5 ms·

Ask a heterosexual woman in that age range about how many awful conversations she's had with men in that age range via dating apps. She won't say "a few", she'l

Ask a heterosexual woman in that age range about how many awful conversations she's had with men in that age range via dating apps. She won't say "a few", she'll say "A LOT", and be able to show that the vast majority of messages she gets are either very dry or insanely forward (sexually). If you're a great-looking guy and you can't start or hold a good conversation, you can still get laid on the basis of looks. But if you don't look good, you don't get those grace points. I've seen guys (who look much better than I do) fail at getting laid on dating apps after LOADS of attempts, and despite being their friend, I must say the messages they've shown me are AWFUL. Not just "this isn't that great", but "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING???". When I was single (despite my looks), I found it really easy to get dates and get laid using dating apps, because I could actually hold conversations. And I know others just like me, who've gotten similar results.

black-tea 8y ago
Yes. Don't forget that the male IQ bell curve is wider than the female one. The most intelligent people in the world are men. The stupidest people in the world are men too.
skocznymroczny 8y ago
On the other hand, there are multiple experiments with people creating a male profile with a photo of an attractive guy and sending explicitly sexual and vulgar messages as an introduction and still getting a lot of replies and phone numbers. At some point of attractiveness a guy can start the conversation with "I'd love to slide it in you" and the girl will reply with "hihi ok :) 123-456-789" rather than "leave me alone perv".
- namarie 8y ago
  Got any source for that?
  - oneshotthrowawa 8y ago
    Not an easy read: https://i.imgur.com/HO430mM.jpg https://i.imgur.com/HO430mM.jpg https://i.imgur.com/4WPshhw.jpg https://i.imgur.com/4WPshhw.jpg This has been done many, many times. The keyword is "chadfishing"
  - wetpaws 8y ago
    https://www.boredpanda.com/social-experiment-guy-created-fake-tinder-profile-hot-model-pictures-germanlifter/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic https://www.boredpanda.com/social-experiment-guy-created-fak...
- jamescostian 8y ago
  It sounds like we agree. I said this: >> If you're a great-looking guy and you can't start or hold a good conversation, you can still get laid on the basis of looks. But if you don't look good, you don't get those grace points
bylfdsa 8y ago
As someone who has been on the sending the awful messages (as in what were you thinking, not too forwards) side, I would like to postulate that having (and starting) conversations on a dating app is very different than in person. I can usually start in person conversations and keep them going for much longer than on a dating app (some go better than others, but on the whole I do better in person).
- fxbl0i 8y ago
  It's much harder to keep a conversation in a dating app when you know you're 1 of 50 men sending that girl messages, and knowing that many of those other 49 men are more attractive than you are, so you're practically losing your time.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
UweSchmidt 8y ago
This is another trouble with dating apps. How can you possibly make a meaningful connection with another person through an app? There's nothing but a profile pic and some generic text. These "creepy" guys would likely be totally fine in an informal, real-world situation. They would be all right in the workplace, sports club, college study group or by coming along a group of friends, being introduced in person. They can hold conversations, but are subject to the imbalanced dating mechanics as discussed exhaustively in this thread. (This doesn't excuse some of the weaker shit that some guys seem to try though.) Fortunately there are niches in society where regular guys are in high demand by attractive women, and observing that is fascinating. Has there just been a war and all the decent guys died? Ah no, were are just here.
- skohan 8y ago
  Thankfully I'm currently off the market, but I've spent some time in the Tinder subreddit out of morbid curiosity. The Tinder "mating dance" so far as it's celebrated in that community seems to consist of some combination of the following: 1. Forced puns about the girl's name. 2. Long, extremely high-effort descriptions of hypothetical scenarios to establish how "unique" the suitor is. 3. Awkward double-entendres and transitions to a sexual topic. It just strikes me what a weird filter this is for who gets to have sex, and how nice it is to meet people in real-life. I think one of the saddest things, if true, are the reports that younger generations are more likely to view any real-world approaches as inappropriate as the online alternative has now been designated the official channel for meeting people.
- jamescostian 8y ago
  If they would be fine in an informal, real-world situation, why can't they do the same via an app? All the things you would say in real life can be said via dating apps. You miss body language, but GIFs, emojis, and memes can help clarify.
  - UweSchmidt 8y ago
    I can see how it is difficult for women to empathic about the situation. Due to the asymmetry in dating as outlined elsewhere in this thread and proven with loads of data the average guy has little success with online dating compared to the average women, giving you little opportunity to appreciate the challenges many men face with a very basic need. Those curious messages in your inbox are not just as your personal trouble (why don't more suitable mates show up?) but also as a symptom of a changing society that sees growing individualism, stratification, weird one-way relationships with social media and much more... and that all of this produces many losers that no one gives a shit about.
telesilla 8y ago
