# Why do men complain about dating sites



## Sue4473

My beef is I have a few male friends who are on dating sites. When I’ve talked with them on how’s it going/ met anyone to move forward etc..
They immediately say- I’m getting off they are nothing but liars and women who aren’t who they say they are. 
But yet I continue to see them on 
Do they think that there true love will somehow appear on that magical computer screen? It comes off as bitter. I’m personally done with online dating, and tired of the drama that comes with. Just looking for the men’s view on this issue.


----------



## Married but Happy

My experience is that you get from OLD what you put into it. It's certainly not a quick fix to getting a date, but it does work reasonably well if you are patient and selective - and have something to offer. I was choosy about who I met, and out of dozens that I did meet, only a few weren't what they said or appeared to be online.

The trend I've noticed in the past few years is that the majority of women's profiles have no information, no interests, and very few pictures. Some sites are better than others in this regard, so stick with one that seems to have more believable people. Otherwise, all you have to go on is a picture that may not reflect what they're really like. Even so, I've met attractive women even from some of the free, marginal sites with lots of fake users.


----------



## personofinterest

I don't want to start a debate, but I think (in my observation and the stories friends have told) that overall, while women DO have to weed through the no-go's, men have a harder time making connections on OLD. For every 100 messages they send, they might get....1-5 or so responses I think? That would get old pretty fast if I were a guy. Then you have the women who take the "selfie from above" and end up weighing 100 pounds more than you thought when you actually meet them.

Yes, women have legitimate frustrations too. But overall I have surmised that men have a harder time finding ANYONE to meet than women.


----------



## musicftw07

personofinterest said:


> I don't want to start a debate, but I think (in my observation and the stories friends have told) that overall, while women DO have to weed through the no-go's, men have a harder time making connections on OLD. For every 100 messages they send, they might get....1-5 or so responses I think? That would get old pretty fast if I were a guy. Then you have the women who take the "selfie from above" and end up weighing 100 pounds more than you thought when you actually meet them.
> 
> Yes, women have legitimate frustrations too. But overall I have surmised that men have a harder time finding ANYONE to meet than women.


My observation and experience matches this description. I tried OLD multiple times a ways back, and it was extremely difficult. I would send out lots of messages (being kind and respectful) and never got any replies. I put a lot of time and effort into my profile. The few dates I went on either seemed to go for the free meal or they were not physically like their pictures at all.

I would say the biggest thing that turned me off to OLD were profiles of women that matched this description: they were broke single mothers who were looking for a man to "take care of me and my babies", who expected the man to be wealthy (I make a good solid middle class wage but I'm not wealthy), and who would not date single fathers (I'm a single dad) in spite of them being single mothers. Most of them had let themselves go in one way or another. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not buff, but neither am I overweight.) In essence, they literally brought nothing to the table and expected the moon.

By all accounts, I'm a great catch. Own my house, great credit, good job, responsible, decent looking, healthy, outstanding father to my daughter, not looking for a woman to care for my kid, etc. Yet OLD was a major struggle.

I ditched it and focused solely on finding dates in the real world. My success rate jumped though the roof and found my girlfriend over two years ago. She's the best and we have an outstanding relationship.

It's funny... A lot of the women I messaged who seemed like quality ladies to me were still active on OLD over two years later when I went to deactivate my profiles. I had a moment where I chuckled at that.

Some factors are outside of a person's control though, like location and demographics. I think that played a role in it.

In the end, I chose to not get bitter and changed my approach. OLD wasn't for me.


----------



## personofinterest

> I would say the biggest thing that turned me off to OLD were profiles of women that matched this description: they were broke single mothers who were looking for a man to "take care of me and my babies", who expected the man to be wealthy (I make a good solid middle class wage but I'm not wealthy), and who would not date single fathers (I'm a single dad) in spite of them being single mothers. Most of them had let themselves go in one way or another. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not buff, but neither am I overweight.) In essence, they literally brought nothing to the table and expected the moon.


I love my own gender to pieces, but I have seen this as well - in real life. These ladies need to step up and learn to take care of themselves before they bring a man into the mix.


----------



## Bananapeel

In my perspective OLD isn't favorable to men because of the male to female ratio, so the men just don't have the same quality/quantity of choice that they'd have if they met a woman organically IRL. It's fairly convenient if I'm just looking for a STR or to get laid. But the women I'd target as having a good LTR potential I haven't met on OLD. The current woman that I just started dating I met at a party a year ago and I prefer that sort of introduction. I don't know why men would be bitter about OLD in general unless they don't have any other options and are sold a fantasy of hitting the relationship jackpot through OLD.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

They actually did a study on this. Unless you are in the top tier (can't remember the percent, maybe top 15%) of looks, career etc... you may as well be invisible. Even the fat, ugly women won't touch anyone in their league, they all reach for the top. 

In my experience, I strongly doubt I'm in that top tier, but I always managed to find dates. It's really just a numbers game. Dont think, dont read profiles, just swipe right.


----------



## Evinrude58

In general what I've found is:
Some Women on dating sites have been with a lot of damn men. LOTS. LOTS. They like to be pursued and you see them on there for years, they want MORE.

Some women on dating sites are commonly women that have run out of men to date in their social circles because they are not exactly quality people. Nobody wants to introduce their friend or cousin to them. 

Some women are on there because they are so narcissistic that they love the constant reinforcement they get from men.

Some women love taking selfies at perfect angles and even photoshopping their photos in an effort to get a dude interested that is up to their "standards".

Some women are looking for a rich guy.

If one thinks about it, how long does it take for a nice looking, non-nutty, normal lady to get a man interested in real life that knows she isn't in a relationship? NOT VERY LONG. Hence, women on dating sites in my opinion are already suspect. That said, I found a very few decent people on dating sites, and all it takes is ONE. But I met my wife in real life.

Dating sites are just like real life. Most people suck. When one accepts that reality, they will be more likely to be happy.


----------



## Married but Happy

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> In my experience, I strongly doubt I'm in that top tier, but I always managed to find dates. It's really just a numbers game.


I'm not in the top tier either, especially at my age, but like you, I've always managed to find dates. I don't even write to anyone first, because what I'm looking for isn't what most want, and I state what I want (in case someone still bothers to read). I still get interest - sporadic, but it's there - and often enough it leads to something.


----------



## MovingForward

OLD for men sucks.

