15 ms·

Dating Sites Are Not Built for Men

57 points by exolymph 6y ago

retrac 6y ago
As a non-straight, the notion that men and women are driven by slightly different interests, that result in different sexual and dating behaviours, is so obvious that I am amazed it would be a revelation to any straight person. Just look at the relationship patterns of gay men vs. lesbian women. About 40% of gay men in America are in an open relationship. The practice is basically unknown among lesbians. Infidelity is reported as slightly more common among gay men than among heterosexuals. Nearly unknown for lesbians. Pornography, sex clubs and hookup apps are close to ubiquitous among gay men. To the point some have sardonically argued these things are gay culture. They exist for lesbians too, but comparatively speaking they're niche; lesbian culture is, arguably, centred on poetry. Left to their own devices without the other sex to mess things up, the pattern is clear enough.
- Hackbraten 6y ago
  > lesbian culture is, arguably, centred on poetry. Pardon?
  - retrac 6y ago
    Sorry, I should not have left a half-baked half-joke idea hanging on a sensitive topic like that. In the 1990s, back when we had physical bookstores, and when such things were even segregated sometimes, this was pretty in your face. If you went into a lesbian bookstore you would find a great preponderance of poetry. A gay men's bookstore would, by contrast, be relatively overloaded with how-to manuals and erotic novels of the more descriptively explicit kind. To this day, there are simply far more lesbian literature periodicals, especially poetry ones. This shouldn't be too surprising; straight women also read a lot more poetry than straight men in the USA today. When I look at typical lists of prominent gay men and lesbians in the American arts, I see a pattern. The men tend towards film, photography, dance and musical theatre. The women towards poetry, modernist theatre, and perhaps in conflict with my hypothesis, comic novels. There is no gay male equivalent of similar status to Audre Lorde. It's hard to imagine, really, what that might even be like. And there is no lesbian equivalent of John Waters. Even within their genres, I find the likes of Bechdal and Baldwin have different... natures? I admit it's a little hard to articulate without sounding like some sex-essentialist mouthbreather. I figure one perspective is a bit more emotionally introspective than the other, and one perspective is a bit more embodied than the other. And it tends to be reflected in the kind of arts and the nature of the arts produced. If this is more than just an observation bias on my part it is of course only a slight tendency and it should not be taken too seriously; Alan Ginsberg was not a lesbian.
    - horatiocain 6y ago
      You read the most thoughtful things sometimes, thanks
    - morelisp 6y ago
      > There is no gay male equivalent of similar status to Audre Lorde. "Similar status" is frustratingly vague if someone wants to argue this. Fame? Whitman. Canonical? Wilde. Political? Gunn. > And there is no lesbian equivalent of John Waters. You're implying the difference must be something quite fundamental, but every time I read a statement like this I'm reminded of Gregory Corso's comments when someone asked him why there were so few women among the beat writers. There were women, they were there, I knew them, their families put them in institutions, they were given electric shock. In the 50s if you were male you could be a rebel, but if you were female your families had you locked up. There were cases, I knew them, someday someone will write about them.
- techdragon 6y ago
  This sure takes a left turn at the end, down a very questionable alley. Care to elaborate?
  - retrac 6y ago
    Sorry, it was a half-baked idea that mostly just communicates my questionable sense of humour. I expanded on a bit on what I was thinking in another reply in this thread.
- xyzzy21 6y ago
  The feminist left is convinced that humans are PURE Tabula Rasa and that NOTHING is biological - everything is either a choice or it's a social construct. Far too many straight people have bought into this nonsense - thinking that men and women are 100% identical, which is not based in science (at all) but in ideology via indoctrination and bullying. You have to become "red-pilled" (which is primarily a rediscover that there are biological sex differences and they affect behavior) to realize this today as a straight male. Women only have an incentive to think about it otherwise when they hit the fertility wall and it's (often) too late.
  - okareaman 6y ago
    Is that really true or is it a "straw woman" argument? Can you recommend a feminist left person who can explain this position, because it seems outlandish to me that someone could think there weren't biological differences. What about testosterone and estrogen?
    - AndrewKemendo 6y ago
      Ti-Grace Atkinson, Kathie Sarachild, Lierre Keith and Michele Wallace. These are a few names of Radical Feminist thinkers who ascribe to the view that gender is a "fashionable concept" or the concept of femininity is "ritualized submission." http://meetinggroundonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GENDER-Statement-InterActive-930.pdf http://meetinggroundonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GE...
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        Are a few 'Radical Feminist thinkers' the same thing as 'the feminist left'?
        retrac 6y ago
        No, not really. If anything the opposite view (uncharitably, that men are all doomed by their biology) is not uncommon either. And of course most feminists (FWIW I consider myself one) are not tabula rasa types. Very few people worth taking seriously believe that literally, these days. The evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea. More often you'll hear something like that the slight male tendency towards asserting dominance and impulsive behaviour compared to women is just that, slight. And that it is greatly amplified by culture and socialization. (And well, this is probably true to some degree?) One can, of course, believe the sexes are somewhat different on average, while believing in their equal value, ability and merit in all the things that are actually important.
