Online dating

ibarelycare

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I didn't say dating sites are responsible for it being prevalent. I said the way dating sites work, may be contributing to making it more prevalent - may be instilling hyper-judgemental attitudes in quite normal otherwise-nice people, in a way they may not be fully conscious of - i.e. making society overall that little bit worse.

Society is on a downwards spiral anyway. The goings-on of the Kardashian family is are considered "news". Perhaps what you're discussing might impact on society in a minuscule way, but nowhere near as much as social media, celebrity culture, tabloids, etc.

smash

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't - as I explained in the previous post, I think such sites may be helping make it even more prevalent.

But how? Really there's nothing to back this assumption up.

KomradeBishop

maudgonner wrote: »

Yes, I accept that having my picture up is a risk, but I think it's a necessary one if I'm going to use online dating at all. I feel that in order to use the sites properly I need to have a picture on my profile. It would be quite hypocritical of me to ask guys to supply a picture if I wasn't willing to do so myself, wouldn't it?

Pictures are one way to identify false accounts, which are used to stalk people. So that's one way I mitigate the risk, by asking guys to supply a picture either on their profile or in their message.



You have made that clear. You just want to control how we think, not what we do.

You could supply a picture in messages you send. In any case though - you highlighted an excellent reason not to have a picture up: Stalking.

People can think what they like - doesn't make them free from valid criticism though - nobody wants to 'control' anyone's thoughts, but I would like a society that is conditioned to dissuading hyper-judgemental attitudes (the same way as society is conditioned to dissuade a lot of other things that are harmful to society overall).

KomradeBishop

thattequilagirl wrote: »

It's not a snap judgement. It's a snap decision. You didn't put a pic up? I'm not judging you, and it doesn't really matter to me why the "why" is... I'm not interested.

There are a hundred other guys with photos and you've offered nothing to differentiate yourself.

Why do people think members of the opposite sex owe them a chance? We don't owe you anything. If you wanna go out with me, or for me to reply to you, the onus is on you to show me why I should.

I'm not talking about people passing, on profiles with no pictures.

I'm talking about people making snap judgements about someone, for not having a picture - this chain of discussion started, from snap judgements being made, that a person with no picture would be either low self-esteem, married/cheating, or "obscenely unattractive".

The former is fine, the snap-judgements/assumptions in the latter are not.

EDIT: In fact, my post you replied to explained exactly that to you, so I don't see how you missed it...

KomradeBishop

ibarelycare wrote: »

Society is on a downwards spiral anyway. The goings-on of the Kardashian family is are considered "news". Perhaps what you're discussing might impact on society in a minuscule way, but nowhere near as much as social media, celebrity culture, tabloids, etc.

Perhaps. More than one thing can be focused on at once though - it's not either/or.

maudgonner

KomradeBishop wrote: »

People can think what they like - doesn't make them free from valid criticism though - nobody wants to 'control' anyone's thoughts, but I would like a society that is conditioned to dissuading hyper-judgemental attitudes (the same way as society is conditioned to dissuade a lot of other things that are harmful to society overall).

And yet you've come onto this thread and repeatedly, quite self-righteously, judged women for the reasons they don't trust/like/respond to profiles & messages without images.

Can't you see the irony?

KomradeBishop

smash wrote: »

But how? Really there's nothing to back this assumption up.

That has been backed up. I explained how the number disparity in genders/messages, and the attitudes people seem to develop in response to the impractical number of messages, may be promoting the kinds of hyper-judgemental attitudes discussed in the thread.

ibarelycare

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That has been backed up. I explained how the number disparity in genders/messages, and the attitudes people seem to develop in response to the impractical number of messages, may be promoting the kinds of hyper-judgemental attitudes discussed in the thread.

You have no clue. You're just jumping to blind conclusions based on issues you have with how some people use online dating.

smash

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That has been backed up. I explained how the number disparity in genders/messages, and the attitudes people seem to develop in response to the impractical number of messages, may be promoting the kinds of hyper-judgemental attitudes discussed in the thread.

But they're attitudes that are already there in every day life. How many threads on AH have been closed because of the attitude that "Irish women are up themselves"?

KomradeBishop

maudgonner wrote: »

And yet you've come onto this thread and repeatedly, quite self-righteously, judged women for the reasons they don't trust/like/respond to profiles & messages without images.

Can't you see the irony?

I haven't judged anyone for why they don't like profiles or messages without images - fúcking hell this must be the 10th time I've explained this...most of those times to you directly (I was exactly right, to predict that this would become a never-ending straw-man used against me...) - I am taking issue with the snap judgements being made about someone having negative traits, with no information, purely due to having no picture up.

KomradeBishop

smash wrote: »

But they're attitudes that are already there in every day life. How many threads on AH have been closed because of the attitude that "Irish women are up themselves"?

Yes, those attitudes already exist in everyday life - which doesn't preclude dating sites promoting those attitudes even more, in the manner I described.

smash

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes, those attitudes already exist in everyday life - which doesn't preclude dating sites promoting those attitudes even more, in the manner I described.