Woman they may have a lot of work going through all the messages they get to pick what they think is the best option for them but men who are average in looks and success will be ignored a lot, so woman have a lot of options and messages to read and reply and men have a lot of messages to send and hope they get a reply, also for men it gets expensive going on dates all the time so there is an investment where a lot of woman i know will go out with a guy if they have nothing better to do that night or for a free meal or night out. Some woman think its a Amazon wish list and have criteria way way above there real life options, these same woman may get a lot of swipes but most end up being someones FWB or part time sex. I also used genuine pics on mine, no filters and no fakeness which apparently is not the way to do it, some people i met were way older and heavier than they looked on pics also.


----------



## Sue4473

These replies are awesome and interesting! I’ve heard this from men that some are not physically what is shown in their pics. To me, your starting off on the wrong foot by lying and do you think he won’t notice the weight or height difference whatever the case may be.
I’ve alwats been up front and honest with my intentions and my physical appearance.


----------



## Rowan

I took a much different approach to online dating than most seem to. First, I set up my filters to only show me matches that I might legitimately be interested in. I think a lot of people fail to use the filters effectively. I had mine set to only show me divorced/widowed (no separated or still married) men who were in my preferred age range, ethnicity, body type, education level, socioeconomic level, non-smokers, with children, who didn't want more children, and were looking for a long-term relationship. There may have been a couple more as well. I didn't even see anyone's profile unless they fit the very strict parameters I'd set. Then, I set my own profile so that only people I had made contact with could even see it. That meant that I had to make first contact with anyone I was interested in. That, combined with careful filtering and very careful evaluation of profiles, meant I had a much smaller pool of better quality matches and no one bombarding me with messages I had to wade through. 

Once I went to that strategy, I cut out all of the freak-show-ness that's far too common with online dating. Online dating became a fun and successful experience. I met several nice men, had two relationships of several months duration, and eventually found my SO of 3 years. But I had to be willing to be pretty honest with myself about what I was looking for in a partner, and pretty ruthless about not settling for any red flags.

I get why men might complain about dating sites. They're easy to complain about. But anyone who keeps complaining about something, while being unwilling to change their approach or situation, is not a victim but a volunteer.


----------



## 3Xnocharm

I hated OLD. The constant getting to know you and first dates was exhausting for an introvert like myself. Seemed whenever I was the one to reach out first, I never got responses back. Then again, I didn't have fakey, sexy pics posted on my profile either, just normal pics through the course of daily life. Men would be wise to take note that sending a message of only "hey", or of "hi beautiful" for most of us is an immediate NOPE. Like seriously, you cant come up with an actual sentence, or something genuine? Messages that would get response from me would be one that expressed interest in something I posted in my profile's About Me, or whatever. That shows actual interest in possibly getting to know me. That said, sending a snarky question about something from my profile is ALSO a big fat nope. 

I did OLD for about a year and a half and then pulled my profiles from all the sites I had been on. I know some folks have great luck with it, but I was not one of them.


----------



## Rowan

Sue4473 said:


> These replies are awesome and interesting! I’ve heard this from men that some are not physically what is shown in their pics. To me, your starting off on the wrong foot by lying and do you think he won’t notice the weight or height difference whatever the case may be.
> I’ve alwats been up front and honest with my intentions and my physical appearance.



Men are just as likely to massage their profiles and pictures as women are. Dishonest people are just going to be dishonest. It's just that the men who lie in their profiles tend to lie about different things than women. Women make themselves out to be thinner and more attractive. Men under about 6' tend to claim they're one or two inches, or more, taller than they really are. Far, far, too many men pretend to more hair than they actually possess. I also ran into a couple men who weren't all that concerned about whether their divorce was actually final before claiming to be divorced. But both men and women often shave more than a few pounds off their weights, a few years off their ages, and they sometimes pretend to more wealth, culture, or education than they have. 

If you pay close attention, most lies - from men and women - are fairly easy to spot even before you get the point of chatting or meeting. If the pictures are all old, if there's a height difference that's noticeable in group shots, if a guy is wearing a hat in every single photo, if the angles of the photos are all odd, if there's a heavy use of Photoshop or Instagram filters, if the grammar in the written profile doesn't reflect the sort of career they claim to have, if their kids ages seem odd given their stated age. I also think it's okay to politely ask questions that might help you gauge someone's honesty. And, well, if you show up for a first meeting and they're nothing like they portrayed themselves to be, I think it's perfectly fine to just tell them that you don't think you're a match after all and move on.


----------



## SentHereForAReason

I'm starting to think more and more about the schematics of dating and what I'm going to do. I love challenges. Right now the challenges I have put in front of my are body challenges and home improvement ones but I'm starting to think more and more about how I will go about making an effort in dating.

Actually did a smart thing and used part of my counseling session to talk about dating today. She said that I should get out and do focus groups, like groups where people share interests in the activities I like or maybe that I don't even know if I would like or not but to try them out and interact with people that way. She didn't seem to thrilled about OLD lol. She told me she thinks I am going to find people by going out and just doing stuff and by doing stuff I enjoy and like, I'm going to come across opportunities to find 'people'.


----------



## Yeswecan

Sue4473 said:


> My beef is I have a few male friends who are on dating sites. When I’ve talked with them on how’s it going/ met anyone to move forward etc..
> They immediately say- I’m getting off they are nothing but liars and women who aren’t who they say they are.
> But yet I continue to see them on
> Do they think that there true love will somehow appear on that magical computer screen? It comes off as bitter. I’m personally done with online dating, and tired of the drama that comes with. Just looking for the men’s view on this issue.


Of the two males I know on dating sites....it is nothing short of astonishing what they have experienced. For starters, serial daters. They date just to date. Then there is the drinkers. One of my friends went on a date. Not only was she lit when picked up but continued to drink during the date. Proceeded to vomit and needed to be carried to her front door. Another date my other friend went on was I guess ok for him. He took her to dinner and drinks. Takes her home to be dropped off. She gives him a goodbye BJ and never speaks to him again. What the...? 

However, both did find one that was on the level. Both appear to be in happy relationships now.


----------



## Bananapeel

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> They actually did a study on this. Unless you are in the top tier (can't remember the percent, maybe top 15%) of looks, career etc... you may as well be invisible. Even the fat, ugly women won't touch anyone in their league, they all reach for the top.
> 
> In my experience, I strongly doubt I'm in that top tier, but I always managed to find dates. It's really just a numbers game. Dont think, dont read profiles, just swipe right.


