Single life as a guy...

Rekop dog

Surreptitious wrote: »

Ok so I'm ugly then. Kinda guessed anyway.

Well you asked the question, no point giving you a bs answer. Online is highly superficial, either get a thicker skin and more realistic self evaluation or close your account.

Surreptitious

Rekop dog wrote: »

Well you asked the question, no point giving you a bs answer. Online is highly superficial, either get a thicker skin and more realistic self evaluation or close your account.

I already said I know I'm ugly. My skin is thick enough thanks.

tomwaterford

Surreptitious wrote: »

Ok so I'm ugly then. Kinda guessed anyway.

This all depends.....what age group are sending these messages to you??

Do you message people first?

Surreptitious

tomwaterford wrote: »

This all depends.....what age group are sending these messages to you??

Do you message people first?

I never message anyone. It's not always straight out looking for sex though to be fair, some people are ok. I think ugly is a horrible word anyway.

FortySeven

Surreptitious wrote: »

I never message anyone. It's not always straight out looking for sex though to be fair, some people are ok. I think ugly is a horrible word anyway.

Try putting up a great profile with a picture of a man. See how you get on.

You think ugly girls have it bad? Trust me.

Surreptitious

FortySeven wrote: »

Try putting up a great profile with a picture of a man. See how you get on.

You think ugly girls have it bad? Trust me.

I don't think I am ugly really but some of the responses even on here have me wondering.

FortySeven

Surreptitious wrote: »

I don't think I am ugly really but some of the responses even on here have me wondering.

I didn't say YOU were ugly. I don't think I worded that right. My apologies. If it's any consolation I live under a bridge and scare women and children. We get what we get. Cest la vie.

Try as a man. You'll grow old waiting for a message, never mind a hook up. You said it yourself, you don't message. Neither do most women.

Surreptitious

FortySeven wrote: »

I didn't say YOU were ugly. I don't think I worded that right. My apologies. If it's any consolation I live under a bridge and scare women and children. We get what we get. Cest la vie.

Try as a man. You'll grow old waiting for a message, never mind a hook up. You said it yourself, you don't message. Neither do most women.

I'm sure that's not the case.

FortySeven

Surreptitious wrote: »

I'm sure that's not the case.

We did this experiment on the online dating thread.

One man's face, average. One woman's face, average.

Left for some time with exact same profile except sex.

Man. Nothing.
Woman. Ringing off the hook.

Its just like a bar without any body language. Women don't look for men, they wait for them.

Surreptitious

FortySeven wrote: »

We did this experiment on the online dating thread.

One man's face, average. One woman's face, average.

Left for some time with exact same profile except sex.

Man. Nothing.
Woman. Ringing off the hook.

Its just like a bar without any body language. Women don't look for men, they wait for them.

I think some women message men as I've heard I just don't myself.

FortySeven

Surreptitious wrote: »

I think some women message men as I've heard I just don't myself.

They probably all message the same good looking guy. As you found in your opposite experiment.

That's why online dating is ****e. You can't show anything but face and words. We are all special in our own way, some look good in pictures. Some have a sexy walk. Who wins?

njs030

Rekop dog wrote: »

Generally if a woman is attractive enough you wouldn't risk messing it up by asking for hook up straight away. Whereas the women lads ask for sex straight away would be the highly unattractive ones where they wouldn't give a jot if they reject them or not, if the girl says no, then 'meh she's ugly anyway' if they say yes then 'easy sex'.

That's not true at all don't take any notice of him. Jesus you'd have no confidence at all if you listened to people on here sometimes.

There's a lot of people who just want sex anyway and don't have the courage to go up to people in the street and ask but think its OK online.

Surreptitious

notjustsweet wrote: »

That's not true at all don't take any notice of him. Jesus you'd have no confidence at all if you listened to people on here sometimes.

There's a lot of people who just want sex anyway and don't have the courage to go up to people in the street and ask but think its OK online.

I thought it was a harsh response myself.

njs030

Surreptitious wrote: »

I thought it was a harsh response myself.

The irony is any man who's asked me for sex online has been very unattractive himself and clearly desperate so you'd wonder where these comments are coming from

Rekop dog

notjustsweet wrote: »

That's not true at all don't take any notice of him. Jesus you'd have no confidence at all if you listened to people on here sometimes.

