General Discussion of Online Dating

**An open discussion of online dating sites in general (non-singles welcome!), sparked by the following book review and subsequent conversation**

193 _Zoe_
Yesterday, 1:23pm

25. Dollars and Sex by Marina Adshade.

This is an entertaining read that applies economic analysis to issues of sex and love. It recounts relevant economic studies in a surprisingly readable way, grouping them into thematic chapters that roughly follow the course of a human life: we encounter a chapter about college promiscuity near the beginning, a chapter about marriage in the middle, and a chapter about relationships among seniors at the end. Each of these chapters offers up interesting and often surprising analysis, including the idea that colleges with higher ratios of women to men have higher rates of casual sex. (On the whole, college women are more interested in longer-term relationships, while college men are more interested in casual hook-ups; in a situation where women outnumber men and are essentially competing for a scarce resource, the women are more likely to enter into relationships that don't meet their ideal criteria--basically, the men have more power here.)

Besides being entertaining, some of the studies here are pretty sobering. For example, there's a higher birth rate among teens in states with higher levels of social inequality. As the cost of college goes up, so does the average number of teen sexual partners. Basically, all decisions involve some sort of analysis of risk vs. reward, and if people don't feel like they have a lot to lose, then they're more likely to engage in risky behaviour. Unfortunately, there are a lot of young people in the United States who don't see any realistic path to success in their future, so they aren't particularly careful to avoid behaviour that might hold them back. On the other hand, teenagers who do imagine a college degree in their future, and who can see the rewards that that degree will bring, are less likely to engage in behaviour that will put their futures at risk, like having children at a very young age. This was an illuminating, if depressing, analysis that highlights some important problems for society in general.

I have to admit that there were times when I found the economic analysis a bit too cold for the topic at hand, especially when it comes to the question of choosing a mate. Adshade focuses on online dating, which puts a more quantitative spin on this major life decision, while acknowledging that the intangibles can actually contribute much more to a successful relationship. Given the quantitative online-dating perspective, Adshade argues that one of the main obstacles to making a successful romantic match is valuing ourselves too highly. We need to have a better sense of our own worth so that we can make the necessary trade-offs and find a partner who is willing to accept us as well, instead of reaching out only to the most attractive, educated, successful potential mates.

On the one hand, this sounds logical; on the other hand, I don't feel like it matches my own experience at all. I'm really not convinced that there exists someone out there who's as good a match for me, personality-wise, as my current partner, but is just a few inches taller than him, and that I could be with that person instead if I were only 15 pounds lighter. The entire concept feels wrong. Possibly my situation is different because I haven't actually tried online dating, so I haven't approached it as a check-the-boxes type exercise (must be at least this tall, must have at least this much education, must earn at least this much money), but I still couldn't help feeling that something was missing from this analysis.

Still, I really enjoyed the book on the whole. There were many more moments of "oh, that makes sense in an unexpected way!" than moments where I felt like the analysis was unsatisfactory. I'd imagine that fans of Dan Ariely (Predictably Irrational) would like it as well. Adshade provides some interesting insights into how the world works, while also revealing some problems with the current system. If you want to be entertained, informed, and perhaps even challenged, I'd recommend reading this book.

__________________________________________________________

201 norabelle414
Today, 12:20pm
>193 I definitely see those problems with online dating mentioned. It's a strange situation when there are so many people at your fingertips that you must decide which ones you are going to message and which ones you are not. So you have to come up with some way of deciding which is, in the end, going to be pretty arbitrary. It's very different from meeting people in a more serendipitous way.

__________________________________________________________

202 _Zoe_
Today, 12:44pm
>201 I'm surprised that they haven't figured out a better system. I thought sites did some sort of algorithmic matching based on questionnaires and such. It's interesting that a system that should really end up providing better results, because there are so many more options to choose from, actually ends up being worse because the only way to decide between all the options is by fairly arbitrary criteria.

