Hacker News Reader

Comment by ebrowndowntown | Hacker News Reader

As a 30-something year old woman on Tinder I agree. Among my female friends, everyone is sorting through Tinder for relationship-signaling behavior. What does this mean? Clear pictures (hopefully one in a tie), a witty tagline with correct spelling and grammar, maybe a dog or picture of you doing something you are good at (i.e. surfing, dancing).

Men might try to use Tinder for hook-ups, but the higher quality female users sort out male users who project this image. I would 100% rather swipe right on a bald guy with a picture of him dancing with his niece at a wedding than with a muscular 25-year old taking a shirtless selfie in a dirty bathroom mirror.

I think that's what the original article gets wrong. Men who can signal their potential as a good mate on Tinder get matched with higher quality women, even those who are more attractive than them.

View on HN

I am a 30-year-old man, healthy, moderately attractive, athletic, intelligent, and this frightens the shit out of me.

I am very relationship-minded, but after having a couple of very long-term relationships that began online, I am seeking some damn serendipity for the next relationship. The thought of women swiping (either direction) in response to some fleeting half-glimpse mostly based on how well I could choose photos that overstate my attractiveness is seriously a distressing idea.

The shift in the way people perceive online dating stresses me out. In general it makes me feel that I would not be considered or evaluated in serendipitous real-life encounters, because everyone has filed away "dating" to be "that thing I screen for on Tinder." People you meet in random circumstances, and who might strike up a conversation about going on a date, are now universally panned, perhaps because there is a risk factor with meeting a stranger that way that feels mitigated on a platform like Tinder. But whatever it is, it means that non-empty, substantive, 3-D interactions out in the real world are heavily discounted compared to what I really feel are hollow, checkout-line-candy-bar low-substance representations of our selves (e.g. Tinder profile, OKCupid profile) ...

I'm very secure with being alone, so I think my only realistic hope is that later on, maybe when I am 35 or maybe when I am 40, some single women in the age range I am seeking will stop viewing it this way, and someone they happen to meet when they are out doing something will again be evaluated as a possible partner. I've more or less resigned myself to being alone and missing out on sexual opportunities between now and then. I don't consent to being evaluated the Tinder way ... and I'm just gonna go ahead and keep on not consenting to that.

I can only speak about the male perspective on this ... but I imagine the same would be true for females, except that it seems likely that a higher proportion of male Tinder users are seeking casual sex. As a result, something like Tinder is well-suited to women who either do want casual sex, or who want to screen against people seeking only that. It doesn't seem to offer reciprocal utility for a male in my situation.

I think I'd feel less stressed if everyone was just using Tinder for casual sex.

It's probably just torschlusspanik anyway O_o ...

"The thought of women swiping (either direction) in response to some fleeting half-glimpse mostly based on how well I could choose photos that overstate my attractiveness is seriously a distressing idea."

If you like having lots of women around, this same concept works outside of apps, in the physical world.

Yes, it is distressing if you aren't interested in doing that. People eventually want the luxury of not being judged this way while having the emotional attachment to someone.

For most people, it's far more difficult to successfully fake substance in the real world than on Tinder.

> torschlusspanik

What an awesome word! TIL that it's German for 'gate-shut-panic', [1] or 'fear that time is running out' apparently. Literally the feeling that medieval peasants had when the castle gates were closing for an upcoming onslaught by enemies.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Torschlusspanik

Interesting, because the modern usage is more from the perspective of the onslaughting invaders, panicking that the gate may close before they arrive.

Dating has always been annoying. For guys, pre-internet dating heavily, heavily favored the outgoing and macho. Does this sound like you? Finding single women was at least as much of a chore then as now, and unless you were something of a pickup artist, it was just as awkward actually initiating a relationship out of the context of a few circumstances where introductions are easy (parties, a bar scene, etc.).

Also, consider how scripted and industrialized the quest for "serendipity" actually was - for most people, it amounted to an otherwise boring trawl through bars often devoid of anyone attractive to you.

I can't really comment. I hate traditional parties and bars and just don't go to them. Small parties with friends who are verifiably not loud and obnoxious are good, and so are dinner parties. Basically most generic group interaction modes are just loud and dumb. No thanks.

I go to quiet cafés when I want to think or relax, and mentally I'm not in the headspace of evaluating mates. I guess I'd be open to a woman who made the first move in that situation, but I don't expect it. Even when I go to concerts, it's generally (shock) to listen to music, and I try my best to tune out the existence of the crowd.

