Honestly I don't know where else to look. I don't go to church. I have few friends and those I do have do not have any connections to introduce me to people. I choose a poor career for meeting people. No job I've ever had has had many people of the opposite sex in my division. Even now, in my team and a very large company, of the 45 people that I might interact with regularly, 43 are male and while there might be women at work I have no good excuse to talk to any of them.
I'm not saying I want to meet someone at work. But, work is the 2nd most common place to meet someone. Friends are #1 but as I mentioned my friends don't come through here.
Bars don't seem my thing. I am going to a dance event regularly but so far nothing there and even then, I can't talk while I dance as I need to concentrate on getting the moves right (it's a well known style of dance, not just club dancing)
Trying to go to meetups but COVID is still a thing so outdoors only. And it can be burn out on those two because rarely is there anyone I might be interested in. (single, age appropriate, and seem compatible). I know it's a numbers game, I just am running out of ideas on how to increase the numbers.
The apps don't work for me. I get at most 3~4 dates a year out of them. It's better than zero but not by much.
"Everyone" wont. When I was 22, in pretty good shape, and had a full head of hair I didnt need to pay for bumble. Last time I was on an app I was ~27, in okay shape, and bald. If I was taking it seriously I would have paid for it because I saw a massive impact on my matches based on age/hair status.
yeah there's a harry stebbings interview of whitney wolfe where at the end he says 'bumble wasn't working that well for me until I dropped $300 a month for it, and blam', and she kind of chuckles and promises to work on his profile with him
unintentional blindside question in a softball interview
Actual question: if you do not make a product or service available in the EU, does your globally accessible marketing website need to be GDPR compliant?
IANL, but AFIK, yes, as long as EU users can access your website, it does have to be compliant. Though how you could get fined for breaching that is another matter.
TBH, being GDPR compliant isn't that hard, just don't track your users lol. A lot of the web was GDPR compliant by default 20 years ago.
If you're not in the EU, you have no presence in the EU, and are not selling a product in the EU, then no. EU has no jurisdiction over you. But it might be a consideration if you entertain the possibility of doing any of those things in the future.
Not only this, but pay for a professional photographer (and even a stylist if you can afford it!). Photo quality has a huge effect on how attractive someone appears; bad lighting can make a 10 look like a 5, and good lighting, dress and posing can make a 5 look like an 8.
Just don’t go too far past what you can deliver in person. The matching party could feel catfished and that will just push your failure down-funnel.
I.E. don’t take shots with perfectly styled hair, a leather jacket, and a motorcycle, if your day to day and date attire will be a t-shirt and jeans and you’re going to arrive on an e-scooter.
I am with the same girl for half my life, so I might not be totally qualified to answer, but I met most interesting girls outside a work context.
That means: on concerts, on hacking camps, in art exhibitions, especially exhibition openings, on film sets etc. These places reflect my interests of course, so I don't go there because of women, I go there because the stuff there interests me. So for you it could be a sports club, a library, an animal rights organization or any number of other, similar places where people of similar interest gather.
The point is: if you want to get to know people (regardless of their gender) exposing yourself to situations where you actually get the chance to meet new people is a good way to increase your chances. Just like your chances of rolling a 6 increase with every roll of the dice.
The important thing is to do it because you like, not because you expect to find women there.
I agree that getting out and doing thing you like will let you meet more people but just to be picky here. "concerts?" I couldn't talk to anyone at a concert as the music is too loud". "hacking camps", never seen more than 3% woman at any tech event. library? "shhh!, you're not supposed to talk at a library
> The important thing is to do it because you like,
As I said, I do, but none of the things I like involve enough people of the opposite sex. It doesn't help that I'm old so it might be true there are some 20 somethings at a hacking event but there are no 50 somethings.
Cooking classes, book club, movie club, volunteering (e.g. environment, local heritage, animal shelter, first aid,...), amateur acting, art classes, group travel, hanging out at vintage records store, coffee bar, dancing classes, music festivals, sports,...
There is a good flow chart for your dating life made by a specific YouTuber which I found highly effective. It can be found by searching YouTube for "wheat waffles flow chart"
I mean, from what I can see, it covers the redpill PUA stuff and the regular advice. It's basically saying "if you want to date shallow women interested only in your appearance, do X; if you want to date short-term based on shared interests, do Y; if you want a long-term relationship, do Z" — where some of the things below those split-offs happen to converge back together, due to e.g. the economics of attention in marketplaces like online dating; and the fact that "women at nightclubs" aren't one coherent group with shared goals but actually several independent groups that different men might want to meet for different reasons.
Note that many of the paths lead to don't-date or travel to lower income areas--but note that while that might get you sex it's not very good for finding love. And note that there is only one path from normal looks/not neurotypical to a relationship--and that path doesn't make much sense.
There's also a definite error. Note that an ugly guy who brings himself up to normal with surgery doesn't go through the neurotypical question. That arrow should go back to the top.
The language itself reveals deeper structuring principles in terms of truths/untruths, from which the knowledge presented in the chart arises.
The problem isn't that it's ideology; the NYT is equally ideological (ironically I had a far more visceral negative response to the angle of the OP article than to the above chart). The problem isn't even necessarily that it's TRP/manosphere ideology, but that it's treated unreflexively.
The question that immediately comes to mind is "why are the only categories 'sub5', 'normie', and 'chad'? What grounding principles must I assume in order to decide which of these categories I'm a part of?" Same goes for the proposed actions: what worldview must I assume so that these action-words "make sense", are coherent?
I can't speak for everyone, but when I personally dig into these questions, the answers I arrive at don't align with the other ways I elect to live in the world. I'm not saying the chart is "wrong", but rather that it's not relevant, for me at least.
I stand corrected. However, the question "What grounding principles must I assume in order to decide which of these categories I'm a part of?" has criteria WW outlines in "40 Differences in Treatment Between a Sub5, Normie & Chad." The theory isn't extremely rigorous and well defined.
The point isn't whether the criteria are knowable or not, the point is whether one is aligned with them, in terms of views/faiths/beliefs about how to live one's life. Better to think of it as a lens, perspective, frame, etc. which is neither true nor false, but instead accepted or rejected. In other words, it's a moral question.
Slightly condescending virtue signalling allows you to pass information freely without the fear of being viewed as someone who is dead serious about that kind of charts (and probably frequents PUA-forums)
I don't understand what "slightly condescending virtue signalling" is and how it "allows you to pass information freely" and what the fear is regarding "being viewed as someone who is dead serious about that kind of charts" or what is wrong with someone who "frequents PUA-forums"
I'm so far removed from this stuff generally I didn't really understand anything in that sentence (lol)
Libraries have lots of events where you can talk. They've had to reinvent themselves a bit since the internet and are a bit more of a community center nowadays. I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand.
I went to a travel blogging meetup at one last year (hosted by library staff members), some events on making podcasts, regular board game nights at another, and there's a whole maker lab set up in the basement of my nearest library, with 3D printers, multiple sound recording rooms, multiple video recording studios, a vinyl cutter, a laser cutter and computers with Adobe suite installed on them that you can use pretty much whenever.
Just looking at next month at adult events at my nearest library: yoga, drawing with pencils and charcoal class, conversational ESL, STEM workshop, a DIY craft event, a cooking class, photography club, meditation class, mixing live albums with Logic Pro class, dungeons and dragons event, coffee and conversation event, business topics workshop, folk art craft diy, trivia night, open mic night, aztec dancing event, line dancing, toastmasters (public speaking), film club, financial planning talk, 24 hour comic book creation event, state paranormal history talk, knitting, writers group, and several book club events. That's not even the kid or teen events. That's a lot, and a wide variety of things.
> "concerts?" I couldn't talk to anyone at a concert as the music is too loud". "hacking camps", never seen more than 3% woman at any tech event. library? "shhh!, you're not supposed to talk at a library
Re: concerts and libraries, you meet people outside of them (for concerts, in line for them, or in the pit waiting for the show to start), not at them per se.
I don't know about "hacking camps" (hackathons? code boot camps?) — never been to one — but a close cousin of these, [industry niche] startup events, tend to attract just as many business cofounders as technical cofounders; and the business cofounders tend to be an even gender split. (They also attract seed-stage VC scouts and marketing people, and these jobs actually tend to lean female.)
> As I said, I do, but none of the things I like involve enough people of the opposite sex.
So... take up some new hobbies?
And when I say that, I don't mean to work "bottom up" starting from what you might like; but rather, "top down", starting from what hobbies your ideal partner might have, and then filtering those for which ones you feel at least amicably neutral about. E.g. if you feel like you'd enjoy being with someone who's also 50yo and "creative", and you're not against e.g. painting, or pottery, or creative writing; then attend a continuing-education course on one of those. Because that's where you'll find other 50yos trying to learn those things.
> I don't know about "hacking camps" (hackathons? code boot camps?) — never been to one — but a close cousin of these, [industry niche] startup events, tend to attract just as many business cofounders as technical cofounders; and the business cofounders tend to be an even gender split. (They also attract seed-stage VC scouts and marketing people, and these jobs actually tend to lean female.)
I think people are going to be weirded out by someone hitting on them at a business event.
I'm not suggesting you do. You make connections, friends, people to work on things with. Then maybe something develops.
However, I should note that as a technical cofounder attending these events, I've been approached and flirted with heavily by single female entrepreneurs who have ideas they haven't started building yet, who seem to be looking for a convenient all-in-one package of "a boyfriend who's also an entrepreneur, who can 'yes, and' my ambitions, and who has enough skill+experience to actually build the tech side of the things we imagine together." I'm neither single, nor a free agent business-wise, but some people can be both very pushy and presumptive.
And rightly so. Why would you "hit on" someone who you don't know?
The first step is always getting to know the other person. Hitting on the other person with romantic interest from the start is a sure way not to get to know them in a low pressure environment. If you get to know the other first, they also get to know you. Typically you'd be searching for someone you are willing to spend your time with, and who is willing to spend time with you. And this is only a feasible endeavour if you know them and they know you.
That means: Your goal is not to find someone to "hit on", your goal is to get to know people. You can still explore if the other is interested in a little bit more, once it is established that you find them interesting and they find you interesting.
By hit on I meant attending with the goal of finding a romantic relationship. Even if you think you’re doing that subtly it’s not the goal of these events. The general advice of cultivate interests and meet new people is great but just divorce that from the expectation of finding romance. In particular targeting activities because of the expectation of increased romantic success seems particularly weird.
About the concert thing: people tend to interact in the queue to the concert venue. People tend to talk after a concert. Extra perk: you already have a topic to talk about.
Hacking camps are sure not a typical source of women, but what I said was not "search places where women are", but rather "put yourself out there, but in places that match your interest". If it turns out that place has no women at all, sure that won't help for that purpose. Keep in mind that I cited examples that worked for a young (35-ish) person like me.
It is not easy to find someone you like, regardless of gender, but putting yourself out there is one of the best ways to do it. Even if your thing is IT, there might be places that need it. E.g. a friend did IT for kids in need and he certainly met one ore another women his age there.
In non-party social contexts consider becoming friends first approaching either sex with the same questions you'd ask people sharing the same interests. Then ask for contacts to share and receive opportunities for similar events. Then deepen your friendship and get to know each other better asking about events outside your groups' interests but more of pairwise mutual interest.
Whether this comes across as stalking or courting depends on how weird or creepy you come across. Basically, once you leave university, your ability to spend a lot of time with people you're allowed to date kind of dries up, because people don't want to be counted at work.
I'm sorry, but the early-mid steps what I described is completely how you make friends and close friends as well. If someone is in a social context and take offense with people trying to be friends, they are the problem.
How you 'feel' isn't always reality. I am not dating now, but it's a bit odd to suggest you can't put yourself out there because of the 'climate' or 'culture'. Who cares what the climate is, if you're being genuine and nice there is nothing to worry about.
If you're worried you will be perceived as a creep then you need to work on your delivery/how you approach strangers.
Members of the opposite sex are just people. They want to be treated normally. My most successful male friend(in terms of dating) just treats females like they're normal people. He pretty much never has trouble and he is a 6 at most with a shitbox car.
I used to think women only care about money etc; and That is true..for a certain subset of women. So many more don't care at all, and just want a nice loyal person who won't shit on them. And yes, you need to moderately TRY to look attractive. Go to the gym, get a proper haircut, stop wearing those shitty jeans and ugly shoes. YOU also need to put in effort, it's not just on the other gender.
> Members of the opposite sex are just people. They want to be treated normally. My most successful male friend(in terms of dating) just treats females like they're normal people. He pretty much never has trouble and he is a 6 at most with a shitbox car.
Just a suggestion. You think he is a "6" but you are probably wrong because you are unable to view him from the perspective of a woman's gaze. See my other post in my profile's comments about the flow chart stuff.
If you're only interested in talking to the person if they're a potential partner, you're going to have a lot of failures (unless it's something like a speed dating course).
You work on getting to know people as friends, some of whom you may consider dating.
Let me also add, a thing I hate about dating apps is the pressure. At least for me, I meet someone I know nothing about and I feel like I have to decide at every moment "Do I want to be in a relationship with this person?". It feels very unnatural to me. There's a one in a million chance there will be instance chemistry but mostly no, I don't know the person well enough.
Compare to most of the relationships I've had, those were people I knew 6+ months before we got interested in each other. Classmates, co-workers, group friends.
i started climbing and bouldering recently and while I haven't met anyone romantically (I have no interest in pushing this, I want to do it for the hobby first, and for meeting people second), the group I go with usually has more women than men and in the gyms it seems to be about a 50/50 split so I can easily see how you could meet someone there in the way you imagine.
though I must emphasize not to do it to meet women as the primary purpose, I feel like that's kind of creepy vs. an event that is explicitly for that purpose (like single bars or whatever).
Long married now, but for many years, a trip to the climbing gym was my standard first date (that is - someone I met elsewhere, I would take them climbing). It worked really well:
* It's a natural two-person activity with a bidirectional trust exercise.
* Heights provide a little amygdala stimulation.
* It's hard and physical and you feel like you deserve a beer afterwards.
* If your date is not already a climber, you get to play the role of the teacher/master.
i was a climber for 8 years... i'd say that, in general, women in the gym i was going to several times a week definitely don't want to be hit on at the gym. why? because they go a lot and if you get into some awkward situation there, you don't want to keep running into the same person over and over again...
that said, it does make for a good first date and i definitely got a bunch of random people into climbing that way... =)
I got news for you. Bars are rarely the place for successfully meeting a nice lady in most places. Quality women don't often hang around alone in bars waiting to meet a partner as they'll be hit on by tons of drunks and creeps. Ditto for clubs. They usually go in groups and stay together.
YMMV but that's the case in my area in Europe. Maybe the US has a different culture.
You misunderstood. The quality of the bars is irrelevant here, as most people, guys and girls, go to the bar to sit at a table and drink with one or more friends, not to get hit on by random strangers.
The Hollywood scene where girls hang around alone by the bar waiting for guys to hit on them doesn't exist here.
If you want to go to a bar and meet other people, go to one with a pool table. Hitting on women is much smoother when you meet their girlfriend's boyfriend first, and better tolerated whether she's interested or not.
