Are Dating Apps really that bad right now

[GoodMan32]

My online dating app rejection rate was huge compared to daygame - roughly speaking 6 times higher - morale of the story is real life always counts for something and as someone who met his girlfriend from daygame I can’t stress enough the importance of putting yourself out there consistently and not being a slave to an algorithm

The last woman I had free sex with (I met her offline) certainly looked a lot better than the 8 month girlfriend I got from POF. You're probably right.

 

[GoodMan32]

You can also get struck by lightning during a rainstorm.

Piss poor analogy.

Doing something "wrong" when approaching a broad is far more likely.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

Plus, approaching a broad in a "creepy" manner is only one scenario he mentioned. He also mentioned the scenario of approaching the "wrong" broad (I take that to mean a taken broad). Even a neurotypical isn't going to know off the top of his head if a broad at a party is taken (unless he knows her...or unless he sees her and a boyfriend together at the party)

The thing about making a solid approach is to not directly ask a woman for the horizontal mambo.
I know that runs counter to the DJs here who think direct approaches work better than indirect, but I tend to do neither. How I interact with a woman depends on the interaction. Socially calibrated men don't just start talking about sex and intimacy, they wait to escalate with sex talk until the woman shows clear signs she's sexually interested.

When you are a sexual person, women can 'smell' it on you and they already figure why you are talking to them. Experienced versatile lovers are rare and women will instantly know when they're in their presence. It shows most often in what is often called 'confidence', these people are comfortable in their skin, move leisurely, radiate calmness and alert detached observation.

One of the reasons I don't get 'rejected' is because I don't show my cards until she shows hers. I won't escalate the conversation sexually before she does. When she shows sexual interest, I will tease her with innuendo, but I'm not eager to engage, so they have to put some effort into getting my attention and (sexual) validation.

So when a woman falters in conversation and I lose sexual interest in her, I just don't escalate, even if she does. And if she does I can signal non-interest without 'rejecting' her directly. And if she doesn't escalate, she's either not into me and/or already taken with someone she doesn't want to cheat on.

So, I don't have to know whether the woman I interact with is seriously involved with another man. Either she's interested and escalate by sending me signals that I can escalate too, or she isn't interested for whatever reason.

 

[GoodMan32]

The thing about making a solid approach is to not directly ask a woman for the horizontal mambo.
I know that runs counter to the DJs here who think direct approaches work better than indirect, but I tend to do neither. How I interact with a woman depends on the interaction. Socially calibrated men don't just start talking about sex and intimacy, they wait to escalate with sex talk until the woman shows clear signs she's sexually interested.

When you are a sexual person, women can 'smell' it on you and they already figure why you are talking to them. Experienced versatile lovers are rare and women will instantly know when they're in their presence. It shows most often in what is often called 'confidence', these people are comfortable in their skin, move leisurely, radiate calmness and alert detached observation.

One of the reasons I don't get 'rejected' is because I don't show my cards until she shows hers. I won't escalate the conversation sexually before she does. When she shows sexual interest, I will tease her with innuendo, but I'm not eager to engage, so they have to put some effort into getting my attention and (sexual) validation.

So when a woman falters in conversation and I lose sexual interest in her, I just don't escalate, even if she does. And if she does I can signal non-interest without 'rejecting' her directly. And if she doesn't escalate, she's either not into me and/or already taken with someone she doesn't want to cheat on.

So, I don't have to know whether the woman I interact with is seriously involved with another man. Either she's interested and escalate by sending me signals that I can escalate too, or she isn't interested for whatever reason.

In that case, there have probably been instances where a broad thought I was signaling non-interest (because I failed to escalate), when really I merely wasn't aware the broad was into me.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

In that case, there have probably been instances where a broad thought I was signaling non-interest (because I failed to escalate), when really I merely wasn't aware the broad was into me.

I doubt it, because you're not a chick magnet like @Hamurabimbi

 

[Hamurabimbi]

I doubt it, because you're not a chick magnet like @Hamurabimbi

I wish.

 

[Hamurabimbi]

The thing about making a solid approach is to not directly ask a woman for the horizontal mambo.
I know that runs counter to the DJs here who think direct approaches work better than indirect, but I tend to do neither. How I interact with a woman depends on the interaction. Socially calibrated men don't just start talking about sex and intimacy, they wait to escalate with sex talk until the woman shows clear signs she's sexually interested.

When you are a sexual person, women can 'smell' it on you and they already figure why you are talking to them. Experienced versatile lovers are rare and women will instantly know when they're in their presence. It shows most often in what is often called 'confidence', these people are comfortable in their skin, move leisurely, radiate calmness and alert detached observation.

One of the reasons I don't get 'rejected' is because I don't show my cards until she shows hers. I won't escalate the conversation sexually before she does. When she shows sexual interest, I will tease her with innuendo, but I'm not eager to engage, so they have to put some effort into getting my attention and (sexual) validation.

So when a woman falters in conversation and I lose sexual interest in her, I just don't escalate, even if she does. And if she does I can signal non-interest without 'rejecting' her directly. And if she doesn't escalate, she's either not into me and/or already taken with someone she doesn't want to cheat on.

So, I don't have to know whether the woman I interact with is seriously involved with another man. Either she's interested and escalate by sending me signals that I can escalate too, or she isn't interested for whatever reason.

