online dating/tinder/bumble/etc...

[longtail]

Based on the lack of content we've exchanged, if he's not attracted to me, and that's why he's not engaging much, then he's looking for an easy female, which I am not.

It's far too easy, as a female online, to head in with a heavy flirting hand, and reel guys in. To play to them by appealing to the promise/whispered promise of promiscuity. Foolproof, too easy.

I need cognitive engagement to partner with the potential d1ck.

That's the difference btwn me and Dave. I'm not all judgy on myself about OLD. This sh1t doesn't shake me

-You're a woman of a certain age.

-You say you are running into many men who are not engaging.

-You posted screenshots of your conversations where you flirt very obviously in a very sexual manner.

-You say you refrain from heavy flirting to reel guys in, yet you are engaging in heavy flirting and are unable to reel guys in.

This all suggests low SMV.

 

[bigdave17]

No, Dave. You think looksmaxing is hugely important, but you have no idea what a quality photo is or what it conveys. None.

I actually went to photofeeler to get ratings on older pics I used in OLD when I didn’t know any better. Those pics rated about the same as yours do now; mid and low 70s.

Today, I just bought a new phone that allowed me to download the Bumble app because my old phone didn’t support it. So I finally joined just a few hours ago. I used pics that rated in the 90 ballpark.

These are just 3 of just over a dozen matches I’ve made in a few hours. All 3 have started the convo.

I wasn’t getting these matches with subpar pics. I’m the same guy. No looksmaxing was required. Just better quality photos that WOMEN selected and rated for me.

View attachment 2013 View attachment 2014 View attachment 2015


“Looksmaxing” is a STALL TACTIC for you.


It buys you more time to avoid facing your fear of women


.

stall tactic? based on what? I'm willing to put in a lot of effort as evidenced by my 3 days of torture on OLD


I just don't think I'll get anything above a 70-80 right now with how I currently look. I don't have that super chiseled jawline that I'm sure Guru has

 

[bigdave17]

Did you ask that girl out yet?

I did and she hasn't replied back for 2 days now. Keep in mind she was the one who asked for number. Also she's given me a lot of hints that she's interested - asked me if I was okay going out with a vegan, asked me if I was okay dating somebody who was not big into fitness (I said "i don't care about that" to the first one and I lied on second one and said I was fine as long as somebody is not morbidly obese). I didn't go too strong in anything, just kept conversation light and didn't come on too strong but she has seemingly lost interest anyways.


Not that I care, only thing that appeals to me about her is her cute face. I don't like muslim women/families, I hate vegans and the fact that she is not into working out is a huge problem for me also

 

[bigdave17]

So she chats with you for days, you ask her out and she just ghosts you? Not even a yes or no?

Is that how it went?

Throw up a screen shot Dave. Let’s see where it went wrong.

correct. Before I asked her out, she asked me multiple questions to seemingly test if I was okay taking her out


but who the fck cares. I'm not interested in her. I would only go out with her as an experiment to help my dating skills. Maybe she smelled that out?

 

[guru1000]

@guru1000 the conversations run the gamut as far as dry to fun. At this point I realize that it takes 2 to tango. I vibe off the guys energy, and I'm sure, vice versa.

If I get substance, I can give substance and I do try. In order to get to fun and flirty, you need tangible information to play with/off of.

TBH this guy still isn't giving me much..... Most of them don't.

You sound a bit try hard in this exchange and are seemly giving a lot more than he is. This signals a red flag to him, as if you are such a hot woman, why the need to try so hard? Hot women who are interested will give you the bare minimum to work with, and if you don't lead, they simply move on.

@Amante Silvestre, I have talked to that girl (in Post 175) too. This one I didn't get out, but we have matched and spoken twice, LMAO

@bigdave17 , great news you buddy. You don't have to be a 9 to get a 90+% attractiveness score. Any man in this forum can achieve a 90%+ attractiveness score on Photofeeler.com if he takes enough photos. This is about consistent effort.

This is not rocket science. In the context of OLD, either focus on your photos and let the women come to you--or--spend countless hours chasing women and complaining on the forum.