I think I'm in the top 15% of men OLD, but still probably operate on less than a 10% success rate with contact turning into convo's online and less than half of those end with dates. I find that IRL it's far easier to start a convo with a woman that I just meet because there is always something about them that I can used to start a conversation. I know that IRL I'm a catch and online it seems to be less apparent or the women are just looking for something different. I don't complain though because I've met some really cool women online that turned into relationships (lasted less than a year) and I generally expect a 3-5% success rate with women I randomly approach IRL. I agree though that the strategy is the same and it's just a numbers game until you find the right one. Luckily there are a ton of single women available. 

For my online profile (inactive) I'm an early 40's successful professional, highly educated, six figure salary (can tell based on my career), physically fit, and I'm attractive. I don't like leaving pics up on an anonymous message board but here's a douchy shirtless one from last week without my whole face.


----------



## Handy

I am NOT on OLD sites but I do read a forum where people talk about their dates. What I read about is women who go on 20-30 dates and no man triggers her "chemistry" even if the guy meets all her list items.

The up side is a few women like a guy, after several casual dates, they never would have considered because he didn't meet all of the requirements of her "must have" list. Guys do the same thing.

I agree with the comment that OLD works for the top 15% of the men that have $$ and a lifestyle envied by most people.


----------



## musicftw07

personofinterest said:


> I would say the biggest thing that turned me off to OLD were profiles of women that matched this description: they were broke single mothers who were looking for a man to "take care of me and my babies", who expected the man to be wealthy (I make a good solid middle class wage but I'm not wealthy), and who would not date single fathers (I'm a single dad) in spite of them being single mothers. Most of them had let themselves go in one way or another. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not buff, but neither am I overweight.) In essence, they literally brought nothing to the table and expected the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> I love my own gender to pieces, but I have seen this as well - in real life. These ladies need to step up and learn to take care of themselves before they bring a man into the mix.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm not woman-bashing, just saying that such a demographic of women does exist.

Yes, they do need to take care of themselves, that is true. The flip side is that I blame men just as much for getting with women like that. Some dudes are desperate and will get with any woman just to not be single.

The supply of men willing to meet such a woman's demands needs to dry up, and that's definitely a male issue.


----------



## Ursula

Sue4473 said:


> These replies are awesome and interesting! I’ve heard this from men that some are not physically what is shown in their pics. To me, your starting off on the wrong foot by lying and do you think he won’t notice the weight or height difference whatever the case may be.
> I’ve alwats been up front and honest with my intentions and my physical appearance.


This same thing can also be said about men. When I was on Match, on one date, it was a damn good thing that I got to the restaurant ahead of him because I'd have never recognized him! In more than one case (as is the case with my current beau), they said that they were taller than they are IRL. I find that shorter men, under about 5'8" will add a couple inches.

And just for the record, OLD for women can really suck, too. I put work into my profile, and now to hear that there are men out there who don't actually read it, but just swipe right. I guess that explains a lot of my dates though!


----------



## Mr. Nail

Ursula said:


> This same thing can also be said about men. When I was on Match, on one date, it was a damn good thing that I got to the restaurant ahead of him because I'd have never recognized him! In more than one case (as is the case with my current beau), they said that they were taller than they are IRL. *I find that shorter men, under about 5'8" will add a couple inches*.
> 
> And just for the record, OLD for women can really suck, too. I put work into my profile, and now to hear that there are men out there who don't actually read it, but just swipe right. I guess that explains a lot of my dates though!


As a short man I've heard this. I've always wondered about it, because height is just not something you can fake. What's the point of lying about something so obvious. On the other hand, there is some pretty good evidence that being "extremely short", under 5'8", is equal to being "ugly as a bridge troll". So there may be some incentive for promoting a lie about your height. 

There is some comfort in being off the market permanently. It would take a lot of incentive to get me back in any dating game.


----------



## musicftw07

Ursula said:


> Sue4473 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These replies are awesome and interesting! I’ve heard this from men that some are not physically what is shown in their pics. To me, your starting off on the wrong foot by lying and do you think he won’t notice the weight or height difference whatever the case may be.
> I’ve alwats been up front and honest with my intentions and my physical appearance.
> 
> 
> 
> This same thing can also be said about men. When I was on Match, on one date, it was a damn good thing that I got to the restaurant ahead of him because I'd have never recognized him! In more than one case (as is the case with my current beau), they said that they were taller than they are IRL. I find that shorter men, under about 5'8" will add a couple inches.
> QUOTE
> And just for the record, OLD for women can really suck, too. I put work into my profile, and now to hear that there are men out there who don't actually read it, but just swipe right. I guess that explains a lot of my dates though!
Click to expand...

Men add inches to their height because they often won't get a date otherwise. I can't count the number of profiles I saw from women that said "Don't bother messaging me if you're under 5'10"".

I'm 5'8". Not super short, but not tall either. And I was honest about my height. Probably to the detriment of my OLD success, but I agree with you about starting off honestly.

I thought about putting "Don't bother messaging me if you're under a C cup" on my profile just to see the reactions from the "No men under 5'10"" crowd. Interesting social test...

But I digress. I think that OLD is a cesspool regardless of gender. If my girlfriend and I every break up, I would rather be single and celibate the rest of my days than ever give OLD another try. Yech.


----------



## SentHereForAReason

Man, these aren't exactly shifting my opinion on whether to try OLD or not in a few months lol. 

I do round up my height when talking to people. I'm technically 6' 1/2" but round up to 6' 1"


----------



## minimalME

musicftw07 said:


> Men add inches to their height because they often won't get a date otherwise. I can't count the number of profiles I saw from women that said "Don't bother messaging me if you're under 5'10"".
> 
> I'm 5'8". Not super short, but not tall either. And I was honest about my height. Probably to the detriment of my OLD success, but I agree with you about starting off honestly.


But see, I'm 5'4", so you _should be_ 4 inches taller than me. Which would be perfect. 

Unfortunately the men I've met were shorter than my height, and it was frustrating. As was meeting the ones who were heavier or still married. 

I put my profile back up recently after a 5 month break, and, although I can't believe it's possible, it's even worse than it was before.


----------



## Mr. Nail

@ minimalME you italicized the words "should be". I'm trying to understand what you are communicating. The man "should be" the height that he claims to be? The man "should be" the height you prefer? The man "should be" precisely 4" taller than the person he is dating? 

I did recently learn that it is alright to be short if you have Italian ancestry. Perhaps if you filter for that . . .


----------



## personofinterest

Mr. Nail said:


> @ minimalME you italicized the words "should be". I'm trying to understand what you are communicating. The man "should be" the height that he claims to be? The man "should be" the height you prefer? The man "should be" precisely 4" taller than the person he is dating?
> 
> I did recently learn that it is alright to be short if you have Italian ancestry. Perhaps if you filter for that . . .


