5 ms·

How Couples Meet

64 points by rzk 3y ago

wsgeorge 3y ago
I would have expected "Met in bar or restaurant" to be much higher in the 40s, and to have tracked with "Met in church" for longer.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  I would guess bars and restaurants are (relative to young single incomes) much cheaper than they were in the 40s
- gleenn 3y ago
  I think it's super fascinating and unexpected to have passed "met through friends" which I would have guessed would still be a strong mechanism. I definitely find the relationships I've started with friends of friends were always stronger and lasted longer due to the social momentum and both having more "skin in the game" than ones I started with random people from online. The biggest problem is the friends of friends pool is far more fixed and people tend to be hesitant to introduce people at the risk of creating possible conflicts within friend groups. The online line shooting up is sad because I feel like my experience on the common dating apps has only gotten worse over time. That may also be attributable to me just getting older too confoundingly.
- jrussino 3y ago
  I seems especially puzzling that "met in a bar or restaurant" is the only other (non-online) response that trends upward post-2000. Why would that be the case? It almost makes me wonder whether "we met in a bar" is a common response from people who are embarrassed to say they met online...
evilos 3y ago
Doesn't one company own almost all the dating apps in the US? That seems... potentially problematic.
- anonu 3y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted. But you're totally right. We hum and haw about Tik Tok - but we don't generally give them any information other than our scrolling (behavioural data). Dating apps have a ton more detailed information on individuals (dating preferences, age, specific geographic locations). But I suppose IAC (Barry Diller) and MTCH are US-owned.
- YugyDugan 3y ago
  Interesting article on the founders: https://jewishjournal.com/mobile_20111212/132669/ https://jewishjournal.com/mobile_20111212/132669/
  - defrost 3y ago
    Boring short article that names three Tinder founders and adds no other founder details other than two claim to attend their parents’ Shabbat dinner tables every Friday. The 'rest' describes using Tinder.
wslh 3y ago
Are you completely out if you don't like to date online?
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  Looking at the graph, 55% of "met online" means 45% met not online.
- sarusso 3y ago
  IMHO absolutely not, it just means that you value other things that you can't find in online dating. Don't get discouraged by graphs like this, because they approach the topic in a statistical way but you just need to meet _one_ person to form a couple!
- taspeotis 3y ago
  The chart shows 45% of couples meeting outside of online dating...
anonu 3y ago
Some more context: https://profiles.stanford.edu/michael-rosenfeld https://profiles.stanford.edu/michael-rosenfeld https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-way-u-s-couples-meet/ https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-w... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31431531/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31431531/
- jyunwai 3y ago
  To add a different, independent study for more context on the same topic, Pew Research Center ran a survey conducted in 2022 and reported in 2023 about online dating in the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findi... In contrast to Rosenfeld et al.'s research, Pew reported that 53% of people aged 18–29 "have ever used a dating site or app," but only 20% of partnered people aged 18–29 met their current partner "on a dating site or app," though this statistic does not include "those who did not give an answer."
atleastoptimal 3y ago
This has all lead to: > Massively increased benefit in possessing high physical attractiveness > Reduced relative benefit of close/serendipitous physical proximity > A "winner takes all" effect where highly sought promiscuous men can dominate the dating market with minimal consequences/overhead > Pervasive analysis paralysis and a sense of a better match being easily accessible, reducing investment in one's current partner
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  Can you explain the "winner takes all" effect here? At second glance, time and partner exclusivity seem to be be limiting factors. So I'm not exactly seeing an "all" consequence. Do you have any napkin math regarding distribution differences that would support your argument?
  - slily 3y ago
    I don't know how accurate this is, but recent statistics show that far more men self-report as single compared to women in the US, by as much as tens of percentage points if I recall.
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      It looks like the answer is "it depends." Particularly, on how categories are compared. There does seem to be a big gap with young people, but overall, the gap is four percentage points. The gap is also much bigger among LGB men vs LBG women which as an aside is interesting in and of itself. 1. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valentines-day-5-facts-about-single-americans/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valen...
      - slily 3y ago
        The <30 category is a whopping 30% and more relevant to the subject. The difference in "LGB" categories can be explained by the fact that women are an order of magnitude more likely to self-report as bisexual than men.
throwawaymaths 3y ago
