14 ms·

> another friend of mine basically refuses to date anymore because he thinks the sort of culture of Tinder dating is a waste of time that favors women dispropor

> another friend of mine basically refuses to date anymore because he thinks the sort of culture of Tinder dating is a waste of time that favors women disproportionately. My female friends (I'm male) with online dating profiles have shown me their matches and conversations, and it's bleak. They all mostly have an average profile and still receive thousands of likes/hearts/swipes and messages, but the mean amount of effort from men messaging them is zero to none. Maybe your friend considers the situation of having fewer women on dating apps as somehow "favoring" their gender, but from what I've seen and heard, sorting through an inbox of unsolicited genital photos and copy pasta pickup artist lines is not something most women would say they enjoy spending their time doing. If instead he's referring to apps like Bumble where the woman has to make the first move, see above for why some apps choose to operate with that model.

machello13 5y ago
It's certainly believable that women don't enjoy dating apps, but I think it's difficult to make the case that it's equally hard for them (in terms of successfully getting a date) when they have thousands of matches and many men I know have none.
- k-mcgrady 5y ago
  Thousands of matches isn’t a good thing. If you ever have the opportunity ask a female friend to show you the kind of messages they get on dating apps. They’re pretty appalling. It genuinely worries me that there are so many creeps out there. The men you know may not be getting many matches but at least the ones they get are more than likely from relatively normal people. If I had to sort through the garbage women do on dating apps I wouldn’t be on them.
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > Thousands of matches isn’t a good thing. He didn't say it was, he said it was preferable to having no matches. I recall seeing the OkCupid stats once (okstats?). The numbers pretty much said that although women were getting most of the messages, they were all only responding to the same 10% of males, while most men were sending messages to almost all the women. You've pretty much got 80% of the women competing for the top 10% of the males.
    - akomtu 5y ago
      That 80% number might give a false hope to readers. In fact it's 100%, but the bottom 20% give up without trying because they correctly assess their chances.
  - machello13 5y ago
    But surely you can see how hopeless dating feels for many men when they swipe right on hundreds of women and get 0 matches? I'm not saying they aren't getting many — they're getting none (I know you just have my word on this, but trust me when I say they are not ugly or fat or anything, just nonwhite and without high paying jobs, but otherwise average-looking guys who have dated successfully in the past). The situation isn't great on either side, but plenty of statistics show it's mostly women having sex off these apps, so clearly there is an actual imbalance. And you can't write off the sheer hopelessness and isolation that the thought "there's not a single woman out there who would date me" induces in young men. I'm sure it's not fun for women but it is absolutely __brutal__ for many men.
    - commandlinefan 5y ago
      > nonwhite Uh, trust me, white men can easily accumulate zero matches too.
      - machello13 5y ago
        Oh certainly. Their experience is that there’s a huge racial factor in how many matches they get (e.g. having an Indian name seems to be a death sentence) — I was just reporting their experience and didn’t mean to imply anything else!
  - guskel 5y ago
    If thousands of matches are not a good thing, why keep swiping? They could choose instead to talk to the matches they already have. The matches they have are already the ones they've screened for.
  - esarbe 5y ago
    It's just numbers game. If you're interested in quick sex and you can send messages to dozens on women with very little effort, you do it. If just one percent signals interest, you already have a win. Why invest more time and energy than absolutely necessary?
- treespace88 5y ago
  Women are paying a high price in the online dating world. It’s preying on their weakness the same way porn does for men. Most women don’t want to sleep around and have a large number of partners. But tinder leads them to believe that they can find an unrealistic partner. And they get hurt by the small percentage of men that play the online dating game well. Women need a lot more data and time to evaluate a potential partner before initiating contact.
  - guskel 5y ago
    I think a solution would be to limit the number of matches one could have at a time. This forces the user to sacrifice something (the opportunity cost of matching with someone else) to remain in contact with their match.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Maybe women are paying the price, bit it is men on HN who complain and bitch constantly. Most women are not on tinder anyway.
    - symlinkk 5y ago
      That’s incorrect, online dating is the number one way couples meet
      - watwut 5y ago
        Which is not the same as "most women are on tinder".
        symlinkk 5y ago
        Most women who are looking to date are on Tinder. No, your grandma isn’t on there. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
        nashalo_nighly 5y ago
andrewmcwatters 5y ago
