Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

For guys who are having zero replies on okcupid....

Page 26 of 29 [ 460 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

23 Jun 2012, 6:43 am

^^ Lol not really, just toned.

It's unbelievable, no?



And what's the more unbelievable is this mass-change of heart.

Before:

-They barely replied
-They were more rude.
-They never apologized
-They got offended at the slightest sex joke or even just a flirt.
-They would feel offended if asked for an email or phone number


After:
- Now they almost always reply.
- Now they're all 10x nicer all the sudden! (same for Real-life )
- Now they apology for the slightest of things like being delayed to reply O_O (same for Real-life )
-Now they do sex jokes. (same for Real-life )
-Now they give me their phone numbers/ email/skype O_O (not exactly the same for Real-life but definitely better... )



Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 24 Jun 2012, 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

24 Jun 2012, 10:33 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
1- Work out just to be toned, no steroids, no other sh**, no over-musculation.
2- Post a shirtless pic of yourself, better in a beach setting if possible.
3- Turn the tables! keep messaging but this time get loads of replies, It's your turn now to be the okc chooser, not like the old days. Your replies rate would be increased like 3 or 4 times (let's suppose the basis is 1, not 0 :P), and you would even receive initial messages.

Important Note: Don't listen to the users here who tell you this is gonna attract only the 'shallow' type if girls, such idealist advice would get you nowhere - it's BS, I am telling you, you would receive more replies and even initial messages from many types of girls (from the nerdiest to the most extrovert types...) because, deep down, most humans are equally 'shallow' but some hide it better than others (or simply more self-conscious about their league and know what they can get and what they can't get).

Good hunting, males. It's time to roar.


Now excuse me....i have to delete some messages from my okc inbox because it's reaching its max.


Additional tips:

- On okc especially, don't waste time to message an offline girl, girls receive a lot of messages even while they are offline and your message would be lost among the bulk she received. Instead, message her while she's online because she's likely to see the "new message" pop-up notification, and if she likes your display pic (and here's why the pic is still the most important factor) then she would check it.
(I tried it with the same girls who didn't reply to a message I sent while they were offline, most of them have replied)

-Try local free dating sites (country, town...etc), they can very useful.



DogsWithoutHorses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,146
Location: New York

24 Jun 2012, 10:06 pm

I had a sudden realization today.
There is something really appealing to me about this concept (not boo's insistence that it's fact based off of one persons experience without controlled variables but that's already been addressed)

It put's men on very equal footing with the expectations placed on women "just be pretty and nothing else matters, nothing else matters if you aren't pretty" ie. beauty covers up flaws, good traits don't cover up lack of beauty.
This is in opposition to the traditional (and I think flawed dynamic) that a man's personality counts where a woman's looks count. Now it may be a little objectifying, but at least it's objectifying all around. It's not my ideal but I can get behind that kind of egalitarianism.

I'm curious though. What does this method suggest for men who aren't abshot ready and don't have the ability/time to sculpt? Or does it rely on the idea that anyone can be fit with a reasonable amount of effort?


_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don?t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth.


yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

24 Jun 2012, 10:16 pm

I was discussing this topic with my male friend the other day, and how I felt that it is a particular type of female that responds positively to a shirtless pic, so there must be a lot of that type of female around, due to Boo's success. He agreed somewhat, but also added that this type of person is the sort of person who would be active on an online dating site - they would be open to opportunities, they would take the initiative because they are not so fussy - they are looking for sex or something similar, nothing serious (most of the time). So it makes sense that using this tactic would mean you receive more messages. The females who aren't messaging are the ones who are there for something more serious so they are choosier, they are the ones who might prefer the man to make the first move, etc. etc. There might even be more of them, but you wouldn't know because they aren't making themselves known.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

25 Jun 2012, 12:37 am

DogsWithoutHorses wrote:
I had a sudden realization today.
There is something really appealing to me about this concept (not boo's insistence that it's fact based off of one persons experience without controlled variables but that's already been addressed)

It put's men on very equal footing with the expectations placed on women "just be pretty and nothing else matters, nothing else matters if you aren't pretty" ie. beauty covers up flaws, good traits don't cover up lack of beauty.
This is in opposition to the traditional (and I think flawed dynamic) that a man's personality counts where a woman's looks count. Now it may be a little objectifying, but at least it's objectifying all around. It's not my ideal but I can get behind that kind of egalitarianism.

