Single life as a guy...

eeguy

psinno wrote: »

Possibly because the men are achieving what they want.

Because these particular men are using OD to "use and abuse".

seenitall

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Why do men abuse but women misuse? Interesting word choice.

I think that is because women misuse it to their own detriment (I.e. falling for mr. Insincere) while men who are in the position to string women along, abuse it to the detriment of women. Abuse is implicitly worse than misuse.

Pawwed Rig

I see. So women victim men abuser. Gotcha.

It could never be a woman stringing the lad along?

Tigger99

Of course they can, and I'm sure some do. But not in the scenario discussed above.

seenitall

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I see. So women victim men abuser. Gotcha.

It could never be a woman stringing the lad along?

Of course it could! And some of them do. But cantdecide's post was about the situation I described I think, hence the difference in expressions - misuse, abuse.

cantdecide

ongarboy wrote: »

Why is it always assumed that the better looking guys are insincere and the less attractive looking guys are more likely to be sincere? It's not automatic that if a guy is handsome, he must also be insincere just because he's aware that he'll not have problems attracting women.

I think that a decent, genuine person that also happens to be quite attractive is going to find OD a very positive experience by and large. This is a very general point I make about power and the usefulness of OD for the ordinary, imperfect human.

eeguy wrote: »

Because these particular men are using OD to "use and abuse".

Yes. Some guys just happen to be on-the-money with their marketing. They know what they want and they know how to get it a good deal of the time.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I see. So women victim men abuser. Gotcha.

It could never be a woman stringing the lad along?

Of course it can happen the other way round. IME, when men get used it's deliberate time-wasting for the dreaded 'ego boost' type motivation. I call that an abuse of power in many ways.

seenitall wrote: »

Of course it could! And some of them do. But cantdecide's post was about the situation I described I think, hence the difference in expressions - misuse, abuse.

Yes. It's just my (very) general theory of where the broad 'men are jerks' & 'I'm wasting my time here' negative experiences come from.

Dial Hard

ongarboy wrote:

Why is it always assumed that the better looking guys are insincere and the less attractive looking guys are more likely to be sincere? It's not automatic that if a guy is handsome, he must also be insincere just because he's aware that he'll not have problems attracting women.

Because it's a Boards truism that good looking = shallow, vacuous & boring while below-average looking/short/overweight = sound as a pound and probably on the Nobel shortlist to boot. It comes up ALL the time; "Oh I'd much rather be as I am now than really hot and an asshole". As if it's always an either/or situation. Like you, some of the funniest, kindest people I know are also unbelievably good-looking. It's like there's a large contingent of people on Boards who just don't want to believe that people can be both.

AlmightyCushion

Dial Hard wrote: »

Because it's a Boards truism that good looking = shallow, vacuous & boring while below-average looking/short/overweight = sound as a pound and probably on the Nobel shortlist to boot. It comes up ALL the time; "Oh I'd much rather be as I am now than really hot and an asshole". As if it's always an either/or situation. Like you, some of the funniest, kindest people I know are also unbelievably good-looking. It's like there's a large contingent of people on Boards who just don't want to believe that people can be both.

As someone who is both an asshole and ugly as shít I concur.

zcorpian88

God, I'm still doing this POF craic right, there was this girl I messaged early on when I joined back up again weeks ago, and all I said was...well I think I said "Hey how's it going?" there wasn't much in her "about me" to go on, all she has was a few nice pictures up, and she's a beauty therapist, that's all there is and said what I said right and I got blocked, was pretty annoyed about it at the time, recognized the woman from town and she was pretty good looking. I was blocked but she was still in the nearby section and the search section up until now like, whatever I thought, too bad a block doesn't prevent their picture/thumbnail popping up, reminding me of the unpleasant feeling of getting blocked like I f**king said something offensive!

Then today I click on the new user section to see are there any new people.

Who was on it? Only yer one, she deleted her profile and joined up again just so she'd appear in the new user section, therefore would get a few more hits.

Loving getting the attention. Pfffft

Dr Crayfish

So I get maybe 2 messages a week on POF from women, i.e. them sending to me first. Every single one of them since I joined says "hey there". What's up with that? I mean those exact words and that's all. And I don't mean to sound harsh here, but they have pretty much all been overweight and not very attractive. I'm in good shape and talk about cycling and sports I play etc in my profile. How do they think we would match!? Are women like that more likely to send messages to men as they're not getting any? It's actually a bit disturbing as it makes me think perhaps that's the level I should be playing at!

