Fake Men on Hinge(wired.com)
wired.com
Fake Men on Hinge
https://www.wired.com/story/i-uncovered-an-army-of-fake-men-on-hinge/
168 comments
Hinge is owned by Match Group. Along with also owning Match.com they also own Tinder, OkCupid, PlentyOfFish, Black People Meet, Our Time, and about 20 more services. AFAIK the only "big" dating app that they don't own is Bumble. It's honestly insane how much of a monopoly Match Group has on the modern dating scene.
To make things worse, Match.com translates profiles from one "platform" to another. So that interesting person you see on, say, PlentyOfFish never posted their profile to POF - they originally only wrote an OKCupid profile. If you bother to read the "terms of use" then you'll find they can do this.
Many times when it looks like someone else is interested in you, the appearance is made that they can only be reached by subscribing for money, it turns out that the person is not there, never was there and had abandoned the other platform due to lack of interest.
And paying for the service never makes it easier to get dates either.
Many times when it looks like someone else is interested in you, the appearance is made that they can only be reached by subscribing for money, it turns out that the person is not there, never was there and had abandoned the other platform due to lack of interest.
And paying for the service never makes it easier to get dates either.
Match is known for buying out their competition.
So does anyone know if there is a startup accelerator specializing in making dating apps for selling to Match?
Something like: "Here's a list of features that users love, and here's a bunch of marketing techniques for making your userbase grow fast. Don't worry about monetization, Match is going to buy you out anyways. We're just going to keep on repeating doing this until Match runs out of money or everyone we know is rich."
So does anyone know if there is a startup accelerator specializing in making dating apps for selling to Match?
Something like: "Here's a list of features that users love, and here's a bunch of marketing techniques for making your userbase grow fast. Don't worry about monetization, Match is going to buy you out anyways. We're just going to keep on repeating doing this until Match runs out of money or everyone we know is rich."
Usually there is some innovation with each new app they purchase. Of the big ones:
OkCupid: Matching using questions/answers + statistical modeling
Tinder: Simple swipe left/right model + hook up emphasis
Hinge: Emphasizes long term connections + "designed to be deleted"
So best way to get acquired would be to find a new niche and an innovative way to appeal to that niche.
OkCupid: Matching using questions/answers + statistical modeling
Tinder: Simple swipe left/right model + hook up emphasis
Hinge: Emphasizes long term connections + "designed to be deleted"
So best way to get acquired would be to find a new niche and an innovative way to appeal to that niche.
Here's mine:
Potential dates are matched with a set number of people at random.
The potential date interrogates the matches within a specific subject area, using a specified format and context.
After a preset length of time or number of questions, the quesioner is then asked to decide which respondent was human and which was a computer.
If the quesioner guesses human and is correct, they can choose to go on a date.
Potential dates are matched with a set number of people at random.
The potential date interrogates the matches within a specific subject area, using a specified format and context.
After a preset length of time or number of questions, the quesioner is then asked to decide which respondent was human and which was a computer.
If the quesioner guesses human and is correct, they can choose to go on a date.
> Hinge is owned by Match Group [...] AFAIK the only "big" dating app that they don't own is Bumble.
Bumble/Badoo have some Russian connotations... so the choice is between cancer or syphilis. Within the last 10 years we voluntarily have delegated our mating preselection to them... and "in real world" is even worse...
Bumble/Badoo have some Russian connotations... so the choice is between cancer or syphilis. Within the last 10 years we voluntarily have delegated our mating preselection to them... and "in real world" is even worse...
> Within the last 10 years we voluntarily have delegated our mating preselection to them.
I think this might be true for a subset of people, but I've personally had zero luck with online dating and have met all my partners IRL. It is interesting to consider if the FTC will ever take action on Match Group's near monopoly here.
I think this might be true for a subset of people, but I've personally had zero luck with online dating and have met all my partners IRL. It is interesting to consider if the FTC will ever take action on Match Group's near monopoly here.
In the real world is scarier. I seriously doubt it's worse, unless you live in a small town with no choices.
Dating apps lower the barrier to entry. This is actually a bad thing for men, because it floods the dating market with competition from men who would otherwise be too offputting or antisocial or meek. There is currently no way for women to filter out these men via software (they would if they could).
Just like in business, it's easier to stay in business if there is a barrier to entry.
Dating apps lower the barrier to entry. This is actually a bad thing for men, because it floods the dating market with competition from men who would otherwise be too offputting or antisocial or meek. There is currently no way for women to filter out these men via software (they would if they could).
Just like in business, it's easier to stay in business if there is a barrier to entry.
[deleted]
> Never mind the practice of "Roses" in which the only way to message some women is to buy a like that costs $3.33 each. Again, in bulk you can get that down to $1.49 apiece. But what is so scummy about it is that they seem to have an algorithm that detects the most beautiful of women and locks messaging them behind the need to send roses.
Actually this is even far more anti-pattern than that. The fact the recipient knows you sent a rose signals a few things to (presumably) her:
1. You had to pay to get access to her, your ELO/Algorithm score is low enough that they app thinks your beneath her
2. You're not getting enough dates / matches that you're desperate enough that you're now paying money for what others get for free
Actually this is even far more anti-pattern than that. The fact the recipient knows you sent a rose signals a few things to (presumably) her:
1. You had to pay to get access to her, your ELO/Algorithm score is low enough that they app thinks your beneath her
2. You're not getting enough dates / matches that you're desperate enough that you're now paying money for what others get for free
How would structure your dating app to be different? Presumably you’d have expenses.
Maybe you could make it open source? But sounds like you’re gonna have a hard time staying ahead of abuse. Not to mention attracting enough people for the app to be useful is gonna be difficult if you’re not spending money on marketing.
Maybe you could have a monthly fee? But then who’s gonna use it? And there’s already plenty of established sites like that.
Well maybe you could have a virtual equivalent of buying someone a drink? Ah yes, we end up back on roses. Is it perfect? No. But doesn’t sound like any option is.
Maybe you could make it open source? But sounds like you’re gonna have a hard time staying ahead of abuse. Not to mention attracting enough people for the app to be useful is gonna be difficult if you’re not spending money on marketing.
Maybe you could have a monthly fee? But then who’s gonna use it? And there’s already plenty of established sites like that.
Well maybe you could have a virtual equivalent of buying someone a drink? Ah yes, we end up back on roses. Is it perfect? No. But doesn’t sound like any option is.
Honestly, as terrible as these features are for these male users, I feel that they are barely scratching the surface of what can be profitably done to monetize the thirst/desperation of lonely, unattractive men. I don't know what these new terrible features could be, but it really feels like very little has been tried. There are probably much, much darker patterns that these dating sites can use. I mean, we're talking about one of the most powerful bodily urges that exists, plus an increasingly desperate customer base with seemingly no way to satisfy it. Surely this path goes deeper into the woods.
> I don't know what these new terrible features could be, but it really feels like very little has been tried.
OnlyFans is already doing it all .
OnlyFans is already doing it all .
The problem with most relationship-orienter dating apps (eg not necessarily Tinder or Grindr although not everyone uses those apps the same way) is that the monetization is based on maximizing and prolonging user engagement. In other words, they have a financial incentive for you to remain single.
I've thought a bit about how to prevent that in a way that isn't too easily gamed while aligning the incentives of users and apps.
My first thought was that users of the app pay some high-but-not-obscene sign up fee (let's say $250, but knowing how dating apps work this number would probably move up and down based on an area's COL, user's demographics like are and gender, profession, W-2 scans, etc). After x years, if the user is still single they get their money back (base this off of marriage records, app activity, or whatever). The app can invest the money in the meantime, so even if most users end up in relationships before the deadline they can still generate returns (IIRC this is actually how insurance companies get a lot of their revenue).
I think if there's one lump sum people are gonna be more inclined to game the system, so one variation is to make it more of a trickle of money. eg every time a pair of matched users verify that they've gone on a date, they get $10. Enough money that they might bother logging it in the app, but not so high (hopefully) that people would go on fake dates.
However I think due to the additional friction these options still wouldn't be very successful. The low barrier to entry is part of why apps get critical mass and become successful.
I've thought a bit about how to prevent that in a way that isn't too easily gamed while aligning the incentives of users and apps.
My first thought was that users of the app pay some high-but-not-obscene sign up fee (let's say $250, but knowing how dating apps work this number would probably move up and down based on an area's COL, user's demographics like are and gender, profession, W-2 scans, etc). After x years, if the user is still single they get their money back (base this off of marriage records, app activity, or whatever). The app can invest the money in the meantime, so even if most users end up in relationships before the deadline they can still generate returns (IIRC this is actually how insurance companies get a lot of their revenue).
I think if there's one lump sum people are gonna be more inclined to game the system, so one variation is to make it more of a trickle of money. eg every time a pair of matched users verify that they've gone on a date, they get $10. Enough money that they might bother logging it in the app, but not so high (hopefully) that people would go on fake dates.
However I think due to the additional friction these options still wouldn't be very successful. The low barrier to entry is part of why apps get critical mass and become successful.
> How would structure your dating app to be different?
Honestly I dont know. But here's an idea that came to mind.
Men pay per swipe. (men tend to over swipe and inundate women with messages, make them not.
Perhaps also women receive a token amount for showing up to a date, not ghosting as reported by the man. (Ghosting is a real thing unfortunately. It being a token amount means no sane women would endanger herself to get the token, but it might be enough to say, cover the first drink or part of the uber ride there) .
The current political climate probably wouldn't allow functionality required to optimize the cisgender heterosexual experience. (Because that would require taking a stance about gender differences and designing systems that are suboptimal for other dating patterns) .
Honestly I dont know. But here's an idea that came to mind.
Men pay per swipe. (men tend to over swipe and inundate women with messages, make them not.
Perhaps also women receive a token amount for showing up to a date, not ghosting as reported by the man. (Ghosting is a real thing unfortunately. It being a token amount means no sane women would endanger herself to get the token, but it might be enough to say, cover the first drink or part of the uber ride there) .
