4 ms·

I'm having trouble following why this would be a contradictory set of requirements from women vs simply a pickier set of requirements compared to men. "Lots of

I'm having trouble following why this would be a contradictory set of requirements from women vs simply a pickier set of requirements compared to men. "Lots of men are shallow" is an olddddd cliche, no surprise there, but a female perspective being reported as "I want someone I can connect to in words that is also physically attractive to me in person" doesn't read as contradictory to me. (I'm also unclear on what "feminine style of writing" means, but would think for such an experiment to be really useful you'd need to pretend to be a man in your writing as well!) I had far more success in online dating when I started moving towards "let's meet in person as quickly as possible" because (even for me as a man) I found that the physical connection was harder to predict yet also more important than just a text-based one. The only area where my experience doesn't match hers is that I didn't encounter much resistance to something along the lines of "hey, let's meet up in person and see if we can keep this going" after just a few messages.

meowkit 5y ago
That interpretation doesn’t read as a contradiction because its not. My interpretation is that communicating in a feminine style (more subtext, longer messages, longer + consistent correspondence is how I would interpret it) is what will get you a date, but initial attraction and in presence masculinity (communicated via a different conversational style, appearance, and behavior) is what is preferred. So the contraction is that there is a difference in communication styles online and in person.
- majormajor 5y ago
  I think there is a difference in online and in-person communication styles for most people - at least for those of any literary bent at all, who get beyond stream of consciousness, unfiltered blathering of words into their keyboard - so that's why I don't see any contradiction in preferences of women who might want a literary written communication style but also want in-person chemistry that a woman pretending to be a man wasn't able to create.
klipt 5y ago
> I had far more success in online dating when I started moving towards "let's meet in person as quickly as possible" Preach! I made the mistake initially of putting in lots of effort to woo some very introverted women with long text conversations because I fell in love with their detailed profiles. Then we meet in person and they were inevitably, if not autistic ... severely socially challenged. In the end I married a woman with a very simple dating profile instead. We just clicked really well in person, and she's really smart, just not the kind of person to live on the internet and write really detailed profiles. Which is a good complement to me because I tend towards being that person :-p
- tolbish 5y ago
  In that sense, having the perfect profile, or at least an elaborate or detailed one, may be a red flag.
  - the_only_law 5y ago
    This seems to be a common opinion in the space. Simpler, more generic is often considered better.
    - MonaroVXR 5y ago
      You got a source for this?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Closi 5y ago
> I'm having trouble following why this would be a contradictory set of requirements from women vs simply a pickier set of requirements compared to men. I think the contradiction is that women over text might want a loving, caring guy - someone that is romantic, replies to messages and is thoughtful. Most women will rationalise this romantic guy, while time after time will end up with the “bad boys”. Why? Raw attraction kicks in. And raw attraction isn’t something you rationalise, it’s an instinct that sits somewhere in your gut. And unfortunately, the type of guys they are attracted to might be different to what they logically want to be attracted to. It’s exactly the same with guys too - I’ve really wanted to be in love with girls in the past that I can rationalise would be great partners, but there is a disconnect between the gut and the head. (As a side note, I agree on suggesting a meet sooner rather than later - the main reason for me is because I don’t believe the level of attraction over app is a particularly strong indicator of the level of attraction when you meet, or at least not as strong of an indicator as you might expect)

meowkit 5y ago

That interpretation doesn’t read as a contradiction because its not. My interpretation is that communicating in a feminine style (more subtext, longer messages, longer + consistent correspondence is how I would interpret it) is what will get you a date, but initial attraction and in presence masculinity (communicated via a different conversational style, appearance, and behavior) is what is preferred. So the contraction is that there is a difference in communication styles online and in person.

majormajor 5y ago
I think there is a difference in online and in-person communication styles for most people - at least for those of any literary bent at all, who get beyond stream of consciousness, unfiltered blathering of words into their keyboard - so that's why I don't see any contradiction in preferences of women who might want a literary written communication style but also want in-person chemistry that a woman pretending to be a man wasn't able to create.

klipt 5y ago

> I had far more success in online dating when I started moving towards "let's meet in person as quickly as possible" Preach! I made the mistake initially of putting in lots of effort to woo some very introverted women with long text conversations because I fell in love with their detailed profiles. Then we meet in person and they were inevitably, if not autistic ... severely socially challenged. In the end I married a woman with a very simple dating profile instead. We just clicked really well in person, and she's really smart, just not the kind of person to live on the internet and write really detailed profiles. Which is a good complement to me because I tend towards being that person :-p

tolbish 5y ago
In that sense, having the perfect profile, or at least an elaborate or detailed one, may be a red flag.
- the_only_law 5y ago
  This seems to be a common opinion in the space. Simpler, more generic is often considered better.
  - MonaroVXR 5y ago
    You got a source for this?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Closi 5y ago

> I'm having trouble following why this would be a contradictory set of requirements from women vs simply a pickier set of requirements compared to men. I think the contradiction is that women over text might want a loving, caring guy - someone that is romantic, replies to messages and is thoughtful. Most women will rationalise this romantic guy, while time after time will end up with the “bad boys”. Why? Raw attraction kicks in. And raw attraction isn’t something you rationalise, it’s an instinct that sits somewhere in your gut. And unfortunately, the type of guys they are attracted to might be different to what they logically want to be attracted to. It’s exactly the same with guys too - I’ve really wanted to be in love with girls in the past that I can rationalise would be great partners, but there is a disconnect between the gut and the head. (As a side note, I agree on suggesting a meet sooner rather than later - the main reason for me is because I don’t believe the level of attraction over app is a particularly strong indicator of the level of attraction when you meet, or at least not as strong of an indicator as you might expect)