I sort of want to read Love in the Time of Algorithms now, and I'm a bit sad that the LT singles group seems to have died out because the discussion of online dating there was interesting too.
__________________________________________________________

205 norabelle414
Today, 1:31pm
>202 Well the systems out there ARE really good. I think that the problems are completely unavoidable. Almost all dating sites have questionnaires and algorithms, but those things can only go so far. It's easy to decide to message or not when the site says they have 46% compatibility with you, but what about 75%? Is that good enough? There are two methods for dating sites, as I see it: transparent or opaque. (Online dating really fascinates me and I spend a lot more time thinking about it than actually participating.....) How difficult do they make it to see people besides the ones the site has matched you up with? On one hand, seeing hundreds of profiles laid out before you is overwhelming. On the other hand, are you really going to trust an algorithm? What if there's a person on the site who you will really click with but the algorithm only gives them 84% compatibility and the cut-off is 85%? Personally I'd rather be overwhelmed with transparency and make arbitrary choices than trust an algorithm to tell me who to date.

I get overwhelmed with too much choice with pretty much everything, so I have no idea if my experience is similar to other users'. And though I complain about the sites, let the record state that I haven't gone on a date or even had a dating-type conversation with anyone I didn't meet online since college.

It's very different from meeting people in a more serendipitous way.

I frankly admit that if I met my girlfriend of four years on the street today, I would likely not find her interesting. The circumstances under which we met - a summer camp where everyone got really chummy and close and many couples were formed - were really key for us.

I'm curious to what extent online dating is a result of not trying to find a mate in college. Often college students choose to eschew dating to focus on school, often replacing real relationship with cheap hookups. But these are some of the easiest years in which to find a mate. Classes change frequently, new people come in and out of one's social circle, and most everyone is single or at least unmarried. I'm not saying every man and woman should aim for an MR or MRS degree, but if one's goal is to form a family, putting a concentrated effort into meeting people in college seems like a much better route than the depressing deceptions of online dating in one's late 20s.

Of course, if one does not have the privilege or desire to attend college, this is a moot point. Other people may not fit in with the social milieu at their college - I see this at my relatively homogeneous school. But I sometimes think we should be frank with our college students that these are prime years and they should not be wasted.

If I had married any of the people I dated/ would have dated in college, I would most likely be divorced now. The person I was then and the person I am now at 30 are very different and I know so many young relationships that don't survive those changes. I think that's why so many people are waiting until later to really look for a partner.

That's a very interesting sounding book. I've never tried a dating site, but we occasionally see adverts for dating sites on the TV. And we have wondered what would be the chances of my husband and I being paired, because in some ways we shouldn't work together.

Would I have considered him as an option on a dating site? I don't know; he's blond, on a purely aesthetic level, I prefer dark hair. He's very sociable, I'm more like the family recluse. He has a prodigious memory for films/TV when I can barely remember seeing the film.

So we'd be unlikely to have listed the same interests, we may even have excluded each other on physical grounds (I really am too short for him!)

Not necessarily a case of opposites attract, but it works, and always has.

> 4

You make a good point. But a lot of college students aren't even trying to build relationship skills. Have you read about Kerry Cronin, Boston College's "dating coach"? She teaches a class in which one of the assignments is asking someone on a date, a real date, not "hanging out" or being in a group or "hooking up." Many students found it frightening and had never done it before.

http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-01/courage-date

So it's not just about not finding the one in college - which many people do, and for many people it works - it's building relationship skills at all.

But of course, failed and successful relationships can be created in many ways, and all of this is only one piece of the puzzle.

Oh I totally agree that most "young people" (now I feel ancient) today don't know how to actually date. I see it in my brother who is 23. His "dates" seemed to always consist of partying with friends or watching tv together. I don't know if he and his live-in girlfriend have ever been on an actual, more than dinner for our anniversary, date.

And I am the other end of that spectrum now, finding myself unwilling for many years to bother with dating the people around me because I didn't see a realistic future with anyone. I was busy and happy with my own life and didn't see the point. Now that I would like to date, a little casually at first but hopefully leading somewhere serious, I seem to have forgotten how.