The current political climate probably wouldn't allow functionality required to optimize the cisgender heterosexual experience. (Because that would require taking a stance about gender differences and designing systems that are suboptimal for other dating patterns) .
Sounds like sending this kind of rose to a woman who already gets lots of attention is futile for the reasons you list. But it might actually be an effective gesture towards a woman who’s not in the top 50% of the site because it signals that you’re not a player who’s simply messaging all the below-average women, and that your score is probably aligned with hers.
And that only works if you're the only ones sending her roses, which is information that female participant is unlikely to share. They're are probably other suitors sending roses as a signal of wealth to these less attractive women in a bid to compensate for they're own lack of attractiveness.
> not in the top 50% of the site
You will get presented this match for free and message her without a rose.
I suppose you could send a rose voluntarily to someone who you presume does not get roses in an attempt to exploit the fact they dont get roses... which is slightly condescending xD .
You will get presented this match for free and message her without a rose.
I suppose you could send a rose voluntarily to someone who you presume does not get roses in an attempt to exploit the fact they dont get roses... which is slightly condescending xD .
Sending gifts to not-very-attractive women is a time-tested mating strategy for the slightly lazy male contingent.
"gifting" women you barely know is a terrible strategy. This is the best way to land yourself a gold digger or some other undesirable. It signals to her that you are beneath her and are trying to buy her affection.
On one first date a woman I had been talking to for a week texted me late at night. I told her to show up at my house and for her to bring a bottle of red wine. The next morning she is telling me a recent dating story. A guy took her out for a fancy meal. He spent $120 on her and then he got pissed after the meal when she wouldn't kiss him.
I have some success and plenty of failure too when it comes to dating. There is so much bad dating advice out there for men. I feel bad for the men that are in the dark and being taken advantage of.
On one first date a woman I had been talking to for a week texted me late at night. I told her to show up at my house and for her to bring a bottle of red wine. The next morning she is telling me a recent dating story. A guy took her out for a fancy meal. He spent $120 on her and then he got pissed after the meal when she wouldn't kiss him.
I have some success and plenty of failure too when it comes to dating. There is so much bad dating advice out there for men. I feel bad for the men that are in the dark and being taken advantage of.
I will venture a risky post to say, the gifting strategy is probably most endearing to women who receive little attention. This is a mostly mutually exclusive set with Gold Diggers.
Most online dating apps are owned by the same company, Match Group. There's also Bumble but Bumble put predation on steroids, imo, and gave it a very homely facade. I would get few matches on any stock experience, which on each service encourages you to pay. Paying has no guarantee of success, or a refund when faced with absolute failure, so if you spend money on superlikes (or whatever feature) if it doesn't work or some person is having a wine night and uses that opportunity to make fun of you there's no getting that money back. Once you follow the incentivized spending plan the app is somewhat useful but more gimmicky than anything.
The problem is that men have been griping in public and private about this for years but they're continually shrugged off or made fun of for doing so. Some gripes are obviously unhinged, but I don't think there's even a shred of empathy for this problem even without those unhinged folks. This business model is absolutely normalized.
The problem is that men have been griping in public and private about this for years but they're continually shrugged off or made fun of for doing so. Some gripes are obviously unhinged, but I don't think there's even a shred of empathy for this problem even without those unhinged folks. This business model is absolutely normalized.
Match Group is one of the worst internet companies I know. I was quite surprised when I found out they own basically every online dating thing.
I’m not sure whether… innovation in the online dating space would do us any good, but I’m positive that Match Group is hard at work to prevent it from happening.
I’m not sure whether… innovation in the online dating space would do us any good, but I’m positive that Match Group is hard at work to prevent it from happening.
If we take dating to have an end-game of a long-time relationship, then it's a market segment that is always limited, if you're successful your customers leave.
Much, much more profitable to simply drag your customers along forever and use every whale-milking technique ever designed.
Much, much more profitable to simply drag your customers along forever and use every whale-milking technique ever designed.
> Much, much more profitable to simply drag your customers along forever and use every whale-milking technique ever designed.
That's true of many industries. If a light bulb manufacturer invented a light bulb that lasted 100 years they'd go out of business. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
That's true of many industries. If a light bulb manufacturer invented a light bulb that lasted 100 years they'd go out of business. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
Respectfully, I think you have the wrong wikipedia link for your lightbulb example [0]. Certainly for describing lightbulbs dying earlier than necessary to fuel replacement purchases.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
What's interesting about that is at some point the device lasts longer than it is in service for.
According to the internet, the "average kitchen" is remodeled every 10-15 years, so once your LED lights last longer than that, they're likely to get thrown away still working.
According to the internet, the "average kitchen" is remodeled every 10-15 years, so once your LED lights last longer than that, they're likely to get thrown away still working.
I've never met anyone who remodels their kitchen every 10 years.
That'd get expensive quick, a lame way to spend a million dollars over the course of a lifetime.
That'd get expensive quick, a lame way to spend a million dollars over the course of a lifetime.
> In 2017, two million kitchens were remodeled (https://www.forbes.com/sites/reginacole/2020/11/08/stop-the-...)
There are about 70 million single family homes. If we count all dwelling units, we're at 140 million or so.
So the average kitchen lasts 35 years by that metric, to 70 years. I suspect the 10-15 year number counts "refreshes" and not just tear-down/rebuilds. Cabinets these days don't often last 35 years without some work.
There are about 70 million single family homes. If we count all dwelling units, we're at 140 million or so.
So the average kitchen lasts 35 years by that metric, to 70 years. I suspect the 10-15 year number counts "refreshes" and not just tear-down/rebuilds. Cabinets these days don't often last 35 years without some work.
Incandescent bulbs that last longer run cooler and thus are less efficient. Long life bulbs are a bad deal except in situations where changing them is a problem.
Been there and it kills your confidence. Online dating is truly fucked for men.
Checkout Gerbert Johnson on YT, he has a channel with some funny content on it that isn't absurd redpill nonsense.
Checkout Gerbert Johnson on YT, he has a channel with some funny content on it that isn't absurd redpill nonsense.
Can confirm. Source: had shaky confidence which now is killed.
Thanks for the channel, just binged it a bit -- really cool!
Apparently it gets better for men if you manage to live to an advanced age: A college buddy recently told us that his widowed father is absolutely inundated with Tinder matches, because in his age range (70s-80s), the gender ratio is increasingly skewed female.
Not that this helps you much right now, I suppose…
Not that this helps you much right now, I suppose…
Even in the Bay Area, a place with notably more men than women and thus a much harder dating experience, I’ve had a good experience with Hinge. I’m sure it helps to be employed in tech (although that should apply to most people on this site).
I’ve never given them a cent. I did put a lot of work into my profile - going on dozens of dates, learning from the bad matches how I could signal incompatibility earlier, and generally just going head first into the trial-by-fire of online dating for the first time.
Things are progressing slowly for me but to be honest my caution is the limiting factor. More importantly there has been progression.
I’ve never given them a cent. I did put a lot of work into my profile - going on dozens of dates, learning from the bad matches how I could signal incompatibility earlier, and generally just going head first into the trial-by-fire of online dating for the first time.
Things are progressing slowly for me but to be honest my caution is the limiting factor. More importantly there has been progression.
This is the real answer. Every guy I know who REALLY has a huge axe to grind with online dating will show me their profile and they will have low quality photos with little effort put in to their profile itself. If someone can't tell what the hell you actually look like or get a good feel for your real personality then why are they going to be interested?
If anything money should be spent on improving the profile itself (you could hire a professional photographer to take some "candid" looking nice photos of yourself + go to a higher end hair cutter, get your clothes tailored, etc etc). All of these things would probably also help you in real life. Worst case you have some great LinkedIn photos or something to send your family and some great fitting clothes to wear to dinner with friends.
If anything money should be spent on improving the profile itself (you could hire a professional photographer to take some "candid" looking nice photos of yourself + go to a higher end hair cutter, get your clothes tailored, etc etc). All of these things would probably also help you in real life. Worst case you have some great LinkedIn photos or something to send your family and some great fitting clothes to wear to dinner with friends.
>"If someone can't tell what the hell you actually look like or get a good feel for your real personality then why are they going to be interested?"
You're absolutely right that most men could stand to improve their profiles. However in the article the writer mentions how the photos she saw seemed designed to fit some template of what is supposed to be attractive, and that she was a little wary of how professional they appeared, so this can go both ways. Overall, though, it seems far better to have higher quality photos even if they appear staged.
One of the biggest challenges, however, is that the nature of these apps means that to 'get a good feel for your real personality' people must somehow get that across in only a few seconds before the person on the other end swipes on to another profile. With margins like that, and so little to work with, it is daunting and seemingly impossible to try and write something compelling enough to capture attention in a consistent way.
You're absolutely right that most men could stand to improve their profiles. However in the article the writer mentions how the photos she saw seemed designed to fit some template of what is supposed to be attractive, and that she was a little wary of how professional they appeared, so this can go both ways. Overall, though, it seems far better to have higher quality photos even if they appear staged.
One of the biggest challenges, however, is that the nature of these apps means that to 'get a good feel for your real personality' people must somehow get that across in only a few seconds before the person on the other end swipes on to another profile. With margins like that, and so little to work with, it is daunting and seemingly impossible to try and write something compelling enough to capture attention in a consistent way.
I don’t know. For Hinge I definitely can instantly reject some people. But if I find them attractive I’ll look through the whole profile and try to see if I like who they’re presenting themselves as. They say it’s a numbers game - and quantity is important. But the optimal breakdown between quantity and quality actually still weighs pretty heavy on quality.
If I match with someone I want to be able to convey that this person gives me a strong vibe of compatibility. It makes the next steps of conversing and meeting a natural conclusion. I don’t think you can do this if you don’t know what you’re looking for or who you are or what life you’re trying to live. But this is all very straightforward if you can make it clear you’re looking for something specific - in my case a spouse to raise children with. Without a goal the path is not clear.
