3 ms·

"I felt for those guys. Each one pouring out his heart, projecting his hopes onto Valerie, hoping she'll reply with equal enthusiasm, hoping she might be the o

by araneae 17y ago

"I felt for those guys. Each one pouring out his heart, projecting his hopes onto Valerie, hoping she'll reply with equal enthusiasm, hoping she might be the one that will finally see and appreciate him. She said, “Ugh. Losers. I get like ten of these a day,” and clicked [delete] on all of them, without replying." While his thesis might be true, this is not a good example of it. Those guys undoubtedly sent off many such heartfelt messages each day. They're playing the law of averages, and their chances are much better if they indicate they read her profile. And like she said, she gets 10 of those messages everyday, so she can afford to be choosy. If she answered every one of them back, they would all e-mail her back, and get their hopes up, and she'd have to e-mail back... It's a waste of her time to bother. It's not callous, it's a reflection of the reality that men are much easier than women, making women a comparatively rare commodity. This happens in real life all the time, and the only thing that's different online is that men can send such messages without having to overcome their shyness. So women get many more messages, and have to be comparatively more selective with them.

HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago
it's a reflection of the reality that men are much easier than women Despite what so many people believe, no such reality exists. But it's easy to console oneself by thinking so. The situation was summed up quite well by a (female) friend long ago: "it's easy to find a guy to sleep with. The much harder part is finding a guy you'd want to sleep with a second time." I've known a wide variety of people (intimately speaking) and I don't believe that men are easier, it's just that we're socialized to be the initiators and women the receptors. Many, many, many women would love to be the initiators (my friend above certainly), but societal pressures inhibit most of them. Thankfully that seems to be changing, but I'm married now, so lot of good it does me :-)
- araneae 17y ago
  it's just that we're socialized Okcupid has the data, and men are more likely to message women than vice versa. Whether or not it's innate is irrelevant to this conversation. But since you like anecdotal evidence so much, here: http://www.wetherobots.com/comics/2008-01-07-Misinformed.jpg http://www.wetherobots.com/comics/2008-01-07-Misinformed.jpg
  - ekiru 17y ago
    How does that prove that men are "easier" than women? It only indicates that within Okcupid's membership, men are more likely to initiate communication with a potential partner. Perhaps women are no more selective than men, but simply typically prefer for men to initiate the conversation, as your parent post claims.
- sofal 17y ago
  I think maybe you misunderstood what "easy" means in this context. It means casual and unrestrained in sexual behavior. In other words, your friend's quote confirms this. If you want more examples, try Chatroulette. Whether or not it's easy to find a good man is an entirely different question.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Hmmm. No i think it's mostly equal in the real world. Chat roulette is probably a bad example.
gcheong 17y ago
I don't know why she branded them all losers, but it sounded like the old "I would never join any organization that would have me as a member joke" to me. In other words "I would never date anyone who would want to date me".
- HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago
  Possibly the way they came across. It's best to be somewhat restrained the first time you contact someone online before you know how they react to things. The guys' heartfelt messages could very likely come across as being needy and that's a definite turnoff. TMI on a first contact is not a good idea!
  - itistoday 17y ago
    This entire concept of "coming off as needy" and "TMI on a first contact is bad" is just depressing to me. Whether it's true or not isn't what concerns me. What I find puzzling is that these are considered negative things. Sometimes totally self-reliant people can come off, to someone else, as needy. It's silly to make snap judgments like that without even speaking to them. I adore people who are open. Openness is a quality that I think some people mistake for "neediness." I consider openness to be a very valuable quality. I think this would be a much better world if it was OK to be open. The other day a guy walked up to me during a fair and said, "Oooo, damn, look at those legs." He was referring to some girl. I thought he sounded like an idiot, and could have said, "Excuse me, I have to run." Instead, I carried on a conversation and ended up speaking to him for over 2 hours. Discovered that I, a liberal, borderline hippie could easily converse with a former soldier who just came back from Iraq, on various political topics no less! It was because we were both immediately open with each other, we were able to get along and have a great conversation despite each of our flaws (his gawking, my arrogance). If someone writes you a sincere letter, I don't care how many of those you get, I hope you have the decency to reply, even if it's just to say that you're not interested. If you can't handle it, then what, may I ask, are you doing on that dating site in the first place?
    - HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago
potatolicious 17y ago
> "It's a waste of her time to bother." I agree, in this case since she has no interest in them, it would be a waste of everyone's time to write back. She could write a "sorry, not interested" message back, but it's really not necessary. That being said though, what got me about that example was "Ugh, losers" - it's not so much the fact that she ignored the message, but rather that she has judged these men who have (insofar as we know) shown no such indication, and from what we know wrote well-penned, thoughtful messages.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by araneae 17y ago

HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago

it's a reflection of the reality that men are much easier than women Despite what so many people believe, no such reality exists. But it's easy to console oneself by thinking so. The situation was summed up quite well by a (female) friend long ago: "it's easy to find a guy to sleep with. The much harder part is finding a guy you'd want to sleep with a second time." I've known a wide variety of people (intimately speaking) and I don't believe that men are easier, it's just that we're socialized to be the initiators and women the receptors. Many, many, many women would love to be the initiators (my friend above certainly), but societal pressures inhibit most of them. Thankfully that seems to be changing, but I'm married now, so lot of good it does me :-)

araneae 17y ago
it's just that we're socialized Okcupid has the data, and men are more likely to message women than vice versa. Whether or not it's innate is irrelevant to this conversation. But since you like anecdotal evidence so much, here: http://www.wetherobots.com/comics/2008-01-07-Misinformed.jpg http://www.wetherobots.com/comics/2008-01-07-Misinformed.jpg
- ekiru 17y ago
  How does that prove that men are "easier" than women? It only indicates that within Okcupid's membership, men are more likely to initiate communication with a potential partner. Perhaps women are no more selective than men, but simply typically prefer for men to initiate the conversation, as your parent post claims.
sofal 17y ago
I think maybe you misunderstood what "easy" means in this context. It means casual and unrestrained in sexual behavior. In other words, your friend's quote confirms this. If you want more examples, try Chatroulette. Whether or not it's easy to find a good man is an entirely different question.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Hmmm. No i think it's mostly equal in the real world. Chat roulette is probably a bad example.

gcheong 17y ago

I don't know why she branded them all losers, but it sounded like the old "I would never join any organization that would have me as a member joke" to me. In other words "I would never date anyone who would want to date me".

HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago
Possibly the way they came across. It's best to be somewhat restrained the first time you contact someone online before you know how they react to things. The guys' heartfelt messages could very likely come across as being needy and that's a definite turnoff. TMI on a first contact is not a good idea!
- itistoday 17y ago
  This entire concept of "coming off as needy" and "TMI on a first contact is bad" is just depressing to me. Whether it's true or not isn't what concerns me. What I find puzzling is that these are considered negative things. Sometimes totally self-reliant people can come off, to someone else, as needy. It's silly to make snap judgments like that without even speaking to them. I adore people who are open. Openness is a quality that I think some people mistake for "neediness." I consider openness to be a very valuable quality. I think this would be a much better world if it was OK to be open. The other day a guy walked up to me during a fair and said, "Oooo, damn, look at those legs." He was referring to some girl. I thought he sounded like an idiot, and could have said, "Excuse me, I have to run." Instead, I carried on a conversation and ended up speaking to him for over 2 hours. Discovered that I, a liberal, borderline hippie could easily converse with a former soldier who just came back from Iraq, on various political topics no less! It was because we were both immediately open with each other, we were able to get along and have a great conversation despite each of our flaws (his gawking, my arrogance). If someone writes you a sincere letter, I don't care how many of those you get, I hope you have the decency to reply, even if it's just to say that you're not interested. If you can't handle it, then what, may I ask, are you doing on that dating site in the first place?
  - HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago

potatolicious 17y ago

> "It's a waste of her time to bother." I agree, in this case since she has no interest in them, it would be a waste of everyone's time to write back. She could write a "sorry, not interested" message back, but it's really not necessary. That being said though, what got me about that example was "Ugh, losers" - it's not so much the fact that she ignored the message, but rather that she has judged these men who have (insofar as we know) shown no such indication, and from what we know wrote well-penned, thoughtful messages.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]