Online dating

Mister Vain

RWCNT wrote: »

Has anyone else found themselves transitioning to solely dating people from online?

I haven't transitioned as such, its just shouting in someone's ear in a crowded pub/club never worked. Although I've met more women through facebook than any other site.

tomwaterford

Mister Vain wrote: »

I haven't transitioned as such, its just shouting in someone's ear in a crowded pub/club never worked. Although I've met more women through facebook than any other site.

Plenty of poking :pac:

I Am Justice82

Did anyone ever go on a blind date with someone they talked to online ?

Back in 2004 a friend of mine was going to have her cousin stay down with her for a few days lets just call the cousin as ( Anna ) I was asked would I be interested in exchanging emails with Anna, I said sure - I was talking to Anna via emails for about 3 to 4 weeks , in the week before she came down to stay at her cousins place, the topic of conversation changed to if I was single or seeing anyone , I told Anna I wasn,t I asked her the same and she said she wasn,t either, from what I remember she saw me in her cousins photo from a holiday or night out, she asked if Id like to go on a blind date with her when she was coming down , I agreed to go along with it out of interest & curious of going on a blind date- I meet her then in a quite cafe in the afternoon time, seeing her in actual person she was very kinda
masculine looking as in her facial features were kinda more manly then womanly + also she was kinda stocky build , I learnt she done weight training a few times a week- she went on a lot about sport in her side of conversation of that date, near the end she said about meeting up again I said sure I,ll do it- I just made up excuses of not being available to avoid meeting her again, I know someone might say its wrong way to do things, well in my book it was better then saying to her face look you aren,t my type Im just not into you was,t it ?

Your Face

I Am Justice82 wrote: »

Did anyone ever go on a blind date with someone they talked to online ?

Back in 2004 a friend of mine was going to have her cousin stay down with her for a few days lets just call the cousin as ( Anna ) I was asked would I be interested in exchanging emails with Anna, I said sure - I was talking to Anna via emails for about 3 to 4 weeks , in the week before she came down to stay at her cousins place, the topic of conversation changed to if I was single or seeing anyone , I told Anna I wasn,t I asked her the same and she said she wasn,t either, from what I remember she saw me in her cousins photo from a holiday or night out, she asked if Id like to go on a blind date with her when she was coming down , I agreed to go along with it out of interest & curious of going on a blind date- I meet her then in a quite cafe in the afternoon time, seeing her in actual person she was very kinda
masculine looking as in her facial features were kinda more manly then womanly + also she was kinda stocky build , I learnt she done weight training a few times a week- she went on a lot about sport in her side of conversation of that date, near the end she said about meeting up again I said sure I,ll do it- I just made up excuses of not being available to avoid meeting her again, I know someone might say its wrong way to do things, well in my book it was better then saying to her face look you aren,t my type Im just not into you was,t it ?

Its a bit cowardly.

I Am Justice82

Your Face wrote: »

Its a bit cowardly.

Id see it and saw it at time as a gentle way of letting someone down, as in a similar sense sometimes a lad might chat up a girl on a night out ask for her number, then ring the number the next day only to find out he was given the wrong number, as has happened to lads at times, just a gentle way of letting someone down .

Your Face

I Am Justice82 wrote: »

Id see it and saw it at time as a gentle way of letting someone down, as in a similar sense sometimes a lad might chat up a girl on a night out ask for her number, then ring the number the next day only to find out he was given the wrong number, as has happened to lads at times, just a gentle way of letting someone down .

I just t think its better to say it straight to cut out any uncertainty. Being civil about it of course.

KomradeBishop

That kind of stuff isn't a gentle way of letting someone down though, it's a cheap way of letting yourself off the hook - in a way that may fúck with somebodies head later, making it a worse rejection than just being told directly - while making a self-serving excuse to try and justify that.

It's making it easier for the person rejecting, not the person being rejected.

If you don't want contact from someone just be direct about it...we're all adults after all, we can deal with that.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Collie D wrote: »

What's the opinion on lack of photo? I'm quite willing to browse the profile without a photi but in last few minutes have found three non-photo profiles with nothing in description. Give us something to work with.