What does effort mean in this context? I recall friends of mine, young women, who were having the hardest time finding a significant other were just demanding things of men that would have them selecting from a socioeconomic pool of the top 20% of the population, when they themselves were in the bottom 20%. It was my experience that young women in general were asking for too much when I was in my early 20s. They wanted someone who had it "all together," and that's just not where most people are in their early 20s. There doesn't seem to be any appreciation anymore for the fact that young couples grow up together. Instead, people seem to think that you grow up first and establish who you are independently, then find someone else to bring into your life. But realistically, you don't finish growing before dating, and in life who you become is based on the interactions not just with your significant other, but your friends and family, too. Lastly, all of my dating experiences online lead me to women who wanted to be "entertained." And not in the sort of "wined and dined" sense which seems obvious to me, but rather most women I came across didn't want to get to know men, they just wanted entertainment value out of the experience of dating. This was a sharp contrast from interactions with young women in real life. The dating world for both young men and women online seems to create some strange scenarios that don't play out well for anyone involved. I see this manifest the most in online dating where most men are naturally led to play pickup artist lines. I personally find it extremely off-putting. I'm not a jester.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  "Take me on an adventure" was always a instant no for me. In the modern world a spouse is supposed to be a equal partner, I'm glad I found my wife who feels the same way. I don't want someone I have to drag somewhere like a suitcase.
  - andrewmcwatters 5y ago
    I think this also gets to the heart of it. My general feeling was that women wanted equality but didn't want to put in any effort whatsoever, and so a lot of women I came across just seemed like bums. I'm not saying that is what you're saying. It just made me recall my experiences.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
I have an idea I've been toying with for a dating tool (I refuse to call it an app) based on the premise that all dating "apps" and "sites" are horrible because their incentives are aligned toward wanting people to actually use them. You pretty much have ad-driven and subscription models and both have perverse incentives. Further, the whole "wink", "like" and "swipe" nonsense increases the "meat market" commoditization and dehumanization of the whole thing. So my idea is to put all the incentives the other way. The tool is designed to operate on a budget of ~$0. I would accept donations, but otherwise have no monetization and therefore no desire to increase "engagement" of any kind. My incentive is such that I actually don't want you to interact with the tool, because that will cost me bandwidth and processing time. I will allow you to have a profile of text and one single image of restricted size, because I don't want to have to host anything else. You will fill out a multiple choice questionnaire with as few questions as I feel I can get away with to ensure at least some level of basic compatibility, and then you do nothing. Periodically, a cron job will run and see if anyone matches, then it will send you both each others profiles (through good old-fashion email) and ask if you'd like to go on a date. If you've both agreed, there will be a sequence of messages from the system proposing date ideas, locations, and times until consensus is reached. Then it's all up to you. This is designed to ensure that you make a real human connection to the person in a real life interaction before any contact information is ever exchanged. It probably sounds as though this sort of thing would have a hard time attracting users. I consider that a feature, because it means it'll cost less to run and it will avoid attracting ego-inflation seekers, low effort numbers gamers, and other ungenuine people. As envisioned, I would expect this sort of thing could cover a moderately sized state on a raspberry pi.
- bena 5y ago
  And I will make X profiles from X emails, filling out the questionnaire in several ways to maximize the number of hits I get. The profile will be some good ol PT Barnum style pablum that appeals to just about all of us. I will also add pictures that are either extremely flattering of me, or of someone else. It doesn't really matter. Then I just agree to every date that gets sent to my email. Ideally this could be automated so that I could run it on a raspberry pi. But please, go on.
bena 5y ago
Bumble has its own issues. It turns out "making the first move" is anxiety inducing in everyone. What women have done on Bumble is to basically treat the "first move" as an "invitation to treat", a second shot at selecting a guy. Most of those "first moves" are exactly what they say they don't want from guys: simple "Hey"s and "Hello"s. And then they say in their profile that once they say "Hey", you're supposed to respond back with something substantial and entertaining. I don't think dating apps/sites favor either sex more so than dating in general does. Women, in general, don't really have to try to get solicitations. Their issue is in trying to weed through all of the solicitations to find those worth responding to. It's basically the hiring problem. But there's no Hackerrank for compatibility. And then there's the issue that even those that feel the system is tilted against them in general don't understand that it's just them. They're not successful because they aren't as kind, nice, or desirable as they think they are. Or they keep making the same bad choices in romantic pursuits and wonder why they keep getting the same outcome. The problem with all of these apps and gimmicks and what not and certain segments of tech in general is that it assumes that deep down, people are making rational choices. We aren't.
- anthonygd 5y ago