OCEANIC FIZZY POP NINE

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

So I get maybe 2 messages a week on POF from women, i.e. them sending to me first. Every single one of them since I joined says "hey there". What's up with that? I mean those exact words and that's all. And I don't mean to sound harsh here, but they have pretty much all been overweight and not very attractive. I'm in good shape and talk about cycling and sports I play etc in my profile. How do they think we would match!? Are women like that more likely to send messages to men as they're not getting any? It's actually a bit disturbing as it makes me think perhaps that's the level I should be playing at!

Just cuz you cycle/in good shape means fat birds need not apply?

zcorpian88

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

So I get maybe 2 messages a week on POF from women, i.e. them sending to me first. Every single one of them since I joined says "hey there". What's up with that? I mean those exact words and that's all. And I don't mean to sound harsh here, but they have pretty much all been overweight and not very attractive. I'm in good shape and talk about cycling and sports I play etc in my profile. How do they think we would match!? Are women like that more likely to send messages to men as they're not getting any? It's actually a bit disturbing as it makes me think perhaps that's the level I should be playing at!

All I get are views pretty much, maybe 3 a day, and they are from overweight women and not attractive at all and from miles and miles away, like in the midlands. And a load of fake profiles sending me rubbish. I did get a view today from this very pretty woman from Tipperary,

I'm not really into travelling to other counties for dates, I am so done with that shyte, I did a very long distance relationship in the past and it ended really badly and left me devastated and extremely cynical because I put an insane amount of effort into it only to blow up in my face.

Anyway this one from Tipp I did say "hey, how's it going? nice profile, a nice read" and I introduced myself....few minutes later, I check my sent items, says "Read Deleted" beside what I sent, well f**k you then, paying 12 euro a month to get annoyed essentially!

maregal

@zcorpian88: You seem pretty disillusioned with the modern dating scene. I guarantee our grandparents didn't have to deal with this bullcrap. And their marriages lasted longer back then too!

It appears you're ready to swallow the Red Pill. Search for a guy called Sandman on Youtube. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on his videos.

All the best.

Wibbs

maregal wrote: »

@zcorpian88: You seem pretty disillusioned with the modern dating scene.

Understandable enough given the online environment.

I guarantee our grandparents didn't have to deal with this bullcrap. And their marriages lasted longer back then too!

Their marriages lasted longer from the outside looking in and there were many reasons for this. Yes there was a lower unrealistic expectations level and more of a cultural sense of sticking with things, both more healthy in many ways. However there was also more cultural pressure to stay together regardless of the state of the marriage and in the case of Ireland no divorce. Lack of divorce tends to make marriages "last longer".

It appears you're ready to swallow the Red Pill. Search for a guy called Sandman on Youtube.

Please don't take this "advice" ZC. Of course have an oul look, for the lulz, but bear in mind this Sandman gobshíte is yet another toxic Yank peddling Ayn Rand/the 50's was better/Government is out to get us/Trump is great paranoid bullshít. The other side of the coin to the toxic Yanks peddling the third wave feminist bullshít from their "women's studies" courses. For a start these muppets come almost entirely from a very narrow culturally and historically American worldview and Ireland is a very different society. Take Maregal's grandparent's marriages lasted longer stuff. Totally misses the bloody obvious that divorce wasn't available in Ireland until the 80's. Of course it does, it's coming from an American philosophy and I use that word wincingly.

Creol1

maregal wrote: »

@zcorpian88: You seem pretty disillusioned with the modern dating scene. I guarantee our grandparents didn't have to deal with this bullcrap. And their marriages lasted longer back then too!

Divorce was illegal, in fairness...

zcorpian88

Wibbs wrote: »

Understandable enough given the online environment. Their marriages lasted longer from the outside looking in and there were many reasons for this. Yes there was a lower unrealistic expectations level and more of a cultural sense of sticking with things, both more healthy in many ways. However there was also more cultural pressure to stay together regardless of the state of the marriage and in the case of Ireland no divorce. Lack of divorce tends to make marriages "last longer".

Please don't take this "advice" ZC. Of course have an oul look, for the lulz, but bear in mind this Sandman gobshíte is yet another toxic Yank peddling Ayn Rand/the 50's was better/Government is out to get us/Trump is great paranoid bullshít. The other side of the coin to the toxic Yanks peddling the third wave feminist bullshít from their "women's studies" courses. For a start these muppets come almost entirely from a very narrow culturally and historically American worldview and Ireland is a very different society. Take Maregal's grandparent's marriages lasted longer stuff. Totally misses the bloody obvious that divorce wasn't available in Ireland until the 80's. Of course it does, it's coming from an American philosophy and I use that word wincingly.