Speaking as a heterosexual woman who has enjoyed meeting up via dating apps, it's ALWAYS about the conversation that results in an actual date. A less attractive guy can make himself get a foot in the door by using really interesting photos. All you need is the swipe-right then use your confidence and humour to get a date. It works for many of us (women). If it helps to know, a lot of us share screenshots of our conversations with our friends and get advice about what to say, how to start a conversation (or, I'll admit, to laugh about the ridiculous ones - consider this as us sharing risk-knowledge). Maybe get some advice if you're not sure how to go about it at first.
- blockmarker 8y ago
  That is helpful. But what does less attractive mean? Because by OkCupid's own stats, women find most men to be under-average(https://web.archive.org/web/20170330131859/https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e https://web.archive.org/web/20170330131859/https://theblog.o...) EDIT: By this I mean, how much unattractiveness can actually be compensated for by being more interesting. Specially since you can't do that much with photos.
  - jamescostian 8y ago
    > how much unattractiveness can actually be compensated for by being more interesting Good question - IDK! Based on what I've heard and seen (I have a lot of close friends who are women my age), there are a lot who talk about wanting someone super attractive, but all of them have also dated people who are noticeably less attractive than they are. So I'd guess the answer is somewhere between "a lot" and "a good amount". I'm sure if someone's absolutely hideous it will be a lot harder, but outside of the bottom ~10% of males, being good at conversing can make up for a lot. > Specially since you can't do that much with photos. As someone who isn't very attractive, I disagree. Photos can be a chance to make someone laugh or show them you have a (not-boring) personality. You can show people that you travel or do something adventurous, show people you like cute animals or are affectionate, show people a party pic so they see your wild side, etc. You just show them the attributes you want them to see, and make them want to be with you based on what they see.
magicalhippo 8y ago
> or insanely forward (sexually) If you're not after a relationship but to get laid, then that might be a good strategy. Yes you'll get much fewer positive responses but but the false positive rate should be way lower.
- namarie 8y ago
  But you have to admit it's a lot more risky. Also, plenty of people are looking forward to a good laid but are turned off if you just spam innuendo or are too forward.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  > If you're not after a relationship but to get laid, then that might be a good strategy. Why not replace your headshot with a dick pic, in that case?
- jamescostian 8y ago
  I suppose if you want to get laid infrequently (or you're attractive enough for bad messages to work) then this is the best solution.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Having spent a fair amount of time doing the online dating thing at one point in my life, and having taken the time and effort on writing good messages, I don't feel like this is true at all. That's why you see men writing a bunch of generic low effort messages to women: because it is ultimately a more successful strategy.
- jamescostian 8y ago
  I'm interested in your counter-point, and have a couple of questions: - When you were writing good messages, were things very conversational and informal? - Did you ever get reviews from women about how you were good at conversing? It also counts if they told you how the other guys they talked on dating apps were mostly awful at talking - Would you are cognizant of messaging social norms (e.g. you know when to omit punctuation, shorten words, keep your messages short, avoid "double-texting", space out the time between texts, etc) and were good at following them during your online dating? - Were you in the age range that the article talks about? Putting effort into a messaging is definitely important, but there are a lot of small and strange details that make large differences in how those messages come off and how much people enjoy them. I'm not trying to bash you, just wondering if you're actually great at these conversations, in the age range I'm in, and yet still not getting good results. > That's why you see men writing a bunch of generic low effort messages to women: because it is ultimately a more successful strategy. If you're very attractive, yes. But if you're aren't very attractive and you're sending bad messages, how is that more successful than sending good messages? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. By "low effort messages" do you mean "bad messages" or do you mean "fluid messages without overthinking or too much detail"
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    > When you were writing good messages, were things very conversational and informal? What else would they be? > Did you ever get reviews from women about how you were good at conversing? No, but women rarely respond at all so I'm not exactly surprised by that. Even the women I eventually went on dates with never mentioned it. > Would you are cognizant of messaging social norms I would say I actively detest messaging social norms. I write legible full English sentences just like you see here because I'm an adult. I specifically ruled out women who obviously felt differently. > If you're very attractive, yes. If anything I would say that being very attractive is the only circumstance under which you can reliably get results without spamming low-effort messages. > But if you're aren't very attractive and you're sending bad messages, how is that more successful than sending good messages? Numbers. What my experience taught me was that message content was basically unimportant, what mattered was reaching out to as many potentials as possible in the hopes of a few being receptive. It was a strategy I detested. Combined with the general tediousness and awfulness of the online dating experience I decided I'd rather not date than engage in it. By "low-effort" I mean messages that are basically form letters one can apply to anyone so you don't have to put any thought into crafting them for the person you're trying to talk to.