In Germany/Switzerland it's not common to go to pool bars and talk to "meet other people". People will look at you funny if a random stranger from the bar talks to them for no reason. Here at bars, you're expected to bring you own group of friends and stick with them. Not every country/culture has such warm/welcoming social etiquettes as US/UK/etc/
>The Hollywood scene where girls hang around alone by the bar waiting for guys to hit on them doesn't exist here.
I don't know that it exists anywhere anymore. It can be dangerous for a woman to out drinking alone.
But ladies do go out in groups. As a guy you just have to be nice and chat up the group and don't get hyper focused on any one person. None of them are probably going to drop everything and go home with you that night. But you can often get a phone number (or two) and go on a real date from that.
I've heard people saying that it's not possible to meet "quality" ladies in bars. Not been my experience at all. I met my SO in a nightclub in Japan. I've met a previous girlfriend in a bar in New York and my first girlfriend in a nightclub in Spain. All of them are highly educated with two of them having Phds.
And, my experience doesn't seem to indicate that meeting interesting people in bars only happens in certain countries.
That said, I didn't necessarily go to the bars or nightclubs purely with the objective of dating. I went there to have fun, dance and meet people (men and women).
Please don't twist my words and call me an incel. I didn't say women who go out are not nice. I said roaming the bars and clubs, hoping to meet a nice woman is not a recommend strategy for success where I live. And it's not some incel shit but it's what girls here will tell you as well.
Sure, it can happen that you meet a compatible partner in a bar/club, but as a dating strategy is has a very poor ROI. You're better off with hobbies or dating apps.
Sure they dont hang around alone in bars. But because someone is with friends doesnt mean you cant talk to them. In fact I'd guess that most single people who go to bars, with or without friends, are open to the idea of talking to people they don't know.
It's on you to figure out how to do that without making it weird.
The best locations are in my opinion where people already have lowered guard against getting hit on. For example: grocery store. The problem is that the introverts are not really good at small talk (not saying your are an introvert) and it is hard to come up with an opener.
Are you satisfied with your friendships? I daresay it's more important to have abundant friendship than any romance, besides the fact that friendship leads to love.
not just for dating, for all kinds of 'network reboot'. doesn't have to be traditional grad school either, any kind of high-investment cohort-based bonding experience should do it
agree with you that hollowing out of local institutions is rough, esp for over-30s post-pan. The web has not done a good job of delivering IRL social networks; tinder is IMO fairly good at this, with the caveat that it's impossible to turn the connections into a true community
Is that ballroom dance with lead/follower? If that's the case, I cannot recommend it enough. It's hard as hell in the first couple of years, but then you'll grasp it. See this graph for the learning curve of ballroom dancing, and don't give up [1].
I love ballroom, been doing it more or less since high school (10+ years and some breaks), but I wouldn't really use this curve for any other reason than to motivate new men to attend classes.
In the beginning, followers may have a slightly easier time since it's probably a bit easier for a follower to learn from a more advanced leader than the other way around, but this plateaus pretty soon (low single digit months).
Also, leaders tend to pick and followers accept / reject, so in that respect, "attractive followers" will have a bit of an easier time (more offers) than if you're a shy, not very attractive leader.
But that's mostly just for newcomers. Eventually, few dances in, people get familiar with your level and you with theirs in a given group. And I've yet to see a place where one could get no partners, even as a "beginner with only a handful of introductory classes" (unless through some pretty obvious breaches of ethics / personal hygiene).
Eventually (maybe a few months in), both leaders and followers have to do some introspection and practice things like technique, posture and musicality. And there's simply no way other than mindful practice.
Just go talk to random people in stores. Men and women. Make it based on shared interests. Find a way to start conversations with them. And work out and stay fit and wear decent clothes.
On a dating app women are happy to swipe left and see who's next but when there is a man right in front of them the calculus is way different.
I'd like to counter-argue with a quote from this random Reddit thread in /r/AskWomen [1] titled "What is one place you hate to be hit on?":
> Grocery store. I'm just like, dude, leave me alone, I'm here to get my food and get out as quickly as possible. I'm not interested in having to pretend not to be annoyed by you interrupting my day, fuck off.
And I'd like to point out that "Earth" is also an answer there.
I feel for the OP because he's stuck between a rock and a hard place: hitting on women is often annoying for the woman being hit on, but at the same time not hitting on women means that he can only date people who he meets for reasons other than dating. It's like a Zen riddle: "What is that which you can only have once you stop desiring it?".
This is the landscape that gave rise to the hell we call "dating apps", and I really wish we had something better.
In my experience, the voices you read on Reddit are a special breed of high-anxiety thinkers. Especially in dating/relationship threads. I think a lot of people on there are bent out of shape from some experience, and that’s why they’re on Reddit talking about dating and relationships instead of doing them. I avoid using reddit posts as a gauge for anything about people in real life. Not saying go out and start hitting on women at the bus stop, but there’s nothing weird or socially unacceptable about talking to strangers if you don’t make it weird. Just ask a small question or make a comment about something in the environment. Don’t say “I couldn’t help but notice your beautiful eyes m’lady.” Band shirt, how do you cook that vegetable, whatever. If there’s tension, she’ll invite you to keep talking to her. If there’s not, move on.
It's just so easy to understand when you look at it logically. Talking to people (skillfully, which requires practice) will eventually lead to befriending some percent of those you talk to. Befriending people will lead to more opportunities to befriend others from a place of more trust. It's a simple networking process.
Eventually, some percent of the people you're meeting and befriending will be love interests. There will be mutual attraction, especially when you don't come across as desperate. Eventually some small percent of these mutual attractions will also be compatible partners under the right circumstances.
It's just a numbers game!
The problem is people design their conversion funnels all wrong. At the top of the funnel is conversations, then acquaintances, friends, mutual interests, compatible interests, partners.
At every stage there is a network/feedback effect leading to more input at the top of the funnel.
There is a philosophy that has propagated recently that ‘it can’t hurt to ask’. I’m guessing this comes from popular self help gurus. I once fielded of a lot of questions from these people due to a job I had and it is incredibly annoying. I had to start being rude to people. I can only imagine how much worse it would be to be an attractive female.
I'm saying talk to men and women because it shouldn't be just "hitting on" people, it should be "talking to people." And if you don't like to get talked to at the grocery store, I mean, fine, don't respond or put in earphones. If I never talked to anyone because of my fear that they didn't want to get talked to, then I'd never have talked to anyone at all.
> I can't talk while I dance as I need to concentrate on getting the moves right (it's a well known style of dance, not just club dancing)
I recognize that feeling! It took me a long time before it disappeared. Practice helps a lot. And if you forget a move, it's okay to get back to the basic (assuming you are doing a partner dance and not a line dance - I suck at line dances).
I don't know which style of dance you mean. You may consider different dance styles.
I did a bit of ballroom in grad school, then years later learned salsa, then added tango, then some swing and other dance styles (modern, Scottish country, Swedish folk dance).
Each one has a different social scene. Where I lived, tango tends towards older people, and is usually combined with a social/café scene (a milonga). "Older" means 40s and up.
Salsa is more at clubs. As a bouncer once pointed out, he loved the energy of the dancers, but they don't drink much so it doesn't make much revenue for the bar.
It took a couple of years of salsa classes, and dancing salsa elsewhere, before I realized that I didn't like the salsa style my teacher taught, and preferred another studio. So that's also something to consider.
Swing tended to be a younger, more energetic crowd (late teens/20s), with dance events at more specialized locales that had more open space (where I was, that was generally a yoga/dance studio or the OddFellows Hall, which hosted a lot of smaller dance events).
My limited ballroom experience was that the higher levels tend towards ballroom studios. I got the feeling that engineers lean towards ballroom because there are more specific steps and progressions to learn.
The folk dancing scene is pretty laid back. The basics aren't hard to learn, and people will help you with them. It's the most family-friendly of the dances I did, with quieter music, and more often held outside (if the weather is good) because it doesn't need a special dance floor.
For what it's worth, at my peak I was dancing about 25 hours per week. I met my wife at a dance event, held at bar.
Other things I did, to meet people, were local community college classes (as a new resident to the state, I like the local state history course the best; the teacher also hosted a monthly local history event, which I went to - nearly everyone was 55 and older so I was the youngest by far) and Sierra Club hikes.
As someone responsible for volunteer coordination for a non-profit, I don't want to deal with people who aren't there due to passion for our mission. I actually developed conflict management training for volunteer coordinators of a certain non-profit that used a lot of college age volunteers who were generating a lot of drama due to their in-dating.
You have my sympathy. At the same time, do you really require passion, or can you get by with commitment? I suspect that most volunteer coordinators will be happy with volunteers who are perhaps not passionate but do turn out when they say they will, arrive prepared, and do the work.
In the specific case of my non-profit, passion is required in volunteers because the role requires a lot of patience that will overwhelm commitment.
>I suspect that most volunteer coordinators will be happy with volunteers who are perhaps not passionate but do turn out when they say they will, arrive prepared, and do the work.
Agreed.
THIS. But be mature, diverse, and kinda picky about what organizations you volunteer for, in what roles, and how much. Be especially wary of bringing your day job technical skills & attitude to a volunteer organization. (The food bank is far, far more likely to need food and reliable food handlers than it is to need you building a fancy new AWS-hosted web site & database for them.)
This only works if you're in an area that isn't hypersaturated with retirees. Nearly every volunteer event I attend has people that are mostly 20-30 years older than me.
haha yeah. Volunteer at a cat sanctuary and you're likely to make friends with a whole bunch of nice grannies.
Volunteering with a political campaign where the candidate's promises are strongly appealing to young people is probably the sweet spot in terms of meeting young people.
No.
Please don't do that.
It's called Pick-Up Artistry, and it is toxic.
You will benefit more if you try to be a considerate human being, and not treat women like prizes, or prey to be captured. This way, you actually have a chance to healthy relationships.
Meh, honestly you can do it. It's more so a cultural thing. It also has nothing to do with treating people like prizes or prey, in a chill environment people are okay conversing with total strangers, but its very location dependent.
I met my last girlfriend this way. I know friends who found partners randomly chatting on the train, in ubers (pool when that was a thing), at bus stops etc.
Just dont be an asshole or a creep/creepy looking, and youd be surprised how receptive people can be
It is called being 'creepy'. Please don't do it or suggest it. The outcomes are neither favorable or painless (depending on whether it's a Taser or Mace). It is far better to send dozens of messages or interests in Tinder - than make a spectacle of yourself, be it US or India or EU/Asia
> Trying to go to meetups but COVID is still a thing so outdoors only
In which country COVID is still a thing that prevents indoors meetings?
Regardless, outdoor there is a world of events happening; it isn't just "indoors". Just check on meetup.com.
> I can't talk while I dance as I need to concentrate on getting the moves right (it's a well known style of dance, not just club dancing)
At social dances, dancers often socialize on the sides of the dance floor, taking a break rather than dancing the whole evening; socializing or not is very much a choice.
I recommend taking up swing dancing if that's not already the style you're doing (Lindy Hop is great to start with).
The majority of swing dance socials will have very low levels of intoxication (because everyone is there to dance!), and it is a social atmosphere where it is expected and encouraged to introduce yourself to strangers and ask them to dance. If you are a man (or dance the lead role), don't worry about not being able to do so much fancy stuff while you're dancing. Often, experienced followers are perfectly happy to try out individual stylistic variations while the leader holds a nice steady basic.
I'd recommend going with the intention of trying to expand your social circle, and seeing where you end up!
Swing dancing is a lot of fun and a great place to meet people, but please don't be the guy that's obviously there to flirt. In my experience, most people there just want to enjoy their evening dancing, not getting hit on.
This is a very real problem! I didn’t actually work out the protocol here, seems tricky to ask for than a handful of people out, before you might get into trouble
Alternatively, aim to make friends, and meet THEIR friends. This is always the absolutely best way
I figured I'd add a bit of guidance in addition to "go with the intention of expanding your social circle" since I'm writing another message, for anyone that is interested:
* Start going to swing dance classes (I recommend Lindy Hop for beginners)
* In classes, say hello to all the people you dance with as you rotate, ask how they are doing, and start gradually making small talk focused around whatever moves you're learning that day (though not to the point of distracting from the class!)
* Chances are some people coming to the class will be in couples. If there is one partner of the couple who you small talk a bit more freely with, at the beginning or the end of the classes, go and say hi and make some small talk with those couples, get to know their partners too
* As a single person going to classes it's generally a lot more relaxed talking to couples than other single people to start with
* Slowly start including others (couples or single people) in these pre/post class conversations
* At this point everyone is probably still terrified at the idea of going to a social dance, thinking they aren't "good enough" yet
* Make a group chat with the people you've been talking to before and after classes with the goal of coordinating a social dance that everyone can go to together so they don't feel so terrified of going alone
* Add more and more people from the classes to the group chat, and more and more of the nice people you meet at the dances to the group chat (others in the group chat will be doing this too!)
* Before you know it, you'll have a new social circle of 20+ friends, hooray!
Swing dancing is indeed a great one. Although I did run into the issue that, eventually it didn’t seem likely to REALLY be my thing, and for men there is actually a definite level of competitiveness to be aware of. That said, people were diverse, friendly, and the vibe is very cheerful and healthy
>Trying to go to meetups but COVID is still a thing so outdoors only. And it can be burn out on those two because rarely is there anyone I might be interested in. (single, age appropriate, and seem compatible). I know it's a numbers game, I just am running out of ideas on how to increase the numbers.
Few things. First, why is covid still a thing? You can just as easily catch it on a date or at work, just go to the indoor meetups. I'm in a liberal big city in the US and covid isn't a thing anymore. It's been three years. I don't want to die alone, do you? I had long COVID, it sucks, but it's unfortunately not an option.
Second, some meetups have different people going to it in each event. Those are the date targets. But, focus on making friends there, this happens if you go regularly, weekly, to the same ones.
> I am going to a dance event regularly but so far nothing there and even then, I can't talk while I dance as I need to concentrate on getting the moves right (it's a well known style of dance, not just club dancing)
Are you doing competitive dancing?
If you’re dancing for fun yet you’re more concerned about dancing “properly” than you are about just socializing, people are probably wondering why you’re taking it so seriously.
I disagree. I partner dance socially and getting good at dancing played a big part in making me comfortable while at a dance event. If I feel like I'm tripping over my feet, I'll be embarrassed to try and talk to the partner after the dance, I'll just want to run away instead.
I took years of dance lessons, and at my peak was dancing about 25 hours per week. My social life was my dance friends, made after I started taking it so seriously. My friends also went to dance lessons, and worked to get the moves right. My now-wife, for example, studied for a year to be a ballroom dance instructor then taught courses and private lessons.
In traveling dances like tango and waltz, the lead must learn not only the basic forward motion, but also how to turn corners, and how to avoid people. At the beginning, this took me a lot of effort. My first few tango milongas were mostly "step, step, stop, think; repeat" unable to hold a conversation and dance at the same time.
Things got better once I had enough practice in moving about floor, but at the beginning, it was tough.
And that was after several years of salsa dancing. A real beginning tango dancer would likely have it worse.
There are also people who believe "if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well."