The point of serendipity is that it happens when you're not trying to make it happen. By definition, if something is industrialized and scripted, it's not serendipitous. Trawling bars or going to a party with explicit goals to evaluate potential mates is totally the opposite of what I'm talking about, and things like Tinder, while reducing some up front costs (you don't have to physically go anywhere, you don't risk in-person rejection, etc.), are like hyper mega on-steroids version of trawling with explicit mate evaluation goals.

I'm not sure I agree about the macho comment either. In my experience, trying to win the affection of intellectual women, humor is by far the most critical thing.

Here's a DFW quote that has meant a lot to me regarding my modern understanding of the personal importance of serendipity:

"Both destiny's kisses and its dope-slaps illustrate an individual person's basic personal powerlessness over the really meaningful events in his life: i.e. almost nothing important that ever happens to you happens because you engineer it. Destiny has no beeper; destiny always leans trenchcoated out of an alley with some sort of Psst that you usually can't even hear because you're in such a rush to or from something important you've tried to engineer."

> Small parties with friends who are verifiably not loud and obnoxious are good, and so are dinner parties.

Seems reasonable. I'm all about being as committed to my personal life as my work and I make those dating apps WORK for me. I am talking 1-2 dates a week when I'm in search mode.

But I met my current SO after I went climbing with my friend and he invited his housemate along. Within a day I knew I was at least somewhat interested, but there was another man partially in my friend group I was interested in. Within three weeks the other man had done something that killed my interest and the climbing man had consistently impressed me.

So I made a move. Tada, two years later we're living together and happy as clams.

There's something to be said for the pre-filter of friends that I find can't be matched yet with online algorithms.

I agree that friend networks can be a good pre-filter. Unfortunately for me, I live pretty far away from my closest friends, and I may be moving even farther away, so it has been hard. Once I am settled, I will have to invest in finding more friends in order to have the network. It's easy to let the salience of online dating seduce you in this kind of situation though ... but really it's like going for a candy bar when you need a meal.

I find your wording very cute: "the climbing man had consistently impressed me" -- I'm imagining some kind of Tarzan character who happened to be out with you when all sorts of freak occurrences happened that were perfectly suited for climbing: getting a cat out of a tree, getting a ball back for some children, getting back into an apartment when you've locked yourself out.

It's funny, when I read "the climbing man had consistently impressed me" I had a completely different image in my head. Rather than a show-off, I imagined a polite and friendly man, that showed genuine interest in the poster, struck up conversations about interesting topics, etc.

It's quite weird to me that the unusual adjective 'climbing' had no impact on the way you pictured it. Of course your description is more likely the real outcome, but it's a very unlikely immediate picture to have when the person describing it is making use of a bespoke aspect of the person (that he climbs) as the primary means of identifying him.

I just realised that a bunch of people I like are into rock climbing, which might be the reason for the different association I had. Climbers are nice people, in my experience.

I agree, and a number of my grad school friends were into climbing. I would never have identified them as "the climbing man" or "the climbing woman" though, since it was just one aspect of their personality. If someone had introduced one of them to me as "the climbing man" then the climbing stereotype would have obviously had some effect on my perception.

>Within three weeks the other man had done something that killed my interest and the climbing man had consistently impressed me.

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly did the other guy to do kill your interest?

>Even when I go to concerts, it's generally (shock) to listen to music, and I try my best to tune out the existence of the crowd.

Haha, this reminds me of a concert I went to in Manhattan a couple of years ago, for a German metal band from the 80s. It was a pretty small venue, the total crowd was less than 500 (I think the fire marshall's sign said max capacity of 450), and as you might expect for a German metal band, the crowd was overwhelmingly male. So I stood near the back (since I like to do that, I'm not into mosh pits) and saw two women come in together. Unlike the men who were obviously all there to actually see the band, and who were using their phones to take pictures of... the band, these two women took selfies of themselves with the band in the background, then promptly went over to the bar to troll for men. None of the men seemed too interested in them...

How do you spend your free time? Are you part of a community? I'm thinking of things like a charity, or a rock climbing group, or a choir, whatever interests you. Spending time in a social setting like that is a sure way to get to know new people, and I know many people who met their partners like this (and even if doesn't work, you'll spend your time doing things you like anyway)

I took a swing dancing class once on the advice of friends who said I needed to join some social group for the purposes of meeting women.

