10 ms·

Just a few weird things while reading this > Unlike in the modern dating process, they cannot get to know a potential partner intimately before deciding whethe

by rendaw 3y ago

Just a few weird things while reading this > Unlike in the modern dating process, they cannot get to know a potential partner intimately before deciding whether or not to commit to a relationship. Does intimacy somehow lend knowledge of whether someone's looking for a long term relationship? > Tinder data shows that men like 10 times more profiles than women do and that 1 in 50 of their likes leads to a match versus 2 out of 5 for women. Faced with many men happy to date them, women have to identify the ones who may be willing to invest in a long-term relationship. This seems to be saying that men send out lots of likes because they want to play around... but I thought men sent out lots of likes because if they didn't they wouldn't even get a single match, which doesn't say anything about interest in long term relationships.

lazide 3y ago
Or…. Anyone on Tinder looking for a long term relationship (actually) is going to a casino to invest? It doesn’t mean you can’t end up rich (actually end up in a positive and healthy relationship/walk away after a big payout), but that’s the definition of a long tail outcome. Aka delusional or an idiot. Near as I can tell, anyone saying Tinder is for long term relationships is just trying to duck societal shame when someone discovers they’re on it. Aka all women, and most men. Which, if you understand the circumstances is ‘fine’.
- williamdclt 3y ago
  > Aka all women, and most men. Projecting a lot here, it’s definitely not true. Not a single woman that I know is on tinder is saying that it’s for a long term relationship
  - lazide 3y ago
    Then they’ve either broken free from societal conditioning, or society has given up - or you’re not someone they’re worried is ‘in charge’. Would they say the same to their parents? A random cop? Co-workers?
    - williamdclt 3y ago
      I wouldn’t as so far as to say “broken free from societal conditioning” (don’t think anyone can claim that), but that was sort of my point: society is not a uniform hivemind, there’s many different overlapping subgroups and subcultures sharing different values and encouraging different behaviours. Not all of them shame not looking for long term relationships and it’s not about “society giving up”, it’s different values (I’m not talking about a niche subculture here, this is really not uncommon, eg some coworkers) > Would they say the same to their parents I get your point, it’s true people tend to get more conservative around parents (who don’t necessarily share the same values as their kids), but even then: for _some_ of these people, yes they do say the same to their parents. It’s really nothing groundbreaking: people build social circles with other people sharing their values, so stigma related to these values is lesser within these circles
      - lazide 3y ago
        Society needs kids (replacement rate at a minimum, growth preferred!), workers to do jobs, education of its members, competitive economic activity (growth preferred!), etc. If done effectively, these are also opportunities to get significant dividends from society to offset our own needs and flaws. Shame is the emotion used to tell folks ‘this will get you in trouble with the group around you that you need’ - if done appropriately, it’s protective of negative consequences. One of the biggest issues with growing up is figuring out which of the emotional responses we’ve been trained into (or experience) is helping us or not, or adaptive/maladaptive or not. Aka if you would not knock an old lady over and steal her purse, because you’d be ashamed to do it, that means you learned or were taught shame appropriately. And can feel it appropriately. Because, if society was doing its job, you’d end up in jail or beaten up if you did that, and would lose out on good jobs, good mates, income you need, etc. as a consequence. If you would not ask for help from someone who could provide it if you needed it for the same reason, then that is probably inappropriate and maladaptive. Or if you could not, say, get a job you needed for the same reason. For women, they have a limited window where they can reproduce without a lot of risk, pain, suffering, etc (or when it’s just impossible). No one wants to think about it, but it absolutely exists and it sucks if it gets ignored - been there, done that, I can tell you many horror stories. If you’ve dated any women in their late 20’s to mid 30’s, it’s nearly impossible to miss. If they are successful in doing so AND in raising a child well, that will pay large social dividends for them for the rest of their life. If they don’t, society will marginalize them (even if they say they won’t) and they’ll end up in some very socially undesirable situations eventually. It isn’t the end all be all of course. Similar to men and learning skills like building wealth, getting/being healthy and strong, being courageous, approaching women, etc. Also not the end all be all. But also important. A society which doesn’t incentivize the behavior it needs for itself or its members has ‘given up’, same with parents. Or lost the plot. A social group which encourages its members to do things which don’t help them, is enabling things which don’t help them. Or doesn’t know what would actually help them. Which, hey, nobody and nothing is perfect. And vices exist because they help prop something else up, and they’re often necessary. But pretending a Casino is a bank is still BS, even if sometimes people walk out with more money then they walked in with. Being unashamed of going to the casino everyday is… indicative of having broken social conditioning, if society is functional, and probably not good for the individual either long term. And yes, none of this is groundbreaking at all. Quite unpopular though, to say it all near as I can tell.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    Nobody goes to a bar intending to find a spouse. Yet, millions have. People click, and the process of the clicking is irrational. My late wife and I met on Yahoo Personals, with the explicit intention of a short term thing. We were both planning to move. We were together for 23 years, married for 20. End of the day, you go where the people are.
    - lazide 3y ago
      And where you go tends to define the people that are there. What do you say your relative odds are of finding someone who isn’t a drinker at a bar? Non-zero for sure. Also, not super likely as compared to a park or supermarket, eh? So if you were going to find someone who wasn’t a big drinker (it mattered to you), hanging out at the bar all the time might eventually work out - but would be a pretty round about way of doing it, eh?
      - Spooky23 3y ago
        True! In the case of my parents, my mom was drawn to this upper east side bar with her colleagues for the happy hour that promised free burgers for nurses. She remains a thrifty gal to this day.
- gryn 3y ago
  10 years ago would've agreed with you, these days I'm not so sure. Where do you think people looking for long term relationships are looking ?
  - lazide 3y ago
    In person.
    - szundi 3y ago
      Are you joking or thinking that Tinder is about staying online?
      - lazide 3y ago
        Are you joking, or do you think meeting people in person is about getting a quick hookup? It’s about more information and context (and truth), before moving forward. Which is important when you’ve got something to lose. And it takes time. Which is a good thing, as it tends to weed out a lot of noise. Tinder does eventually go to in-person yes - but it puts the cart before the horse IMO by putting the pitch first, and doing selection based on that. It’s a lot smarter, in my experience, seeing the ‘reality’ first, and then seeing what the pitch is. I’ve personally learned (and seen it from many others) that is far more important when looking for a long term relationship - and in my experience I’m not alone. But everyone is different, and it certainly can work out well otherwise. But you don’t see anyone who has something to lose going to the casino when they have money to invest - at least not over and over again.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        paulryanrogers 3y ago
        In-person starting venues appear to be more scarce -- or have higher entry thresholds -- than in times past. I'm not so sure it's guaranteed to be better for everyone and everywhere.
- szundi 3y ago
  My wife is from Tinder, worked out awesome.
  - prepend 3y ago
    Congrats. It does happen but it’s the outlier. People also hookup on eharmony. But the purpose of Tinder is to find short term or one time hookups. And that’s perfectly ok. But doing studies about long term relationships on Tinder seems odd and poorly formed as there are better populations to study. That’s why it’s reasonable to ask why long term relationship seekers are even on tinder.
