She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not
nautil.us
nautil.us
Here, this issue is that of availability. Given that it is sometimes difficult to gauge the desirability of a prospective partner, one metric is how eager they seem to be. If the other replies quickly, this is an indication that they are quite eager, which suggests that they have few encounters, and that therefore few have evaluated this person as attractive. On the contrary, a bit of a lapse before a response suggests that the other feels a bit of indifference toward you, and that therefore the person is likely to have more encounters, and therefore is considered more attractive.
You can be forgiven for wishing for more simplicity, given that relationships in most media are depicted rather one-dimensionally, as the result of unambiguous and mutual attraction. This is not how it tends to work in the real world.
You can easily spot the fakers from the ones who are actually unavailable though. My ex before we broke up used to take days and days to respond but she was unemployed and had nothing going in her life, whereas I had super busy professors in big labs who for some reason respected my time enough to get back to me within 24 hours or 48 hours at most.
Not to speak of your ex specifically. But this could just be a case of "shitty at replying to texts", which I also have (in relation to my mother and some of my friends, but not to other friends or my girlfriend). It's not necessarily about being a faker.
This is the real problem. Once you're dating someone (that is, it's past the courtship part and you've acknowledged the relationship), if you can't check your communication devices at least once or twice a day for messages from them (excluding hectic work/life schedules), there's a problem. You're continuing the game from courtship, you don't respect them, or you aren't actually into the relationship.
EDIT: Added 'once or '. I realize this is a YMMV moment, but even if you don't carry your phone during the day (like me), you can check it when you wake up and before bed. And if you're interested/invested in someone, you've got to make more time than that or there's never an actual conversation.
However, for two, it is a general discontent in the options available. You are the "next best choice" or the "best available" when facing this lack of eagerness in early relationship phases. There is an element of ego preservation in this behavior. One can improve from "best available," but this comes with experience in the early phase of the relationship.
I used to go out of my way to be generous, give back to the society and be nice to people. I don't know why, I secretely hoped to get support in case of a major event. But no-one counted/counts that break-up as relevant, and the social fabric wasn't here to hug me when I needed it. Now I vote for individualism and I'm in life for money. I'm voting so far-right, I feel like Hitler.
Life isn't nice for losers, and I've lost the game. Starting as a programmer doesn't help. In 2006 when it was a mostly-male environment. Through 2012 when only women were promoted around me. Didn't help.
Has anyone here been so low? Given up so much of their values because of insatisfaction? but succeeded to improve his character later in life? Needless to say, I don't like who I am now.
[1] To be clear, I still believe in equality and I'm the (only) one trying to bring Lego and science to my goddaughter.
A call is an unambiguous yet still unstated expression of continued interest. Is the other party still interested? If the call is answered, you can tell from the tone of voice alone, and if there's uncertainty, the sound of your voice may be enough to tip the balance. What's better, broaching the difficult questions is less difficult on the phone: you don't need to ask explicitly what you would in text, nor need you come up with some lame quip or foist one of your few common experiences to have a conversation. If there's no answer, leave a message -- at the very least, you're not likely to be ignored.
This approach has the added benefit of distinguishing yourself from your texting, cowardly competitors.
Neither method is as good as a face-to-face encounter, but at least this way you reduce the risk of miscommunication or one of those alienating situations where the next-day text goes unanswered.
I'm not worried about intruding with a "rude" call. If they're texting in a situation where they're expected to be paying attention to something else, then they're already the ones being rude.
Because if you're trying to take out a 20-something that you've only had passing interaction with, texting is the socially acceptable way to do it. You don't just call.
The male 20-somethings I know are largely chill and don't really care how a woman reaches out.
The female 20-somethings I know (both as friends and as romantic partners), on the other hand, universally prefer a text. They feel a phone call puts them on the spot; they call it "awkward" or "weird". In most cases, they'll only accept the phone call if they're already into the guy. If they're unsure about the guy, he's probably ensured he's going to get a negative response.
