Dating websites are not for males - scientific proof.
12 Jan 2016, 10:03 pm
While it's normal to lust after the cheerleader types with post-graduate degrees, corner offices, and six-figure salaries, it makes little sense for a guy who still lives with his parents and commutes by public transportation to expect that such a woman would give him a second glance.
If a woman is smart enough to be successful, then she's smart enough to make an accurate appraisal of all the available men around her.
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
12 Jan 2016, 10:05 pm
For me, the reason I don't usually message older women is two-fold, but it has nothing to do with the women themselves. The first is that I really want to have children of my own someday, and statistically it becomes much more difficult for women to have kids after ~35 or so, so I use that as kind of an upper cut-off (considering that even if we hit it off, it'll still be at least 2-3 years before we're even to the point to think about that). Also as you said, a lot of older women are single moms or divorcees, and I'm not in a place in my life where I want to be involved in either of those situations...I've seen very few women over 32/33 on those sites who haven't been previously married or had children.
I would further guess that though there is a small percentage that is none of the above, or below, a portion of women at that age without children, like me, don't want any.
_________________
"When does the human cost become too high for the building of a better machine?"
12 Jan 2016, 10:23 pm
For me, the reason I don't usually message older women is two-fold, but it has nothing to do with the women themselves. The first is that I really want to have children of my own someday, and statistically it becomes much more difficult for women to have kids after ~35 or so, so I use that as kind of an upper cut-off (considering that even if we hit it off, it'll still be at least 2-3 years before we're even to the point to think about that). Also as you said, a lot of older women are single moms or divorcees, and I'm not in a place in my life where I want to be involved in either of those situations...I've seen very few women over 32/33 on those sites who haven't been previously married or had children.
I would further guess that though there is a small percentage that is none of the above, or below, a portion of women at that age without children, like me, don't want any.
True, though in and around my area I've found more twenty-somethings stating they don't want kids than the 30+ crowd. That said though my biggest issue is finding women who share even a small number of my interests close to me. That's what happens when you're the stereotypical nerd living in the middle of hick central. There aren't a lot of anime, roleplaying, or science fiction fans among the women on the dating sites in Arkansas. There's also the great Christian Fundamentalist divide and the over emphasis placed on hunting and sports. And with LDRs and moving out of the question at the moment I'm pretty much at an impasse. There might be good women out there, but it doesn't do you a bit of good if you can't meet them.
_________________
Diagnosed ASD 4/22/16
All magic comes with a price! - Rumplestiltskin
12 Jan 2016, 11:30 pm
Indeed. What kills me is that my best match is probably out-of-sight at home or in the woods most of the time too
_________________
"When does the human cost become too high for the building of a better machine?"
13 Jan 2016, 12:34 am
Indeed. What kills me is that my best match is probably out-of-sight at home or in the woods most of the time too
Hahaha yep, that's me, at home or in the woods most of the time. And I think that's where my best match is also, but they are never in the same woods as me, alas!
13 Jan 2016, 1:20 am
Reading other posts from sly, i try not to take it as such. But again, it is a bit hard. I think these generalizations are what seem pretty rampant on this forum - and begin to read as feelings of rejection born bitterness born misogyny - which is what some have referred to as leaving women feeling hit/not like they're welcome/should participate here. As - all women are..includes All women. So an all women do x or are x is saying very personally, you do x or y.
This is yet more unfortunate as some of those women who then feel hit are ones that may well be more likely to bond with the 'rejected' or generalizing males (which is of importance since these terms are mostly used here when discussing dating or lack thereof).. Or rather, they might have..and thus potential relationships get a pre-emptive strike down.
But I never said all women, I said women over 30 are just as picky as women under 30. In regards to the women over 30 are easier or less picky statement.
13 Jan 2016, 1:27 am
While it's normal to lust after the cheerleader types with post-graduate degrees, corner offices, and six-figure salaries, it makes little sense for a guy who still lives with his parents and commutes by public transportation to expect that such a woman would give him a second glance.
If a woman is smart enough to be successful, then she's smart enough to make an accurate appraisal of all the available men around her.
I don't expect any women to give me a first glance. Seems only men fail at life. Also I don't go for super hot or cheer leader types. Not a lot of the, on dating sites anyways as they find dates traditional ways.
13 Jan 2016, 5:53 am
The problem is, average people are average.