There's a lot of people who just want sex anyway and don't have the courage to go up to people in the street and ask but think its OK online.

I'm afraid it is. Not saying that I've personally ever done this but have read plenty of psychological article's to that effect. The women online who get the least sex propositions are the highly attractive ones, because guys would like them to be more than hooks ups and adjust their chat up style accordingly. The ones who get the most sexual propositions are on the opposite end of the scale. Cruel world and all that.

Online dating is not for the faint hearted. You are being judged on how you look, you are one person in a sea of faces. There will always be people more attractive an less attractive. If you are in anyway fragile or lacking in confidence in how you look or indeed who you are then you're going to have a very hard time and the sites just aren't for you. I come across posts on boards time and time again about people getting upset because their message was ignored or they don't get matches. Sure it stings a bit but it's not a reflection of who you are. It never is.

Surreptitious, I have never heard anything like rekopdog's view. My own experience has been that I rarely if ever was propostioned for sex but if I had a euro for the amount of messages I sent to men who didn't respond I'd be a very wealthy woman indeed. When I was using the dating sites I was very proactive and had no problem sending messages or asking men out. This business of the woman sitting back and waiting is old and silly. If you like someone make a move.

There are many users who will look past the pretty face, who want something more. I was one of them. Yes I had to be attracted to the man but there needed to be depth as well. A badly written or empty profile, or unpleasant views along with a gorgeous face and I wasn't interested.

mzungu

Surreptitious wrote: »

I thought it was a harsh response myself.

Regarding POF/Tinder, I think online dating is a terrible metric to make a judgement about the intricacies of attraction. POF and Tinder, while they may work for some people, are basically digital meat markets when it comes down to it. Shallowness is almost a given when using it, unfortunately. Not that everybody who uses it is like that of course, but to wade through all the BS is like a part time job in itself. If real life was in anyway similar, hardly anybody would ever get together....and this thread would be a hell of a lot busier!!

njs030

Rekop dog wrote: »

I'm afraid it is. Not saying that I've personally ever done this but have read plenty of psychological article's to that effect. The women online who get the least sex propositions are the highly attractive ones, because guys would like them to be more than hooks ups and adjust their chat up style accordingly. The ones who get the most sexual propositions are on the opposite end of the scale. Cruel world and all that.

Links please?

I've yet to hear of any woman who doesn't get sexual propositions online no matter how good looking, you're forgetting that from behind a keyboard people are anonymous and can say what they like without thought for how likely it is to happen.

When someone is feeling bad there's no need to pull them down further though.

cantdecide

There's a guy I work that I've kind of gotten to know over the last few months. He's in his late twenties, pretty decent looking and works out. He's quiet but smooth. He's intelligent enough and has passions and interests he talks about. A generally pretty alright guy from out of town.

He started asking me about where to find that club and that bar and I realised that there was a pretty common and surprising theme to all these places. He's alluded to his lack of interest in looking for relationships. He's made remarks at times that he doesn't bother chasing after 'hot girls' because it's too much hassle... then I realised... he's that guy.

There was a thread, possibly in and OD thread in elsewhere from a while back that it's easy for women to get sex through OD but it's quite hard to find a relationship. The lady concerned seemed pretty sure that she was definitely very attractive and could easily go and pull in a bar. The lesson I took from that was 'attention doesn't necessarily mean a thing if that's not what you're pursuing'.

The superficial nature of OD is thus; as a 'normal' girl looking for a relationship, people like my workmate, who are real, interesting people, may be happy to lead her on with fibs without too much shame or very much empathy toward her- she will give him the time of day where others wouldn't and she probably seems very plausible indeed. She might end up devoting too much investment in Mr Insincere and 'unread deleting' many others. As a 'normal' guy looking for a relationship, with the numbers involved, above average is the new average (wasn't there a study that showed that 80% of men were below average?). IME, women assess men in layers and may be more open to dating someone they would normally not be attracted to. However, in an OD setting, most guys just don't get a look in to begin with especially when there's always that charming Mr. Insincere elbowing you out of the way.

