4 ms·

People who have difficulty on dating apps want to find a scapegoat, so they scapegoat the app. The truth is that dating markets are lemon markets. People who a

by solatic 8mo ago

People who have difficulty on dating apps want to find a scapegoat, so they scapegoat the app. The truth is that dating markets are lemon markets. People who are "dateable" tend to find success quickly, and people who are "not dateable" tend to stay on the market. Hence over time, the market will be dominated by "not dateable" people. No dating app on the planet will magically make you a "dateable" person. To find success on dating apps, you have to work on yourself first, and only afterwards make sure that work shows through both in your profile and in your texting. Source: was on the apps, undateable for eight years (depression and low self esteem), went to therapy, after making huge changes to my life and getting to a point where I felt like things were going well in everything but being single, a month later I found my girlfriend (now two years together).

anal_reactor 8mo ago
> you have to work on yourself first I hate this phrase because it's a generic catch-all that says nothing but shuts down any discussion. If I'm friendly, responsible, honest, not poor, do sports, learn new things, keep the house clean, then the fuck more you want. Can we admit that social dynamics have completely changed and the value of "a relationship" dropped through the floor? 200 years ago bad relationship was better than no relationship because have fun trying to farm land on your own, but nowadays it's literally more convenient to live single than to deal with the inconvenience of living with another person. Also, personally, I'm a minority within a minority, and I'm not going to cheat the statistics even if I shower twenty times a day.
- mpol 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - anal_reactor 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ponector 8mo ago
      No surprise you are alone.
      - anal_reactor 8mo ago
        Hehehe
- DanOpcode 8mo ago
  > If I'm friendly, responsible, honest, not poor, do sports, learn new things, keep the house clean, then the fuck more you want. I think you are describing a person who has worked on himself. Like doing sports, that's good. I think too many guys continue with their teenage hobbies like playing computer games, and that's generally not attractive to women. Of course, there are no guarantees. There's no magic checklist that you can fulfill and be guaranteed to find a partner. But I think there's always more you can do to make yourself more attractive.
  - anal_reactor 8mo ago
    I'm gay, so I don't care about impressing women. But besides this... I don't understand what's wrong with incorporating teenage hobbies into adult lifestyle. Sure, nobody wants to marry a mental teenager, but if I do have adult self-development hobbies, then I see no problem that next to that I'd also have teenage hobbies. I find it very sad when guys completely discard their personality just to keep wife happy. It's just that, at current point of my life I think I'm ready for a relationship. My daily life loop is satisfactory for me, the only thing I'm missing is someone to be with.
  - lucyjojo 8mo ago
    forsaking what you enjoy just to impress women seems extremely sad and counter-productive (do you really want to be with that woman?). i play games with my wife and kids, life is good!
- solatic 8mo ago
  > friendly, responsible, honest, not poor... keep the house clean Even assuming I take you at your word, this describes a good roommate, not a good romantic partner. > do sports, learn new things Has negligible if any effect on romantic relationships. Both fat and stupid people still find romantic partners (and sometimes end up happy with them nonetheless). > Then the fuck more you want Somebody who is fun to be with, who makes me feel good, warm, and fuzzy inside, who at times makes me feel safe and at other times dares me to go farther. Somebody who is willing to go to new depths of vulnerability together, so that I can trust that they see me, the whole me, even the crummy parts, and I can see them, the whole them, even the crummy parts, and be loved and accepted nonetheless. > The value of "a relationship" has dropped through the floor This is transactional language. Strong, fulfilling romantic relationships are not transactional. Part of working on yourself is learning how to develop non-transactional relationships without getting hurt / getting exploited in your attempts to do so (i.e. by lemons on the market). > more convenient to live single than to deal with the inconvenience of living with another person I highly disagree, assuming that you find the right person to live with, which is the whole challenge. Living with another person who you enjoy living with, economically speaking, means splitting at least rent and electric bills (water bills are more linear with the number of people in the house), sometimes splitting a car payment (if you are a one-car household); when you split rent, you split the rent of the kitchen, the bathroom, the living room, and at least one bedroom, that are all shared. You eat better by cooking for two and sharing. The absolutely most economical arrangement is usually Dual-Income No Kids (DINK).
  - anal_reactor 8mo ago
    > Somebody who is fun to be with, who makes me feel good, warm, and fuzzy inside, who at times makes me feel safe and at other times dares me to go farther. Somebody who is willing to go to new depths of vulnerability together, so that I can trust that they see me, the whole me, even the crummy parts, and I can see them, the whole them, even the crummy parts, and be loved and accepted nonetheless. Cool. If I had stated that I am like this, then someone else would've complained that this is overly romantic view and in reality a relationship is built with someone who can help with boring everyday tasks like doing the laundry or watching the kids. The point is, even if I were Jesus Christ himself, someone would find a flaw that makes me undateable in their opinion. > This is transactional language. Because all relationships are transactional. Welcome to adulthood. I don't really have time to argue with someone who still believes in Santa Claus. > Living with another person who you enjoy living with, economically speaking, means splitting at least rent and electric bills (water bills are more linear with the number of people in the house), sometimes splitting a car payment (if you are a one-car household); when you split rent, you split the rent of the kitchen, the bathroom, the living room, and at least one bedroom, that are all shared. You eat better by cooking for two and sharing. It's strange to me that you tell me not to be transactional, but then you point to money as an example of an advantage of being in a relationship, not emotional support. Also, there's a huge difference between "without a relationship, I'll literally starve to death" and "without a relationship, I'll go on holiday once a year instead of twice a year". Something tells me that your view of relationships is incoherent at best.
- Suppafly 8mo ago
  > If I'm friendly, responsible, honest, not poor, do sports, learn new things, keep the house clean, then the fuck more you want. I know people like this, but they also are unlucky in love because they also have negative attitudes about women and life that they refuse to become more enlightened about.