And live an average lifestyle - that is, leave home at 19, leave university at 22, join the workfoce at 23, build their connections/friendships/relationships and support network at 25, and be engaged by 28.
People who fall behind are considered less than average.
Us aspies are only less than average because of our lack of social skills and difficulty working.
But we are associated with the absolute low-lifes - dropouts, criminals, drug abusers, a55h*les, etc.
I'm pretty sure during high school and possibly yung adulthood, A LOT of us may have been friends with those types.
As a person born in lower-middle class, I know what it feels like, and have integrated myself into middle class society.
My family is full of drug abusers, unemployed, dropouts, criminals, etc.
I am ashamed to introduce the parents of new friends and girlfriends to my family because it ruins my friendships/relationships.
Average/normal people feel above my family, feel superior.
I am not judged on the basis as an individual and my own person, but because of my family and friends. I'm so different than my family and friends.
I’m one of the most ambitious people in my family.
I’m the one who wants to rise above it all, to get his head out of the sh*tty gutter I was born into.
You’ve got to understand that, psychologically speaking, a lot of things are inherited by our families, especially our lifestyles.
There is the concept of intergenerational poverty, which dictates that poverty tends to continue throughout generations in a family.
Poor people tend to have poverty continue in their family, as do the middle class familie’s usually remain middle class, and the rich remain rich.
But your path in life isn’t always so set. There’s always the rare/occasional outlier who influences the family, for better or for worse.
The lucky middle class guy who makes a name of himself and moves on up.
The successful poor person/person of a struggling background who rises and finally lives a decent living.
I’m the second person on my mother’s side to graduate high school, 6th on my father’s, and 7th overall.
Generations after generations and yet I still rank 7th.
I’m one of the few interested in university studies and a higher-earning career.
I have no interest in remaining unemployed and sucking-off the system.
The thing is, I’m STILL less than average.
I’m a recent high school graduate and most haare working already or moving straight to university.
I am going to begin my adult life and future but for now taking some time-off/delaying it as long as possible.
But I’m still seen as one of those people who ‘fall-behind’.
Honestly, what else are me and Sly to expect?
Either we go after the average girls, literaly the 5 out of 10s and hope she accepts us.
Or we go after the absolute bottom of the barrell. The sl*tty, ugly, rude, abusive, bad mothers to their 6 children, drug abusing, high school dropout, alcoholic, unemployed losers.
This just isn’t right. Us aspies are all destined for better, I think.
But like I said average people tend to associate us with the bottom of the barrell simply because some of us lack social skills, are still living at home, and have trouble finding a job.
But it’s an incorrect association - we aren’t absolute low-lifes.
Long story short, I disagree with the notion we should have to lower our standards. If we’re going after an average looking female with an average lifestyle (aka better lifestyle than us), it doesn’t mean we’re out of our leagues.
It means we’re aware we aren’t the bottom of the barrell, and knowing we’re better than that.
13 Jan 2016, 6:36 am
While it's normal to lust after the cheerleader types with post-graduate degrees, corner offices, and six-figure salaries, it makes little sense for a guy who still lives with his parents and commutes by public transportation to expect that such a woman would give him a second glance.
If a woman is smart enough to be successful, then she's smart enough to make an accurate appraisal of all the available men around her.
I don't expect any women to give me a first glance. Seems only men fail at life. Also I don't go for super hot or cheer leader types. Not a lot of the, on dating sites anyways as they find dates traditional ways.
Oh, come on. There will be thousands of women to whom you haven't given a first glance, as there will be umpty thrumpty jillion women on their lonesome. Only you didn't realise, because of the fact you didn't give them a first glance. Again:
1. Someone in whom you are interested who is
2. Interested in you.
Of course, many people find someone's being interested in them is enough to make them interested in the other, at least for a while til it falls apart.
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.
13 Jan 2016, 7:28 am
Outrider - Not too keen on your tone there - 'bottom of the barrel', 'destined for better'. Anyway.
I don't think like that, in 5s or 8s or 10s, or of the 'average' or 'hot'. For me, it's about being interesting (as opposed to boring) and of sharp (rather than dull) mind.