black-tea 8y ago

Yes. Don't forget that the male IQ bell curve is wider than the female one. The most intelligent people in the world are men. The stupidest people in the world are men too.

skocznymroczny 8y ago

On the other hand, there are multiple experiments with people creating a male profile with a photo of an attractive guy and sending explicitly sexual and vulgar messages as an introduction and still getting a lot of replies and phone numbers. At some point of attractiveness a guy can start the conversation with "I'd love to slide it in you" and the girl will reply with "hihi ok :) 123-456-789" rather than "leave me alone perv".

namarie 8y ago
Got any source for that?
- oneshotthrowawa 8y ago
  Not an easy read: https://i.imgur.com/HO430mM.jpg https://i.imgur.com/HO430mM.jpg https://i.imgur.com/4WPshhw.jpg https://i.imgur.com/4WPshhw.jpg This has been done many, many times. The keyword is "chadfishing"
- wetpaws 8y ago
  https://www.boredpanda.com/social-experiment-guy-created-fake-tinder-profile-hot-model-pictures-germanlifter/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic https://www.boredpanda.com/social-experiment-guy-created-fak...
jamescostian 8y ago
It sounds like we agree. I said this: >> If you're a great-looking guy and you can't start or hold a good conversation, you can still get laid on the basis of looks. But if you don't look good, you don't get those grace points

bylfdsa 8y ago

As someone who has been on the sending the awful messages (as in what were you thinking, not too forwards) side, I would like to postulate that having (and starting) conversations on a dating app is very different than in person. I can usually start in person conversations and keep them going for much longer than on a dating app (some go better than others, but on the whole I do better in person).

fxbl0i 8y ago
It's much harder to keep a conversation in a dating app when you know you're 1 of 50 men sending that girl messages, and knowing that many of those other 49 men are more attractive than you are, so you're practically losing your time.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

UweSchmidt 8y ago

This is another trouble with dating apps. How can you possibly make a meaningful connection with another person through an app? There's nothing but a profile pic and some generic text. These "creepy" guys would likely be totally fine in an informal, real-world situation. They would be all right in the workplace, sports club, college study group or by coming along a group of friends, being introduced in person. They can hold conversations, but are subject to the imbalanced dating mechanics as discussed exhaustively in this thread. (This doesn't excuse some of the weaker shit that some guys seem to try though.) Fortunately there are niches in society where regular guys are in high demand by attractive women, and observing that is fascinating. Has there just been a war and all the decent guys died? Ah no, were are just here.

skohan 8y ago
Thankfully I'm currently off the market, but I've spent some time in the Tinder subreddit out of morbid curiosity. The Tinder "mating dance" so far as it's celebrated in that community seems to consist of some combination of the following: 1. Forced puns about the girl's name. 2. Long, extremely high-effort descriptions of hypothetical scenarios to establish how "unique" the suitor is. 3. Awkward double-entendres and transitions to a sexual topic. It just strikes me what a weird filter this is for who gets to have sex, and how nice it is to meet people in real-life. I think one of the saddest things, if true, are the reports that younger generations are more likely to view any real-world approaches as inappropriate as the online alternative has now been designated the official channel for meeting people.
jamescostian 8y ago
If they would be fine in an informal, real-world situation, why can't they do the same via an app? All the things you would say in real life can be said via dating apps. You miss body language, but GIFs, emojis, and memes can help clarify.
- UweSchmidt 8y ago
  I can see how it is difficult for women to empathic about the situation. Due to the asymmetry in dating as outlined elsewhere in this thread and proven with loads of data the average guy has little success with online dating compared to the average women, giving you little opportunity to appreciate the challenges many men face with a very basic need. Those curious messages in your inbox are not just as your personal trouble (why don't more suitable mates show up?) but also as a symptom of a changing society that sees growing individualism, stratification, weird one-way relationships with social media and much more... and that all of this produces many losers that no one gives a shit about.

