What online dating is like for Men

[Silverstarqueen]

Seems like a blanket statement about a certain gender based on personal grievances.
Which I have no problem particularly with. People should be able to comment as long as they are not being rude or troll-like.
Yet above is "liked" by srcrofford while the other not so much, comment is not acceptable.

Unlike some, I took note of the topic and the OP's request, thus shared a personal experience since that's what was asked for.

I really don't care what your take on it is, and scrofford was quite specific in regards to wanting male feedback, and even politely asked females so inclined to start their own thread. Is it really that complicated to understand, that you feel compelled to make an issue out of it? So you're the "like" police now?

As I stated, Urban , I have no quibble with your comment at all.
You can call women on on line dating sites fibbers and gold diggers "in every instance", if that was your opinion, and I believe you are entitled to it , even tho it was "a blanket statement based on personal grievances". And scrofford can like your statement, even so, fine.

My difficulty was that Scrofford clearly stated that his/her problem with the "heads up" comment ( about men on online dating being abusive and not accepting that a woman might not want to continue communicating with them) was "a blanket statement based on personal grievances" , and therefore not acceptable.
So is there a new rule here (not stated in the original post) that "blanket statements based on personal grievances" aren't allowed, or not? If there is such a ground rule, then fine, let's follow it. If there is not such a rule then why use that as a reason why some comments are not acceptable (where similar types of statements are)?

[MAPearce]

I tried it once ...... what a waste of time ..

OR , if you're into plastic , fake "wannabe" low self esteem chicks who think the world owes them something , have at'er.

Plenty of That ...

[lesliepaul]

...…...too many "in house" rules on this topic.

"nothing to see here people...…….move along"

[Mordu]

I have no direct experience with online dating, I hope I never want or need to resort to trying it, but if it's like this for cool Will Smith in the realm of 'artificial intelligence' then I can only imagine that the online reality might even be worse.

[kgcayenne]

*removed*

[Mordu]

[BCPickles]

...…...too many "in house" rules on this topic.

"nothing to see here people...…….move along"

Right! Makes one wonder if certain control issues are a hindrance (more than the online dating environment) to finding a mate for some people.

Do you go to an 80s party dressed in renaissance gear and complain when people tell you that you missed the point?

If there is nothing to see here please simply don't comment. No one is forcing you to participate.

[BCPickles]

As I stated, Urban , I have no quibble with your comment at all.
You can call women on on line dating sites fibbers and gold diggers "in every instance", if that was your opinion, and I believe you are entitled to it , even tho it was "a blanket statement based on personal grievances". And scrofford can like your statement, even so, fine.

My difficulty was that Scrofford clearly stated that his/her problem with the "heads up" comment ( about men on online dating being abusive and not accepting that a woman might not want to continue communicating with them) was "a blanket statement based on personal grievances" , and therefore not acceptable.
So is there a new rule here (not stated in the original post) that "blanket statements based on personal grievances" aren't allowed, or not? If there is such a ground rule, then fine, let's follow it. If there is not such a rule then why use that as a reason why some comments are not acceptable (where similar types of statements are)?

I quite clearly stated my complaint was that it was off topic based on my clearly stated intend. It being a grievance is correct but not my immediate problem with it.

You are wilfully ignoring information to defend an assertion that is easily shown to be false. Myself and others have all stated in clearly simple terms what the rule violation was.

I will own that going too deep into her post was a distraction, and that was my error, but you are more than smart enough to follow the chronology of my statements which makes my original complaint quite simple and clear.

This thread was about men sharing their experiences, she talked about womens experiences, so off topic.
It being a grievance is just a descriptor.

You are the reason this got so complicated, you are arguing needlessly over someone elses comment for no reason. There was no cause for you to argue but here we are in an argument without merit just because I wanted to give men a place to share.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[lesliepaul]

*removed*

[BCPickles]

I have to believe the person who put this "thread" up is single...…...their obvious passion about this topic exhibits a lot of "control" and no doubt that carries on in other aspects of their life.

