An online dating site for ugly people - welcome to reality
theuglybugball.com
theuglybugball.com
If this site becomes known, I could see it being used as a mean insult where someone sends a message on a dating site, and the reply includes a link to TUBB.
Someone needs to start a "rich but ugly" site, that would be a winning proposition for both genders, albeit a fertile source of disappointment to anyone who paired up.
Men's accounts would be prohibitively expensive, something like $250 a month.
The site would be promoted to women by going to clubs, bars, etc with women (on a per city basis, probably starting in NYC, Boston, etc) and giving them something of a 'golden ticket' to signing up. ie, the invitation itself would be proof of attractiveness and would an invite would therefore be desirable.
Eventually women would be approved by some sort of crowd sourcing or just editorial control.
I think wealthy men, even if they have no problem getting laid, will still find a lot of value in a large selection of women in a market that is artificially in their favor.
#1. Most ugly people don't want to date someone else ugly. This is especially true for men, who typically care far more about their mate's appearance than their own.
#2. Most ugly people aren't conscious of their ugliness, or if they are, they at least aren't comfortable enough admitting it to sign up for this service.
2- I think we will see lots of decent looking people signing up because they think "in a pool of ugliness I will beauty queen", and that will help. For example in the latest members section, the girl on the top right is not ugly.
#2 People of all levels of attractiveness are able to measure other people's attractiveness on the same scale with relative accuracy.
Dan Ariely has a very good talk on this over at bigthink.com:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/20752
Given this, I think stratifying dating sites on attractiveness would actually improve successful match rates. Whether you can do this all in one site or need to create stronger logical boundaries is really a matter of implementation.
If people consistently rate your photos higher, after the ratings clear a certain threshold, the system considers you "attractive." The system sends you an email congratulating you and about how "you'll be shown more attractive matches from now on."
For example, fat women have the whole BBW (Big, Beautiful Women) movement and guys who love that. Same with gay men and the 'bear community'.
Even geeks get to take advantage of being 'adorkable'.
Having a huge birthmark, or cross-eyes, or something else that sets you apart from the 'average' person may be considered ugly, or just strange. I don't see any people on that home page that I would call ugly.
Also, I think that people who believe themselves to be less attractive generally try harder. :)
So, yes, I think this site is a great idea!
I have no idea, but at the very least I'd expect the people there to not be so focused on optics. Despite it all, my own self esteem isn't actually low, I'm just aware of a few shortcomings...
> I'm sure the female that you mentioned has low self esteem.
Probably, but it also taught me something important that I hadn't thought about before, because I hadn't even considered that getting a message from me would maybe confirm the doubts a person has about her own looks.
That was after I concluded his test with a normal-sounding profile.
I once had a girlfriend who I did not like, shallow as a wading pool. I made a bet with a buddy of mine that not only could I get her to break up with me, but I could get her to sleep with our other buddy (who was in on it).
All I had to do was have a crisis of confidence in which I was no longer decisive, confident, surly arrogant in a humors way. No, I was spineless, Lilly-liveried. All the things my buddy was not, and I made sure to talk about how cool he was all the time, how he got all the girls and did I mention how cool he was.
The buddy I made the bet with was floored at the surgical precision of the whole event and also at how so spiteful and hateful that she became towards me in the process. The events unfolded at my birthday party in which she slept with our friend in his bedroom. They talked for a little while, got up right in front of me, with no respect and no regard, went into the bedroom and shut the door. The buddy, I made the bet with's jaw was on the floor. I was smiling like the cat that ate the canary and everyone at the party is looking at me like, dude did that just happen to him.
The thing is just as a beautiful woman sets of a chain of bio-chemical reactions in a mans brain, a alpha male does the same for women. So being a strong (not just physically) man is far more important than looks. It is the reason women are attracted to older men, they generally exhibit more of the Alpha traits.
The best advice I can offer someone who feels that they cannot get a beautiful woman is to work on their confidence. Just as a woman can augment herself to be more attractive so can a man augment himself to be more dominate, not in a beat you wife tell her what to do way, But in a win friends and influence people kind of way.
Tip #1 is dress sharp, the cloths really do make the man. You don't have to dress up but dress sharp. It is a male boob job, women don't look at a mans face they look at his cloths, his shoes. How many times have you heard a woman say they love a man in uniform, there is a reason? You would be surprised what looking good with a little bit of style can do for your confidence. It makes you walk different, it makes you talk different and women have years of adaptation that pick up on these little nuances.