telesilla 8y ago

Speaking as a heterosexual woman who has enjoyed meeting up via dating apps, it's ALWAYS about the conversation that results in an actual date. A less attractive guy can make himself get a foot in the door by using really interesting photos. All you need is the swipe-right then use your confidence and humour to get a date. It works for many of us (women). If it helps to know, a lot of us share screenshots of our conversations with our friends and get advice about what to say, how to start a conversation (or, I'll admit, to laugh about the ridiculous ones - consider this as us sharing risk-knowledge). Maybe get some advice if you're not sure how to go about it at first.

blockmarker 8y ago
That is helpful. But what does less attractive mean? Because by OkCupid's own stats, women find most men to be under-average(https://web.archive.org/web/20170330131859/https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e https://web.archive.org/web/20170330131859/https://theblog.o...) EDIT: By this I mean, how much unattractiveness can actually be compensated for by being more interesting. Specially since you can't do that much with photos.
- jamescostian 8y ago
  > how much unattractiveness can actually be compensated for by being more interesting Good question - IDK! Based on what I've heard and seen (I have a lot of close friends who are women my age), there are a lot who talk about wanting someone super attractive, but all of them have also dated people who are noticeably less attractive than they are. So I'd guess the answer is somewhere between "a lot" and "a good amount". I'm sure if someone's absolutely hideous it will be a lot harder, but outside of the bottom ~10% of males, being good at conversing can make up for a lot. > Specially since you can't do that much with photos. As someone who isn't very attractive, I disagree. Photos can be a chance to make someone laugh or show them you have a (not-boring) personality. You can show people that you travel or do something adventurous, show people you like cute animals or are affectionate, show people a party pic so they see your wild side, etc. You just show them the attributes you want them to see, and make them want to be with you based on what they see.

magicalhippo 8y ago

> or insanely forward (sexually) If you're not after a relationship but to get laid, then that might be a good strategy. Yes you'll get much fewer positive responses but but the false positive rate should be way lower.

namarie 8y ago
But you have to admit it's a lot more risky. Also, plenty of people are looking forward to a good laid but are turned off if you just spam innuendo or are too forward.
JetSpiegel 8y ago
> If you're not after a relationship but to get laid, then that might be a good strategy. Why not replace your headshot with a dick pic, in that case?
jamescostian 8y ago
I suppose if you want to get laid infrequently (or you're attractive enough for bad messages to work) then this is the best solution.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

Having spent a fair amount of time doing the online dating thing at one point in my life, and having taken the time and effort on writing good messages, I don't feel like this is true at all. That's why you see men writing a bunch of generic low effort messages to women: because it is ultimately a more successful strategy.

jamescostian 8y ago
I'm interested in your counter-point, and have a couple of questions: - When you were writing good messages, were things very conversational and informal? - Did you ever get reviews from women about how you were good at conversing? It also counts if they told you how the other guys they talked on dating apps were mostly awful at talking - Would you are cognizant of messaging social norms (e.g. you know when to omit punctuation, shorten words, keep your messages short, avoid "double-texting", space out the time between texts, etc) and were good at following them during your online dating? - Were you in the age range that the article talks about? Putting effort into a messaging is definitely important, but there are a lot of small and strange details that make large differences in how those messages come off and how much people enjoy them. I'm not trying to bash you, just wondering if you're actually great at these conversations, in the age range I'm in, and yet still not getting good results. > That's why you see men writing a bunch of generic low effort messages to women: because it is ultimately a more successful strategy. If you're very attractive, yes. But if you're aren't very attractive and you're sending bad messages, how is that more successful than sending good messages? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. By "low effort messages" do you mean "bad messages" or do you mean "fluid messages without overthinking or too much detail"
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  > When you were writing good messages, were things very conversational and informal? What else would they be? > Did you ever get reviews from women about how you were good at conversing? No, but women rarely respond at all so I'm not exactly surprised by that. Even the women I eventually went on dates with never mentioned it. > Would you are cognizant of messaging social norms I would say I actively detest messaging social norms. I write legible full English sentences just like you see here because I'm an adult. I specifically ruled out women who obviously felt differently. > If you're very attractive, yes. If anything I would say that being very attractive is the only circumstance under which you can reliably get results without spamming low-effort messages. > But if you're aren't very attractive and you're sending bad messages, how is that more successful than sending good messages? Numbers. What my experience taught me was that message content was basically unimportant, what mattered was reaching out to as many potentials as possible in the hopes of a few being receptive. It was a strategy I detested. Combined with the general tediousness and awfulness of the online dating experience I decided I'd rather not date than engage in it. By "low-effort" I mean messages that are basically form letters one can apply to anyone so you don't have to put any thought into crafting them for the person you're trying to talk to.