Hale_Bopp's "tear apart my okcupid profile" thread

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think the two are really comparable. The advantage online, especially for people with difficulty reading non-verbal cues, is that, for a start, you know immediately whether or not she's single. Most people also tell you exactly what they're interested in, a lot of things about themselves to start a conversation about, and you can get a general idea of what type of person they are (or, at least, the type of person they want to project) before even talking to them. About the only fair comparison to make between meeting women online or in a bar is that good conversational skills are required for both.

^ And that you both have to be interested in each other. That's what I was getting at. Just because you are interested in someone and send them a message, doesn't mean they will reciprocate (the feelings and the communication). Just like at a bar.

Yeah, that too. But that's true of literally every interaction between literally any two people ever.

Most males have to do a lot to prove themselves in order to attract a female. Some guys no matter how hard they work and try to better their lives they are more likely to end up alone than females. Females are in higher demand and they have the power to choose men they want to date. Most men do not have the power to choose females unless they are a rich, handsome, celebrity or of high social status.

females don't have the power to choose their mates unless they're gorgeous, talented, celebrities of high social status, either.
If you think of a 'mate' as nothing but a 'sperm donor,' then yeah: women have a lot of choices. They can head out to the sperm bank and pick up some high-quality genes, pre-screened for STDs and a family history of genetic problems, for relatively cheap.
If, on the other hand, you think of a mate as a partner and a co-parent for your children, then women have about the same amount of choice as men do.

Erm....No.
She wouldn't have this power unless she's old, extremely obese or hideous, otherwise any 18-45 average to above average looking girl have plenty of options of guys who are less than her status (only if she's totally desperate but in life it rarely happens), same-of-her-status guys, and slightly-higher-status guys. Of course if she has a sh***y personality she wouldn't last with anyone...but we are talking about number of options here.

In fact, the gorgeous, talented celebrities of high social status women have far less options than your next door females because they would be only attracted to same-status and higher-status males (that's a consistent part of female sexuality) aka millionaires/celebrities and they would be competing with plenty of lower-status females; surveys show that millionaire women are attracted only to millionaires, while millionaire men don't care.

^ uh, yeah. Exactly like a man.
Here's the thing: women like sex. Men like sex too.
Women want to pair bond, but they want the highest-status partner that they can get. Men want to pair-bond, but they want the highest-status partner that they can get. Put all of that together, and what do you get? Lots of hookups for both genders with people of various social statuses, and then assortive pair-bonding when it comes time to settle down and produce offspring.

Only idiots (or the profoundly under-educated) produce offspring by accident any more, and they tend to do so with other idiots.

Agreed 100%. It's not that it's impossible to "marry up," but it's extremely difficult. My wife is a lot more socially "with it" than I am and I'm extremely lucky. In my case, I'm a beneficiary (as opposed to victim) of circumstance…I helped her get out of a horrible situation. But I'm ugly as sin, bald like Kojak, and at one time morbidly obese. I'm a starving musician and make a few pennies here and there teaching piano lessons. And yes, there was a brief time while my wife worked for a lawyer that divorce (I used to work for a lawyer, too, so I know how that game is played) was on the table and cheating might have been an option. We've gotten through it without seeing a counselor, but my point is that marrying "up," while not impossible, is both difficult to do and even more difficult to maintain, ESPECIALLY when you get in my position and you're aware that your mate is "carrying" you.

The thing is if you're on the low side and this wasn't something understood at the beginning of the marriage, it can make things difficult. It seems easier for women to marry up since its a fact of life men have greater income potential (not getting into why this is or if it's even right, just stating a fact). It also makes it easier because it's more difficult for women to keep jobs once pregnancy enters the picture, and there is STILL a widespread practice of firing women for having babies. It's technically illegal, but there are ways around it as we've experienced ourselves.

Men don't face those kinds of issues, so if a woman marries "down," she's GOING to face a significant loss in family income once she starts a family. Which makes it all the more incumbent upon men to use their position to boost income as much as possible at every opportunity. I'm not saying it's wrong for women to be ambitious or to be the principle wage-earner in the household. I'm just saying that in the interest of security it's important that men at least make the effort because we are afforded an advantageous position in society. Women marrying "down" is a lot riskier than marrying "up." Men don't face the same problem.

All that to say it works out better for both to marry within the same status at the very least. It offers a mate a strong advantage if one can marry into a higher status, but women seem to do better than men do by marrying up. Relationships in which the woman holds the higher status CAN work out, but it seems to me there is more detriment to the longevity of the relationship when the woman is the one carrying the household. The opposite doesn't seem to be true (although you do have more potential for the man becoming a workaholic or gaining a sense of entitlement, cheating at the office, or going through some mid-life crisis. Always a tradeoff somewhere).