On a darker side note, if we take it for granted that both sexes prefer attractive people in equal measures, there appear to be crass differences in other expectations that depress me somewhat. For example, what I find attractive in a woman: - good sense of humor - being nice and constructive - intelligence and wisdom - adventurousness and a sense of wonder - creativity - good sex and a sense of intimacy
...contrasts pretty sharply with what women want in men: - assertiveness and dominance - always puts himself in the best light - money and good clothes - adherence to tradition / gender roles - perceived aura of success
Well, it may be polemic, but you can see the different qualities at work here. The worst thing is, I'm beginning to see my past relationships through that lens and I honestly cannot tell anymore if it's just the resignation talking or if this is actually how the world worked the whole time.
Being a jerk is not a precondition to being an Alpha, it is just a low-brow way to play the mating game. While it works it is crude and unrefined. Kind of what Cutty Sark is to Glenmorangy. While it gets the job done it by no means covers the nuances of refinement, it is an amateur approach at best. If you want to look at an example of what a true Alpha looks like watch a Bond film with Connery. He exemplifies a none wife beater, wearing, Camaro driving Alpha. I mean if you truly break it down is the Camaro, woman beating guy, getting the kind of girl you really want. When one breaks it down past the instant chemical brain pop of hell yes, the answers is no.
Now you don't have to be as swave as Bond but there is something that Connery exhibits well, the kind of guy women want to be around, the kind of guy that is in control, and the kind of guy that can get things done. There is nothing wrong with being this guy, they are really happy people, they don't feel like it is a chore.
The thing to remember is the like beauty the air of being the Alpha is only the ice breaker, it may get you into a 2 month relationship but like all other things it fades, other mental processes take over, things like compatibility become more important, but yes a good deal of women will become dissatisfied if you become a whinny, needy boy (you is meant in general).
The harsh reality though, is that men are more disposable, there are winners and looser and the winner takes all in the mating game. But attractiveness for men is by no means a prerequisite for being a winner.
Nah, she said, it's just because men in uniform are clean and employed.
# Once with an ugly partner it is unlikely that anyone will try and take them from you meaning you can let yourself go completely once you’re together.
# In these straightened times TUBB is cheaper as a) We don’t charge much as the pretty sites and b) Ugly people have lower expectations – for a first date A Family Bucket will usually do the trick.
from the whitelabeldating site -
> "WhiteLabelDating.com provides the dating software, membership database, payment processing, customer support, hosting infrastructure, tax processing and much more. You provide your brand, website design and marketing and we do the rest."
What about levels of ugliness? Scale from 1 to 10 or like maybe in levels of "bags". The stereotype that the uglier you are the more bags one would need to put over your head before they would "do you"..??
Like a double-bagger....or a triple bagger..as an example.
Then maybe you say call someone a "f-ugly double bagger" and it might be considered a compliment in the goals of this site!
The dating game in this country is broken, as evidence I point at the 50%+ divorce rate.
I propose a better solution. One where a dating website has "ground rules" that if you break, you get three strikes and your out. Rules like you have to respond to the suitor with a reason why you are incompatible. Rules like if you are chronically offending other people, you get restricted rights. If you are beautiful and get hundreds of messages and don't respond to any, you get removed from search. If a suitor comes up, fitting all your criteria for a date, and you don't like them, and can't quote a reason why you don't like them, you get a emblem on your profile that says: "Profile criteria inaccurate, this person doesn't have any idea what they want". Which would encourage one to actually put down what they want in the mate, instead of the fluff that women/men actually put down.
This article describes many of the failings of the current dating website methodology and how it could be improved: Hi, I want to meet 17.6% of you: http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/19/14192...
Dating? I'd rather say, marriage.
That stat is always brought up as proof of the failure of marriage. To me it validates marriage.
Seriously, if you told a computing engine that two people committed to each other (often when young), and they always had the option of saying adieu, and asked what percentage would over the entirety of their lives, it would probably estimate somewhere in the 100% range of people wouldn't stick it out.
Just look at the evidence: How many people stick to anything they commit to, much less something with a commitment often greater than 60 years.
If almost half of marriages remain, that is just shockingly high.
http://divorcelawyersknoxville.net/true-divorce-statistics-h...