What I've always sought with a romantic partner: the couple as a world unto themselves. The couple as conspiracy, as partners-in-crime. To understand each other, to always have the others' back. As such, personality is key. That's what I was looking for, going through all those profiles. Looks/physicality matters, but more in the negative, in that there are certain things I'd struggle to find attractive. In my experience, someone becomes attractive - as in, okay, I'd really like us to do something that comes under the broader definition of 'sex' now in an attempt to make this mental connection tangible - through their personality.
For me, this is separate from people who are physically appealing. There are certain physical characteristics, certain types of women, that catch my attention and make me all googly eyed, for sure. But such things provoke no more in me than the desire to go on looking. Which with a picture is fine, but in person is obviously something one has to be mindful of.
My 'high standards' were of someone who had a quick, perceptive mind and an interesting worldview, who was absent minded as I am, as prone to the abstract and to thinking as I am - someone, in short, who I could understand and be understood by - and who I didn't find physically offputting. Living standards matter little - I'm not competitive. I'm never going to be a 'winner', except by accident. I think it's perfectly legit that most people have such concerns - basic adult life competencies of the world we live in is hardly 'high standards' or the like. It's just I need someone who pays as little heed to the world at large as I do - we'll be much more likely to get along.
I have never 'met' a woman in meatspace. There have been small ads in the back of a music magazine, phone dating, and then online stuff. I don't think I could ever actually approach a woman in meatspace.
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.
13 Jan 2016, 7:59 am
Outrider - "Not too keen on your tone there - 'bottom of the barrel', 'destined for better'. Anyway."
- Bit of an exaggeration, and after some thinking I realize it's hypocritical to feel 'above' others when other's do it to us.
I just mean to encourage sly, anyone really not to lower their standards because their current standards are 'too high'.
Fnord for instance is arguing women of a slightly better lifestyle should have nothing to do with us and we always have to be at the same level as those we're attracted to.
Well, at least I interpreted it this way.
Sly's depressed enough and his standards are already low. I'm on his side here regarding the debate on 'standards/leagues'.
Really, no one is better than anyone. We're not above 'bottom of the barrell' types just as 'average people' aren't better than us, just as the 'elites' aren't better than average people.
"I don't think like that, in 5s or 8s or 10s, or of the 'average' or 'hot'. For me, it's about being interesting (as opposed to boring) and of sharp (rather than dull) mind."
Same here, for the most part.
Though I still care about physical appearance, something considered very normal I think for the youth of this world.
My standards for beauty however are non-mainstream. Naturally pretty/average/slightly homely females ARE my 10, the women who put makeup all over themselves and spend so much money on fashion, their appearance etc. are my 5's.
"What I've always sought with a romantic partner: the couple as a world unto themselves. The couple as conspiracy, as partners-in-crime. To understand each other, to always have the others' back. As such, personality is key. That's what I was looking for, going through all those profiles. Looks/physicality matters, but more in the negative, in that there are certain things I'd struggle to find attractive. In my experience, someone becomes attractive - as in, okay, I'd really like us to do something that comes under the broader definition of 'sex' now in an attempt to make this mental connection tangible - through their personality.
For me, this is separate from people who are physically appealing. There are certain physical characteristics, certain types of women, that catch my attention and make me all googly eyed, for sure. But such things provoke no more in me than the desire to go on looking. Which with a picture is fine, but in person is obviously something one has to be mindful of.
My 'high standards' were of someone who had a quick, perceptive mind and an interesting worldview, who was absent minded as I am, as prone to the abstract and to thinking as I am - someone, in short, who I could understand and be understood by - and who I didn't find physically offputting. Living standards matter little - I'm not competitive. I'm never going to be a 'winner', except by accident. I think it's perfectly legit that most people have such concerns - basic adult life competencies of the world we live in is hardly 'high standards' or the like. It's just I need someone who pays as little heed to the world at large as I do - we'll be much more likely to get along.
I have never 'met' a woman in meatspace. There have been small ads in the back of a music magazine, phone dating, and then online stuff. I don't think I could ever actually approach a woman in meatspace."
Agreed, for the most part. I relate entirely except for a few small differences. I'm confident to approach females so long as it's mutual by physical appearance from the very beginning, though that rarely if ever happens.
13 Jan 2016, 10:06 am
Just as a successful woman will not usually show any interest in "failed" men, neither do they seem to care much for "failed" women, either. In fact, it seems to be a general behavior for everyone to not notice any "failed" people of either sex, and to focus on only the successful people, and on their own miserable lives, as well.