If I match with someone I want to be able to convey that this person gives me a strong vibe of compatibility. It makes the next steps of conversing and meeting a natural conclusion. I don’t think you can do this if you don’t know what you’re looking for or who you are or what life you’re trying to live. But this is all very straightforward if you can make it clear you’re looking for something specific - in my case a spouse to raise children with. Without a goal the path is not clear.
I found Hinge to be heavily skewed towards well-off professional women looking for well-off professional men. (Can't speak about the men since I only looked at women.) Other than that the mechanics seemed pretty typical. There were fewer bots, sex workers, and badly done profiles than on Tinder, which was nice.
> I did put a lot of work into my profile - going on dozens of dates, learning from the bad matches how I could signal incompatibility earlier, and generally just going head first into the trial-by-fire of online dating for the first time.
I think why so many guys get mad at the apps is they just don't have the resilience for that amount of rejection. It's very easy to get disheartened when you match with someone, talk for a few days and ask them on a date only for her to not be interested. It's so easy to get mad when this happens and just go "F this entire thing", but you have to keep telling yourself that it's part of the process and keep going.
I've had a rather positive experience on Hinge but I think one of the main reasons is I set the expectation for myself that there will be alot of rejections.
I think why so many guys get mad at the apps is they just don't have the resilience for that amount of rejection. It's very easy to get disheartened when you match with someone, talk for a few days and ask them on a date only for her to not be interested. It's so easy to get mad when this happens and just go "F this entire thing", but you have to keep telling yourself that it's part of the process and keep going.
I've had a rather positive experience on Hinge but I think one of the main reasons is I set the expectation for myself that there will be alot of rejections.
Right. What I’ve learned is that if they aren’t interested in having a conversation with you the day you match (back and forth, chatting for an hour or two) then it’s not going to go anywhere. If they’re not trying to meet up after that first conversation, it’s not going to go anywhere. If they don’t message back within a few hours of the first date, it’s not going to go anywhere.
Chatting for a few days before asking them out isn’t wrong - but you can get to the same natural conclusion much quicker and with less pain by trying to have a good conversation right away and then asking them out the next day.
As for fearing rejection - I managed that by putting myself in the position of being the rejector. I showed up to each first date looking for problems, not trying to see if things could work. If I didn’t feel like there was potential I’d reject them an hour or two after the date ended. If you are not being as picky as they are then you could give off the impression that you have low standards. What person wants to feel like they’ve been picked for their appearance alone?
Chatting for a few days before asking them out isn’t wrong - but you can get to the same natural conclusion much quicker and with less pain by trying to have a good conversation right away and then asking them out the next day.
As for fearing rejection - I managed that by putting myself in the position of being the rejector. I showed up to each first date looking for problems, not trying to see if things could work. If I didn’t feel like there was potential I’d reject them an hour or two after the date ended. If you are not being as picky as they are then you could give off the impression that you have low standards. What person wants to feel like they’ve been picked for their appearance alone?
Dang, I remember when SF was reputed to be a cis man's dating paradise. With all the gay dudes I had heard rumors that the ratio was something like 3 women to 1 man.
By Bay Area, do you mean SF? Because outside of that, you're going to exhaust your swipe supply pretty quick.
No, peninsula. I don’t swipe much. I feel more confident when I’m not doing all of the selling at the start. So I just sort through the likes.
I’m not an unattractive guy, but I’m also no movie star.
I’m not an unattractive guy, but I’m also no movie star.
A rose is the same as buying a drink. All it communicates is "I don't think I have anything else going for me, so I spent money to get you to notice me."
Hinge is a steaming pile of horse shit. If any match complains about you they will ban you for life (Guilty without any investigation) and refuse to tell you the reason. Good luck with your appeal.
Before any SJW replies that I must be some troll here is the proof "Revenge reporting" is real. Revenge reporting happens to men too.
https://www.stylist.co.uk/relationships/dating-love/dating-a...
Before any SJW replies that I must be some troll here is the proof "Revenge reporting" is real. Revenge reporting happens to men too.
https://www.stylist.co.uk/relationships/dating-love/dating-a...
Online dating also enables men to say hi to women you may never have been able to if you just waited on organic situations. Some men are just not great at initiating conversation.
In some areas it is going to be more difficult and those areas probably are over represented on HN. SF/Bay Area, Seattle, Bangalore etc. The dating apps can't change the male to female ratio.
In some areas it is going to be more difficult and those areas probably are over represented on HN. SF/Bay Area, Seattle, Bangalore etc. The dating apps can't change the male to female ratio.
Not really, a man is brutally paywalled to interact or even to bubble up. The asynchronicity can be noted when some women's bios write "just write to me", as women simply swipe right and after almost guaranteed match can send a message...
> a man is brutally paywalled to interact
Does paying actually get you anywhere? Do you meet people you wouldn't have met without paying? I know they make it seem like it's going to help, but I have my doubts about whether it does. I think if you ignore the misleading marketing and go by results, paying for a basic subscription gives you the full benefit of the app.
Does paying actually get you anywhere? Do you meet people you wouldn't have met without paying? I know they make it seem like it's going to help, but I have my doubts about whether it does. I think if you ignore the misleading marketing and go by results, paying for a basic subscription gives you the full benefit of the app.
I've done a couple of the premium subscriptions just to see if they're worth it. My experience was that you got to see people who had liked you but that the app just hadn't shown you yet, but other than that it didn't lead to any increase in dates. It doesn't show you any more often to people so although it allows you to swipe an unlimited amount of times, you might as well be screaming into a void. Just building up a larger list of people you've said "yes" to who will never see your profile. The "boost" functionality might get you an extra match or two, but with most conversations going nowhere the ROI is terrible.
and Tinder used to charge men a LOT more money to get past that paywall too.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/akzang/straight-middle-aged-...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/akzang/straight-middle-aged-...
I'm out of the game now that I'm seeing someone. I did meet her online but I'm now convinced that you're much better off just going out in the world. I think most people still don't meet or look online.
After the pandemic it has shifted. I read that 40% of couples meet through dating apps. Wild.
I believe it as that's how most of my friends met their partners.
I believe it as that's how most of my friends met their partners.
They have algo that rate everything behind the scenes. OKCupid has lots of good articles on it.
What it really comes down to though is how much effort you put into your profile. I do not do online dating really but all my female friends complain about the low quality photos of 90% of men and the lack of effort in their profile. They show me what they are dealing with and it is honestly kind of laughable. And the guys they do end up going for often are not even the most attractive.
It also helps a lot if you put the effort in immediately after making your profile. Once the algo starts rating you low then it can be harder to come back from.
What it really comes down to though is how much effort you put into your profile. I do not do online dating really but all my female friends complain about the low quality photos of 90% of men and the lack of effort in their profile. They show me what they are dealing with and it is honestly kind of laughable. And the guys they do end up going for often are not even the most attractive.
It also helps a lot if you put the effort in immediately after making your profile. Once the algo starts rating you low then it can be harder to come back from.
As a man who self-admittedly gets quite a few matches every day, I can confidently say that the less effort you put in, the better the results are. Just have good photos, everything else is secondary.
Same thing with Tinder and their multiple tiers, multiple types of boosts, multiple types of Super Likes. All these dating apps exploit desperate men.
The truth is if you're not already getting a decent amount of likes on the standard tier, there's no point paying for 10 boosts like that will change your attractiveness.
The truth is if you're not already getting a decent amount of likes on the standard tier, there's no point paying for 10 boosts like that will change your attractiveness.
Tinder gives me the exact same dirty feeling as visiting the strip in Las Vegas. It's like sex gambling, but for body CVs.
IIRC I sent one of my free roses to my current girlfriend. She wasn't one of my standouts but I wanted to get her attention and it worked. With how many normal likes she showed me she had in her inbox, there's no way we would have even chatted if I hadn't jumped the queue.
The "Standouts" feature still felt like a total scam to me though. "Here's a bunch of women we think are out of your league, pay us and we'll let them know you exist".
The "Standouts" feature still felt like a total scam to me though. "Here's a bunch of women we think are out of your league, pay us and we'll let them know you exist".
I'm going to refute that it's a miserable experience because you're a man. As a decent looking man in a stable career I had a great time on hinge. I had many simultaneous conversations, and many dates that I had to cancel after finding someone I wanted to be exclusive with. We've now been together almost a year and I was in the app for less than a month.
This experience was highly location subjective though. I had many great matches in the bay area.
YMMV
This experience was highly location subjective though. I had many great matches in the bay area.
YMMV
>"I'm going to refute that it's a miserable experience because you're a man."
I think you have given a counter-example rather than a refutation. I don't deny that some men have great success on dating apps, but that experience is not evenly distributed.
I think you have given a counter-example rather than a refutation. I don't deny that some men have great success on dating apps, but that experience is not evenly distributed.
Thanks for pointing that out!
Your solo anecdote does not weight up against the hordes of counterexamples.
Additionally, age plays a huge factor. None of the comments have mentioned age so far.
Additionally, age plays a huge factor. None of the comments have mentioned age so far.
The continued popularity and financial success of dating apps implies it is working to some degree for some amount of users. I'm not sure what the age issue is regarding men. As a man in my early 40s I still get occasional matches with women in their 20's. Age is a far bigger issue for women.
They mean that age is an issue in that many women actually prefer older men. So all else being equal you still may have an advantage compared to a man in his early 20's
That's the point. Age flips the script given the guy gave half a hoot about his body and career.
>implies it is working to some degree for some amount of users
And gambling works for some amount of users, but we both understand casinos would die out if users were making a net profit on average. Meaning there's more to this.
For anyone feeling inclined to say "but winning isn't the only thing about a casino!", yes, exactly.
>implies it is working to some degree for some amount of users
And gambling works for some amount of users, but we both understand casinos would die out if users were making a net profit on average. Meaning there's more to this.
For anyone feeling inclined to say "but winning isn't the only thing about a casino!", yes, exactly.