Had a look, Sandman's views are a bit on the deluded side, I looked at the intro video and was like "Eeeeh what??" made it look like women are all out there to suck men dry of their cash, control their lives and manipulate to an extreme extent and are borderline narcissistic, looking out for number one types, I wouldn't go that far now, but yeah I'd imagine there are some bitches out there, just like there are plenty of c**tish fellas out there too.

I think divorce wasn't legal here until like 1995 or 1996 or something, they tried to bring it in during the mid 80's and the majority voted against it, we were still a heavily Catholic country then, funny what 10 years and the Celtic Tiger period did for us.

Pawwed Rig

I remember the Granny criticising one of my cousins for leaving her hubbie who used to knock lumps out of her. The culture was ignore the bad and stick inside the marriage regardless of how toxic and miserable it was.
A higher divorce rate is preferable imo.

Bunny Colvin

zcorpian88 wrote: »

Had a look, Sandman's views are a bit on the deluded side, I looked at the intro video and was like "Eeeeh what??" made it look like women are all out there to suck men dry of their cash, control their lives and manipulate to an extreme extent and are borderline narcissistic, looking out for number one types, I wouldn't go that far now, but yeah I'd imagine there are some bitches out there, just like there are plenty of c**tish fellas out there too.

I think divorce wasn't legal here until like 1995 or 1996 or something, they tried to bring it in during the mid 80's and the majority voted against it, we were still a heavily Catholic country then, funny what 10 years and the Celtic Tiger period did for us.

Hey man. I read a few of your posts and I think you need to close your account for now, give OD a temporary hiatitus and go back when you've truly hit the reset button.

I was on POF/Tinder about a year ago and practically got nowhere. Like yourself, it got old and I found it extremely frustrating. I took myself off it for a few months, came back with new pictures and a new attitude and bang, got plenty of matches and a few dates.

I'm single at the minute but that's how I want it for now. If I go back to OD (probably will at some stage) I'll join with zero expectation - that's how it should be. Don't force it, message someone if you like their profile and leave it at that - unless they reply. Don't check to see to see if message were deleted etc. It serves no purpose.

When I was on POF, I saw the same girls on it all the time. If a girl already has skipped past you and sees your profile there months later, it hardly looks appealing. Give it a break for now and go back, imo you're trying to force it too much now and that doesn't work in an environment as casual as OD. I'm far from a guru BTW but that's how I see it looking in.

Mister Vain

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

So I get maybe 2 messages a week on POF from women, i.e. them sending to me first. Every single one of them since I joined says "hey there". What's up with that? I mean those exact words and that's all. And I don't mean to sound harsh here, but they have pretty much all been overweight and not very attractive. I'm in good shape and talk about cycling and sports I play etc in my profile. How do they think we would match!? Are women like that more likely to send messages to men as they're not getting any? It's actually a bit disturbing as it makes me think perhaps that's the level I should be playing at!

It sounds to me like they're carpet bombing, something which many guys do too in fairness. Send out the same message to multiple people and hope for a reply. And no I wouldn't be playing at that level. If you're not attracted to them there's no point. You'd only be settling.

Rekop dog

You're having yourself a right pity party zcorpian. You seem to think people almost have an obligation to write back to your dull as dishwater opening messages. The ones who you find attractive would be the ones most likely inundated with tonnes of messages from guys, so you should treat it for what it is, a competition to catch her attention and then keep it. Luckily for you most people send similarly **** openers so if you just try being creative and make it fun and exciting for her you'll put yourself in with a better chance of success.

tara83

Women have a flirt button and it sends the Hey there message

ongarboy

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I remember the Granny criticising one of my cousins for leaving her hubbie who used to knock lumps out of her. The culture was ignore the bad and stick inside the marriage regardless of how toxic and miserable it was.
A higher divorce rate is preferable imo.

The mantra back then was "You've made your bed, now you must lie in it" as one lady told me when she went to her mother in tears back in the 1970s about her abusive husband. She eventually separated in 2001 having suffered for a quarter of a century of abuse. Being single is not the worst condition to be in!

JupiterKid

Staying together in an abusive, loveless and cold marriage is infinitely worse than making a clean break and starting life afresh. It's been shown that children suffer more in an environment of fighting parents than in a situation where a split happens and they are cared for by a loving parent.