- fwip 6y ago
  > The practice is basically unknown among lesbians You must be traveling in some weird circles, because more than half the lesbians I know are in open or poly relationships. (Me, my wife, and most of my social circles are wow, so it's not like I'm basing this off of knowing four lesbians.) > lesbian culture is, arguably, centred on poetry. Okay, yeah, I'm not sure you really have met any lesbians.
  - retrac 6y ago
    > You must be traveling in some weird circles I was being too hyperbolic in my writing and it did a disservice to the ideas I was trying to communicate. I am sorry. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5958351/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5958351/ > 32% of gay participants, 5% of lesbian participants, 22% of bisexual participants, and 14% of those who described their sexualities as “other” reported being in open relationships; approximately 8% of heterosexual participants, 14% of gay participants, 6% of lesbian participants, 18% of bisexual participants, and 6% of those who selected “other” for sexuality reported nonconsensual non-monogamy Those numbers surprised me too, in many ways. > Okay, yeah, I'm not sure you really have met any lesbians. Again, I am sorry. I was being a bit tongue in cheek and failed to pull it off. Obviously sex clubs do not define gay male culture. either. I explained what I was thinking there elsewhere in a reply in this thread.
    - morelisp 6y ago
      A sample size of 83 (open relationships) and 58 (gay/lesbian people) seems awfully low to draw any serious conclusions. It also does not break down sexuality by sex as far as I can see, so even if we take the data at face value it could say only that queer women are more likely to use a term other than "lesbian" than queer men are to use one other than "gay" (an effect that's also been noted on other studies). With that sample size I would also have expected at least a couple non-binary responses.
      - retrac 6y ago
        The NHSSB has its flaws; one being that, given it was sampled from the US population at large, when you try to look at small minorities (and minorities within minorities) the data starts to dry up. It does have the breakdown by sex data you mention, though. There are other signs that point the same way. In 2019 a Canadian survey on open relationships (which did not look directly at sexual orientation) they found a remarkable gap between the % of men and women who report such a relationship would be ideal: 18% of men and 6% of women. -- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30932711/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30932711/ The data on number of sex partners is telling too. From a recent US population survey, the percent who report 3 or more sex partners in the last 12 months: 35% of gay/bisexual men, 15% of straight men, 6% of straight women, 17% of lesbians. -- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293001/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293001/ A slightly older Australian study from the early 2000s is a bit more dramatic. Asking the number of partners in the previous five years, it found that for men who identified as homosexual, the mean was 32 and the median 7 partners, with the max capped at >2000 to stop skewing the numbers. For women identified as homosexual, it found a mean of 3 and a median of 1 partner with a maximum of 54. -- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14696706/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14696706/ Unfortunately all such studies tend to suffer from at least some of the same flaws you mention, with either sample size, reliability of sampling, or issues of identity confusing the situation. (In the Australian study, it seems women who reported multiple same-sex partners identified as heterosexual relatively more often, for example, which follows the pattern of what you noted.) The particular numbers vary from study to study, but this general pattern is almost always there. While the median number of partners among gay men tends to only be a bit higher than among straight men, the mean is always outright hilarious. A large minority of gay men are quite promiscuous, and there just is not an equivalently-sized phenomenon with women who have same-sex relationships.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  Very, very few other mammals are monogamous. Most birds are monogamous, but even in birds, about half of them mate for life and the others mate seasonally, meaning they find a new mate even season. It would be truly bizarre if we were not only one of the only monogamous mammals, but also mate for life! Monogamy is, more or less, a female fantasy. All women love the fact that birds mate for life. Meanwhile males fantasise about polygamy. That's why porn exists. It's no surprise that the original "tinder" was Grindr, a gay app. It's perfect for gay men. Tinder, on the other hand, doesn't change the game at all. If anything it concentrates even more attention on the top men as men swipe right on about 80% of women and women swipe left on 80% of men.
  - Hiopl 6y ago
    > Monogamy is, more or less, a female fantasy. All women love the fact that birds mate for life. Meanwhile males fantasise about polygamy Maybe there is a kernel of truth to it deep in our evolutionary/reproductive drive, but every guy I know, without exception, wants a monogamous relationship.
    - AndrewDucker 6y ago
      As a guy, can confirm.
    - globular-toast 6y ago
      Don't mistake mate guarding for monogamy. Mate guarding is completely compatible with polygamy and is seen in other great apes. When men say they want monogamy, what they mean is they want exclusive access to their female. That doesn't mean they don't want other females in addition. Monogamy is something males trade to get exclusivity. It doesn't mean this is what they want. If you truly believe men want monogamy then how do you explain porn? It's a huge industry and more an accepted part of life than ever. Do you think it's all being consumed by a few guys you don't know?
