nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Online dating

The Raptor

Its a pain in the hole. Has anyone else tried it or met someone online.

It seems as if you're messaging different guys, with the same thing to each of them.

"Hi, how are you, I'm x, a little about myself". And its the same thing over and over again.

I was messaging a guy which I liked, swapped numbers, met up and I liked him. But I wasn't his type. Such a let down.

Does anyone ever find anyone they click with?

Find more posts tagged with

dating

matchmaking

Quick Links

Comments

That_Guy

Trebor, I have a feeling she was probably multi-dating. She might have been on a date with you but she might have been comparing you to another fella in her head.

Not your fault. It just happens sometimes. It's all an experience anyways.

Peregrine

misstearheus wrote: »

Yes it is. Unless everybody gets partnered up from it and not just some, of course it's unfair. It is wonderful for them yes. And it certainly is a wonderful concept. Well wonderful would be a grand stretch but it's a nice idea. Wonderful but unfair! How about that?! :pac:

Unlucky, perhaps, but not unfair.

Trebor176

That_Guy wrote: »

Trebor, I have a feeling she was probably multi-dating. She might have been on a date with you but she might have been comparing you to another fella in her head.

Not your fault. It just happens sometimes. It's all an experience anyways.

I've been thinking the same thing alright. I've a feeling she could be with someone now.

That_Guy

Trebor176 wrote: »

I've been thinking the same thing alright. I've a feeling she could be with someone now.

Don't worry about it pal. It can be a feast or a famine.

hairyslug

It taught me alot about dating, prior to that most relationships started with drunken fumblings.
Ghosting was mentioned in another thread, I learnt to spot that a mile off, I also developed a thicker skin from it.
I went into it looking for a relationship, after a few failed attempts I stopped caring and just enjoyed it for what may or may not happen.

I had a date with a girl who used her sisters photo (she openly admitted it),a date with a mother of 5 (came as a bit of shock) and probably the weirdest was a date where I turned up, there were 7 or 8 other people there and the girl I was meeting had brought her boyfriend, I think they liked "to party" I didn't hang around

pauliebdub

It's a total disaster, I'm speaking about gay dating apps and sites. It's a mine field of players, attached guys, gold diggers, closet cases and weirdos. Old fellas looking for young lads, married fellas looking for sex while their wives are at work. Very hard to find a regular fella who is looking to date.

The Raptor

I love how the user 'call me daddy baby' thanked my original post. Such a flirty name.

maudgonner

The Raptor wrote: »

I love how the user 'call me daddy baby' thanked my original post. Such a flirty name.

But if someone used it as their dating profile name I think I might just choose to ignore them

Penny Tration

Did it for about a year, about three or four years ago.

I found it mostly positive. sure, I ended up on dates with some weirdos, but most people were nice, friendly, and I enjoyed spending time with them, even those I just wasn't attracted to IRL (and those who weren't attracted to me!).

Mostly good experiences, though I certainly didn't meet anyone I was serious about. My OH asked me out after finding my POF profile (we were friends) and realising I was looking, though.

RDM_83 again

Peregrine wrote: »

That gave me a good laugh. Thanks!

Oh, you're serious?

While I wouldn't agree with the extremity of what the poster is talking about I do think there may be some truth in it.

There is a fairly small percentage of women openly looking for casual stuff on these sites.
There is a fairly hefty proportion of guys only looking for casual stuff.
There is more woman than men portraying themselves as only interested in something that can go somewhere.

What occurs is a very high interest in any woman online looking for NSA and a fairly decent proportion of men willing to portray themselves as looking for something more but actually just after NSA.

It gives a very skewed perception of other people and isn't really great for either gender. Nobody owes anybody anything but I can see how it can be disheartening no matter what people are looking for.

If you doubt it ask one of your (female) friends who indicates they are looking for NSA and take a look at quiet how many messages they get, could easily be 50-100 a day.

On the flipside I think Debtocracy is placing way to much emphasis on male looks, those 50-100 messages a day will mainly consist of creepyness or one-liners an ability to chat and a bit of respect goes a hell of a long way,

Anyway that was my ill informed short term experience of it!

[Deleted User]

RDM_83 again wrote: »

While I wouldn't agree with the extremity of what the poster is talking about I do think there may be some truth in it.

There is a fairly small percentage of women openly looking for casual stuff on these sites.
There is a fairly hefty proportion of guys only looking for casual stuff.
There is more woman than men portraying themselves as only interested in something that can go somewhere.

What occurs is a very high interest in any woman online looking for NSA and a fairly decent proportion of men willing to portray themselves as looking for something more but actually just after NSA.

It gives a very skewed perception of other people and isn't really great for either gender. Nobody owes anybody anything but I can see how it can be disheartening no matter what people are looking for.

If you doubt it ask one of your (female) friends who indicates they are looking for NSA and take a look at quiet how many messages they get, could easily be 50-100 a day.