In a nutshell, stuff happens in OD that wouldn't happen in the real world and vice versa. If it's your last resort, you will probably be sorely disappointed. The people that it works best for probably don't need it.

cantdecide

cantdecide wrote: »

There's a guy I work that I've kind of gotten to know over the last few months. He's in his late twenties, pretty decent looking and works out. He's quiet but smooth. He's intelligent enough and has passions and interests he talks about. A generally pretty alright guy from out of town.

He started asking me about where to find that club and that bar and I realised that there was a pretty common and surprising theme to all these places. He's alluded to his lack of interest in looking for relationships. He's made remarks at times that he doesn't bother chasing after 'hot girls' because it's too much hassle... then I realised... he's that guy.

There was a thread, possibly in and OD thread in elsewhere from a while back that it's easy for women to get sex through OD but it's quite hard to find a relationship. The lady concerned seemed pretty sure that she was definitely very attractive and could easily go and pull in a bar. The lesson I took from that was 'attention doesn't necessarily mean a thing if that's not what you're pursuing'.

The superficial nature of OD is thus; as a 'normal' girl looking for a relationship, people like my workmate, who are real, interesting people, may be happy to lead her on with fibs without too much shame or very much empathy toward her- she will give him the time of day where others wouldn't and she probably seems very plausible indeed. She might end up devoting too much investment in Mr Insincere and 'unread deleting' many others. As a 'normal' guy looking for a relationship, with the numbers involved, above average is the new average (wasn't there a study that showed that 80% of men were below average?). IME, women assess men in layers and may be more open to dating someone they would normally not be attracted to. However, in an OD setting, most guys just don't get a look in to begin with especially when there's always that charming Mr. Insincere elbowing you out of the way.

In a nutshell, stuff happens in OD that wouldn't happen in the real world and vice versa. If it's your last resort, you will probably be sorely disappointed. The people that it works best for probably don't need it.

Can you explain that to me again? I'm going stupid here

ongarboy

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you explain that to me again? I'm going stupid here

Lol, glad I wasn't the only one!!

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you explain that to me again? I'm going stupid here

ongarboy wrote:

Lol, glad I wasn't the only one!!

I think it is outlining the way the odds are stacked against a successful outcome in OD.

Take the bits in bold below:

cantdecide wrote:

There's a guy I work that I've kind of gotten to know over the last few months. He's in his late twenties, pretty decent looking and works out. He's quiet but smooth. He's intelligent enough and has passions and interests he talks about. A generally pretty alright guy from out of town.

He started asking me about where to find that club and that bar and I realised that there was a pretty common and surprising theme to all these places. He's alluded to his lack of interest in looking for relationships. He's made remarks at times that he doesn't bother chasing after 'hot girls' because it's too much hassle... then I realised... he's that guy.

There was a thread, possibly in and OD thread in elsewhere from a while back that it's easy for women to get sex through OD but it's quite hard to find a relationship. The lady concerned seemed pretty sure that she was definitely very attractive and could easily go and pull in a bar. The lesson I took from that was 'attention doesn't necessarily mean a thing if that's not what you're pursuing'.

The superficial nature of OD is thus; as a 'normal' girl looking for a relationship, people like my workmate, who are real, interesting people, may be happy to lead her on with fibs without too much shame or very much empathy toward her- she will give him the time of day where others wouldn't and she probably seems very plausible indeed. She might end up devoting too much investment in Mr Insincere and 'unread deleting' many others. As a 'normal' guy looking for a relationship, with the numbers involved, above average is the new average (wasn't there a study that showed that 80% of men were below average?). IME, women assess men in layers and may be more open to dating someone they would normally not be attracted to. However, in an OD setting, most guys just don't get a look in to begin with especially when there's always that charming Mr. Insincere elbowing you out of the way.

I took it to mean the poster knows a guy who is pretty hot (Mr Insincere) who would be the type of the lad on OD who would be getting all the attention from the ladies. This, however, is to the detriment of other lads on OD because whilst they might be Mr Sincere (looking for a meaningful relationship), they do not have the good looks that Mr Insincere has. They are at a disadvantage because of this as they will not find it easy being in the below average looking category online.