the truly terrifying trend is that "met through friends" is cratering. Are we so selfish that we don't introduce friends to potential partners? Are we too jaded about our friend's suggestions?
- supportengineer 3y ago
  People have fewer friends than they used to.
  - parpfish 3y ago
    That has a twofold effect: - You have fewer friends to recommend - you don’t want to risk the fallout from a bad recommendation affecting the small group that you do have
- jprete 3y ago
  I've noticed a trend where people are reluctant to allow their friend groups to mix or cross. I've got probably an above-average number of friends, but the number of friends-of-friends I've met in the last three or four years is in single digits. I think it's because they're carefully managing their persona in each group and don't want to have to explain the multiple facets of their personality. But I don't really know.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Yup, also because if someone starts going nuts in one group, it can easily cross contaminate into another and then you’re in an even bigger mess.
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    > I think it's because they're carefully managing their persona in each group This is a great point. If that's the root cause the cratering makes sense, it's (scientifically) known that the most stable relationships exist between two people who have one or a few friends in common but who introduce subsets of friend groups to each other.
- 3y ago
dzonga 3y ago
you're trending towards 60% of people meeting online via dating apps - which have the wrong incentives and have massive trust issues for couples. and btw match group has like 80% share of the dating app market. and dating apps are brutal to the average guy. now remove the option of meeting spouses via work. -- metoo then add the situation of people working remotely, and finding jobs in places they didn't grow up. which means they're less likely to find spouses through friends - as one they can't easily make friends of the opposite sex due to sheer limitation in opportunity through the decimation of 3rd spaces. what you simply have is a sure way to depopulate a population and cause frustration on everyone.
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  It's pretty damning when people are creating text documents and sharing them online because dating websites are such overcapitalized garbage.
- YugyDugan 3y ago
  [flagged]
- cedws 3y ago
  There's less people meeting at bars and clubs too, especially among the younger generations who either don't drink or can't afford to. Apparently women don't like being approached anymore either. As a single person I am very confused about how this is all supposed to work.
  - CuriouslyC 3y ago
    The percentage of women who respond to a direct approach has been pretty bad for a while, you really have to be smooth to make it work. The "meet cute" angle is easier - i.e. fortuitously bumping into a woman in some way or striking up a conversation spontaneously about shared circumstances. Most women are open to that sort of meeting if it feels natural, but then you have to have some sort of routine for "spontaneously" striking up a conversation so it's not without its drawbacks.
- reaperman 3y ago
kelseyfrog 3y ago
Help me understand the advice I hear, "Forget about apps, take a class, or just talk to people, and a relationship will find you." It would seem that it takes at least twice as much effort pursuing this strategy today than it did 20 years ago, it's only becoming worse. How is it justified? Note: I'm happily married. The advice is a large proportion of what I read online when dating advice is given.
- jrussino 3y ago
  My suspicion is that this is (a) advice from people like us who got out of the dating pool before online dating came to dominate and don't have firsthand experience of how much things have changed in a short time period, and (b) wishful thinking from people who are looking at this trend and saying "it doesn't have to be like this; there's a better way to live..."
  - jprete 3y ago
    I think you are right. I also think the Internet magnifies conventional advice, because nobody gets attacked (by anyone they care about) for promoting conventional advice even when it's dead wrong.
  - jyunwai 3y ago
    I respectfully disagree, having grown up at a time when online dating became mainstream. Though some people might give this advice due to the motivations you've mentioned, I've also heard people share this opinion due to their poor experiences with online dating. I've written more about this in another comment in this discussion, but I've known people who have had experiences where they were more likely to get stood up, broken up with unexpectedly, and especially ghosted from online dating versus by people they've met in-person. The process can also be draining for many people: I've talked to people who have been exhausted by regular rejection, or by spending lots of energy and time on bad dates (in contrast to dates that are likely to go better with people they've met in-person). They've then found themselves happier by dating people they've first met in-person, instead of online. For a wider perspective, a 2023 US survey found that online dating has been positive for 53% of respondents, and negative for 46% [1]. So, people have had mixed experiences with online dating in general. I think online dating can work great for many people (I personally know a few people who've been very happy with their experiences), though it's not necessary for having a good relationship, nor a positive experience for many others. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findi...
