I'm sure that I have seen somewhere here before some hard statistics on where partners meet in Western countries – maybe someone still has a link. In spite of the existence of known meat markets, those meat markets are not the source of most of the population’s relationships. Instead, people come together through mundane things like friends of friends, people at work, people in the neighbourhood, classmates, etc.
If everyone spends a stupid amount of time with online dating then that's where a lot of the matches are gonna be even if it's not an efficient way to get that end result.
If couples are finding each other online more than they are elsewhere, then online matchmaking is outperforming offline channels.
Also note that when you go with a traditional "man is the provider" model, then being in an environment where men have demonstrated their provider ability is beneficial for both parties. For the women as the options are pre-filtered and for the men as there is less competition noise.
As for dating apps/online dating... if you look at user statistics you see a strong gender imbalance, so apparently men want to use them far more than women do. I've heard this situation expressed in terms of those apps being less appealing to women than they are to men. However, due to the imbalance, the premise of these apps is essentially broken for most male users.
I don't think they really do that "to get a man", though
I mostly go into and create circumstances where the same is true of the women, pre-filtered.
One thing I liked about being on my promoter acquaintances' VIP tables is that the women also at the table have been pre-filtered like 4 or 5 times before I ever see them.
1. State department ->
2. Host family (with heavy input choice by the husband) ->
3. Promoter ->
4. Doorman (who would definitely reject guys and gals alike, no matter what name they dropped) ->
5. me.
So yes in that environment, there is also even less competition noise amongst men, because we wouldn't ever fight over a woman given the quantity and only chuckle at our predictably similar preferences if a pattern emerged. But, the selective evolution at play is much more extreme than the general population or the rest of the club.
and yeah, that also allows us to inherit the social validation and assumptions about our ability to provide that many women would also look for, which would be convenient enough to never think about. In quantity, some people are just more forward and assertive than others, so with a lot of women now competing for attention instead of men, this has been a much more optimal use of energy for men. Occasionally relationships are nice too, this wasn't about that.
"Getting drunk with friends" is an in-person activity. The point isn't getting drunk, the point is to socialize with barriers of anxiety and inhibitions lowered.
There are plenty of people who want to ensure physical compatibility for a long term relationship as much as emotional one. Society deems one "shallow", but for many people sex is a crucial aspect of any relationship, and just because they are willing to sleep with someone liberally does not mean they are also not interested in something deeper.
I'm assuming it doesn't mean being capable of basic sexual activity, because that seems like a given for 90% of potential couples. I.e., not something you'd really need to "test".
And if it means "capable of giving each other a really enjoyable sexual experience", I wouldn't think that's something you can falsify in just 1-2 dates. Because there's a learning curve, and that takes (among other things) time and practice.
My broad point was that it's not universal. And for a lot of people "sexual chemistry" is something they want to evaluate from the very beginning. Even they will probably admit that it takes more than 1 or 2 attempts to validate.
You can't easily tell whether a car will get better or worse the more you drive it, but you can tell when a car is immediately fun to drive. Start with the car that's fun to drive and hope it gets better (with proper care and maintenance) not worse.
I would suspect that more than 10% of women complain about a male partner being unwilling to perform oral sex on them, or bad at it, even though this might be very important for them and the main way they can orgasm. Men, too, complain about women’s ability or receptiveness to things they need for satisfying sex.
As for the drinks, you can get a mineral water with lime if you need a drink in your hand.
The point of the cover charge for men is to: Increase the barrier to entry, keep the riff-raff out and maintain a certain level of male clientele. This improves male to female ratio, improves the likelihood of females attending because they have better environment (you should love ladies night- you are paying for the club/bar to set out the bait) and better options to pick from. The higher the cover the less likely you will get into a fight over talking to the wrong girl.
I used to hate cover charges but then I realized like most people I got it all backwards. It's only desperation if you pay the cover, buy the drinks, only to not take proper advantage of it.
Wow. This is the first time I've heard anyone express this concern.
It boggles my mind that anyone would care about being seen without a drink in their hand.
What consequences do you imagine will come from that?
I trick I learned long ago at house parties or BBQs is to drink one beer, then constantly re-fill it with water for the rest of the time. That way I have something to hold onto and a way to entertain myself where there is a lull in conversation or whatever.
If you are just walking around without a drink, then you're stalking/leering.
Of course it's much more nuanced than that - you can look like a lecherous creep stalking woman with a drink in your hand just as easily.
But that would be the premise: With a drink you don't need anything else to have a good time, you're already "doing something". Without, you're literally trying to fill a void.
Is this how you think of others, or do you imagine that's how they think of you?
For me, whether or not someone has a drink in their hand, if they're in a party or a club or a bar they're all doing basically the same thing: wandering, listening, looking to meet and talk to people.
I really don't get why holding a drink would change any of that.
Having some other activity involved (having a drink or otherwise) lowers the stakes when interacting with new people.
Most of human interactions is a facade of some sort. Smalltalk, icebreakers, most of early dating, even most professional conversations.
I know introverts and folks on the spectrum find this intolerable. But it's the foundations of human society.
You can hate it, but hating it will only make you angry. Instead, treat it like a game. There are many games you can play in the world to deal with something painful or frustrating.
If you're stuck trying to fall asleep, you pretend you're counting sheep jumping a fence.
If you're stuck in traffic, you try to guess which lane might be moving faster and make micro optimizations to get their faster.
If you're stuck looking for a life partner in a social setting, the game is act like you don't need one, that your life is fully complete without them, and that you don't care about any one specific given social interaction. Of course, the best way to play that game is to actually live that authentic life. But we all fail at hiding our emotions and true intentions in one way or another. So we play games to camouflage it like holding a drink and acting like that's all that we need to be engaged and interested.