Right but we all know tons of people in relationships that started on dating apps. Most of us don't know anyone who got rich gambling.
The ugly truth is that this is how the core dating game works.
Men desire a beautiful woman. Women desire a wealthy man.
Women are able to signal their appearance by uploading pictures. Men are able to (more credibly) signal their wealth through otherwise pointless IAPs.
I'm not saying Hinge's system is perfect or good or even worth anyone's time, but it is a more honest portrayal of "the game" than putting both sexes on equal footing.
Men desire a beautiful woman. Women desire a wealthy man.
Women are able to signal their appearance by uploading pictures. Men are able to (more credibly) signal their wealth through otherwise pointless IAPs.
I'm not saying Hinge's system is perfect or good or even worth anyone's time, but it is a more honest portrayal of "the game" than putting both sexes on equal footing.
Women desire _more_ than a wealthy man. They also preferentially select for "masculinity"[1]. So while a rose / perks signal wealth, At least anecdotally women also seem to have a bit of a resentment/disdain for using apps at all. They want a man with the "balls" (so to speak) to approach her, talk to her, not be afraid of rejection, have options but choose her[2].
So long as you can express enough of these signals, wealth beyond her income level won't be a deal breaker.
[1]: please just forgive this term as a stand in for the personality traits that express in people with sufficient testosterone and success as defined by the society.
[2]: this point is just common sense across all genders... having options but choosing one is a form of backing for a compliment. Choosing her out of a pool of no one else is not flattery, it's desperation.
So long as you can express enough of these signals, wealth beyond her income level won't be a deal breaker.
[1]: please just forgive this term as a stand in for the personality traits that express in people with sufficient testosterone and success as defined by the society.
[2]: this point is just common sense across all genders... having options but choosing one is a form of backing for a compliment. Choosing her out of a pool of no one else is not flattery, it's desperation.
And men also desire more than just a beautiful woman. But these are the single best indicators, evolutionarily speaking.
Wealth historically indicates hard work or power, which in turn indicate masculine traits.
Beauty historically indicates good health (childbearing) and self-care, which in turn indicate feminine traits.
These indicators can definitely be gamed, but they define the game for a reason.
Wealth historically indicates hard work or power, which in turn indicate masculine traits.
Beauty historically indicates good health (childbearing) and self-care, which in turn indicate feminine traits.
These indicators can definitely be gamed, but they define the game for a reason.
That's a lot of words and odd formatting just to say that "women dig confidence". But it is of course very true!
a lot of the words were in attempts to prevent HN downvotes and/or cancellation from the mobs that exist in my various circles.
> [1]: please just forgive this term as a stand in for the personality traits that express in people with sufficient testosterone and success as defined by the society
What a world we live in, where people have to apologize for using the correct word to describe something.
What a world we live in, where people have to apologize for using the correct word to describe something.
I'm in my 40's and have dated a lot and been in many relationships and I have never experienced the "women desire a wealthy man" myth that you state as fact.
What do you think is a better trait, and how do you signal it over the Internet?
In my (fairly extensive) experience, most women do desire a man who can take care of himself and contribute financially to a partnership. Though that doesn't explain the many, many examples I have seen of relationships where a responsible and employed woman takes care of an unemployed/semi-employed man-child.
>Though that doesn't explain the many, many examples I have seen of relationships where a responsible and employed woman takes care of an unemployed/semi-employed man-child.
Women who get into those relationships have psychological problems and feel like they need a man who needs to be "fixed". They'll actively reject men who don't need to be "fixed". I've seen this in family members.
Women who get into those relationships have psychological problems and feel like they need a man who needs to be "fixed". They'll actively reject men who don't need to be "fixed". I've seen this in family members.
Most women I know will talk for days about the many creepy and misogynistic messages they receive daily on these platforms. All they really desire is a normal conversation with someone that doesn't creep them out.
There is more than one perspective to every story.
A man calls me a bitch for not being enthralled by a dick pic he sent after saying "what's up" and nothing else. What's his perspective and why should I care?
"Why should I, as victim of this extreme example, primarily vested in myself, care about the other perspective?"
You shouldn't.
But as a third party, I will absolutely be skeptical of all the women who "meet creepy men on the daily" and continue to be passive and use those services.
As for the original point. It wouldn't be the first time a woman covered herself by calling the other creepy over something minor. It's not exactly an unknown thing for humans to cover their own flaws and misjudgments by blaming the other party, man or woman.
You shouldn't.
But as a third party, I will absolutely be skeptical of all the women who "meet creepy men on the daily" and continue to be passive and use those services.
As for the original point. It wouldn't be the first time a woman covered herself by calling the other creepy over something minor. It's not exactly an unknown thing for humans to cover their own flaws and misjudgments by blaming the other party, man or woman.
That's not an extreme example. That's an extremely common experience that most women I know have had. Daily? No, but frequently, and I'm not terribly attractive. The more conventionally attractive friends of mine get way more attention and way more unsolicited dick pics.
What kind of services are they using which allow dick pics? Many of the dating apps will not allow sending pics of any kind; only a couple of them do, off the top of my head (CMB for one). Tinder and Bumble don't.
It really doesn't matter what's allowed, guys do it anyway and I'm assuming the risk that they get reported helps them get their jollies.
>It really doesn't matter what's allowed, guys do it anyway
Bullshit.
If the platform doesn't give you a technical way of sending a photo, then how the hell do you send a dick pic? You don't. You can't magically make a dick pic appear through a text message when that's all the platform allows.
I really expect better than this from HN.
Bullshit.
If the platform doesn't give you a technical way of sending a photo, then how the hell do you send a dick pic? You don't. You can't magically make a dick pic appear through a text message when that's all the platform allows.
I really expect better than this from HN.
My prognosis from a million miles away is that you are in dire need of in-depth discussions with many different women about their dating experiences and experiences with men in general. You seem to not understand the landscape at all.
Speaking as a woman on the internet: emotional intelligence and maturity. You signal that by genuinely having those traits and being yourself.
[deleted]
Buying internet gold on a dating site isn't a sign of dominance, sadly. It's a sign of weakness.
I’ve used Hinge somewhat. Regarding the roses, and the “premium profiles” (I can’t remember the feature name), I considered this a boon - if you’re a normal guy, those are the women you should _avoid_. Conversely, if you’re a woman who really does want a relationship, then you don’t want to be one of those profiles!
>As a man, online dating is already a miserable experience.
Based on what I've heard from women, it's bad for them too. Easy to find a root, but hard to find someone to introduce to mum and dad.
IRL dating is worse. Apparently in the post-#metoo era men just stopped talking to women in general.
Based on what I've heard from women, it's bad for them too. Easy to find a root, but hard to find someone to introduce to mum and dad.
IRL dating is worse. Apparently in the post-#metoo era men just stopped talking to women in general.
Online dating is much safer than meeting women IRL. If you try to ask out women IRL, the chance for rejection is extremely high (they probably aren't looking for a date at all, after all), and if it's at work, that opens another big can of worms.
If you meet someone on a dating site, then you know they're interested in dating. And if you mutually match them (as most apps work now), you know they're at least a little bit interested in you.
If you meet someone on a dating site, then you know they're interested in dating. And if you mutually match them (as most apps work now), you know they're at least a little bit interested in you.
100%. But this is not a positive thing for men or women.
How is this not positive? It keeps people from wasting their time and effort on people who aren't interested, and helps keep people (mainly women) from being harassed by men they aren't interested in, in inappropriate venues (like work), by giving those seeking dates an appropriate venue for their search.
If only the dating app companies were treating their job with respect and as a duty to society instead of perverting it for profit incentive, it would work much better for its intended function than it does now.
If only the dating app companies were treating their job with respect and as a duty to society instead of perverting it for profit incentive, it would work much better for its intended function than it does now.
>How is this not positive?
Just repeating what I've been told, mainly by "older" women (30+), many people like that sort of attention, and miss it when they no longer receive it (more of a thing for 50+ people).
It's often not perceived as harassment or inappropriate, but of course it varies from person to person and also depends on how it's phrased ("would you like to get a coffee?" vs. "I want to cum on your face").
Just repeating what I've been told, mainly by "older" women (30+), many people like that sort of attention, and miss it when they no longer receive it (more of a thing for 50+ people).
It's often not perceived as harassment or inappropriate, but of course it varies from person to person and also depends on how it's phrased ("would you like to get a coffee?" vs. "I want to cum on your face").
See I think fees for stuff like this aren’t a bad thing because it makes it harder for spam and BS to get through. The problem is that the company has to be really truly good about their matching algorithm to make it work. Here is the issue:
Say the company charged $1 per first contact you make with a person. They can then show you people most likely to respond to help you get your conversation going ASAP and give you the highest value for your money. Or they could instead keep giving you poor matches so that you keep paying over and over. As far as they are concerned, the minute you fully engage with someone, assuming you are monogamous, you will not be a client for them for 6-18 months or whatever the length of an average relationship is in your demographic. But as long as your matches are mediocre (enough engagement to keep you going but not enough for you to get off the app), they can keep making money.
This is where hookup apps could do a lot better than lifetime partner apps: a hookup app will have repeat business with this pricing model and will actually do better in terms of expectations but a LTR app will lose you soon as you find a suitable candidate.
The alternative is 100% free apps which mean that bots have a zero cost to be bots and so you can run as many of them as you want. It is a problem of the commons in a way: soon as a certain percentage of bots spoils your interactions with the app you have no reason to come back.
Small rant: Bumble IIRC shows you most popular people in your area if you are on the free tier. These are almost guaranteed to not match with you and might not even be online having been overwhelmed by the attention. But if you pay, they’ll first show you people who have actually liked you, you know the ones recently online and ones you can swipe right on to start talking. This is the wrong incentive though makes them money in the short term.
Say the company charged $1 per first contact you make with a person. They can then show you people most likely to respond to help you get your conversation going ASAP and give you the highest value for your money. Or they could instead keep giving you poor matches so that you keep paying over and over. As far as they are concerned, the minute you fully engage with someone, assuming you are monogamous, you will not be a client for them for 6-18 months or whatever the length of an average relationship is in your demographic. But as long as your matches are mediocre (enough engagement to keep you going but not enough for you to get off the app), they can keep making money.