I am passionate because I am trying to preserve the intent of my thread and give men a space to discuss.
Apparently that isn't allowed.

I hope others will continue it as my presence here appears to just attract trolls and people who want to make things personal or about themselves.

My thanks to the people acting in good faith and not just destroying anything that isn't about them for participating.

Sorry for my part in derailing the thread. Best to you all.

[Queen K]

I have to believe the person who put this "thread" up is single...…...their obvious passion about this topic exhibits a lot of "control" and no doubt that carries on in other aspects of their life.

I am passionate because I am trying to preserve the intent of my thread and give men a space to discuss.
Apparently that isn't allowed.

I hope others will continue it as my presence here appears to just attract trolls and people who want to make things personal or about themselves.

My thanks to the people acting in good faith and not just destroying anything that isn't about them for participating.

Sorry for my part in derailing the thread. Best to you all.

I tried it once. Same party wrecked things.

[Vacancyrate]

One word : Hypergamy

[kgcayenne]

These charts display ratings based on attractiveness. Hypergamy and hypogamy when are defined as marrying above/below one's socio/economic status/caste? Do you feel that better-looking people are automatically of a higher social class?

Does online chatting end with a woman often once she gets the idea that a man may not have enough financial resources to satisfy her desired lifestyle? IRL, how many guys feel women are vetting potentials based on what kind of key fob they have?

[Leifer]

Does online chatting end with a woman often once she gets the idea that a man may not have enough financial resources to satisfy her desired lifestyle?

I have always thought women were unfairly panned for considering a male’s financial resources when looking for a life mate.
It is one of those things that are hard wired into females as a survival mechanism from back in the ol “bone through the nose” days of our existence. I also think men are unfairly panned for looking at younger women as potential mates due to our need for fertile and healthy bearers of our offspring.

Sure we have progressed well past these base needs over millions of years….but they are still down there in our brain…subtly controlling our wants and needs.

[Vacancyrate]

These charts display ratings based on attractiveness. Hypergamy and hypogamy when are defined as marrying above/below one's socio/economic status/caste?

Do you feel that better-looking people are automatically of a higher social class?

There is lots of data that show how good looking people get better jobs, make more money, get more breaks and climb socio-economic ladders with greater ease - but that is a whole other subject. However, hypergamy applies not just to "marrying into a higher class". It shows itself in basic attractiveness/dating preferences by women as detailed in this chart. The classic 80/20 rule. 80% of women will only be attracted to 20% of the men (ususally more like 10%).

When a male signs up for a dating site unless they are in the top 10% of males, they just become part of that 90% of rejection fodder.

Does online chatting end with a woman often once she gets the idea that a man may not have enough financial resources to satisfy her desired lifestyle? IRL, how many guys feel women are vetting potentials based on what kind of key fob they have?

If women are looking for sexual release only (getting laid) hypergamy certainly shows itself in basic attractiveness levels as shown in the charts.

If we are talking about something more longterm, biologically all women will judge men based on their socio-economic status. That's indisputable. When hypergamy is applied to these dating sites unless you are a top-tier male every male is mating-down and for the female every woman is mating-up. Even if you are a rich Brad Pitt type you still have waitresses that would be considered a 4/10 trying to date you while rejecting other males that are more equal to their level. Men on the other hand will date down in looks and in economic factors. That attractiveness chart mimics it's results across multiple studies, it's not just OK cupid, although instant dating sites have really provided troves of data showing hypergamy in action.

Men go into those sites seeking equals or better and 90% of the time they end up dating down, and women go into those sites seeking men way above them, while rejecting 80-90% of potentials even if they are equals. 90% of the time the women are dating-up.

Not the kinda place a guy wants to be, unless you have a fix-er-up/provider fetish.

Fathers need to teach their sons the same thing that mothers teach their daughters - don't date down.