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      > But the purpose of Tinder is to find short term or one time hookups You forget the part where everyone who is single looking for a short term relationship is also looking for a long term relationship with the right person, so it's a useless distinction. That's why it's not reasonable to ask why long term relationship seekers are even on tinder. The venn diagram is one circle. Literally all tinder like any dating app does is remove the "is it okay to ask him/her out" because being on the app is a signal it's okay. After that it is what you make of it.
      - prepend 3y ago
        > You forget the part where everyone who is single looking for a short term relationship is also looking for a long term relationship with the right person I disagree strongly with this statement. There are people looking for all sorts of things. And assuming this leads to much relationship mismatch and pain. The assumption that people who say they are looking for hookups or casual relationships are really just looking for the right person and I know better than them is not a good idea if I’m looking for a long term relationship. I think it’s important that people trust what others say and don’t try to project their own beliefs. Tinder is specifically made for hookups, per its own design. This is different from other sites that are specifically made for long term relationships (eg, eharmony, coffeemeetsbagel, etc). This doesn’t mean one is better than the other. Or that one type of person is better than others. Just that there are different people. And we shouldn’t assume they all people want the same things.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  Dating apps are places where you find people who are looking for a relationship, that's all. I don't know anyone who says Tinder or whatever app is "for" long term relationships. But I do know people who would say that not going for short relationships is a good way to never end up with a long one. Technically they are correct. Long term relationships necessarily arise from short term relationships. It's just how time works. Like the first step of long term investment in a stock is no different from short term gamble. If you say doing research is what distinguishes investing, first that's wrong, but also then let's just say some see sleeping with the person part of doing research
- giantg2 3y ago
  Casual encounters may play a bigger part in marriages and longterm relationships than you think. https://www.businessinsider.com/can-one-night-stands-turn-into-relationships-2015-6?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/can-one-night-stands-turn-in...
  - lazide 3y ago
    Bwahaha. It does say something, but that fluff piece isn’t saying what you think it’s saying.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      Care to contribute to the conversation?
      - lazide 3y ago
        Care to read my other comments?
cvoss 3y ago
> Does intimacy somehow lend knowledge of whether someone's looking for a long term relationship? In trying to understand your question, I'm realizing it's possible you are taking "intimacy" to mean "sexual intimacy." I don't think the author meant to speak euphemistically in that way. I think it just means deep, vulnerable relational knowledge of the other. In which case, yes. When you get to know someone intimately, you acquire license to ask these kinds of more probing questions and you are justified in expecting honest answers to such questions. You also become more skilled at detecting facades and subterfuge from the other person.
giantg2 3y ago
"which doesn't say anything about interest in long term relationships." We're talking about Tinder. While longterm relationships do come out of that platform, it was intended and still used primarily as a hookup site. I'm not sure how the authors think Tinder is a good platform for longterm relationships. I would guess if you looked at the highly desirable men, the numbers would show they are also more selective. If you can be successful with the population of more desirable mates, why not be lazy and ignore the mid/lower tiers of mates? That's essentially what we see with most women.
- mettamage 3y ago