I'm curious though. What does this method suggest for men who aren't abshot ready and don't have the ability/time to sculpt? Or does it rely on the idea that anyone can be fit with a reasonable amount of effort?



Yes, I realized that too.

Looks is the most important factor in online dating regardless of the gender.

and the pic is the fastest thing to be instantly seen, when a woman receives like 30 messages a day, she would simply filter them as much as possible and check the most attractive ones.

For those who can't work out, well maybe they can just try to look better (better haircut etc).



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

25 Jun 2012, 1:58 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
I was discussing this topic with my male friend the other day, and how I felt that it is a particular type of female that responds positively to a shirtless pic, so there must be a lot of that type of female around, due to Boo's success.



WRONG.

I explained that before here because I knew some would assume that.

But it's plain wrong, I have been contacted by various and different types of women, half of them them are seeking long term relationships and aren't empty-headed.

In fact, the two hottest prospects are liberal feminists like you and Dogswh :lol: ....well not exactly but one is a geeky journalist who's only into monogamy, the other is .......well, an ultra-feminist who has no problem in FWBs and open relationships. They're far from shallow and empty headed.




Quote:
The females who aren't messaging are the ones who are there for something more serious so they are choosier, they are the ones who might prefer the man to make the first move, etc. etc. There might even be more of them, but you wouldn't know because they aren't making themselves known.


Yeah...riiight



If those are real then they weren't choosing me since 2009 so why I should choose them?

Please, take a look at the screenshots above.

WHERE were they those women? huh?



Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 25 Jun 2012, 3:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

25 Jun 2012, 2:55 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
The females who aren't messaging are the ones who are there for something more serious so they are choosier, they are the ones who might prefer the man to make the first move, etc. etc. There might even be more of them, but you wouldn't know because they aren't making themselves known.


Yeah...riiight



If those are real then they weren't choosing me since 2009 so why I choose choose them?

Please, take a look at the screenshots above.

WHERE were they those women? huh?

I'm confused...Like I said, they aren't showing themselves. And they are pickier. Maybe they aren't even on a dating website.



Wolfheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,971
Location: Kent, England

25 Jun 2012, 3:15 am

Interesting how the feminist members try to discredit the method, what's wrong with accepting that a nice body is something that is attractive or eye catching? It's not going to make you shallow.



DogsWithoutHorses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,146
Location: New York

25 Jun 2012, 3:27 am

Wolfheart wrote:
Interesting how the feminist members try to discredit the method, what's wrong with accepting that a nice body is something that is attractive or eye catching? It's not going to make you shallow.


That doesn't make you shallow at all.
Elevating a nice body over all other factors, does.
Also, who on this thread has identified as a feminist? I don't because the mainstream feminist movement has deep issues with women of color and trans* women. (there are tons of individual feminists that don't, right now rad fems are just ruining it for me)


_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don?t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth.


yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

25 Jun 2012, 6:34 am

I am not a feminist.

I also love a nice body, I just don't respond to people on online dating sites who show off their body which I would otherwise have not seen yet if I met them at a bar.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

25 Jun 2012, 6:41 am

Quote:
I don't because the mainstream feminist movement has deep issues with women of color and trans* women. (there are tons of individual feminists that don't, right now rad fems are just ruining it for me)


Really? You mean racism? That's new to me...



Wolfheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,971
Location: Kent, England

25 Jun 2012, 7:06 am

I was reading this which I found rather interesting and relevant to the thread.

