Got an online dating profile? You should read this...

[Masculinity]

When I thought AFCs could not get any more emasculated or bend over backwards, an idea to test such thoughts crossed my mind. In hopes of finding the truth and having some fun, I ran an experiment to test how desperate (or not) men really are online. And the results are amazing.

Method:
A female online profile was created on OK Cupid (OKC). The following images were used to represent the confederate female in search of a mate: Image 1, Image 2. The test was fairly simple. First, I wanted to explore the number of electronic messages an attractive female may receive in a period of 60 minutes. Second, I was interested in the contents of such messages.

Results:

A total of 194 men visited the confederate profile within sixty minutes of its opening. Out of these men, 67 submitted messages expressing interest in the confederate profile: Image 3. Out of the 67 men who demonstrated interest, 42 initiated contact through simple, one-line messages (e.g., hi how are you, what's up, hey, how's your weekend, etc." Sixty three out of 67 men complimented the confederate's sex appeal/beauty in their first message (e.g., wow, you're beautiful, you are gorgeous, I would love to have your @ss in my face); three men sent clever messages that related to the woman's profile, behaving as "the prize of the chase," (e.g., I am not sure about you. Whenre are you going to take ME out to?). One man asked to marry the woman in the confederate profile and two (different) men agreed to engage in bisexual sexual intercourse in hopes of mating with the confederate female.

Discussion:

The above results confirm the commonly held idea that online dating is an ineffective way to meet women. If the test profile received 198 views and 67 messages over a period of 60 minutes, it can only be speculated that a multitude of men ought to message attractive women online over a longer period of time. Another factor that may be in place is the safety net that online dating provides to ameliorate the effects of rejection in person. Last, the emphasis of the present experiment was to demonstrate the extreme competition that men face in online dating. There is little published research on online dating, as the overwhelming majority of investigations are used for corporate purposes. The present experiment should remind its readers of the importance of approaching women in real-life scenarios and the devastating effects of approach anxiety. It is only a matter of time and more research until the social effects of online dating can be more thoroughly understood. Until then, it appears that online dating may yield minimal results relative to the investment of time it entails.

Note: the present experiment is for entertainment purposes only Although it was conducted using the scientific method, it is not to be interpreted as a scientific study; no statistical tests or replications of the study were conducted to increase the inference of its results. Nevertheless, I encourage you to replicate it and find out by yourself!


Knowledge is power. All comments are welcome.

-R

 

[BeDJ]

Did it feel weird to have dudes hitting on you?

 

[MaddXMan]

How many times has this been done now? We get it. If I'm gonna waste time ****ing around with a fake female profile then I would do like NN said, and message lesbians to get hot pics. Then again, it's not like the Internet isn't full of free lesbian porn anyway.

 

[dasein]

All I learn from things like this is that almost all of the noobs contacting women on OLD sites are no competition for me at all, they literally put the women in my bed with their schmo one-line approaches and compliments. Hell, let -more- of them write to the women I approach OLD, just makes me look better in comparison.

Almost every woman gives you the keys to a getting a reply from her in her profile and pictures. These keys take two minutes to find, even the subtextual ones, and five-ten to put into two paragraph email form. Your phrasing should get her to at least look at your profile, every single word or sentence of which should be crafted towards the response, "this guy looks like a fun date who is above me in some definite way(s), and not likely to be single long." Fun factor + social value + scarcity + baseline attraction in the pictures = OLD success.

An admission, I haven't done OLD in four years due to business and career issues and goals, but I doubt much has changed. It's like any other learned skill, takes practice and smart as opposed to hard work to master.

 

[Big Nuts]

I met and got 2 BJs from a 47 year old pof chick a month ago....as we sat there sipping our beers, her pof icon on her phone just kept lighting up...in 4 hours she had 115 messages. I joked around with her about the absurdity of that many messages while a good looking guy is lucky to get 5 messages a week.

47 year old, with an 8 body, 6.5 face....115 messages.

Men are savages....this is why if a girl shows interest, close fast and furiously as she will have a ton of options!!

I saw it with my own eyes...115 messages in 4 hours!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[skinnyguy]

POF/OKC are huge joke because they are free.

With Match, you are 1) Weeding out the broke losers/thugs 2) Attracting the more qualified women, not sluts or attention *****s and 3) Increasing the likelihood of a relationship and not a booty call.

I'm going to join Match pretty soon. I tried EHarmony but it was pitiful.

 

[GS750]

Match is pretty good. I used it a few years ago and recently signed back up. I was surprised at the number of hot women who use that site. The quality has def gone up.

 

[Zarky]

The above results confirm the commonly held idea that online dating is an ineffective way to meet women.

Define "ineffective." Online dating costs a guy nothing. Going to a bar or club or any other venue besides the street or a mall ends up costing you something just to be there.

A halfway attractive girl gets hit on dozens of times a week. If she's in a club she'll get hit on dozens of times in a night. How's that much different?

If you mean it "takes a lot of time" then yes, that's true. If you have a ton of money and no time, then it would be ineffective. I have a ton of time and no money, so it's highly effective for me.