And, of course, this is probably not universally true of all female 20-somethings, but if you are courting, it's better to play the game by the numbers.
After the initial courting phase, I've found things to be a bit different and more dependent upon the individual. That's the time to show your own preferences rather than play the game.
Counterpoint: this is self selection mechanism in itself. I don't want to be dating the person who can't handle getting a phone call without it being "awkward" or "weird".
Playing the game by the numbers is only worthwhile if your goal is ephemeral (i.e. to "score"). If your goal is to have a lasting meaningful relationship, then who cares what the numbers are. Be yourself.
> After the initial courting phase, I've found things to be a bit different and more dependent upon the individual. That's the time to show your own preferences rather than play the game.
If your preferences matter to you, use them as a selection methodology or you're just wasting time.
By applying your selection criteria during the initial phase you're not really applying it to them at all. You're just limiting your chances of success, very severely.
It's like politics. Some people wouldn't even pick up the phone and only respond to texts (they vote for party A). Some people only call (they vote for party B). Yet, a lot of people have a tendency towards one or the other but essentially they're in the middle. And everyone knows you can influence swing voters. And I think everyone should know that you can influence most other people. So if one loves to call, then I'd suggest he/she picks up the phone and call. If one loves to text, then he/she should text. But one should always be too wary of adapting to others too fast if the manner of communication gives more stress than positivity.
Simple :) You can trust a metta mage on this one ;)
Because it is easier to come up with dozens of arguments for texting than having the balls to ask someone out on the phone.
>> This approach has the added benefit of distinguishing yourself from your texting, cowardly competitors.
True words.
Some people just aren't big on technology, as crazy as that sounds. My fiance doesn't work in tech, doesn't have a laptop, barely uses her phone. In fact, its one of the things I have come to love about her because it has helped me detach and be more mindful.
The best time to search for a job is when you don't need it.
The best time to search for a partner is when you don't need it.
I got my current girlfriends after two years of being single and realizing that being single is okay.
More helpful advice is, how to shop intelligently when needy.
I doubt that there is such a thing as "need to be in relationship", very often it is a cover for some other, deeper need, like "need to not feel alone", "need for social recognition", "need to feel secure" and so on. And unless that deeper need is realized and verbally communicated, there's a high chance that it won't be satisfied in the best possible way, if at all. Some of those needs even cannot be satisfied by another person (e.g. no one can cure your internal insecurities but yourself). It is your job, as a person, to work on realizing your actual needs. And once you do, you can ask another person to help you fulfill them.
Another important difference between cars and people is that people are sentient beings with their own will and their own needs. And when people see that someone is treating them as a tool to fulfill their needs, before even getting to know them better, they are likely to avoid engaging in such activity.
Why is this such a big problem? We are social animals and like to be around others. And yes, part of it is social recognition, we mostly do what's expected in our culture and don't like to be the odd ones. Many people like to boast how unique and non-conformist they are, but deep down most of us want to be accepted.
You could say there's no need for career achievements either, because then you're just a workoholic. There's no need for anything in particular.
I don't like this sentiment that everyone must be a rock and steel-strong independent individual who never has to rely on others/relationships/family/society and just cuts through life like a knife through butter. Most of us aren't like that and if you listen to any successful person they will tell you how much they can thank other people (spouse, family, friends) for their support and how they couldn't have achieved the things they did without that support. The totally individualist mindset is not healthy I think (for most people).
Of course I don't mean you should be desperate. But people in our lives are not just "supporting actors" in our movie, but a lot more important. They shape us in many ways.
These needs are not a problem. But not stating them clearly creates a problem, where you do what you think would help, but your needs are still not satisfied.
> I don't like this sentiment that everyone must be a rock and steel-strong independent individual who never has to rely on others/relationships/family/society and just cuts through life like a knife through butter.
I didn't say that either. The more clear and honest you are in expressing your needs to others – the more likely you to get them fulfilled. But for that you often need to do some work first; you can't rely on others to know your needs better then you.