On the flipside I think Debtocracy is placing way to much emphasis on male looks, those 50-100 messages a day will mainly consist of creepyness or one-liners an ability to chat and a bit of respect goes a hell of a long way,

Anyway that was my ill informed short term experience of it!

4zn76tysfajdxp

I don't really use online dating but my pal David swears by Tinder. "Cheaper than a prostitute" according to him. I'm not sure if I agree.

Chain Smoker

I've been using this tinder alternative called Bumble that's pretty popular here where the woman has to message first and if she doesn't within 24 that match is cancelled. A guy can refresh one match per day if he likes, I assume to send a slight message that he does want to hear from that person in particular. It's really clever imo.

Anyways, asides from the overall design being by far the best I've encountered, it's also had the most engaging conversations by far and I suspect that has a lot to do with the extra immediate investment that comes from being the person to message rather than the one to deal with heaps of tedious openers and inappropriate ****.

Tinder is like 60% bots in my area at the moment, and it really seems like no one uses it for anything other than to occupy their hands while taking a dump at this stage.

Ice Maiden

Peregrine wrote: »

That gave me a good laugh. Thanks!

Oh, you're serious?

Easy to tell the... non fans of women from the thumbs-ups to those kinds of statements.

Doesn't say great things about men either - "All men looking like rapists online".

[Deleted User]

Paddynet, Virtual Irish Pub, Mirc Chat and ICQ are where it's at. Glory days.

We now leave 1997 and obscenely expensive and slow Eircom connection and return to 2016.

Jim Bob Scratcher

Rhea Rose wrote: »

Out of interest, why do you say that? I'm asking because I know a lot of guys get the hump when women simply don't reply, but that doesn't mean that they're vain - it just means that they're not interested. I remember I used to try to reply to everyone, even to say I wasn't up for chatting, but then I started getting abusive mails back in return and it wasn't worth the hassle.

Few women that I messaged said they were only on it for a look or because their friend was on it. None of the ones i encountered on it seem to take it seriously at all. Just like some of the replies in this thread eg. ( great when you're bored or hungover ) It's a dating site why would you just be on it because you're bored ?

PandaPoo

I met my husband on a dating site. He had been on them for years and went on dozens of dates with no luck really. He was almost going to give up on them

For me he was the second person I met I think. I had chatted to loads of guys, but nothing ever came of it. I just lost interest and never met any of them. My husband sent me a really great message, I didn't find him attractive but he made me smile. So we went out the same night he sent the first message and I just loved him. We got married less than a year after we met.

There are loads of time wasters and rude people on the sites. There are also plenty of genuine ones, I think it's a really great place to meet people. My sister met her husband online too. Same with my best friend and her boyfriend.

misstearheus

Bitter and jealous lol but it's so so SO un-fair that some people can't find lasting Relationships out of Online Dating!

It is a nice concept though and it's great that some are finding partners on there! I was just noticing the other day loads of guys on POF have Upgraded Membership.

There was some general Website which I think had Hub in its' name. It was a very minimal Site with Members having 3/4 elements, their Hobbies, their Location, and if seeing someone or single. It was all paragraphs, rather than individual Member Profiles. I can't for the life of remember what the bloody Website was actually for / about!! I have a feeling there was some focus on Location... Like something like a Couch-surfing set-up rather than a Social Networking Site. There was a Sister-Website possibly Chatrooms... All I can remember is hub in the name. But it could potentially be used for dating 'cos ya could search by County and see that way who's Single..

chainsmoker556

The Raptor wrote: »

Its a pain in the hole. Has anyone else tried it or met someone online.

It seems as if you're messaging different guys, with the same thing to each of them.

"Hi, how are you, I'm x, a little about myself". And its the same thing over and over again.

I was messaging a guy which I liked, swapped numbers, met up and I liked him. But I wasn't his type. Such a let down.

Does anyone ever find anyone they click with?

Well, it's a lesson learned. NEVER EVER fall to someone you haven't met personally. First, it's really dangerous coz you don't know his background or where he came from. It's okay if you two meet then relationship grows for friendship then turns to lovers, but fall at first before meeting him.. I think it's not a good idea.

BunkMoreland

Tinder would be the closest to online dating I've tried. Very rarely get a match and if i do it's usually a bot.

When it is someone genuine I couldn't be bothered getting past 2 messages, I've not idea what to say to these girls and couldn't give a rats ass about what they gave to say.

Ah well.

FAILSAFE 00

Online dating, that's one minefield I'd prefer not to walk through lol.

Shenshen

RDM_83 again wrote: »

While I wouldn't agree with the extremity of what the poster is talking about I do think there may be some truth in it.

There is a fairly small percentage of women openly looking for casual stuff on these sites.
There is a fairly hefty proportion of guys only looking for casual stuff.
There is more woman than men portraying themselves as only interested in something that can go somewhere.

What occurs is a very high interest in any woman online looking for NSA and a fairly decent proportion of men willing to portray themselves as looking for something more but actually just after NSA.