So, Mr Insincere is stringing along women on OD as he is just out for the one night stand, however, the women that he is conversing with are possibly looking for a meaningful relationship. So, the tragedy is that Mr Sincere is a good catch, but he is part of a majority of 80% below average looking lads that will never do well online. Even though, in a face-to-face meeting, they would most likely get on really well (in the romantic sense) with people who would not go for them in an OD setting.

So, to summarise, a lot of lads who are good looking will be using OD for no strings style stuff. They can, and do, lead people on, and this hurts the chances of the 80% below average lads out there who are looking for something meaningful but cannot get a look in becuase Mr Insincere is hogging the limelight. If Mr Sincere had the chance, there is every possibility he would be a better match for the ladies that are having their time wasted by Mr Insincere.

Ok, ok, on reflection there is a fairly strong possibility that I did not understand the post in question all that well either!

I am open to correction on my flawed interpretation!

cantdecide

Errr yeah, it was a bit of a ramble in hindsight but at least one of yis got it!

mzungu wrote: »

So, to summarise, a lot of lads who are good looking will be using OD for no strings style stuff. They can, and do, lead people on, and this hurts the chances of the 80% below average lads out there who are looking for something meaningful but cannot get a look in becuase Mr Insincere is hogging the limelight. If Mr Sincere had the chance, there is every possibility he would be a better match for the ladies that are having their time wasted by Mr Insincere.

In a nutshell it's my theory about OD and why it should work very well but it seems it doesn't most of the time. Very generally, the two common opposing perspectives from men and women always appear to be 'OD is really bad for my self esteem' and 'ugh, guys are such jerks', respectively. It's a question of power- most women have it and misuse it. Few men have it but abuse it.

Carlos Orange

cantdecide wrote: »

In a nutshell it's my theory about OD and why it should work very well but it seems it doesn't most of the time.

Aka nice guys finish last

silverharp

cantdecide wrote: »

Errr yeah, it was a bit of a ramble in hindsight but at least one of yis got it!



In a nutshell it's my theory about OD and why it should work very well but it seems it doesn't most of the time. Very generally, the two common opposing perspectives from men and women always appear to be 'OD is really bad for my self esteem' and 'ugh, guys are such jerks', respectively. It's a question of power- most women have it and misuse it. Few men have it but abuse it.

If you "abuse" your power and get advantage out of it at least something is achieved. I suspect its ultimately damaging a lot of women because ultimately they don't get what they want?

armaghlad

I think I might be Mr Insincere..

Pawwed Rig

cantdecide wrote: »

It's a question of power- most women have it and misuse it. Few men have it but abuse it.

Why do men abuse but women misuse? Interesting word choice.

ongarboy

cantdecide wrote: »

Errr yeah, it was a bit of a ramble in hindsight but at least one of yis got it!



In a nutshell it's my theory about OD and why it should work very well but it seems it doesn't most of the time. Very generally, the two common opposing perspectives from men and women always appear to be 'OD is really bad for my self esteem' and 'ugh, guys are such jerks', respectively. It's a question of power- most women have it and misuse it. Few men have it but abuse it.

OK but as the other poster said above, this perpetuates the myth that nice guys finish last. Why is it always assumed that the better looking guys are insincere and the less attractive looking guys are more likely to be sincere? It's not automatic that if a guy is handsome, he must also be insincere just because he's aware that he'll not have problems attracting women. Some good looking guys actually dislike having that constant unwanted attention. I know plenty of good looking guys who are also the nicest and sincerest people I know. Equally, there are plenty of ugly guys who have ugly personalities too and are probably worse because they carry such an awful chip on their shoulder blaming their looks for their lack of appeal.

Online dating is visual pure and simple. You can tick every box that the other person has but if you or they look like the back of a bus, you will swipe left every time. Can any guy here who feels they are less than average looking and uses OD honestly say they've pursued conventionally ugly looking girls online for dates? I'd guess not so why be disappointed or surprised when attractive women don't swipe right for you?

fits

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Why do men abuse but women misuse? Interesting word choice.

Maybe they didnt want to use the same word twice in a short post? Its bad language practice

Carlos Orange

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Why do men abuse but women misuse? Interesting word choice.

Possibly because the men are achieving what they want.

eeguy

psinno wrote: »

Possibly because the men are achieving what they want.