And some people have a sort of impostor syndrome - they know they are beginners, they see the better dancers, and they think people won't like them or dance with them until they get better. This is wrong, but the solution isn't to suggest stop taking it so seriously, but to get those dancers to know it really is okay to be a beginner dancer - everyone was a beginner once. "Taking it seriously" is respected because that's what those better dancers did to become better.
There's also the opposite - beginners who want to learn more complicated moves right away, before they even get the basics down, and end up making the follow annoyed for being lead into uncomfortable positions, being stepped on, etc. To anyone reading - don't be like that.
Yeah I agree about the meetup thing. It can be really hit or miss. Maybe if you pick a good one like hiking or sports. You have to screen out the meetups where there are a lot of retirees or married couples.
I’m not convinced it’s a pure numbers game, at least from a perspective of long-term success (for what it’s worth, I was averaging 1-2 dates/year until I met my partner). I think it’s much better to have two high-quality dates than dozens of low-quality ones. The advantage of dating apps over more traditional ways of meeting people is that you can much more effectively set up bandpass filters to focus your efforts on interesting people.
I think the best thing you can do is focus on yourself, particularly by cultivating hobbies that you enjoy—bonus points if they’re things you can enjoy alone and with others, because they’re easy inroads and great first dates (worst case you get to spend a bit of time doing something you like!).
The second thing I’d encourage is to get any potential dealbreakers out of the way early (e.g. religion, political views, desires for parenthood, career aspirations). It’s a slow path, but it’s helped me avoid the major pitfalls I’ve seen in my friend’s’ and colleagues’ relationships.
I don't think I fully agree with this. I think most people are quite bad at dating, I know I was. 1-2 per year for me would mean too much pressure. If I'm taking nothing else from using dating apps for the last 10 years, it's that I feel calm and have a good handle on my feelings in those situations, when good people come along I have a much better shot with them now. Obviously 2 good dates > loads of average ones, but the average ones aren't pointless either.
Fair point—I never got good at “dating” as a standalone skill. I still think that’s the benefit of activity dates over bar/dinner-and-a-movie/whatever dates, though. Doing a thing that you’re both already reasonably confident at helps counteract the anxiety and pressure from being on a date, and if you both have a good time doing the activity it makes follow-on conversions easier and less stressful since you have a common foundation to build and/or fall back on.
> I am going to a dance event regularly but so far nothing there and even then, I can't talk while I dance as I need to concentrate on getting the moves right
I usually don't talk while dancing with someone too, but social partnered dancing is how I met my wife. You don't have to be super social, but hopefully you naturally form some friends out dancing you can talk with while you're sitting out a dance. Just the act of being friendly and social with others puts you in the right situation; women usually prefer someone like that to someone sitting by themselves silently.
Trying to be helpful: music events - volunteer to help organize. Cycling club. Gardening group, perhaps a local Japanese garden or some such, even just watering potted plants they need volunteers. Book club - really! Dog show if that's your thing. Art classes.
I can’t relate. I found a long-term relationship on Tinder. I found my wife on Tinder. Not to mention the countless flings. The key is to be honest about what you’re looking for (though I found my wife when I “wasn’t looking for anything in particular”)
> Abby, 28, has been on dating apps for eight years […]. A committed user, she can easily spend two or more hours a day piling up matches, […]. Not a single long-term relationship has blossomed from her efforts.
Perhaps if you can’t find what you’re looking for in 8 years and 6000+ man-hours, the problem is you?
> I can’t relate. I found a long-term relationship on Tinder.
Survivorship bias. I have friends who found their partners on there, too. But I got ten times more friends who did not get anything meaningful out of dating apps.
I used dating sites before Tinder was invented. Abby is what I could describe as a professional dater. The person knows the platform inside out, seems to be always online, knows half of the people there, etc. Goes to lots and lots of dates and...well, nothing happens. It's either chasing some unrealistic expectations or some deeply rooted issues that won't let the person to form meaningful, longterm relationships.
So much to unpack here, surprised the article didn't try to address this: what is the reason for that?
Surely after 8 years this person might have looked back on failed relationships, and tried to understand why they've failed. Is it because of the dating apps, and if so, why precisely? Is it because of the people on dating apps?
I feel like pointing fingers at dating apps in general is just wrong.
Maybe. Just some speculation here, but she might be looking for some kind of perfect man. Lots of people might seem perfect, but being perfect is quite something else. I would think finding a matching personality would be a better aim.
Also, some people are quite suspicious and jealous, which are not attractive traits. The same counts for a certain aggressive attitude, and yes, many women have certain ways of coming accross as aggressive.
Then there is the general issue that many people on dating sites are casual daters and not looking for the same as you. A lot of people that are good at relationships are already in a relationship. The people not being good at them will end up more on a dating site. Just a statistics thing, nothing directly personal.
And something else... How do you recognize your life partner? I knew a friend who told me of a date, and she knew he was the right guy the moment she saw him. They are now together more than 10 years. I don't have that nose and am trying to refine my nose in that regard.
You’re likely well into the top 10% of attractiveness for men then if you got many matches and dates out of Tinder. You’re not representative of men at large.
The overwhelming majority of men will never get a single date from online dating.
You can do a lot of things to improve your level of attractiveness. Most of us don't roll out of bed looking like a peach, it takes conscious and consistent effort.
I am glad to have been in a relationship for all the Tinder years, so I don't have firsthand experience. But I know quite a few people who have become miserable from dating apps. For some, using the apps become a compulsion and they stay up for hours, swiping endlessly, obsessing over their profiles or their potential matches.
Then it changes dating a lot. Before, you often people from your extended social circle. You met people at your hobbies, at uni or even work, or when going out. You could ask common acquaintances to check someone out. And you had at least some kind of social connection.
And dating apps remove all ambiguity. You are not in an innocent everyday situation where you happen to like somebody, you start flirting and you move closer and see what happens. It is clear from the beginning that you are both there looking for something. I would find that immensely stressful, everything becomes a performance. I can't flirt "on cue" and I've heard the same from other people.
I wonder how modern dating would look like if the financial incentives of the app company was not the main driver. Maybe you'd have some "neutral" social network that people use IRL where dating was just an emergent side function? But maybe I'm biased because that's how online dating looked like in my early 20s?
> Maybe you'd have some "neutral" social network that people use IRL where dating was just an emergent side function? But maybe I'm biased because that's how online dating looked like in my early 20s?
There is. It’s instagram, and “sliding into” a stranger’s DMs is how you walk across the room and say hi to someone you’re attracted to.
The article mention 10% of the users got into a serious relationship. It's quite a low success rate considering the hugeee amount of dates taking place.
I would bet that is close to the amount of women on the app who are actually serious about dating rather than using it to judge their appeal or to get lots of attention and free dates with men.
I met my wife over OkCupid. I have generally been successful with dating apps (about 20~25 dates over 2 years), but I agree the experience is toxic & mostly sucks
>And dating apps remove all ambiguity. [...] It is clear from the beginning that you are both there looking for something.
This is precisely what I find appealing. Maybe I'm just socially deficient, but I find it stressful to navigate the ambiguity of real life encounters. Especially in todays climate where unsolicited advances can get you in trouble.
I prefer to avoid flirting. In my experience, flirting can be done with anybody, I could even flirt with a male person. The person is interchangeable in flirting. Being curious about the person and shared interests and especially the shared view on relationships is for me a good way to start a conversation.
People seem to equate flirting with some weird things. I guess most of us did in middle school.
But now I do flirt with people I want to befriend as well as date. Lots of eye contact and smiling. Quick gentle touches on the shoulder to emphasize a point or accompany laughter. Extra acknowledgement of their points, ideas, viewpoints. Light, pleasant teasing ("Look at you, stunning everyone with your outfit, Okay, I see you over there").
Gotta be willing to try on new personas and interpersonal behaviors. Maybe take an improv class.
The majority of women still do not use dating apps (thankfully) and of those who do use the app a lot give it a quick try, or use it to validate their appeal, rather than with the intent of actually dating.
So although dating cultures have changed, people really overestimate the effect of dating apps.
Been on and off dating apps for about 6-7 years now. Trying a new one like every quarter or so, quitting it after 6 months, frustrated by the whole experience. Giving it a new try at the beginning of each year, because "new year, new chances" or something like that.
I know that as an obese person I do not work well with what most people are looking for, but the "no answer at all"-cases are still hurting. Rejections are "fine" (kind of), but no answer at all really fucks my brain up, even after all those years.
Online dating is strange. There are fast-paced online dynamics, combined with our hormones, deeply-rooted human wishes, gamification elements and "pay2win"-stuff. Things that should not be thrown together are totally thrown together and we never learned how to handle that. At least I didn't.
Dating apps are stacked against the bottom 80% of men, as research has proven that women rate the bottom 80% as below average and tend to like only the top 20% of men in dating apps.
> I know that as an obese person I do not work well with what most people are looking for
Not wanting to be offensive, but I do understand where people are coming from. I myself am more in a niche, though it is physically less visible, and I also understand where you are coming from. I do believe it might be good to find a fitting partner, so not sure why the "most people" qualifier is there. What I am trying to get at :) If you are obese, how is your success rate with obese women? If out of 100 sent messages 1 good conversation comes, it is still something.
> If you are obese, how is your success rate with obese women?
I've obviously got no real metrics, but I'd say it's not much better, not sure though. One woman directly told me she wasn't looking for somebody who "looks like her", which at least was a honest answer.
On the other hand: I myself do not prefer girls who are very slim (is that the right word in English?), so I don't write to/like these woman. Not sure if my "success rate" would be better with those, though.
As a girl you open the app and get flooded with messages just because you show up as online. Some people will try for weeks or months, basically sending a hi every time they go online.
I don't have a suggestion for this problem as some men tend to be really dedicated spamming the shit out of every female but my point is this is really nothing against you and you shouldn't be taking this personally at all.
Is it the dating app that is responsible, or that people/prospective dates have became much more disposable in general, and no-one really cares?
You probably want to date people in the top 5 or 10% of your target sex/gender/age range. As does everyone else in the expanded pool that people can now access with the internet or the apps. Everyone has probably been told by the apps that they can get someone in the top 5 or 10% of what is available to them, so will feel unhappy with anyone else.
Most women will probably notice this as guys will only want to have sex with them if they are not what guys have been told they 'deserve' by the apps / society, or guys may settle for them if they are content with getting sex. A few will be able to optimally choose a guy or get all of the casual sex that they desire.
Most guys will probably find that no-one wants to connect with them at all without payment, or getting something out of the deal or will be treated as if they don't exist. Things are probably really bad if they are in the bottom 10 to 30% in desirability. A few will be able to optimally choose a woman or get all of of casual sex that they desire.
I am not sure about subcultures / non-cis / non-het groups or situations outside my country as I don't have experience of dating them and don't know how things work.
> Is it the dating app that is responsible, or that people/prospective dates have became much more disposable in general, and no-one really cares?
"Everyone has probably been told by the apps that they can get someone in the top 5 or 10% of what is available to them, so will feel unhappy with anyone else." -- I think the fact that these apps have instilled a sense of "I can do better" attitude is probably one of the core problems here. So, I would still probably hold the dating apps responsible.
>She recommends that app users stop scrolling and talking to other matches once they have found nine people they feel some level of connection with, and dedicate their time to really trying to get to know those people first.
Hinge is much better for this reason. They strictly limit the volume of potential matches you can see, force you to write longer text, etc. It seems much more built for driving real relationships.
I tried Tinder and Bumble for about a month and they made me feel like shit. I'm a living breathing person and I have to reduce myself into a short text description and some perfect pictures. I don't even take selfies so I'm already faking it! The whole concept is just vain and feels disgusting.
I've simply accepted that I'm going to be single unless something dramatic happens in my life.
I tried other apps a long time ago before tinder existed and felt the same. I've given up on dating years ago and will probably never go back. For me it felt like constant stress, pressure to appear perfect or near-perfect, and lots and lots of disappointment. It's not just the apps either (I was going to bars and club mainly to try and meet women).
Quitting actually helped me recover from depression and now I'm alone and somewhat happy, while before I was a constantly dissatisfied mess. Hope you find someone if that's what you want, but just so you know, you can do well alone.
I went on the site and can't figure out how to subscribe nor what's different about them (although they say a lot that they are). What's so good about them ?
I've twice signed up for dating apps and had the exact same experience you have. I do not like trying to prove how worthwhile I am in two sentences. I deleted them within 24 hours. Disgust was a great word choice.
I'm 39 and single, although I have decent success offline when I expend any effort.
The women who I've dated in real life--I'm pretty sure they'd all ignore me on the dating app. Phrased differently, I find the women I've actually dated far more attractive (not only physically) than any who will engage with me online.
>The whole concept is just vain and feels disgusting.
Agreed.
>unless something dramatic happens in my life.
I will kindly suggest that maybe that dramatic thing is you and what you will do starting today. e.g. Look at suggestions from others, NOT talking about apps.
I've been married coming up on 20 years, so I'm well out of the game. I do however see a lot memes, tiktok videos from women about "creepy men" daring to ask them out in real life.
I'm sure some men are creeps, but if you don't want people to speak to you in real life, then apps are your only option.
Women only find unattractive men creepy.
If a DiCaprio would approach them, there would be another story.
And men (and women) can do a lot to enhance their attractiveness. Working out, eating healthy, make money, for example.
on the topic of DiCaprio, this chart of his girlfriends was spread around recently https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/azjti7/leo... and it's definitely interesting and weird at the same time. Judging just from this picture, it seems like he's not dating to find a life partner (which is what I imagine most want to do.. maybe just me?)
I think one of the InCel theories is that top 1% men are hooking up with (say) 50% of women (and not looking for a long term partner), preventing those women (and the rest of the men) being able to find a long term partner.
I may have garbled this, but I think it is the gist of their theory.
Alpha widowing is a thing. Expectations get anchored at a high water mark so that dating most other men is a disappointment and a severe knock to their own self worth.
Ideally people would be realistic but women especially are being encouraged to want more. I think this mismatch of expectations is very damaging to society. I know a lot of alpha widowed women who are now going through a major crisis in middle age and I expect the problem to get much worse.
Yes, I think it can particularly be an issue if women want to have children one day (not saying they all should).
To find a guy you want to settle down with (and for you both to generate the required level of mutual trust) can take multiple years with no guarantee the relationship will endure.
I wasn't aware of the term but I fully agree about the expectation anchor problem. Dating apps just make it much easier to get one's expectations anchored too high.
While I doubt the 1%/50% ratio the basic problem is very real.
People are looking for the best they can attain and dating apps distort the impression of what one can attain. Just because you managed to go on a date with a 9 doesn't mean you can actually land a 9. This means someone just looking for sex and who is near the top in desirability will end up with a lot of sex. Since it's mostly men who are looking for just sex this results in a lot of women who want someone like that handsome guy that got away--not realizing that they were being used.
I would say your post sums up the collective experience of my circle of friends(including female friends) and myself perfectly. It's a weird situation: The average woman between 20 and 40 gets approached relatively often (at least multiple times a year) and experiences a broad spectrum of guys hitting on her which necessitates strict selection. The average man between 20 and 40 may not even get approached at all, ever, and have to fight for attention, making it a numbers game where spray and pray might seem like one of the better strategies.