That said...these girls probably still get more messages than me

Would never bother with a profile that had no photo. Not even to tell them I wasn't interested. Learned my lesson there, wasn't long on pof, got this message from a picless profile. Messaged back and forth maybe 4 messages each, I asked him to put up a pic, only fair since I had a few up. He told me off for being shallow and there was more to people than looks. Yeah? Next!

If I was going through profiles and there was no pic

- obscenely unattractive
- very low self esteem
- married/cheating

And any of those would be deal breakers for me

KomradeBishop

Or just don't like having their picture up on a public website?

Again, quickness to assume/judge...

Witchie

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Or just don't like having their picture up on a public website?

Again, quickness to assume/judge...

I do understand that, but if someone contacts me and doesn't have a pic up I will ask them to send me one. If they refuse, then what Lexie says is how I would view it and that would be the end of the conversation.

KomradeBishop

Ya that's fair enough - sending a picture with someone you've actually contacted makes sense.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Or just don't like having their picture up on a public website?

Again, quickness to assume/judge...

That's fair enough but then clearly online dating isn't for them. It's not quick to judge. When I've had online profiles, I've had pics of myself up, which is probably why the picless people chose to mail me over a girl with no pic. It's basic manners to let the person who is responding to you know what you look like, without telling her she's shallow, or quick to judge people.
It's understandable not being comfortable posting a pic of yourself on a public website but you're quite happy interacting with people who are doing it

KomradeBishop

If it's someone you're actually talking to, sure you should send a pic - it's very frequent though, that even in those cases, the snap judgements you present are still trotted out by others - e.g. often before even getting to the point of opening a message, to see if there's a pic linked.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

You can't expect people to respond to profiles with no pic though. If someone's getting 10+ mails each time they log in, you need yours to stand out. It's not going to stand out with a blank space for a pic.
You can't judge them for not wanting to talk to someone with no face, you don't know how that might have gone for them in the past.

I understand why you might not want your pic up, but then don't complain when it limits your prospective dates

KomradeBishop

I didn't say I was judging them, I was criticizing the idea of them making snap judgements - like the ones you posted making negative assumptions that they are either low-self esteem, married, or "obscenely unattractive" - I'm criticizing those types of judgements, based on little more than not having a picture up (even when there are perfectly good reasons not to, and even when linked in a message...).

You seem to want it two ways here, you think it is ok to make snap judgements like that, and you are using the dynamics of dating websites (the massive disparity in numbers between genders and messages), to try and justify that - and not be judged for that.

Like I said a number of times earlier in the thread, I think more and more that these websites are really unhealthy, in instilling hyper-judgemental attitudes in some people.

armaghlad

It's online dating. Snap judgements are king.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Look, it doesn't matter to me, personally about being judged. I'm not online dating anyway, so am only going on previous experience but you'll be judged no matter what you do. You look vain if you've too many pics up, you look high maintenance if you're dressed well, you look like you're short and fat if you post a full length pic, etc. Can't win them all!

But being annoyed you're not getting a reply to a message with no pic is being judgemental too. I personally stopped opening mails that appeared to waste my time. There's only so many "hey" messages or "fancy sum fun babe?" messages you can read before wanting to delete your account and 90% of picless profiles, that's what they send.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume why someone would join an online dating site and refuse to put up a pic. Would you go out on a Saturday night with a cardboard box covering your head while you attempted to chat up women?

KomradeBishop

Why are you trying to reframe it, as being annoyed about not getting a reply?
It is not that. It is clearly taking issue with, inherently inaccurate snap judgements being made about people, over petty things - a very unattractive personality trait, which I feel these websites tend to promote.

See, now you are lumping in people with no pictures (including those who send a picture in a message, if I'm reading right...) with those who send no-effort messages, or brief casual sex requests (and this along with the other snap judgements from earlier, of low-self esteem, married/cheating, or 'obscenely unattractive').


I have seen plenty of people say they are uncomfortable with having their picture on a dating website. I've seen posters here say that before, including e.g. female posters - yet I suppose suddenly they are all comparable to someone who would "go out on a Saturday night with a cardboard box covering [their] head", right? (i.e. an implication that they are probably ugly, given the cardboard box reference...)

There is nothing wrong with sharing a picture privately - it's not an indicator of negative personality traits...

ibarelycare

KomradeBishop your reactions on this thread are quite excessive.