 

[sazc]

-You're a woman of a certain age.

-You say you are running into many m upen who are not engaging.

-You posted screenshots of your conversations where you flirt very obviously in a very sexual manner.

-You say you refrain from heavy flirting to reel guys in, yet you are engaging in heavy flirting and are unable to reel guys in.

This all suggests low SMV.

Lol, that's heavy flirting?! Yeah, not at all. Nice try all in all tho

Interestingly enough, if I contemplate it, my conversations tend to fall all over the bell curve.

At the lower end, there are the guys who just aren't engaging for whatever reason. Busy, not interested, weary/questionable of any old interaction, just not finding a spark in our interaction.

At the Apex of the bell curve are the ones who are open to chatting, warm up, verbally discover and eventually ask for the meet.

At the other extreme if the Bell curve are the men who come on strong, out of the gate sexually.

It's difficult to assign "smv" when my experiences wildly differ as I have explained.

Not to mention, on old, "smv" is purely appearance based at first. If we ascertain smv on old via matches, then I actually have a healthy, solid, smv on old.

Once you move past the initial connect, it is up to the TWO people to make a better electronic chat connection. This is where I start my screening. Can he lead? Is he engaging? Are we having able to have a healthy conversation that is relatively full bodied? To me, this ability signals intent and lends towards the possibility of being able to enjoy each other's company. Sometimes that involves a little flirting, but most of the time (in my case) the healthier conversations are about two people looking for basic chemistry and compatibility.

Here's where it gets difficult. There's is a line where texting gets laborious and she will be rolling her eyes and wondering why you can't alpha the fuk up and ask for the meet. I rarely ask for the meet because I am looking for a man that is comfortable leading. I agree with the posters, if she's engaging, and responding, within 8 exchanges, ask for the meet.

Hopefully you guys realize that there are so many variables that are not in your control, you can't fault only yourself if all your old matches aren't drooling over you. It really takes two people, on the same page, in a good mindset, to make it successful. And even then you are not garanteed a meet will produce an irl match.

In my case, I've rarely met an OLD person who doesn't want to see me again and try and get something started. At this point I really feel as if my job is to do more good, than harm, on old

 

[sazc]

I sent an opening "hello" message to Johnathan, asking him what a serial comma was (it was in his profile)

"Good morning Johnathan, happy Thursday, hey what is a 'serial comma'?"

His reply?

"You misspelled my name even tho it was displayed within the window you were replying in?!"

I guess he spells it Jonathan...

My reply
"I just swyped it in, I didn't spell check it. To be honest, If your senses are really assaulted by a typo, this isn't a good match"

I'd post the convo but he already unmatched me.

So.Much.Fun

Legit guys...grass ain't greener.... Don't ever think that

 

[lamath]

I sent an opening "hello" message to Johnathan, asking him what a serial comma was (it was in his profile)

"Good morning Johnathan, happy Thursday, hey what is a 'serial comma'?"

His reply?

"You misspelled my name even tho it was displayed within the window you were replying in?!"

I guess he spells it Jonathan...

My reply
"I just swyped it in, I didn't spell check it. To be honest, If your senses are really assaulted by a typo, this isn't a good match"

I'd post the convo but he already unmatched me.

So.Much.Fun

Legit guys...grass ain't greener.... Don't ever think that

Some man like to play hard
But thats just rude.
Id not anwser him after the only thing he got from your msg was that you mispelled his name.
Lack of respect no reason for it.

Unmatch him 1st

 

[sazc]

Some man like to play hard
But thats just rude.
Id not anwser him after the only thing he got from your msg was that you mispelled his name.
Lack of respect no reason for it.

Unmatch him 1st

I never unmatch first. It's which for me to know I'm not going to pursue anything, I don't need the percieved emotional trump card of 'unmatching first'.

Not to mention, as soon as you unmatch, they can't click to see what you said. I prefer staying matched to ensure they see my reply AND to see if they happen to reply - because the responses can be ridiculous and confirm that they are a hot head/off their rocker.