And this is kind of a self-perpetuating system.
I would also argue that you can work on your attractiveness but this can also easily take a toll on you and while working out and eating healthy are rather accessible for most people, making a lot of money or changing further features of themselves might not be. I have multiple friends who suffer from androgenic alopecia in their 30s or who have facial features which deviate so far from the norm that the only way to actually "fix" them would be to have plastic surgery.
Sometimes I wonder if the smart move would be to actually move somewhere where the societal norms around this are different.
Not to sound callous, but as someone who's had plastic surgery in the past and is thinking about if I want anything else done, is it so bad to save up for or plan around?
If something really gives you grief or you feel bad about your appearance, I think considering what you can do about it is probably helpful. My surgeon seemed to have a lot of clients in for hair loss and that's a big quality of life improvement to not have to worry about, I would think?
I do not disagree with you at all. In fact I think it's a smart choice. What I would like to highlight though is that it's less accessible and I would argue more sensible as a topic than eating healthy or working out. I don't think it should be but I think it is.
I started going bald late 20's/early 30's and just started cutting my hair really short and then never gave it another thought. Being bald isn't unattractive - being self-conscious about being bald is.
Being bald works well if you have a big frame/size. Then you just look very masculine. Unfortunately short guys are more likely to go bald and it works less well on short men.
I personally agree that it's not unattractive and being self-conscious about it can make it so. However seldomly people with a perfect hairline worry about that, and many balding people do so it's at least another thing to get the upper hand on. And it's also no suprise a lot of people fear it.
Published data indicates that when women rate pictures of balding vs non-balding men, the former are rated worse and one could say the attitude one has would not have much of an impact on that.
And it's the same with height, perceived fitness and wealth.
What I am trying to say: It's simply not a level playing field and all these things add up.
Learn to play tennis. Take some lessons, don't worry if you are not very good. I guarantee you will meet someone, guy or girl. It is a great social activity that you can't do alone.
The tennis practice wall would care to disagree that can't be done alone. One can very much so spend months playing tennis and never once see or speak to another human being.
I hate these apps and I've tried a lot of them. However without I wouldn't have my wonderful partner.
We had been at the same party, we exchanged looks but nothing happened. Only a week or so later I checked a profile on some app with the most stupid intro ever 'i think I know you, have we seen?' and bam nearly 6 years later we are still together.
Are your dates typically fluent in english? I'm interested in relationships, not flings. Gotta be able to communicate to establish a strong relationship.
Not the parent, but meeting people whilst traveling doesn't have to be locals. If you go to a popular backpacker/nomad/tourist spot and stay a hostel you'll meet loads of people (that almost certainly speak English). The best part is that these people also enjoy traveling, so you have something in common.
You can take it a step further, if you stay in a surf hostel, you'll meet other people that like surfing. Replace surfing with any other activity you like (or want to learn). I think this works well, because you meet people that you have something in common with and have a similar lifestyle.
Women on dating apps have ample choice and thus try to select for the top 10-20% of men on offer. Exactly the type of men that have plenty of choice themselves. It's a kind of a too good to be true deal. You should assume that the very top of men would normally already be taken. They may not have the right motives to be this available. And even if the motive is genuine, you yourself should be an exceptionally attractive woman yourself, in one way or another.
The other 80% of men are pretty much ignored. As a counter reaction, they deploy a dragnet approach. Spamming many low effort messages as any love is good love.
It can go both ways, I know perfectly fine, ordinary looking women who don't get many likes either and will more actively message people the way men do. I think part of the issue is the 'average' man not being realistic. These apps make it easy to think "why should I message this person if there's someone better a few swipes away", when they would be stoked to get that person's number in real life. The reason not to do this is that you barely have any time to demonstrate value on these apps over the more conventionally attractive people you're competing with, and you will end up wasting a lot of time.
Sure some guys take the scattergun approach, but I think also a lot of men are being too picky and swiping past good matches.
Not sure if that's true. Every single study on this topic concludes that women date upwards whilst men are far more flexible. It's a dynamic as old as our species is.
But I do very much agree with your overall point that this is an incredibly unnatural way to date. Reduce a full human to a 3 second review based on near-zero info and match it to some arbitrary shopping checklist as if people are a utility.
Perhaps that does break the dynamic somewhat. It's more like a slot machine. The lady in the article spent close to a decade spending hours per day just swiping. That's not dating, it's hardcore addiction.
If you are physically unattractive and introverted you will not have a good profile and end up not getting any matches and success.
For those people I recommend hitting the gym, getting a tan and optionally bleaching your teeth. This alone will bump up your attraction level a lot + you will feel healthier.
As usual with all these trite dating app articles - not a single heterosexual man is represented. It’s always the plight of gay men, straight women, and so forth. Often for these groups - they have abundant choice and are just unable to settle down with the idea they won’t get to date an Instagram model.
For most straight men - dating apps are a form of purgatory and Sisyphusian efforts. The difference is so starkly different compared to all of the other people I know who aren’t straight men. Only straight men I know who don’t have these issues tend to be incredibly physically attractive to the point where they’d have women come up to ask them out on dates everyday. (Unheard of for an average man)
My advice is to pickup activities where women are and that have a natural social element. There are almost none of these btw. Social dancing is about the only one that exists still. The rest of activities out there that are social and involve meeting new people are completely dominated by men. Just brutally so. Most women I know don’t go out to meet new people via social activities like dancing. They go to insular parties, hang out with core group of friends, or stay home and watch Netflix. Very few are truly outgoing and willing to take the leap and meet new people by themselves. I can count on maybe one hand all the women I’ve met who are like that - and I’ve met thousands.
My experience is very different. At least in Denver thousands of men and women move here every month, so coed sports adult sports leagues are filled with single women looking to make friends and meet partners.
Similarly, many comments have talked about bars not being a good place to meet single women. From my experience this also isn’t true. You don’t walk up to a girl alone at the bar like in the movies though - you’re friend group mingles with another friend group, and one person in that friend group is probably single. The process is way slower than immediately going and talking to the person you want to meet.
But, this is HN so our social skills level is probably one standard deviation lower than anywhere else.
I guess experiences are very location dependent. This career path also makes things harder. Have you noticed how many cities who are known for being IT hubs end up with a huge young male surplus? That also makes things harder in real life. I don't know how it is in Denver.
Right but you’ve basically admitted to it though without saying that the whole situation is kinda fucked. Coed sport leagues are your one example. You’ve got going out to bars but you need an entire group of friends who want to approach women together. This strikes me as an experience that is mostly niche to your life and that’s about it.
Genuinely - with your experience and the way you advertise it as being incredibly slow - it sounds like you’ve met maybe a half dozen women this way and got lucky with a couple and ascribe this to a winning strategy.
I’m just saying - it’s not sounding great for meeting lots of women. It sounds like a good way to meet a dozen women and either get lucky or have incredibly low standards that allows you to pair up with 1 out of 12 women.
First, nobody cares about random straight guys. This has been enshrined in the incredibly hostile phrase "dick is abundant and low value." Second, if they were forced to interview some random hetero chump, it would give the whole game away. The realization that this essentially rests on men's desire ("thirst," as the kids say) is too much to be borne.
The last paragraph really resonates with me. I have been putting so much effort into trying to find the right activity. And literally yesterday I concluded that actually such an activity does not exist. Young women are not really out and about a lot in situations where one can easily approach them, and I guess they do not really need to.
The only real solution for enterprising men is to continue to do these social activities without an expectation of getting dates out of them. But you do make friends whose network could introduce you to many more people.
My parents were involved in stuff like the National Organization for Women (NOW) while women's rights around abortion and equal pay etc were being attacked under the Reagan administration in the 80s. So I grew up having strong feminist role models all around me. I was taught to treat everyone as an equal, and to speak respectfully. Using terms like police officer instead of policeman, fire fighter instead of fireman, and so on. Think how quaint that sounds today!
I'm appalled that pretty much all of that seems to have died since the 90s. Grown women on reality TV call themselves girls. Traditional gender roles seem to be cemented in place by marketing. I see the most chauvinistic, repulsive men being rewarded for being an "alpha".
So I dunno, to me it feels like it's over. I don't see a way back to progress when half the population subscribes to gender stereotypes. I feel like I was prepared for an egalitarian world that never came to be.
And not just feminism. All of the social justice causes I'm most passionate about, beginning with the destruction of wealth inequality, seem to have fallen by the wayside. It's just all bad news all the time on every front. Maybe there's a silver lining there that it's all fake. Maybe we can shift out of this false reality and manifest a better one. That thought is about all that's keeping me going anymore.
Not that I've been on this world very long, but from what I've learned of history I think these things ebb and flow. No culture is naturally permanently fixed towards being "traditional" or "progressive" or whatever label, but cultures are always moving in different directions based on the forces of the day which I certainly won't claim to know.
It is worth being careful about judging the present state of society based on social media/marketing (so you buy stuff you don't need) verses reality. i.e. a lot of people are normal IRL but rabid animals on twitter/fb.
Nobody with an ounce of IQ should be watching reality TV (it's just grown up (barely) high school drama). In fact watching TV (in general), makes you dumber and angrier.
I think there are still a lot of people that care about 'stuff'. Maybe other sources of input would be recommended. e.g. ACLU has regular meetings in big cities. Earth-Justice is big (although not sure about meetups).
I've noticed multiple female hikers doing this. "Girl" referring to anyone who still leads a physically active life, "woman" to those who no longer do.
"“People just get fatigued. They get overwhelmed with the whole dating process,” said Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist who is a senior research fellow with the Kinsey Institute and chief science adviser to Match.com."
I don't think this is dating app burnout, this is just dating burnout. Dating apps just make it easy to connect with potential matches (relative to not having dating app burnouts). And if you have dating burnout, take a break from dating! It's nice to just be ok with being single sometimes and enjoy other aspects of life.
"Before she deleted the apps, she spent any moments of downtime swiping; after, she found she had time throughout the day to rest.
...
But Dr. Turban believes that for some, simply deleting the apps is not enough. “It’s important to understand why the apps are causing problems for you,” he said, adding that therapists can be helpful for sorting these answers out. “Are you using the apps to self-soothe anxiety and inadvertently making your anxiety worse? Are you afraid you can’t attain love, so you’re settling for hookups, and that’s making you unhappy?”
...
“People binge, and that is what exhausts them,”
"
Now this does represent burnout of dating apps, and is a result of just not using them with patience and reflection as to the emotions you associate with them.
I generally view dating apps very positively (they, and in particular OkCupid, have led to numerous good relationships and friends) but as with anything it's possible to use them in an unhealthy way.
The apps are garbage. The old okcupid was the best of them, but still not great, and it's ruined now (also, everyone has moved on to other apps that are worse). They're designed to maximize revenue rather than the happiness of the user. You also have to put in a shitload of work to make a slick profile, an in a lot of people's cases it's well worded bullshit.
Profiles should be homogenous in form and style, and should include video Q/A in a fixed format so WYSIWYG. No clever bullshit, no editing images, just videos of your average self answering question.
>I don't think this is dating app burnout, this is just dating burnout. Dating apps just make it easy to connect with potential matches (relative to not having dating app burnouts). And if you have dating burnout, take a break from dating! It's nice to just be ok with being single sometimes and enjoy other aspects of life.
I was looking for a comment like this before I wrote one of my own! Completely agree! I'm a happily married guy, but used nearly every dating app that existed from 2004-2012. Everyone's talking about how dating apps suck. They were, for me, another way to meet folks during those years and probably how I met most women I dated. They had and still have their highs and lows. Apps don't magically solve dating.
I think the real problem is the tunnel vision. You get sucked down the rabbit hole. Instead, spending time out with friends, exploring hobbies, and joining common-interest clubs are some of the ways that I was able to meet women when I least cared to meet them.
And that's the real magic - I've always had the best relationships grow from the most chance encounters, in-person. Something that blossoms organically somehow. The apps can't really recreate that moment and subsequent sequence of good events.
ITT people who never used dating apps and have been married for years giving their opinion.
Jokes aside... Dating apps suck. Generally so does going on first dates. So does interviewing for a job. So does making new/any friends.
Lots of things are hard and are a numbers game. The nice part is that HOPEFULLY you only have to hit a home run once. You don't have to become an expert at dating. You just have to try enough to meet someone who is as weird and fucked up as you and wants to spend a lot of time being weird and fucked up together.
Dating apps do suck, and they likely always will, because they have little incentive to help their users find a long-term partner. Dating apps are "rape-whistle" companies, meaning that if they actually solve the problems that they claim to solve, they would diminish their market.
If a given app has been snatched up by Match, it's almost certainly being optimized towards having you addicted to swiping.
I'm currently trying to buy a house. It sucks! Does indeed feel like a general rule that anything with the potential to improve one's life significantly will frequently be unpleasant to go through.
In my area (Lancaster, PA) the quality of women on Tinder is ridiculously low -- basically 100% of them are overweight single mothers without a college education who put cat ears and sparkles on their profile pictures. I have basically no choice but to move.
I'm worried about this in the opposite direction, I hate the big city and I want to move rural and buy land etc, but I don't have a partner yet.
If I move, as smart/thin/no children yet/no drug problems woman, I suppose I'll stand out right away (and less flatteringly, compensate for some of the legit downsides/difficult nature of dating me...)
But the variety of eligible men will be way lower, and I think I'm romanticizing the types available ("maybe some engineer in his thirties will move back home to take care of his aging dad") Hallmark channel thinking, I know... The numbers would be against me and I'll be the fodder for gossip as an 'outsider' right away... Seems you can't make any mistakes in a small town, and petty folks might lie about you even if you don't.
The best of the city men (smart, stable etc) want to stay in the city by disposition or are tied there by profession. And some of the best of city men in brains/looks/disposition combo somehow don't want children, so what's the point?
Honesty on dating apps requires a lot of intuition about reverse-psychology and theory-of-minding and signaling (which is why average stem-y men often have terrible profiles, but I digress)
Women often can't actually just state outright boundaries/goals, as it attracts bad elements that want to push those boundaries, exploit them, or indeed seemingly share your goals but for the wrong reasons.
In my case, if you try to filter for men eager to leave the city to homestead, buy a cabin, leave the grind etc, by stating that, it accidentally attracts bad people eager to trap a woman, Kaszinski types (without even the harvard cred lmao).
Maybe it's that misanthropy in women (and/or myself) gives me cat lady vibes at worst, but misanthropy in men becomes scary and deranged. Being too clear about a goal like that also scares off decent men who might consider it if they already were in love with you, but not ready to chop wood next month, easier to swipe left on ambivalence.
The way to get the perfect intersection of a. wants to leave metropolis, b. wants family, and c. wholesomeness/decency is pragmatically in America just....Christianity.
Christians Conservatives have such an easier time of this game, it's a cluster of unspoken boundaries and norms and vibes, that does all the filtering/signaling without outright stating it ("no hook-ups" just invites 'challenge accepted' sleaze, whereas implied christian morality basically signals sex will move way slower, men are far less presumptuous etc etc)
It's a cohesive "aesthetic" but it feels super dishonest to me to try to co-opt it for benefits without going all-in. Christian partners would not be happy with my level of actual belief (I'd say 3/10).