broast 3y ago
I think some distinction like met online or met through friends may be misleading but i don't have the context. For example, dating people you meet within online niche communities where most people are friends. This is much different than swiping on an app
- pepa65 3y ago
  Definitely need to distinguish between "met through a dating app/site" and "met online otherwise".
CobrastanJorji 3y ago
Really interesting to try and think through what led to these trends. "Met through friends" took an absolute nosedive, but at the same time, "met in bars and restaurants" has been steadily growing for the last 20 years. Why? Perhaps many of those are actually people who meet online but are embarrassed about it and choose "met in a bar" because it sounds better in some way? It's probably a good thing that "meet as coworkers" has been on a decline. Also, given that these surveys, HCMST 2009 and 2017, were internet surveys, using subjects who were regular internet survey subjects in an established panel, I wonder if it is perhaps biased towards users who are very comfortable using the internet.
- jprete 3y ago
  If I had to explain the bar-and-restaurant figure, I would guess that all the methods that are growing (the bar scene and then Internet dating scene) privilege physical attraction over other factors.
- jyunwai 3y ago
  These are all good points. For the last one, there is a separate study by Pew Research Center conducted in 2022 (reported in 2023), which likely reduces this bias by recruiting respondents by sending physical mail "to a stratified, random sample of households" that invites them to complete an online survey: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findi... Pew's results were different than the findings by Rosenfeld et al.: while 53% of people aged 18–29 in the US "have ever used a dating site or app," only 20% of partnered people aged 18–29 reportedly met their current partner "on a dating site or app" (I've also made a similar comment elsewhere in this discussion).
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Met in bar is up, but also the occurrence of large groups of friends going to bars/clubs together is also high, so there's gotta be some "met thru friends" still going on there to some degree
ttt3ts 3y ago
What about meeting through any interest group? E.g. CrossFit, Climbing, underwater basket weaving? Just a little confused where those would end up on this chart?
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  It was sports for us: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34518784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34518784 (and as far as I can tell there are just as many young fit people still doing sport as there were in our time, so I'm guessing this'd fall under "friends" by their coding?)
slily 3y ago
The amount of people I know in their mid-20s who are (relatively) well-adjusted and successful and can't find a partner is astounding. Being very introverted and with a low sex drive, the current dating landscape seems insurmountable.
- 93po 3y ago
  Introverted is likely the real problem. You have to be able to comfortably talk to a complete stranger in sometimes pretty uncomfortable circumstances. There are tons of people out there for whom a low sex drive isn't an issue.
sarusso 3y ago
The second bump in online dating, around 2012, was Tinder (I guess). But what caused the first one around 1995? IRC? Generic websites...?
- ovulator 3y ago
  Match.com was founded in 1993.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
siwatanejo 3y ago
Interesting that there's no "we met in a club option" while most of my teenage and twenties were spent, foolishly, in clubs trying to "mate" haha.
- jprete 3y ago
  If you mean nightclubs, I assume they're covered by "bars and restaurants".
lapcat 3y ago
The chart can be misleading, because it's missing a crucial data point: the % of the heterosexual population who are in a couple. My understanding is that this % has also declined over the years, which would make the decline in "met through friends", "met in school", and "met through family" look even worse. Also, given that we don't know the % of the coupled population, the chart can't tell us whether the % of the population who met their significant other in a bar or restaurant has increased, stayed the same, or even decreased. It might be all well and good if other forms of meeting were simply replaced by online dating with no loss, but I think there has been a significant decline in couplehood.
parpfish 3y ago
Has the overall number of couples shifted? Is that spike in “online” resulting in more people pairing off that’d otherwise be single, or is it actually cannibalizing the other modes?
tmsh 3y ago
23% of couples are technically also correct but too embarrassed to say they met online. /s
kaycey2022 3y ago
Looking at this I'm thinking we need a new hit sitcom like friends. Friends is hopelessly outdated.
bitsandboots 3y ago
I met online but not through dating apps. Any place you talk to strangers is a chance to find someone. People have been known to meet through World of Warcraft. I met through Discord. Lots of LGBT activity on VRChat. All this chart is saying is more people talk to strangers online than offline, I guess. Is that shocking? It's a chance to find people outside your physical bubble. So, I think this chart is missing important details that lead to bad conclusions. Like, you could even meet at hobby events.