When you think of it, it's shocking that this country only introduced divorce in the mid 1990s. I well remember the campaigns in the run up to the referendum. The anti-divorce crowd peddled a litany of complete lies. Just like the anti-gay marriage crowd did in the run up to the 2015 SSM referendum. They were on the losing side of history.

danko82

I do not like single lifestyle, but unfortunately single as I do not want to be with the wrong girl or just with one for the sake of..
I agree about pof, as I do the same the times that I was there I noticed that was full of the same old faces, I was looking for new faces and I believe the women are doing the same.

JustAThought

Serious question ; I know POF & Tinder - from experience it would seem face to face dates are the best way to see if there is chemistry & ifsomeone clicks . Has anyone who has single for a good while ( & I mean older & not out of college with hundreds of friends & acquaintences on FB) tried ild fashioned crazy stuff like Lisdoonvarna or the Batchelors Festival?
I am asking in seriousness?

Mister Vain

Well I've never been to Lisdoonvarna or the Batchelors festival and its a long time since I've done a cold approach. I reckon women over 30 are probably more open to been approached the old fashioned way as they're generally not as immersed in instabooktinderchat. The young wans are not as approachable these days as they're usually buried in their smart phones.

danko82

I feel that the single women over 30-35 start to become kind of apprehensive (someone desperate). So IMHO they are easier to approch than 25-30 years old.

Most of them want a family as we want, but finally here we have a big advantage the biology is in our side.

I would work on myself, everyone feels when we are self confident and this is going to make us better on a approch.

blacklilly

danko82 wrote: »

I feel that the single women over 30-35 start to become kind of apprehensive (someone desperate). So IMHO they are easier to approch than 25-30 years old.

Most of them want a family as we want, but finally here we have a big advantage the biology is in our side.

I would work on myself, everyone feels when we are self confident and this is going to make us better on a approch.

I'm sorry can you clarify your first sentence above?

You think women of a certain age are more likely to be ok with a cold approach because they may be desperate!? Ever consider that maybe they just appreciate the "old way" people use to meet? You know, actually conversing with someone on a night out/social event etc? Not everyone depends solely on online dating.

Also this misconception that women of a certain age become desperate, it's not just as common as you may think. We have choices now, we don't have to settle, we can have children into our 40's if we want to. Yes men obviously have the upper hand in terms of biology but the whole desperate woman in her 30's is fast becoming an outdated concept.

Ask yourself why you are interested in speaking with women who you deem to be desperate due to their age? Are you saying that a younger, non desperate woman would not be interested in you? If so, then the problem lies with you.

H3llR4iser

blacklilly wrote: »

Ever consider that maybe they just appreciate the "old way" people use to meet? You know, actually conversing with someone on a night out/social event etc?

Yep, definitely that - and the fact that experience makes them more self assured, "been there, done that" kind of mental approach

The age variable in the way people react to interaction is an interesting topic, one I was thinking about this morning getting on the train; The station where I step on has a predominantly younger commuters base, and you can clearly see them buried in their phones and avoiding contact with other people as much as possible, women and men alike; Most of these people I have seen for the entirety of the last 12 months, every single weekday morning; for some of them, I even remember where they'll step off. It makes sense that a lot of them also have the same mental picture - "here's this guy again, like every day".

A few months ago, I was getting on a train with my dad (in Italy, but the location has nothing to do with it - they suffer from the same "smartphone stupor" down there) and he more or less knew anybody on the platform and the carriage; He's retired now, but those where the people he met every single morning for years going to work. More importantly, there was a clear divide - anybody around the age of 50 and older held conversation, even about silly stuff (the weather being an all time, not just Irish, favourite!), while most of the younger folks would just look uncomfortable and try to shy away in their earplugs and phone screens.

zcorpian88

Still doing the POF thing, got talking to this nice girl, couple of years younger than me, she's 24, doesn't live far from me, seems intelligent enough but not pretentious about it, very pretty too. One down side, she has a kid, a baby by the sound of it.

Was messaging her most of last weekend, great conversations, she thinks I should be a writer or a journalist going by how well my profile is written and how descriptive and very funny my messages are, she also said I have lovely blue eyes, still drops me the odd message throughout the week, like one off messages, then I reply, but she doesn't read the reply and message back herself for a day or two. Her kid is sick at the minute apparently anyway plus she's working and doing a course. The father isn't in the picture, complete scumbag (her words) that jumped ship when she fell pregnant.

Her profile is nice, I get the very driven and grounded vibe from her when we do message. If it did materialize, it'd be mad going out with someone with a kid, never did before. Wonder what my family and friends would think if anything happened. I like kids but never went out with anyone with one, like I'd wonder what would happen if the dad came back into the picture, awkwardness.