Post: #1

I saw this article headline from the Telegraph and had to give it a read. I almost immediately wrote it off, but read the whole thing and thought she made some valid points

Quote:But wait! New research is suggesting there could be very real problems with internet dating. Michigan State University found that married couples who met online are three times more likely to divorce than those who met face to face.
And online daters are 28 per cent more likely to split from their partners within the first year.
Even the CEO of Match admits that online dating cycles are shorter because people are more willing to leave unsatisfying relationships. It’s easier to throw in the towel when you know there are 20 more towels waiting to be picked up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scien...nline.html

I've definitely experienced this myself. It's easy to meet up with women from online dating sites, but keeping them around has proved much more difficult than the women I've met in real life.

I don't see online dating going anywhere any time soon though, in fact, I only see its usage increasing.

Thoughts?

Post: #2

I'd love to see numbers on this broken down by sex and attractiveness.

Online dating is not bad if you want to sleep with scores of girls less attractive than you.

It's just like a job. If Seth Rose was my employee, and he didn't know offhand of any other possible employers, and I wasn't paying him well, he might stick around out of fear that he wouldn't find something better. Suddenly, Seth Rose logs onto a jobs site and gets inundated with offers. He may settle down and pick one, but he knows that any time he has a whinge of discontent, he can get right back on the jobs site and get another job.

But it's worse than that. There's a lot of friction when it comes to applying for a new job. Not so for an attractive girl on a dating site. She posts a picture online, and then goes out for free dinners and drinks. There's no friction there to keep her from returning back to the dating site. With a job, you have to go through interviews and applications, and still you may fail.

A big part of the problem is probably the kind of dating site that would WORK is not necessarily the kind of dating site that would be POPULAR. Girls may like getting an endless stream of likes and swipes so much that they aren't willing to opt for a more boring but productive site.

Also, for young girls, they aren't even looking for something all that serious to begin with. So it can't be said that these apps are failing when these girls discard suitors quickly.

It's wrong to see online dating sites as really 'dating' - they are more aptly 'Dating Portals.' All these sites and apps are just a means to get two people together for a few minutes, and then let those two take it from there.

To date, none of these sites have based their matching methods off good science, studies that have found what brings people together and helps them stay together. I'm no expert on this myself - but I do know that propinquity, proximity, raise the odds of staying together, especially in a city like mine where traffic is high and people balk at driving more than 10 miles to see someone. For the longest time, OKCupid would not permit you to filter out people who lived 25 miles away or less - 25 miles is *unacceptable* to most singles in my city. And OKCupid was heralding itself as this guru of empiricism with an all-wise, all-knowing algorithm, yet they conspicuously flubbed this. Why? Probably to make their site seem more novel and fresh - On my OKC search, I have it currently narrowed to people within five kilometers who are currently online; when I do that, I see a lot of similar faces. That doesn't make for great marketing - "every time I log on, I always see the same people, this site is boring!"

These algorithms are hogwash, and can be replaced by a few simple measurements. Is she slim? Is she white or Latina? Is she around my age or younger? Does she avoid smoking? Every girl who answers yes to those, rank them by distance to me, and I'll meet them one by one. And that would be better than any matching these sites are doing.

Post: #3

"It’s easier to throw in the towel when you know there are 20 more towels waiting to be picked up."

There's more to it than that, though. There is the unconscious social pressure of what happens when you mistreat someone in real life. Newspapers rarely mention this, because their unconscious belief is that we should not live in community but be atomized little consumers (consuming the products of their advertisers, of course).

Years ago, you had to be careful who you dated because if you really screwed over one the females in your crowd, you'd find you lost standing in that crowd. Sometimes other girls would be cold to you or you could find yourself on the receiving end of a public dressing-down from an angry brother of a girl.* Same went if you did this in the neighborhood or school.

With online dating, you can meet someone two towns away, fuck them, and not feel any repercussions if you decide to do anything from blow them off to insisting on having entire phone convos in a Chinese accent.

Maybe this is one of the reason we see so much online social shaming (i.e. "Nice Guys of OKC" and the "online-hamster thread"). You no longer can go into school Monday and say "That asshole!" or "That bitch!" to your friends so the Internet has become the place people vent...which makes sense since it's where the problem originated.

* Both examples drawn from real life, sad to say.

Post: #4

I remember the first time that I met up with someone from OkCupid. It was raining and cold and I almost stayed in. Instead I went out and she took me back to her place for the bang - I never saw her again.

I've slept or fooled around with some really beautiful women from online dating. There have also been some ho-hum meetups but nothing really awful.

The problem with it is that it hurts your ability to be present, generally but also specifically with girls when you are just around them normally. Girls that I may have gone after back in the day, thought about, strategized about how to seduce, I was letting slip from my thoughts. Because there were ten other towels in the pipeline.

And it's a job. I spent a lot of time reading narcissistic bullshit from girls who knew nothing. Scrolling through dozens of profiles in a day, seeing basically the same personalities and philisophies. It gives you a robotic view of sexual compatibility. It's not healthy.

Online dating is where we are and where we're headed, but like a lot of things, that's not necessarily a good thing.

To be honest since quitting online game (for the most part) my bangs have dropped off. But there are loads of benefits to focusing on daygame and night game exclusively, or what have you.

Post: #5

Online dating is bad for decent looking men and great for mediocre women. There is such an imbalance of genders on online sites (way more men than women) that men start to subconsciously lower their SMV and women start having unrealistically high SMV assessments of themselves.

A fit 7 guy finds himself chasing 6's that need to lose 10-20 pounds. Those pudgy 6's start thinking they are 9's.

Post: #6

I use online game to supplement my "real world" game. It takes me little to no effort at all and while the girls may not be top notch, they still do what I want when I want.

It does become a crutch from time to time if I'm on a dry spell, but lately I've been getting back out day gaming.

Post: #7

Good points all around.

(10-12-2014 11:50 AM)Yeti Wrote:  Online dating is where we are and where we're headed, but like a lot of things, that's not necessarily a good thing.

To be honest since quitting online game (for the most part) my bangs have dropped off. But there are loads of benefits to focusing on daygame and night game exclusively, or what have you.

I agree, it's just that online dating is so much easier and accessible than real game.

Online Game: Sit on your couch and message some girls that you find attractive enough to bang.

Actual Game: Make an effort to look good, go to places where attractive women congregate, get rejected, learn game, eventually succeed.

While the latter is a lot more difficult, it seems to be more fulfilling for both parties it's just convincing yourself to do one as opposed to the other.

Post: #8

(10-12-2014 02:49 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  Good points all around.

(10-12-2014 11:50 AM)Yeti Wrote:  Online dating is where we are and where we're headed, but like a lot of things, that's not necessarily a good thing.

To be honest since quitting online game (for the most part) my bangs have dropped off. But there are loads of benefits to focusing on daygame and night game exclusively, or what have you.

I agree, it's just that online dating is so much easier and accessible than real game.

Online Game: Sit on your couch and message some girls that you find attractive enough to bang.

Actual Game: Make an effort to look good, go to places where attractive women congregate, get rejected, learn game, eventually succeed.

While the latter is a lot more difficult, it seems to be more fulfilling for both parties it's just convincing yourself to do one as opposed to the other.

While online game is certainly the "lazy" approach in many regards, I still find that you obviously need that effort to look your best and have the necessary social skills and preferably a bit of game to get any further than an aborted first date.
At least I haven't yet come across any girls here in Bulgaria going "oh, what the hell, I wasted time putting on make-up so let's just fuck once and then say goodbye" after a poor or mediocre date. It's just game over. Might be easier to get those types of bangs in some Western countries - can't really speak from experience there, as despite being a Scandinavian there I relied primarily on night game (which usually means SNL in Scandinavia).

Post: #9

Online dating is merely an extension of our society in general - everything is disposable. the initial outlay for online dating for women (and men to an extent) is minimal and there are plenty of choice. thirst has made it predominantly a buyers market (biased towards the female) with beta's willing to one-up each other to win the hearts of their online paramour (unfortunately they use typical beta game to one-up each other, so free meal for one, free al a carte dinner with shopping spree for the next) and if she isn't getting the "Disney Princess" experience she can easily dump and go to the next as again the perceived cost (social stigma etc.) are so low they are trivial in the overall equation. this makes the concept of romantic partners disposable and reinforces the "perfect" vibe that she absolutely has to get and she can wait and play the game to her hearts content.

Post: #10

It all depends if you can get what you want from online dating. In all my online dating bangs and time I think I have scored four 7+'s (it seems my standards are more specific than most here), three of which were some of my best sexual pleasure. 3 of the 4 were absolute hoes though once I found out their backgrounds.

That said there were a TON of 6's to run through. I just don't think it is worth the trade... I am definitely in the wrong place or not good looking enough in photos (which I put effort into).

I also feel after a successful day game approach to bang, the girl is a lot more excited to bang and see you again.

The story she gets to tell her friends etc... how she fatefully met this guy that was ballsy and approached I think is a heavy sexual psychological seed for the entire relationship going forward. Instead of "how are we going to lie to people about how we met?". Girls are still romantics somewhere deep down.

I think in day game she perceives you as the Chooser which turns her on. In online dating it is blatantly obvious she is the Chooser which shouldn't be her role.

Post: #11

Using online dating is a good way to fast-track improvement in flirting/date game/escalation. It can handicap your motivation and desire to cold approach in the real world however.

You're pre-screening for girls that aren't only available but actively WANT to date. They went out of their way to go onto a dating website and meet men. That cuts out at LEAST 50% of rejections you'd get from cold approaches in real life.

So you skip all the stress and pain of getting constantly rejected from cold approaches and are only even targeting women who are available. The odds of getting dates and bangs with these women is 10x higher than the odds from day or night game.

Is the quality going to be lower? Generally, yes. With that being said I banged two of the hottest girls I've ever had in my life from online game.

If you grind and game hard through online, you can get bangs frequently and this "greases the groove" in your real-life game. When you're on a date with a different girl 3-4x a week, escalating and spitting game, flirting, touching, kissing, banging...It doesn't matter what the SOURCE of the action was. You're steadily building up social/sexual confidence and experience that directly applies to real life. Women are women.

I look at it as a cheat or hack to get notches, confidence and experience.

(10-12-2014 10:05 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  I also feel after a successful day game approach to bang, the girl is a lot more excited to bang and see you again.

The story she gets to tell her friends etc... how she fatefully met this guy that was ballsy and approached I think is a heavy sexual psychological seed for the entire relationship going forward. Instead of "how are we going to lie to people about how we met?". Girls are still romantics somewhere deep down.

I think in day game she perceives you as the Chooser which turns her on. In online dating it is blatantly obvious she is the Chooser which shouldn't be her role.

I think that's very true. Also, the amount of dick being thrown at girls online is astronomically higher than girls that don't have profiles.

Consider also how much more special you are if you met in real-life versus being date #3 of the week for her that she penciled in before Justin on Weds and Mike on Fri.

Average-looking girls who don't party and don't have online profiles may not have had sex in months sometimes. It's almost a guarantee that online girls have a steady supply of dick, all colors of the rainbow to choose from whenever they want.

Vastly different perspectives for them.

Post: #12

(10-12-2014 10:06 PM)Checkmat Wrote:  You're pre-screening for girls that aren't only available but actively WANT to date. They went out of their way to go onto a dating website and meet men. That cuts out at LEAST 50% of rejections you'd get from cold approaches in real life.

I agree with all you said bar this - they are OPEN to dating but can just as easily get the validation they want without having to do jack to get it. it has also been discussed and agreed that women's interpretation of rejection isn't the way we would - it just gets warped to somehow bump up their ego.

Post: #13

(10-12-2014 10:06 PM)Checkmat Wrote:  So you skip all the stress and pain of getting constantly rejected from cold approaches and are only even targeting women who are available. The odds of getting dates and bangs with these women is 10x higher than the odds from day or night game.

All I know is that as you get older online game with provide less and less unless you are Seeking Arrangement or in a poorer country. I still from a personal psychological point rather have amazing day game as I age, so I won't be forced into either of those two above, it is instead at my discretion.

Post: #14

(10-12-2014 10:09 PM)RUIN Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 10:06 PM)Checkmat Wrote:  You're pre-screening for girls that aren't only available but actively WANT to date. They went out of their way to go onto a dating website and meet men. That cuts out at LEAST 50% of rejections you'd get from cold approaches in real life.

I agree with all you said bar this - they are OPEN to dating but can just as easily get the validation they want without having to do jack to get it. it has also been discussed and agreed that women's interpretation of rejection isn't the way we would - it just gets warped to somehow bump up their ego.

That's true. I should have said "open to dating" instead of "wanting" to date.

At the very least online girls will be single (for the most part) and open to the idea of strange new cock. Versus however many girls you meet in real-life who have a boyfriend/fiancee/husband and are not open to giving out their number, going on a date, meeting a new guy etc.

Post: #15

(10-12-2014 10:12 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 10:06 PM)Checkmat Wrote:  So you skip all the stress and pain of getting constantly rejected from cold approaches and are only even targeting women who are available. The odds of getting dates and bangs with these women is 10x higher than the odds from day or night game.

All I know is that as you get older online game with provide less and less unless you are Seeking Arrangement or in a poorer country. I still from a personal psychological point rather have amazing day game as I age, so I won't be forced into either of those two above, it is instead at my discretion.

How old are you and how long have you been using online dating? Curious what your personal experience has been.

Post: #16

(10-12-2014 10:13 PM)Checkmat Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 10:09 PM)RUIN Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 10:06 PM)Checkmat Wrote:  You're pre-screening for girls that aren't only available but actively WANT to date. They went out of their way to go onto a dating website and meet men. That cuts out at LEAST 50% of rejections you'd get from cold approaches in real life.

I agree with all you said bar this - they are OPEN to dating but can just as easily get the validation they want without having to do jack to get it. it has also been discussed and agreed that women's interpretation of rejection isn't the way we would - it just gets warped to somehow bump up their ego.

That's true. I should have said "open to dating" instead of "wanting" to date.

At the very least online girls will be single (for the most part) and open to the idea of strange new cock. Versus however many girls you meet in real-life who have a boyfriend/fiancee/husband and are not open to giving out their number, going on a date, meeting a new guy etc.

definitely agree there. If I had to draw a comparison between online dating and real-world dating I would liken it to riding a motorcycle on the road vs. dirtbike/offroad riding.

Road riding is great for high-speed and quick thrills, the variables are small (road composition, weather, other drivers etc) which provide a limited number of factors to consider. Offroad can be completely unpredictable and you have to be on point to know how to handle the things that just "happen" (bad path, fallen tree) but the rewards are so much better and it makes your road riding better as you are far more used to dealing with the "OH SHIT" moments rather than majorly predictable.

Post: #17

(10-12-2014 10:15 PM)Checkmat Wrote:  How old are you and how long have you been using online dating? Curious what your personal experience has been.

29 now started 4 years ago when I was 25. Probably gotten half my life notches from online. I already am lying on my online profiles that I am still 25 to be able to get messages with 18-22 year olds. Though in real life I have found if I approach them they are more likely to not even ask about my age if they dig it.

For whatever reason if they want the older guy experience it is like if it randomly comes to them in real life they don't question it as much.

I like younger girls and always will. Day game will be a large concern for me for the rest of my life until I settle down with someone hopefully 10-15 years my junior.

Post: #18

The problem with online dating is that you get to discover if you have chemistry with someone only when you meet them in person. This means a whole lot of wasted time and disappointing dates.

I used to go on one to three new online dates every week for a few months and at some point it got tiring. I rather get new bangs from social circle, night game, day game, activities, events or all the other avenues that actually are an addition to your life then go on these anonymous internet dates.

It also seems like I get more respect from women I met in real life than from these online chicks. When you're just another guy from the computer and tens of others are ready to take her on a date, even average bitches get really entitled.

In times of dry spells though, going online can provide a good relief.

Post: #19

(10-12-2014 10:30 PM)GreenHills Wrote:  The problem with online dating is that you get to discover if you have chemistry with someone only when you meet them in person. This means a whole lot of wasted time and disappointing dates.

I used to go on one to three new online dates every week for a few months and at some point it got tiring. I rather get new bangs from social circle, night game, day game, activities, events or all the other avenues that actually are an addition to your life then go on these anonymous internet dates.

It also seems like I get more respect from women I met in real life than from these online chicks. When you're just another guy from the computer and tens of others are ready to take her on a date, even average bitches get really entitled.

In times of dry spells though, going online can provide a good relief.

Let us not forget SIF's and the many of us who have been trapped by the same

Post: #20

(10-12-2014 11:23 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  I'd love to see numbers on this broken down by sex and attractiveness.

Online dating is not bad if you want to sleep with scores of girls less attractive than you.

.....

but I do know that propinquity, proximity, raise the odds of staying together, especially in a city like mine

More thoughtful , intelligent, practical stuff from you; can't rep more than once...

Post: #21

(10-12-2014 11:30 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  "It’s easier to throw in the towel when you know there are 20 more towels waiting to be picked up."

....Newspapers rarely mention this, because their unconscious belief is that we should not live in community but be atomized little consumers (consuming the products of their advertisers, of course).

Belated +1 for another good post, consumerism is thinly veiled insanity, living in a tropical culture has helped me see that cute agreeable pussy, sunshine ( or snow, or whatever aspect you like of what nature gives us for free) , health and asshole avoidance are two orders of magnitude better than junk in the garage.

I wil never stop ranting the dictum of my deceased postal worker friend :
"The goal of capitalism is to reduce all human interaction to the cash nexus."

Post: #22

(10-12-2014 10:51 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 11:30 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  "It’s easier to throw in the towel when you know there are 20 more towels waiting to be picked up."

....Newspapers rarely mention this, because their unconscious belief is that we should not live in community but be atomized little consumers (consuming the products of their advertisers, of course).

Belated +1 for another good post, consumerism is thinly veiled insanity, living in a tropical culture has helped me see that cute agreeable pussy, sunshine ( or snow, or whatever aspect you like of what nature gives us for free) , health and asshole avoidance are two orders of magnitude better than junk in the garage.

I wil never stop ranting the dictum of my deceased postal worker friend :
"The goal of capitalism is to reduce all human interaction to the cash nexus."

I read through the article and I find it lacking a little. I think its hard to say one is better/worse than the other as there is nothing to say that those people who broke up WOULDNT have broken up had they met in real life or even dated in the first place.

Post: #23

I have an idea about online dating-- It was TERRIBLE in the US as being over 50 my value was low. It's VERY GOOD in the Phils where my blond-haired self is valuable.

I think it creates a more efficient market-- which is GOOD if you have what's desired (ripped frat boy in USA) and terrible if you don't, because you can't compensate with game and increasing your approaches x 4-10.

Post: #24

(10-12-2014 10:59 PM)RUIN Wrote:  I read through the article and I find it lacking a little. I think its hard to say one is better/worse than the other as there is nothing to say that those people who broke up WOULDNT have broken up had they met in real life or even dated in the first place.

I didn't read the article but more picked up on his anti-consumerist point.

Thinking about it, there are a lot of possible confounds in a study of online daters.

Off the top of my head, online daters are probably much higher in thrill-seeking ( commonly compared to scale 9 on the MMPI) just because they actually DID something rather than waited for "just be yourself" to work.

I imagine thrill seekers are more likely to get bored, divorce etc.

Studies are pretty much all starting points for further investigation, especially with something relatively new like online dating.

Post: #25

(10-12-2014 11:02 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 10:59 PM)RUIN Wrote:  I read through the article and I find it lacking a little. I think its hard to say one is better/worse than the other as there is nothing to say that those people who broke up WOULDNT have broken up had they met in real life or even dated in the first place.

I didn't read the article but more picked up on his anti-consumerist point.

Thinking about it, there are a lot of possible confounds in a study of online daters.

Off the top of my head, online daters are probably much higher in thrill-seeking ( commonly compared to scale 9 on the MMPI) just because they actually DID something rather than waited for "just be yourself" to work.

I imagine thrill seekers are more likely to get bored, divorce etc.

Studies are pretty much all starting points for further investigation, especially with something relatively new like online dating.

I don't think there will be any definitive outcomes from online dating just like regular dating. there will be general observations but nothing that can be definitively proven/disproved.