7 ms·

>The fact that the first stage of online dating is so heavily stacked in women’s favour doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s any easier for them, compared to men,

by jsnk 14y ago

>The fact that the first stage of online dating is so heavily stacked in women’s favour doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s any easier for them, compared to men, to reach the end goal of pure love or perfect sex. Of course, men have it harder than women in the mating game. This conclusion seems like a white lie the author created for women. No one is looking for perfect mate. Both men and women choose their partners from whoever is available. If women got 20 times more messages than men do, then women's pool of mates to select is 20 times larger than that of men. And even if some people happen to hold the notion of perfect mate, women still has a better chance of finding the perfect mate than men do. With exception of special cases (maybe alpha males or older women), women on the average have is so much easier when it comes to finding their partner.

bishnu 14y ago
Not necessarily. You're assuming the only difference between the women and the men is relative numbers. Let's say 15 women are on a dating website and 30 men. Taken in and of itself, this sounds great for women. But the distribution of objectives matter. Let's say 13 of the women are looking long-term committed relationships and 2 are looking for something casual. This is a gross oversimplification but bear with me. If 25 men are looking for something more casual and 5 are in it for something more long-term, all of the sudden you have a system with 45 people where only 7 of them "have it easy" if you go by numbers - 2 of whom are women. Now these aren't real figures but anecdotally I would say I'm in the right ballpark. At any rate, it sufficiently illustrates that "easiness" has nothing to do with relative size of the gender pools.
- jsnk 14y ago
  I understand where you are coming from. In a game as complex as dating with so many variables, you can easily come up with many situations where the general rule doesn't follow. However, on average, there are some obvious conclusions one can draw.
nostrademons 14y ago
You're familiar with the Stable Marriage Algorithm, right? The math doesn't bear you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem It's been proven that the algorithm is optimal for the initiators of proposals, i.e. men in contemporary Western culture, although women can hack this by asking guys out themselves. The confusion is because you've artificially restricted the universe to a subset of its true size. Women's pool of mates to select from isn't 20 times larger than men, because men have already done a round of selection in deciding who to message. You don't actually message every single girl you see on OKCupid, do you? If you're fat or ugly as a woman, you're basically screwed (or rather, not screwed) in the mating game, because you become invisible to most men. That's why I tell girls on the OKCupid Reddit that messaging guys can only help them. Once in a blue moon (as in once every month or two), I get an unsolicited message on OKC. A majority of the time, I don't reply. The thing is, I would never have messaged these girls to begin with, while occasionally I'll take a chance on a first date if their personality seems interesting, so they've only helped themselves. It's also worth remembering that there are subsequent rounds of selection too. If women receive (on average) 20x more messages than men, it must mean that men send (on average) 20x more messages than women, since each message has exactly one sender and recipient. They're only going to end up with one girlfriend. So if those girls respond to their favorite guys, many of them will be culled out after the first date, third date, whenever. I've been on I think 16 first dates off OKCupid. I asked only about 3 of them out for a second date. Some (several?) of the remaining 13 probably were not interested in me anyway, but that's still a sizeable number of girls who did not get who they want.
- dalore 14y ago
  Problem is that the stable marriage problem assumes that the number of women and men are the same which is clearly not the case for online dating. So yes the women's pool is larger by the fact there are more men on the site. Some of your assumptions are faulty. Just because a woman receives 20x more messages then men, doesn't mean men are sending 20x more messages. Say there are 5x more men on the site to begin with, then they are only sending 4x more messages. I agree with your theory that women messaging men doesn't hurt but helps their chances.
- 14y ago
mootothemax 14y ago
Of course, men have it harder than women in the mating game. I think this is a myth. I wish years ago someone had told me all I needed to do was walk up to someone I found attractive and say "Hi, my name's Tom, how're you?" The day I started doing so, my dating life was revolutionised. Actually, this applies to most situations: parties; conferences; seeing a new face at work. With exception of special cases (maybe alpha males or older women), women on the average have is so much easier when it comes to finding their partner. Again, I disagree; just like hiring someone, how do you sort through the cruft to find the jewel in X number of applications? I'm not talking about seeking perfection, just someone whose quirks - and we all have them - you can tolerate enough to enjoy a successful relationship.
- jaems33 14y ago
  Eh, sort of. I'd be interested to know your race and your height. At the end of the day, women still have deal breakers regardless of your personality, boldness, income, skills, etc. The reason why I think women have it easier is that they can both wait for someone to approach AND take the initiative and go up to a guy if they so choose. Whereas guys not named Ryan Gosling almost always must take the initiative.
  - mootothemax 14y ago
    I'd be interested to know your race and your height. Pasty white with a beer gut that shrinks and grows according to the season, and somewhere around 5'10" or 5'11". At the end of the day, women still have deal breakers regardless of your personality, boldness, income, skills, etc. Are you saying that men don't? I think it's fair to say that everyone has deal breakers. Personally, I'm put off by people who judge others according to their income - or lack thereof. The reason why I think women have it easier is that they can both wait for someone to approach AND take the initiative You're right in that women are approached by guys far more often than the other way around. Given the number of unhappily single women out there though, sitting back and hoping doesn't seem to be a successful strategy.
    - jaems33 14y ago
hythloday 14y ago
It's far from obvious to me that men have it harder than women - going by traditional gender roles, men can select from the set of women, women can select only from the subset of men who messaged them. Can you elaborate on your definitions and assumptions that lead to your intuition?

