not be the first thing, whether online or in person.
Now we all have a different taste so horses for courses and all that but looks start off as the main thing
Ive met girls who are stunners like real stunners and after hanging out with them for a while they have driven me up the wall and I will lose attraction for them
Now I've met girls that are not so much stunners(Still pretty) but the more I got to know them the more attractive they came and would be higher up the table for me in the end that really good looking girls.
Like guys can say they don't do this, but they are lying to them selves, Id say first move is 90% looks based, online about 70%

Honestly, I fail to see how messaging someone you think is very attractive but neglects to fill out a profile is any different from approaching a stranger in a nightclub. I've done it myself on occasion. Most of the time, I won't even look at a profile unless she has an eye-catching photo. If she's not bothered to fill it out or, worse, it's full of the usual off-putting nonsense (there's a good thread about this in the ODG forum incidentally) then I usually skim over it unless I've not messaged anyone in ages.
Like Pawwed Rig has said, physical attraction is only a small component of a relationship and plays little factor in whether or not one will develop in the long term. If she's very attractive to me but has "Ask me", "???", or something in a similar vein in the description section then I'll nearly always decided not to send a message.

Daveysil15

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Honestly, I fail to see how messaging someone you think is very attractive but neglects to fill out a profile is any different from approaching a stranger in a nightclub.

Well it isn't really, but you won't know what they're like personality wise until you approach them, or arrange to meet the person in the case of online dating. Now granted if a woman looks attractive in her photos but has a lot of negativity in her profile like "plenty of freaks" or "any decent men out there?" that's an instant turn off. But if its a case of a blank profile with photos of an attractive woman, then I think its worth messaging her as you'd just never know - she could end up been a great catch. A lot of people just don't like writing about themselves.

Pug160

Daveysil15 wrote: »

It's to do with lighting and angles. A slight tilt of the head or positioning of the shoulders can make a huge difference in a photo. A lot of girls know how to take advantage of this. Often I'd see a group of girls in a night club getting their photo taken and they all pose the same way. Although in saying that, a lot of dating profiles have terrible photos.

Those types of pictures are easy to spot. I think the whole photogenic thing is still somewhat of a mystery though. Now that I think about it, the one 'eye' theory might have been in reference to cameras adding extra weight onto people.

Some girls have a terrible habit of putting up group pictures on their profile without even specifying which one they are. That is definitely a pet hate of mine.

thegreatgonzo

blacklilly wrote: »

I would love to be approached by a guy on the dart, in a coffee shop, book store etc. Obviously if the guy was a creep you'd sense it pretty quickly but I wouldn't automatically think someone a creep if they approached me while I was going about my business.

.

Me too. Or at least if it's in the pub that it be earlier on when they are still sober:-) It's happened a couple of times to me but not in Ireland.
I agree with whoever said that it shouldn't always be up to the guy to make the first move, personally I wouldn't approach a guy I don't know in a pub or club environment but if I already knew him and liked him I would. I've only ever asked a guy I didn't know out once. He was working in a music shop and it was during the day so it felt safer and even though I'm useless at flirting it worked.

Peanut Butter Jelly

Right, my teenage opinion isn't as experienced as you guys, but I'd say it's near impossible to judge personality by words on a screen. I know myself that I am a different person online to the person I am on a night out. I can talk away on fb or by text but I am very shy when it comes to actually talking to someone in person.

astonaidan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Honestly, I fail to see how messaging someone you think is very attractive but neglects to fill out a profile is any different from approaching a stranger in a nightclub. I've done it myself on occasion. Most of the time, I won't even look at a profile unless she has an eye-catching photo. If she's not bothered to fill it out or, worse, it's full of the usual off-putting nonsense (there's a good thread about this in the ODG forum incidentally) then I usually skim over it unless I've not messaged anyone in ages.
Like Pawwed Rig has said, physical attraction is only a small component of a relationship and plays little factor in whether or not one will develop in the long term. If she's very attractive to me but has "Ask me", "???", or something in a similar vein in the description section then I'll nearly always decided not to send a message.

I wasnt actually getting into what someone has wrote on there profiles tbh, I was more saying people seem to be saying that they arent judging on looks which is nonsense.
eg. If you copy and pasted your perfect girl onto two girls profiles and could only message one youd pick the more attractive one, without a doubt.
I mostly only talking about first interactions but I did say Ive met girls I wouldnt hugely be attracted to but who I seriously got into once I got to know them and vice versa.
I find all dating is really governed by the same rules. Now Im talking dating not out to get the ride in a club.
See a girl, attracted to her on some base level, get to know girl, this is where it either pushes attraction on or falls away.
First part is physical attraction, second part is mental attraction for relationship they both need to be involved for uh shenanigans only the first
I agree with the "ask me" part, its like talking to a girl who wont give you anything to work with why bother

the_syco

Whatsgonewrong wrote: »

I rarely approach woman anymore, being young (22) and bald I think there Is no point whatsoever, because you know WHEN they turn you down that I know the reason and It Is depressing as ****

Mach3 it off. Was about your age when I did so. F**KING LIBERATING not having to worry about the baldness bullsh|t anymore. Grow some facial hair (I found it grew faster the less hair I had up top o.0 ), and you'll never look back.