  It actually depends on the country. The Amsterdam is more relationship oriented, Berlin is in-between, Valencia is hook ups, Koh Phangan is for hook ups (tourists, I didn’t swipe Thai women). The US was awful. NYC perhaps wasn’t awful. I didn’t swipe enough there. This is just my experience.
- anamexis 3y ago
  The last time I used Tinder (in San Francisco), I would guess it was about 90% people looking for long term relationships.
  - ZoomerCretin 3y ago
    That's likely a function of the area skewing so heavily towards a surplus of men. It's hard to play the field when the single man:single woman ratio is 3:1.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      How can it be 3:1? Seems the male/female breakdown for SF is about 1.1:1. There are some other factors, but I still don't see how it can be anywhere close to 3:1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco#/media/File%3ASan_Francisco_City_population_pyramid_in_2021.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisc...
Spooky23 3y ago
Nah, people don’t think and get stuck in the funnel. Tinder is play to play. Pay for “gold” for one week, go incognito and swipe selectively. Then go dark (aka pause the account) for a few weeks. I yield probably 1 in 5 match. I’m a mid 40s decent looking guy with a few headshots. Did it a couple of rounds and met someone awesome. They prioritize new upgraders for exposure, but it wears off quickly to make you buy boosts. Key tips: - Avoid profiles that are too good, especially pictures. Nothing worse than professional daters. - Look for undervalued assets! Sometimes modest or poorly shot pictures don’t jump out. - Pretend you’re speaking to a crowd with your profile. Keep it light and vague. The goal is a connection, so adding filter material only hurts you. - Keep the pictures of you and simple. No groups, kids, fish, flexing a Porsche that isn’t yours, etc. Don’t try to tell a pictorial story, few will get it. - On the flip avoid people dumping details. You won’t beat a checklist. - Have a healthy hell no. It doesn’t matter how hot she is. In jail, substance abuse, things that are issues for you are issues. If you can’t deal with single parents, etc. Swipe left. - If you’re not into or curious about ENM, kink, etc, and thats in the profile, swipe left. Dating sites are like smoking. They’ll lure you into the little dopamine hits of swiping. The way to win that game is not to play. You want 1-2 matches while wasting as little time as possible. If you have spoken to more than a half dozen people and everyone is awful, the problem is you. Figure out what you want, rinse, repeat.
- andrewflnr 3y ago
  > Pay for “gold” for one week, go incognito and swipe selectively. Then go dark (aka pause the account) for a few weeks. I yield probably 1 in 5 match. I don't understand this. At what stage does anyone else see your profile? Can they see it while you're paused?
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    When you are incognito, only people you swipe see you. Once you match, your matches can still see and communicate with you in app. Be strategic. Everything happens during that one week subscription. Once you match, pause and go figure out if they are a good person for you, if you don’t, pause anyway and wait a bit. Checking tinder shouldn’t be like checking email. Do it deliberately.
breather 3y ago
This also sort of raises a red flag for the author—short term relationships weren't really a thing in the world of Austen, just prospective long-term relationships and essentially affairs.
- lazide 3y ago
  And in real life - lots and lots of prostitution haha. Victorian era reality vs literature was wildly different. [https://www.eiu.edu/historia/Kessler2014.pdf https://www.eiu.edu/historia/Kessler2014.pdf]
thisislife2 3y ago
> Does intimacy somehow lend knowledge of whether someone's looking for a long term relationship? Intimacy also implies letting one's guard down and revealing your "truer" self to the other. So yes, it can give better insights about someone, and thus offer more reliable hints on the possibility of long-term relationship. In the Victorian era women "dated" in the public glare of a social setting (public or private get together) or with a chaperone in tow - so obviously it was hard to be physically or emotionally intimate with someone. Even if you could find opportunities to be intimate, they were rare and limited enough that one may still not get enough "data" on the other person. Compare that with modern times and culture where couples today can freely be intimate in many ways without any societal judgement.