This is where hookup apps could do a lot better than lifetime partner apps: a hookup app will have repeat business with this pricing model and will actually do better in terms of expectations but a LTR app will lose you soon as you find a suitable candidate.
The alternative is 100% free apps which mean that bots have a zero cost to be bots and so you can run as many of them as you want. It is a problem of the commons in a way: soon as a certain percentage of bots spoils your interactions with the app you have no reason to come back.
Small rant: Bumble IIRC shows you most popular people in your area if you are on the free tier. These are almost guaranteed to not match with you and might not even be online having been overwhelmed by the attention. But if you pay, they’ll first show you people who have actually liked you, you know the ones recently online and ones you can swipe right on to start talking. This is the wrong incentive though makes them money in the short term.
Modern dating apps are pretty much all terrible, they basically completely commodify the experience of love and turn relationships into a purely aesthetics based thing. It's pretty terrible because I think most people don't actively have any way to meet single people their age, so people pretend apps are somehow a band aid for a deeply atomized society. Unless you're in a foreign country or a tourist, the advice I've heard repeated over and over is trying to meet others through organic social connections (ultimate frisbee, D&D, work, class) so that there exist some social fabric to base a relationship upon.
(Pretty good, slightly cringey, video on how apps use the language of capitalism https://youtube.com/watch?v=-bcKRd_lfAg )
(Pretty good, slightly cringey, video on how apps use the language of capitalism https://youtube.com/watch?v=-bcKRd_lfAg )
> I think most people don't actively have any way to meet single people their age, so people pretend apps are somehow a band aid for a deeply atomized society
Looking back, I wasted my most dateable years doing exactly this. I thought if I just stayed on the apps a little longer, put up with the dopamine-drip machine bullshit just a little more, I'd meet someone.
I wasn't even relying entirely on them – I attended a church, volunteered at a soup kitchen, and other things where you're supposed to be able to meet people, but I wonder if maybe I would have emphasized them more (seeking out more volunteer opportunities, etc) without the gambler's promise of the dating apps panning out "any day now."
Looking back, I wasted my most dateable years doing exactly this. I thought if I just stayed on the apps a little longer, put up with the dopamine-drip machine bullshit just a little more, I'd meet someone.
I wasn't even relying entirely on them – I attended a church, volunteered at a soup kitchen, and other things where you're supposed to be able to meet people, but I wonder if maybe I would have emphasized them more (seeking out more volunteer opportunities, etc) without the gambler's promise of the dating apps panning out "any day now."
> It's pretty terrible because I think most people don't actively have any way to meet single people their age
This is probably my biggest problem. I can go out, and women will even approach me and flirt, at least until they realize they have some years on me…
This is probably my biggest problem. I can go out, and women will even approach me and flirt, at least until they realize they have some years on me…
This is a self-resolving problem, as long as you don't age badly.
> they basically completely commodify the experience of love and turn relationships into a purely aesthetics based thing
I think this is the right thing to do. Apps work great for a quick check of "does this person look cute and interesting."
They suck for everything else. I think it's great that apps like Tinder have given up on the pretense of helping people present their true deep selves, find compatible people, and figure out if there's a connection before they even meet. I know it seems more enlightened to deemphasize looks and concentrate on inner qualities, your personality and values and dreams, but over decades of painful experience we've learned that that stuff just doesn't convey accurately online. People invest huge amounts of energy creating profiles, answering quizzes, and trying to understand other people through their profiles and through online conversations, and the result are always disappointing.
By now I think we understand that failure well enough that when a company promises to do it well, we should call it a scam. It might work for a few people, but they're very rare and very lucky. Apps should be honest and stick to what they're really good at, which is helping people who mutually pass the superficial visual check find each other, on a scale they could never accomplish IRL, and facilitating them getting face to face so they can find out if they actually like each other.
Tinder does a perfect job of this. Just a few pics and a tiny profile. Put vital info in the profile (kids? open to what kind of relationship?) and some polarizing context in the pics (signals of political and cultural preferences, whatever feels important to you.) If someone wants to chat for more than a week without meeting you in person, unmatch them, because they're probably a bot or somebody just doing it to kill time. (Unless they say hey, let's put this on ice for a bit, I just met someone and if it doesn't work out I'd like to meet you next. That's valid.)
Paying to increase the attention you get is a scam, too, of course, and I won't defend any app doing it. It basically turns the app into a strip club where the women work for free and it's even easier for the men to delude themselves into thinking they'll get something out of it. Really if you aren't getting hits then all you can do is work on your profile or cast or wider net, or take a break for a month while you wait for new people to become active.
I think this is the right thing to do. Apps work great for a quick check of "does this person look cute and interesting."
They suck for everything else. I think it's great that apps like Tinder have given up on the pretense of helping people present their true deep selves, find compatible people, and figure out if there's a connection before they even meet. I know it seems more enlightened to deemphasize looks and concentrate on inner qualities, your personality and values and dreams, but over decades of painful experience we've learned that that stuff just doesn't convey accurately online. People invest huge amounts of energy creating profiles, answering quizzes, and trying to understand other people through their profiles and through online conversations, and the result are always disappointing.
By now I think we understand that failure well enough that when a company promises to do it well, we should call it a scam. It might work for a few people, but they're very rare and very lucky. Apps should be honest and stick to what they're really good at, which is helping people who mutually pass the superficial visual check find each other, on a scale they could never accomplish IRL, and facilitating them getting face to face so they can find out if they actually like each other.
Tinder does a perfect job of this. Just a few pics and a tiny profile. Put vital info in the profile (kids? open to what kind of relationship?) and some polarizing context in the pics (signals of political and cultural preferences, whatever feels important to you.) If someone wants to chat for more than a week without meeting you in person, unmatch them, because they're probably a bot or somebody just doing it to kill time. (Unless they say hey, let's put this on ice for a bit, I just met someone and if it doesn't work out I'd like to meet you next. That's valid.)
Paying to increase the attention you get is a scam, too, of course, and I won't defend any app doing it. It basically turns the app into a strip club where the women work for free and it's even easier for the men to delude themselves into thinking they'll get something out of it. Really if you aren't getting hits then all you can do is work on your profile or cast or wider net, or take a break for a month while you wait for new people to become active.
>If you aren't getting hits then all you can do is work on your profile
Working on yourself > working on your profile. Hit the gym, lose a few pounds, maybe find a better barber, etc
Working on yourself > working on your profile. Hit the gym, lose a few pounds, maybe find a better barber, etc
I don't know, I've seen a lot of bad profiles, and I've helped people fix their (really bad) profiles. It's not a super hard problem, but I don't think people recognize it as something that they need to think about. It seems that by default people are extremely asymmetrical in how they perceive profiles, picking up a ton of nuance in other people's profiles that they are blind to in their own. They have to spend some time reflecting on how they infer information from other people's profiles, and reading what people online say about dating profiles, in order to understand how other people see theirs so they can turn it into a better reflection of themselves.
> most people don't actively have any way to meet single people their age
This is absolutely true. The best we've got right now is bars & clubs, and in those environments, there's no preselection for the type of person you'd want a meaningful relationship with.
Case in point: I met my wife at church. Going in the door, it was predetermined that we would share a common set of values.
This is absolutely true. The best we've got right now is bars & clubs, and in those environments, there's no preselection for the type of person you'd want a meaningful relationship with.
Case in point: I met my wife at church. Going in the door, it was predetermined that we would share a common set of values.
You're giving terrible advice. If I had relied only on organic social connections I would have never met my wife. We didn't share any of the same activities, worked in different industries, and attended different schools.
There's no need to restrict yourself to one approach. People can do both.
There's no need to restrict yourself to one approach. People can do both.
I don't know if my advice is terrible, probably more below average or situational. I do personally believe dating apps are causing a ton of psychological harm to the current generation, but I don't discount the successes.
But the immortal words of Mary Schmidt should always stay with us in terms of dating "Your choices are half chance. So are everybody else's."
But the immortal words of Mary Schmidt should always stay with us in terms of dating "Your choices are half chance. So are everybody else's."
Well you certainly know a lot about their business practices…
You missed the most important anti-pattern that exists in all of Match's dating apps: limited swipes.
The entire foundational purpose of dating apps is to make the numbers game tractable.
By limiting the amount of swipes you can do, you limit the amount of people you can contact. By paywalling swipes, you limit the amount of people who can contact you.
Somehow the only popular dating apps are the ones literally designed to fail.
The entire foundational purpose of dating apps is to make the numbers game tractable.
By limiting the amount of swipes you can do, you limit the amount of people you can contact. By paywalling swipes, you limit the amount of people who can contact you.
Somehow the only popular dating apps are the ones literally designed to fail.
I think limiting them is a good idea--you have to be selective about who you approach rather than using a shotgun. However, I think there should be a left/right/maybe system. (Perhaps there is--I've been off the market since before apps were a thing.)
Why? You only get to talk to matches anyway. Most users are not getting very many matches.
So you can go through and select the best of the offerings to swipe right on.
That puts the onus on Tinder/Hinge/etc. to find the best "offerings" to present me. In my, and most others', experience, that doesn't work out well.
Give me all the options I have time for. If you really are good at deciding what matches will work best for me, then present them first. There is no good reason to hide the options you think won't work out for me: the failure case is not matching, and that is painless.
Give me all the options I have time for. If you really are good at deciding what matches will work best for me, then present them first. There is no good reason to hide the options you think won't work out for me: the failure case is not matching, and that is painless.
It’s honestly fascinating to me that women think bots are so interesting that they deserve an article like this. I feel like almost all men match with more bots than real women. We live in entirely different worlds.