I think she meant that if the man is telling the truth he should be 4 inches taller, but she has met men who turned out NOT to be.

Just like the "curvy" woman whose BMI IS 58 lol


----------



## minimalME

Mr. Nail said:


> @ minimalME you italicized the words "should be". I'm trying to understand what you are communicating. The man "should be" the height that he claims to be? The man "should be" the height you prefer? The man "should be" precisely 4" taller than the person he is dating?
> 
> I did recently learn that it is alright to be short if you have Italian ancestry. Perhaps if you filter for that . . .


Was it really that confusing? 

If a guy says he's 5'8", then when I meet him, he should be 5'8".


----------



## BigDigg

Bananapeel said:


> here's a douchy shirtless one from last week without my whole face.


Nice rack you have there!!!


----------



## Laurentium

I tried OLD once. My finding was that women's profiles generally provided no information about them. This was on *******. I answered a few hundred of the self-description matching questions. Many women simply didn't answer any, and their profile consisted only of a list of demands. 

I am guessing that the saner women (like someone who posted below) actually had their profiles set to be invisible to anyone until she selected them.


----------



## arbitrator

*Much like myself, these same men are hoping against hope, that one of those women on one of those many OLD websites will actually "come through!"

And I know for a fact that I can be just too damned picky!

But rest assured that this behavioral characteristic is not totally restricted to only men ~ women do it, also! *


----------



## Diana7

It depends a lot on what sort of sites you go on, some are much better than others, but for a Christian woman who wants to find a Christian guy the numbers are very much skewed in his favour with 3-4 times as many women as men in many of the age groups. At least in the UK. 

Also maybe we have different stipulations. My main one was that he had a strong faith and good values and integrity. I wasn't bothered about earnings, education levels, whether he was over 6ft tall, what car he had or any other shallow thing. I think we can miss some good people and maybe even 'the one', by rejecting them for things that ultimately just don't matter. I don't get why people may only want someone with the same education level for example. My husband has a PHD, was studying till he was about 27. I left school at 18, and went to work full time, left home at 19 and bought my own place at age 20. The education level makes no difference to us at all. I know many very bright people who didn't go to Uni for whatever reason. Thankfully that sort of thing doesn't bother him either. 

As it happens I was on and off dating sites for 2 years, my husband had been on for just 2 or 3 days before I snapped him up! That's what happens here when a good Christian man becomes available, he doesn't stick around for long. 

As for people lying/exaggerating from what I have heard from people who have been on these sites, both sexes do that. I was fortunate to get to know some good people of both sexes as friends from these sites. I also know about 10 couples who met this way. 

I think it goes without saying that ones like tinder are awful. best to find a good one that may cost a little more, not an international one either, too many scammers.


----------



## honcho

Ursula said:


> This same thing can also be said about men. When I was on Match, on one date, it was a damn good thing that I got to the restaurant ahead of him because I'd have never recognized him! In more than one case (as is the case with my current beau), they said that they were taller than they are IRL. I find that shorter men, under about 5'8" will add a couple inches.
> 
> And just for the record, OLD for women can really suck, too. I put work into my profile, and now to hear that there are men out there who don't actually read it, but just swipe right. I guess that explains a lot of my dates though!


I gave up on old sites a while ago and women are just as guilty of not reading the profiles and for the most part both genders fill them with catchy over generalized phrases.

My kids come first....
I love to travel....
I love adventure but also love cuddling on couch...
I enjoy going out to dinner but also enjoy quiet nights cooking at home...
I'm looking for my soul mate or partner in crime......

This is also generally followed by pictures which are convenient angled selfie or group pictures so your never sure which woman in the picture is looking for a date. The vast majority also have bar pictures, it's amazing how many pictures I've seen taken holding a beer in a bar. 

Once you try the sites for a short time you tend to quick scan the profile and move along. I can probably count on one hand the number I've read when I was on them that had well written, real information in them. I live in a small town environment so on all the dating sites you saw the exact same people often with complete different profile depending on the site.


----------



## jlcrome

Old for men all I got say say you better have it in the looks department. My experience so far I guess I'm a decent looking guy IDK. Message to response ratio I would say 65%'-%70 rate which is damn good for 48 years old. I talk to literally hundreds women and heard the countless stories of all the ugly guys on there. If you not at least way above average in looks for a guy you chances are slim zero none. Not to be bragging here most of the women I never meet mainly after knowing them online or just a distance thing. 

Here's some tips:
Besides pics, profiles, etc
1. Prospects: These are the ones that you are interested in and would get back later with them. Say in the lines of a compliment wow you have lovely pics, lovely smile, nice profile. Don't go hey beautiful? use lovely. Rather they respond or not is irrelevant. 
2. Do spill all the beans on the first message like wanting their number, don't go all in with wanting to meet them, etc if you get no response the game is over,
3.3 week rule always wait 3 weeks for newbies. A newbie will get tons of messages by 3 weeks in its like way down. 
4.always and I mean always try to make plans for a meetup within two days. Friday and sarurdays usually the target dates. Always aim for wednesday or thursday for the meet up question. If you ask like a sunday for the next saturday date you most likey will get outsourced.

Just a few suggestions but at the end of the day looks matter.


----------



## minimalME

jlcrome said:


> Old for men all I got say say you better have it in the looks department. My experience so far I guess I'm a decent looking guy IDK. Message to response ratio I would say 65%'-%70 rate which is damn good for 48 years old. I talk to literally hundreds women and heard the countless stories of all the ugly guys on there. If you not at least way above average in looks for a guy you chances are slim zero none. Not to be bragging here most of the women I never meet mainly after knowing them online or just a distance thing.


Attractive is important, but it's also extremely subjective.

I don't like pretty men. I prefer normal looking guys who're in good shape.


----------



## personofinterest

I have no doubt that there are men on dating sites that have just just many badd habits as the women. But I gotta say, it's hard for me to believe that it's just as hard for women as it is for men period from what I have seen, man definitely get the short end of the stick with regards to online dating.


----------



## Rowan

personofinterest said:


> I have no doubt that there are men on dating sites that have just just many badd habits as the women. But I gotta say, it's hard for me to believe that it's just as hard for women as it is for men period from what I have seen, man definitely get the short end of the stick with regards to online dating.


That's the thing about online dating. No one is making anyone do it. There are no victims being forced into online dating. If someone doesn't like the game, they don't have to play. So, if a man is unhappy with the dynamic, isn't meeting quality women, finds it superficial or demoralizing or just hates the whole thing? Then he should stop online dating. 