by rendaw 3y ago

lazide 3y ago

Or…. Anyone on Tinder looking for a long term relationship (actually) is going to a casino to invest? It doesn’t mean you can’t end up rich (actually end up in a positive and healthy relationship/walk away after a big payout), but that’s the definition of a long tail outcome. Aka delusional or an idiot. Near as I can tell, anyone saying Tinder is for long term relationships is just trying to duck societal shame when someone discovers they’re on it. Aka all women, and most men. Which, if you understand the circumstances is ‘fine’.

williamdclt 3y ago
> Aka all women, and most men. Projecting a lot here, it’s definitely not true. Not a single woman that I know is on tinder is saying that it’s for a long term relationship
- lazide 3y ago
  Then they’ve either broken free from societal conditioning, or society has given up - or you’re not someone they’re worried is ‘in charge’. Would they say the same to their parents? A random cop? Co-workers?
  - williamdclt 3y ago
    I wouldn’t as so far as to say “broken free from societal conditioning” (don’t think anyone can claim that), but that was sort of my point: society is not a uniform hivemind, there’s many different overlapping subgroups and subcultures sharing different values and encouraging different behaviours. Not all of them shame not looking for long term relationships and it’s not about “society giving up”, it’s different values (I’m not talking about a niche subculture here, this is really not uncommon, eg some coworkers) > Would they say the same to their parents I get your point, it’s true people tend to get more conservative around parents (who don’t necessarily share the same values as their kids), but even then: for _some_ of these people, yes they do say the same to their parents. It’s really nothing groundbreaking: people build social circles with other people sharing their values, so stigma related to these values is lesser within these circles
    - lazide 3y ago
      Society needs kids (replacement rate at a minimum, growth preferred!), workers to do jobs, education of its members, competitive economic activity (growth preferred!), etc. If done effectively, these are also opportunities to get significant dividends from society to offset our own needs and flaws. Shame is the emotion used to tell folks ‘this will get you in trouble with the group around you that you need’ - if done appropriately, it’s protective of negative consequences. One of the biggest issues with growing up is figuring out which of the emotional responses we’ve been trained into (or experience) is helping us or not, or adaptive/maladaptive or not. Aka if you would not knock an old lady over and steal her purse, because you’d be ashamed to do it, that means you learned or were taught shame appropriately. And can feel it appropriately. Because, if society was doing its job, you’d end up in jail or beaten up if you did that, and would lose out on good jobs, good mates, income you need, etc. as a consequence. If you would not ask for help from someone who could provide it if you needed it for the same reason, then that is probably inappropriate and maladaptive. Or if you could not, say, get a job you needed for the same reason. For women, they have a limited window where they can reproduce without a lot of risk, pain, suffering, etc (or when it’s just impossible). No one wants to think about it, but it absolutely exists and it sucks if it gets ignored - been there, done that, I can tell you many horror stories. If you’ve dated any women in their late 20’s to mid 30’s, it’s nearly impossible to miss. If they are successful in doing so AND in raising a child well, that will pay large social dividends for them for the rest of their life. If they don’t, society will marginalize them (even if they say they won’t) and they’ll end up in some very socially undesirable situations eventually. It isn’t the end all be all of course. Similar to men and learning skills like building wealth, getting/being healthy and strong, being courageous, approaching women, etc. Also not the end all be all. But also important. A society which doesn’t incentivize the behavior it needs for itself or its members has ‘given up’, same with parents. Or lost the plot. A social group which encourages its members to do things which don’t help them, is enabling things which don’t help them. Or doesn’t know what would actually help them. Which, hey, nobody and nothing is perfect. And vices exist because they help prop something else up, and they’re often necessary. But pretending a Casino is a bank is still BS, even if sometimes people walk out with more money then they walked in with. Being unashamed of going to the casino everyday is… indicative of having broken social conditioning, if society is functional, and probably not good for the individual either long term. And yes, none of this is groundbreaking at all. Quite unpopular though, to say it all near as I can tell.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  Nobody goes to a bar intending to find a spouse. Yet, millions have. People click, and the process of the clicking is irrational. My late wife and I met on Yahoo Personals, with the explicit intention of a short term thing. We were both planning to move. We were together for 23 years, married for 20. End of the day, you go where the people are.
  - lazide 3y ago