Because these particular men are using OD to "use and abuse".

seenitall

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Why do men abuse but women misuse? Interesting word choice.

I think that is because women misuse it to their own detriment (I.e. falling for mr. Insincere) while men who are in the position to string women along, abuse it to the detriment of women. Abuse is implicitly worse than misuse.

Pawwed Rig

I see. So women victim men abuser. Gotcha.

It could never be a woman stringing the lad along?

Tigger99

Of course they can, and I'm sure some do. But not in the scenario discussed above.

seenitall

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I see. So women victim men abuser. Gotcha.

It could never be a woman stringing the lad along?

Of course it could! And some of them do. But cantdecide's post was about the situation I described I think, hence the difference in expressions - misuse, abuse.

cantdecide

ongarboy wrote: »

Why is it always assumed that the better looking guys are insincere and the less attractive looking guys are more likely to be sincere? It's not automatic that if a guy is handsome, he must also be insincere just because he's aware that he'll not have problems attracting women.

I think that a decent, genuine person that also happens to be quite attractive is going to find OD a very positive experience by and large. This is a very general point I make about power and the usefulness of OD for the ordinary, imperfect human.

eeguy wrote: »

Because these particular men are using OD to "use and abuse".

Yes. Some guys just happen to be on-the-money with their marketing. They know what they want and they know how to get it a good deal of the time.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I see. So women victim men abuser. Gotcha.

It could never be a woman stringing the lad along?

Of course it can happen the other way round. IME, when men get used it's deliberate time-wasting for the dreaded 'ego boost' type motivation. I call that an abuse of power in many ways.

seenitall wrote: »

Of course it could! And some of them do. But cantdecide's post was about the situation I described I think, hence the difference in expressions - misuse, abuse.

Yes. It's just my (very) general theory of where the broad 'men are jerks' & 'I'm wasting my time here' negative experiences come from.

Dial Hard

ongarboy wrote:

Why is it always assumed that the better looking guys are insincere and the less attractive looking guys are more likely to be sincere? It's not automatic that if a guy is handsome, he must also be insincere just because he's aware that he'll not have problems attracting women.

Because it's a Boards truism that good looking = shallow, vacuous & boring while below-average looking/short/overweight = sound as a pound and probably on the Nobel shortlist to boot. It comes up ALL the time; "Oh I'd much rather be as I am now than really hot and an asshole". As if it's always an either/or situation. Like you, some of the funniest, kindest people I know are also unbelievably good-looking. It's like there's a large contingent of people on Boards who just don't want to believe that people can be both.

AlmightyCushion

Dial Hard wrote: »

Because it's a Boards truism that good looking = shallow, vacuous & boring while below-average looking/short/overweight = sound as a pound and probably on the Nobel shortlist to boot. It comes up ALL the time; "Oh I'd much rather be as I am now than really hot and an asshole". As if it's always an either/or situation. Like you, some of the funniest, kindest people I know are also unbelievably good-looking. It's like there's a large contingent of people on Boards who just don't want to believe that people can be both.

As someone who is both an asshole and ugly as shít I concur.

zcorpian88

God, I'm still doing this POF craic right, there was this girl I messaged early on when I joined back up again weeks ago, and all I said was...well I think I said "Hey how's it going?" there wasn't much in her "about me" to go on, all she has was a few nice pictures up, and she's a beauty therapist, that's all there is and said what I said right and I got blocked, was pretty annoyed about it at the time, recognized the woman from town and she was pretty good looking. I was blocked but she was still in the nearby section and the search section up until now like, whatever I thought, too bad a block doesn't prevent their picture/thumbnail popping up, reminding me of the unpleasant feeling of getting blocked like I f**king said something offensive!

Then today I click on the new user section to see are there any new people.

Who was on it? Only yer one, she deleted her profile and joined up again just so she'd appear in the new user section, therefore would get a few more hits.

Loving getting the attention. Pfffft

Dr Crayfish

So I get maybe 2 messages a week on POF from women, i.e. them sending to me first. Every single one of them since I joined says "hey there". What's up with that? I mean those exact words and that's all. And I don't mean to sound harsh here, but they have pretty much all been overweight and not very attractive. I'm in good shape and talk about cycling and sports I play etc in my profile. How do they think we would match!? Are women like that more likely to send messages to men as they're not getting any? It's actually a bit disturbing as it makes me think perhaps that's the level I should be playing at!