If this was not the case, then there would be no public obsession with the lives of celebrities.
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
13 Jan 2016, 12:38 pm
Dating is apparently a 'number's game', so you have to message a high number of people before finding the right one.
You can't spam a generic copy and paste message but have to take a specific interest in the other person including referencing details from their profile.
Competiton is high as men severely outnumber women.
And no gender sets out to make it hard for one another, it just is.
And yeah, no one should take the rejection personally, though I must say it must be a pretty hard puzzle than for all of us to find the other piece of.
Harder than almost all of those big 5,000 piece ones.
And besdies, depending on the website you can be reported or blocked and if you are than yes, it is something you can take personally most of the time as you might have said or done something to upset or offend.
If someone gets blocked or reported I'd think its likely they're probably sending some inappropriate messeges and that is the reason. Also how long are you expecting to find a date on such sites...it can take time, even longer to actually find a relationship since you're not going to hit it off with everyone who you end up meeting with probably.
Also yeah its a dating site with tons of people, of course you have to be active in sending messeges and/or responding to them...if one feels its unfair you have to communicate with a lot of people before maybe finding the right one, they don't have to use a dating site because that is how they work. I mean there is nothing the female sex can do to make it so guys on dating sites guaranteed a date just by being on the site...and we can't magically fix the ratio so there are aways an equal amount of girls and guys on a given dating site. Yet seems some in this thread are angry and bitter at us females in general precisely because of that.
I don't mean to blame women at all. I believe we all have difficulties with online dating and was just pointing that out/re-stating it.
Maybe it's foolish to have the expectation online dating will make things easier, but some of us do/did going into it.
At first, it seems like you're expanding your options not just limited to in your own city, when you leave the house, in the low, low chance you come across someone your own age (not so much for adults but more so for teens), and the even lower chance there's a mutual attraction, and the further low chance you actually have time/the opportunity to talk to them.
So now you've got access to people 1-2 hours away in surrounding cities and areas.
But it turns out after only a couple hours you discover you've just entered a long, tedious process that is just as, if not more difficult than real-life dating/seeking.
I think we all go to online dating for different reasons. Some people out of outright desperation, other's to expand their 'net'.
Either way, online dating, especially on the teen dating sites, has made me discover I'm really nowhere near as desperate as I thought I was. There's males making posts actually saying 'Need girlfriend really badly' but giving no details of their location or even specifically what they want, just 'need gf badly please message me'.
I find online dating to be honest in my short time experiencing it to be very artificial and unnatural. I generally don't like even making friendships online and only use the internet to maintain contact with real-life friends. Online dating seems no different as texting/'chatting' to randoms. Either way it's my only option in this dead, boring town so maybe I shouldn't complain of the internet age.
I didn't think you were really blaming females, more other generalizing comments that seem to fault the whole female sex for guys having difficulty finding dates on dating sites that pop up in threads like this. I mean I think where you live and the demographic of people can have a lot to do with how easily you find dates or not.
The thing that I thought was easier about online dating was you can skip the going out to try and meet people, since I have a hard time with approaching people I don't know even if I do think I'd get along with them. But that is about it I didn't think it would magically grant me a lasting relationship...maybe some dating sites get marketed that way and people fall for it though. But yeah even before I tried online dating I liked getting on forums to talk to random people and am even still in contact with a couple internet friends.
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
13 Jan 2016, 2:30 pm
And live an average lifestyle - that is, leave home at 19, leave university at 22, join the workfoce at 23, build their connections/friendships/relationships and support network at 25, and be engaged by 28.
People who fall behind are considered less than average.
Us aspies are only less than average because of our lack of social skills and difficulty working.
But we are associated with the absolute low-lifes - dropouts, criminals, drug abusers, a55h*les, etc.
I'm pretty sure during high school and possibly yung adulthood, A LOT of us may have been friends with those types.
As a person born in lower-middle class, I know what it feels like, and have integrated myself into middle class society.
My family is full of drug abusers, unemployed, dropouts, criminals, etc.
I am ashamed to introduce the parents of new friends and girlfriends to my family because it ruins my friendships/relationships.
Average/normal people feel above my family, feel superior.
I am not judged on the basis as an individual and my own person, but because of my family and friends. I'm so different than my family and friends.