I wasted way too much time on women who were friendly but emotionally unavailable (and didn't want to admit it to themselves) in my teens and 20s to ever want to go through that again.
I didn't say that you should hide your interest in relationship to get it. I only said that pursuing something you imagine word "relationship" means, instead of paying attention to particular person, will not do any good for you.
In my opinion, if you like someone – say so, if you want to engage in some activity with the person – tell them so. If they reciprocate – good for both of you, if not – get over it and move on.
When I was dating some girls, I couldn't concentrate on myself completely.
I had to stop it and check what I really wanted, what I wanted "besides" not being alone.
This lead to questioning my job and quit it too, haha.
When I was single, and knew what I wanted, I didn't had to cry after someone who didn't accept me for who I wasn't, it became okay for me.
I started to see the opinions, people have about me, simply as an opinion and not criticism about me as a person. Like some people don't like peanut butter, and I do, and it doesn't make peanut butter less delicious just because some people don't like it. I don't liked monogamy so I didn't date mono-people anymore.
Then I started to project this into my work life as well. I looked what I wanted and threw away what I had. I didn't want a 9-5 job in an open office space, I wanted home office without people disturbing me while coding, without commuting etc. So I didn't accept any offers that didn't at least offered this.
Now my life feels much better :)
But 6 months without sex or even a kiss is hard.
EDIT: In fact, I'd say the opposite is implied.
It's not a sufficient condition: I don't need make-up, yet the best time searching for it is never.
It's not a nuanced statement: I don't need a car now. Even if I could get a cheap car, it would be extra baggage and a distraction. I don't need it.
It's not that your advice is nonsense, I never said that ;)
Research on the poor shows that because they need money, they get stressed. I think the same applies for: funding, a job and a partner. It adds stress, which in turn, lowers one's decision ability. I presume you were hinting at this.
But then the statement doesn't become: "the best time to search for x is when you don't need it." It should be: "the best time to search for x is when you don't need it right now." Perhaps still a bit unnuanced -- improvements are welcome -- but your examples (funding, job and partner) implies that you'd need it at a later stage. Or perhaps better said, that is when it gets interesting. I probably can find the best make-up deal in town, because I don't need it. I also couldn't care less.
Additions and changes are welcome.
Rule #1, never get mad or upset at them by text. Ever.
Rule #2, never appear weak or unsure. Never qualify what you say.
Rule #3, girls 99% of the time respond but people get busy. Sometimes I want to respond to a text but I want my mind to be more clear or I get distracted. Or you just don't feel so social. Or you are depressed, sick, busy etc. Some are in school and working. Some have boyfriends.
Sometimes girls don't respond until the next day and occasionally they don't respond at all. But then just wait and in 1 or 2 weeks, send a friendly photo, casually invite them to an invite or say a funny joke or observation.
People get busy and a lack of response means nothing.
Also I like to invite them places or tell them what I am doing. But going out is a lot of energy and money. And some don't like crowds.
So at some point, you should be direct, or ask them on a proper date or what not. But never confide via text how much you like someone, unless you already hooked up.
And sometimes I'll send a dangerous text, like I told this girl to call me whenever she felt like being "dirty" with a bit of provocative language. She did not respond to it. But she responded and I just push forward. Never look back, never apologize (generally speaking).
There is no such thing as a friend zone. You can be just friends but occassionally flirt and don't diminish yourself as a sexual being. Lack confidence? Work out, take a class.
And if you don't look like Brad Pitt or aren't noticeably rich, the girls might not stumble over each other to get to you.
But you can get them. Girls don't know what they want, they are easily persuaded and lazy. (This goes for all people.)
I also met a dozen girls or so girls a week out in LA. I was going out almost every day and night though.
I also had a friend with a ridiculously amazing condo so I'd bring girls there. The condo didn't help that much but the confidence probably did.
Even with all this, it was exhausting and annoying to meet girls. 99% seem uninteresting and mean; only text me to invite them somewhere. And I was just friends with most.
