211–220 of 373 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re good looking, you’re not going to be wasting time on apps These days, saying hi seems to be risky for more reasons than rejection. Maybe more so if you’re not good looking. Hence the apps
Nonsense. Looking good on dating apps is like fishing with dynamite.
Sounds like this article is just astroturfing with some tech data.
Funny thing is that when dating apps used to be "browse profiles, send message", nobody had to debate inner workings. Users could self select people of interest, send them a message directly, and know there'd be a very good chance that their profile/message would at least be seen. Issue today is that apps control visibility, both in terms of profiles and likes. I've tried Hinge a few times. Did like a 4 month initial…
One problem I’ve realized lately is that a lot of people are on dating apps because they feel like they have to be to meet someone, but they don’t actually enjoy chatting online and may not even be very good at it. Apps probably have a stage when they have a high percentage of “online” people who are just better at texting and, for better at worse, on their phones more.
The qualities that women find attractive in men cannot be captured in a static profile on a website ... plus most of the men in that site are there because they don't have those qualities. Let's just say that if you can open your mouth enough to say hi to a woman without hesitation, you are completely wasting your time on dating sites.
If you’re good looking, you’re not going to be wasting time on apps These days, saying hi seems to be risky for more reasons than rejection. Maybe more so if you’re not good looking. Hence the apps
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I very much might have. Everyone brings their own bias to the table. But, remember the asymmetry in this space is large. The asymmetry of risk, of expectations, of outcome. It doesn't go to what you project as a hypothetical, it goes to the one I responded to. If you can show me a dating app with the right dynamics to demand the response you hypothesized, we can see how the numbers pan out. The one we have, it's the…
My view is it's mostly human nature not cultural bias. Sex differences in mating are cross-cultural (Donald Buss has done a lot on this). Whether either side can be said to be "disadvantaged" is a bit of a hard one. Compared to what hypothetical, and what's the measure of disadvantage? Having to hire a photographer seems like a bigger disadvantage than just lowering your standards: it costs money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lowering your standards will find guys who aren't just interested in sex. The problem is that most women want the same (small proportion of) men. He said that the more matches a man gets, the more likely he'll just want sex and not a relationship. So you go for the less desired men and you find better quality matches, if you are looking for more than casual relations.
It does seem like there are a lot of hidden assumptions here. Is the man who gets less matches really more likely to want a relationship rather than sex, or is he faking that opinion because he doesn't think he has options and thinks lying will get him more matches. My assumption would be someone who changes their mind on what they want based on availability of choices would probably not be a good relationship partne…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most men are insane from frustration, not unpalatable or toxic.
People generally do not want to have an insane, frustrated partner.
The qualities that women find attractive in men cannot be captured in a static profile on a website ... plus most of the men in that site are there because they don't have those qualities. Let's just say that if you can open your mouth enough to say hi to a woman without hesitation, you are completely wasting your time on dating sites.