I don't feel that dating sites promote it at all. To suggest this is like suggesting that LinkedIn promotes bad attitudes towards employment.

Cathy.C

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I didn't say dating sites are responsible for it being prevalent. I said the way dating sites work, may be contributing to making it more prevalent - may be instilling hyper-judgemental attitudes in quite normal otherwise-nice people, in a way they may not be fully conscious of - i.e. making society overall that little bit worse.

Tbh I think the hyper-judgemental attitudes today are down to the increase in choice. It's hard for the people that come off the worst for this but you can't really judge the judgemental for it to be fair as why would anyone not take advantage of there being better choices on offer, or at least better filtering options which they feel give them a better chance of meeting someone that ticks their boxes.

If I'm shopping for a car on DoneDeal I am naturally going to filter off all the cars that don't include a photo or where the car is filthy because of what I personally would feel that would be indicative of. Now, I could be totally wrong and the dirt could be the worst of it and the cars could be excellent value otherwise, or indeed that one of the cars with no pics could be my dream car and my rash judgement will mean that I will miss out on it but the chances of that are just to slim for me to bother going to the trouble of finding out and I think that is how people see and approach online dating.

fin12

Honestly I don't expect to get messages when I don't have a profile picture up but I have a profile on a website that does both online and speed dating events so I have to have a profile to communicate with the people I meet at the events but don't expect to get any messages from people who are just viewing my profile online and haven't meet me at one of the events. I got one message from someone just based on my profile and I did send a photo after just to prove who I am but hated doing it. haha. Online dating is not for me.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

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...

What are you even on about?
I'm not reframing anything.

1. It's generally people with no effort put into any message that will have no photo up. Do you have any experience as a female with a photo up, recieving messages from profiles with no pic? I can tell you, as a female with experience of same, it's easier for them to hide behind a computer screen and ask women for sex with no pic, than them having a pic up of themselves and asking.

2. If you don't have a pic up sending a message, your message probably isn't even being opened, I know when I was on pof, I certainly didn't bother opening those ones they were usually all the same kinda nonsense, so I'm sure I maybe missed one or two decent mails with private pics but the others weren't worth sifting through.

3. The cardboard box on head is a reference to expecting women to talk to you "in the real world" by not judging you, or being shallow, while you can see them but they have no idea who you are. It's to keep your privacy while enjoying them not keeping theirs. Not a dig at looks.


4. Would you also message ladies with no photo up, or just ladies with photos?

maudgonner

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I haven't judged anyone for why they don't like profiles or messages without images - fúcking hell this must be the 10th time I've explained this...most of those times to you directly (I was exactly right, to predict that this would become a never-ending straw-man used against me...) - I am taking issue with the snap judgements being made about someone having negative traits, with no information, purely due to having no picture up.

This is a direct contradiction. You've just said that you haven't judged people for why they don't like profiles with no images. But you also said they shouldn't make snap-judgements (which are some of the reasons people don't like profiles with no images).


God I wish the term 'straw-man' could be banned from this forum! Those that pull it out are usually as lazy as those who use that style of argument in the first place.

KomradeBishop

smash wrote: »

I don't feel that dating sites promote it at all. To suggest this is like suggesting that LinkedIn promotes bad attitudes towards employment.

LinkedIn doesn't have the same kind of dynamic that dating websites do, when it comes to how people on it interact with each other. I think it's pretty possible, that attitudes which are more likely to develop on dating sites, can bleed offline too.

Lyaiera

It's not making a judgement on anyone, it's theorising why someone wouldn't have a picture. You're never going to meet this person, you're never going to impact their life, you're not going to run into them in a pub, if there is any judgement it has no effect.

Of course people are going to wonder why someone doesn't have a picture on a dating site. And doing that has no effect on the person without the picture.

KomradeBishop

Cathy.C wrote: »

Tbh I think the hyper-judgemental attitudes today are down to the increase in choice. It's hard for the people that come off the worst for this but you can't really judge the judgemental for it to be fair as why would anyone not take advantage of there being better choices on offer, or at least better filtering options which they feel give them a better chance of meeting someone that ticks their boxes.

If I'm shopping for a car on DoneDeal I am naturally going to filter off all the cars that don't include a photo or where the car is filthy because of what I personally would feel that would be indicative of. Now, I could be totally wrong and the dirt could be the worst of it and the cars could be excellent value otherwise, or indeed that one of the cars with no pics could be my dream car and my rash judgement will mean that I will miss out on it but the chances of that are just to slim for me to bother going to the trouble of finding out and I think that is how people see and approach online dating.

So if we take that as true though, don't you see how that does actually change society on a wider scale?

maudgonner

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You could supply a picture in messages you send. In any case though - you highlighted an excellent reason not to have a picture up: Stalking.

Yes I could. But that assumes I would be doing all (or at least most) of the initial messaging. While I have no objection to messaging a guy first, I prefer to have the option of also having guys make contact with me. That's the way I feel the sites work best.