I prefer to allow them the potential to respond, and then unmatch without acknowledging

 

[lamath]

I never unmatch first. It's which for me to know I'm not going to pursue anything, I don't need the percieved emotional trump card of 'unmatching first'.

Not to mention, as soon as you unmatch, they can't click to see what you said. I prefer staying matched to ensure they see my reply AND to see if they happen to reply - because the responses can be ridiculous and confirm that they are a hot head/off their rocker.

I prefer to allow them the potential to respond, and then unmatch without acknowledging

Idk but being rude like he was, i would not waste my time anwsering him

Tbh its just my opinion me and my 2 lifetime ltr
I never actualy dated any1
I probably need alot.more experience in those field

However OLD seems to me like a big wate of time

 

[HankHill]

@sazc - I agree with @guru1000 that at least a few of your msgs sounded standoffish to me but I thought it was probably just me reading them that way because of the context around them. I went back and looked at them again...the one to Jonathan was fine btw, he just sounds like an @ss. However, one thing that stood out to me was missing emoticons from you...as a guy I use them sparingly but even I use them especially when flirting otherwise things just don't come across right. Plus when women use them they just communicate a bubbly, easy going personality which is very attractive!

I wish I had saved screenshots of my past convos that turned into relationships but here are a couple of my most recent exchanges where these particular ones went beyond just the first, second or third dates. Another thing you'll notice in these conversations was that their responses were much longer and detailed which is an indication of high interest and why these worked better than many others that didn't. My msgs are in Blue, but on Bumble her msgs are in Yellow.

I'm posting these also for the guys because there's a lot of mystery behind what type of msgs work? Now I'm just an avg guy with avg looks but over time I've found what works best for me is small talk for the first few msgs and then (by the 3rd msg from me) I just ask them out. Once they meet me then it's just a matter of chemistry, if it's there great, if not, next...

 

[guru1000]

Here is how I schedule:

http://s682.photobucket.com/user/guru1000/media/IMG_6778_zpsyyst3vsf.png.html?sort=2&o=0

http://s682.photobucket.com/user/guru1000/media/IMG_67777_zpsncukpzaj.png.html?sort=2&o=1

1) I get straight to the point and ask for the date. I do this because connection via email/text means nothing if she is unattractive in person and thus a waste of time. The goal is to get to the date ASAP at my convenience to see if her in-person looks merit further attention;

2) I ignore her when it's not convenient for me to get together. I do this as my time and attention are scarce so I reach out when I have the time, and usually schedule for the same night;

3) This exchange spans several weeks as I am busy.

 

[lamath]

@sazc - I agree with @guru1000 that at least a few of your msgs sounded standoffish to me but I thought it was probably just me reading them that way because of the context around them. I went back and looked at them again...the one to Jonathan was fine btw, he just sounds like an @ss. However, one thing that stood out to me was missing emoticons from you...as a guy I use them sparingly but even I use them especially when flirting otherwise things just don't come across right. Plus when women use them they just communicate a bubbly, easy going personality which is very attractive!

I wish I had saved screenshots of my past convos that turned into relationships but here are a couple of my most recent exchanges where these particular ones went beyond just the first, second or third dates. Another thing you'll notice in these conversations was that their responses were much longer and detailed which is an indication of high interest and why these worked better than many others that didn't. My msgs are in Blue, but on Bumble her msgs are in Yellow.

I'm posting these also for the guys because there's a lot of mystery behind what type of msgs work? Now I'm just an avg guy with avg looks but over time I've found what works best for me is small talk for the first few msgs and then (by the 3rd msg from me) I just ask them out. Once they meet me then it's just a matter of chemistry, if it's there great, if not, next...

Youve mastered that msg/txt games
Insightul

 

[HankHill]

There are always multiple ways to skin a cat, I think it's more important to use the one that works for you. I've tried various approaches including @guru1000 's but more often than not that didn't work for me with equal or higher smv women because again I'm an avg looking guy (plus ethnic etc etc) unlike him (from what I hear). It's like Harvey Weinstein is a dirty pig for groping women but if Channing Tatum does the same thing then it's 'OMG he's so cute, he grabbed my @ss and somehow my panties came right off, oops! *giggle giggle*'. lol.