Most of the participants were men doing the exact same thing. Most of the remaining participants were married couples. Perhaps young, single women are aware of when they might be walking into an ogling trap?

The main thing I learned (apart from novice swing dancing) was that joining up in social groups for the explicit purpose (or even partial purpose) of evaluating potential mates is inefficient.

There is another aspect of this that I legitimately want to ask questions about: what do you do if all of your interests are male-dominated, and you're seeking a female partner with characteristics anti-correlated to those types of interests?

I'm not just talking about preferring some male-dominated things, and needing to try new things. I'm talking about already having tried lots and lots of things and learning that, after years of reflection, the only things you actually enjoy just so happen to be male-dominated. (Basically, I'm saying the excuse of "try something new" is not applicable in this case).

For me personally, one of my greatest recreational hobbies is to play very complicated, strategic board games. I love playing immersive games that take many hours to play and require fairly intensive level of thought and focus. I grew up playing competitive chess, and I have always just had a really deep seated fondness for this type of game, even from a very young age. I love the idea of having a partner who likes it as much as I do, but after years of going to board game meet-up groups, university game clubs, and playing with my extended network of friends, I have not ever met a female who enjoys these games anywhere close to the level that I do.

In terms of athletics, I mostly like to do long distance running and weight lifting, both because I tune everything out and have "introvert time" -- definitely something I don't want to share with a partner. I also love to play squash which is unfortunately a very male-dominated sport.

I love hiking and camping -- but what is so funny is that you can take an activity like hiking and just add one tiny variation to it to turn it into geocaching, and now suddenly it is a male-dominated "nerd" hobby with a very negative connotation when dating.

Hiking == good, rugged, self-reliant, healthy

Geocaching == dork, lame, anti-social, takes too long

Sigh, it's all about status.

I also enjoy recreational software development, which again is heavily male-dominated. Even the interests I have that skew on the more popular side of things, like Premier League football or certain obscure corners American humor, tend to be male-centric (e.g. how disappointing that the subreddit about Earwolf's Hollywood Handbook is so male-dominated!).

Yet I consider myself extremely willing to try new things. My interest in feminist literature was piqued once after reading a Slate Star Codex post, and I went off the deep end reading every highly regarded piece of feminist literature I could for months. I have gone through long patches of life when I am pseudo-religiously focused on yoga and meditation. Animals are a hugely important part of my life, particularly cats. I mentioned taking a dance class.

I'm not going to win awards for being the world's most well-rounded guy, but I try hard to challenge my perspective and explore new things. And even still, the God's honest truth about who I really am inside is that I just so happen to be most passionate about a bunch of hobbies that happen to be male-dominated.

Probably the singular interest I have that is widely shared with women is that I love cooking and spend a lot of time perfecting recipes and cooking unusual things. But I am vegan and a lot of that has been motivated by my desire to never sacrifice the tastiness or desirability of my food just because I am vegan -- and so even this makes people uncomfortable.

The uncomfortable truth as I have grown older and become more comfortable about understanding who I really am is that I just simply don't share hobby interests with very many women. I would prefer to meet and share relationship experiences with more women, but I have adjusted to accept that dating life for me means long periods of being single punctuated by opportunities to date those extremely rare women who happen to be interested in or at least curious and tolerant of my interests and personality. They have been amazing women ... but it's still not the ideal.

Maybe if you like yoga, try pilates. Only one time in my pilates class has there been a guy. I've also heard barre is pretty these days and I think that's also mostly women and maybe similar to yoga.

If you like hiking, there's a ton of meetup.com groups for that which seem to basically be singles' mixers.

OK. I've seen this work so often, but it could be that this is not efficient if you are actively looking.

I think I understand your dilemma with male-dominated hobbies. Most of the things I do are male-dominated as well. I met my girlfriend in high school, and for a long time it annoyed me that she showed little interest in my stuff. Until at some point I realised that it's not necessary to like all the same things. It doesn't matter that we are different in many regards; over the years we've still found a lot of things we both like, and deep down we seem to have a similar world view despite being superficially completely different.

So maybe you should stop looking for women that are similar to you, and accept that your future partner will not care about the majority of your interests. At least in my experience that's really okay; as long as you have respect for another.

I don't mind looking for women who are different from me. Some of my previous girlfriends were very different from me and we got along very well.

I wrote my reply based on the claim that I should join some social groups or something to heighten the chances of randomly meeting someone new.