But if a guy, or a gal for that matter, keeps doing something they dislike and feel slighted by, then they're not _getting_ the short end of the stick, they're actually putting in effort to go _hunting for_ the short end of the stick. Continuing to "get the short end of the stick with regards to online dating" is a _choice_. Anyone who dislikes it can make another, equally valid and better for them, choice.


----------



## ReformedHubby

personofinterest said:


> I have no doubt that there are men on dating sites that have just just many badd habits as the women. But I gotta say, it's hard for me to believe that it's just as hard for women as it is for men period from what I have seen, man definitely get the short end of the stick with regards to online dating.


Its tougher for sure, but I think its more about their expectations not meeting reality. This will sound harsh but it doesn't make it not true. Its simply not realistic if you're a guy and you have a sex rank of 5 or below to think that you are going to get a woman who is an 8, 9, or 10 via OLD. I think guys have it in their minds to use it as a tool to send a message to that hot girl they actually would never even have the guts to approach in real life. But in the OLD world we are all reduced to our appearance. Anyone who has an over inflated sense of their self worth on the singles market will quickly have it corrected if they try OLD.


----------



## Diana7

jlcrome said:


> Old for men all I got say say you better have it in the looks department. My experience so far I guess I'm a decent looking guy IDK. Message to response ratio I would say 65%'-%70 rate which is damn good for 48 years old. I talk to literally hundreds women and heard the countless stories of all the ugly guys on there. If you not at least way above average in looks for a guy you chances are slim zero none. Not to be bragging here most of the women I never meet mainly after knowing them online or just a distance thing.
> 
> Here's some tips:
> Besides pics, profiles, etc
> 1. Prospects: These are the ones that you are interested in and would get back later with them. Say in the lines of a compliment wow you have lovely pics, lovely smile, nice profile. Don't go hey beautiful? use lovely. Rather they respond or not is irrelevant.
> 2. Do spill all the beans on the first message like wanting their number, don't go all in with wanting to meet them, etc if you get no response the game is over,
> 3.3 week rule always wait 3 weeks for newbies. A newbie will get tons of messages by 3 weeks in its like way down.
> 4.always and I mean always try to make plans for a meetup within two days. Friday and sarurdays usually the target dates. Always aim for wednesday or thursday for the meet up question. If you ask like a sunday for the next saturday date you most likey will get outsourced.
> 
> Just a few suggestions but at the end of the day looks matter.


Women are judged far more on looks then men.


----------



## personofinterest

Rowan said:


> That's the thing about online dating. No one is making anyone do it. There are no victims being forced into online dating. If someone doesn't like the game, they don't have to play. So, if a man is unhappy with the dynamic, isn't meeting quality women, finds it superficial or demoralizing or just hates the whole thing? Then he should stop online dating.
> 
> But if a guy, or a gal for that matter, keeps doing something they dislike and feel slighted by, then they're not _getting_ the short end of the stick, they're actually putting in effort to go _hunting for_ the short end of the stick. Continuing to "get the short end of the stick with regards to online dating" is a _choice_. Anyone who dislikes it can make another, equally valid and better for them, choice.


That actually wasn't my point.

We women get annoyed when men post on a thread saying "Women do it toooo" or "What about USSSS?"

There's a bit of that going on here in reverse.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Diana7 said:


> Women are judged far more on looks then men.


In OLD everyone is judged on looks, it evens the playing field for women IMO. A very plain woman would get a lot more attention in the OLD world than she does in real life. At least based on my experience.


----------



## Ursula

musicftw07 said:


> Men add inches to their height because they often won't get a date otherwise. I can't count the number of profiles I saw from women that said "Don't bother messaging me if you're under 5'10"".
> 
> I'm 5'8". Not super short, but not tall either. And I was honest about my height. Probably to the detriment of my OLD success, but I agree with you about starting off honestly.
> 
> *I thought about putting "Don't bother messaging me if you're under a C cup" on my profile just to see the reactions from the "No men under 5'10"" crowd. Interesting social test...*
> 
> But I digress. I think that OLD is a cesspool regardless of gender. If my girlfriend and I every break up, I would rather be single and celibate the rest of my days than ever give OLD another try. Yech.


LoL! :grin2: I'd be totally screwed if that became a "thing"! I'm not large chested, but really don't care because I can sleep on my stomach and workout pretty hard without hitting myself in the chin.

I think the height thing would also depend on how tall the woman is: if she's taller, she would probably want a taller man. For me, 5'8" works well, as I'm not quite 5'3". Being as short as I am though, I really do prefer my man to be a little taller than me, as I like to feel protected, and with someone my own height, I'd feel like I'd have to do all the protecting. My current beau put his height at 5'8" online, and in reality is probably about 5'6", which is just fine with me!


----------



## minimalME

personofinterest said:


> I have no doubt that there are men on dating sites that have just just many badd habits as the women. But I gotta say, it's hard for me to believe that it's just as hard for women as it is for men period from what I have seen, man definitely get the short end of the stick with regards to online dating.


I don't know what it's like for men in general - or for other women.

I will say that obviously men and women are different, and we're all looking for different things. 

It would help men to become more self aware of what they genuine want at this particular time in their lives and to communicate that in an honest, clear fashion. Few people write this way on their profiles, and it would save a lot of time.


----------



## Ursula

jlcrome said:


> Old for men all I got say say you better have it in the looks department. My experience so far I guess I'm a decent looking guy IDK. Message to response ratio I would say 65%'-%70 rate which is damn good for 48 years old. I talk to literally hundreds women and heard the countless stories of all the ugly guys on there. *If you not at least way above average in looks for a guy you chances are slim zero none.* Not to be bragging here most of the women I never meet mainly after knowing them online or just a distance thing.


I'd just like to say that this isn't always the case. For a lot of women, and I'm sure a lot of men, it really comes down to personality first. You can be the hottest man in the room and have the personality of a doorknob, and I wouldn't go out with you. My current beau, I wasn't physically attracted to off the start, and I didn't want to get into another relationship where I wasn't attracted to my mate. This was my marriage, but my STBXH also didn't treat me very well at all. The more I hung out with my current beau though, the more I liked him, and the attraction grew. I think he's pretty damn hot now! And just for the record, he isn't much taller than me, is bald, bearded and while most of him is in decent shape from working out, he does have a pot-belly.