The raw male perspective on modern dating is rarely featured in mainstream media. The only place to get men's perspective on modern dating is basically 'red pill' type of content, which is unfortunate. Most journalists are women, and quite frankly in most of their dating columns they don't seem too interested in understanding male perspectives on the frustrations of modern dating (unless it's to bash extremist incel/red pill types). I can't recall reading many mainstream media dating articles sympathetic to men's frustrations with modern dating, you can find plenty sympathetic to women's frustrations though.
Ironically, this video focusing on "incels" has a pretty good understanding of the male online dating experience (starting around 17:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD2briZ6fB0
I agree that the various "red pill" subcultures have done a terrific job of sucking the air out of the room RE conversations about men's dating experience. It's a hard conversation to have with any amount of nuance in 2022.
I agree that the various "red pill" subcultures have done a terrific job of sucking the air out of the room RE conversations about men's dating experience. It's a hard conversation to have with any amount of nuance in 2022.
If you think it’s redpillers who ruined the conversation around men’s sexual experiences - that shows just how well the mainstream media is at influencing you.
Redpill was a niche subculture no one knew about (and mostly still doesn’t) - just like incels. It was the mainstream media who made RP, incels, and general lack of sexual experiences for men to be the next 9/11.
It’s hard to have a conversation about it because women don’t fucking care. You know why? It’s not their problem and it never affects them directly. It also means often that the solution involves women changing and that’s sexist, sweaty.
Redpill was a niche subculture no one knew about (and mostly still doesn’t) - just like incels. It was the mainstream media who made RP, incels, and general lack of sexual experiences for men to be the next 9/11.
It’s hard to have a conversation about it because women don’t fucking care. You know why? It’s not their problem and it never affects them directly. It also means often that the solution involves women changing and that’s sexist, sweaty.
What solution are you implying?
There's no clean solution here. It requires a shift in cultural norms for everyone. From what I've seen, there are two main issues: 1) amount of options is too much for most women (big cities, online dating, using shallow social networks, etc.) and 2) we are focusing more on looks in our culture (instagram, tiktok, etc.)
In order to solve this - you'd have to change the way people meet and the way our culture values people. We need to value deeper ways to meet people like through hobbies, social groups, etc. where someone can have a more lasting impression than half a second on Tinder. (If you think this mentality doesn't affect people IRL - you are mistaken)
Does this mean that all the work is on women? Nope. It does however mean that there is work women have to do. Thus why it will never happen. We haven't asked women to change much in the last 50 years. The main focus has been on changing men, not women.
In order to solve this - you'd have to change the way people meet and the way our culture values people. We need to value deeper ways to meet people like through hobbies, social groups, etc. where someone can have a more lasting impression than half a second on Tinder. (If you think this mentality doesn't affect people IRL - you are mistaken)
Does this mean that all the work is on women? Nope. It does however mean that there is work women have to do. Thus why it will never happen. We haven't asked women to change much in the last 50 years. The main focus has been on changing men, not women.
What men are sold are "Best date ideas for a special woman", "Top 10 things you can say to make her knees melt", "The perfect gemstone for your perfect woman".
None of the men I talk to in real life have the experiences I see men complaining about online. The women I meet in real life, on the other hand, have stories that match the ones I read about online.
The male complainers just naturally have more to gripe about than the "meh, it's fine" crowd who usually can't be bothered (or aren't believed in the crowd of complaints).
The male complainers just naturally have more to gripe about than the "meh, it's fine" crowd who usually can't be bothered (or aren't believed in the crowd of complaints).
Well I guess that settles it. All the tens of millions of men having issues with dating don't exist in real life since you haven't personally met them.
The takeaway here is that there is a middle ground between the 'blackpill' mindset we often hear about online and the reality. The reality is grim, but not grimdark.
I agree, but
None of the men I talk to in real life have the experiences I see men complaining about online
This is dismissing all the complaints of men. Not all the complaints men have are baseless. This dismissive mindset of declaring every complaint men have as black pill/extremist/incel is probably why young men are gravitating to more extreme 'red pill' characters like Andrew Tate by the tens of millions. This is what happens when you dismiss any chance for nuanced and balanced conversations where both sides grievances are heard.
None of the men I talk to in real life have the experiences I see men complaining about online
This is dismissing all the complaints of men. Not all the complaints men have are baseless. This dismissive mindset of declaring every complaint men have as black pill/extremist/incel is probably why young men are gravitating to more extreme 'red pill' characters like Andrew Tate by the tens of millions. This is what happens when you dismiss any chance for nuanced and balanced conversations where both sides grievances are heard.
You just want me to take your "tens of millions" number on faith?
Claiming that it's at the same quantitative level as, say, monthly listeners of Beyonce on Spotify, or many other things that it's easy to find real-life claims of without support is a lot to ask of folks. Tens of millions having a hard time dating or tens of millions convinced women are the enemy and are treating them unfairly?
Cause from the outside, it just looks like there are a bunch of people - who over-estimate the universalness of their experience - who have decided somehow that other struggling men are the expert on women's behavior re: dating and jumped to entirely wrong conclusions. This probably isn't just their fault; the last fifteen years of social media tech have really accelerated the ability of people to take advantage of self-reinforcing bubbles to push toxic views.
Dating is hard, it's always been hard for most people, but there wasn't always such an easy way to find others telling you it's actually everyone else being out to get you. Like this zero-sum-game gem from elsewhere in the thread: "It’s hard to have a conversation about it because women don’t fucking care. You know why? It’s not their problem and it never affects them directly. It also means often that the solution involves women changing and that’s sexist, sweaty." - They're the ones doing it wrong - very deep, very insightful, how much deep introspection and reflection did it take them to jump to that conclusion? But hey, I'm not a woman, so you're gonna have to come up with a new reason I'm skeptical.
I guess I'm just lucky that when I was a late-20s virgin the "foreveralone" convo was more ironic and less violent, so I just focused on my own social skills.
And then there are quick downvotes and lazy dismissals so no wonder the non-angry men don't bother to engage that often.
Claiming that it's at the same quantitative level as, say, monthly listeners of Beyonce on Spotify, or many other things that it's easy to find real-life claims of without support is a lot to ask of folks. Tens of millions having a hard time dating or tens of millions convinced women are the enemy and are treating them unfairly?
Cause from the outside, it just looks like there are a bunch of people - who over-estimate the universalness of their experience - who have decided somehow that other struggling men are the expert on women's behavior re: dating and jumped to entirely wrong conclusions. This probably isn't just their fault; the last fifteen years of social media tech have really accelerated the ability of people to take advantage of self-reinforcing bubbles to push toxic views.
Dating is hard, it's always been hard for most people, but there wasn't always such an easy way to find others telling you it's actually everyone else being out to get you. Like this zero-sum-game gem from elsewhere in the thread: "It’s hard to have a conversation about it because women don’t fucking care. You know why? It’s not their problem and it never affects them directly. It also means often that the solution involves women changing and that’s sexist, sweaty." - They're the ones doing it wrong - very deep, very insightful, how much deep introspection and reflection did it take them to jump to that conclusion? But hey, I'm not a woman, so you're gonna have to come up with a new reason I'm skeptical.
I guess I'm just lucky that when I was a late-20s virgin the "foreveralone" convo was more ironic and less violent, so I just focused on my own social skills.
And then there are quick downvotes and lazy dismissals so no wonder the non-angry men don't bother to engage that often.
How can we blame men in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... GO!
> None of the men I talk to in real life have the experiences I see men complaining about online.
Same. Just from talking to the women in my life it's clear that women experience way more unwanted harassment via online dating apps than I did personally (I met my wife this way), or any men I know did.
Yes, it's harder to men to get attention on dating apps than it is for women. Yes, men on dating apps are targeted by OnlyFans sex workers. If those issues seem insurmountable to you, then my recommendation is to touch grass and go meet people in RealLife™.
Same. Just from talking to the women in my life it's clear that women experience way more unwanted harassment via online dating apps than I did personally (I met my wife this way), or any men I know did.
Yes, it's harder to men to get attention on dating apps than it is for women. Yes, men on dating apps are targeted by OnlyFans sex workers. If those issues seem insurmountable to you, then my recommendation is to touch grass and go meet people in RealLife™.
Ask yourself how many women approach and how many women expect to be approached. Now do the same for men.
Here's a bonus: ask men how many women turned 'crazy' after the first night of sex, and do the same for women.
It's almost as if the different sexes have different expectations and modus operandi.
Here's a bonus: ask men how many women turned 'crazy' after the first night of sex, and do the same for women.
It's almost as if the different sexes have different expectations and modus operandi.
> Ask yourself how many women approach and how many women expect to be approached. Now do the same for men.
93% of women prefer to be asked out on a date, while 16% of men prefer to be asked out. So if you're a man who won't ask women out, you're going to miss out on potential dates with a lot of women. No judgment — that may not be a bad strategy if you're the type of man who needs their partner to "wear the pants", so to speak.
> Here's a bonus: ask men how many women turned 'crazy' after the first night of sex, and do the same for women.
1 in 7 women have been injured by an intimate partner, compared to 1 in 25 men.¹ 1 in 10 women have been raped by an intimate partner, with no comparable data available for men because it's so rare.¹ Dating is far risker for women.
¹ https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-...
93% of women prefer to be asked out on a date, while 16% of men prefer to be asked out. So if you're a man who won't ask women out, you're going to miss out on potential dates with a lot of women. No judgment — that may not be a bad strategy if you're the type of man who needs their partner to "wear the pants", so to speak.
> Here's a bonus: ask men how many women turned 'crazy' after the first night of sex, and do the same for women.
1 in 7 women have been injured by an intimate partner, compared to 1 in 25 men.¹ 1 in 10 women have been raped by an intimate partner, with no comparable data available for men because it's so rare.¹ Dating is far risker for women.
¹ https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-...
I love how when it's women it's rarely reported, when it's men the "reported" drops off and it just becomes rare.
Lets not even get started on the number of female teachers that have sex with students and walk away with no charges, or very light charges.
both sexes have their own challenges, this dismissal of one set of challenges does nothing to further the conversation.
Lets not even get started on the number of female teachers that have sex with students and walk away with no charges, or very light charges.
both sexes have their own challenges, this dismissal of one set of challenges does nothing to further the conversation.
> I love how when it's women it's rarely reported, when it's men the "reported" drops off and it just becomes rare.
Yes, now you're getting it: Dating and physical intimacy is an order of magnitude less dangerous for men, in contrast to the parent commenter's implication (and incel talking point) that I was specifically addressing.
Is it any less of an individual tragedy for the men who are affected? Of course not.
Yes, now you're getting it: Dating and physical intimacy is an order of magnitude less dangerous for men, in contrast to the parent commenter's implication (and incel talking point) that I was specifically addressing.
Is it any less of an individual tragedy for the men who are affected? Of course not.
stop perpetuating myths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_males#Myths_regarding_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_males#Myths_regarding_...
> 93% of women prefer to be asked out on a date, while 16% of men prefer to be asked out. So if you're a man who won't ask women out, you're going to miss out on potential dates with a lot of women. No judgment — that may not be a bad strategy if you're the type of man who needs their partner to "wear the pants", so to speak.
Do you have a source for that because I find it shocking only 16% of men prefer to be asked out.
Do you have a source for that because I find it shocking only 16% of men prefer to be asked out.
> women experience way more unwanted harassment via online dating apps
That's because many men have figured out that volume works, and spam everybody. If one answers their spam with annoyance, they're totally amused by sending a really aggressive, rude reply, because you are 0.1% of the "'sup?" messages they sent out that day and don't matter to them. They're irritated that you bothered to reply at all.
Ever trick a phone scammer into talking to you for a long time? When he realizes that you've wasted his time, his reaction is exactly like the 'sup? guys.
That's because many men have figured out that volume works, and spam everybody. If one answers their spam with annoyance, they're totally amused by sending a really aggressive, rude reply, because you are 0.1% of the "'sup?" messages they sent out that day and don't matter to them. They're irritated that you bothered to reply at all.
Ever trick a phone scammer into talking to you for a long time? When he realizes that you've wasted his time, his reaction is exactly like the 'sup? guys.
I can't tell what your point is. You say "volume works", but reading on it sure doesn't appear to.
I'm not making a point about volume working. Volume works, there's no reason to expand on it. If you spam people, you'll get results. If you spam people with a badly spelled inarticulate message that generates no expectations, the replies you get will largely be exactly what you're looking for, although half of them will be indignant people who you can quickly call ugly or tell to fuck off.
I learned that volume works watching my drummer in my old band. He simply aggressively and tactlessly hit on every pretty girl who got anywhere near him. One out of 20 were down. If you're good-looking it might be more like one out of 10, if you're ugly it might be more like one out of 40. But volume works.
I learned that volume works watching my drummer in my old band. He simply aggressively and tactlessly hit on every pretty girl who got anywhere near him. One out of 20 were down. If you're good-looking it might be more like one out of 10, if you're ugly it might be more like one out of 40. But volume works.
I agree that the extreme rhetoric and immature behavior of online “incels” (that which is portrayed by the media) is basically non-existent IRL.
However the broader and very real issue of Men lacking the societal support/proper outlets to deal with traumatic experiences is probably one of many reasons why 80% of suicides are males. (Men not expressing their feelings doesn’t mean they don’t have any)
However the broader and very real issue of Men lacking the societal support/proper outlets to deal with traumatic experiences is probably one of many reasons why 80% of suicides are males. (Men not expressing their feelings doesn’t mean they don’t have any)
I was kind of disappointed that the author was contacted by the scammer and then after exchanging no real information, decided to wrap up the investigation. I understand she might have concerns for her personal safety (giving a VOIP number instead of her real one might have been prudent) but I thought this story was going to go much deeper. The author didn’t really find out much of anything, and mostly just relayed a personal anecdote.
This particular woman was interested, I doubt most would be. This article wasn't interesting at all, she didn't even find out anything about the scam. I don't see why it was written. Newsflash there are scammers on the internet.
Not only bots, but scam artists in general: people abusing the platform for soliciting themselves, advertising their OnlyFans, or (this has actually happened to me) people giving out their (fake? but convincing) social security card photos, presumably to get the receiver to reciprocate. This is on a dating app.
Yeah, there’s this desperate push by feminists to have this “we’re just like men with the exact same problems!” narrative. Meanwhile, reality.
Women have problems in online dating too, even equal in severity and scope. Just not the exact same problems.
Women have problems in online dating too, even equal in severity and scope. Just not the exact same problems.
> Yeah, there’s this desperate push by feminists to have this “we’re just like men with the exact same problems!” narrative.
Show me what in the article says (or implies) that women are "just like men" or "have the exact same problems".
Show me what in the article says (or implies) that women are "just like men" or "have the exact same problems".
I really enjoyed the writing style and tone.
> Liwei is convinced that “Christianity.” That’s it, that’s the sentence: “I’m convinced that Christianity.”
AI really hits peak ironic humor quite well. I would be shocked if there isn't a real person somewhere with that exact profile string as a gag, even if this AI generated it regurgitation style.
> “Fuck, you,” was all he could say. Paul did not sound German, and he was probably not in Pacifica. Rattled, I hung up and blocked Paulbot. I had tried to peek inside dating app scams, and reach the people who feel compelled to run them, and I had failed. Or maybe I had succeeded, if success meant confirming that humans are still scamming other humans, from a world away, by exploiting the false closeness we experience through screens.
Just top notch writing - I'm not sure I can put my finger on why. Great writing, interesting topic, no absurd over the top title or implications, and funny? Lauren Goode has a new fan :)
> Liwei is convinced that “Christianity.” That’s it, that’s the sentence: “I’m convinced that Christianity.”
AI really hits peak ironic humor quite well. I would be shocked if there isn't a real person somewhere with that exact profile string as a gag, even if this AI generated it regurgitation style.
> “Fuck, you,” was all he could say. Paul did not sound German, and he was probably not in Pacifica. Rattled, I hung up and blocked Paulbot. I had tried to peek inside dating app scams, and reach the people who feel compelled to run them, and I had failed. Or maybe I had succeeded, if success meant confirming that humans are still scamming other humans, from a world away, by exploiting the false closeness we experience through screens.
Just top notch writing - I'm not sure I can put my finger on why. Great writing, interesting topic, no absurd over the top title or implications, and funny? Lauren Goode has a new fan :)
I had a different feeling... The author didn't try very hard to gather more information about the group after they gave up immediately when the person refused to answer explicit direct incriminating questions.
This would be much more interesting if they went down the rabbit hole. They could have matched with multiple fake accounts, seen if it was AI or a human, seen if the accounts take you to the same website or if its a bunch of different groups operating.
This would be much more interesting if they went down the rabbit hole. They could have matched with multiple fake accounts, seen if it was AI or a human, seen if the accounts take you to the same website or if its a bunch of different groups operating.
Only semi-related but I find Tinder to be the most fascinating of the current bunch of online dating platforms. It has suffered some kind of reverse of the normal effect of online social platforms: while any normal online platform (dating, gaming, social, etc.) quickly becomes all about sex, Tinder started out as a hookup platform and somehow moved to a relationship-seeking platform. That isn’t to say that hookups no longer happen via Tinder, but it seems to me based on personal experience and reading discussions of other people’s that the platform is now largely used for finding long term partnerships. This has led to creation of apps like Pure, focused solely on hookups (which from what I gather never got the massive popularity needed to make it usable), and Feeld (much friendlier towards alternative relationships and desires).
Anecdotally, that does not match my experience at all. When I relented and got a Tinder account I was immediately inundated with dozens of likes. I was instantly skeptical because Tinder kept bombarding me with prompts to buy their premium service at a discount. And, truth be told, having consistently received such a low number of matches on other platforms, I was suspicious about being so suddenly popular.
Lo and behold, every single one of the matches/messages I received were nothing more than advertisements for their OnlyFans or an invitation to follow one their social media profiles. I've also found that most of the profiles shown to me are either low effort, or belong to women that are thousands of miles away - despite me disabling the worldwide setting. As a result my overall impression is that Tinder is the worst when it comes to non-genuine accounts. By genuine I don't just mean real humans, I mean people who are actually using the site sincerely.
Lo and behold, every single one of the matches/messages I received were nothing more than advertisements for their OnlyFans or an invitation to follow one their social media profiles. I've also found that most of the profiles shown to me are either low effort, or belong to women that are thousands of miles away - despite me disabling the worldwide setting. As a result my overall impression is that Tinder is the worst when it comes to non-genuine accounts. By genuine I don't just mean real humans, I mean people who are actually using the site sincerely.
> were nothing more than advertisements for their OnlyFans or an invitation to follow one their social media profiles.
This is a huge huge huge reason why so many guys start off a conversation with something like "hi."
we are full on expecting to get some bot response or OnlyFans spam. it's incredible what a cancer OnlyFans has become across the internet.
This is a huge huge huge reason why so many guys start off a conversation with something like "hi."
we are full on expecting to get some bot response or OnlyFans spam. it's incredible what a cancer OnlyFans has become across the internet.
This experience is very interesting. I have used dating apps in a few countries in East Asia. I never once had the issue that you mention, but I definitely believe it happens. Thinking deeper about it, advertising via a dating app for your OnlyFans site sounds like a brilliant idea! If you have a very visually appealing profile, then men are very likely to select you and at least read a few messages.
I should have been more clear. I don’t mean that Tinder isn’t a huge platform for only fans et al ads. What I mean is that the genuine users started initially using the platform for one night stands/hookups but the focus of the genuine users has quickly shifted towards LTRs. I have not seen other platforms do this. Lots of other platforms go in the opposite direction where they start out with LTR culture only to add hookups as a major focus.
Are you sure this observation is not just a side-effect of you, your peers, and your romantic interests getting older? I kind of suspect that the 18-25 crowd on Tinder is still mostly looking to hook up.
I am not just basing this on my own interests, though admittedly I am not conducting a full on rigorous research project.