I'm somewhat of a misanthrope. People in general are selfish and weird. Accepting people as flawed creatures and focusing on the positives have helped a lot.
Edit- Travelling and staying in hostels rejuvenated my faith in others. I highly recommend it.
I read it somewhere, so no credit, but here's a good one all around in the age of massive profiling and asocial media (or should it be ass-social?). Flip-phone. No really. like nokia circa 2000. Plug in to your computer to sync your contacs.
We make ourselves too available to the noise makers. What's on fb or that really matters to your happiness? Why pursue a relationship attempt with someone that cant be 100% available for a 30-secs phone call in crucial courtship phase, to book a date?
Disconnect. It's all fake. Go and meet someone at the local library. Or the laundromat. Give him/her 5 full minutes of undivided attention(until he/she pulls out his/her phone, less likely to happen in front of a stranger, especially someone that shows genuine appreciation) and find him/her 3 qualities. Say his/her name. You'll be surprised that meaningful relationship are easier to develop in this paradigm of constant partial presence/absence.
I love being married, but some of my friends would be miserable if they were. To each their own!
2) intentionally delaying the response just for the sake of making yourself more desirable sounds very manipulative to me, and I'd be very inclined to stop pursuing emotional connection with person who does this.
> A few months later I ran into Tanya. We had a lot of fun together and she eventually told me that she was sorry she didn’t get back to me that time. Apparently at the time she was questioning her entire sexual identity and was trying to figure out if she was a lesbian.
I had this, but slightly different, from the other side recently. Met this great girl, got on really well, talked on Facebook for weeks, there was definitely some of this "How long should I wait?" going on. But, unfortunately for her this coincided with me questioning my gender. As time was going on things were progressing well with her, but it felt more and more like I was lying to her and leading her on. I didn't know how to go about telling her, it's not the kind of thing you can tell someone you don't know that well, let alone someone you are flirting with... In the end I noobed out and stopped talking to her. I felt so guilty, I'm sure she was wondering what she did or said. I have since apologised and told her why.
> Well, that was definitely not a theory that crossed my mind.
I think that was pretty much exactly what she said.
She's sending mixed signals, which is human. Unfortunately, the author weighted the two disproportionally.
And if you think it's smart to deliberately model yourself on a neglectful, mildly sociopathic personality, shame on you.
Secondly, there are a lot of factors why people will not text you back. Aziz is basically trying to understand why a girl he hooked up with did not text him back. There can be SO many reasons why; but primarily, she was just not that into him. If she was, then she WOULD have found time. She WOULD have found his attempt to find common ground, to find something they both liked, charming.
As you said, there are a lot of reasons why she didn't text back and a lot are probably related to what he texted and her intensity for him but not necessarily how she feels about him.
People don't know what they want, are easily pursuaded and lazy.
“Hey—don’t know if you left for NYC, but Beach House
playing tonight and tomorrow at Wiltern. You wanna go?
Maybe they’ll let you cover The Motto if we ask nicely?”
2) He knew she enjoyed the music, they'd listened to it the night before. So while a concert is a time commitment, he at least knew it was one she might be interested in.
3) He gave her both that day and the next as options for the date.
4) He referenced both the music they'd listened to while together and her singing at the party. Reinforced the shared experience, and pointed out that he was paying some attention to her.
He did fine. See the note at the end about their second encounter when she said there'd be no games the second time around, and she went right back to it. The lack of reply was all on her, he did everything he could/should have done (much more would've been inappropriate since they didn't yet have much of a connection, and less would've been doing nothing which he'd likely have regretted for the missed opportunity).
That seems a bit childish.
Men initiating interest with women isn't a universal cultural standard and that's one of the places where women asking men out is much more common.
Even at crazy low success rate, it's still only a matter of time.
The flow chart for "Should I reply to this right now?" is pretty complicated; recovering that PGM is hard!
And as for signaling "busyness" -- that's better accomplished through delaying showing you "read" their messsage, no?
Is there a missing niche for a whatsapp wrapper that delays "read" confirmations by 3 minutes?