Pug160 wrote: »

But when a decent looking man is with a plain Jane or below average looking woman, a lot of people automatically assume that the man has 'settled' for her because he couldn't do any better.

The boys who think this often think that the "BOD" type should have a trophy wife attached to his side. But when it comes down to it, "plain Jane" was often picked as "stunner Suzy" didn't have anything aside from a pair of breasts.

Daveysil15 wrote: »

The thing is though, a person could have very similar interests to yourself but then when you meet you just don't click. So I think the whole hobbies/interests and the general about me section don't really count for a whole lot.

I find the hobbies tend to be too generic. Drinking and watching TV for the most part. I'd imagine it's to not get cut off someones list, but at the same time, doing so gets them on someone list who they may not match well on a date.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If you base your decisions about who you date solely on looks then you must realise that there is a very low chance of success? The main benefit of online dating is that you can screen your potential matches so you can have a sense of compatibility before contacting them.

There's ugly and good looking. 60% of the good looking ones tend not to fill out their profile. 35% of the ones that fill out their profile I have nothing in common. The other 5% fill out their profile, are good looking, and have things in common with me. I contact them all. Maybe two have replied, and fizzled out, mainly as I quickly found they wrote to be bullsh|t :mad: Ah well, live and let live.

For the record, I see no woman being "too nice looking to date"; I just do a Google Image search to ensure that their profile picture doesn't come from a porn shoot :P This happens waaaay to much

Daveysil15

the_syco wrote: »

I find the hobbies tend to be too generic. Drinking and watching TV for the most part. I'd imagine it's to not get cut off someones list, but at the same time, doing so gets them on someone list who they may not match well on a date.

I find most profiles in general are very generic. At least 80% of them are pretty much the same, which is why I'd place more emphasis on the photos. If a woman has similar interests to myself then it gives me more to write about in my opening message, but other than that it makes no difference because the rate of reply is very low anyway regardless of what's in their about me section.

Pug160

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pictured-punching-above-your-weight-3277371
Punching Above Your Weight Champion.

I'm not sure if this has been posted anywhere else, but I was reading another article there and saw a link to that story.

Rhotheta

Pug160 wrote: »

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pictured-punching-above-your-weight-3277371
Punching Above Your Weight Champion.

I'm not sure if this has been posted anywhere else, but I was reading another article there and saw a link to that story.

It's interesting that it is usually ugly men that they highlight, not relationships with ugly women and a good looking man. It seems more acceptable to ridicule a man's looks.

Daveysil15

Rhotheta wrote: »

It's interesting that it is usually ugly men that they highlight, not relationships with ugly women and a good looking man. It seems more acceptable to ridicule a man's looks.

Yeah just imagine if the roles were reversed. Ugly woman bags herself a gorgeous man. You'd have people saying, "well what does her looks have to do with anything?"

Pug160

That's a good point actually. It must be very patronising for those men who do 'punch above their weight'. That story is from a rag newspaper but I do think it probably reflects what a lot of people think. It looks like he's taking it all in good humour though. It doesn't look like that guy has status or money either, so maybe it just shocks people, as we're all a cynical bunch (in general).

Greenmachine

Rhotheta wrote: »

It's interesting that it is usually ugly men that they highlight, not relationships with ugly women and a good looking man. It seems more acceptable to ridicule a man's looks.

While the girl is pretty, she is not what I would classify as a stunner.

Panthro

Greenmachine wrote: »

While the girl is pretty, she is not what I would classify as a stunner.

get a job as a plasterer with all that make up tbh.

Greenmachine

Panthro wrote: »

get a job as a plasterer with all that make up tbh.

lol

Daveysil15

Yeah I wouldn't really class her as a stunner either and I have seen some stunners with very average looking men.

Pug160

She's maybe not stunning but let's not beat around the bush here - he is clearly below average. So in comparison there is still a considerable gap in appearance between them. I bet most of the men who come on here saying that they are too ugly to find a woman are no worse aesthetically than he is.

Daveysil15

Pug160 wrote: »

She's maybe not stunning but let's not beat around the bush here - he is clearly below average. So in comparison there is still a considerable gap in appearance between them. I bet most of the men who come on here saying that they are too ugly to find a woman are no worse aesthetically than he is.

Who does that? Usually its the women's fault, or our inhospitable and one dimensional drinking/dating culture that is responsible.

PTH2009

When I was going to my debs I would consider my looks to be mid table championship but the girl I took was top 10 premier league level.

ancapailldorcha

Please don't bump dead threads.