61–70 of 159 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That approach for most folks is a) really daunting b) usually extremely low odds of success. It's one thing if it's someone in a social circle, however big. Total stranger? Seems to only result in frustration for most folks.
It's a skill that can be learned.
This makes a nice news story, but based on the criteria mentioned, it is doomed to failure. 1. There are very, very few life-long partnerships. And of the ones that are, some of them are for reciprocal benefits (not love); some are because the people are too scared or complacent to leave; some are because the two are completely lacking in ambition and hope for a better future. Most people change over time, and most p…
None of what you say here imply or explain why his idea would be doomed (not to mention most of your assumptions are not always true or false and like most things depends on the person). Not to mention points 2, 3 and 4 are completely unsubstantiated lol. How is this the top reply?
Because I replied early? I dunno, only 3 points. [edit - -1 points :P. So sad :( ]
His idea is doomed because he says, "I'm looking for somebody who has a kind heart, someone who's curious and maybe has a sense of humour, it doesn't have to be my sense of humour."... and he's depending on other people, with their own sensibilities and emotions, to identify people he might fit with?
This is not new. People forever (perhaps more often women) have been motivated to play matchmaker for their friends. If that method were most successful, dating apps wouldn't exist.
Another reason his idea is doomed is because he put money on it. That provides a perverse incentive which favors the person who can provide him the most dates (who can superficially entertain him until he weds one).
What you call unsubstantiated I call obvious.
2. Who out there believes that Tinder is where you find your life mate? Maybe it is now, I dunno... but it was certainly a hookup app for the first many years of its existence.
3. A friend is going to be more accurate than you would if you got to know someone naturally and fell in love with them?
4. Absolutely not unsubstantiated. Put any money value on something, and hordes of hungry gamers (not gamers, but gamers) will find a way to take the shotgun approach. After all, if one of his friends is able to keep his calendar booked with prospects, then that friend is more likely to win the prize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being on the other side of that though is: join app, wade through many low quality matches because the ratio is like 10:1, become extremely choosy because every right swipe is a match. It produces really bad psychological effects for both cohorts.
There is an approximately equal amount of men and women in the population. How is it possible that so many matches are "low quality" for women?
Whatever happened to just asking pretty girls you see on dates? That’s how I met my wife. Total stranger, gave her my number and asked her out for coffee. Been married ten years now.
> Total stranger, gave her my number and asked her out [...] I'm really, genuinely glad this worked out for you. When feminists talk about the objectification of women, though, I think this is a prime example. (Admittedly there are no details.) The assumption that bothers me is that it is ok to approach a "pretty girl" about entering into a relationship. Isn't this problem as old as the hills? > Why can't I walk down…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was an OKCupid study that found that women on OKCupid rated 80% of men as below average. https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/
That's funny at first glance but it might be more accurate than we would like to admit. Maybe there were a lot of below average men (compared to the general population) on OKC when that study was conducted
Whatever happened to just asking pretty girls you see on dates? That’s how I met my wife. Total stranger, gave her my number and asked her out for coffee. Been married ten years now.
> Total stranger, gave her my number and asked her out [...] I'm really, genuinely glad this worked out for you. When feminists talk about the objectification of women, though, I think this is a prime example. (Admittedly there are no details.) The assumption that bothers me is that it is ok to approach a "pretty girl" about entering into a relationship. Isn't this problem as old as the hills? > Why can't I walk down…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's way too cynical a view. It's often accurate, but it certainly does not describe all relationships. I've been married 8 years now and it's not at all like that. It's not a fairytale either, but it's a real love. While we've both grown and changed a lot, we haven't grown apart. There's hope, and it's a tough dating world out there, but if you have your attitude is over before you start.
8 years? Not being flippant, but 8 years is one chapter. More than 8 years of my marriage were so great I couldn't imagine anything better (and I have not topped it with anyone since). I'm saying that you can and should enjoy relationships, but if you expect the impossible, it will end badly. It doesn't have to end badly! It could end naturally, with great respect and friendship. No, my attitude is that one can have…
It varies, because people vary, and you have to both work at it and want similar things.
Fairytales aren't real, but that's also not a reason to just say all marriages won't last. That's obviously false. It's also not the end of the world, as you say, if in the end you've both grown so far apart neither can remember what you're doing together in the first place. You fight for a relationship up to a point, but there are limits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Total stranger, gave her my number and asked her out [...] I'm really, genuinely glad this worked out for you. When feminists talk about the objectification of women, though, I think this is a prime example. (Admittedly there are no details.) The assumption that bothers me is that it is ok to approach a "pretty girl" about entering into a relationship. Isn't this problem as old as the hills? > Why can't I walk down…
A proposal to meet for coffee and get to know each other seems to be the opposite of objectification, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Total stranger, gave her my number and asked her out [...] I'm really, genuinely glad this worked out for you. When feminists talk about the objectification of women, though, I think this is a prime example. (Admittedly there are no details.) The assumption that bothers me is that it is ok to approach a "pretty girl" about entering into a relationship. Isn't this problem as old as the hills? > Why can't I walk down…
A proposal to meet for coffee and get to know each other seems to be the opposite of objectification, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in any obvious definite way if you're both above sustaining yourselves. I.e. if there is discretionary money (sourced from both parties) then what you say is only true if the decisions/compromises not in your favour outweigh your portion of the discretionary funds. (...I don't want to spend my life thinking like this.)
Well you can ignore it as long as the marriage goes well :-) but in a divorce the court will make it very clear just how much money the marriage cost the higher earner, both in terms of dividing up past earnings, and in terms of dividing up future earnings via alimony and child support.
For instance, we used to make a little money when I married my wife, now we make a lot more. We didn't change our lifestyle or spending, nor what we spent on the child. Just savings increased, none of which we planned to give to the child. But now the child support calculator says I owe a lot more after a divorce, which is supposed to be money for the child. If the cost of the child didn't go up, it makes no sense the child support would go up when you earn more money, but it does. It's just a penalty on whoever earns more or doesn't take the child, as societies way of getting even for violating Christian norms.