Regardless, there needs to be a dating app for people who can remote work post-covid who are willing to move anywhere or filter by big general regions.
Changing the location on Hinge to talk to people and get the 'lay of the land' in small towns feels dishonest.
I know this sounds completely whacky, are there any meetups near you talking about farming, animal, horse raising etc?
e.g. "How to start horse ranching" or "Beginner guide to essential tractor repairs". Maybe there's a farming conference you can go to where you can scope things out.
I DO realize there's probably not many "How to raise farm goats" meetups in Manhattan but you might be lucky if you live close to somewhere more rural.
> Dating apps just make it easy to connect with potential matches (relative to not having dating app burnouts)
I don't know what's the universal experience regarding this, but for me and other people I know, males are extreme disadvantage in the context of dating apps; this applies also to the app that supposedly reverses the roles.
I have the suspicion that the elephant is the room is that for men, online dating takes many, many hours (I can't quantify, but an hour a day or so, seems the minimum to me) of effort, often for nothing (I definitely know at least one man who's able to game the system, but he's an exception).
This is definitely a recipe for burnout, and it's very specific to online dating . If one wants to find potential mates, any organized activity (sports, etc. - Meetup is perfect) will do; the effort to talk to a potential partner, in that case, is virtually zero.
I'm trying to picture a distribution where this holds true and holy crap, dating apps should display a "Abandon all hope ye who enter here" warning to every man who falls below or near median ELO scores.
I wonder though, what kind of distribution heterosexual men would provide if scrolling through registered as a woman. My guess? Pretty similar. A lot of guys, especially younger guys, just don't have a good idea of self presentation, chasing images that are very unappealing to a lot of women. Either lacking self confidence or just filling their profile with red flags.
It's still a relevant question. The narrative so many men champion is that women are too picky and it's not fair. If men would be equally picky trying to find worthy men on these platforms, it's a very different story.
It says that women rate most men as less attractive than average, yes. But then women are quite willing to message men who are rated as less attractive than average.
Meanwhile, the men rank attractiveness on a shockingly mathematical-looking curve. However, at the same time, men overwhelmingly refuse to message any but the most attractive of women.
Thus, if you're an average-looking man, your odds of getting messages are actually greater than they are for an average-looking woman.
Thus, if you're an average-looking man, your odds of getting messages are actually greater than they are for an average-looking woman.
Untrue. If you're an average-looking man your share of female-to-male messages is greater than an average-looking woman's share of male-to-female messages. The woman is still getting a far larger number of messages.
Sure, adjust for the fact that 80% of users are men. That doesn't change the fact that talking about attractiveness alone is misleading, because men and women use that data in very different ways. Despite ranking most men at 2/5, women message those men at the same rate that men message women ranked 4/5.
Despite ranking most men at 2/5, women message those men at the same rate that men message women ranked 4/5.
No, they don't, or at least it isn't shown in that data. Those graphs refer to the proportions of messages for each gender, not raw numbers. Each male user sends 3.5 times as many "first contact" messages as each female user, according to their 2016 data.
average-looking women are disadvantaged because men appear to be far more selective than women are:
Absolutely agree. But they're disadvantaged against other women, not against men, if you're measuring by, as you specified, "the odds of getting messages". An average man will receive fewer messages than an average woman.
I'm not sure how that changes anything? Divide the all raw numbers by 3.5, the rates will stay the same.
The point is, while average-looking men are disadvantaged by the sheer number of men on these apps, average-looking women are disadvantaged because men appear to be far more selective than women are:
"2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women. When it comes down to actually choosing targets, men choose the modelesque. Someone like roomtodance above gets nearly 5 times as many messages as a typical woman and 28 times as many messages as a woman at the low end of our curve. Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women. So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten."
> men appear to be far more selective than women are
It's unclear what you mean by more selective. If you're an average woman, you get more inbound interest than an average man. The tricky statistical massaging you're doing amounts to "well men are even more open-minded when it comes to more attractive woman." But that doesn't make sense: if a man has sent you a message, does it suddenly become half a message if he then messages someone else? You're penalizing men on open-mindedness for messaging more women.
That said, the blog post is weirdly presented and its graphs a bit misleading because of the skewed distributions. What would be most useful is comparing the median number of messages received by men and the median number of messages received by women (or best of all calculating the Gini indices of the respective distributions), instead of bothering to use the star ratings at all.
ETA:
> Divide the all raw numbers by 3.5, the rates will stay the same.
You're misunderstanding the data. It's not that men collectively send 3.5/4.5 of the messages; it's that each individual man sends 3.5 times as many messages as an individual woman. I.e. it already corrects for there being more men on the app. If men comprise 2/3 of users on dating apps, that means that 87.5% of all first messages are sent by men.
> Thus, if you're an average-looking man, your odds of getting messages are actually greater than they are for an average-looking woman.
Any research/analysis on the topic pales compared to reality.
Here's what happens in real world ("Tinder Experiment: 18 Yr Old Woman Tries Being A Man!!!"): https://youtu.be/DZTIbHIsIYw?t=615. It's a larger view compared to the number of messages, but the principle still applies.
really good for those good looking men, who happen to don't want nothing serious, and then the women get burned of being dumped after a couple of nights.
There's really aa difference between what men and women expect, and also between what they say and what they do. I'm pretty honest when I talk with someone, something serious and compromises are not on my horizon, a lot of women discard me when I say that, and I'm ok with it, but sometimes I continue talking with them, and they told me how many man lie saying that they want something just to get on the their bed sheets and they disappear after that. Overall, I found some great people and nice aquitances, but the time I had spent is not despreciable.
I think the problems are different. Men have a lot of trouble getting matches sure, and they think they have a rough time because of it. Women get matches, but the majority of the interest is low quality / aggressive / inappropriate and they spend a lot of time filtering, blacklisting, and otherwise getting burned out. Women spend as much time, if not more, wading through dross trying to find good matches: and are also at a significant safety disadvantage in the process.
The net result is that neither men or women match easily, in many cases it's a tragedy of the commons. Even on the "app that reverses the roles" it's difficult to match to likely partners for either gender.
"Women spend as much time, if not more" - I think the ratio of men:women is about 2:1 on most apps, but I would imagine it takes men more than 2x the time to wade through profiles and send a message, than to read that message and move on (even if the message is low-effort). So I'm not sure I can believe that women spend as much time, and certainly the effort spent on the app per date will be much higher for men, not least because of the gender ratio.
The ratio is more like 4:1. And women receive such an overwhelming amount of low-quality messages that there's no point in crafting a high-effort message, as it will just be buried by spam in their inboxes.
Don't worry. I, an engineer, have the solution. We simply make a dating app with at least regex support for message filtering, you get to shoot yr shot and get immediate feedback in the form of being auto-blocked if you didn't make it past the filter.
Just thinking about it makes me want to start dating again, it'd be like ad-block but for crypto bros.
> auto-blocked if you didn't make it past the filter
This, if it could be made people-friendly, would be perfect. Block based on non-real and mis-spelled words to stay a step ahead of anyone trying to evade the filter with "dik", as well as filtering based on phrase, and down to the word. Then just auto-prioritize a list of words on a per-person basis, and let the rest be left as-is.
It may not scale perfectly, but it'll be fun until Match group apes your product, makes it pay-to-play, and puts you out of business.
> I think the ratio of men:women is about 2:1 on most apps
Ratio is actually 3:1 and I agree with your viewpoint partly. People just keep swiping while talking to each other, so I don't see why x would be taking more time than y, however, women do indeed also need to spend that time finding their matches and QA them (excuse the engineering term), so I don't believe there are any parties winning here.
Hence the value of one’s network in introducing potential suitors. Someone’s mom or cousin or friend or uncle vetting potential (life) partners is a very valuable part of the process that saves everyone time.
Of course, this requires having and maintaining the type of relationship with family and friends where this is possible.
This type of “screening” value provided by brokers is not limited to dating, but also any low frequency, high cost transaction such as real estate, businesses, hiring workers, etc. This is the less cynical side of “it is not what you know, it is who you know”, meaning that the cost of evaluating certain risks can be so high that it is worth offloading that onto one’s network.
True from my experience and talking to female friends. Men have trouble at the top of the funnel; women have trouble further along (when, of course, more emotional investment has gone in, and more time too).
> Women get matches, but the majority of the interest is low quality / aggressive / inappropriate and they spend a lot of time filtering, blacklisting, and otherwise getting burned out. Women spend as much time, if not more, wading through dross trying to find good matches: and are also at a significant safety disadvantage in the process.
This makes the common mistake in assuming that when a man gets a match, the majority of time it will be a good, high quality one that puts equal effort into the dating process. This is not the case.
Ha, no kidding. Probably half of the matches I get on Bumble (which are few and far between) open with "hey" and then barely seem interested in having a conversation at all.
For me it’s the opposite, when I get a match on a dating app my intentions are clear to the woman so it’s easy for me to go straight in flirting/being romantic etc. In a neutral setting you first have to direct the conversation away from the neutral towards the romantic and then go from there. Much harder and more time intensive.
What you're saying about the male disadvantage is indeed one, if not the most, important immediate cause of this burnout. However, I take a more systemic view. I think that the main problem is this:
Dating apps, as for-profit publicly-traded enterprises, have no incentive to work on fixing the problem
To put it bluntly, a large pool of men who struggle to get a date (an event that may even result in losing them as customers) and who feel the need to "pay to win" are the goose that lays the golden eggs for Tinder and the like.
The only way out of this would be for a non-profit fully-FOSS dating platform to be created that considers satisfying its users dating objectives its one and only priority, rather than seeing them as a source of income. Make matching more likely by applying two-way filters in the swipe queue, discourage pointless accumulation of matches by clout-chasers and attention junkies, refuse any gamification, don't offer any feature for money but encourage donation on successful connection, and make "engagement" a negative KPI—the KPI should be how many users successfully connect to another and stop using the app, and how quickly they achieve it in terms of app usage.
Of course, setting up something like this would require significant effort and "investment" with no hope of profit. It's in my bucket list of plans on how to become a millionaire (from billionaire, that is).
Organized activities can be a good way to meet people, but don't be that creepy guy in a sports league or hobby group who is constantly hitting on all the women. It just wrecks the activity for everyone, and discourages women from showing up at all. Context matters.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with going to Meetup for social networking, that's the whole point of it. "Getting laid" is an indirect outcome for people with better social networks, there is no need to shame people for trying to improve their outcomes in that regard.
Creating a Meetup group that filters all the horny trolls out of it is such a hassle. If a workplace can be toppled by one errant affair, small club groups can implode off the wrong wink.
Idiots trying to use my Meetup groups as a stand-in for dates suck all the air out of the room.
What sucks all the air out is people demanding perfectly normal social behaviour be banned for puritanical and controlling reasons.
To be clear, I'm not implying that's your motivation but just as there are bad extremes in the behaviour of some attendees and organisers, so are there extremes in the gatekeeping and sensitivity of others. Both are regrettable.
> To be clear, I'm not implying that's your motivation
Then why say it? Comes across to me like a "no offense but..."
Well, offense taken.
I'm not puritanical and neither are the clubs I was referring to. However, American culture is so puritanical that they can't even think straight about sex -- can't even talk about and don't know how to get it.
And so idiots (all of them) end up at my tabletop clubs, my hiking clubs, my movie clubs, my woodworking clubs, and then chase someone's butt the whole time.
That makes it really uncomfortable for everyone else and also usually uncomfortable for whoever's butt is being chased. And then a club has to spend social energy creating a Code of Conduct and wondering who will enforce it.
I agree with the observation on more general cultural puritanism and lack of options for males - as pointed out elsewhere in these comments - which means meetups are better choices for improving social networks.
That doesn't excuse idiocy and horndoggery but social networking (and by extension improving dating chances) is a perfectly valid and ethical path to take beyond the advertised scope of the group.
Women have no idea what a "super swipe" is, or that it costs $2 every time you use one to try to get their attention. Being in the Bay Area, which is famously hard for men to find matches, without using any of the paid boosts, I'll never get a match. The apps are literally designed to extract money from desperate men.
Tinder specifically should be sued out of existence. It ignores location, will happily tell you your boost has been a "success" without a single match or you'll get a couple from 7,000 miles away. It's outright fraud.
Maybe I'm just yelling at clouds here, but my reaction was "no shit."
I met my wife at a running club. Of my friend group, most met while active in sports or other activities. A few were introduced by common friends on a "you might like so-and-so" basis. And a few met in college. I'm only aware of two couples in my extended friend group who met using dating apps - and both of those were premium subscription models, not freebie Tinder-like apps.
Dating apps strike me as a very low-quality (low fidelity?) way to match couples.
> Dating apps strike me as a very low-quality (low fidelity?) way to match couples.
It's true, but a lot of people don't have the opportunity or patience for those other approaches. If they're not just homebody introverts in the first place, they may already have a pretty saturated schedule/network without many suitable people around to pair off with. This happens to a lot of people as college recedes and life establishes a professional, mid-life rhythm.
Dating apps are garbage, but alternatives aren't always practical.
An idea that hasnt been tried in dating apps is introduction-only dating: you can't spam someone's inbox unless you know someone in common. Such an app could be run by a non-profit. Yes, I still have some naive optimism.
> If they're not just homebody introverts in the first place, they may already have a pretty saturated schedule/network without many suitable people around to pair off with.
Then they really don't have the time for a relationship. Maybe they just want a hook-up, but that also takes time to connect with people and build relationships for something casual. It's all just work, at the end of the day, and a lot of people are unsatisfied with that answer. Things like being on the high-end of attractiveness are like cheat codes, but those people still have to put in effort to connect with people before they get to the fun part.
390 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 274 ms ] threadI'm not saying I want to meet someone at work. But, work is the 2nd most common place to meet someone. Friends are #1 but as I mentioned my friends don't come through here.
Bars don't seem my thing. I am going to a dance event regularly but so far nothing there and even then, I can't talk while I dance as I need to concentrate on getting the moves right (it's a well known style of dance, not just club dancing)
Trying to go to meetups but COVID is still a thing so outdoors only. And it can be burn out on those two because rarely is there anyone I might be interested in. (single, age appropriate, and seem compatible). I know it's a numbers game, I just am running out of ideas on how to increase the numbers.
The apps don't work for me. I get at most 3~4 dates a year out of them. It's better than zero but not by much.
Consider paying for them. From a male perspective, it’s strictly a numbers game.
Tinder Platinum did wonders for me. Saves your time, and gets you pushed higher in the stack of the cards, which leads to more matches.
What's the outcome when everyone pays for it?
Back to the popularity contest, and virtually impossible to use without paying.
Or they’ll just add a higher tier.
It’s a very cruel numbers game.
It’s very dependent on the age group (and of course, people themselves).
I’d be willing to bet that in 18-25 (maybe even higher) age group most people are looking to have fun, not get married.
unintentional blindside question in a softball interview
I was paying £69 a year for Tinder Gold and then £99 a year for Tinder Platinum.
Having laws is one thing, enforcing them is another.
Just look at the huge number of websites that are not GDPR compliant.
TBH, being GDPR compliant isn't that hard, just don't track your users lol. A lot of the web was GDPR compliant by default 20 years ago.