 

[sazc]

Thanks @HankHill

I kind agree that I probably sound standoffish to you guys b/c you've read me here but the "use emoticons" feedback is valuable.

Graz!

 

[sazc]

Most people aren't smooth conversationalists. Men in particular. They can tend to be clumsy with their occasional attempts to flirt or whatever, often miscalculating what is an appropriate response given the context of the conversation, and in these attempts they have often over-stepped, came on too strongly, or even in some cases too weakly, and they never hear from the girl again. This is especially true with OLD where it is more prevalent. A lot of men adjust to that by playing everything conservatively, sticking to the conversation without those fun and flirty tangents.

As I said elsewhere in these forums, many men join OLD because it can be a crutch that substitutes for their inability to be engaging conversationalists who can balance substance and fun/flirty tangents with good effect. This is probably why you experience these situations so often.

A man looking for the easy woman via OLD will much more likely be the flirtatious type, ramping things up more aggressively, rather than avoid engaging in such ways.

Other men looking for other things will still be engaging, in other ways.

Guys who give you little to nothing are just most likely devoid of the skills to do so, most particularly if they initiated contact and/or continue to make an effort to carry on the conversation without taking the bait of opportune tangents.

Good to know

 

[longtail]

Lol, that's heavy flirting?! Yeah, not at all. Nice try all in all tho

This is bigdave17 level denial, folks.

But yeah, your text messages reek of desperation and forced sluttiness. Which is unbecoming of a woman of your age. It's completely understandable given your SMV, but also a huge turnoff. This is why men are so uninvested in texts with you.

 

[RickTheToad]

I am no angel, but why does the OP start the same thread over and over and over?

 

[longtail]

You sound a bit try hard in this exchange and are seemly giving a lot more than he is. This signals a red flag to him, as if you are such a hot woman, why the need to try so hard? Hot women who are interested will give you the bare minimum to work with, and if you don't lead, they simply move on.

Of course, only a low SMV woman would do this. Someone very desperate to ensnare a man by any means necessary. A hot woman would not behave like this, especially online. All in all, the evidence clearly dictates that sazc is low SMV.

I set up accounts with multiple online dating sites: 90% of the female profiles are 30+ years of age. 80% are ugly. Very close to zero female profiles are in the 18-23 year age range. OLD is strictly for spinsters, hags, fatties, ugly girls, desperate single moms etc.

All of the hot girls are to be found on tinder and bumble to a degree. Even on bumble, very few women are under 25, and most are 28+.

 

[guru1000]

There are always multiple ways to skin a cat, I think it's more important to use the one that works for you. I've tried various approaches including @guru1000 's but more often than not that didn't work for me with equal or higher smv women because again I'm an avg looking guy (plus ethnic etc etc) unlike him (from what I hear). It's like Harvey Weinstein is a dirty pig for groping women but if Channing Tatum does the same thing then it's 'OMG he's so cute, he grabbed my @ss and somehow my panties came right off, oops! *giggle giggle*'. lol.

It's easy to dismiss my emails/texts, and other convos I had shared, with, "Oh that Guru, he has high SMV so he can get away with it." However, in these and other examples I have shared, these girls are 20 years younger than me within a similar SMV range.

When something is made to look easy, the inquisitive mind tends to discount it, as it operates outside of the reader's paradigms and previous experiences. However, if you look deeper at the email exchange, I'm bossing the frame. She responds, I ignore. I appear two weeks later, ask for the date, she responds, I ignore again.

This dynamic of her responding and my ignoring is what sets the precedence of frame in these exchanges. (This is one way, not the only way and certainly not done deliberately.)

When such a frame is ignited--although she has yet to meet me--I can boss the context and shape it in almost any manner I deem fit. Further, the actual meet is a layup and scores leagues ahead of any established rapport I could have potentially set, as frame holds greater relevance to how she perceives and values YOU (as she now KNOWS whom she is dealing with).

Frame. This is the greater message and IT operates outside the scope of SMV.