----------



## uhtred

It feels like there is room for some company to really disrupt the OLD business. It seems like a situation where some machine learning could help a lot - something that starts to recognize people's preferences and provide better match suggestions. Then people could spend much more time thinking about the potentially good matches, rather than trying to quickly choose out of a huge number of "possibles". 

I have a similar problem with job applicants. When I post a job I sometimes get hundreds of applicants - all of whom claim to meet the requirements, but very few who actually do. That means that I need to quickly reject many applicants that really should have gotten a longer look.


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> It feels like there is room for some company to really disrupt the OLD business. It seems like a situation where some machine learning could help a lot - something that starts to recognize people's preferences and provide better match suggestions. Then people could spend much more time thinking about the potentially good matches, rather than trying to quickly choose out of a huge number of "possibles".
> 
> I have a similar problem with job applicants. When I post a job I sometimes get hundreds of applicants - all of whom claim to meet the requirements, but very few who actually do. That means that I need to quickly reject many applicants that really should have gotten a longer look.


They already use algorithms to send you matches based on ones you’ve already liked. The problem is no algorithm can actually know the people behind the profiles in order to “match” you with someone “similar” to who you’ve clicked before. The algorithm doesn’t know that you clicked this one guy because you liked his upper body and this other guy because you liked what he said about his career. The program will send you profiles that match the other 2 in ways you weren’t really looking at. Like they will send guys of similar age and profile settings. That’s all they can really go by and it is not the same as what we are actually finding attractive on profiles.


----------



## Ursula

Faithful Wife said:


> They already use algorithms to send you matches based on ones you’ve already liked. The problem is no algorithm can actually know the people behind the profiles in order to “match” you with someone “similar” to who you’ve clicked before. The algorithm doesn’t know that you clicked this one guy because you liked his upper body and this other guy because you liked what he said about his career. The program will send you profiles that match the other 2 in ways you weren’t really looking at. Like they will send guys of similar age and profile settings. That’s all they can really go by and it is not the same as what we are actually finding attractive on profiles.


Many of the site (the paid ones, I'm not sure about the free ones) use algorithms that go by what you put in your profile as well. Many of the paid sites have a lengthy questionnaire that members fill out, and that questionnaire has to do with career, religion, values, goals, wants, needs, likes, dislikes, personal preferences, etc., and that's how the site matches you with possible matches.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ursula said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already use algorithms to send you matches based on ones you’ve already liked. The problem is no algorithm can actually know the people behind the profiles in order to “match” you with someone “similar” to who you’ve clicked before. The algorithm doesn’t know that you clicked this one guy because you liked his upper body and this other guy because you liked what he said about his career. The program will send you profiles that match the other 2 in ways you weren’t really looking at. Like they will send guys of similar age and profile settings. That’s all they can really go by and it is not the same as what we are actually finding attractive on profiles.
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the site (the paid ones, I'm not sure about the free ones) use algorithms that go by what you put in your profile as well. Many of the paid sites have a lengthy questionnaire that members fill out, and that questionnaire has to do with career, religion, values, goals, wants, needs, likes, dislikes, personal preferences, etc., and that's how the site matches you with possible matches.
Click to expand...

That’s what I meant by matching with profile settings. 

Though none of these will actually determine if you are attracted to the person behind the profile.


----------



## Cromer

Shortly after I divorced, a friend of mine who also divorced his cheating skank-ho wife talked me into setting up a couple of profiles on dating sites. I never actively did anything with them because I had little faith that I'd be successful in that environment, and fortunately, I met someone IRL. But he's a veteran at it and did quite well. He met his current GF that way and she's a really nice, non-psycho lady, but it took work.

Some sites apparently have a place to put income in your profile. He told me that when he first started, he would put $50k and get no hits. But when he put $200k, which is his actual income, he got flooded with messages. Funny.


----------



## minimalME

Cromer said:


> Some sites apparently have a place to put income in your profile. He told me that when he first started, he would put $50k and get no hits. But when he put $200k, which is his actual income, he got flooded with messages. Funny.


Not all of us are that way though. I rarely look at incomes, and even when I do, it's more curiosity than requirement.


----------



## Cromer

minimalME said:


> Not all of us are that way though. I rarely look at incomes, and even when I do, it's more curiosity than requirement.


I don't want to generalize, but there sure are a heck of a lot of them out there though. I think it goes back to what many women seem to want in relationships as they move through life. At the start, looks, things, "bad boy" etc. are the draw, but as life takes a toll, security becomes the top priority. Looking around at my friends, it looks that way at least. Completely anecdotal, but I can tell you that is the perspective of the women in my family. My mother, aunt, sister, cousins, etc. were/are very upfront about it. My sister is on her third husband, 22 years her senior, and she's very frank that if he didn't have money she wouldn't have given him a second thought.

My mother was very blunt about it. To paraphrase, she said that she went from tall, dark and handsome to "gotta have more than two nickels to rub together" :laugh: Ironically she finally found it after six marriages, a decent guy who treated her right and had money. She still cheated *sigh*.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> They already use algorithms to send you matches based on ones you’ve already liked. The problem is no algorithm can actually know the people behind the profiles in order to “match” you with someone “similar” to who you’ve clicked before. The algorithm doesn’t know that you clicked this one guy because you liked his upper body and this other guy because you liked what he said about his career. The program will send you profiles that match the other 2 in ways you weren’t really looking at. Like they will send guys of similar age and profile settings. That’s all they can really go by and it is not the same as what we are actually finding attractive on profiles.


Combine this with the fact that many people fill out profiles for what they should want versus what they actually do want, and you have a recipe for ho-hum matches.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## minimalME

Cromer said:


> I don't want to generalize, but there sure are a heck of a lot of them out there though. I think it goes back to what many women seem to want in relationships as they move through life. At the start, looks, things, "bad boy" etc. are the draw, but as life takes a toll, security becomes the top priority. Looking around at my friends, it looks that way at least. Completely anecdotal, but I can tell you that is the perspective of the women in my family. My mother, aunt, sister, cousins, etc. were/are very upfront about it. My sister is on her third husband, 22 years her senior, and she's very frank that if he didn't have money she wouldn't have given him a second thought.
> 
> My mother was very blunt about it. To paraphrase, she said that she went from tall, dark and handsome to "gotta have more than two nickels to rub together" :laugh: Ironically she finally found it after six marriages, a decent guy who treated her right and had money. She still cheated *sigh*.


That's a lot of marriages! 

My experience (from the female perspective, obviously) is that I often feel as though I'm being treated like an escort service.