64 points by rzk 3y ago

I would have expected "Met in bar or restaurant" to be much higher in the 40s, and to have tracked with "Met in church" for longer.

082349872349872 3y ago
I would guess bars and restaurants are (relative to young single incomes) much cheaper than they were in the 40s
gleenn 3y ago
I think it's super fascinating and unexpected to have passed "met through friends" which I would have guessed would still be a strong mechanism. I definitely find the relationships I've started with friends of friends were always stronger and lasted longer due to the social momentum and both having more "skin in the game" than ones I started with random people from online. The biggest problem is the friends of friends pool is far more fixed and people tend to be hesitant to introduce people at the risk of creating possible conflicts within friend groups. The online line shooting up is sad because I feel like my experience on the common dating apps has only gotten worse over time. That may also be attributable to me just getting older too confoundingly.
jrussino 3y ago
I seems especially puzzling that "met in a bar or restaurant" is the only other (non-online) response that trends upward post-2000. Why would that be the case? It almost makes me wonder whether "we met in a bar" is a common response from people who are embarrassed to say they met online...

evilos 3y ago

Doesn't one company own almost all the dating apps in the US? That seems... potentially problematic.

anonu 3y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted. But you're totally right. We hum and haw about Tik Tok - but we don't generally give them any information other than our scrolling (behavioural data). Dating apps have a ton more detailed information on individuals (dating preferences, age, specific geographic locations). But I suppose IAC (Barry Diller) and MTCH are US-owned.
YugyDugan 3y ago
Interesting article on the founders: https://jewishjournal.com/mobile_20111212/132669/ https://jewishjournal.com/mobile_20111212/132669/
- defrost 3y ago
  Boring short article that names three Tinder founders and adds no other founder details other than two claim to attend their parents’ Shabbat dinner tables every Friday. The 'rest' describes using Tinder.

wslh 3y ago

Are you completely out if you don't like to date online?

082349872349872 3y ago
Looking at the graph, 55% of "met online" means 45% met not online.
sarusso 3y ago
IMHO absolutely not, it just means that you value other things that you can't find in online dating. Don't get discouraged by graphs like this, because they approach the topic in a statistical way but you just need to meet _one_ person to form a couple!
taspeotis 3y ago
The chart shows 45% of couples meeting outside of online dating...

anonu 3y ago

Some more context: https://profiles.stanford.edu/michael-rosenfeld https://profiles.stanford.edu/michael-rosenfeld https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-way-u-s-couples-meet/ https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-w... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31431531/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31431531/

jyunwai 3y ago
To add a different, independent study for more context on the same topic, Pew Research Center ran a survey conducted in 2022 and reported in 2023 about online dating in the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findi... In contrast to Rosenfeld et al.'s research, Pew reported that 53% of people aged 18–29 "have ever used a dating site or app," but only 20% of partnered people aged 18–29 met their current partner "on a dating site or app," though this statistic does not include "those who did not give an answer."

atleastoptimal 3y ago

This has all lead to: > Massively increased benefit in possessing high physical attractiveness > Reduced relative benefit of close/serendipitous physical proximity > A "winner takes all" effect where highly sought promiscuous men can dominate the dating market with minimal consequences/overhead > Pervasive analysis paralysis and a sense of a better match being easily accessible, reducing investment in one's current partner

kelseyfrog 3y ago
Can you explain the "winner takes all" effect here? At second glance, time and partner exclusivity seem to be be limiting factors. So I'm not exactly seeing an "all" consequence. Do you have any napkin math regarding distribution differences that would support your argument?
- slily 3y ago
  I don't know how accurate this is, but recent statistics show that far more men self-report as single compared to women in the US, by as much as tens of percentage points if I recall.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    It looks like the answer is "it depends." Particularly, on how categories are compared. There does seem to be a big gap with young people, but overall, the gap is four percentage points. The gap is also much bigger among LGB men vs LBG women which as an aside is interesting in and of itself. 1. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valentines-day-5-facts-about-single-americans/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valen...
    - slily 3y ago
      The <30 category is a whopping 30% and more relevant to the subject. The difference in "LGB" categories can be explained by the fact that women are an order of magnitude more likely to self-report as bisexual than men.