Perhaps you mean "inefficient." I would agree that, time-wise, it's a very inefficient way of meeting women. Or it used to be before I started cutting and pasting intro emails.

Every post I've ever read on this site or any other that berated online dating never gave any alternative with statistics. Now that you've got your statistics for online dating, why don't you go to some clubs and note the following stats:

1) How long you waited in line
2) How much you paid to get in
3) How long you had to wait for drinks
4) How many more men there were than women
5) How much you spent on drinks
6) How many women you approached
7) How attractive they were
8) How many blew you off
9) How many you f*cked
10) How much you spent on gas to go to these places
11) How much you spent on a decent wardrobe to go to these places
12) How many drunken chodes bumped into you
13) How much spilled piss you stepped in in the restrooms

Then compare the two dating methods and we'll get some real information.

 

[Betterz]

I have more success online than in clubs. Clubs are cold and hard and b1tch shields are up. When I meet a girl for a date I know it's already on; I just have to show her I'm interested intimately then i close easily.

 

[MaddXMan]

Online has been great for getting dates with women age 37+. And I get a good response rate so can be selective in who I message, and I get women messaging me first - not a lot, but a few each week. Usually after 3 to 4 weeks I am hiding my profile as I am spinning enough plates.

I use match and what I notice is spring (March, April, May, June) is the best time for online. During those months match seems to pop with new profiles. Fall and winter, it's pretty slow.

 

[MaddXMan]

Just checked my stats on match.com, have been on 3.5 weeks now.

Inbox: 98

Sent Messages: 131

Profile viewed 509 times.

Not a bad response rate.

 

[Solomon]

Online dating sucks

If you mean it "takes a lot of time" then yes, that's true. If you have a ton of money and no time, then it would be ineffective. I have a ton of time and no money, so it's highly effective for me.

Perhaps you mean "inefficient." I would agree that, time-wise, it's a very inefficient way of meeting women. Or it used to be before I started cutting and pasting intro emails.

Every post I've ever read on this site or any other that berated online dating never gave any alternative with statistics.

Zark I'm curious why have you dodged my question in the other thread?

The reason why guys on here berate online dating is because for most guys it doesn't work!
Nor is it worth the effort for reasons such as OP describes as well as the type of women you tend to meet on average online (which are bottom of the barrel)

It's simple as that, guys have been led to believe that if online dating doesn't work it's because their "Game" or "Profile" isn't good enough. Online dating is all about looks or attraction First and foremost, if a guy isn't good looking to a girl(noticed I said to a girl not in general since looks are subjective) he is gonna have tough chance getting his foot in the door. Online I get rejected by 4's and 5's while IRL I have no problem going on dates with women that are 7s.

The truth of the matter is women have the upper hand in online dating. For every women there are 4 men. With these odd's it makes it hard for the average guy to win.

This women would never get LOOKED AT TWICE in real life but online, she has all sorts of men. Good looking men too who are willing to lay with this wilder beast(CAUTION THIS LINK MAY CAUSE NAUSEA)

^^^This is the reality of online dating, the guys that I do know are successful (when I say successful I mean banging 7+'s on the regular) with online dating are extremely good looking have high status or both.

The only quesiton that matters is this

Are you banging/dating/meeting women who you wanna meet?

For me the answer was NO, I was not meeting nor banging the women I wanna meet online. I've done online dating for a long ass time, and I've slayed my share of cuties and whales (not gonna lie). But the reality is I knew the type of women I could get IRL, online dating this type of women does not give me a chance. Is it because of my game? NOPE there is a couple reasons which I don't wanna get into because I don't wanna start a flame war (being minority is a huge one, minority don't do well online IRL that's not always the case).


http://www.thejourneyofsuperman.com/2012/04/how-superman-became-evil.html
^^this article is spot on about what I just mentioned

The truth is IRL I can showcase my personality, "Game", presence a lot better

That's what it came simply down too

If you're banging the type of women you wanna bang online KUDOS to you but for the average (or most guys) they're not this is the reason for the backlash of online dating

 

[Stagger Lee]

You make some points. You picked bar/club to attack as an easy target when field approaching can conceivably be done most anywhere even while going about your other business.

1) How long you waited in line
Usually not long or not at all
2) How much you paid to get in
No shortage of places to go with no cover. The better online dating sites charge. I won't include internet and data cost but it is part of online dating generally.
3) How long you had to wait for drinks
Usually not long or at all. Besides waiting for drinks at the bar is a great opportunity to talk to girls.
4) How many more men there were than women
First answer me how many more men are on OLD site than women? Even worse they are all "approaching" females much more than at a bar.
5) How much you spent on drinks
I try to keep it under 2 drinks and about $10. There's no requirement that you have to buy alcoholic drinks. The soft drinks are generally free and maybe a $1 tip every time or other. But you make it sound like if you ACTUALLY met someone in person from online you wouldn't spend any money.
6) How many women you approached
Less than online "approach" usually. That's the problem with online it's a huge time consuming numbers game. Then you have to still actually meet and attract the girl
7) How attractive they were
Almost always VERIFIED more attractive than what's online.
8) How many blew you off
Less than online, but isn't that partly why guys go online because the blowoffs don't count as blowoffs even though they are blow offs?
9) How many you f*cked
At one time, I was using online dating for several hours a day and then I went out for a few hours usually less than I was online. I was getting more lays and better girls from going out.
10) How much you spent on gas to go to these places
Valid.
11) How much you spent on a decent wardrobe to go to these places
Nothing extra, just wear your regular clothes. The same clothes you need to be presentable to meet dates anywhere.
12) How many drunken chodes bumped into you
13) How much spilled piss you stepped in in the restrooms
These are not a big problem in my experience. How many girls OLD frustrated the heck out of you, disappeared, flaked or stood you up?