Perhaps it's the author's fretful nature and over analysis that drives women away?
I've found the following 'tactics' have worked quite well: - If you want to send a message, send a message. - If they don't reply, they're busy, or they don't want to speak with you.
How is it any more complicated than that?
If the person on the other side loses interests because you are indeed being yourself, take it as an advantage. If they don't want to make the effort in the period when they should make the effort, they've saved you time.
The flipside, of course, is that if you're somewhat like the author and have an fretting behavioural trait, you'll probably scare off a lot of people - which is still a good thing. The ones that stay are worth your time.
I wonder if there is a relationship between the two.
Not the optimal strategy, but I'm amazed that a ball of grains, dairy and fruits managed to get that for anyway, so everything is a win.
Women are allowed to call you too btw.
Read about Libet's experiments, sales techniques, anchoring, all that. Or meditate for a while and see what it does to your perception of yourself. We want to believe we're the bit of ourselves that tells ourselves what we are doing and what we will do, but we're all the rest of the wiring too and not a lot of that is fully under our control.
Maybe building a stable, committed relationship -- something that not all people want, by the way, and that's ok -- is an exercise in restraint and rationality, but immediate attraction and hookups? It works irrationally almost by definition.
Falling in love or feeling sexually attracted to someone are irrational things by definition. You do not decide to do it. You cannot force yourself to feel attracted to someone because they "play fair", either. Because of (reasonable) society norms, you cannot simply engage with everyone you're sexually attracted to -- it's not ok to harass fellow coworkers, or someone else's partner, etc. But the core of it is irrational. You cannot impose rational rules like "I'll pay more attention to people who text me back immediately or who are more considerate of other people, or who I agree with on serious issues, even though what I'd really like is to call X and do the naughty all night long".
However, I think you're missing the point: you can play nice (answer texts immediately) but you cannot avoid the irrational reaction of finding someone who immediately answers back less attractive (or whatever; if this isn't something you experience, substitute with whatever other irrational dating behaviors you do experience -- maybe you like cute smiles, maybe you dislike loud laughter that sounds like snorting).
Attraction is not rational. You cannot force yourself (or others) to be rational about it. You can choose to play nice, but you cannot choose to feel attracted to someone. Attraction and romance are games with bizarre rules, whether we like it or not.
I am assuming this is an iPhone "feature"? Creepy. Can it be disabled?
That said, it was creepy when I realized the only reason it was enabled on my ex-girlfriend's phone (she didn't like it and is tech-illiterate) was that her previous boyfriend had enabled it to see if/when she read his messages (creepy dude that'd send her flowers randomly two years after their break up, but she thought it was sweet and that they were "just friends", yeah, sure).
Uncertain reply-time-window dynamics enabled by the era of asynchronous/deferred indirect communication (aka "texting"/"emailing") create a situation where the psychological principles of the Variable Ratio Reinforcement Schedule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement) kick in, which, as it turns out, is the most addicting, thus creating the most drama.
I get that about right? ;)
Word to the wise (single men): Online dating apps put much more power into the hands of women than men. If you want to score something "out of your league," you're going to have to take a walk out of the ballpark, and get your hands dirty in the real world with some face-to-face time. Uncoincidentally, this takes advantage of another psychological principle, Repeated Proximity Breeds Attraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect)
It's because you have added nothing other that your own faked outrage at the legitimate use of scoring as a way to describe attainment of a sought after goal.
I want something that will make my heart race, something that feels real
So, not sure under what rock you've been. ;)
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22out+of+(my+OR+your+OR+the...
I'm 43. While this is no excuse, I suppose, I grew up in a time that was not as ridiculously P.C. as it is now. I find myself increasingly surrounded by this sort of sensitivity to any (even joking) conventionally-male analogies used when dating. I'm also a US Veteran and a member of a fraternity, two bastions of male-centrist worldview.
But also, just to be clear... Disgust is a non-argument. :P
My own question would be, why are you reading negative meanings into my words when positive meanings for the same context are available?