  I think you're right about dating apps not really favoring either gender. Hiring is the first thing I think of when reading about dating apps. There's just a very strong natural imbalance. Dating apps are especially good at making people not have to face their shortcomings, i.e. I don't have to fix my shortcomings, because with a large enough pool there's going to be someone broken in the right way to accommodate me. Maybe that's rational, or maybe it's not, it really depends on expectations. Counter intuitively, accepting that we're just stupid hairless apes makes me believe we're rational. We're not failing to find anything meaningful; we're not interested or looking.
  - bena 5y ago
    We have our moments. But relying on rationality is an assumption that will bite you in the ass every time. Just look at markets, even when there's a clearly superior option, there's been plenty of times the inferior product wins. Often because that inferior product manages to exploit our irrational selves either intentionally or unintentionally.
nunez 5y ago
It's always been that way with online dating. Men, on average, putting zero effort on the profile (including photos). Women put slightly more than zero effort into their profiles but get inundated with messages from mostly-terrible choices anyway because men like women. Men spray low-effort messages at lots of women hoping for a bite. Women don't message because they have options. Quality men trying to find any sort of extra have to work extra hard on selling themselves. Women looking for quality men have to work extra hard on creating a profile that deters the poor options they get (hard) _and_ deal with more subpar dates.
commandlinefan 5y ago
> sorting through an inbox of ... copy pasta pickup artist lines So as a computer programmer with a LinkedIn profile, I can at least empathize a bit: I get an average of 3 job offers a week, even though I haven't really expressed any interest in changing jobs. A lot of these offers would be a major step down for me, and that's pretty clear from my profile. I still feel obligated to take the time to politely decline because I do have some sympathy for the recruiters who are just doing their best, but it's also clear they're just blasting out offers to anybody who meets a basic set of requirements. That said - I'm much happier being in the position I'm in of too much interest than at the other end of the spectrum.
- cecilpl2 5y ago
  I respond to these canned messages with a canned reply: 1) Do you offer permanent remote work? 2) What's the salary range for this position? Twice now I have been very pleasantly surprised by the answer, and one of those resulted in me making an unplanned job move for a 50% increase in TC. I've also had some success just throwing out a huge number as my expectation for comp. There is pretty much no downside to doing this.
- city41 5y ago
  Getting off topic here, but not sure why you feel obligated to reply to the recruiters. You're just an input into their automation system 99% of the time. I find it amusing when they send an email at like 8pm on a Saturday.
tomp 5y ago
This complaint should be taken about as seriously as a rich person complaining how hard it is to be rich. Every woman can put herself in a man's position of no matches - just delete Tinder. Every rich person can become poor - just give away all their money. Yet they don't. It's called revealed preferences. Because having options, no matter how bad, is better than not having options.
- fossuser 5y ago
  There's also an obvious selection bias - the matches may be sending low quality messages, but if women are largely selecting only the top 2% of good looking men they're skewing these results themselves. The 'better' men never get to the messaging stage at all. I'm happy to be out of the game, but online dating is bleak for 98% of men. Okcupid used to have great data on this before they sold out, a lot of it ended up in this book:https://www.amazon.com/Dataclysm-Identity-What-Online-Offline-Selves/dp/0385347391 https://www.amazon.com/Dataclysm-Identity-What-Online-Offlin... The data in that book corroborates a lot of this. We're not that different from gorillas - sexual selection is tough and most of the discussion around it ranges from wrong to dishonest.
  - tacocataco 5y ago
    Do you mind if you can explain okcupid selling out? I'm currently on the platform.
    - fossuser 5y ago
      The founders sold to match.com a few years back. After that the cool data blog was killed.
cjohnson318 5y ago
Ditto. I met my wife on OkCupid. She said I was the only guy that messaged her with multiple, complete sentences.
monksy 5y ago
> If instead he's referring to apps like Bumble where the woman has to make the first move, see above for why some apps choose to operate with that model. Under that model.. it's common for the first message to be "hi" or ".". Not much has changed.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  What a lot of ignorant men don't realize is that's the woman saying "you start the convo." Not everything is meant to be interpreted literally in dating and relationships. If you believe that, you're doing it wrong.
  - monksy 5y ago
    I realize it is. Doesn't mean that I have to tolerate that or accept it. Be a human, start a conversation.
- seppin 5y ago
  Most common Bumble message: "Hey how's it going" Isn't that the exact lack of effort you complain about? The real problem is that wtf are you supposed to say to someone you don't know? Whatever that comes out is meaningless because you have 0 to go on. That's the point. It's a starting point.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
imtringued 5y ago
What would they do if every man spent 30 min writing a super long message that is drowned out by the other 1000 messages? They wouldn't spend the 2000 minutes it would take to skim all of them. I certainly would give up after 10 messages.