OCEANIC FIZZY POP NINE

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

So I get maybe 2 messages a week on POF from women, i.e. them sending to me first. Every single one of them since I joined says "hey there". What's up with that? I mean those exact words and that's all. And I don't mean to sound harsh here, but they have pretty much all been overweight and not very attractive. I'm in good shape and talk about cycling and sports I play etc in my profile. How do they think we would match!? Are women like that more likely to send messages to men as they're not getting any? It's actually a bit disturbing as it makes me think perhaps that's the level I should be playing at!

Just cuz you cycle/in good shape means fat birds need not apply?

zcorpian88

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

So I get maybe 2 messages a week on POF from women, i.e. them sending to me first. Every single one of them since I joined says "hey there". What's up with that? I mean those exact words and that's all. And I don't mean to sound harsh here, but they have pretty much all been overweight and not very attractive. I'm in good shape and talk about cycling and sports I play etc in my profile. How do they think we would match!? Are women like that more likely to send messages to men as they're not getting any? It's actually a bit disturbing as it makes me think perhaps that's the level I should be playing at!

All I get are views pretty much, maybe 3 a day, and they are from overweight women and not attractive at all and from miles and miles away, like in the midlands. And a load of fake profiles sending me rubbish. I did get a view today from this very pretty woman from Tipperary,

I'm not really into travelling to other counties for dates, I am so done with that shyte, I did a very long distance relationship in the past and it ended really badly and left me devastated and extremely cynical because I put an insane amount of effort into it only to blow up in my face.

Anyway this one from Tipp I did say "hey, how's it going? nice profile, a nice read" and I introduced myself....few minutes later, I check my sent items, says "Read Deleted" beside what I sent, well f**k you then, paying 12 euro a month to get annoyed essentially!

maregal

@zcorpian88: You seem pretty disillusioned with the modern dating scene. I guarantee our grandparents didn't have to deal with this bullcrap. And their marriages lasted longer back then too!

It appears you're ready to swallow the Red Pill. Search for a guy called Sandman on Youtube. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on his videos.

All the best.

Wibbs

maregal wrote: »

@zcorpian88: You seem pretty disillusioned with the modern dating scene.

Understandable enough given the online environment.

I guarantee our grandparents didn't have to deal with this bullcrap. And their marriages lasted longer back then too!

Their marriages lasted longer from the outside looking in and there were many reasons for this. Yes there was a lower unrealistic expectations level and more of a cultural sense of sticking with things, both more healthy in many ways. However there was also more cultural pressure to stay together regardless of the state of the marriage and in the case of Ireland no divorce. Lack of divorce tends to make marriages "last longer".

It appears you're ready to swallow the Red Pill. Search for a guy called Sandman on Youtube.

Please don't take this "advice" ZC. Of course have an oul look, for the lulz, but bear in mind this Sandman gobshíte is yet another toxic Yank peddling Ayn Rand/the 50's was better/Government is out to get us/Trump is great paranoid bullshít. The other side of the coin to the toxic Yanks peddling the third wave feminist bullshít from their "women's studies" courses. For a start these muppets come almost entirely from a very narrow culturally and historically American worldview and Ireland is a very different society. Take Maregal's grandparent's marriages lasted longer stuff. Totally misses the bloody obvious that divorce wasn't available in Ireland until the 80's. Of course it does, it's coming from an American philosophy and I use that word wincingly.

Creol1

maregal wrote: »

@zcorpian88: You seem pretty disillusioned with the modern dating scene. I guarantee our grandparents didn't have to deal with this bullcrap. And their marriages lasted longer back then too!

Divorce was illegal, in fairness...

zcorpian88

Wibbs wrote: »

Understandable enough given the online environment. Their marriages lasted longer from the outside looking in and there were many reasons for this. Yes there was a lower unrealistic expectations level and more of a cultural sense of sticking with things, both more healthy in many ways. However there was also more cultural pressure to stay together regardless of the state of the marriage and in the case of Ireland no divorce. Lack of divorce tends to make marriages "last longer".