Everyone online dating judges. Everyone has their preferences. People are allowed be picky. Why are you taking it so personally?

KomradeBishop

Making inaccurate snap judgements about people over petty things (in this case, literally making up negative personality traits from nothing), isn't being "picky" - it's making unwarranted snap judgements about people.

I don't think my replies are excessive really, I'm picking at an issue I've seen with attitudes on these sites, that I've seen among a fairly wide number of people, including acquaintances - and I want to see how far people are going to go, to try and justify poor behaviour when it's been called out - as I'm not sure it's something people even realize they're doing a lot of the time.

ibarelycare

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Making inaccurate snap judgements about people over petty things (in this case, literally making up negative personality traits from nothing), isn't being "picky" - it's making unwarranted snap judgements about people.

I don't think my replies are excessive really, I'm picking at an issue I've seen with attitudes on these sites, that I've seen among a fairly wide number of people, including acquaintances - and I want to see how far people are going to go, to try and justify poor behaviour when it's been called out - as I'm not sure it's something people even realize they're doing a lot of the time.

Yes it is being picky. Someone is perfectly entitled to make a decision not to message someone because they don't have a picture. Whatever their reasons for that are their reasons. If they do make "snap judgments" then so what? They're not hurting anyone. It's not like they're messaging the person and telling them "I've decided that you're insecure so I'm not going to correspond with you". They're filtering out messages from people who they've chosen not to speak to for their own reasons.

KomradeBishop

Choosing not to message someone for not having a picture, is not what I am taking issue with - that is being picky, yes - what I'm taking issue with, is different, and is not picky.

Snap judgements - making inaccurate assumptions/judgements, of negative personality traits or of negative appearance, about people, based on something as simple as not having a picture (and even if one is sent in a message possibly...) - that is definitely not being 'picky' by any definition of the word.

It is not ok to make snap judgements like that about people - that doesn't mean people should be 'forced' not to, but it's something that deserves criticism socially.

If dating sites, are promoting that kind of an attitude in a lot of people - something I suspect may be true - then that does actually have a wider effect on society, and harms people, through more people in society being prone to that kind of hyper-judgemental attitude.

ibarelycare

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Choosing not to message someone for not having a picture, is not what I am taking issue with - that is being picky, yes - what I'm taking issue with, is different, and is not picky.

Snap judgements - making inaccurate assumptions/judgements, of negative personality traits or of negative appearance, about people, based on something as simple as not having a picture (and even if one is sent in a message possibly...) - that is definitely not being 'picky' by any definition of the word.

It is not ok to make snap judgements like that about people - that doesn't mean people should be 'forced' not to, but it's something that deserves criticism socially.

If dating sites, are promoting that kind of an attitude in a lot of people - something I suspect may be true - then that does actually have a wider effect on society, and harms people, through more people in society being prone to that kind of hyper-judgemental attitude.

You can be picky for whatever reason you choose to be. If it's because you've made a judgment about a person (rightly or wrongly) then yes, it's still being picky.

Making snap judgments about people in the circumstances we're discussing is having absolutely no impact on the person who the judgment is being made on. They're none the wiser. It's like the whole "if a tree falls in the woods" train of thought.

KomradeBishop

You can't be 'picky' over something you made-up/imagined, through a false judgement...that's not pickiness, that is making an unwarranted judgement about someone, making up imaginary negative personality traits, and judging someone over something which does not represent them.

As I explained, if these websites are promoting the kind of snap judgements that are being discussed here - judgements which are not in any way based on anything solid/real, and which make extremely negative assumptions about people (in among other attitudes, I feel such sites may promote) - then that does have a wider effect on society, and can harm people that way, through more people being prone to hyper-judgemental attitudes.

Stuff like that - especially given the prevalence of dating sites nowadays - can actually have a much wider negative effect on society overall.

maudgonner

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Choosing not to message someone for not having a picture, is not what I am taking issue with - that is being picky, yes - what I'm taking issue with, is different, and is not picky.

Snap judgements - making inaccurate assumptions/judgements, of negative personality traits or of negative appearance, about people, based on something as simple as not having a picture (and even if one is sent in a message possibly...) - that is definitely not being 'picky' by any definition of the word.