      - Hiopl 6y ago
        No, every guy I know, including myself, consumes porn. But it's not because I or they want polygamy. I'm not even sure how you're making that connection, since that's quite the leap.
- deaddodo 6y ago
  > Just look at the relationship patterns of gay men vs. lesbian women. About 40% of gay men in America are in an open relationship. The practice is basically unknown among lesbians. Infidelity is reported as slightly more common among gay men than among heterosexuals. Nearly unknown for lesbians. On the flip side though, homosexual men tend to have the highest relationship satisfaction levels nationwide: https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/2/13/study-gay-people-have-happier-marriages-straight-people https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/2/13/study-gay-people-h... While female homosexual relationships tend to have the lowest satisfaction and heterosexual relationships fall right in the middle for both sexes. There’s probably a lot to do with that (biological imperatives, DINC, etc); but it’s telling that people always point to high incidents of open relationships or promiscuity despite the evidence of happiness. * Also worth pointing out that this only focuses on binary relationships and not alternative situations (translesbian/transgay, fluid, poly, etc).
renewiltord 6y ago
The link he posts about his DMT experience and how it led to his meeting his wife is comedic magic. I love it. I genuinely enjoyed it. No sarcasm. It is also amusing because it's totally How To Draw An Owl.
- anand-bala 6y ago
  I loved the DMT story, and I would love to know more about this Owl drawing tutorial you recommend. :F
  - scubbo 6y ago
    Here you go: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+rest+of+the+owl&safe=off&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALeKk01EJbhWmS8FsupSNn0EsbtP5Qw24w:1618985268236&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir4ryO1o7wAhUEs54KHVDTD-oQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1221&bih=1224 https://www.google.com/search?q=the+rest+of+the+owl&safe=off...
AndrewKemendo 6y ago
The best description of dating apps I've heard is that they are: "Entertainment for women and serious business for men." I've asked women friends of mine if this was there position, and the general consensus was yes, they agreed - with few caveats.
- Impossible 6y ago
  I'm a man and when I used dating apps they were entertainment. Used to say crazy shit for fun, copy and paste prewritten messages, etc.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  That's mostly because women can never be openly "on the market", though. They don't openly look for or solicit sex. There must always be reasonable doubt about their motives, hence "I'm just on there for a laugh" or "I'm only going to his bachelor pad for a drink".
  - andyjohnson0 6y ago
    This might have been true fifty years ago (when "bachelor pad" was a thing) but, outside of certain repressive societies, it isn't true now.
    - globular-toast 6y ago
      You're quite welcome to try explicitly asking a woman back to your place for sex. Please let us know how it goes. Why do you not think bachelor pads are a thing? Where do single men live now?
      - 93po 6y ago
        I did this constantly when I was on tinder. It worked virtually every time I asked straight up (and this was after barely chatting with them), but I was also somewhat selective on who I asked. I wonder if I should have asked more women so directly, but I didn't want to make someone uncomfortable if I wasn't getting the vibe they'd say yes. The worst outcome I had from this approach is that sometimes they'd say "yes" and then just sort of trail off in communication. Not really a problem and I took the hint. As a follow up I also met my fiance on Tinder. Though I didn't approach her immediately for sex, we went on a date first.
shabonkerz 6y ago
Yeah, this has been known for at least a few years, and, since then, bots, instafluencers, snapchat scammers, and now onlyfans funneling plague the apps. Approaching them in public is the only viable option now, so hit the gym, brush up on your verbal game and banter, get some fresh style, be hygienic, and work on relaxing and deepening your voice.
Borrible 6y ago
Of course they are not. We know that at least since Adam Smith, don't we? They are build to generate revenue, silly. Of course they are. We know that at least since porn began. They are build exactly to exploit male mating quirks, silly. And it works. Honestly, you can stop any time taking that drug, can't you? So, pay for the lottery ticket of the chance for soulmateship, companionship, love and mating or give up. Come on, you want it... ;-)
tilolebo 6y ago
I'm very sceptical of the author's advice to use social media like Facebook and Twitter for dating. Especially Twitter, were women are routinely harrassed by estranged men and will publicly shame them in return. I don't think it's a good dating strategy at all.
- numpad0 6y ago
  Twitter is quite multi faceted. It's a harsh place for accounts in realistic and complete identities, but it goes easier and easier as realism reduces. Looking at people with the balance suitable for "meeting new people" it seem relatively easy to achieve their goals.
- linguae 6y ago
