What I mean is that I want to have the correct information rather than incorrect information.Originally Posted by ToomuchStuff
I am willing to bet scientists also want the correct information.
What I mean is that I want to have the correct information rather than incorrect information.
I am willing to bet scientists also want the correct information.
When did I say I need to be right? Find that and quote me. Preview: You can't! Gotcha.
From a different angle, my DD uses Tinder and some of the people she has met go on as many as 20 dates per WEEK. So, they are dating a lot of people just once. That's a lot of rejection going around.
Women have a huge pool to choose from in online dating; they get far more swipes than men. So they can be ultra-choosy. They need ways to sort out who to go out with. DD has over 900 swipes (I think that's what she calls them) and we live in a city of around 20,000 (3,000 at the University.)
Having a cell phone wouldn't matter to her - at least not at first, though if she waited around in the rain for someone who couldn't text her, well, that's another story. She does want someone who is at least as tall as she is, and attractive, and no drugs or smoke.
Women are the deciders in the online dating world. It's just the way it is.
Also, with all those 'likes' DD has gone on a total of three Tinder dates, which were fun but, no sparks.
Rough thought experiment here...
Let's look at it this way: Suppose there are 1000 men on Tindr and 1000 women on Tindr.
A huge number of those men are swiping on a huge number of women. Does this really mean they have a huge pool to choose from or that lots and lots of low-quality men are swiping them? Your DD three dates would tell me that lots of low-quality men are swiping her.
So let's say that 100 of those thousand men are high quality. For there to be a huge pool of quality men for women to choose from then there would have to be what 10 or 20 quality women within that pool of a thousand women?
I ain't no ladies man, but I reject more women on Match.com than reject me. I could go on a date every other day fairly easily. But I can weed a lot of these women out: They want kids, they have a gazillion kids, they are high maintenance, they are super religious, etc.
I have women "liking" me and sending me messages often. And I am a 39 year old, 5'9", balding, fat, middle aged divorcee with three useless degrees, and an unremarkable career.
If I was also Christian and wanted babies I could probably be married to an attractive physician in 6 months.
Who is the arbiter of "high quality"? What criterion does someone have to meet to be considered "high quality"? 20-something? Full head of hair? Steady job? Steady job that pays more than X a year? Never been married? Never been divorced? IMWTK...
For what it's worth, I probably went on dates with four women I met on-line (the last being DW) and I dated one woman who introduced herself to me via an email through mutual friends.
DW and I have been doing fine for more than a decade and are looking forward to growing old together. With two of the women I dated, one date was enough for us to decide we weren't for each other. The other woman and I dated for 4-5 months; she dropped me for a musician but they've been married for eight years now, she has a successful career with her own business, and both of her kids are out of the house and in college. The woman I was introduced to via email dated me for about three months before we broke up; she had a different timetable for getting remarried than I did, but she has been married to the same guy for more than a decade now, also has a successful career, launched three great kids, is a grandma several times over, and leads an active social life among her husband and her own friends.
Even though I am not with either one of those women, I would not characterize them as less than "high quality". We simply didn't want the same things from life (or at least at the same time). Certainly there were on-line postings by people whom you could pretty well tell had "issues" (or at least enough symptoms of them that I could surmise that wouldn't be my thing). But either I was one of the luckiest guys around or there are more "high quality" women out there than you seem to think.
Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome. - Booker T. Washington
Okay, obviously Match.com and Tinder are very different.
If the problem is that women don't know about your lack of cell phone until you date them, then clearly you should put it in your profile. Now you know it's an issue, be upfront about it.
Tinder is more of a "hook-up" site for sex whereas Match is relationship-oriented.
I am upfront about not being a cellulite during the first set of messages exchanged on the site. Or during the first phone call.
What I find to be interesting is that the women's choice to decline me based on my cell phone is resoundingly defended even though it has nothing to do with my character, my ethics, my kindness, my dedication as a partner, etc. It has nothing to do with anything of substance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote