Post: #1

Been seeing more and more of this lately - guy and girl have a great first date, no lay, never hears from her again.

Wonder how much of it has to do with the "mainstreamization" of online dating in recent years?

Any girl with a POF/OKC profile she has a stready stream of suitors knocking at her door. Rest assured there are hundreds of better looking thirsty dudes with more status hitting her up. These guys won't commit but they'll hit it and quit it.

Men are as faithful as their options. Women are as choosy as their options. With online dating, an attractive woman's options are seemingly infinite. In keeping with her hypergamous instincts, she's always on the lookout for the bigger, better deal.

In the past a woman would stick with a guy after a good date because she had no other solid prospects lined up. Now she's more likely to stray.

Online dating is a boon for guys who fit the media-promulgated aesthetic ideal (tall, muscular, white). Like this guy - /thread-3601-p...#pid102162.

Guys who don't measure up physically have tough road to ho. No matter how tight his verbal game, a short Asian guy will always be hard-up when Mr. Tom Brady lookalike is hollering at her from the next browser.

Online dating is courtship distilled to its essence sans the filter of approach anxiety.

A 1000 rejections in the real world would cripple a man.
A 1000 rejections in the virtual world mean nothing.

Thousands of thirsty dudes without approach anxiety + hypergamous women with infinite options is a recipe for dating disaster. Unhappy girls who can't get a top guy to commit, and unhappy guys who can't get a date.

This phenomenon is unprecedented in human history.

And if online dating loses its stigma and becomes mainstream, it could put the average guy's prospects in serious jeopardy.

What % of single girls 20-29 today have online dating profiles?

Post: #2

(10-22-2011 09:28 AM)Mace Wrote:  What % of single girls 20-29 today have online dating profiles?

If she's attractive:

20-25 ....I'd say 5 percent.

25-30......I'd say 20 percent.

IMO the latter are looking for husbands. If your a minority you can still have success but you're gonna have to put the work in.

Post: #3

(10-22-2011 10:52 AM)rakishness Wrote:  

(10-22-2011 09:28 AM)Mace Wrote:  What % of single girls 20-29 today have online dating profiles?

If she's attractive:

20-25 ....I'd say 5 percent.

25-30......I'd say 20 percent.

IMO the latter are looking for husbands. If your a minority you can still have success but you're gonna have to put the work in.

I think the percentage for whores between the ages of 25-30 could be higher since they are actively "husband hunting". I also think that it is more likely for them to have multiple profiles on multiple sites.

Post: #4

I don't think having seemingly infinite options amounts to satisfaction or even success. Have you ever heard the notion "paradox of choice?" It's a thesis that basically states that the more choices people have, the more unhappier it makes them in the long run due to the anxiety of constantly second-guessing and wondering if they could've gotten a better deal. Too many options can be as bad a thing as too few options.

Most attractive women that are on dating sites are extremely picky or they wouldn't have to be on a dating site in the first place. They are looking for that one absolutely perfect guy that fits some ideal in their head.

Post: #5

(10-22-2011 09:28 AM)Mace Wrote:  And if online dating loses its stigma and becomes mainstream, it could put the average guy's prospects in serious jeopardy.

What % of single girls 20-29 today have online dating profiles?

I would state the percentage between 15-25% but no higher.

However, I must disagree with the statement that it puts an average guy's prospects in serious jeopardy. While a woman does have seemingly infinite options online and they do get tons of messages a day, the majority of the messages she gets are from guys she doesn't want. It's been done before by guys like myself and others on this forum, but just by putting up a fake female profile and seeing what type of messages it gets is a learning experience into and of itself. When I did it there were plenty of good looking guys opening with the lamest shit. When I had my fake online profile out of 30 messages a day, I'd say that about 3 were decent, that was on a good day, so that's 10%.

Also, as online dating becomes more mainstream having skills in other forms of game(night/day) goes up because a lot of the competition are just firing off emails online.

I've been flaked on plenty from online girls, and they are definitely a different breed, but getting laid from it is more than possible it's highly probable. So yeah I am tall and white. Does that make a difference? Yeah it probably does. But I also had a shitload of factors going against me when I was pretty much online dating full time. I was unemployed for part of it, I lived in a shithole apartment for a period, and then before that even at home for a time. I live in an area where there's a lot of money.

I used to work with a guy who was around 60 who was on match.com. He looked like a skeleton(He reminded me of the cryptkeeper) He knew I was online dating and we would talk and he would show me the chicks he was talking too. I even met a few, yeah they were older but they were decent looking older women. This guy was having success. So then one time I looked at his 'outbox' like how many emails sent. He had sent 500. I don't know over what time period that was, but he was an aggressive mofo(he used to be a stockbroker) and he had a good rap. Very well spoken, highly intelligent, and no ego. This man was much below average in looks(he looked like he was going to die at any minute) and it worked for him. From observing my friends who have tried it and failed, they just had unrealistic expectations(They thought they were going to be banging models off it) but it's possible to bang 5s-7s while doing minimal work.

Post: #6

The percentage really depends on the region and how embedded online dating is in the culture. From experience, around San Francisco and NYC it's about 33%-50%, depending on age.

It doesn't have quite the effect you imagine since, in getting feedback from some of my friends, girls' online dating experience is quite heterogeneous, dependent mostly on their looks.

Say the girl's an 8.5 and gets online. Her mailbox will full up within about two weeks (300 messages). Like an HR department overwhelmed with 500 resumes to a craigslist ad, she will tune out nearly all of the messages she receives online sheerly because there are so many of them. Like Neo says, try setting up a dummy profile, or check out the mailbox of one of your prettier girl friends on OKC. There will be 300 dudes in there, all of them will blend into each other, none of them will stand out. She will likely grow bored with sifting through them and either disable her profile or she'll just not bother to empty out her mailbox and use OKC as a passive timekiller.

But say the girl's a 6 and gets online. In that case, the situation you have described definitely does play out.

Post: #7

(10-22-2011 03:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  I don't think having seemingly infinite options amounts to satisfaction or even success. Have you ever heard the notion "paradox of choice?" It's a thesis that basically states that the more choices people have, the more unhappier it makes them in the long run due to the anxiety of constantly second-guessing and wondering if they could've gotten a better deal. Too many options can be as bad a thing as too few options.

Most attractive women that are on dating sites are extremely picky or they wouldn't have to be on a dating site in the first place. They are looking for that one absolutely perfect guy that fits some ideal in their head.

You're 100% right. I prefer restaurants with limited menus, so I don't have to try to choose from too many options. I've found the prettier the chick online, the more selective she is, definitely. She's the chick with the private profile - she wants to check you out and say yes first, before she lets you see what she's about. They're looking for the dude that's going to blow them away with his initial message, when he doesn't actually have any information with which to formulate a unique message...

Post: #8

"And if online dating loses its stigma and becomes mainstream, it could put the average guy's prospects in serious jeopardy."

The stigma is already long gone, and it's already mainstream. I don't know the percentages for the "cream" of women in the online world, but it's definitely a viable option for those in the middle, of all ages. For chicks at the bottom, there are specialty sites, like for BBWs. Even if it isn't flat-out dating sites, people have social networking profiles on Facebook.

Post: #9

While my native reflex is to join the ranks of PUAs deriding OP for whining and self-victimizing, I very recently came face to face with this harsh reality.

After my move to the countryside, one of the relatively few dates I got was with an OK-looking girl, perhaps a 7 or 7.5 tops. For one of the less attractive girls I dated since I started sarging, she was very iffy and flaky before the day2. When the date did happen, it went very well, yet she was strangely non-committal, then flaked from the next date and nexted me.

I wasn't sure why it happened. A couple of weeks later, I realized online is fairly popular in my new location, so I went online, and ran across her profile in one of the popular dating sites. She has good pictures that hide her flaws and emphasize her strengths, upgrading her looks to 8-9. I could tell she was very popular there, getting a ton of messages from attractive guys every day. Mystery solved.

The truth is that OP is right, at least to an extent. Seduction is based on the exploitation of inefficiencies: guys don't approach enough, so an 8-9 can't get her equal, because her equal doesn't have the balls / gumption / resolve to approach her. So she goes with the less attractive guy who did.

Inefficiency presented opportunities for us less attractive guys to get laid far above our level of attractiveness, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Online makes the dating market efficient, so the girl above doesn't have to settle for a less attractive guy. She can have her pick of guys at her own attraction level, or even higher if she is willing to settle for pure sex - which is exactly what most of us are after.

It's especially a problem for players like me, who get laid purely on balls, because balls mean nothing online. You don't need balls to send a message, so me and a guy who can't say hi to a stranger offline are put on equal footing. My advantage has been effectively neutralized. Online makes dating much easier for good looking guys, and cancels the advantage of ballsy guys who approach.

Post: #10

I'd say a very low percentage. Every once and a while I'll go to POF and do a search for chicks in different cities to see how the quality stacks up (west side LA is the best in the country). In any case, you can fly through those pages pretty quick and you are done. Boom. Done. Throw in Ok Cupid, eHarmony, Chemistry.com, whatever - and I think it's a pretty low percentage of the girls in a given city.

Post: #11

There are about 30-35 million females aged 18-30 in the US (I got this info searching for census data real quick, it's not exact but good enough to illustrate the point). If we're making claims like 25% that means you'd have 7.5 million girls on the various dating sites. OkCupid claimed around 3.5 million TOTAL users in 2010, and males likely outnumber females by 3:1 at least. That also includes people outside the US. Plenty of fish claims 40 million accounts, but I think they're adding in all the inactive accounts as well.

Post: #12

I think a relatively high percentage of women have profiles, but not all of them are truly active, and it also depends on what her goals are. Some are husband-hunting, so they're more likely to be on sites that are more geared to that. Others are looking to date, but are both picky and uncommittal even if they actually go on a date. Others THINK they really want to meet someone, but they don't pull the trigger and just waste time. Others are in it purely for the attention they get from men. Others are in it for some quick dick. The greater question isn't what percentage of women have online dating profiles, but what percentage of women are REALLY serious about meeting someone in person from those profiles.

Post: #13

I don't think to many. Maybe a few thousand from every big city.

Post: #14

I'd say quite a lot, although it shifts fast. If you define it as "in that particular moment", it's very low, probably less than 5%, but if you define it as "at any time during a particular year", then a whole lot, maybe half. Girls have unlimited internet, smartphones, and are yearning for Beta orbiter attention. Where better to get it than by occasionally visiting such websites?

Post: #15

Nobody is saying that online dating is going to eliminate chumps. There will always be chumps, and they will be investing and getting no results.

The concern in the OP is that there will be enough 8-10 looking guys messaging all the 7-10 girls to keep those occupied. In the past, players - especially those with less than 8 looks - relied on the fact that a lot of guys in the 8-10 group didn't have game. But you don't need game to send a clever message online and rely on your pictures to do the rest of the work.

The concern is that online is going to negate the advantage of game, especially stuff like the ability to boldly approach. It's going to be all about the pictures, and maybe some clever text. That's a legitimate concern, in my opinion.

Post: #16

I know this black chick that could pretty much have any guy she wants. So as a result, she's dated all types of ethnicities. I used to joke around with her about why she's so high maintenance. She said because I am. Lol. She wasn't above poking fun at herself. Her personality was very cool, so I'll give her that. Low and behold, I saw her on a dating site out of the blue, years later. Very surreal when you're on one of those sites and come across a girl that you actually know. Has never happened to me before. That just goes to show, if these girls are dude magnets in real life, just imagine how extremely picky they're going to be on these dating sites. Unless you're a dude straight out of Sports Illustrated or GQ Magazine with airbrushed photos, good luck getting their attention with an email.

Post: #17

Well all of that is true about looks mattering more in online dating. However those GQ model guys without solid game are getting flaked on left and right because there is another GQ beta the next day in line. Seduction is what matters ultimately.

Post: #18

The key to online dating is having all your bases covered. Your pictures, your profile, your messages, and your screening of girls all need to be running at an 8-9 level to get anything worthwhile. You can't run copy and paste messages and expect to get good results, girls know what's up. You also need the discipline to avoid the girls with 1 or 2 sentence profiles, even if they're hot. These girls are not willing to invest anything and therefore likely won't meet.

Post: #19

It's a surprisingly high percentage in DC. I've also found that girls you meet through normal game who also happen to have online dating profiles act nearly as overvalued as the ones you meet online.

Post: #20

Bump. Although this thread was created 6 years ago, it's as prescient as ever.

Post: #21

With the possibility to connect, virtually, everywhere with facebook this question does not need an answer anymore...

Post: #22

Now pretty much any single girl (and the sluts in relationships) is on some form of online dating. A stark difference in just 5 years.

Post: #23

(05-13-2017 12:52 PM)Conquerer7 Wrote:  Now pretty much any single girl (and the sluts in relationships) is on some form of online dating. A stark difference in just 5 years.

I read upwards and here's the thing. Women don't really look at their ability to have sex with guys on-command as a special privilege or that guys somehow have it worse off. They take this for granted to the point where they have shifted over to complaining about the finer points like the quality of the sex or what else they can hope to gain from the man.

So if you get into a debate with a woman about sexual inequity she will just not "get" it. She can't understand the inherent cruelty (which is a baked-in form of prejudice) of sexual selection the way guys do, not until they hit the wall and start getting passed over the way most guys are.

So when guys start whining about 80/20 and such, it's kind of pissing in the wind because women will never be able to step outside of themselves to know what the male experience really is. They'll just fixate on their own priorities when it comes to the battle of the sexes.

Post: #24

Quote:Women don't really look at their ability to have sex with guys on-command as a special privilege or that guys somehow have it worse off. They take this for granted to the point where they have shifted over to complaining about the finer points like the quality of the sex or what else they can hope to gain from the man.

So if you get into a debate with a woman about sexual inequity she will just not "get" it. She can't understand the inherent cruelty (which is a baked-in form of prejudice) of sexual selection the way guys do, not until they hit the wall and start getting passed over the way most guys are.

So when guys start whining about 80/20 and such, it's kind of pissing in the wind because women will never be able to step outside of themselves to know what the male experience really is. They'll just fixate on their own priorities when it comes to the battle of the sexes.

Yes, it's like asking a fish what it feels like to be wet. It will probably be confused as to what being wet really is, because that is all it knows. Any complaints about lack of water will be met with confusion unless somehow the fish has felt its opposing condition for comparison.

I also watched Total Recall a few weeks ago, and I was even momentarily confused when I heard the phrase "the price of air". Logically I knew that humans living on Mars needed air like that on Earth to live, but the fact that I am surrounded by sufficient air and have been for my entire life then hearing about air being a very scarce and valuable resource confused me.

The way we take air for granted on Earth compared to (theoretical) humans on other planets where air needs to be created (often at great cost) is how women in the west live with men. We don't sit around thinking, "damn, how can I get some more air today to breathe", since we are already past that as a given. Now we think, "how can I get more money", "I don't like my country, where should I move" etc., irrespective of the fact that lack of air would kill us within minutes.

Women are not able to relate to lack of abundance on that level. They have that covered just as we have air covered. What they can relate to, however, is heartbreak: their first love or first love who was actually masculine who "broke her heart". These are commonly known as "alpha widows". After that, abundance of even relatively high quality men (even higher quality than the original alpha who broke her heart, in many cases), is just not enough for her. Nowadays especially with internet and smartphones it's just offers of dick dick dick dick left right up down everywhere.

We regard money as scarce and we would all like more money. But what if money were constantly thrown in your face every second of every day? Even when you were trying to sleep or have a private conversation or learn a language or lift weights. You would quickly get sick of the money being thrown at you. When something of value is made abundant even by freak circumstances, it is taken for granted. The dick online and in real life - everywhere - makes women take men for granted, men who built the entire comfortable world that has enabled her coddled existence.

I've read some of the online game threads here, including a few about guys who are 6'2+, jacked, 100k+ income - guys who tick all the superficial boxes - getting a few 5s and 6s, maybe a girl approaching a 7 occasionally - via online dating. That may be true and even if the average guy can get laid once or twice a year from online, the collective result of the extremes of abundance women face due to men's behavior online (due to cost of real life approach removed) has decreased every man's value massively to the extent that even the highest quality men are now nothing more than live toys for women to play with whenever they feel like it. I've met quite a few women who quit these dating sites genuinely because they are drowning in messages and notifications on their phones, are too dumb to turn them off and it's getting in the way of them living life as normal. At first the attention feels good, then it doesn't feel as good, then it feels numb, then it gets annoying. (Not for all: some are absolutely insatiable when it comes to need for attention, but for others it genuinely becomes annoying.)

Real life interactions are damaged as even if women don't go out with any of the men online, they have a sense of abundance which negates a lot of unique qualities a high quality man may have developed. Furthermore women don't even bother to do basic things in interactions anymore. It makes them even lazier than they already were and as a man you almost have to hold her hand through the interaction. The slightest discomfort or logistical roadblock and she is gone.

Most women are not serious about online dating even if they have used it before. But the abundance they have as a result of it means that they are less serious about dating as a whole. You want to escape by going to Ukraine? Well watch out for the instagram girls being offered 50k by some sheikh to be shat on. Those are the "extras beyond basic sex and male company" that modern women, inundated with offers from men, now demand almost by default.

The only productive "reframe" I have for this is Darwinist in nature: changes in the environment have occurred, and if I cannot adapt to them, I will fail and die. That is the way things are meant to be and have always been. Women were born as "gatekeepers" for a man's genes to the next generation. That's the way they are. It's not their fault or their choice that they have no awareness of, let alone sympathy for, men who are in severe, painful scarcity.

Post: #25

(05-13-2017 06:18 PM)Skank_Hunt Wrote:  

Quote:Women don't really look at their ability to have sex with guys on-command as a special privilege or that guys somehow have it worse off. They take this for granted to the point where they have shifted over to complaining about the finer points like the quality of the sex or what else they can hope to gain from the man.

So if you get into a debate with a woman about sexual inequity she will just not "get" it. She can't understand the inherent cruelty (which is a baked-in form of prejudice) of sexual selection the way guys do, not until they hit the wall and start getting passed over the way most guys are.

So when guys start whining about 80/20 and such, it's kind of pissing in the wind because women will never be able to step outside of themselves to know what the male experience really is. They'll just fixate on their own priorities when it comes to the battle of the sexes.

Yes, it's like asking a fish what it feels like to be wet. It will probably be confused as to what being wet really is, because that is all it knows. Any complaints about lack of water will be met with confusion unless somehow the fish has felt its opposing condition for comparison.

I also watched Total Recall a few weeks ago, and I was even momentarily confused when I heard the phrase "the price of air". Logically I knew that humans living on Mars needed air like that on Earth to live, but the fact that I am surrounded by sufficient air and have been for my entire life then hearing about air being a very scarce and valuable resource confused me.

The way we take air for granted on Earth compared to (theoretical) humans on other planets where air needs to be created (often at great cost) is how women in the west live with men. We don't sit around thinking, "damn, how can I get some more air today to breathe", since we are already past that as a given. Now we think, "how can I get more money", "I don't like my country, where should I move" etc., irrespective of the fact that lack of air would kill us within minutes.

Women are not able to relate to lack of abundance on that level. They have that covered just as we have air covered. What they can relate to, however, is heartbreak: their first love or first love who was actually masculine who "broke her heart". These are commonly known as "alpha widows". After that, abundance of even relatively high quality men (even higher quality than the original alpha who broke her heart, in many cases), is just not enough for her. Nowadays especially with internet and smartphones it's just offers of dick dick dick dick left right up down everywhere.

We regard money as scarce and we would all like more money. But what if money were constantly thrown in your face every second of every day? Even when you were trying to sleep or have a private conversation or learn a language or lift weights. You would quickly get sick of the money being thrown at you. When something of value is made abundant even by freak circumstances, it is taken for granted. The dick online and in real life - everywhere - makes women take men for granted, men who built the entire comfortable world that has enabled her coddled existence.

I've read some of the online game threads here, including a few about guys who are 6'2+, jacked, 100k+ income - guys who tick all the superficial boxes - getting a few 5s and 6s, maybe a girl approaching a 7 occasionally - via online dating. That may be true and even if the average guy can get laid once or twice a year from online, the collective result of the extremes of abundance women face due to men's behavior online (due to cost of real life approach removed) has decreased every man's value massively to the extent that even the highest quality men are now nothing more than live toys for women to play with whenever they feel like it. I've met quite a few women who quit these dating sites genuinely because they are drowning in messages and notifications on their phones, are too dumb to turn them off and it's getting in the way of them living life as normal. At first the attention feels good, then it doesn't feel as good, then it feels numb, then it gets annoying. (Not for all: some are absolutely insatiable when it comes to need for attention, but for others it genuinely becomes annoying.)

Real life interactions are damaged as even if women don't go out with any of the men online, they have a sense of abundance which negates a lot of unique qualities a high quality man may have developed. Furthermore women don't even bother to do basic things in interactions anymore. It makes them even lazier than they already were and as a man you almost have to hold her hand through the interaction. The slightest discomfort or logistical roadblock and she is gone.

Most women are not serious about online dating even if they have used it before. But the abundance they have as a result of it means that they are less serious about dating as a whole. You want to escape by going to Ukraine? Well watch out for the instagram girls being offered 50k by some sheikh to be shat on. Those are the "extras beyond basic sex and male company" that modern women, inundated with offers from men, now demand almost by default.

The only productive "reframe" I have for this is Darwinist in nature: changes in the environment have occurred, and if I cannot adapt to them, I will fail and die. That is the way things are meant to be and have always been. Women were born as "gatekeepers" for a man's genes to the next generation. That's the way they are. It's not their fault or their choice that they have no awareness of, let alone sympathy for, men who are in severe, painful scarcity.

^ Yes. To further formalize: it's the gender imbalance you have in plain old nature, reincarnated in this high-technology form.

The new point of balance might well be a bunch of 9-10 guys, each with a harem of 7-10 girls. The girls will be satisfied, because once every 1-2 weeks they get banged well and hard by an experienced guy they find hot. The guys are obviously satisfied since they get to bang a different cute girl every day of the week. Guys who are 7 or lower get nothing.

The main concern is that there will be enough 9-10 looking guys messaging all the 7-10 girls to keep those occupied. In the past, players - especially those with less than 8 looks - relied on the fact that a lot of guys in the 8-10 group didn't approach. But you don't need game to send a message online and rely on your pictures to do the rest of the work.

The concern is that online is going to negate the advantage of game, especially stuff like the ability to boldly approach. It's going to be all about the pictures, and maybe some clever text.

That's a legitimate concern, in my opinion.