Quote:
Desmond Morris identifies 12 steps which Western couples pass
through on the way to sexual intimacy. Occasionally a step may be
missed out, but they almost always occur in this order:
- eye to body
- eye to eye
- voice to voice
- hand to hand
- arm to shoulder
- arm to waist
- mouth to mouth
- hand to head
- hand to body
- mouth to breast
- hand to genitals
- genitals to genitals.



yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

25 Jun 2012, 7:11 am

Wolfheart wrote:
I was reading this which I found rather interesting and relevant to the thread.

Quote:
Desmond Morris identifies 12 steps which Western couples pass
through on the way to sexual intimacy. Occasionally a step may be
missed out, but they almost always occur in this order:
- eye to body
- eye to eye
- voice to voice
- hand to hand
- arm to shoulder
- arm to waist
- mouth to mouth
- hand to head
- hand to body
- mouth to breast
- hand to genitals
- genitals to genitals.

But remember in the first half of those, the major body parts are not usually NAKED. Unless you are at the beach.



Wolfheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,971
Location: Kent, England

25 Jun 2012, 7:29 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
Wolfheart wrote:
I was reading this which I found rather interesting and relevant to the thread.

Quote:
Desmond Morris identifies 12 steps which Western couples pass
through on the way to sexual intimacy. Occasionally a step may be
missed out, but they almost always occur in this order:
- eye to body
- eye to eye
- voice to voice
- hand to hand
- arm to shoulder
- arm to waist
- mouth to mouth
- hand to head
- hand to body
- mouth to breast
- hand to genitals
- genitals to genitals.

But remember in the first half of those, the major body parts are not usually NAKED. Unless you are at the beach.


Still women make judgements on what a man is wearing, his body posture, tone of voice, stature and position. A shirtless photo will show confidence if the body language is correct which will be seen as attractive, most body building poses are confident poses also.



Wolfheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,971
Location: Kent, England

25 Jun 2012, 7:38 am

DogsWithoutHorses wrote:
Wolfheart wrote:
Interesting how the feminist members try to discredit the method, what's wrong with accepting that a nice body is something that is attractive or eye catching? It's not going to make you shallow.


That doesn't make you shallow at all.
Elevating a nice body over all other factors, does.
Also, who on this thread has identified as a feminist? I don't because the mainstream feminist movement has deep issues with women of color and trans* women. (there are tons of individual feminists that don't, right now rad fems are just ruining it for me)


I think we have identified in several threads that initial attraction and getting a foot in the door is based on image and presentation, a set of images that people assign to certain postures and looks. In a relationship, synergy, empathy and compatibility do matter but when it comes to getting a foot in the door, presentation is the major factor. As boo has stated before, getting a foot in the door is just as important as the other steps, maybe even the most important step as it is the initial step. I don't know why you keep choosing to deny that or why you feel that initial attraction is based on any other factor.

Even if someone is bad at maintaining relationships, if they are good at first impressions and getting a foot in the door, they will still have a better chance of getting short term flings, employment and casual partners.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

29 Jun 2012, 6:19 am

Wolfheart wrote:
DogsWithoutHorses wrote:
Wolfheart wrote:
Interesting how the feminist members try to discredit the method, what's wrong with accepting that a nice body is something that is attractive or eye catching? It's not going to make you shallow.


That doesn't make you shallow at all.
Elevating a nice body over all other factors, does.
Also, who on this thread has identified as a feminist? I don't because the mainstream feminist movement has deep issues with women of color and trans* women. (there are tons of individual feminists that don't, right now rad fems are just ruining it for me)


I think we have identified in several threads that initial attraction and getting a foot in the door is based on image and presentation, a set of images that people assign to certain postures and looks. In a relationship, synergy, empathy and compatibility do matter but when it comes to getting a foot in the door, presentation is the major factor. As boo has stated before, getting a foot in the door is just as important as the other steps, maybe even the most important step as it is the initial step. I don't know why you keep choosing to deny that or why you feel that initial attraction is based on any other factor.

Even if someone is bad at maintaining relationships, if they are good at first impressions and getting a foot in the door, they will still have a better chance of getting short term flings, employment and casual partners.



100% true, anyone who says otherwise is a liar.