Keeno wrote:
Doesn't matter how "bad", generic or bland a female profile is. They'll still get so many messages that they'll still have a lot of chaff to sort the wheat from. There's simply not the need to make as much effort in female profiles.
But, if they have personalities at all, I can't imagine them wanting to just have floods of any guy hitting them up. You'd think they'd want to scare off the guys they don't want by telling them right off the top who they are and what they're into. From that standpoint it just makes more sense that all across the board you typically get vanilla profiles from vanilla people.
Similarly I've seen plenty of times where there were very attractive, albeit alternative, profiles on OKCupid where they'd go on about love of wine, art, antique shopping around town, laundry list of the bands and composers they like, etc.. The only downside, they themselves seem to hang out there for quite a while without any flip in status (then again so do most of the vanillas).
I think the three best observations to be made about online dating is that a) someone who looks perfect for you on paper could easily and often times will have no chemistry IRL, b) that if you met this same person socially rather than on a 'dating' venue there would much more likely be chemistry, c) for all the pure vanilla profiles out there or seemingly vanilla-on-paper people you see, likely 5% of these people would be great matches but you'd never in your life have anything to go on where as if you met them IRL there wouldn't be any such confusion. Moral of the story - its more of a miracle that online dating does work for anybody than its any surprise that it doesn't for most people, hence if you can find any way at all to get yourself out more in the right places you'll have a much better shot - male or female.
_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.