21–30 of 159 posts
> He's offering prizes of up to $7,000 in value to anyone who can help him get a date, and ultimately, a wife. That's the gist of the article. I don't like online dating either. But this "social experiment" is just, I dunno, grimy?
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.
> He's offering prizes of up to $7,000 in value to anyone who can help him get a date, and ultimately, a wife. That's the gist of the article. I don't like online dating either. But this "social experiment" is just, I dunno, grimy?
> He's offering prizes of up to $7,000 in value to anyone who can help him get a date, and ultimately, a wife. That's the gist of the article. I don't like online dating either. But this "social experiment" is just, I dunno, grimy?
He also plans to hand out the money after the wedding. It's all very... Transactional.
A marriage in today's society is more of a business partnership than anything else; infidelity is as common as not. Often in wealthy circles joint business ownership precludes divorce as well, so enter the side partners. Typical aristocratic nonsense, which is what you get with Empires.
> He's offering prizes of up to $7,000 in value to anyone who can help him get a date, and ultimately, a wife. That's the gist of the article. I don't like online dating either. But this "social experiment" is just, I dunno, grimy?
He also plans to hand out the money after the wedding. It's all very... Transactional.
I think its a bit worse to pay for dates/access which is the entire premise of dating apps, matchmakers, clubs etc. because those dont have a vested interest in helping you find anything long and successful. In fact, its the opposite.
As an aside, I feel bad for the generation that thinks dating apps are the best way to find a mate. The whole 'scale' argument seems ludicrous to me. It sounds like the ultimate consumerist approach to finding companionship. Compatibility is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a happy marriage. Anyone who has been part of a good marriage knows that you grow more compatible over time as you build a family and are challenged by life together. The whole concept of finding someone who isn't like you (or your supposed ideal -- how do you even know what your ideal is??? Think about your ideal child. Now think about your actual child. Would you trade?) so that you can grow with/towards that person seems like a better life than just finding that person you can be your lousy self with. Maybe your self at 25 sucks? If you haven't been in a long-term relationship by 35 then I say with confidence your self probably does suck, not because you're a bad person, but probably just selfish and immature, sorry.
Moreover, delegating mate selection to an algorithm is maybe the most unromantic thing I could have conceived in 1999. No offense, but it pains me to imagine all the 'how I met your mother' stories. It sounds so transactional. Passing through dozens or more people on your way to a marriage seems like Goldilocks tasting porridge.
Moreover, it's been argued that dating apps are bad socially for the larger dating pool. Women on these apps compete for the 20% of "high-status" males. They are conditioned by these males to think they have a chance and to expect to land a high-status mate. Many never find "Mr. Right" and miss out being in a committed relationship during their most productive years. Meanwhile, the 80% of men are competing unsuccessfully for women who are uninterested in them. The 20% of males who can pick and choose are disincentivized to settle down, they also waste their productive years 'playing the field' and ultimately find they are unable to love at all. Sounds like a lose-lose-lose to me.
Here come the down-votes (ducks). Tell me I'm wrong.
The value of internet dating for people looking for a serious connection is access to scale and therein the bypass of the happenstance of initial conditions. This approach gives up on scale. At first I was challenged with how to effectively gain the value of that access to scale. But then I selected a dating app (okcupid) that allowed for depth and designed my profile to ward off others and select for the subpopulati…
Ha! I second for okcupid. The only normal dating site (that allows indepth profiles) that I was able to find back in 2015-16. Never needed it since then, because I married a girl I met there)
Dating sites were better in the 2000's. Yahoo personals? Craigslist? Even the old match.com were better than what we have now.
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.
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.
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 people change differently (especially different sexes). To imagine them remaining on a parallel trajectory through long life by nature (instead of sheer willpower or complacency) is naive.
2. Swiping left/right by looks is not for long term partnership. It is for short term physical excitement. And in that regard, it's a good start.
3. No amount of online communication or friend referrals will compare to frequently being around someone, getting to know them, and falling in love with them. This is a very low percentage game he's betting on (unless he's just betting on publicity, in which case he wins 15 minutes of fame).
4. Wait until the (unnamed nationality) recruiters get wind of this. For a chance of $7000, they will inundate him with dates. The smartest of them will promise to share half of it with the women, in which case he'll have more dates than he has time for. And if he has some money, the more desperate women will fake their way to marriage, winning the $3500 and potentially a comfortable life (only having to have sex with him a couple of times per week).
This may sound pessimistic, but it's really just an observation on traditional modern marriage. People don't work like the story books suggest, and the story books are based on fiction that doesn't represent the vast majority of human history.
The good news for him and anyone else who wants to expand their awareness is that one can have many good meaningful relationships and some really great physical relationships in one lifetime. And be happy through most of it.