I understand that healthy men want sex, but it's become the predominant topic of conversation in early dating, with casual sex being the unspoken expectation.

I had one man spend an entire first date trying to talk me into a FWB situation. I had another invite me to his house for the weekend for a second date. Then there are those who offer hotel rooms, or guys on vacation/business trips who want a dinner companion - and I know I'd never see them again.

To me, it's all become a mind numbing mess.


----------



## uhtred

I was thinking machine learning because in time it could pick up on things like that. Figure out some of the complex patterns of what you like and dislike. 

Not easy! Maybe self-driving car hard, but potentially a huge market.




Faithful Wife said:


> They already use algorithms to send you matches based on ones you’ve already liked. The problem is no algorithm can actually know the people behind the profiles in order to “match” you with someone “similar” to who you’ve clicked before. The algorithm doesn’t know that you clicked this one guy because you liked his upper body and this other guy because you liked what he said about his career. The program will send you profiles that match the other 2 in ways you weren’t really looking at. Like they will send guys of similar age and profile settings. That’s all they can really go by and it is not the same as what we are actually finding attractive on profiles.


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> I was thinking machine learning because in time it could pick up on things like that. Figure out some of the complex patterns of what you like and dislike.
> 
> Not easy! Maybe self-driving car hard, but potentially a huge market.


Can you explain more? Is there a difference between computer algorithms and “machine learning?” Though I still don’t see anything that could make such predictions. A human match maker who knows you well and can find other people who you will probably be into is the only thing I would think works, and even then it doesn’t always work.


----------



## ReformedHubby

X


----------



## uhtred

Machine learning (sometimes called "artificial intelligence" lets the compute look for patterns. So for example if I show a machine learning algorithm a large number of photographs, and label some of them as "flowers", the algorithm will "learn" what characteristics things we call "flowers" have. It may look for colors - but still accept white flowers if the meet other requirements. It will look for petals. For symmetry etc. The modern algorithms do quite well for many problems.

Applied to a dating app, you would at first rate how interesting people you saw on the app were to you. The machine learning algorithm would correlate that with all the information it has. It might find that you don't select men with beards, or men that are slouching in their pictures. It might find that you often select men with more rugged facial expressions. It would fine patterns in people's descriptions of themselves that you liked. Eventually it would get better at guessing. 

But it wouldn't stop there. It has access to what millions of other people like and dislike and can combine that together. I could learn that other people with similar preferences to yours are more attracted to certain people. 


Its different from a human matchmaker. A human matchmaker can have a very deep understanding of what you want, but can really only read maybe hundreds of detailed profiles. The machine learning algorithm can scan millions of profiles, but doesn't have as good a knowledge of what you want. OTOH, the machine algorithm will have done this for millions of other women, so it will have more "experience" than the matchmaker.

Would it be better? I don't know. I'm not a machine learning expert, and I've never used online dating sites, so in some sense I'm the worst possible person to talk about this. OTOH I have seen machine learning do some pretty remarkable things and I think its possible. Time to make a start-up....











Faithful Wife said:


> Can you explain more? Is there a difference between computer algorithms and “machine learning?” Though I still don’t see anything that could make such predictions. A human match maker who knows you well and can find other people who you will probably be into is the only thing I would think works, and even then it doesn’t always work.


----------



## honcho

farsidejunky said:


> Combine this with the fact that many people fill out profiles for what they should want versus what they actually do want, and you have a recipe for ho-hum matches.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Well putting in a profile I'm looking for someone who cooks, cleans, never refuses sex and enjoys it and is rich tends to get no matches >


----------



## Faithful Wife

uhtred said:


> Machine learning (sometimes called "artificial intelligence" lets the compute look for patterns. So for example if I show a machine learning algorithm a large number of photographs, and label some of them as "flowers", the algorithm will "learn" what characteristics things we call "flowers" have. It may look for colors - but still accept white flowers if the meet other requirements. It will look for petals. For symmetry etc. The modern algorithms do quite well for many problems.
> 
> Applied to a dating app, you would at first rate how interesting people you saw on the app were to you. The machine learning algorithm would correlate that with all the information it has. It might find that you don't select men with beards, or men that are slouching in their pictures. It might find that you often select men with more rugged facial expressions. It would fine patterns in people's descriptions of themselves that you liked. Eventually it would get better at guessing.
> 
> But it wouldn't stop there. It has access to what millions of other people like and dislike and can combine that together. I could learn that other people with similar preferences to yours are more attracted to certain people.
> 
> 
> Its different from a human matchmaker. A human matchmaker can have a very deep understanding of what you want, but can really only read maybe hundreds of detailed profiles. The machine learning algorithm can scan millions of profiles, but doesn't have as good a knowledge of what you want. OTOH, the machine algorithm will have done this for millions of other women, so it will have more "experience" than the matchmaker.
> 
> Would it be better? I don't know. I'm not a machine learning expert, and I've never used online dating sites, so in some sense I'm the worst possible person to talk about this. OTOH I have seen machine learning do some pretty remarkable things and I think its possible. Time to make a start-up....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain more? Is there a difference between computer algorithms and “machine learning?” Though I still don’t see anything that could make such predictions. A human match maker who knows you well and can find other people who you will probably be into is the only thing I would think works, and even then it doesn’t always work.
Click to expand...

It would be cool to create a test run of your idea.

The thing is, within a certain area, there are only so many people/profiles. On the apps I have used, you can just list everyone in your preferred groups of attributes. You can see all of them that way. So there is no one out there that may come up on a different type of choosing mode that you can’t see already by just listing everyone.

If someone is willing to travel the globe for a partner, your idea would be awesome in narrowing down their potential preferred profiles. 

In my area, I would guess there are only a
few thousand who match my parameters. And then there is the matter of whether I feel attraction or the potential for it based on profiles and pics combined. 

For me, even if a program sent me better matches than what the current ones do, I don’t think they would find anyone I hadn’t already come across.

What has worked well that I cannot predict, is when a man I wouldn’t normally consider who would be outside my search parameters, but he reaches out to me anyway and we just click. So if a program could offer choices like this somehow that would be cool.


----------



## john117

Machine learning for facial expression and body posture is reality... We're working on picking up emotional nuances during product testing or encounters. 

To identify "beauty" based on one's preferences or swipes is also fairly possible. The Chinese are spending billions - literally - on things like those. In simple terms, you get a million images, then "annotate" them, that is, mark the face and enter various characteristics. Eyes, hair, etc. Then throw the annotated images into the machine learning framework and "train" it. Eventually you have a model that can read a new picture of a person and give you a pretty good estimate of what it thinks, ie age, gender, race, ethnicity, emotional state, and even "beauty"...