If you assume that is the way to do it, then the dilemma is (a) it's not very efficient because most people doing the activity aren't really a good match and are just trying to do the activity, and (b) all the activities that actually make me happy are male-dominated and even anti-correlated with popular depictions (depictions that are borne out in the data too, e.g. when OKCupid posts their data) of what women want in a man.

If you disregard the suggestion of needing to use social hobbies as a means for finding a date, then I agree with you, and finding people who are different from me has been the primary way in which I have had previous relationships.

At my local university, there is a salsa dancing group that meets every week, and goes on outings to clubs regularly. There seem to be 4 girls for every guy. The guys have to timeshare across different girls, and of course girls end up dancing with each other much of the time.

i'm 32m. in my mid-late 20s i spent 4-5 years online dating - i really put in the effort and time, and i got laid a lot. however, in the end, i found that i'm not really the relationship type. and getting laid a lot, once you get over the initial novelty and thrill of it, is kind of boring. it just becomes a giant blur of faces and nights out.

it's just too much work, for not enough payoff, and i'm also too picky about my mates. i found that the women i attracted really didn't add much into my life, nor did the actual companionship. i found it to be much like a 2nd job to maintain a relationship and the expectations that go along with it. i already have a job, i don't need a second one. maybe that's my problem, but it is what it is.

i plan on retiring somewhere cheap and warm in my 40s or early 50s and not really bothering with mortgage or family or anything.

personally i think a lot of guys are like this, they just don't talk about it because the social expectation of career/family/mortgage is too strong.

Similar feelings here, although I've been married for a number of years. It took me a long time to figure out that "that's just what you do" (dating and marriage) maybe didn't always mean it was the best thing for each individual.

Although relationships are very difficult, I think it's probably beneficial for me to have a wife since she keeps me from entirely isolating myself from all human contact and also creates "excuses" for me to experience things I otherwise wouldn't (like, let's go to this play or that ballgame, where just me I'd never just go myself). Plus we can be there for each as we get older.

I applaud you though for being able to see through social pressure and figure out what you want in life. I think you're right about people not talking about it.

Amen to your post beachstartup!

"Why do my eyes hurt?"

"Because you've never used them before..."

Have you looked into the MGTOW community? You sound just like them. They are smart guys, but they get a lot of shit because they push back against those exact social expectations that you talk about.

i've read all the same material as everyone else. i wouldn't label myself anything specific though.

Sounds like a whole lot torschlusspanik. But you've already pointed that out. Look, you've got a lot going for you except your outlook on how you think the dating world is going to perceive you. I've never really understood why apps like Tinder are labelled shallow, when in actual fact they mimic life more accurately than, say, OKC for example. IRL,I imagine, that you like the way somebody looks before saying hello to them, then you start talking to them until they do something weird that disqualifies them or they do something that you really like and you take it further. I think Tinder captures this model of interaction perfectly. In real-life 3D interactions, nobody is walking around with a bio with their hobbies,likes, dislikes and pet-peeves. Tinder may be scary because it so perfectly captures reality in it's raw unfiltered form. Anyway, I don't think I'd be able to convince you that you would probably do quite well in the dating world and that there really is nothing to be so besorgt about. I don't think people's views on dating have shifted that much even though the method of introduction has. You should go out and just test your assumptions and find out that many of them are really quite unfounded.

>but I imagine the same would be true for females, except that it seems likely that a higher proportion of male Tinder users are seeking casual sex.

No, this isn't true at all for females (I have no idea about males, I don't look at men's profiles). Women who are 30+ on Tinder are NOT looking for casual sex. source: looking through probably thousands of women's profiles in the 30-45 age range.

I'm really getting sick of these meme about Tinder being for hook-ups. It's only the 18-25 crowd that's like that. Stop generalizing the entire adult population based on what college kids are doing.

Huh, kind of OT, but I had no idea that it's spelled Torschlusspanik. In Switzerland all I ever heard was Torschusspanik (as in "die Angst, den Ball rechtzeitig ins Netz zu bringen", which incidentally also makes the same kind of sense). Well, TIL.

Which part of Switzerland? -- I might actually be relocating to Switzerland for a job. If I do, I would be relocating to the St. Gallen area. Do you know if this is a reasonable area for a dopey American with extremely limited German abilities to get by OK? Is St. Gallen a reasonable place for a young-ish adult to live, or extremely boring? And how do you people in Switzerland get anything done on Sunday when everything is closed?