It gives a very skewed perception of other people and isn't really great for either gender. Nobody owes anybody anything but I can see how it can be disheartening no matter what people are looking for.

If you doubt it ask one of your (female) friends who indicates they are looking for NSA and take a look at quiet how many messages they get, could easily be 50-100 a day.

On the flipside I think Debtocracy is placing way to much emphasis on male looks, those 50-100 messages a day will mainly consist of creepyness or one-liners an ability to chat and a bit of respect goes a hell of a long way,

Anyway that was my ill informed short term experience of it!

I wouldn't argue with the fact that there are more guys looking for some NSA than there would be women looking for just that.
But I always thought that this was an honest reflection of real life, not something particular to dating sites?

Cupcake_Crisis

Debtocracy wrote: »

This is why online dating doesn’t work in the vast majority of cases: So take a girl who is 5/10. Because all men look like rapists online and because of female hypergamy, she will only talk with an 8/10 guy or above (only 20% of guys are rated above average attractiveness online).

So the 8/10 guy and 5/10 girl get talking and go on a date. While the 8/10 guy is happy to get a date, he is probably not going to consider the girl as relationship material (he’d rather an 8/10 girl but she won’t talk to him). As such, his main motivation is to have sex with this girl rather than form any meaningful relationship. The 5/10 girl therefore concludes that all men are pigs and that there’s no good men out there, with the average nice guy barely registering on her radar (by ‘nice guy’ she means attractive, tall, wealthy nice guy).

This phenomena of female hypergamy is becoming more prevalent in general. There’s articles aplenty these days about how there’s no good men left, with women even attributing gender population discrepancies and higher proportions of gay men to account for the lack of good men. Interestingly, the main reason women attribute freezing their ovaries is not because of career progression, but because they cannot find a suitable partner. At the same time, men are increasing their standards for commitment and marriage so the mathematics are getting even worse – the amount of single people is increasing rapidly across the Western World and no amount of online dating apps can stem the tide.

What a load of old tripe!

ibarelycare

I've been online dating for years! In my third "proper" relationship from OD at the moment (previous two both lasted close to two years) but have also had shorter term ones, flings, NSA, etc.

Tinder has made OD so much more acceptable to the general public now than it was even 3/4 years ago. But it's also made "real life" dating harder. People are less likely to try and approach someone in a pub with the fear of getting shot down, when they can just do it from their phone while sitting in their underwear on the couch.

You have to have a thick skin for OD. My main advice would be not to take it too seriously. It's great fun for the most part. I've met some awesome people and have some great stories from it. Keep your expectations low to avoid disappointment. And keep plugging away. We only click with a small percentage of people we meet. If you're going to be severely disappointed if your first OD experience doesn't turn into happily ever after, then it's not for you.

Wibbs

Shenshen wrote: »

I wouldn't argue with the fact that there are more guys looking for some NSA than there would be women looking for just that.
But I always thought that this was an honest reflection of real life, not something particular to dating sites?

+1. I think the only difference with OD is that this can be more obvious compared to face to face encounters. Because of the window shopping nature of it, you see more obvious patterns that are already reflected in real life on a smaller scale. It's also a more visual medium, so that plays a part too in perceptions too. I reckon this is where notions like "hypergamy" and other daft US redpill stuff thinks it's getting support for their "theories". They're kinda right in parts, but not in the way they think. The fact is good looking people do better in a visual dating medium. Not a shock. Good looking people do better in face to face dating too. Women get more approaches online? Not a shock. Women get more approaches offline too. Tall men do better online? Thin women do better online? Again hardly a shock.

VisibleGorilla

I've never done it, been in various different forms of relationships while it has gained in popularity.

To me I don't think I would bother with it, it seems to give people unrealistic expectations of what they bring to the table in any form of relationship.

I rather old fashioned in person meeting.

Martypants1

Been a user of computers since I was a kid so big into online.

So have tried all the sites.

I'd advise anyone looking to get a relationship from it to meet the person they're texting quick.

I've never been looking for something serious on it as I like my own company too much but have met loads of cool people on them.

I do use a copy and paste opening message but it works really well and makes my intentions known.

One thing I learned is that older women find younger men (24 here) cuter than they are.

Giggity!!!!

muppetkiller

I met my better half on Plenty of Fish 4 years ago and will most likely get married in the next year or two

plenty of nice 1 -2 year relationships from online prior to her too.
I think it's a fantastic way for people to meet others without having to go to a pub.

AnonoBoy

I like when people can't meet someone nice they blame "online dating".

Nobody in the 1990's blamed "real life" when they couldn't meet someone nice.

Speedwell

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I like when people can't meet someone nice they blame "online dating".

Nobody in the 1990's blamed "real life" when they couldn't meet someone nice.

Oh, sure they did, and do. Just look at the people who, forgive me, seem to think they can solve their "involuntary celibacy" problem by advocating that men enforce their "rights" against unwilling women. (I'm alluding to a certain person who is considered influential among a certain fringe group I'd rather not call undue attention to.)