Lexie's posts (which seem to be the ones you're basing your assumptions on) explicitly said that she was referring to posts where no pic was sent.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

But being annoyed you're not getting a reply to a message with no pic is being judgemental too.

It's natural to assume that if someone doesn't send/post a picture they have a reason for that. While some reasons are valid, many are cause for concern.

Your own sweeping statements that the only reason for not replying to such messages are that we're making snap (and unfair) judgements about people are, well, quite judgemental. Ironically enough.

KomradeBishop

There is some ambiguity in whether messages containing a picture is or is not included - in one of Lexie's messages, that was included in the judgements.

maudgonner wrote: »

Your own sweeping statements that the only reason for not replying to such messages are that we're making snap (and unfair) judgements about people are, well, quite judgemental. Ironically enough.

I never said that.

If people don't want to reply to messages without pictures - or messages with pictures in them but not visible outside the message - that is fine.

Just don't use that as an excuse to try and justify making snap judgements about people...that is what I'm taking issue with.

ibarelycare

This is just pedanticism over the word "picky" really. Of course you can be picky over something you imagine. Some people are picky about foods they they imagine they don't like, even though they have never tried them. In the dating world some people are picky by only choosing to date people with jobs because they imagine that an unemployed person won't have much money, even though they have no idea about that person's financial circumstances.

And dating websites aren't "promoting" anything you're describing...making judgments on people is something that has always existed in the world of dating. Nowadays it's just on a different platform.

maudgonner

KomradeBishop wrote: »

T
If people don't want to reply to messages without pictures - or messages with pictures in them but not visible outside the message - that is fine.

Just don't use that as an excuse to try and justify making snap judgements about people...that is what I'm taking issue with.

And yet you've had it explained, multiple times, that there are many reasons for people not to want to respond to messages where no pic is available. But you continuously reply that we shouldn't make 'snap judgements' based on no evidence. There's a huge implication in your posts that those snap judgements are the reason for not choosing to reply.

If that's not what you mean, you need to be much clearer in your posts. Because they come across as quite judgemental IMO, and clearly I'm not the only one who feels that way.

KomradeBishop

ibarelycare wrote: »

This is just pedanticism over the word "picky" really. Of course you can be picky over something you imagine. Some people are picky about foods they they imagine they don't like, even though they have never tried them. In the dating world some people are picky by only choosing to date people with jobs because they imagine that an unemployed person won't have much money, even though they have no idea about that person's financial circumstances.

And dating websites aren't "promoting" anything you're describing...making judgments on people is something that has always existed in the world of dating. Nowadays it's just on a different platform.

It is not 'pedantry' - you are trying to justify judging people over imagined/made-up negative personality traits, by using the word 'picky' - which is normally only used for e.g. fussiness over real/known traits.

They are two completely different uses - and you are trying to use that word to muddy the two.

Dating websites - given the disparity between numbers in genders/messages - do seem far more likely to promote the kind of judgemental attitudes being discussed here, than other kinds of dating.

In fact - it is precisely the format of online dating, the number of messages, that people are trying to use to justify these attitudes.

fin12

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Why are you trying to reframe it, as being annoyed about not getting a reply?
It is not that. It is clearly taking issue with, inherently inaccurate snap judgements being made about people, over petty things - a very unattractive personality trait, which I feel these websites tend to promote.

See, now you are lumping in people with no pictures (including those who send a picture in a message, if I'm reading right...) with those who send no-effort messages, or brief casual sex requests (and this along with the other snap judgements from earlier, of low-self esteem, married/cheating, or 'obscenely unattractive').


I have seen plenty of people say they are uncomfortable with having their picture on a dating website. I've seen posters here say that before, including e.g. female posters - yet I suppose suddenly they are all comparable to someone who would "go out on a Saturday night with a cardboard box covering [their] head", right? (i.e. an implication that they are probably ugly, given the cardboard box reference...)

There is nothing wrong with sharing a picture privately - it's not an indicator of negative personality traits...

i agree i just hate the whole picture thing and I completely understand why someone whos messaging you would want to know what u look like for me its just very difficult to send a picture and then wait for the judgenent back on that, so I dont do online dating anymore , if i meet someone face to face im not aware of their judgenent of my apperance if that makes sense. i just do speed dating now instead cause u will meet them first then can start communicating after.