Your website https://upyourtindergame.com/ - Are you a Tinder consultant?

I am. But I came across this thread and wanted to share my experience and what has been shared with me by women in several focus groups.

I don't have the experience of being a man on Tinder, but I can tell you from my experience that most men don't market themselves well. My approach is for guys to show what makes them unique, via text and pictures.

As for the arguments above, 1) about how girls say they don't like muscle selfies, and then do like them, or 2) about how girls don't like guys with dogs--honestly, its each to their own. I think its better to display things that are reflective of your personality than to show pictures designed to impress girls. So if you and your dog are inseparable, show that--they girls who like cats will find someone else, and you'll find your dog-lover.

If you represent yourself accurately and make the selection process as transparent as possible for women, you will have success on Tinder. This optimizes the problem for women, which seems misplaced given that women already have an abundance of choice. It's designed to whittle down the field for women. For most men, the field is more barren and a different strategy makes more sense: appeal to as many women as possible, get your foot in the door with an actual date, then let your actual interaction determine further outcomes.

> I don't have the experience of being a man on Tinder

I think this is the fatal flaw. I'd value the advice of a man who looks like me who has managed to be successful on Tinder 100x over any woman's. He has faced the same challenges as I, you have not. It's the same as talking to a white person about racism, or trying to discuss gender privilege with a man. The privileged can speculate on the difficulties of the less privileged, but has never felt them. The gulf in life experience has an enormous effect on quality of advice.

Women do not have an abundance of choice. There are more women than men in the United States. In major urban areas there are many more mating age straight women than men. When you look at the number of college educated straight women compared to their male cohort in urban areas, there are more women. This is reported, often, in the media.

Women in their thirties circulate these articles around their friend groups via email, and they are met with scared-face emojis and nervous laughter. There are more of us, which puts the odds in men's favor. We are not the privileged.

So, being that there are more eligible women than there are men (and not just us 30-somethings, there are more younger women out there too) doesn't it make sense for a man to try to find the best partner for him from all these options? Studies have shown that shared values and personal goals forge the best relationships. So why would men, who have the advantage of choice, go out with just anyone? Why not try to connect with the best match for you? Someone you think is attractive and shares your enthusiasm? Being transparent allows for more authentic connections.

I'm not just talking about relationships. If you're looking for something casual, I think your profile should reflect that. Then you meet someone who isn't looking for a relationship right now. I think this is more ethical than getting your foot in the door with a woman who is looking for a relationship, then leaving her broken-hearted when you move on three months later.

There is lots of information out there about how guys are successful on Tinder. From what I've seen most of it seems to be from the PUA perspective, which relies on chipping away at a woman's self esteem, and games. That brings a different result than the approach I take.

>Women do not have an abundance of choice. There are more women than men in the United States. In major urban areas there are many more mating age straight women than men. When you look at the number of college educated straight women compared to their male cohort in urban areas, there are more women. This is reported, often, in the media.

This is absolutely incorrect. Actual numbers are irrelevant, what's important is experiences. Talk to actual women using online sites and find out their experiences. My ex-wife, just after we decided to break up (but before actually being divorced) got on OKC and was absolutely bombed with messages from men. She had a bunch of dates, no bad experiences at all, but basically got overwhelmed with all the attention and shut it down for a while. (Then she ended up meeting someone through a friend and they're a couple now.) Men just don't have this experience, unless maybe they're over 60 or something. Ask any man if he gets a lot of action on online sites. They don't, unless they're a very rare minority who's very successful for some reason. The frequent complaint on OKC is that they write a bunch of long, thoughtful messages and get no responses.

You're looking at the absolute numbers of women and men, but that assumes that they participate in online dating in equal numbers. I think that's a completely flawed assumption. Men have long been more likely to participate in online dating, and women have long been far more wary of it. Also, I think a lot of women simply avoid dating altogether in their 30s because they have kids.

Finally, you're flat wrong about women in urban areas. It's well known that single women outnumber single men in east coast cities (esp. DC and NYC), whereas the reverse is true in west coast cities (esp. SF/SV and Seattle). Men and women don't work in the same industries in equal proportions, and certain industries are concentrated in certain places (e.g. tech in SV, fashion in NYC).

>Women in their thirties ... There are more of us

This is flat wrong too, if you look at population figures. Men outnumber women from birth to about 30 (children are more likely to be born male). Around 30, the numbers become equal. Women don't really outnumber men until after 40 or so, because men die earlier than women usually.