WRT "idiots": It amazes me how true this is. Not that I'm exceptionally bright or anything, but why is it that "smart" or "bright" people use birth control? Or wait much later in life before getting married and reproducing, since there is a correlation between age at first conception and family size? People who wait don't have as many kids. I hang around a lot of elderly folks, and when my wife was pregnant the last time, they kept asking me "how can you afford another baby? They're so expensive!" And, I mean, these are folks who were products of large families right about the time of WWII. When she was pregnant with our second, even her grandmother acted like it was something to be ashamed of. We may not be exceptionally bright, but we're more sensible than many around where we live, and I like to think the world can benefit from more people like us! We're a family of 3 kids, currently all 6 and under, and we're contemplating a 4th. I wish there was more support for brighter people to start making babies earlier in life, but such as it is "idiots" seem to be more active in this area.

What kind of support do you suggest? The reason why most of your brighter folks aren't having as many kids is because they're busy with getting through school and getting a good footing in their career, etc.
I'm not exceptionally bright by any means, but I know for me I am not having kids (I'm still undecided if I ever want to) until I am financially stable. I probably won't be financially stable until I'm in my early to mid thirties. I probably won't ever have more than 3 because I just don't have the ability to give every single one of them the attention that I want if I had more than 3.
It's also important to me to do things with them that requires me to be financially stable. I would like to take them traveling, go to the best schools (and that may require paying), and who knows, one of my kids may be born with some physical deformity or some other disease that costs a lot of money for treatment.
Everyone else can do what they will, but if I'm having kids I want to be able to do everything that I can for them (financially and emotionally) and I will wait until I am ready to be able to do that, and if I don't have the ability to do that then I will have just one child or none.
And when I say do everything for them financially, I don't mean spoiling them rotten, I mean being able to provide whatever they may need if they're born with a disability or are super bright and the schools in the area aren't challenging enough so we transfer schools and I'm able to pay for it.

There's a good chance I want to even home school them for a number of years, although I haven't decided how long. I was home schooled myself for 14 years and that was too much for me. I think home schooling up until 9th or 10th grade is good.

I know the way I'd want to raise a family has a lot to do with how my parents raised my sister and I. We traveled a lot, I'm able to get the services I need for my disabilities, and we went to better schools since I was bored with the ones in my area because they weren't challenging enough for neither my sister or I.

Or I may just never have kids. I dunno.
But I think the reason why a lot of your brighter people aren't having as many kids, or having them so late is for the reasons I stated above. Also I think people who are just popping out kids left and right may not necessarily be in a good relationship so the other folks it takes them longer before they start having kids because it takes them longer to find someone they're compatible with.
There's also just a whole bunch of career driven people these days who aren't interested in ever having kids period.

If I ever do have children though, there's a 95% chance I'll be adopting and not having any of my own. There's far too many children that need homes.

I could really use some feedback on mine, I'm usually a decent writer but I always have trouble describing myself. I ended up not writing much in most sections. Any constructive criticism from anyone would be highly appreciated! Posting this here is sort of out of my comfort zone but what the heck.

http://www.okcupid.com/profile/PremiumAwesome

Your profile looks pretty good, I love the cat pic. I'd go on a date with you if we lived on the same side of the country
I don't think you did a bad job of describing yourself. The only thing that gave me pause was the "Passionate Heart" thing because I'm pretty emotionally closed off. Idk, maybe the majority of girls like that though.
If you think you aren't having any luck with that profile you could try adding some more funny parts.

@ Everyone: Feel free to critique my profile, username: chuckpapaya
I tried to come off as friendlier than I am in real life, but not too normal since I'm not really trying to attract normal people. I've never done online dating before and it's surprisingly nerve-wracking!

Yes, exactly.

Does the link work? How does the profile look?

http://www.okcupid.com/profile/nuxvomica45

Last edited by Onewithwings on 03 Mar 2014, 3:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

That may be an overstatement on my part, I was trying to say I am passionate about certain interests without sounding too bland.

I felt your profile was fairly informative about what you're looking for and such. One thing I noticed is you're VERY into science, which I assume you were trying to get across. The thing about the alien was funny too. I feel like I'd probably message you since I'm interested in smart women. I'm sure there are a lot of guys on there that are too so I think it's pretty good.

Add /profile/ between dot com and your username.

thanks, edited.

Hehe that's so idealistic, but things aren't that symmetrical between the genders, no sexual primate species has it that symmetrical.

Yes, women like sex too, but there's a key difference: Women can get sex anytime they want, and they know it, while men can't. That's why prostitution exists since....millenniums, and that's why male prostitution for women isn't common at all. That's a key difference between men and women in sex seeking.
Another key difference is sex cost which is way higher for women (pregnancy) - that's why women have evolved to be picker, the recent invention of the pill wouldn't eradicate that instinct.




That's irrelevant to our discussion.