throwawaymaths 3y ago

the truly terrifying trend is that "met through friends" is cratering. Are we so selfish that we don't introduce friends to potential partners? Are we too jaded about our friend's suggestions?

supportengineer 3y ago
People have fewer friends than they used to.
- parpfish 3y ago
  That has a twofold effect: - You have fewer friends to recommend - you don’t want to risk the fallout from a bad recommendation affecting the small group that you do have
jprete 3y ago
I've noticed a trend where people are reluctant to allow their friend groups to mix or cross. I've got probably an above-average number of friends, but the number of friends-of-friends I've met in the last three or four years is in single digits. I think it's because they're carefully managing their persona in each group and don't want to have to explain the multiple facets of their personality. But I don't really know.
- lazide 3y ago
  Yup, also because if someone starts going nuts in one group, it can easily cross contaminate into another and then you’re in an even bigger mess.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  > I think it's because they're carefully managing their persona in each group This is a great point. If that's the root cause the cratering makes sense, it's (scientifically) known that the most stable relationships exist between two people who have one or a few friends in common but who introduce subsets of friend groups to each other.
3y ago

dzonga 3y ago

you're trending towards 60% of people meeting online via dating apps - which have the wrong incentives and have massive trust issues for couples. and btw match group has like 80% share of the dating app market. and dating apps are brutal to the average guy. now remove the option of meeting spouses via work. -- metoo then add the situation of people working remotely, and finding jobs in places they didn't grow up. which means they're less likely to find spouses through friends - as one they can't easily make friends of the opposite sex due to sheer limitation in opportunity through the decimation of 3rd spaces. what you simply have is a sure way to depopulate a population and cause frustration on everyone.

CuriouslyC 3y ago
It's pretty damning when people are creating text documents and sharing them online because dating websites are such overcapitalized garbage.
YugyDugan 3y ago
[flagged]
cedws 3y ago
There's less people meeting at bars and clubs too, especially among the younger generations who either don't drink or can't afford to. Apparently women don't like being approached anymore either. As a single person I am very confused about how this is all supposed to work.
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  The percentage of women who respond to a direct approach has been pretty bad for a while, you really have to be smooth to make it work. The "meet cute" angle is easier - i.e. fortuitously bumping into a woman in some way or striking up a conversation spontaneously about shared circumstances. Most women are open to that sort of meeting if it feels natural, but then you have to have some sort of routine for "spontaneously" striking up a conversation so it's not without its drawbacks.
reaperman 3y ago

kelseyfrog 3y ago

Help me understand the advice I hear, "Forget about apps, take a class, or just talk to people, and a relationship will find you." It would seem that it takes at least twice as much effort pursuing this strategy today than it did 20 years ago, it's only becoming worse. How is it justified? Note: I'm happily married. The advice is a large proportion of what I read online when dating advice is given.

jrussino 3y ago
My suspicion is that this is (a) advice from people like us who got out of the dating pool before online dating came to dominate and don't have firsthand experience of how much things have changed in a short time period, and (b) wishful thinking from people who are looking at this trend and saying "it doesn't have to be like this; there's a better way to live..."
- jprete 3y ago
  I think you are right. I also think the Internet magnifies conventional advice, because nobody gets attacked (by anyone they care about) for promoting conventional advice even when it's dead wrong.
- jyunwai 3y ago
  I respectfully disagree, having grown up at a time when online dating became mainstream. Though some people might give this advice due to the motivations you've mentioned, I've also heard people share this opinion due to their poor experiences with online dating. I've written more about this in another comment in this discussion, but I've known people who have had experiences where they were more likely to get stood up, broken up with unexpectedly, and especially ghosted from online dating versus by people they've met in-person. The process can also be draining for many people: I've talked to people who have been exhausted by regular rejection, or by spending lots of energy and time on bad dates (in contrast to dates that are likely to go better with people they've met in-person). They've then found themselves happier by dating people they've first met in-person, instead of online. For a wider perspective, a 2023 US survey found that online dating has been positive for 53% of respondents, and negative for 46% [1]. So, people have had mixed experiences with online dating in general. I think online dating can work great for many people (I personally know a few people who've been very happy with their experiences), though it's not necessary for having a good relationship, nor a positive experience for many others. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findi...

broast 3y ago

I think some distinction like met online or met through friends may be misleading but i don't have the context. For example, dating people you meet within online niche communities where most people are friends. This is much different than swiping on an app

pepa65 3y ago
Definitely need to distinguish between "met through a dating app/site" and "met online otherwise".