So I refuse to let one selfish, controlling, slightly disturbed guy change the way I use online dating. Instead I take whatever precautions I can, and that includes asking guys to supply a picture - either in their initial message or in their profile.

ibarelycare

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So if we take that as true though, don't you see how that does actually change society on a wider scale?

And this is the fault of dating sites how?

KomradeBishop

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What are you even on about?
I'm not reframing anything.

1. It's generally people with no effort put into any message that will have no photo up. Do you have any experience as a female with a photo up, recieving messages from profiles with no pic? I can tell you, as a female with experience of same, it's easier for them to hide behind a computer screen and ask women for sex with no pic, than them having a pic up of themselves and asking.

2. If you don't have a pic up sending a message, your message probably isn't even being opened, I know when I was on pof, I certainly didn't bother opening those ones they were usually all the same kinda nonsense, so I'm sure I maybe missed one or two decent mails with private pics but the others weren't worth sifting through.

3. The cardboard box on head is a reference to expecting women to talk to you "in the real world" by not judging you, or being shallow, while you can see them but they have no idea who you are. It's to keep your privacy while enjoying them not keeping theirs. Not a dig at looks.


4. Would you also message ladies with no photo up, or just ladies with photos?

1-2: There is nothing wrong with avoiding such messages for practical reasons - the issue I'd taken up, was the very negative snap judgements made about such profiles.

4: Yes - actually, I'd sometimes look specifically for profiles without pictures, as it's far easier to get a reply - one of my friends I met this way, and turned out she's extremely good looking.

KomradeBishop

maudgonner wrote: »

This is a direct contradiction. You've just said that you haven't judged people for why they don't like profiles with no images. But you also said they shouldn't make snap-judgements (which are some of the reasons people don't like profiles with no images).


God I wish the term 'straw-man' could be banned from this forum! Those that pull it out are usually as lazy as those who use that style of argument in the first place.

That's not in contradiction at all - I have criticized making snap judgements based on profiles having no pictures - i.e. it is the snap judgements, imagining up negative traits based on little to no information, that I am criticizing.

That is not the same as not liking a profile for having no image - I have no problem with that.


Usually the ones to decry the term 'straw man' are the ones using them to perpetually throw the same misrepresentation at a poster again and again and again...I'm definitely seeing that trend with you here.

maudgonner

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's not in contradiction at all - I have criticized making snap judgements based on profiles having no pictures - i.e. it is the snap judgements, imagining up negative traits based on little to no information, that I am criticizing.

That is not the same as not liking a profile for having no image - I have no problem with that.

You said that you were not judging people for why they didn't like profiles with no images. But you're also saying that they shouldn't dislike them based on snap judgements. That is judging their reasons for not liking them. So yes, you have contradicted yourself.

KomradeBishop

Lyaiera wrote: »

It's not making a judgement on anyone, it's theorising why someone wouldn't have a picture. You're never going to meet this person, you're never going to impact their life, you're not going to run into them in a pub, if there is any judgement it has no effect.

Of course people are going to wonder why someone doesn't have a picture on a dating site. And doing that has no effect on the person without the picture.

What was discussed earlier in the thread, was a case of making a judgement. As has been circularly discussed 5+ times now, the way dating websites work may be helping to promote these kinds of hyper-judgemental attitudes in society (more so than they already would be) - so if these kinds of judgements are promoted on such sites, they can possibly have an effect on wider society.

KomradeBishop

ibarelycare wrote: »

And this is the fault of dating sites how?

I wouldn't say 'fault', but I would say they are a contributing factor - and what Cathy.C describes, was pretty much the dynamic of how dating sites work - so if we all agree that that dynamic has an effect on wider society, it should be trivial for us to agree, that the type of attitudes dating websites can promote through that dynamic, can affect wider society?

Lyaiera

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What was discussed earlier in the thread, was a case of making a judgement. As has been circularly discussed 5+ times now, the way dating websites work may be helping to promote these kinds of hyper-judgemental attitudes in society (more so than they already would be) - so if these kinds of judgements are promoted on such sites, they can possibly have an effect on wider society.

And I disagree. People are only theorising why people don't post profile pics.

ibarelycare

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I wouldn't say 'fault', but I would say they are a contributing factor - and what Cathy.C describes, was pretty much the dynamic of how dating sites work - so if we all agree that that dynamic has an effect on wider society, it should be trivial for us to agree, that the type of attitudes dating websites can promote through that dynamic, can affect wider society?

No, because these attitudes were around long before dating sites.

KomradeBishop

maudgonner wrote: »

You said that you were not judging people for why they didn't like profiles with no images. But you're also saying that they shouldn't dislike them based on snap judgements. That is judging their reasons for not liking them. So yes, you have contradicted yourself.

No I'm not. I'm criticizing the snap judgements...I'm not criticizing what people are trying to use the snap judgements for.

KomradeBishop

ibarelycare wrote: »

No, because these attitudes were around long before dating sites.

That doesn't prevent dating sites from contributing to those attitudes though - to promoting them more - right?