machello13 5y ago

It's certainly believable that women don't enjoy dating apps, but I think it's difficult to make the case that it's equally hard for them (in terms of successfully getting a date) when they have thousands of matches and many men I know have none.

k-mcgrady 5y ago
Thousands of matches isn’t a good thing. If you ever have the opportunity ask a female friend to show you the kind of messages they get on dating apps. They’re pretty appalling. It genuinely worries me that there are so many creeps out there. The men you know may not be getting many matches but at least the ones they get are more than likely from relatively normal people. If I had to sort through the garbage women do on dating apps I wouldn’t be on them.
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > Thousands of matches isn’t a good thing. He didn't say it was, he said it was preferable to having no matches. I recall seeing the OkCupid stats once (okstats?). The numbers pretty much said that although women were getting most of the messages, they were all only responding to the same 10% of males, while most men were sending messages to almost all the women. You've pretty much got 80% of the women competing for the top 10% of the males.
  - akomtu 5y ago
    That 80% number might give a false hope to readers. In fact it's 100%, but the bottom 20% give up without trying because they correctly assess their chances.
- machello13 5y ago
  But surely you can see how hopeless dating feels for many men when they swipe right on hundreds of women and get 0 matches? I'm not saying they aren't getting many — they're getting none (I know you just have my word on this, but trust me when I say they are not ugly or fat or anything, just nonwhite and without high paying jobs, but otherwise average-looking guys who have dated successfully in the past). The situation isn't great on either side, but plenty of statistics show it's mostly women having sex off these apps, so clearly there is an actual imbalance. And you can't write off the sheer hopelessness and isolation that the thought "there's not a single woman out there who would date me" induces in young men. I'm sure it's not fun for women but it is absolutely __brutal__ for many men.
  - commandlinefan 5y ago
    > nonwhite Uh, trust me, white men can easily accumulate zero matches too.
    - machello13 5y ago
      Oh certainly. Their experience is that there’s a huge racial factor in how many matches they get (e.g. having an Indian name seems to be a death sentence) — I was just reporting their experience and didn’t mean to imply anything else!
- guskel 5y ago
  If thousands of matches are not a good thing, why keep swiping? They could choose instead to talk to the matches they already have. The matches they have are already the ones they've screened for.
- esarbe 5y ago
  It's just numbers game. If you're interested in quick sex and you can send messages to dozens on women with very little effort, you do it. If just one percent signals interest, you already have a win. Why invest more time and energy than absolutely necessary?
treespace88 5y ago
Women are paying a high price in the online dating world. It’s preying on their weakness the same way porn does for men. Most women don’t want to sleep around and have a large number of partners. But tinder leads them to believe that they can find an unrealistic partner. And they get hurt by the small percentage of men that play the online dating game well. Women need a lot more data and time to evaluate a potential partner before initiating contact.
- guskel 5y ago
  I think a solution would be to limit the number of matches one could have at a time. This forces the user to sacrifice something (the opportunity cost of matching with someone else) to remain in contact with their match.
- watwut 5y ago
  Maybe women are paying the price, bit it is men on HN who complain and bitch constantly. Most women are not on tinder anyway.
  - symlinkk 5y ago
    That’s incorrect, online dating is the number one way couples meet
    - watwut 5y ago
      Which is not the same as "most women are on tinder".
      - symlinkk 5y ago
        Most women who are looking to date are on Tinder. No, your grandma isn’t on there. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
        nashalo_nighly 5y ago

andrewmcwatters 5y ago

What does effort mean in this context? I recall friends of mine, young women, who were having the hardest time finding a significant other were just demanding things of men that would have them selecting from a socioeconomic pool of the top 20% of the population, when they themselves were in the bottom 20%. It was my experience that young women in general were asking for too much when I was in my early 20s. They wanted someone who had it "all together," and that's just not where most people are in their early 20s. There doesn't seem to be any appreciation anymore for the fact that young couples grow up together. Instead, people seem to think that you grow up first and establish who you are independently, then find someone else to bring into your life. But realistically, you don't finish growing before dating, and in life who you become is based on the interactions not just with your significant other, but your friends and family, too. Lastly, all of my dating experiences online lead me to women who wanted to be "entertained." And not in the sort of "wined and dined" sense which seems obvious to me, but rather most women I came across didn't want to get to know men, they just wanted entertainment value out of the experience of dating. This was a sharp contrast from interactions with young women in real life. The dating world for both young men and women online seems to create some strange scenarios that don't play out well for anyone involved. I see this manifest the most in online dating where most men are naturally led to play pickup artist lines. I personally find it extremely off-putting. I'm not a jester.