I.E. don’t take shots with perfectly styled hair, a leather jacket, and a motorcycle, if your day to day and date attire will be a t-shirt and jeans and you’re going to arrive on an e-scooter.
That means: on concerts, on hacking camps, in art exhibitions, especially exhibition openings, on film sets etc. These places reflect my interests of course, so I don't go there because of women, I go there because the stuff there interests me. So for you it could be a sports club, a library, an animal rights organization or any number of other, similar places where people of similar interest gather.
The point is: if you want to get to know people (regardless of their gender) exposing yourself to situations where you actually get the chance to meet new people is a good way to increase your chances. Just like your chances of rolling a 6 increase with every roll of the dice.
The important thing is to do it because you like, not because you expect to find women there.
> The important thing is to do it because you like,
As I said, I do, but none of the things I like involve enough people of the opposite sex. It doesn't help that I'm old so it might be true there are some 20 somethings at a hacking event but there are no 50 somethings.
Boring redpill ideology stuff.
Of course, the phrasing is dumb as hell.
There's also a definite error. Note that an ugly guy who brings himself up to normal with surgery doesn't go through the neurotypical question. That arrow should go back to the top.
> looksmaxx, moneymaxx, surgerymaxx
> daygame, nightgame, warm approach
The language itself reveals deeper structuring principles in terms of truths/untruths, from which the knowledge presented in the chart arises.
The problem isn't that it's ideology; the NYT is equally ideological (ironically I had a far more visceral negative response to the angle of the OP article than to the above chart). The problem isn't even necessarily that it's TRP/manosphere ideology, but that it's treated unreflexively.
The question that immediately comes to mind is "why are the only categories 'sub5', 'normie', and 'chad'? What grounding principles must I assume in order to decide which of these categories I'm a part of?" Same goes for the proposed actions: what worldview must I assume so that these action-words "make sense", are coherent?
I can't speak for everyone, but when I personally dig into these questions, the answers I arrive at don't align with the other ways I elect to live in the world. I'm not saying the chart is "wrong", but rather that it's not relevant, for me at least.
I'm so far removed from this stuff generally I didn't really understand anything in that sentence (lol)
I went to a travel blogging meetup at one last year (hosted by library staff members), some events on making podcasts, regular board game nights at another, and there's a whole maker lab set up in the basement of my nearest library, with 3D printers, multiple sound recording rooms, multiple video recording studios, a vinyl cutter, a laser cutter and computers with Adobe suite installed on them that you can use pretty much whenever.
Just looking at next month at adult events at my nearest library: yoga, drawing with pencils and charcoal class, conversational ESL, STEM workshop, a DIY craft event, a cooking class, photography club, meditation class, mixing live albums with Logic Pro class, dungeons and dragons event, coffee and conversation event, business topics workshop, folk art craft diy, trivia night, open mic night, aztec dancing event, line dancing, toastmasters (public speaking), film club, financial planning talk, 24 hour comic book creation event, state paranormal history talk, knitting, writers group, and several book club events. That's not even the kid or teen events. That's a lot, and a wide variety of things.
Re: concerts and libraries, you meet people outside of them (for concerts, in line for them, or in the pit waiting for the show to start), not at them per se.
I don't know about "hacking camps" (hackathons? code boot camps?) — never been to one — but a close cousin of these, [industry niche] startup events, tend to attract just as many business cofounders as technical cofounders; and the business cofounders tend to be an even gender split. (They also attract seed-stage VC scouts and marketing people, and these jobs actually tend to lean female.)
> As I said, I do, but none of the things I like involve enough people of the opposite sex.
So... take up some new hobbies?
And when I say that, I don't mean to work "bottom up" starting from what you might like; but rather, "top down", starting from what hobbies your ideal partner might have, and then filtering those for which ones you feel at least amicably neutral about. E.g. if you feel like you'd enjoy being with someone who's also 50yo and "creative", and you're not against e.g. painting, or pottery, or creative writing; then attend a continuing-education course on one of those. Because that's where you'll find other 50yos trying to learn those things.
I think people are going to be weirded out by someone hitting on them at a business event.
However, I should note that as a technical cofounder attending these events, I've been approached and flirted with heavily by single female entrepreneurs who have ideas they haven't started building yet, who seem to be looking for a convenient all-in-one package of "a boyfriend who's also an entrepreneur, who can 'yes, and' my ambitions, and who has enough skill+experience to actually build the tech side of the things we imagine together." I'm neither single, nor a free agent business-wise, but some people can be both very pushy and presumptive.
The first step is always getting to know the other person. Hitting on the other person with romantic interest from the start is a sure way not to get to know them in a low pressure environment. If you get to know the other first, they also get to know you. Typically you'd be searching for someone you are willing to spend your time with, and who is willing to spend time with you. And this is only a feasible endeavour if you know them and they know you.
That means: Your goal is not to find someone to "hit on", your goal is to get to know people. You can still explore if the other is interested in a little bit more, once it is established that you find them interesting and they find you interesting.
My experience is there is a good number of 50 somethings in tango.
And like I said elsewhere, it's much more of a café scene than a bar scene, making it easier to socialize.
Hacking camps are sure not a typical source of women, but what I said was not "search places where women are", but rather "put yourself out there, but in places that match your interest". If it turns out that place has no women at all, sure that won't help for that purpose. Keep in mind that I cited examples that worked for a young (35-ish) person like me.
It is not easy to find someone you like, regardless of gender, but putting yourself out there is one of the best ways to do it. Even if your thing is IT, there might be places that need it. E.g. a friend did IT for kids in need and he certainly met one ore another women his age there.
they often complain they are made to feel uncomfortable by that
If you're worried you will be perceived as a creep then you need to work on your delivery/how you approach strangers.
Members of the opposite sex are just people. They want to be treated normally. My most successful male friend(in terms of dating) just treats females like they're normal people. He pretty much never has trouble and he is a 6 at most with a shitbox car.
I used to think women only care about money etc; and That is true..for a certain subset of women. So many more don't care at all, and just want a nice loyal person who won't shit on them. And yes, you need to moderately TRY to look attractive. Go to the gym, get a proper haircut, stop wearing those shitty jeans and ugly shoes. YOU also need to put in effort, it's not just on the other gender.
Just a suggestion. You think he is a "6" but you are probably wrong because you are unable to view him from the perspective of a woman's gaze. See my other post in my profile's comments about the flow chart stuff.
I appreciate your input though!
You work on getting to know people as friends, some of whom you may consider dating.
Compare to most of the relationships I've had, those were people I knew 6+ months before we got interested in each other. Classmates, co-workers, group friends.
i started climbing and bouldering recently and while I haven't met anyone romantically (I have no interest in pushing this, I want to do it for the hobby first, and for meeting people second), the group I go with usually has more women than men and in the gyms it seems to be about a 50/50 split so I can easily see how you could meet someone there in the way you imagine.
though I must emphasize not to do it to meet women as the primary purpose, I feel like that's kind of creepy vs. an event that is explicitly for that purpose (like single bars or whatever).
just seconding this. the gym is already a pretty tough environment and people coming for this purpose make it outright hostile. it's not a bar.
do climb though, it's a great way to get strong and do something fun!
* It's a natural two-person activity with a bidirectional trust exercise.
* Heights provide a little amygdala stimulation.
* It's hard and physical and you feel like you deserve a beer afterwards.
* If your date is not already a climber, you get to play the role of the teacher/master.
* It weeds out the extremely uptight / neurotic.
that said, it does make for a good first date and i definitely got a bunch of random people into climbing that way... =)
So you do know where to look, you just don't want to look there.
YMMV but that's the case in my area in Europe. Maybe the US has a different culture.
There are also quality bars.
The Hollywood scene where girls hang around alone by the bar waiting for guys to hit on them doesn't exist here.
If you want to go to a bar and meet other people, go to one with a pool table. Hitting on women is much smoother when you meet their girlfriend's boyfriend first, and better tolerated whether she's interested or not.
I don't know that it exists anywhere anymore. It can be dangerous for a woman to out drinking alone.
But ladies do go out in groups. As a guy you just have to be nice and chat up the group and don't get hyper focused on any one person. None of them are probably going to drop everything and go home with you that night. But you can often get a phone number (or two) and go on a real date from that.
And, my experience doesn't seem to indicate that meeting interesting people in bars only happens in certain countries.
That said, I didn't necessarily go to the bars or nightclubs purely with the objective of dating. I went there to have fun, dance and meet people (men and women).
Sure, it can happen that you meet a compatible partner in a bar/club, but as a dating strategy is has a very poor ROI. You're better off with hobbies or dating apps.
It's on you to figure out how to do that without making it weird.
He might not even drink!
Order water.
That's why dating is a multi billion dollar industry.
not just for dating, for all kinds of 'network reboot'. doesn't have to be traditional grad school either, any kind of high-investment cohort-based bonding experience should do it
agree with you that hollowing out of local institutions is rough, esp for over-30s post-pan. The web has not done a good job of delivering IRL social networks; tinder is IMO fairly good at this, with the caveat that it's impossible to turn the connections into a true community
The tradeoffs though... like student loan debt!
Is that ballroom dance with lead/follower? If that's the case, I cannot recommend it enough. It's hard as hell in the first couple of years, but then you'll grasp it. See this graph for the learning curve of ballroom dancing, and don't give up [1].
[1]: https://www.salsafs.com/site/assets/articles/learning_curve....
I love ballroom, been doing it more or less since high school (10+ years and some breaks), but I wouldn't really use this curve for any other reason than to motivate new men to attend classes.
In the beginning, followers may have a slightly easier time since it's probably a bit easier for a follower to learn from a more advanced leader than the other way around, but this plateaus pretty soon (low single digit months).
Also, leaders tend to pick and followers accept / reject, so in that respect, "attractive followers" will have a bit of an easier time (more offers) than if you're a shy, not very attractive leader.
But that's mostly just for newcomers. Eventually, few dances in, people get familiar with your level and you with theirs in a given group. And I've yet to see a place where one could get no partners, even as a "beginner with only a handful of introductory classes" (unless through some pretty obvious breaches of ethics / personal hygiene).
Eventually (maybe a few months in), both leaders and followers have to do some introspection and practice things like technique, posture and musicality. And there's simply no way other than mindful practice.
On a dating app women are happy to swipe left and see who's next but when there is a man right in front of them the calculus is way different.
I'd like to counter-argue with a quote from this random Reddit thread in /r/AskWomen [1] titled "What is one place you hate to be hit on?":
> Grocery store. I'm just like, dude, leave me alone, I'm here to get my food and get out as quickly as possible. I'm not interested in having to pretend not to be annoyed by you interrupting my day, fuck off.
And I'd like to point out that "Earth" is also an answer there.
I feel for the OP because he's stuck between a rock and a hard place: hitting on women is often annoying for the woman being hit on, but at the same time not hitting on women means that he can only date people who he meets for reasons other than dating. It's like a Zen riddle: "What is that which you can only have once you stop desiring it?".
This is the landscape that gave rise to the hell we call "dating apps", and I really wish we had something better.
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/pzojno/what_is_on...
It's just so easy to understand when you look at it logically. Talking to people (skillfully, which requires practice) will eventually lead to befriending some percent of those you talk to. Befriending people will lead to more opportunities to befriend others from a place of more trust. It's a simple networking process.
Eventually, some percent of the people you're meeting and befriending will be love interests. There will be mutual attraction, especially when you don't come across as desperate. Eventually some small percent of these mutual attractions will also be compatible partners under the right circumstances.
It's just a numbers game!
The problem is people design their conversion funnels all wrong. At the top of the funnel is conversations, then acquaintances, friends, mutual interests, compatible interests, partners.
At every stage there is a network/feedback effect leading to more input at the top of the funnel.
Go talk to people!
"Do you know a good brand of pasta sauce? I don't like garlic, and it seems everything has garlic in it."
"Are the waist sizes honest here? I'm a 36 but some places that's like 40 inches."
And leave it at that. Maybe somebody will continue the conversation, but most won't. It's a numbers game.
I recognize that feeling! It took me a long time before it disappeared. Practice helps a lot. And if you forget a move, it's okay to get back to the basic (assuming you are doing a partner dance and not a line dance - I suck at line dances).
I don't know which style of dance you mean. You may consider different dance styles.
I did a bit of ballroom in grad school, then years later learned salsa, then added tango, then some swing and other dance styles (modern, Scottish country, Swedish folk dance).
Each one has a different social scene. Where I lived, tango tends towards older people, and is usually combined with a social/café scene (a milonga). "Older" means 40s and up.
Salsa is more at clubs. As a bouncer once pointed out, he loved the energy of the dancers, but they don't drink much so it doesn't make much revenue for the bar.
It took a couple of years of salsa classes, and dancing salsa elsewhere, before I realized that I didn't like the salsa style my teacher taught, and preferred another studio. So that's also something to consider.
Swing tended to be a younger, more energetic crowd (late teens/20s), with dance events at more specialized locales that had more open space (where I was, that was generally a yoga/dance studio or the OddFellows Hall, which hosted a lot of smaller dance events).
My limited ballroom experience was that the higher levels tend towards ballroom studios. I got the feeling that engineers lean towards ballroom because there are more specific steps and progressions to learn.
The folk dancing scene is pretty laid back. The basics aren't hard to learn, and people will help you with them. It's the most family-friendly of the dances I did, with quieter music, and more often held outside (if the weather is good) because it doesn't need a special dance floor.
For what it's worth, at my peak I was dancing about 25 hours per week. I met my wife at a dance event, held at bar.
Other things I did, to meet people, were local community college classes (as a new resident to the state, I like the local state history course the best; the teacher also hosted a monthly local history event, which I went to - nearly everyone was 55 and older so I was the youngest by far) and Sierra Club hikes.
>I suspect that most volunteer coordinators will be happy with volunteers who are perhaps not passionate but do turn out when they say they will, arrive prepared, and do the work. Agreed.
Volunteering with a political campaign where the candidate's promises are strongly appealing to young people is probably the sweet spot in terms of meeting young people.
You will benefit more if you try to be a considerate human being, and not treat women like prizes, or prey to be captured. This way, you actually have a chance to healthy relationships.
I met my last girlfriend this way. I know friends who found partners randomly chatting on the train, in ubers (pool when that was a thing), at bus stops etc.
Just dont be an asshole or a creep/creepy looking, and youd be surprised how receptive people can be
If it was creepy I wouldn't date models.
https://twitter.com/ch402/status/1564631228166201345
https://twitter.com/TwtJodohMY
In which country COVID is still a thing that prevents indoors meetings?
Regardless, outdoor there is a world of events happening; it isn't just "indoors". Just check on meetup.com.
> I can't talk while I dance as I need to concentrate on getting the moves right (it's a well known style of dance, not just club dancing)
At social dances, dancers often socialize on the sides of the dance floor, taking a break rather than dancing the whole evening; socializing or not is very much a choice.
I think you're confusing unable to go to indoor meetings versus unwilling.
The majority of swing dance socials will have very low levels of intoxication (because everyone is there to dance!), and it is a social atmosphere where it is expected and encouraged to introduce yourself to strangers and ask them to dance. If you are a man (or dance the lead role), don't worry about not being able to do so much fancy stuff while you're dancing. Often, experienced followers are perfectly happy to try out individual stylistic variations while the leader holds a nice steady basic.