In that sense, a girl can "score" a guy too, it isn't sexist per se.
What's even more disconcerting is that the comment that used this expression has been voted to the top (though it is otherwise a very good comment), and comments taking issue with the sexist language are voted into oblivion (so far).
I can't say I agree with the choice you've assumed, though, between "language policing" a comment, and appreciating it for its substantive contribution. I think we're all sophisticated enough that we can recognize the substantive value of a comment, as I've tried to do, while also trying to suggest ways to build a more respectful community for everyone. In its best form, "language policing" will usually not be unconditional and vociferous condemnation, but rather a thoughtful sharing of perspectives and suggestion for incremental improvement.
This is the very ethos of this forum in so many other arenas--tech, business, often politics--but I'm often disappointed that the prevailing attitude here is so closed when it comes to issues of gender politics (for lack of a better term). Part of the issue may be that these issues are not always thoughtfully raised, and there can sometimes be an unwelcome tendency towards outrage (in both directions). But I think it would be a shame if we didn't keep trying to improve ourselves, and the tech community at large to make for a more welcoming community.
Edit: As others have pointed out elsewhere, one does not normally describe a relationship as "out of your league." That's a description typically bestowed upon people. I suspect this is why I and others have interpreted the comment they way we have. I don't think this entirely rules out the possibility you raised about the original commenter's intent, but I do think it means that my interpretation is probably correct--or at least eminently defensible.
I'd also add that the original commenter's intent does not matter much to me. I was never here to impugn his or her character in the first place. My point has only ever been that the comment, regardless of its precise intended meaning, reasonably communicates a certain disrespect for women.
This commenter, the type that is OUTRAGED by speech that hasn't been mangled to be politically correct, is responsible for muffling open and honest communication among people. Specific to this example, there is nothing wrong with the OP's use of scoring - the outraged expressed by the commenter above is basically trolling for a response by feigning outrage.
People should be conscious of the language they use, and create a welcoming community for everyone.
If "scoring" women wasn't intended in the context it is usually used in, "scoring" shouldn't be the choice of words and people shouldn't encourage it by upvoting a comment that uses words so poorly.
It's also possible that voters don't share your opinions about what sort of language is "okay" or "not okay". Which wouldn't surprise me in a community with diverse opinions.
The "mangling" of speech to be politically correct and the "muffling" of open and honest communications that some of us are asking for is just this: changing "score something 'out of your league'" to, e.g., "meet someone 'out of your league.'" I'm not sure why people see this as so hard to swallow.
There may be someone "trolling for a response by feigning outrage" in this conversation, but I don't think it's GP.
There are many people who are not sympathetic to calls for PC language, and including accusations of "insane chauvinism" isn't going to make them any more palatable.
Being right is not a substitute for being persuasive.
The use case for language is this: You have a picture or idea in your brain that needs to be transmitted over ASCII into my brain. The conventional symbol set for this use case are English words. A priori we received a dictionary of words and their meanings that we assume is identical to all parties. Trouble is that it isn't. IF and only IF the goal of BOTH parties is to reproduce the original message with highest possible fidelity, then the receiver will obtain a copy of the transmitter's dictionary, and use the updated definitions to reproduce the transmitter's message.
However if the goal of the receiver is to discredit the transmitter or distract from the point being made, then a great tactic, akin to DNS hijack, is to push onto all receivers an alternative dictionary to the one used by the transmitter. In this case the alterative dictionary elicits outrage, discrediting the transmitter, and hijacking the original discussion.
CNN, for example, their goal is NOT to reproduce with high fidelity what congressman X said, rather, their goal is ___ (insert: make it more entertaining, make it more newsworthy, make it click-bait suitable, keep viewers watching, attract ad dollars, curry political favor, drive their own agenda, etc). In addition to pushing an alternative dictionary, they can reinforce with cutting phrases out of context, using selective historical imagery and video, bringing 'experts' to present their views.