----------



## uhtred

I've got to imagine that the big dating sites are looking into this sort of thing - machine learning is a very hot topic now. Maybe something will come out of it, maybe not. 

The limited search area is of course a big limit. I guess that varies a lot between people in low density areas and people who live near big cities. 

In all of this, love of course isn't rational - can't be put down to a set of parameters. As you say, sometimes people just "click" even though you might not guess from their stated preferences / profiles.






Faithful Wife said:


> It would be cool to create a test run of your idea.
> 
> The thing is, within a certain area, there are only so many people/profiles. On the apps I have used, you can just list everyone in your preferred groups of attributes. You can see all of them that way. So there is no one out there that may come up on a different type of choosing mode that you can’t see already by just listing everyone.
> 
> If someone is willing to travel the globe for a partner, your idea would be awesome in narrowing down their potential preferred profiles.
> 
> In my area, I would guess there are only a
> few thousand who match my parameters. And then there is the matter of whether I feel attraction or the potential for it based on profiles and pics combined.
> 
> For me, even if a program sent me better matches than what the current ones do, I don’t think they would find anyone I hadn’t already come across.
> 
> What has worked well that I cannot predict, is when a man I wouldn’t normally consider who would be outside my search parameters, but he reaches out to me anyway and we just click. So if a program could offer choices like this somehow that would be cool.


----------



## RandomDude

uhtred said:


> In all of this, love of course isn't rational - can't be put down to a set of parameters. As you say, sometimes people just "click" even though you might not guess from their stated preferences / profiles.


Yup

But speaking of parameters, isn't it better to go blind? People can list all their preferences and likes and qualities they look for whatever, and their date can just fake all of that to get some action. Start of the bait and switch, some people can lie for years.

My girlfriend and I who I met randomly on my lunch break... we never told each other what we wanted. We just let each other be ourselves and we got lucky that we simply matched perfectly. We only told each other what we liked about each other - after both of us proved that quality by being who we are with action and examples consistently, not just with each other either, but others.

This approach also establishes trust alot quicker than if you just given someone the answers to your questions already.


----------



## uhtred

There is a tradeoff. I think you get to know someone much better if you just meet them casually, but OTOH, you can only meet a fairly small number of people in real life, compared to the number you can meet in OLD.

Maybe it depends on how unusual your wants are. If what you are looking for is fairly common - healthy, attractive, loyal, dedicated, etc etc, wants 2 kids and a dog, and frequent passionate sex - you can probably do very well in real life. 

If you want something unusual - Interest in mountaineering, or astrophysics, or kinky sex, etc, you may never happy to meet someone who matches what you want. 






RandomDude said:


> Yup
> 
> But speaking of parameters, isn't it better to go blind? People can list all their preferences and likes and qualities they look for whatever, and their date can just fake all of that to get some action. Start of the bait and switch, some people can lie for years.
> 
> My girlfriend and I who I met randomly on my lunch break... we never told each other what we wanted. We just let each other be ourselves and we got lucky that we simply matched perfectly. We only told each other what we liked about each other - after both of us proved that quality by being who we are with action and examples consistently, not just with each other either, but others.
> 
> This approach also establishes trust alot quicker than if you just given someone the answers to your questions already.


----------



## growing_weary

In my experience you get a lot people who just want to hook up (which is fine but not my endgame). Depending on the site you get enough info to go on (like the League has basically their entire CV from LinkedIn on there, but way fewer matches). Apps like Hinge sometimes suggest people you might like based on previous likes (but they always seem to get it wrong).

Depending on where the profile is you get a lot of younger men looking to hook up or men much older than their profile states. The ones who are my age tend to look a little... rode hard and hung up wet. Plus they're either looking for no commitment or tooooo much commitment. Like psycho clingy "I envy the sun because it gets to see you first in the morning" dude that I only chatted with for 10 mins. vs dude looking for someone who "doesn't need a lot of attention outside the bedroom. Not interested in pen pals, dating or small talk." It's hard to find a happy medium. 

I'm in NYC, so whenever there's an awards ceremony you get people wanting a date to, say, the Tonys or they have "extra" concert tickets. Also there are a bunch of people "just here for the week" who want a hotel room tryst.

Since my profiles mention that I game and like geeky things I also get a lot of super nerdy and sometimes slightly obsessive types. Like one who thought it was a compliment to tell me I must get told I looked like Maeve from Westworld a lot (nah) and that he gets told he looks like Seth Rogen a lot (but doesn't see it). My friend and I had a laugh about that. She settled on "good skin?" as the only similarity. Or the one who asked if I ever dressed up as a succubus from World of Warcraft. Or the ones that want to watch you play video games in person (not twitch). 

And the d pics. So many d pics. Most don't even ask if you want to see them first. XD And if it's not d pics it's "do you want this [mad-libs] c*ck?" Doesn't matter if they filled out their profile looking for something long term or not IME. Bumble's no better than Tinder. Majority want the same thing irrespective of the app.

You kinda have to approach it as a numbers game, and mostly as a source of amusement for all your friends. You gain a bunch of experience and stories and hope that one day you actually find someone whose sphere of stuff meshes well enough with yours


----------



## jlcrome

No complaint here my experience is OLD has been decent. Don't believe the hype of the male to female ratio. Actually when you eliminate bad profiles, unattractive, scammers, men looking for sex you actually got the odds for you as a guy. It's not a numbers game it's an attraction game. Look very attractive, dress well, act confident!! I have zero problems meeting women on-line you just have to know how to hack the system to work in your favor.


----------



## Wolf1974

Sue4473 said:


> My beef is I have a few male friends who are on dating sites. When I’ve talked with them on how’s it going/ met anyone to move forward etc..
> They immediately say- I’m getting off they are nothing but liars and women who aren’t who they say they are.
> But yet I continue to see them on
> Do they think that there true love will somehow appear on that magical computer screen? It comes off as bitter. I’m personally done with online dating, and tired of the drama that comes with. Just looking for the men’s view on this issue.


 They are right lots lot liars and fake women/profiles online. On the other side women put up with a lot of players and *********s. Online dating isn’t for the weak or thin skinned. It will humble and frustrate you at times man or woman and this is coming from a guy who had a lot of success and still a big fan of online dating. At the end of the day I went out on hundreds of dates over a 4 year period and they all ended until I met my Gf who I have been dating for 5 years. She was worth the wait of going through all the crap. It only has to be right one time .


----------