FWIW I've come across a ton of fake Chinese accounts (in the appearance of the woman in the photos). It got to the point that I just didnt swipe on women who appeared Chinese. like 19/20 times they'd just try and get me off app to WhatsApp in the first few messages, and then the thread would go dead.
I can't help but think it's a form of social engineering where they're creating a drag net of data like "This phone number is on Hinge, and responds to warranty texts, and their IG suggests they've lived in <places>" ... I'm not sure to what end but I'm wary.
> Paulbot was never removed from Hinge, because he preemptively deleted his account. I’ve canceled my subscription.
This simply could be the aim here. Nefarious actors win by eroding trust, or competitors.
I can't help but think it's a form of social engineering where they're creating a drag net of data like "This phone number is on Hinge, and responds to warranty texts, and their IG suggests they've lived in <places>" ... I'm not sure to what end but I'm wary.
> Paulbot was never removed from Hinge, because he preemptively deleted his account. I’ve canceled my subscription.
This simply could be the aim here. Nefarious actors win by eroding trust, or competitors.
Have the same in a location where there are no Chinese or any other eastern Asian women on the streets.
The autocomplete for googling "hinge only" is "hinge only showing fat" and "hinge only showing ugly". There's pages and pages of people saying they get shown nothing but the least attractive people on hinge, which would cause real people to just delete it.
Hinge has a weird bucketing technique where it'll show you 30 straight unattractive profiles one day then 30 straight mega-attractive profiles the next day. No idea why they do that.
I’m guessing they have a low Elo score, and are matching with other low Elo scores. I believe best thing to do is delete the account and create a new one to reset your score.
100% this. Your experience on hinge will be terrible generally unless A) lucky or B) very good looking.
I’ve gotten lucky with the ELO score once on Hinge out of the dozen times I created accounts on it. I was shown attractive women and got matched even to a few (which went nowhere of course). But most times I got shown fat and ugly people. I know I’m not good looking but sometimes I see the people on these apps and I think, “man, some people really get it way worse than I do…” And that’s who it shows to me overwhelmingly.
Meanwhile it’ll lock all the attractive women behind paid features.
It’s a bad app. I think a few years ago before it was bought up it had some potential but since Match integrated all their practices into Hinge - it’s a bad app.
I’ve gotten lucky with the ELO score once on Hinge out of the dozen times I created accounts on it. I was shown attractive women and got matched even to a few (which went nowhere of course). But most times I got shown fat and ugly people. I know I’m not good looking but sometimes I see the people on these apps and I think, “man, some people really get it way worse than I do…” And that’s who it shows to me overwhelmingly.
Meanwhile it’ll lock all the attractive women behind paid features.
It’s a bad app. I think a few years ago before it was bought up it had some potential but since Match integrated all their practices into Hinge - it’s a bad app.
I find that filtering by language drastically improved the quality of matches. Choosing people that speak non-english languages, reduces overweight native talent.
They need to study their chess theory more.
My Hinge feed (when I used it) seemed to be sorted in increasing attractiveness order. Maybe showing people you're more likely to have a chance with (assuming everyone is willing to date someone "more attractive" than themself, which might be a big assumption) is considered more likely to create matches?
Bumble seemed to do something resembling the opposite which felt slightly more pointless.
Bumble seemed to do something resembling the opposite which felt slightly more pointless.
Oh no! Fake men! Whatever will those women do now they get the same experience as men? Fake accounts, of either sex, are there to keep you paying although sometimes they are outside scammers.
Here's what a lot of terrible dating, both on- and offline, has taught me:
The things that make a person "intoxicating" as a significant ingredient in LTR material, are completely irrational and not captured by any dating app: Things like how a person moves; their posture; how their voice sounds; their smells and, perhaps, tastes; their interaction manner; the fluency of their expressiveness; their emotional and physical openness; how their hands feel on your body; how much respect they garner or give (to themselves, to you and others), etc. etc.
The rational stuff? Sure, these sites will let you get a bead on those at least, such as general intelligence, values, general static attractiveness/smile/etc., politics, tastes etc. But I believe they overvalue these things, and while we are collectively some quite proud intellectual beings who wish to base all of our decisionmaking on things at intellectual and rational levels, evidence shows that the body wants to have its say as well, and a quite powerful one at that, due to things like MHC comparisons being very important for creating healthy offspring: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5006172/, https://www.splice-bio.com/can-you-smell-sexual-attraction/ etc. Basically, the keys to the vagaries of the process of reproduction have only barely been given to us; the whole thing is still largely biologically-driven, and biology requires physical presence to work!
The second problem with online dating is that it shifts the power dynamic too far away from men and too much into the hands of women. Whereas in a pre-online-dating context, a woman might have, say, 2 to 10 (or more) "suitors" or interested men, in an online dating context, the most desirable women now have 100 or 1000 or more to sift through (and even the middlingly-desirable ones likely have a hundred or more), and can select the best possible ones (at least on the basis of rational reasons, see above) and then let the MHC game play itself out among those. Meanwhile, a regular man on these sites who previous to online dating might have had a shot with the desirable women in his extended circle of acquaintances or coworkers etc. thanks to boons such as the "proximity leads to sexual attraction" effect https://www.neuroscience.org.uk/proximity-mere-exposure-effe..., have now been stripped of that edge, since those same women in their circles can now simply go online-date and benefit from a significantly larger pool of eligible men to choose from, and because those men themselves now have to send, say, 1000 sincere and time-consuming messages in order to perhaps get 2 or 3 responses. (And women complain that most of their messages from guys online are either too simple or too formulaic or "low-effort"... this is why!)
On the bright side, perhaps it's high time for men to sincerely step up their game!
I'm going to tell my (still a toddler) son to skip online dating because it's a losing game for him, to get himself out there physically in front of women by being present physically at things out in the world, to ask them to dance or otherwise physically interact playfully in order to let the MHC/scent thing do its thing, and to de-emphasize "rational" reasons to choose someone. I'm also going to tell him that that, plus enduring mutual respect (thanks to the work the Gottman Institute did on uncovering the importance of this), and basically little else, are the ingredients of a good LTR: https://firstthings.org/4-reasons-why-respect-matters-in-mar...
So, back to the article, I'm not terribly upset that some women on Hinge now have to do more work to weed out bots in addition to "terrible men", because they were already (HUGELY) benefiting from online dating to begin with.
The things that make a person "intoxicating" as a significant ingredient in LTR material, are completely irrational and not captured by any dating app: Things like how a person moves; their posture; how their voice sounds; their smells and, perhaps, tastes; their interaction manner; the fluency of their expressiveness; their emotional and physical openness; how their hands feel on your body; how much respect they garner or give (to themselves, to you and others), etc. etc.
The rational stuff? Sure, these sites will let you get a bead on those at least, such as general intelligence, values, general static attractiveness/smile/etc., politics, tastes etc. But I believe they overvalue these things, and while we are collectively some quite proud intellectual beings who wish to base all of our decisionmaking on things at intellectual and rational levels, evidence shows that the body wants to have its say as well, and a quite powerful one at that, due to things like MHC comparisons being very important for creating healthy offspring: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5006172/, https://www.splice-bio.com/can-you-smell-sexual-attraction/ etc. Basically, the keys to the vagaries of the process of reproduction have only barely been given to us; the whole thing is still largely biologically-driven, and biology requires physical presence to work!
The second problem with online dating is that it shifts the power dynamic too far away from men and too much into the hands of women. Whereas in a pre-online-dating context, a woman might have, say, 2 to 10 (or more) "suitors" or interested men, in an online dating context, the most desirable women now have 100 or 1000 or more to sift through (and even the middlingly-desirable ones likely have a hundred or more), and can select the best possible ones (at least on the basis of rational reasons, see above) and then let the MHC game play itself out among those. Meanwhile, a regular man on these sites who previous to online dating might have had a shot with the desirable women in his extended circle of acquaintances or coworkers etc. thanks to boons such as the "proximity leads to sexual attraction" effect https://www.neuroscience.org.uk/proximity-mere-exposure-effe..., have now been stripped of that edge, since those same women in their circles can now simply go online-date and benefit from a significantly larger pool of eligible men to choose from, and because those men themselves now have to send, say, 1000 sincere and time-consuming messages in order to perhaps get 2 or 3 responses. (And women complain that most of their messages from guys online are either too simple or too formulaic or "low-effort"... this is why!)
On the bright side, perhaps it's high time for men to sincerely step up their game!
I'm going to tell my (still a toddler) son to skip online dating because it's a losing game for him, to get himself out there physically in front of women by being present physically at things out in the world, to ask them to dance or otherwise physically interact playfully in order to let the MHC/scent thing do its thing, and to de-emphasize "rational" reasons to choose someone. I'm also going to tell him that that, plus enduring mutual respect (thanks to the work the Gottman Institute did on uncovering the importance of this), and basically little else, are the ingredients of a good LTR: https://firstthings.org/4-reasons-why-respect-matters-in-mar...
So, back to the article, I'm not terribly upset that some women on Hinge now have to do more work to weed out bots in addition to "terrible men", because they were already (HUGELY) benefiting from online dating to begin with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-EtdC4zQso ‘Forced to Scam: Cambodia’s Cyber Slaves’
How do you start building bots like this, that can interact with people so convincingly? From the sign in / sign up process to the profile generation to the conversations?
The author discovered bot armies on dating/social sites in much the same way Columbus discovered America.
Anyway, congrats, I guess. https://xkcd.com/1053/
Anyway, congrats, I guess. https://xkcd.com/1053/
[deleted]
Never mind the practice of "Roses" in which the only way to message some women is to buy a like that costs $3.33 each. Again, in bulk you can get that down to $1.49 apiece. But what is so scummy about it is that they seem to have an algorithm that detects the most beautiful of women and locks messaging them behind the need to send roses.
Not to go on too much of a rant, but I really loathe how this company approaches it's customer base. This article showed me that they aren't just horrible to men.