by jsnk 14y ago

bishnu 14y ago

Not necessarily. You're assuming the only difference between the women and the men is relative numbers. Let's say 15 women are on a dating website and 30 men. Taken in and of itself, this sounds great for women. But the distribution of objectives matter. Let's say 13 of the women are looking long-term committed relationships and 2 are looking for something casual. This is a gross oversimplification but bear with me. If 25 men are looking for something more casual and 5 are in it for something more long-term, all of the sudden you have a system with 45 people where only 7 of them "have it easy" if you go by numbers - 2 of whom are women. Now these aren't real figures but anecdotally I would say I'm in the right ballpark. At any rate, it sufficiently illustrates that "easiness" has nothing to do with relative size of the gender pools.

jsnk 14y ago
I understand where you are coming from. In a game as complex as dating with so many variables, you can easily come up with many situations where the general rule doesn't follow. However, on average, there are some obvious conclusions one can draw.

nostrademons 14y ago

You're familiar with the Stable Marriage Algorithm, right? The math doesn't bear you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem It's been proven that the algorithm is optimal for the initiators of proposals, i.e. men in contemporary Western culture, although women can hack this by asking guys out themselves. The confusion is because you've artificially restricted the universe to a subset of its true size. Women's pool of mates to select from isn't 20 times larger than men, because men have already done a round of selection in deciding who to message. You don't actually message every single girl you see on OKCupid, do you? If you're fat or ugly as a woman, you're basically screwed (or rather, not screwed) in the mating game, because you become invisible to most men. That's why I tell girls on the OKCupid Reddit that messaging guys can only help them. Once in a blue moon (as in once every month or two), I get an unsolicited message on OKC. A majority of the time, I don't reply. The thing is, I would never have messaged these girls to begin with, while occasionally I'll take a chance on a first date if their personality seems interesting, so they've only helped themselves. It's also worth remembering that there are subsequent rounds of selection too. If women receive (on average) 20x more messages than men, it must mean that men send (on average) 20x more messages than women, since each message has exactly one sender and recipient. They're only going to end up with one girlfriend. So if those girls respond to their favorite guys, many of them will be culled out after the first date, third date, whenever. I've been on I think 16 first dates off OKCupid. I asked only about 3 of them out for a second date. Some (several?) of the remaining 13 probably were not interested in me anyway, but that's still a sizeable number of girls who did not get who they want.

dalore 14y ago
Problem is that the stable marriage problem assumes that the number of women and men are the same which is clearly not the case for online dating. So yes the women's pool is larger by the fact there are more men on the site. Some of your assumptions are faulty. Just because a woman receives 20x more messages then men, doesn't mean men are sending 20x more messages. Say there are 5x more men on the site to begin with, then they are only sending 4x more messages. I agree with your theory that women messaging men doesn't hurt but helps their chances.
14y ago

mootothemax 14y ago

Of course, men have it harder than women in the mating game. I think this is a myth. I wish years ago someone had told me all I needed to do was walk up to someone I found attractive and say "Hi, my name's Tom, how're you?" The day I started doing so, my dating life was revolutionised. Actually, this applies to most situations: parties; conferences; seeing a new face at work. With exception of special cases (maybe alpha males or older women), women on the average have is so much easier when it comes to finding their partner. Again, I disagree; just like hiring someone, how do you sort through the cruft to find the jewel in X number of applications? I'm not talking about seeking perfection, just someone whose quirks - and we all have them - you can tolerate enough to enjoy a successful relationship.

jaems33 14y ago
Eh, sort of. I'd be interested to know your race and your height. At the end of the day, women still have deal breakers regardless of your personality, boldness, income, skills, etc. The reason why I think women have it easier is that they can both wait for someone to approach AND take the initiative and go up to a guy if they so choose. Whereas guys not named Ryan Gosling almost always must take the initiative.
- mootothemax 14y ago
  I'd be interested to know your race and your height. Pasty white with a beer gut that shrinks and grows according to the season, and somewhere around 5'10" or 5'11". At the end of the day, women still have deal breakers regardless of your personality, boldness, income, skills, etc. Are you saying that men don't? I think it's fair to say that everyone has deal breakers. Personally, I'm put off by people who judge others according to their income - or lack thereof. The reason why I think women have it easier is that they can both wait for someone to approach AND take the initiative You're right in that women are approached by guys far more often than the other way around. Given the number of unhappily single women out there though, sitting back and hoping doesn't seem to be a successful strategy.
  - jaems33 14y ago

hythloday 14y ago

It's far from obvious to me that men have it harder than women - going by traditional gender roles, men can select from the set of women, women can select only from the subset of men who messaged them. Can you elaborate on your definitions and assumptions that lead to your intuition?