CobrastanJorji 3y ago

Really interesting to try and think through what led to these trends. "Met through friends" took an absolute nosedive, but at the same time, "met in bars and restaurants" has been steadily growing for the last 20 years. Why? Perhaps many of those are actually people who meet online but are embarrassed about it and choose "met in a bar" because it sounds better in some way? It's probably a good thing that "meet as coworkers" has been on a decline. Also, given that these surveys, HCMST 2009 and 2017, were internet surveys, using subjects who were regular internet survey subjects in an established panel, I wonder if it is perhaps biased towards users who are very comfortable using the internet.

jprete 3y ago
If I had to explain the bar-and-restaurant figure, I would guess that all the methods that are growing (the bar scene and then Internet dating scene) privilege physical attraction over other factors.
jyunwai 3y ago
These are all good points. For the last one, there is a separate study by Pew Research Center conducted in 2022 (reported in 2023), which likely reduces this bias by recruiting respondents by sending physical mail "to a stratified, random sample of households" that invites them to complete an online survey: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findi... Pew's results were different than the findings by Rosenfeld et al.: while 53% of people aged 18–29 in the US "have ever used a dating site or app," only 20% of partnered people aged 18–29 reportedly met their current partner "on a dating site or app" (I've also made a similar comment elsewhere in this discussion).

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

Met in bar is up, but also the occurrence of large groups of friends going to bars/clubs together is also high, so there's gotta be some "met thru friends" still going on there to some degree

ttt3ts 3y ago

What about meeting through any interest group? E.g. CrossFit, Climbing, underwater basket weaving? Just a little confused where those would end up on this chart?

082349872349872 3y ago
It was sports for us: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34518784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34518784 (and as far as I can tell there are just as many young fit people still doing sport as there were in our time, so I'm guessing this'd fall under "friends" by their coding?)

slily 3y ago

The amount of people I know in their mid-20s who are (relatively) well-adjusted and successful and can't find a partner is astounding. Being very introverted and with a low sex drive, the current dating landscape seems insurmountable.

93po 3y ago
Introverted is likely the real problem. You have to be able to comfortably talk to a complete stranger in sometimes pretty uncomfortable circumstances. There are tons of people out there for whom a low sex drive isn't an issue.

sarusso 3y ago

The second bump in online dating, around 2012, was Tinder (I guess). But what caused the first one around 1995? IRC? Generic websites...?

ovulator 3y ago
Match.com was founded in 1993.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

siwatanejo 3y ago

Interesting that there's no "we met in a club option" while most of my teenage and twenties were spent, foolishly, in clubs trying to "mate" haha.

jprete 3y ago
If you mean nightclubs, I assume they're covered by "bars and restaurants".

lapcat 3y ago

The chart can be misleading, because it's missing a crucial data point: the % of the heterosexual population who are in a couple. My understanding is that this % has also declined over the years, which would make the decline in "met through friends", "met in school", and "met through family" look even worse. Also, given that we don't know the % of the coupled population, the chart can't tell us whether the % of the population who met their significant other in a bar or restaurant has increased, stayed the same, or even decreased. It might be all well and good if other forms of meeting were simply replaced by online dating with no loss, but I think there has been a significant decline in couplehood.

parpfish 3y ago

Has the overall number of couples shifted? Is that spike in “online” resulting in more people pairing off that’d otherwise be single, or is it actually cannibalizing the other modes?

tmsh 3y ago

23% of couples are technically also correct but too embarrassed to say they met online. /s

kaycey2022 3y ago

Looking at this I'm thinking we need a new hit sitcom like friends. Friends is hopelessly outdated.

bitsandboots 3y ago

I met online but not through dating apps. Any place you talk to strangers is a chance to find someone. People have been known to meet through World of Warcraft. I met through Discord. Lots of LGBT activity on VRChat. All this chart is saying is more people talk to strangers online than offline, I guess. Is that shocking? It's a chance to find people outside your physical bubble. So, I think this chart is missing important details that lead to bad conclusions. Like, you could even meet at hobby events.