This.
I was on the subway last week and saw a girl who was pure, raw sex. She looked like she could fvck someone in half. She was pretty 6-7/10. But it was the primal sexuality she gave off that was overwhelming.

 

[Gamisch]

Dating apps are hyper efficient for a small percentage of men. It's possible that you are part of that small percentage.

For many men (and not even the top tier men), there is an illusion of efficiency in apps. It's easy to believe in this efficiency in using tech-based date arranging methods. Many men are sitting at home in their underwear/comfortable clothing and doing the swiping/messaging. Doing this starts to look really good if you do something like go to the mall, 1-2 grocery stores, or outdoors for 1-3 hours and don't arrange any dates.

There is an appeal in the idea of sitting at home and arranging dates. This trend emerged in the 2010s prior to the pandemic but pandemic lockdowns bolstered this. 1980s-1990s born people have been more tech dependent and not that excited about doing real world things.

You were speaking about effort, not efficiency. And yes, there is an illusion of efficiency. "Look, I'm going to take a dump anyway, might as well use that time efficiently by checking profiles on Tinder." No mention here of whose profiles you are perusing, since everybody pretends to be something they're not, plus most of the women aren't the people you'd really want to date.
The time people spend swiping and posting on social media could be spent way more efficiently, but that would require actual effort.

As to a reward for all that swiping, most men experience a cheap dopamine rush equal to reaching a new level in a computer game, so, hey, there's your 'reward'.

On this forum, the main goal shouldn't be to encourage guys to use dating apps. The reason the 'dating marketplace' is in such a bad state is because low-effort 'efficiency' seekers ended up massively embracing the dating apps to the detriment of learning how to interact with women. This forum aims to help men with dating and interacting with women. Not how to 'beat the algorithm' and 'game the app' into finding dates. Threads like these should move to Reddit.

Fcuk dating apps. Go out and talk with people. Learn how to be really social, not the social of 'social media'.

Have to read through everything, but couldn't wait to respond to this convo.

The effort he might mean is: you THINK you will just sit at home and swipe and that's it. But then...you get almost no likes. You don't wanna "power" swipe so you swipe like a good boy to not upset The Algorithm God. That hb8? Nah,left, she would never want me...* MATCH MISSED*. what? You just swiped left on your future ex wife..

So you pay..maybe those other 3 matches are equally high quality. You pay ,see who matched you and guess what? A 65 y.o bald woman and a tranny liked you.

So you "investigate " what you do wrong. You land a youtuber who will tell you the following while filling up a wipeboard: you should put in EFFORT.

You gotta be "that guy" . So you
hit the gym.
Buy new clothes.
Rent a car
Take a trip to a place you'd never go
Do something crazy like bunny jumping.
Step in the ring at 36 for the first time
(The best) hire a professional photographer who will make 1000 pictures so you can pick 2 good ones( fresh and fraud advice)

Effort effort effort. Because you see, dating guru will tell you that you can't join the conversation unless you've put I'm ALL this effort.

That's a side effect of OLD nobody talks about. Its like a party ,you have to pay for the ticket ( subscription) ,but to be a looker at the party will take MANY thousands of bucks.. it starts as swiping conveniently at home but escalates to a mission that costs you thousands and thousands of euros.

 

[jamesfromhouston]

@jamesfromhouston dating app = singles bar. Anyway you spin it, fat girl and shy guy won't get laid.

I guess you'd call the app shagshack, and do face verification, allowing only pictures through phone camera taken live as a selfie. No fee 90 days. Men & women would be presented with a selection of 10 choices, absolutely random, not based on interests, so long as they weren't presented with same choices before. To see the next 10, man would have to message at least 1 girl and get a response. For a woman, to see the next 10, she'd have to reply and strike a conversation with at least 1 man that messaged her. There is going to be chat Ai that determines if conversation has taken place or it was some BS mutterings.

This actually sounds pretty good. Making both men and women accountable and sincere in their approach towards dating.

The first moves that most women made on Bumble tended to be low effort, such as sending silly gifs and typing two letters of "Hi". Sometimes they might do "Hi First Name".

You're right. But this is how I see it: most OLD women are seeking validation rather than anything else with you. The key is to weed out those who have actual IL for you. Other OLD apps do not force women to begin the conversation except Bumble. Of course the first message does not in itself indicate IL but it does weed out those who are clearly not interested at all because IL is represented by effort on their part. It's an important funnel.

My personal approach and thought about it is this: 1) they message first, 2) I reply and immediately ask them out or exchange contacts, 3) if they respond favorably and with compliance then I know there is interest on their part. Anything else, they are just wasting time and trying to get your attention.

On other OLD apps, women never message first because they don't have to based on system design. In a situation where they are not forced to open and pursue those they're into, they usually won't. Most men will then find themselves spamming "hello's" with little result of securing anything substantial.

I personally think men should be proactive in pursuing but in the world of OLD, women are so pedestalized that it can be frustratingly ineffective. I also truly think that we should only pursue those with interest and the biggest issue with OLD is detecting and confirming interest.

But like I mentioned recently in another thread, Bumble has since changed its system, now women don't have to message first, effectively removing this important dynamic.

-

I think a good OLD app has to make it so that interest levels are consistently conveyed and detected, to separate time wasters from others and also to force women to approach online dating and online communications more sincerely rather than being pedestalized and entitled.