In summary I feel that HG was using an alternative dictionary attack (akin to DNS hijack), to distract from the substantive content in the OP.
1. What reason would HG have to distract from the substantive content in the OP's comment?
2. HG was not the only person who found OP's comment objectionable. Do we all have ulterior motivess?
3. There are, I think, objective reasons for finding parts of OP's comment objectionable, which HG, myself, and others, have thoroughly expressed elsewhere in this thread. Do you have a response to these substantive points, or are you merely concerned about HG's reasons for raising them (and, perhaps, his./her tone in doing so)?
I for one think that OP's comment is interesting, and I have no interest in distracting from its substance. But I do hope to point out how some unfortunate, casual choice of words may have inadvertently caused harm to other members of our community.
I'd also point out that, like the dictionary attack that you describe, baselessly impugning an opponent's motivations is also a tried and true tactic for distracting others from the substance of what they have to say, without meaningfully engaging with it.
The dictionary attack has been practiced in media for a long time. Watch a famous 50s news anchor interview an atheist author (I can think of specifics, but I don't want to bias you). Back then it was obvious they were distorting what the interviewee was saying. The viewing audience wasn't stupid, they were complicit because they didn't agree with the atheist. Today this goes on, and occurs so regularly that no one cares if someone deliberately misunderstands something in order to be outraged. Actually whats even more telling is that this technique is a standard way to "communicate" political messages - just watch the campaigners.
I learned this dictionary problem while managing a startup with some employees who used a different dictionary than I. I'd say 80% of the conflict at work was due I say X while the other understood X'
Really if I had a way to efficiently and reliably transfer images in my head into theirs we would have saved countless hours and dollars
... and you think that OTHER people are taking the thread off-topic and muting substantive discourse?
The problem is, there IS a double standard, as evidenced in many places, including this OKCupid blog post that was replied to me: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati...
That said, generalizing correlations of ANYTHING to gender and then trying to ACT on that, is, generally, a bad idea (just as it is to correlate with race or ethnicity or age or pretty much any other physical attribute).
Ideally, no. But men often use sports analogies when discussing getting a woman to actually date them, which is a quite difficult goal. I apologize for any offense.
> dating dynamics aren't meant to be a power struggle
Here you lost me. If you don't think there's often a power struggle in the early stages of dating, I don't know what reality you're living, because it's not mine.
No, online dating puts more power into the hands of beautiful/photogenic people than in real life, that includes men.
Your average woman will still have a slew of options and general choice in their partner from online dating. Your average man simply does not.
<parent>'s point still stands.
[0] Evidence, of course: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati...
Until that last sentence, I had to wonder what's wrong with people. Who enjoys these games? If I'm available, read your message and have time to answer, you'll receive an answer immediately. Pretending to be busy, upper hands - I get the idea, yet I really don't think it's preferable to being yourself.
That's quite interesting. Is this used anywhere else on the web?
So it's not letting you post (temporarily), instead of hiding your post after you have submitted it.
I don't know if anyone really does. However, like me, most people probably like to think there's a right way and a wrong way of doing this, and that it's not all just a random coin flip where the house always wins. If someone we're attracted to apparently dislikes us for no discernible reason, it's comforting to think it's simply because we didn't follow the commonly accepted rules.
Conclusion: I might not be the only person who has no idea what he's doing when it comes to dating, so a lot of us are faking it and hoping for the best.
That would only apply to procreation, surely, not dating.
Whether you're a lion or a gazelle, you'd better start running
And who enjoys running? Nobody. It's just the way things are. Sex is hard work, in any possible way, throughout the whole animal kingdom.
I've met people who enjoy these games as a source of power. They like knowing they have power over someone else and their emotions. What's perhaps most disturbing is that such games are them being themselves.
This didn't start with texting - phone calls, second dates, rules about a certain number of dates before sex. All bullshit.
People who play those games are not people who are good at dating and never have been. They seem to think everything is a power play, or a formula stat-keeping event. You can't build a functional relationship with someone you are always attempting to keep score with.