I'd recommend going with the intention of trying to expand your social circle, and seeing where you end up!
> dance
Alternatively, aim to make friends, and meet THEIR friends. This is always the absolutely best way
I figured I'd add a bit of guidance in addition to "go with the intention of expanding your social circle" since I'm writing another message, for anyone that is interested:
* Start going to swing dance classes (I recommend Lindy Hop for beginners)
* In classes, say hello to all the people you dance with as you rotate, ask how they are doing, and start gradually making small talk focused around whatever moves you're learning that day (though not to the point of distracting from the class!)
* Chances are some people coming to the class will be in couples. If there is one partner of the couple who you small talk a bit more freely with, at the beginning or the end of the classes, go and say hi and make some small talk with those couples, get to know their partners too
* As a single person going to classes it's generally a lot more relaxed talking to couples than other single people to start with
* Slowly start including others (couples or single people) in these pre/post class conversations
* At this point everyone is probably still terrified at the idea of going to a social dance, thinking they aren't "good enough" yet
* Make a group chat with the people you've been talking to before and after classes with the goal of coordinating a social dance that everyone can go to together so they don't feel so terrified of going alone
* Add more and more people from the classes to the group chat, and more and more of the nice people you meet at the dances to the group chat (others in the group chat will be doing this too!)
* Before you know it, you'll have a new social circle of 20+ friends, hooray!
Drinking alcohol at the alcohol place is not an interesting thing.
Few things. First, why is covid still a thing? You can just as easily catch it on a date or at work, just go to the indoor meetups. I'm in a liberal big city in the US and covid isn't a thing anymore. It's been three years. I don't want to die alone, do you? I had long COVID, it sucks, but it's unfortunately not an option.
Second, some meetups have different people going to it in each event. Those are the date targets. But, focus on making friends there, this happens if you go regularly, weekly, to the same ones.
Are you doing competitive dancing?
If you’re dancing for fun yet you’re more concerned about dancing “properly” than you are about just socializing, people are probably wondering why you’re taking it so seriously.
I took years of dance lessons, and at my peak was dancing about 25 hours per week. My social life was my dance friends, made after I started taking it so seriously. My friends also went to dance lessons, and worked to get the moves right. My now-wife, for example, studied for a year to be a ballroom dance instructor then taught courses and private lessons.
In traveling dances like tango and waltz, the lead must learn not only the basic forward motion, but also how to turn corners, and how to avoid people. At the beginning, this took me a lot of effort. My first few tango milongas were mostly "step, step, stop, think; repeat" unable to hold a conversation and dance at the same time.
Things got better once I had enough practice in moving about floor, but at the beginning, it was tough.
And that was after several years of salsa dancing. A real beginning tango dancer would likely have it worse.
There are also people who believe "if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well."
And some people have a sort of impostor syndrome - they know they are beginners, they see the better dancers, and they think people won't like them or dance with them until they get better. This is wrong, but the solution isn't to suggest stop taking it so seriously, but to get those dancers to know it really is okay to be a beginner dancer - everyone was a beginner once. "Taking it seriously" is respected because that's what those better dancers did to become better.
There's also the opposite - beginners who want to learn more complicated moves right away, before they even get the basics down, and end up making the follow annoyed for being lead into uncomfortable positions, being stepped on, etc. To anyone reading - don't be like that.
I think the best thing you can do is focus on yourself, particularly by cultivating hobbies that you enjoy—bonus points if they’re things you can enjoy alone and with others, because they’re easy inroads and great first dates (worst case you get to spend a bit of time doing something you like!).
The second thing I’d encourage is to get any potential dealbreakers out of the way early (e.g. religion, political views, desires for parenthood, career aspirations). It’s a slow path, but it’s helped me avoid the major pitfalls I’ve seen in my friend’s’ and colleagues’ relationships.
But first you have to meet the person to go on a date with.
I usually don't talk while dancing with someone too, but social partnered dancing is how I met my wife. You don't have to be super social, but hopefully you naturally form some friends out dancing you can talk with while you're sitting out a dance. Just the act of being friendly and social with others puts you in the right situation; women usually prefer someone like that to someone sitting by themselves silently.
> Abby, 28, has been on dating apps for eight years […]. A committed user, she can easily spend two or more hours a day piling up matches, […]. Not a single long-term relationship has blossomed from her efforts.
Perhaps if you can’t find what you’re looking for in 8 years and 6000+ man-hours, the problem is you?
Survivorship bias. I have friends who found their partners on there, too. But I got ten times more friends who did not get anything meaningful out of dating apps.
Surely after 8 years this person might have looked back on failed relationships, and tried to understand why they've failed. Is it because of the dating apps, and if so, why precisely? Is it because of the people on dating apps?
I feel like pointing fingers at dating apps in general is just wrong.
Maybe. Just some speculation here, but she might be looking for some kind of perfect man. Lots of people might seem perfect, but being perfect is quite something else. I would think finding a matching personality would be a better aim.
Also, some people are quite suspicious and jealous, which are not attractive traits. The same counts for a certain aggressive attitude, and yes, many women have certain ways of coming accross as aggressive.
Then there is the general issue that many people on dating sites are casual daters and not looking for the same as you. A lot of people that are good at relationships are already in a relationship. The people not being good at them will end up more on a dating site. Just a statistics thing, nothing directly personal.
And something else... How do you recognize your life partner? I knew a friend who told me of a date, and she knew he was the right guy the moment she saw him. They are now together more than 10 years. I don't have that nose and am trying to refine my nose in that regard.
The overwhelming majority of men will never get a single date from online dating.
You can do a lot of things to improve your level of attractiveness. Most of us don't roll out of bed looking like a peach, it takes conscious and consistent effort.
I'd say unless the girl is from out of town and it's a weekend you have to pretend you want a relationship even if you just want fun.
This wrongly presumes that every girl on Tinder wants a relationship. Not to mention that it’s very dishonest.
1) Be attractive. 2) Don't be unattractive.
Then it changes dating a lot. Before, you often people from your extended social circle. You met people at your hobbies, at uni or even work, or when going out. You could ask common acquaintances to check someone out. And you had at least some kind of social connection.
And dating apps remove all ambiguity. You are not in an innocent everyday situation where you happen to like somebody, you start flirting and you move closer and see what happens. It is clear from the beginning that you are both there looking for something. I would find that immensely stressful, everything becomes a performance. I can't flirt "on cue" and I've heard the same from other people.
I wonder how modern dating would look like if the financial incentives of the app company was not the main driver. Maybe you'd have some "neutral" social network that people use IRL where dating was just an emergent side function? But maybe I'm biased because that's how online dating looked like in my early 20s?
That’s basically what Instagram is.
But I’ve used the dating apps, and I really don’t understand what the issue is with them. They’re a great way to meet people.
There is. It’s instagram, and “sliding into” a stranger’s DMs is how you walk across the room and say hi to someone you’re attracted to.
This is precisely what I find appealing. Maybe I'm just socially deficient, but I find it stressful to navigate the ambiguity of real life encounters. Especially in todays climate where unsolicited advances can get you in trouble.
I prefer to avoid flirting. In my experience, flirting can be done with anybody, I could even flirt with a male person. The person is interchangeable in flirting. Being curious about the person and shared interests and especially the shared view on relationships is for me a good way to start a conversation.
But now I do flirt with people I want to befriend as well as date. Lots of eye contact and smiling. Quick gentle touches on the shoulder to emphasize a point or accompany laughter. Extra acknowledgement of their points, ideas, viewpoints. Light, pleasant teasing ("Look at you, stunning everyone with your outfit, Okay, I see you over there").
Gotta be willing to try on new personas and interpersonal behaviors. Maybe take an improv class.
So although dating cultures have changed, people really overestimate the effect of dating apps.
Same, same.
Been on and off dating apps for about 6-7 years now. Trying a new one like every quarter or so, quitting it after 6 months, frustrated by the whole experience. Giving it a new try at the beginning of each year, because "new year, new chances" or something like that.
I know that as an obese person I do not work well with what most people are looking for, but the "no answer at all"-cases are still hurting. Rejections are "fine" (kind of), but no answer at all really fucks my brain up, even after all those years.
Online dating is strange. There are fast-paced online dynamics, combined with our hormones, deeply-rooted human wishes, gamification elements and "pay2win"-stuff. Things that should not be thrown together are totally thrown together and we never learned how to handle that. At least I didn't.
I'd focus on losing weight first if I were you.
Loooooooooong way to go then.
> I'd focus on losing weight first if I were you.
Yeah, I'm on it. It's complicated, but yes.
https://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/2014/10/16/how-do-...
Not wanting to be offensive, but I do understand where people are coming from. I myself am more in a niche, though it is physically less visible, and I also understand where you are coming from. I do believe it might be good to find a fitting partner, so not sure why the "most people" qualifier is there. What I am trying to get at :) If you are obese, how is your success rate with obese women? If out of 100 sent messages 1 good conversation comes, it is still something.
I've obviously got no real metrics, but I'd say it's not much better, not sure though. One woman directly told me she wasn't looking for somebody who "looks like her", which at least was a honest answer.
On the other hand: I myself do not prefer girls who are very slim (is that the right word in English?), so I don't write to/like these woman. Not sure if my "success rate" would be better with those, though.
I don't have a suggestion for this problem as some men tend to be really dedicated spamming the shit out of every female but my point is this is really nothing against you and you shouldn't be taking this personally at all.
Yes, probably, though this is obviously not that easy and you start thinking whether you are the problem or not.
You probably want to date people in the top 5 or 10% of your target sex/gender/age range. As does everyone else in the expanded pool that people can now access with the internet or the apps. Everyone has probably been told by the apps that they can get someone in the top 5 or 10% of what is available to them, so will feel unhappy with anyone else.
Most women will probably notice this as guys will only want to have sex with them if they are not what guys have been told they 'deserve' by the apps / society, or guys may settle for them if they are content with getting sex. A few will be able to optimally choose a guy or get all of the casual sex that they desire.
Most guys will probably find that no-one wants to connect with them at all without payment, or getting something out of the deal or will be treated as if they don't exist. Things are probably really bad if they are in the bottom 10 to 30% in desirability. A few will be able to optimally choose a woman or get all of of casual sex that they desire.
I am not sure about subcultures / non-cis / non-het groups or situations outside my country as I don't have experience of dating them and don't know how things work.
"Everyone has probably been told by the apps that they can get someone in the top 5 or 10% of what is available to them, so will feel unhappy with anyone else." -- I think the fact that these apps have instilled a sense of "I can do better" attitude is probably one of the core problems here. So, I would still probably hold the dating apps responsible.
That really seems like quite a lot to me...
Wondering how it can be enforced from business model point of view.
2. To use the dating app you must first marry a subsidiary of the corporation, which has a prenup with specific conditions.
3. To get married, you must first divorce the corporation and pay the prenup
I've simply accepted that I'm going to be single unless something dramatic happens in my life.
Quitting actually helped me recover from depression and now I'm alone and somewhat happy, while before I was a constantly dissatisfied mess. Hope you find someone if that's what you want, but just so you know, you can do well alone.
I'm 39 and single, although I have decent success offline when I expend any effort.
The women who I've dated in real life--I'm pretty sure they'd all ignore me on the dating app. Phrased differently, I find the women I've actually dated far more attractive (not only physically) than any who will engage with me online.
Agreed.
>unless something dramatic happens in my life.
I will kindly suggest that maybe that dramatic thing is you and what you will do starting today. e.g. Look at suggestions from others, NOT talking about apps.
I'm sure some men are creeps, but if you don't want people to speak to you in real life, then apps are your only option.
I may have garbled this, but I think it is the gist of their theory.
Ideally people would be realistic but women especially are being encouraged to want more. I think this mismatch of expectations is very damaging to society. I know a lot of alpha widowed women who are now going through a major crisis in middle age and I expect the problem to get much worse.
To find a guy you want to settle down with (and for you both to generate the required level of mutual trust) can take multiple years with no guarantee the relationship will endure.
People are looking for the best they can attain and dating apps distort the impression of what one can attain. Just because you managed to go on a date with a 9 doesn't mean you can actually land a 9. This means someone just looking for sex and who is near the top in desirability will end up with a lot of sex. Since it's mostly men who are looking for just sex this results in a lot of women who want someone like that handsome guy that got away--not realizing that they were being used.
I would also argue that you can work on your attractiveness but this can also easily take a toll on you and while working out and eating healthy are rather accessible for most people, making a lot of money or changing further features of themselves might not be. I have multiple friends who suffer from androgenic alopecia in their 30s or who have facial features which deviate so far from the norm that the only way to actually "fix" them would be to have plastic surgery.
Sometimes I wonder if the smart move would be to actually move somewhere where the societal norms around this are different.
If something really gives you grief or you feel bad about your appearance, I think considering what you can do about it is probably helpful. My surgeon seemed to have a lot of clients in for hair loss and that's a big quality of life improvement to not have to worry about, I would think?
We had been at the same party, we exchanged looks but nothing happened. Only a week or so later I checked a profile on some app with the most stupid intro ever 'i think I know you, have we seen?' and bam nearly 6 years later we are still together.
You can take it a step further, if you stay in a surf hostel, you'll meet other people that like surfing. Replace surfing with any other activity you like (or want to learn). I think this works well, because you meet people that you have something in common with and have a similar lifestyle.
The other 80% of men are pretty much ignored. As a counter reaction, they deploy a dragnet approach. Spamming many low effort messages as any love is good love.
Painting with a broad brush here, obviously.
Sure some guys take the scattergun approach, but I think also a lot of men are being too picky and swiping past good matches.
But I do very much agree with your overall point that this is an incredibly unnatural way to date. Reduce a full human to a 3 second review based on near-zero info and match it to some arbitrary shopping checklist as if people are a utility.
Perhaps that does break the dynamic somewhat. It's more like a slot machine. The lady in the article spent close to a decade spending hours per day just swiping. That's not dating, it's hardcore addiction.
For those people I recommend hitting the gym, getting a tan and optionally bleaching your teeth. This alone will bump up your attraction level a lot + you will feel healthier.
For most straight men - dating apps are a form of purgatory and Sisyphusian efforts. The difference is so starkly different compared to all of the other people I know who aren’t straight men. Only straight men I know who don’t have these issues tend to be incredibly physically attractive to the point where they’d have women come up to ask them out on dates everyday. (Unheard of for an average man)
My advice is to pickup activities where women are and that have a natural social element. There are almost none of these btw. Social dancing is about the only one that exists still. The rest of activities out there that are social and involve meeting new people are completely dominated by men. Just brutally so. Most women I know don’t go out to meet new people via social activities like dancing. They go to insular parties, hang out with core group of friends, or stay home and watch Netflix. Very few are truly outgoing and willing to take the leap and meet new people by themselves. I can count on maybe one hand all the women I’ve met who are like that - and I’ve met thousands.
Similarly, many comments have talked about bars not being a good place to meet single women. From my experience this also isn’t true. You don’t walk up to a girl alone at the bar like in the movies though - you’re friend group mingles with another friend group, and one person in that friend group is probably single. The process is way slower than immediately going and talking to the person you want to meet.