  I don't think Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites are good places for randomly asking out anyone due to etiquette. In fact, even offline there seems to be a growing backlash, at least in American society, toward randomly asking out women. However, what I believe the author meant by using Facebook and Twitter for dating is that if you have already built a community using these sites and if you are active in that community, it may be possible for you to ask out someone else in that community, provided that both of you already know each other and have spent a significant amount of time interacting with each other. I know someone who met his ex-girlfriend via Instagram sometime eight years ago; she saw his Instagram posts and was a regular commenter, and they started exchanging messages. I think the key for dating, whether it's online or offline, is being part of a community and being valued in it. I agree with the author that the problem with online dating is that the medium for expressing yourself is limited to a profile photo and a profile description; you are reduced to a résumé. When people are reduced to résumés, then whoever has the best-looking résumé ends up getting responses. Not everybody does well under these circumstances. However, if people were able to know a person's desirable traits that cannot be easily captured in an online dating site's profile, then that person's dating chances may improve. Being a part of a community, whether it's offline or online, gives people a chance to see how people in the community behave and what they think. But, given my limited success in dating, "you don't have to take my word for it" (with apologies to LeVar Burton).
akvadrako 6y ago
Dating sites are built for men, since men are their primary paying customers. What men want is more women on the sites and less men, so that's what the successful sites focus on.
- 93po 6y ago
  A dating app is only as valuable as the number of (attractive) women on it. Men pay the bill because they wouldn't pay it if the women weren't there. So the first priority would make more sense to get and keep women on the platform.
  - Balgair 6y ago
    Ashley Madison was/is a 'dating' site for married people looking to cheat. When they were hacked in 2015, it was revealed that ~3/1000 users were female, with only ~1/50 of those women having ever replied to any message whatsoever. Women, effectively, did not exist on the site. Despite this, many men were messaging women with some frequency. This was because the company had set up a system whereby the men could message a bot, thinking that it was a woman, and the bot would reply back. All costing the cheating men money for each message. To be clear, real men were paying real money to chat with bots, sometimes for months on end. For a select subset of people, the bots may have passed the Turing test. >So the first priority would make more sense to get and keep women on the platform. I would agree, if I were ethical. If I were not, then following Ashely Madison's example, buying/creating simple chat bots would suffice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach
langitbiru 6y ago
I'm building SwanLove (https://swan.love https://swan.love) to address this issue. > Using social media for dating In SwanLove, you can verify your Linkedin profile. Basically you put some random string generated in SwanLove in a public post and tell SwanLove about it. SwanLove will open the webpage and check the username and the random string to verify the ownership of the Linkedin profile. This way, we can separate people who want to date in Linkedin into a dedicated group. So we don't bother/flirt with other people in Linkedin. Same idea can be applied to other social medias, like GitHub, Twitter, Strava. Basically SwanLove adds dating to any social media. > And your attractiveness level is based on this whole gestalt So I plan to add accomplishments in the dating profile on SwanLove. You can send your payslip to me so I can verify it. Then you can flex your income. You can link your Ethereum account to your dating profile so you can flex your wealth (your Eth balance, your CryptoPunk, your virtual pets in Axie Infinity). You can link your Twitter to your dating profile so you can flex your number of followers. You can link your Chess.com account to flex your intelligence in playing chess. I imagine, there will be a gym which can release a certificate of fitness. Then you can flex your physical fitness. You can link your Kaggle, Toastmaster, etc, to your dating profile. You get the idea. This way, a man who is not tall and photogenic has a better chance to show his values to women. I have applied to YC but I don't think I can make it this time. The product is still rough. Perhaps in next batch, I'll have a better chance. :)
- fakedang 6y ago
  I don't know if this is serious or an elaborate parody, and at this point I'm too afraid to ask.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- _huayra_ 6y ago
  #> Cambridge Analytica has entered the chat It still baffles me when anyone would want to continue to dump personally-identifiable info into these services. Tying together all of this stuff into one dream is just a tsunami-sized data breach waiting to happen at best, and an open marketplace to lure unsuspecting rubes into divulging all of their info. There is definitely a problem for dating profile services / apps, especially for men (although I can't imagine emotionally healthy women enjoy getting barraged by a wall of "hey gurl. sup?"). I don't think the solution to the problems involve more apps, but fewer. Going out and being effective in the world is the best way to find a partner (for men or women, but especially for men). I have found all of my past / current partners this way, as honing some craft in a group setting or taking part in some group activity you actually care about (i.e. not showing up to salsa dancing because you're lonely even though you are quite sure you hate dancing) is not only enjoyable, but it gives you a chance to actually connect with people who don't have their guard up in a realm where sexual tension is a given. Best of all dates are usually just doing the same activity you were interested in in the first place; I have gone on about a dozen dates with women I've found at climbing gyms to go climbing only to realize we weren't right for each other, and we just became climbing buddies. Much better than worrying about posturing for some persona one is trying to present to the world online.