    And where you go tends to define the people that are there. What do you say your relative odds are of finding someone who isn’t a drinker at a bar? Non-zero for sure. Also, not super likely as compared to a park or supermarket, eh? So if you were going to find someone who wasn’t a big drinker (it mattered to you), hanging out at the bar all the time might eventually work out - but would be a pretty round about way of doing it, eh?
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      True! In the case of my parents, my mom was drawn to this upper east side bar with her colleagues for the happy hour that promised free burgers for nurses. She remains a thrifty gal to this day.
gryn 3y ago
10 years ago would've agreed with you, these days I'm not so sure. Where do you think people looking for long term relationships are looking ?
- lazide 3y ago
  In person.
  - szundi 3y ago
    Are you joking or thinking that Tinder is about staying online?
    - lazide 3y ago
      Are you joking, or do you think meeting people in person is about getting a quick hookup? It’s about more information and context (and truth), before moving forward. Which is important when you’ve got something to lose. And it takes time. Which is a good thing, as it tends to weed out a lot of noise. Tinder does eventually go to in-person yes - but it puts the cart before the horse IMO by putting the pitch first, and doing selection based on that. It’s a lot smarter, in my experience, seeing the ‘reality’ first, and then seeing what the pitch is. I’ve personally learned (and seen it from many others) that is far more important when looking for a long term relationship - and in my experience I’m not alone. But everyone is different, and it certainly can work out well otherwise. But you don’t see anyone who has something to lose going to the casino when they have money to invest - at least not over and over again.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        In-person starting venues appear to be more scarce -- or have higher entry thresholds -- than in times past. I'm not so sure it's guaranteed to be better for everyone and everywhere.
szundi 3y ago
My wife is from Tinder, worked out awesome.
- prepend 3y ago
  Congrats. It does happen but it’s the outlier. People also hookup on eharmony. But the purpose of Tinder is to find short term or one time hookups. And that’s perfectly ok. But doing studies about long term relationships on Tinder seems odd and poorly formed as there are better populations to study. That’s why it’s reasonable to ask why long term relationship seekers are even on tinder.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    > But the purpose of Tinder is to find short term or one time hookups You forget the part where everyone who is single looking for a short term relationship is also looking for a long term relationship with the right person, so it's a useless distinction. That's why it's not reasonable to ask why long term relationship seekers are even on tinder. The venn diagram is one circle. Literally all tinder like any dating app does is remove the "is it okay to ask him/her out" because being on the app is a signal it's okay. After that it is what you make of it.
    - prepend 3y ago
      > You forget the part where everyone who is single looking for a short term relationship is also looking for a long term relationship with the right person I disagree strongly with this statement. There are people looking for all sorts of things. And assuming this leads to much relationship mismatch and pain. The assumption that people who say they are looking for hookups or casual relationships are really just looking for the right person and I know better than them is not a good idea if I’m looking for a long term relationship. I think it’s important that people trust what others say and don’t try to project their own beliefs. Tinder is specifically made for hookups, per its own design. This is different from other sites that are specifically made for long term relationships (eg, eharmony, coffeemeetsbagel, etc). This doesn’t mean one is better than the other. Or that one type of person is better than others. Just that there are different people. And we shouldn’t assume they all people want the same things.
throwaway290 3y ago
Dating apps are places where you find people who are looking for a relationship, that's all. I don't know anyone who says Tinder or whatever app is "for" long term relationships. But I do know people who would say that not going for short relationships is a good way to never end up with a long one. Technically they are correct. Long term relationships necessarily arise from short term relationships. It's just how time works. Like the first step of long term investment in a stock is no different from short term gamble. If you say doing research is what distinguishes investing, first that's wrong, but also then let's just say some see sleeping with the person part of doing research
giantg2 3y ago
Casual encounters may play a bigger part in marriages and longterm relationships than you think. https://www.businessinsider.com/can-one-night-stands-turn-into-relationships-2015-6?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/can-one-night-stands-turn-in...
- lazide 3y ago
  Bwahaha. It does say something, but that fluff piece isn’t saying what you think it’s saying.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    Care to contribute to the conversation?
    - lazide 3y ago
      Care to read my other comments?