by solatic 8mo ago

anal_reactor 8mo ago

> you have to work on yourself first I hate this phrase because it's a generic catch-all that says nothing but shuts down any discussion. If I'm friendly, responsible, honest, not poor, do sports, learn new things, keep the house clean, then the fuck more you want. Can we admit that social dynamics have completely changed and the value of "a relationship" dropped through the floor? 200 years ago bad relationship was better than no relationship because have fun trying to farm land on your own, but nowadays it's literally more convenient to live single than to deal with the inconvenience of living with another person. Also, personally, I'm a minority within a minority, and I'm not going to cheat the statistics even if I shower twenty times a day.

mpol 8mo ago
[flagged]
- anal_reactor 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ponector 8mo ago
    No surprise you are alone.
    - anal_reactor 8mo ago
      Hehehe
DanOpcode 8mo ago
> If I'm friendly, responsible, honest, not poor, do sports, learn new things, keep the house clean, then the fuck more you want. I think you are describing a person who has worked on himself. Like doing sports, that's good. I think too many guys continue with their teenage hobbies like playing computer games, and that's generally not attractive to women. Of course, there are no guarantees. There's no magic checklist that you can fulfill and be guaranteed to find a partner. But I think there's always more you can do to make yourself more attractive.
- anal_reactor 8mo ago
  I'm gay, so I don't care about impressing women. But besides this... I don't understand what's wrong with incorporating teenage hobbies into adult lifestyle. Sure, nobody wants to marry a mental teenager, but if I do have adult self-development hobbies, then I see no problem that next to that I'd also have teenage hobbies. I find it very sad when guys completely discard their personality just to keep wife happy. It's just that, at current point of my life I think I'm ready for a relationship. My daily life loop is satisfactory for me, the only thing I'm missing is someone to be with.
- lucyjojo 8mo ago
  forsaking what you enjoy just to impress women seems extremely sad and counter-productive (do you really want to be with that woman?). i play games with my wife and kids, life is good!
solatic 8mo ago
> friendly, responsible, honest, not poor... keep the house clean Even assuming I take you at your word, this describes a good roommate, not a good romantic partner. > do sports, learn new things Has negligible if any effect on romantic relationships. Both fat and stupid people still find romantic partners (and sometimes end up happy with them nonetheless). > Then the fuck more you want Somebody who is fun to be with, who makes me feel good, warm, and fuzzy inside, who at times makes me feel safe and at other times dares me to go farther. Somebody who is willing to go to new depths of vulnerability together, so that I can trust that they see me, the whole me, even the crummy parts, and I can see them, the whole them, even the crummy parts, and be loved and accepted nonetheless. > The value of "a relationship" has dropped through the floor This is transactional language. Strong, fulfilling romantic relationships are not transactional. Part of working on yourself is learning how to develop non-transactional relationships without getting hurt / getting exploited in your attempts to do so (i.e. by lemons on the market). > more convenient to live single than to deal with the inconvenience of living with another person I highly disagree, assuming that you find the right person to live with, which is the whole challenge. Living with another person who you enjoy living with, economically speaking, means splitting at least rent and electric bills (water bills are more linear with the number of people in the house), sometimes splitting a car payment (if you are a one-car household); when you split rent, you split the rent of the kitchen, the bathroom, the living room, and at least one bedroom, that are all shared. You eat better by cooking for two and sharing. The absolutely most economical arrangement is usually Dual-Income No Kids (DINK).
- anal_reactor 8mo ago
  > Somebody who is fun to be with, who makes me feel good, warm, and fuzzy inside, who at times makes me feel safe and at other times dares me to go farther. Somebody who is willing to go to new depths of vulnerability together, so that I can trust that they see me, the whole me, even the crummy parts, and I can see them, the whole them, even the crummy parts, and be loved and accepted nonetheless. Cool. If I had stated that I am like this, then someone else would've complained that this is overly romantic view and in reality a relationship is built with someone who can help with boring everyday tasks like doing the laundry or watching the kids. The point is, even if I were Jesus Christ himself, someone would find a flaw that makes me undateable in their opinion. > This is transactional language. Because all relationships are transactional. Welcome to adulthood. I don't really have time to argue with someone who still believes in Santa Claus. > Living with another person who you enjoy living with, economically speaking, means splitting at least rent and electric bills (water bills are more linear with the number of people in the house), sometimes splitting a car payment (if you are a one-car household); when you split rent, you split the rent of the kitchen, the bathroom, the living room, and at least one bedroom, that are all shared. You eat better by cooking for two and sharing. It's strange to me that you tell me not to be transactional, but then you point to money as an example of an advantage of being in a relationship, not emotional support. Also, there's a huge difference between "without a relationship, I'll literally starve to death" and "without a relationship, I'll go on holiday once a year instead of twice a year". Something tells me that your view of relationships is incoherent at best.
Suppafly 8mo ago
> If I'm friendly, responsible, honest, not poor, do sports, learn new things, keep the house clean, then the fuck more you want. I know people like this, but they also are unlucky in love because they also have negative attitudes about women and life that they refuse to become more enlightened about.