Then compare the two dating methods and we'll get some real information.

Well it's not like you or anyone is clocking the hours spent on OLD, message sent/replies, replies/meet ups, meet ups/sex, attractiveness of the girls you lay etc either. As I mentioned at 9, I was doing both at the same time and was getting more lays and younger, more attractive girls from real life approaching.

Really the only valid argument you made is going in the field vs OLD may cost a little more money. But you are likely to get some entertainment value out of it and more importantly pick up better looking/higher quality girls.

You are basically ignoring all the drawbacks of OLD and exaggerating the drawbacks of real life interacting.

 

[Bible_Belt]

First of all, with such a short time frame, you're only going to sample the people who are trolling the dating site constantly. People who have a life and are out living it are unlikely to see an ad that is up for such a short time.

Secondly,
the emphasis of the present experiment was to demonstrate the extreme competition that men face in online dating.

I would draw the exact opposite conclusion. 194 guys looked at the profile, and only three of them sent messages that had a chance. Why are you intimidated by being better at online dating than 98.5% of the male population?

 

[Stagger Lee]

The better experiments are the ones where you use a "male model's" pics with the age under 25 and height above 6'.

These "males" can get more girls than they can handle with many of the 5-6's and occasional 7-8's that comprise the online dating pool of females. You get many girls messaging first, you can say the stupidest/sexual things and still get positive responses.

Online dating for men is all about being good looking, tall and young, and dating women at least 1-2 points or more down. Just like IRL that guy would clean up with women, except IRL this 8-9 male would pick up higher quality 8-9 females.

 

[pdx1138]

Online dating is not going away.

Get over it.

 

[Zarky]

I've never said OLD (online dating) is great for everyone. If, after giving it a real shot, you find that it doesn't work for you, then don't f*cking use it. Use something else.

The problem I see is when people make ridiculous comments like this:

The above results confirm the commonly held idea that online dating is an ineffective way to meet women.

Such a blanket generalization is beyond retarded. It's effective for some people and ineffective for others. Just like a club, or a library, or a coffee shop, or a street corner, or whatever, is effective for some people and not for others.

I would never in a million years approach women in a grocery store. But I've never said that it's ineffective. It could be very effective if you like hanging around broccoli and have your "grocery game" down.

Y'all have got to stop thinking in these weird absolutes. It's detrimental to your own improvement.

 

[PackDaddy]

Online dating is not an ineffective way to meet women. It is an effective way to meet ineffective women.

The girls I approach on campus, sometimes at bars, in the professional world, etc. are waaaaay higher quality, hands down. Think about it. What attractive woman who gets hit on daily feels as if she needs to create a dating profile? The numbers don't add up here. The whole low cost model argument is retarded as well. Why would I spend more on a woman I met in real life? I wouldn't. I don't know the floozy in either circumstance. Therefore, she doesn't deserve anything yet except a couple hours in my company getting coffee, and such. Maybe, a drink too, but not multiple drinks. So how did the argument that you spend less on girls when you meet them online enter the picture? This discrepancy violates the DJ principle that you're the prize, and you don't spend sh1t till she earns it.

You actually do spend more on women online metaphorically speaking. The time you take to get a response till the time you meet her substantial in most cases. On the contrary, I approach a woman in real life and spend a fraction of the time getting her number and setting something up with her.

 

[dasein]

The girls I approach on campus, sometimes at bars, in the professional world, etc. are waaaaay higher quality, hands down.

They are the same women at different times. Hot women get on OLD when they hear their GF met their BF or husband there, and they are not getting the same results out with the drunks in the bars. Busy hot women, with good jobs and incomes seeking same, also use OLD. Remember it's women, not men, who have the mile long criteria lists and care about jobs and income, and accurate or not, OLD gives the impression of being able to match at least some criteria on "the list" before spending time meeting. That appeals to women of all levels of attractiveness, and is a big reason they do OLD.

So, are you approaching women on campus, or in the "professional world?" If you are still in school, I fail to see how you are doing both. Once you are out of school and working hard, you may find value in a dating tool that allows you to set dates while drinking a beer in your underwear at home watching the game, and every once in awhile will get you laid without even leaving your house.

 

[Zarky]

On the contrary, I approach a woman in real life and spend a fraction of the time getting her number and setting something up with her.

Great, let's see some lay reports from these hot chicks who are willing to get naked with you after a short time. Looking forward to it. This place has lots of talk and almost no lay reports.