cvoss 3y ago

> Does intimacy somehow lend knowledge of whether someone's looking for a long term relationship? In trying to understand your question, I'm realizing it's possible you are taking "intimacy" to mean "sexual intimacy." I don't think the author meant to speak euphemistically in that way. I think it just means deep, vulnerable relational knowledge of the other. In which case, yes. When you get to know someone intimately, you acquire license to ask these kinds of more probing questions and you are justified in expecting honest answers to such questions. You also become more skilled at detecting facades and subterfuge from the other person.

giantg2 3y ago

"which doesn't say anything about interest in long term relationships." We're talking about Tinder. While longterm relationships do come out of that platform, it was intended and still used primarily as a hookup site. I'm not sure how the authors think Tinder is a good platform for longterm relationships. I would guess if you looked at the highly desirable men, the numbers would show they are also more selective. If you can be successful with the population of more desirable mates, why not be lazy and ignore the mid/lower tiers of mates? That's essentially what we see with most women.

mettamage 3y ago
It actually depends on the country. The Amsterdam is more relationship oriented, Berlin is in-between, Valencia is hook ups, Koh Phangan is for hook ups (tourists, I didn’t swipe Thai women). The US was awful. NYC perhaps wasn’t awful. I didn’t swipe enough there. This is just my experience.
anamexis 3y ago
The last time I used Tinder (in San Francisco), I would guess it was about 90% people looking for long term relationships.
- ZoomerCretin 3y ago
  That's likely a function of the area skewing so heavily towards a surplus of men. It's hard to play the field when the single man:single woman ratio is 3:1.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    How can it be 3:1? Seems the male/female breakdown for SF is about 1.1:1. There are some other factors, but I still don't see how it can be anywhere close to 3:1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco#/media/File%3ASan_Francisco_City_population_pyramid_in_2021.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisc...

Spooky23 3y ago

Nah, people don’t think and get stuck in the funnel. Tinder is play to play. Pay for “gold” for one week, go incognito and swipe selectively. Then go dark (aka pause the account) for a few weeks. I yield probably 1 in 5 match. I’m a mid 40s decent looking guy with a few headshots. Did it a couple of rounds and met someone awesome. They prioritize new upgraders for exposure, but it wears off quickly to make you buy boosts. Key tips: - Avoid profiles that are too good, especially pictures. Nothing worse than professional daters. - Look for undervalued assets! Sometimes modest or poorly shot pictures don’t jump out. - Pretend you’re speaking to a crowd with your profile. Keep it light and vague. The goal is a connection, so adding filter material only hurts you. - Keep the pictures of you and simple. No groups, kids, fish, flexing a Porsche that isn’t yours, etc. Don’t try to tell a pictorial story, few will get it. - On the flip avoid people dumping details. You won’t beat a checklist. - Have a healthy hell no. It doesn’t matter how hot she is. In jail, substance abuse, things that are issues for you are issues. If you can’t deal with single parents, etc. Swipe left. - If you’re not into or curious about ENM, kink, etc, and thats in the profile, swipe left. Dating sites are like smoking. They’ll lure you into the little dopamine hits of swiping. The way to win that game is not to play. You want 1-2 matches while wasting as little time as possible. If you have spoken to more than a half dozen people and everyone is awful, the problem is you. Figure out what you want, rinse, repeat.

andrewflnr 3y ago
> Pay for “gold” for one week, go incognito and swipe selectively. Then go dark (aka pause the account) for a few weeks. I yield probably 1 in 5 match. I don't understand this. At what stage does anyone else see your profile? Can they see it while you're paused?
- Spooky23 3y ago
  When you are incognito, only people you swipe see you. Once you match, your matches can still see and communicate with you in app. Be strategic. Everything happens during that one week subscription. Once you match, pause and go figure out if they are a good person for you, if you don’t, pause anyway and wait a bit. Checking tinder shouldn’t be like checking email. Do it deliberately.

breather 3y ago

This also sort of raises a red flag for the author—short term relationships weren't really a thing in the world of Austen, just prospective long-term relationships and essentially affairs.

lazide 3y ago
And in real life - lots and lots of prostitution haha. Victorian era reality vs literature was wildly different. [https://www.eiu.edu/historia/Kessler2014.pdf https://www.eiu.edu/historia/Kessler2014.pdf]

thisislife2 3y ago

> Does intimacy somehow lend knowledge of whether someone's looking for a long term relationship? Intimacy also implies letting one's guard down and revealing your "truer" self to the other. So yes, it can give better insights about someone, and thus offer more reliable hints on the possibility of long-term relationship. In the Victorian era women "dated" in the public glare of a social setting (public or private get together) or with a chaperone in tow - so obviously it was hard to be physically or emotionally intimate with someone. Even if you could find opportunities to be intimate, they were rare and limited enough that one may still not get enough "data" on the other person. Compare that with modern times and culture where couples today can freely be intimate in many ways without any societal judgement.