willcipriano 5y ago
"Take me on an adventure" was always a instant no for me. In the modern world a spouse is supposed to be a equal partner, I'm glad I found my wife who feels the same way. I don't want someone I have to drag somewhere like a suitcase.
- andrewmcwatters 5y ago
  I think this also gets to the heart of it. My general feeling was that women wanted equality but didn't want to put in any effort whatsoever, and so a lot of women I came across just seemed like bums. I'm not saying that is what you're saying. It just made me recall my experiences.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

I have an idea I've been toying with for a dating tool (I refuse to call it an app) based on the premise that all dating "apps" and "sites" are horrible because their incentives are aligned toward wanting people to actually use them. You pretty much have ad-driven and subscription models and both have perverse incentives. Further, the whole "wink", "like" and "swipe" nonsense increases the "meat market" commoditization and dehumanization of the whole thing. So my idea is to put all the incentives the other way. The tool is designed to operate on a budget of ~$0. I would accept donations, but otherwise have no monetization and therefore no desire to increase "engagement" of any kind. My incentive is such that I actually don't want you to interact with the tool, because that will cost me bandwidth and processing time. I will allow you to have a profile of text and one single image of restricted size, because I don't want to have to host anything else. You will fill out a multiple choice questionnaire with as few questions as I feel I can get away with to ensure at least some level of basic compatibility, and then you do nothing. Periodically, a cron job will run and see if anyone matches, then it will send you both each others profiles (through good old-fashion email) and ask if you'd like to go on a date. If you've both agreed, there will be a sequence of messages from the system proposing date ideas, locations, and times until consensus is reached. Then it's all up to you. This is designed to ensure that you make a real human connection to the person in a real life interaction before any contact information is ever exchanged. It probably sounds as though this sort of thing would have a hard time attracting users. I consider that a feature, because it means it'll cost less to run and it will avoid attracting ego-inflation seekers, low effort numbers gamers, and other ungenuine people. As envisioned, I would expect this sort of thing could cover a moderately sized state on a raspberry pi.

bena 5y ago
And I will make X profiles from X emails, filling out the questionnaire in several ways to maximize the number of hits I get. The profile will be some good ol PT Barnum style pablum that appeals to just about all of us. I will also add pictures that are either extremely flattering of me, or of someone else. It doesn't really matter. Then I just agree to every date that gets sent to my email. Ideally this could be automated so that I could run it on a raspberry pi. But please, go on.

bena 5y ago

Bumble has its own issues. It turns out "making the first move" is anxiety inducing in everyone. What women have done on Bumble is to basically treat the "first move" as an "invitation to treat", a second shot at selecting a guy. Most of those "first moves" are exactly what they say they don't want from guys: simple "Hey"s and "Hello"s. And then they say in their profile that once they say "Hey", you're supposed to respond back with something substantial and entertaining. I don't think dating apps/sites favor either sex more so than dating in general does. Women, in general, don't really have to try to get solicitations. Their issue is in trying to weed through all of the solicitations to find those worth responding to. It's basically the hiring problem. But there's no Hackerrank for compatibility. And then there's the issue that even those that feel the system is tilted against them in general don't understand that it's just them. They're not successful because they aren't as kind, nice, or desirable as they think they are. Or they keep making the same bad choices in romantic pursuits and wonder why they keep getting the same outcome. The problem with all of these apps and gimmicks and what not and certain segments of tech in general is that it assumes that deep down, people are making rational choices. We aren't.