>If you're looking for something casual, I think your profile should reflect that. Then you meet someone who isn't looking for a relationship right now.

You obviously don't talk to many 30+ women, and you obviously haven't swiped through thousands of women's profiles. There are zero women like that over the age of 30 on Tinder. There's a tiny number of swingers, and that's about it. Everyone else says "no hookups". (I'm not looking for something casual, I'm just pointing out the fallacy here.)

>There is lots of information out there about how guys are successful on Tinder. From what I've seen most of it seems to be from the PUA perspective, which relies on chipping away at a woman's self esteem, and games.

Yeah, and that information is being sold by people who are trying to profit off that advice; it may or may not be correct. But if it is, that really says something about women, doesn't it? Actual research (by OKC's data people I believe) has shown that women are frequently dishonest about what they want and what attracts them (and not just dishonest with men, but dishonest with themselves too). If women really were repulsed by PUA tactics, then they wouldn't work, would they?

> children are more likely to be born male

Wait, what. What I remember from biology classes it's that it's 50/50.

Nope, go Google it. For humans, it's something like a 1.07/1 male:female ratio, IIRC. Sorry, I don't have a link handy.

> So why would men, who have the advantage of choice

this made me laugh out loud.

for any men reading this -- do NOT listen to a woman, no matter how logical her advice may sound, when it comes to dating advice. just don't.

You say men are still looking for attractiveness, and women are still looking for stability? Imagine that. Glad to hear Tinder hasn't uprooted our most basic animal instincts.

Great point. It's also telling how you offhandedly refer to "everyone" of your female friends sorting through Tinder - another thing the gp poster misses is how strong the network effects are! I've been off of it for 2 years, but even then, Tinder had quickly become basically the only game in town. For almost all single people I've met in recent years in a variety of communities (college/grad-school aged, many professional circles) it's just the default method of dating.

Yes, absolutely. Other apps are promising--especially Bumble--but Tinder has the quantity. If dating is a numbers game, you're more likely to win on Tinder.

My main problem with Bumble was the lack of women on it (small network). The "women start communication" part was interesting, but ultimately frustrating. I'd have a dozen matches, and one would talk to me, maybe. I think this is going to turn more men off the service in the long run.

Yeah, I've basically given up on it. I'm not convinced that there's a single real woman on there actively, and I have some girl friends that are on there.

But is that really a different experience than messaging a dozen women and getting, maybe, one reply?

Yes. At least I've done something more than just swiping and tried to reach out on the other platforms. It's still frustrating but not as bad as seeing dozens of potential connections made and then slip away before even a single word is said.

I'm a woman and I tried Bumble but no one matched with me. For that reason, I think other apps are better.

Bumble has the problem that women treat it like Tinder - swipe right once in a blue moon and wait for matched men to make the first move.

"Men might try to use Tinder for hook-ups"

that's traditionally what it's been for. The "long term relationship" crowd has literally every other dating app out there, but so many of them flooded onto Tinder to "just give it a try" that it changed things.

"but the higher quality female users sort out male users who project this image"

That comes across as kind of... snobby?

"maybe a dog or picture of you doing something you are good at (i.e. surfing, dancing)."

you'd be surprised how many other women complain about guys doing just that in photos.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions. Traditionally? Tinder hasn't been around that long. I think of Tinder as a marketplace, just like a singles bar--some people are there to hook up and some people are there for a long term relationship.

I'll take the criticism on labeling females who are looking for long term relationships as "high quality." I'm not judging anyone's motives. But I will stand by the sentiment that people are sorting for matches that meet their goals, and many women have #relationshipgoals.

The women who complain about guys doing things in their photos don't have to match with those guys. They can match with non-dancers, non-surfers.

>that's traditionally what it's been for.

No, that's what it was for, and still is for, for the 18-25 crowd. When the older crowd started using it, their interest was different.

>The "long term relationship" crowd has literally every other dating app out there, but so many of them flooded onto Tinder to "just give it a try" that it changed things.

No, it was the 25+ and especially 30+ crowd flooding onto it that changed things.

The reason they like it is because Tinder works better for both men and women. Men hate traditional dating sites because they spend all kinds of time looking through profiles, then writing messages, only to get no response. Women get overwhelmed on those sites by all the messages from men they have zero interest in. Tinder solves this problem by forcing both parties to respond affirmatively in order for communication to proceed.

>you'd be surprised how many other women complain about guys doing just that in photos.