Please don't take this "advice" ZC. Of course have an oul look, for the lulz, but bear in mind this Sandman gobshíte is yet another toxic Yank peddling Ayn Rand/the 50's was better/Government is out to get us/Trump is great paranoid bullshít. The other side of the coin to the toxic Yanks peddling the third wave feminist bullshít from their "women's studies" courses. For a start these muppets come almost entirely from a very narrow culturally and historically American worldview and Ireland is a very different society. Take Maregal's grandparent's marriages lasted longer stuff. Totally misses the bloody obvious that divorce wasn't available in Ireland until the 80's. Of course it does, it's coming from an American philosophy and I use that word wincingly.

Had a look, Sandman's views are a bit on the deluded side, I looked at the intro video and was like "Eeeeh what??" made it look like women are all out there to suck men dry of their cash, control their lives and manipulate to an extreme extent and are borderline narcissistic, looking out for number one types, I wouldn't go that far now, but yeah I'd imagine there are some bitches out there, just like there are plenty of c**tish fellas out there too.

I think divorce wasn't legal here until like 1995 or 1996 or something, they tried to bring it in during the mid 80's and the majority voted against it, we were still a heavily Catholic country then, funny what 10 years and the Celtic Tiger period did for us.

Pawwed Rig

I remember the Granny criticising one of my cousins for leaving her hubbie who used to knock lumps out of her. The culture was ignore the bad and stick inside the marriage regardless of how toxic and miserable it was.
A higher divorce rate is preferable imo.

Bunny Colvin

zcorpian88 wrote: »

Had a look, Sandman's views are a bit on the deluded side, I looked at the intro video and was like "Eeeeh what??" made it look like women are all out there to suck men dry of their cash, control their lives and manipulate to an extreme extent and are borderline narcissistic, looking out for number one types, I wouldn't go that far now, but yeah I'd imagine there are some bitches out there, just like there are plenty of c**tish fellas out there too.

I think divorce wasn't legal here until like 1995 or 1996 or something, they tried to bring it in during the mid 80's and the majority voted against it, we were still a heavily Catholic country then, funny what 10 years and the Celtic Tiger period did for us.

Hey man. I read a few of your posts and I think you need to close your account for now, give OD a temporary hiatitus and go back when you've truly hit the reset button.

I was on POF/Tinder about a year ago and practically got nowhere. Like yourself, it got old and I found it extremely frustrating. I took myself off it for a few months, came back with new pictures and a new attitude and bang, got plenty of matches and a few dates.

I'm single at the minute but that's how I want it for now. If I go back to OD (probably will at some stage) I'll join with zero expectation - that's how it should be. Don't force it, message someone if you like their profile and leave it at that - unless they reply. Don't check to see to see if message were deleted etc. It serves no purpose.

When I was on POF, I saw the same girls on it all the time. If a girl already has skipped past you and sees your profile there months later, it hardly looks appealing. Give it a break for now and go back, imo you're trying to force it too much now and that doesn't work in an environment as casual as OD. I'm far from a guru BTW but that's how I see it looking in.

Mister Vain

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

So I get maybe 2 messages a week on POF from women, i.e. them sending to me first. Every single one of them since I joined says "hey there". What's up with that? I mean those exact words and that's all. And I don't mean to sound harsh here, but they have pretty much all been overweight and not very attractive. I'm in good shape and talk about cycling and sports I play etc in my profile. How do they think we would match!? Are women like that more likely to send messages to men as they're not getting any? It's actually a bit disturbing as it makes me think perhaps that's the level I should be playing at!

It sounds to me like they're carpet bombing, something which many guys do too in fairness. Send out the same message to multiple people and hope for a reply. And no I wouldn't be playing at that level. If you're not attracted to them there's no point. You'd only be settling.

Rekop dog

You're having yourself a right pity party zcorpian. You seem to think people almost have an obligation to write back to your dull as dishwater opening messages. The ones who you find attractive would be the ones most likely inundated with tonnes of messages from guys, so you should treat it for what it is, a competition to catch her attention and then keep it. Luckily for you most people send similarly **** openers so if you just try being creative and make it fun and exciting for her you'll put yourself in with a better chance of success.