57 points by exolymph 6y ago

As a non-straight, the notion that men and women are driven by slightly different interests, that result in different sexual and dating behaviours, is so obvious that I am amazed it would be a revelation to any straight person. Just look at the relationship patterns of gay men vs. lesbian women. About 40% of gay men in America are in an open relationship. The practice is basically unknown among lesbians. Infidelity is reported as slightly more common among gay men than among heterosexuals. Nearly unknown for lesbians. Pornography, sex clubs and hookup apps are close to ubiquitous among gay men. To the point some have sardonically argued these things are gay culture. They exist for lesbians too, but comparatively speaking they're niche; lesbian culture is, arguably, centred on poetry. Left to their own devices without the other sex to mess things up, the pattern is clear enough.

Hackbraten 6y ago
> lesbian culture is, arguably, centred on poetry. Pardon?
- retrac 6y ago
  Sorry, I should not have left a half-baked half-joke idea hanging on a sensitive topic like that. In the 1990s, back when we had physical bookstores, and when such things were even segregated sometimes, this was pretty in your face. If you went into a lesbian bookstore you would find a great preponderance of poetry. A gay men's bookstore would, by contrast, be relatively overloaded with how-to manuals and erotic novels of the more descriptively explicit kind. To this day, there are simply far more lesbian literature periodicals, especially poetry ones. This shouldn't be too surprising; straight women also read a lot more poetry than straight men in the USA today. When I look at typical lists of prominent gay men and lesbians in the American arts, I see a pattern. The men tend towards film, photography, dance and musical theatre. The women towards poetry, modernist theatre, and perhaps in conflict with my hypothesis, comic novels. There is no gay male equivalent of similar status to Audre Lorde. It's hard to imagine, really, what that might even be like. And there is no lesbian equivalent of John Waters. Even within their genres, I find the likes of Bechdal and Baldwin have different... natures? I admit it's a little hard to articulate without sounding like some sex-essentialist mouthbreather. I figure one perspective is a bit more emotionally introspective than the other, and one perspective is a bit more embodied than the other. And it tends to be reflected in the kind of arts and the nature of the arts produced. If this is more than just an observation bias on my part it is of course only a slight tendency and it should not be taken too seriously; Alan Ginsberg was not a lesbian.
  - horatiocain 6y ago
    You read the most thoughtful things sometimes, thanks
  - morelisp 6y ago
    > There is no gay male equivalent of similar status to Audre Lorde. "Similar status" is frustratingly vague if someone wants to argue this. Fame? Whitman. Canonical? Wilde. Political? Gunn. > And there is no lesbian equivalent of John Waters. You're implying the difference must be something quite fundamental, but every time I read a statement like this I'm reminded of Gregory Corso's comments when someone asked him why there were so few women among the beat writers. There were women, they were there, I knew them, their families put them in institutions, they were given electric shock. In the 50s if you were male you could be a rebel, but if you were female your families had you locked up. There were cases, I knew them, someday someone will write about them.
techdragon 6y ago
This sure takes a left turn at the end, down a very questionable alley. Care to elaborate?
- retrac 6y ago
  Sorry, it was a half-baked idea that mostly just communicates my questionable sense of humour. I expanded on a bit on what I was thinking in another reply in this thread.
xyzzy21 6y ago
The feminist left is convinced that humans are PURE Tabula Rasa and that NOTHING is biological - everything is either a choice or it's a social construct. Far too many straight people have bought into this nonsense - thinking that men and women are 100% identical, which is not based in science (at all) but in ideology via indoctrination and bullying. You have to become "red-pilled" (which is primarily a rediscover that there are biological sex differences and they affect behavior) to realize this today as a straight male. Women only have an incentive to think about it otherwise when they hit the fertility wall and it's (often) too late.
- okareaman 6y ago
  Is that really true or is it a "straw woman" argument? Can you recommend a feminist left person who can explain this position, because it seems outlandish to me that someone could think there weren't biological differences. What about testosterone and estrogen?
  - AndrewKemendo 6y ago
    Ti-Grace Atkinson, Kathie Sarachild, Lierre Keith and Michele Wallace. These are a few names of Radical Feminist thinkers who ascribe to the view that gender is a "fashionable concept" or the concept of femininity is "ritualized submission." http://meetinggroundonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GENDER-Statement-InterActive-930.pdf http://meetinggroundonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GE...
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Are a few 'Radical Feminist thinkers' the same thing as 'the feminist left'?
      - retrac 6y ago
        No, not really. If anything the opposite view (uncharitably, that men are all doomed by their biology) is not uncommon either. And of course most feminists (FWIW I consider myself one) are not tabula rasa types. Very few people worth taking seriously believe that literally, these days. The evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea. More often you'll hear something like that the slight male tendency towards asserting dominance and impulsive behaviour compared to women is just that, slight. And that it is greatly amplified by culture and socialization. (And well, this is probably true to some degree?) One can, of course, believe the sexes are somewhat different on average, while believing in their equal value, ability and merit in all the things that are actually important.
fwip 6y ago
> The practice is basically unknown among lesbians You must be traveling in some weird circles, because more than half the lesbians I know are in open or poly relationships. (Me, my wife, and most of my social circles are wow, so it's not like I'm basing this off of knowing four lesbians.) > lesbian culture is, arguably, centred on poetry. Okay, yeah, I'm not sure you really have met any lesbians.
- retrac 6y ago
  > You must be traveling in some weird circles I was being too hyperbolic in my writing and it did a disservice to the ideas I was trying to communicate. I am sorry. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5958351/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5958351/ > 32% of gay participants, 5% of lesbian participants, 22% of bisexual participants, and 14% of those who described their sexualities as “other” reported being in open relationships; approximately 8% of heterosexual participants, 14% of gay participants, 6% of lesbian participants, 18% of bisexual participants, and 6% of those who selected “other” for sexuality reported nonconsensual non-monogamy Those numbers surprised me too, in many ways. > Okay, yeah, I'm not sure you really have met any lesbians. Again, I am sorry. I was being a bit tongue in cheek and failed to pull it off. Obviously sex clubs do not define gay male culture. either. I explained what I was thinking there elsewhere in a reply in this thread.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    A sample size of 83 (open relationships) and 58 (gay/lesbian people) seems awfully low to draw any serious conclusions. It also does not break down sexuality by sex as far as I can see, so even if we take the data at face value it could say only that queer women are more likely to use a term other than "lesbian" than queer men are to use one other than "gay" (an effect that's also been noted on other studies). With that sample size I would also have expected at least a couple non-binary responses.
    - retrac 6y ago
      The NHSSB has its flaws; one being that, given it was sampled from the US population at large, when you try to look at small minorities (and minorities within minorities) the data starts to dry up. It does have the breakdown by sex data you mention, though. There are other signs that point the same way. In 2019 a Canadian survey on open relationships (which did not look directly at sexual orientation) they found a remarkable gap between the % of men and women who report such a relationship would be ideal: 18% of men and 6% of women. -- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30932711/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30932711/ The data on number of sex partners is telling too. From a recent US population survey, the percent who report 3 or more sex partners in the last 12 months: 35% of gay/bisexual men, 15% of straight men, 6% of straight women, 17% of lesbians. -- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293001/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293001/ A slightly older Australian study from the early 2000s is a bit more dramatic. Asking the number of partners in the previous five years, it found that for men who identified as homosexual, the mean was 32 and the median 7 partners, with the max capped at >2000 to stop skewing the numbers. For women identified as homosexual, it found a mean of 3 and a median of 1 partner with a maximum of 54. -- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14696706/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14696706/ Unfortunately all such studies tend to suffer from at least some of the same flaws you mention, with either sample size, reliability of sampling, or issues of identity confusing the situation. (In the Australian study, it seems women who reported multiple same-sex partners identified as heterosexual relatively more often, for example, which follows the pattern of what you noted.) The particular numbers vary from study to study, but this general pattern is almost always there. While the median number of partners among gay men tends to only be a bit higher than among straight men, the mean is always outright hilarious. A large minority of gay men are quite promiscuous, and there just is not an equivalently-sized phenomenon with women who have same-sex relationships.
globular-toast 6y ago
Very, very few other mammals are monogamous. Most birds are monogamous, but even in birds, about half of them mate for life and the others mate seasonally, meaning they find a new mate even season. It would be truly bizarre if we were not only one of the only monogamous mammals, but also mate for life! Monogamy is, more or less, a female fantasy. All women love the fact that birds mate for life. Meanwhile males fantasise about polygamy. That's why porn exists. It's no surprise that the original "tinder" was Grindr, a gay app. It's perfect for gay men. Tinder, on the other hand, doesn't change the game at all. If anything it concentrates even more attention on the top men as men swipe right on about 80% of women and women swipe left on 80% of men.
- Hiopl 6y ago
  > Monogamy is, more or less, a female fantasy. All women love the fact that birds mate for life. Meanwhile males fantasise about polygamy Maybe there is a kernel of truth to it deep in our evolutionary/reproductive drive, but every guy I know, without exception, wants a monogamous relationship.
  - AndrewDucker 6y ago
    As a guy, can confirm.
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    Don't mistake mate guarding for monogamy. Mate guarding is completely compatible with polygamy and is seen in other great apes. When men say they want monogamy, what they mean is they want exclusive access to their female. That doesn't mean they don't want other females in addition. Monogamy is something males trade to get exclusivity. It doesn't mean this is what they want. If you truly believe men want monogamy then how do you explain porn? It's a huge industry and more an accepted part of life than ever. Do you think it's all being consumed by a few guys you don't know?
    - Hiopl 6y ago
      No, every guy I know, including myself, consumes porn. But it's not because I or they want polygamy. I'm not even sure how you're making that connection, since that's quite the leap.
deaddodo 6y ago
> Just look at the relationship patterns of gay men vs. lesbian women. About 40% of gay men in America are in an open relationship. The practice is basically unknown among lesbians. Infidelity is reported as slightly more common among gay men than among heterosexuals. Nearly unknown for lesbians. On the flip side though, homosexual men tend to have the highest relationship satisfaction levels nationwide: https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/2/13/study-gay-people-have-happier-marriages-straight-people https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/2/13/study-gay-people-h... While female homosexual relationships tend to have the lowest satisfaction and heterosexual relationships fall right in the middle for both sexes. There’s probably a lot to do with that (biological imperatives, DINC, etc); but it’s telling that people always point to high incidents of open relationships or promiscuity despite the evidence of happiness. * Also worth pointing out that this only focuses on binary relationships and not alternative situations (translesbian/transgay, fluid, poly, etc).

renewiltord 6y ago

The link he posts about his DMT experience and how it led to his meeting his wife is comedic magic. I love it. I genuinely enjoyed it. No sarcasm. It is also amusing because it's totally How To Draw An Owl.

anand-bala 6y ago
I loved the DMT story, and I would love to know more about this Owl drawing tutorial you recommend. :F
- scubbo 6y ago
  Here you go: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+rest+of+the+owl&safe=off&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALeKk01EJbhWmS8FsupSNn0EsbtP5Qw24w:1618985268236&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir4ryO1o7wAhUEs54KHVDTD-oQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1221&bih=1224 https://www.google.com/search?q=the+rest+of+the+owl&safe=off...

AndrewKemendo 6y ago

The best description of dating apps I've heard is that they are: "Entertainment for women and serious business for men." I've asked women friends of mine if this was there position, and the general consensus was yes, they agreed - with few caveats.

Impossible 6y ago
I'm a man and when I used dating apps they were entertainment. Used to say crazy shit for fun, copy and paste prewritten messages, etc.
globular-toast 6y ago
That's mostly because women can never be openly "on the market", though. They don't openly look for or solicit sex. There must always be reasonable doubt about their motives, hence "I'm just on there for a laugh" or "I'm only going to his bachelor pad for a drink".
- andyjohnson0 6y ago
  This might have been true fifty years ago (when "bachelor pad" was a thing) but, outside of certain repressive societies, it isn't true now.
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    You're quite welcome to try explicitly asking a woman back to your place for sex. Please let us know how it goes. Why do you not think bachelor pads are a thing? Where do single men live now?
    - 93po 6y ago
      I did this constantly when I was on tinder. It worked virtually every time I asked straight up (and this was after barely chatting with them), but I was also somewhat selective on who I asked. I wonder if I should have asked more women so directly, but I didn't want to make someone uncomfortable if I wasn't getting the vibe they'd say yes. The worst outcome I had from this approach is that sometimes they'd say "yes" and then just sort of trail off in communication. Not really a problem and I took the hint. As a follow up I also met my fiance on Tinder. Though I didn't approach her immediately for sex, we went on a date first.

shabonkerz 6y ago

Yeah, this has been known for at least a few years, and, since then, bots, instafluencers, snapchat scammers, and now onlyfans funneling plague the apps. Approaching them in public is the only viable option now, so hit the gym, brush up on your verbal game and banter, get some fresh style, be hygienic, and work on relaxing and deepening your voice.

Borrible 6y ago

Of course they are not. We know that at least since Adam Smith, don't we? They are build to generate revenue, silly. Of course they are. We know that at least since porn began. They are build exactly to exploit male mating quirks, silly. And it works. Honestly, you can stop any time taking that drug, can't you? So, pay for the lottery ticket of the chance for soulmateship, companionship, love and mating or give up. Come on, you want it... ;-)

tilolebo 6y ago

I'm very sceptical of the author's advice to use social media like Facebook and Twitter for dating. Especially Twitter, were women are routinely harrassed by estranged men and will publicly shame them in return. I don't think it's a good dating strategy at all.

numpad0 6y ago
Twitter is quite multi faceted. It's a harsh place for accounts in realistic and complete identities, but it goes easier and easier as realism reduces. Looking at people with the balance suitable for "meeting new people" it seem relatively easy to achieve their goals.
linguae 6y ago
I don't think Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites are good places for randomly asking out anyone due to etiquette. In fact, even offline there seems to be a growing backlash, at least in American society, toward randomly asking out women. However, what I believe the author meant by using Facebook and Twitter for dating is that if you have already built a community using these sites and if you are active in that community, it may be possible for you to ask out someone else in that community, provided that both of you already know each other and have spent a significant amount of time interacting with each other. I know someone who met his ex-girlfriend via Instagram sometime eight years ago; she saw his Instagram posts and was a regular commenter, and they started exchanging messages. I think the key for dating, whether it's online or offline, is being part of a community and being valued in it. I agree with the author that the problem with online dating is that the medium for expressing yourself is limited to a profile photo and a profile description; you are reduced to a résumé. When people are reduced to résumés, then whoever has the best-looking résumé ends up getting responses. Not everybody does well under these circumstances. However, if people were able to know a person's desirable traits that cannot be easily captured in an online dating site's profile, then that person's dating chances may improve. Being a part of a community, whether it's offline or online, gives people a chance to see how people in the community behave and what they think. But, given my limited success in dating, "you don't have to take my word for it" (with apologies to LeVar Burton).

akvadrako 6y ago

Dating sites are built for men, since men are their primary paying customers. What men want is more women on the sites and less men, so that's what the successful sites focus on.

93po 6y ago
A dating app is only as valuable as the number of (attractive) women on it. Men pay the bill because they wouldn't pay it if the women weren't there. So the first priority would make more sense to get and keep women on the platform.
- Balgair 6y ago
  Ashley Madison was/is a 'dating' site for married people looking to cheat. When they were hacked in 2015, it was revealed that ~3/1000 users were female, with only ~1/50 of those women having ever replied to any message whatsoever. Women, effectively, did not exist on the site. Despite this, many men were messaging women with some frequency. This was because the company had set up a system whereby the men could message a bot, thinking that it was a woman, and the bot would reply back. All costing the cheating men money for each message. To be clear, real men were paying real money to chat with bots, sometimes for months on end. For a select subset of people, the bots may have passed the Turing test. >So the first priority would make more sense to get and keep women on the platform. I would agree, if I were ethical. If I were not, then following Ashely Madison's example, buying/creating simple chat bots would suffice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach

langitbiru 6y ago

I'm building SwanLove (https://swan.love https://swan.love) to address this issue. > Using social media for dating In SwanLove, you can verify your Linkedin profile. Basically you put some random string generated in SwanLove in a public post and tell SwanLove about it. SwanLove will open the webpage and check the username and the random string to verify the ownership of the Linkedin profile. This way, we can separate people who want to date in Linkedin into a dedicated group. So we don't bother/flirt with other people in Linkedin. Same idea can be applied to other social medias, like GitHub, Twitter, Strava. Basically SwanLove adds dating to any social media. > And your attractiveness level is based on this whole gestalt So I plan to add accomplishments in the dating profile on SwanLove. You can send your payslip to me so I can verify it. Then you can flex your income. You can link your Ethereum account to your dating profile so you can flex your wealth (your Eth balance, your CryptoPunk, your virtual pets in Axie Infinity). You can link your Twitter to your dating profile so you can flex your number of followers. You can link your Chess.com account to flex your intelligence in playing chess. I imagine, there will be a gym which can release a certificate of fitness. Then you can flex your physical fitness. You can link your Kaggle, Toastmaster, etc, to your dating profile. You get the idea. This way, a man who is not tall and photogenic has a better chance to show his values to women. I have applied to YC but I don't think I can make it this time. The product is still rough. Perhaps in next batch, I'll have a better chance. :)

fakedang 6y ago
I don't know if this is serious or an elaborate parody, and at this point I'm too afraid to ask.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
_huayra_ 6y ago
#> Cambridge Analytica has entered the chat It still baffles me when anyone would want to continue to dump personally-identifiable info into these services. Tying together all of this stuff into one dream is just a tsunami-sized data breach waiting to happen at best, and an open marketplace to lure unsuspecting rubes into divulging all of their info. There is definitely a problem for dating profile services / apps, especially for men (although I can't imagine emotionally healthy women enjoy getting barraged by a wall of "hey gurl. sup?"). I don't think the solution to the problems involve more apps, but fewer. Going out and being effective in the world is the best way to find a partner (for men or women, but especially for men). I have found all of my past / current partners this way, as honing some craft in a group setting or taking part in some group activity you actually care about (i.e. not showing up to salsa dancing because you're lonely even though you are quite sure you hate dancing) is not only enjoyable, but it gives you a chance to actually connect with people who don't have their guard up in a realm where sexual tension is a given. Best of all dates are usually just doing the same activity you were interested in in the first place; I have gone on about a dozen dates with women I've found at climbing gyms to go climbing only to realize we weren't right for each other, and we just became climbing buddies. Much better than worrying about posturing for some persona one is trying to present to the world online.