I have no idea what you're complaining about here. I mainly look at 30-45 women, and they love pictures of men with dogs, and frequently say they'll swipe right just for a picture of a man with a dog. Sucks for me because I like cats and not dogs, but oh well. And women typically love dancing, so that's not going to repel them either. What they do complain about is shiftless selfies, selfies in the car, selfies in the bathroom, headless torsos, and pictures of the guy with a bunch of women.

> No, that's what it was for, and still is for, for the 18-25 crowd. When the older crowd started using it, their interest was different.

That's an assumption you're presenting as if it's a fact.

> No, it was the 25+ and especially 30+ crowd flooding onto it that changed things.

Again, an assumption. I'm not wrong in what I said.

> I have no idea what you're complaining about here.

I'm not complaining about anything. What I'm saying is that for every man or woman you see complaining about things in profile photos, there's another man or woman that loves it. I've seen plenty of female profiles on Tinder complaining about pics of guys with animals.

That's one of the things about online dating, though - people are clearly having different experiences. Neither of us are wrong.

No, anyone who generalizes Tinder across all age ranges is wrong. That's what I'm pointing out. I've never seen any woman complain about guys having pics of animals. But if you've seen that, and you're looking at women aged 18-25, then of course you're going to have a different experience than me, because I don't look at those women. And you're not going to see the same things as me if you're not looking at 35-40yo women. What 18-25yo women do or like is completely irrelevant to me, as what 35-40yo women do or like should be completely irrelevant to you.

lol, are those really the pictures that women want?

This sounds too much like the stereotypical stuff women want and less like actual things a individual would consider worth while.

30-something.

Astroturfing doesn't work as well when your profile links to your financial motivation.

As a conventionally unattractive guy (short, non-white), Tinder has been abysmal for me. Match rate of 2/500 swipes, back when the auto-swipe apps worked. And then most of the most matches were horrifically unattractive. OkCupid produced vastly higher quality matches for me, probably because the profile text and questions let me expand on my personality more. I used the same photos on both profiles. Tinder seems only useful for conventionally attractive men. I have never gotten a Tinder match who was remotely more attractive than me, but I had plenty on OkCupid and a few on Bumble.

Also, regarding the shirtless selfie. It's highly effective for men who have muscles: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-4-big-myths-of-profile.... This is in line with the old male chestnut "what women say they want is not what they want," women strongly side toward only vocalizing preferences that reflect well upon them.

You're not alone. This short non-white guy has also found Tinder abysmal and self-esteem thrashing, with only a couple matches after hundreds upon hundreds of swipes. (Unlike your comment, I won't dismiss those matches as unattractive, which would be unfair, but the fact that the very few matches I have gotten have been the same color as me suggests to a paranoid mind more than just coincidence regarding all the other rejections...).

Like you, I've had much better luck with OkCupid, which makes it distressing that the online dating population in general seems to be shifting from OkCupid type sites to Tinder type ones.

> with only a couple matches after hundreds upon hundreds of swipes.

This isn't you being ugly, this is you misapprehending the math. a couple matches after hundreds of swipes is regular average successful male mating behavior.

Hmm, OKCupid seemed to have a much higher reply rate---something like 30-50%. (But haven't used for three years, since I'm not single anymore.)

2% response rate on advertising is considered good.

I feel like the message about sexy abs in this ok cupid post is more in line with the old saying "if you've got it, flaunt it." They even say, "We would never suggest to a Fitzgerald or a Dave Eggers to limit his profile to 100 words, and so why should guys with great bodies keep their best asset under wraps?"

Having a six-pack reflects a certain kind of lifestyle and certain values. Being witty in a profile or conversation or showing pictures of you engaging in things that are meaningful to you convey a different set of values. I don't know your experience, but I do believe that showing your personality via any dating app delivers better results.

As an early-40s man on Tinder, I don't look at other men my age to see if they're looking for hookups or not, but I very, very rarely see women on there who are, and those who are tend to be younger (less than 30). Most women, especially the 30+ crowd, specifically say "no hookups" in their bios.

However, I don't get many responses or matches, but I think that's mostly because of my distance. I only look for women who live over an hour from me, because that's where all the desirable women live, but they don't seem to be interested in dating a man that far away. So I guess I'm stuck being single until I can relocate myself closer.

I wonder how large part of "No hookups" is to avoid solicitation and requests for prostitution, as opposed to a genuine wish to avoid hookups.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com