But, this is HN so our social skills level is probably one standard deviation lower than anywhere else.
Traffic is bad enough with the incoming flow. /s :)
Genuinely - with your experience and the way you advertise it as being incredibly slow - it sounds like you’ve met maybe a half dozen women this way and got lucky with a couple and ascribe this to a winning strategy.
I’m just saying - it’s not sounding great for meeting lots of women. It sounds like a good way to meet a dozen women and either get lucky or have incredibly low standards that allows you to pair up with 1 out of 12 women.
Or travel. Either way you have to be social
My parents were involved in stuff like the National Organization for Women (NOW) while women's rights around abortion and equal pay etc were being attacked under the Reagan administration in the 80s. So I grew up having strong feminist role models all around me. I was taught to treat everyone as an equal, and to speak respectfully. Using terms like police officer instead of policeman, fire fighter instead of fireman, and so on. Think how quaint that sounds today!
I'm appalled that pretty much all of that seems to have died since the 90s. Grown women on reality TV call themselves girls. Traditional gender roles seem to be cemented in place by marketing. I see the most chauvinistic, repulsive men being rewarded for being an "alpha".
So I dunno, to me it feels like it's over. I don't see a way back to progress when half the population subscribes to gender stereotypes. I feel like I was prepared for an egalitarian world that never came to be.
And not just feminism. All of the social justice causes I'm most passionate about, beginning with the destruction of wealth inequality, seem to have fallen by the wayside. It's just all bad news all the time on every front. Maybe there's a silver lining there that it's all fake. Maybe we can shift out of this false reality and manifest a better one. That thought is about all that's keeping me going anymore.
It is worth being careful about judging the present state of society based on social media/marketing (so you buy stuff you don't need) verses reality. i.e. a lot of people are normal IRL but rabid animals on twitter/fb.
Nobody with an ounce of IQ should be watching reality TV (it's just grown up (barely) high school drama). In fact watching TV (in general), makes you dumber and angrier.
I think there are still a lot of people that care about 'stuff'. Maybe other sources of input would be recommended. e.g. ACLU has regular meetings in big cities. Earth-Justice is big (although not sure about meetups).
This sculpture is a tangible reflection of my mindset: https://mymodernmet.com/alexander-milov-love-sculpture/
I don't think this is dating app burnout, this is just dating burnout. Dating apps just make it easy to connect with potential matches (relative to not having dating app burnouts). And if you have dating burnout, take a break from dating! It's nice to just be ok with being single sometimes and enjoy other aspects of life.
"Before she deleted the apps, she spent any moments of downtime swiping; after, she found she had time throughout the day to rest. ... But Dr. Turban believes that for some, simply deleting the apps is not enough. “It’s important to understand why the apps are causing problems for you,” he said, adding that therapists can be helpful for sorting these answers out. “Are you using the apps to self-soothe anxiety and inadvertently making your anxiety worse? Are you afraid you can’t attain love, so you’re settling for hookups, and that’s making you unhappy?” ... “People binge, and that is what exhausts them,” "
Now this does represent burnout of dating apps, and is a result of just not using them with patience and reflection as to the emotions you associate with them.
I generally view dating apps very positively (they, and in particular OkCupid, have led to numerous good relationships and friends) but as with anything it's possible to use them in an unhealthy way.
Profiles should be homogenous in form and style, and should include video Q/A in a fixed format so WYSIWYG. No clever bullshit, no editing images, just videos of your average self answering question.
I was looking for a comment like this before I wrote one of my own! Completely agree! I'm a happily married guy, but used nearly every dating app that existed from 2004-2012. Everyone's talking about how dating apps suck. They were, for me, another way to meet folks during those years and probably how I met most women I dated. They had and still have their highs and lows. Apps don't magically solve dating.
I think the real problem is the tunnel vision. You get sucked down the rabbit hole. Instead, spending time out with friends, exploring hobbies, and joining common-interest clubs are some of the ways that I was able to meet women when I least cared to meet them.
And that's the real magic - I've always had the best relationships grow from the most chance encounters, in-person. Something that blossoms organically somehow. The apps can't really recreate that moment and subsequent sequence of good events.
Jokes aside... Dating apps suck. Generally so does going on first dates. So does interviewing for a job. So does making new/any friends.
Lots of things are hard and are a numbers game. The nice part is that HOPEFULLY you only have to hit a home run once. You don't have to become an expert at dating. You just have to try enough to meet someone who is as weird and fucked up as you and wants to spend a lot of time being weird and fucked up together.
If a given app has been snatched up by Match, it's almost certainly being optimized towards having you addicted to swiping.
If I move, as smart/thin/no children yet/no drug problems woman, I suppose I'll stand out right away (and less flatteringly, compensate for some of the legit downsides/difficult nature of dating me...)
But the variety of eligible men will be way lower, and I think I'm romanticizing the types available ("maybe some engineer in his thirties will move back home to take care of his aging dad") Hallmark channel thinking, I know... The numbers would be against me and I'll be the fodder for gossip as an 'outsider' right away... Seems you can't make any mistakes in a small town, and petty folks might lie about you even if you don't.
The best of the city men (smart, stable etc) want to stay in the city by disposition or are tied there by profession. And some of the best of city men in brains/looks/disposition combo somehow don't want children, so what's the point?
Honesty on dating apps requires a lot of intuition about reverse-psychology and theory-of-minding and signaling (which is why average stem-y men often have terrible profiles, but I digress)
Women often can't actually just state outright boundaries/goals, as it attracts bad elements that want to push those boundaries, exploit them, or indeed seemingly share your goals but for the wrong reasons.
In my case, if you try to filter for men eager to leave the city to homestead, buy a cabin, leave the grind etc, by stating that, it accidentally attracts bad people eager to trap a woman, Kaszinski types (without even the harvard cred lmao).
Maybe it's that misanthropy in women (and/or myself) gives me cat lady vibes at worst, but misanthropy in men becomes scary and deranged. Being too clear about a goal like that also scares off decent men who might consider it if they already were in love with you, but not ready to chop wood next month, easier to swipe left on ambivalence.
The way to get the perfect intersection of a. wants to leave metropolis, b. wants family, and c. wholesomeness/decency is pragmatically in America just....Christianity.
Christians Conservatives have such an easier time of this game, it's a cluster of unspoken boundaries and norms and vibes, that does all the filtering/signaling without outright stating it ("no hook-ups" just invites 'challenge accepted' sleaze, whereas implied christian morality basically signals sex will move way slower, men are far less presumptuous etc etc)
It's a cohesive "aesthetic" but it feels super dishonest to me to try to co-opt it for benefits without going all-in. Christian partners would not be happy with my level of actual belief (I'd say 3/10).
Regardless, there needs to be a dating app for people who can remote work post-covid who are willing to move anywhere or filter by big general regions.
Changing the location on Hinge to talk to people and get the 'lay of the land' in small towns feels dishonest.
e.g. "How to start horse ranching" or "Beginner guide to essential tractor repairs". Maybe there's a farming conference you can go to where you can scope things out.
I DO realize there's probably not many "How to raise farm goats" meetups in Manhattan but you might be lucky if you live close to somewhere more rural.
I don't know what's the universal experience regarding this, but for me and other people I know, males are extreme disadvantage in the context of dating apps; this applies also to the app that supposedly reverses the roles.
I have the suspicion that the elephant is the room is that for men, online dating takes many, many hours (I can't quantify, but an hour a day or so, seems the minimum to me) of effort, often for nothing (I definitely know at least one man who's able to game the system, but he's an exception).
This is definitely a recipe for burnout, and it's very specific to online dating . If one wants to find potential mates, any organized activity (sports, etc. - Meetup is perfect) will do; the effort to talk to a potential partner, in that case, is virtually zero.
lucky for me I suppose I got married before dating apps became a thing..
It says that women rate most men as less attractive than average, yes. But then women are quite willing to message men who are rated as less attractive than average.
Meanwhile, the men rank attractiveness on a shockingly mathematical-looking curve. However, at the same time, men overwhelmingly refuse to message any but the most attractive of women.
Thus, if you're an average-looking man, your odds of getting messages are actually greater than they are for an average-looking woman.
Untrue. If you're an average-looking man your share of female-to-male messages is greater than an average-looking woman's share of male-to-female messages. The woman is still getting a far larger number of messages.
No, they don't, or at least it isn't shown in that data. Those graphs refer to the proportions of messages for each gender, not raw numbers. Each male user sends 3.5 times as many "first contact" messages as each female user, according to their 2016 data.
average-looking women are disadvantaged because men appear to be far more selective than women are:
Absolutely agree. But they're disadvantaged against other women, not against men, if you're measuring by, as you specified, "the odds of getting messages". An average man will receive fewer messages than an average woman.
The point is, while average-looking men are disadvantaged by the sheer number of men on these apps, average-looking women are disadvantaged because men appear to be far more selective than women are:
"2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women. When it comes down to actually choosing targets, men choose the modelesque. Someone like roomtodance above gets nearly 5 times as many messages as a typical woman and 28 times as many messages as a woman at the low end of our curve. Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women. So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten."
It's unclear what you mean by more selective. If you're an average woman, you get more inbound interest than an average man. The tricky statistical massaging you're doing amounts to "well men are even more open-minded when it comes to more attractive woman." But that doesn't make sense: if a man has sent you a message, does it suddenly become half a message if he then messages someone else? You're penalizing men on open-mindedness for messaging more women.
That said, the blog post is weirdly presented and its graphs a bit misleading because of the skewed distributions. What would be most useful is comparing the median number of messages received by men and the median number of messages received by women (or best of all calculating the Gini indices of the respective distributions), instead of bothering to use the star ratings at all.
ETA:
> Divide the all raw numbers by 3.5, the rates will stay the same.
You're misunderstanding the data. It's not that men collectively send 3.5/4.5 of the messages; it's that each individual man sends 3.5 times as many messages as an individual woman. I.e. it already corrects for there being more men on the app. If men comprise 2/3 of users on dating apps, that means that 87.5% of all first messages are sent by men.
Any research/analysis on the topic pales compared to reality.
Here's what happens in real world ("Tinder Experiment: 18 Yr Old Woman Tries Being A Man!!!"): https://youtu.be/DZTIbHIsIYw?t=615. It's a larger view compared to the number of messages, but the principle still applies.
There's really aa difference between what men and women expect, and also between what they say and what they do. I'm pretty honest when I talk with someone, something serious and compromises are not on my horizon, a lot of women discard me when I say that, and I'm ok with it, but sometimes I continue talking with them, and they told me how many man lie saying that they want something just to get on the their bed sheets and they disappear after that. Overall, I found some great people and nice aquitances, but the time I had spent is not despreciable.
The net result is that neither men or women match easily, in many cases it's a tragedy of the commons. Even on the "app that reverses the roles" it's difficult to match to likely partners for either gender.
Just thinking about it makes me want to start dating again, it'd be like ad-block but for crypto bros.
I'm ready for the sarcasm
> auto-blocked if you didn't make it past the filter
This, if it could be made people-friendly, would be perfect. Block based on non-real and mis-spelled words to stay a step ahead of anyone trying to evade the filter with "dik", as well as filtering based on phrase, and down to the word. Then just auto-prioritize a list of words on a per-person basis, and let the rest be left as-is.
It may not scale perfectly, but it'll be fun until Match group apes your product, makes it pay-to-play, and puts you out of business.
Ratio is actually 3:1 and I agree with your viewpoint partly. People just keep swiping while talking to each other, so I don't see why x would be taking more time than y, however, women do indeed also need to spend that time finding their matches and QA them (excuse the engineering term), so I don't believe there are any parties winning here.
Of course, this requires having and maintaining the type of relationship with family and friends where this is possible.
This type of “screening” value provided by brokers is not limited to dating, but also any low frequency, high cost transaction such as real estate, businesses, hiring workers, etc. This is the less cynical side of “it is not what you know, it is who you know”, meaning that the cost of evaluating certain risks can be so high that it is worth offloading that onto one’s network.
It's not exactly surprising that the top % of men that most women keep matching with treat them as disposable. To those men they are.
This makes the common mistake in assuming that when a man gets a match, the majority of time it will be a good, high quality one that puts equal effort into the dating process. This is not the case.
The only way out of this would be for a non-profit fully-FOSS dating platform to be created that considers satisfying its users dating objectives its one and only priority, rather than seeing them as a source of income. Make matching more likely by applying two-way filters in the swipe queue, discourage pointless accumulation of matches by clout-chasers and attention junkies, refuse any gamification, don't offer any feature for money but encourage donation on successful connection, and make "engagement" a negative KPI—the KPI should be how many users successfully connect to another and stop using the app, and how quickly they achieve it in terms of app usage.
Of course, setting up something like this would require significant effort and "investment" with no hope of profit. It's in my bucket list of plans on how to become a millionaire (from billionaire, that is).
Please don't come to my clubs looking to get laid -- parasitic mentality.
Creating a Meetup group that filters all the horny trolls out of it is such a hassle. If a workplace can be toppled by one errant affair, small club groups can implode off the wrong wink.
Idiots trying to use my Meetup groups as a stand-in for dates suck all the air out of the room.
To be clear, I'm not implying that's your motivation but just as there are bad extremes in the behaviour of some attendees and organisers, so are there extremes in the gatekeeping and sensitivity of others. Both are regrettable.
Then why say it? Comes across to me like a "no offense but..."
Well, offense taken.
I'm not puritanical and neither are the clubs I was referring to. However, American culture is so puritanical that they can't even think straight about sex -- can't even talk about and don't know how to get it.
And so idiots (all of them) end up at my tabletop clubs, my hiking clubs, my movie clubs, my woodworking clubs, and then chase someone's butt the whole time.
That makes it really uncomfortable for everyone else and also usually uncomfortable for whoever's butt is being chased. And then a club has to spend social energy creating a Code of Conduct and wondering who will enforce it.
Horndogs need not apply.
That doesn't excuse idiocy and horndoggery but social networking (and by extension improving dating chances) is a perfectly valid and ethical path to take beyond the advertised scope of the group.
Tinder specifically should be sued out of existence. It ignores location, will happily tell you your boost has been a "success" without a single match or you'll get a couple from 7,000 miles away. It's outright fraud.
I met my wife at a running club. Of my friend group, most met while active in sports or other activities. A few were introduced by common friends on a "you might like so-and-so" basis. And a few met in college. I'm only aware of two couples in my extended friend group who met using dating apps - and both of those were premium subscription models, not freebie Tinder-like apps.
Dating apps strike me as a very low-quality (low fidelity?) way to match couples.
It's true, but a lot of people don't have the opportunity or patience for those other approaches. If they're not just homebody introverts in the first place, they may already have a pretty saturated schedule/network without many suitable people around to pair off with. This happens to a lot of people as college recedes and life establishes a professional, mid-life rhythm.
Dating apps are garbage, but alternatives aren't always practical.
Then they really don't have the time for a relationship. Maybe they just want a hook-up, but that also takes time to connect with people and build relationships for something casual. It's all just work, at the end of the day, and a lot of people are unsatisfied with that answer. Things like being on the high-end of attractiveness are like cheat codes, but those people still have to put in effort to connect with people before they get to the fun part.