I’m one of the most ambitious people in my family.
I’m the one who wants to rise above it all, to get his head out of the sh*tty gutter I was born into.
You’ve got to understand that, psychologically speaking, a lot of things are inherited by our families, especially our lifestyles.
There is the concept of intergenerational poverty, which dictates that poverty tends to continue throughout generations in a family.
Poor people tend to have poverty continue in their family, as do the middle class familie’s usually remain middle class, and the rich remain rich.
But your path in life isn’t always so set. There’s always the rare/occasional outlier who influences the family, for better or for worse.
The lucky middle class guy who makes a name of himself and moves on up.
The successful poor person/person of a struggling background who rises and finally lives a decent living.
I’m the second person on my mother’s side to graduate high school, 6th on my father’s, and 7th overall.
Generations after generations and yet I still rank 7th.
I’m one of the few interested in university studies and a higher-earning career.
I have no interest in remaining unemployed and sucking-off the system.
The thing is, I’m STILL less than average.
I’m a recent high school graduate and most haare working already or moving straight to university.
I am going to begin my adult life and future but for now taking some time-off/delaying it as long as possible.
But I’m still seen as one of those people who ‘fall-behind’.
Honestly, what else are me and Sly to expect?
Either we go after the average girls, literaly the 5 out of 10s and hope she accepts us.
Or we go after the absolute bottom of the barrell. The sl*tty, ugly, rude, abusive, bad mothers to their 6 children, drug abusing, high school dropout, alcoholic, unemployed losers.
This just isn’t right. Us aspies are all destined for better, I think.
But like I said average people tend to associate us with the bottom of the barrell simply because some of us lack social skills, are still living at home, and have trouble finding a job.
But it’s an incorrect association - we aren’t absolute low-lifes.
Long story short, I disagree with the notion we should have to lower our standards. If we’re going after an average looking female with an average lifestyle (aka better lifestyle than us), it doesn’t mean we’re out of our leagues.
It means we’re aware we aren’t the bottom of the barrell, and knowing we’re better than that.
What if you switched the statement though? You reference being viewed as the bottom of the barrel due to circumstances beyond control and bothered no one sees you for who you are (a little interpretation there on my part)..but not wanting to glance at women who are bottom of the barrel.. If a portion of men in that barrel are really good people, surely there are some women in the same situation... And perhaps both feel shunned looking for others..because both immediately disqualify each other from their searches.. ??
(Fwiw, i don't think you're bottom of the barrel, i'm just using the terminology used in the post).
_________________
"When does the human cost become too high for the building of a better machine?"
13 Jan 2016, 5:32 pm
Just as a successful woman will not usually show any interest in "failed" men, neither do they seem to care much for "failed" women, either. In fact, it seems to be a general behavior for everyone to not notice any "failed" people of either sex, and to focus on only the successful people, and on their own miserable lives, as well.
If this was not the case, then there would be no public obsession with the lives of celebrities.
I don't care about celebrities or rich millionaires ore billionaires. I only care about the 99% of the population, the real people.
The way people on Facebook, dating sites, blogs, etc make it seem like is all women are well off and only men fail. I've yet to meet or see a woman who is poor or jobless besides some aspie women here.
So in a world where pretty much every woman has a job and home, who does a guy who doesn't have that and isn't good enough date.
Why would strait successful women care about other straight women 0.o
Actually most people seem all to focused on failed people (mostly men) and attacking, mocking, and belittling them. I hear republicans, libertarians, and tea party people go on and on about it.
I'm guess we have entirely different definitions of failed at life and what success is.
13 Jan 2016, 6:20 pm
(Fwiw, i don't think you're bottom of the barrel, i'm just using the terminology used in the post).
While it is true that there probably are a few of these good, but ignored women on these sites, knowing that is only part of the start. First you have to be able to identify these females which can be a challenge in and of itself especially if said women aren't frequent posters or get fed up and quit the site. They don't necessarily stand out from the crowd most of the time and in fact can sometimes be easily confused for the more scumbag types that are very selfish or psychotic. Second, you have to be able to build a rapport with them which for many of us is very difficult even in non-romantic relationships and depending on your writing skills may be more difficult still. It's not impossible, but it is very much an uphill battle.
_________________
Diagnosed ASD 4/22/16
All magic comes with a price! - Rumplestiltskin