anthonygd 5y ago
I think you're right about dating apps not really favoring either gender. Hiring is the first thing I think of when reading about dating apps. There's just a very strong natural imbalance. Dating apps are especially good at making people not have to face their shortcomings, i.e. I don't have to fix my shortcomings, because with a large enough pool there's going to be someone broken in the right way to accommodate me. Maybe that's rational, or maybe it's not, it really depends on expectations. Counter intuitively, accepting that we're just stupid hairless apes makes me believe we're rational. We're not failing to find anything meaningful; we're not interested or looking.
- bena 5y ago
  We have our moments. But relying on rationality is an assumption that will bite you in the ass every time. Just look at markets, even when there's a clearly superior option, there's been plenty of times the inferior product wins. Often because that inferior product manages to exploit our irrational selves either intentionally or unintentionally.

nunez 5y ago

It's always been that way with online dating. Men, on average, putting zero effort on the profile (including photos). Women put slightly more than zero effort into their profiles but get inundated with messages from mostly-terrible choices anyway because men like women. Men spray low-effort messages at lots of women hoping for a bite. Women don't message because they have options. Quality men trying to find any sort of extra have to work extra hard on selling themselves. Women looking for quality men have to work extra hard on creating a profile that deters the poor options they get (hard) _and_ deal with more subpar dates.

commandlinefan 5y ago

> sorting through an inbox of ... copy pasta pickup artist lines So as a computer programmer with a LinkedIn profile, I can at least empathize a bit: I get an average of 3 job offers a week, even though I haven't really expressed any interest in changing jobs. A lot of these offers would be a major step down for me, and that's pretty clear from my profile. I still feel obligated to take the time to politely decline because I do have some sympathy for the recruiters who are just doing their best, but it's also clear they're just blasting out offers to anybody who meets a basic set of requirements. That said - I'm much happier being in the position I'm in of too much interest than at the other end of the spectrum.

cecilpl2 5y ago
I respond to these canned messages with a canned reply: 1) Do you offer permanent remote work? 2) What's the salary range for this position? Twice now I have been very pleasantly surprised by the answer, and one of those resulted in me making an unplanned job move for a 50% increase in TC. I've also had some success just throwing out a huge number as my expectation for comp. There is pretty much no downside to doing this.
city41 5y ago
Getting off topic here, but not sure why you feel obligated to reply to the recruiters. You're just an input into their automation system 99% of the time. I find it amusing when they send an email at like 8pm on a Saturday.

tomp 5y ago

This complaint should be taken about as seriously as a rich person complaining how hard it is to be rich. Every woman can put herself in a man's position of no matches - just delete Tinder. Every rich person can become poor - just give away all their money. Yet they don't. It's called revealed preferences. Because having options, no matter how bad, is better than not having options.

fossuser 5y ago
There's also an obvious selection bias - the matches may be sending low quality messages, but if women are largely selecting only the top 2% of good looking men they're skewing these results themselves. The 'better' men never get to the messaging stage at all. I'm happy to be out of the game, but online dating is bleak for 98% of men. Okcupid used to have great data on this before they sold out, a lot of it ended up in this book:https://www.amazon.com/Dataclysm-Identity-What-Online-Offline-Selves/dp/0385347391 https://www.amazon.com/Dataclysm-Identity-What-Online-Offlin... The data in that book corroborates a lot of this. We're not that different from gorillas - sexual selection is tough and most of the discussion around it ranges from wrong to dishonest.
- tacocataco 5y ago
  Do you mind if you can explain okcupid selling out? I'm currently on the platform.
  - fossuser 5y ago
    The founders sold to match.com a few years back. After that the cool data blog was killed.

cjohnson318 5y ago

Ditto. I met my wife on OkCupid. She said I was the only guy that messaged her with multiple, complete sentences.

monksy 5y ago

> If instead he's referring to apps like Bumble where the woman has to make the first move, see above for why some apps choose to operate with that model. Under that model.. it's common for the first message to be "hi" or ".". Not much has changed.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
What a lot of ignorant men don't realize is that's the woman saying "you start the convo." Not everything is meant to be interpreted literally in dating and relationships. If you believe that, you're doing it wrong.
- monksy 5y ago
  I realize it is. Doesn't mean that I have to tolerate that or accept it. Be a human, start a conversation.
seppin 5y ago
Most common Bumble message: "Hey how's it going" Isn't that the exact lack of effort you complain about? The real problem is that wtf are you supposed to say to someone you don't know? Whatever that comes out is meaningless because you have 0 to go on. That's the point. It's a starting point.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

imtringued 5y ago

What would they do if every man spent 30 min writing a super long message that is drowned out by the other 1000 messages? They wouldn't spend the 2000 minutes it would take to skim all of them. I certainly would give up after 10 messages.