I've never really believed in "dates"; I think it's a lot more natural just to spend time with people you enjoy being around. My two serious relationships have developed with people I found myself just wanting to talk to and hang out with all the time, whereas various awkward coffee dates in college went nowhere.

On a similar note, I prefer doing social activities that I enjoy independently, and meeting people there by chance. Of course, it helps if at least one of your preferred social activities is skewed toward people of the opposite gender (e.g., board games in my case); volunteering as a Girl Guide leader was not a good way to meet men.

I also think it's for the best that I didn't stay with my college boyfriend. There are some interesting statistics about how the divorce rate is way higher for people who marry before the age of 25, though that doesn't necessarily reflect how old they were when they met.

I do agree about taking relationships seriously from the beginning, though, rather than spending college "hooking up". I'm reminded of the book The Defining Decade, with its argument that you should always be working toward what you want; even though my first relationship didn't work out, it definitely helped me figure out what I was looking for.

After moving to North America, one of the first things I grew to loathe was "dating". It's very different from the way we socialised in Europe, romantically or not. But it's the whole North American lifestyle that conditions the thing, the compartmentalization and Taylorisation of activities, the lack of cities--European type cities anyway, with their density and interconnectedness and encouragement of walking, strolling, decent public transport, cafés, going out in the evening onto the promenades etc.

Americans are always in some boxes--at home, at work, in the car. Time is money! Agendas come out for any trifle--getting a cup of coffee with a friend must be planned and confirmed like an Olympic meet. If by some miracle you meet someone by chance, decisions must be made immediately--do you like each other enough to exchange numbers? It's now or, most likely, never again. I still remember an incident from my first weeks. I went to buy a tennis racket (someone from school gave me a lift, as I didn't have a car--actually, I didn't even have a driving license yet), in a shop hours and hours (more like 40 minutes in reality) away from my place, lost on some nondescript highway as remote as a desert (American suburbs would for years appear as empty as Mars to my eyes). I got to chatting with another customer, a very handsome guy, who was apparently quite interested in me. In fact, I freaked out a little because he started asking me where I lived etc. I was used to guys being interested, and I liked flirting. But I have never in my life gone from flirting one minute--with a total stranger--to giving out my number the next! I used to live in a dense social net where faces kept recurring, and nobody ever got completely lost. I was used to natural, slow getting to know someone, seeing them in different circumstances, from different angles (and not just them, of course). Sooner or later one face, one person would become more interesting, attractive, important. There was no rush, no pressure. There were so many points of either getting closer or distancing, when you could assess more discreetly where you'd like the relationship to go.

In contrast, the horrible North American "dating" was like taking a freaking exam, all the time. Oops, did you give the right answer. Ooops, was that multiple answer choice or not. Oops, nobody asked for an essay on THAT one. Well, they seem nice enough with you, but you only ever see them in one light, under one kind of circumstances--who the heck knows what they are like "really".

And the horrible calculations of time and money spent, "investment" vs. "payoff"... bah!

By the way, there's nothing worse than early marriage. Been there, done that--married at 22, separated at 23, divorced some years later. And, while my case may or may not be "typical", it's also true for basically all other early marriages I know of. From the university, only one couple who got together then are still together today. My brother and SIL, about four years younger than me, commented recently that they are the only couple in their (extremely wide) circle of friends who have been together as long, without separation or divorce (and they have been friends since they met at fifteen, and only got together ten years later, after a string of other relationships for both of them. They also lived together for three years before getting married, at thirty.)

I don't know what is new, if anything, about "hookups"? Doesn't that just mean no-strings-attached sex? And what's wrong with that? One size doesn't fit all indeed, when it comes to relationships, but I'd always encourage young people to investigate, experiment, and learn about themselves when they are young, dedicated to learning, and CAN learn. Sow them wild oats too, have fun, learn to give and take pleasure, and do it with as many or as few people as you like.

Sex is wonderful, don't let sanctimonious prigs slut-shame you.

Phew glad this conversation is picking up. I thought I was talking to a brick wall :-)

>3 JDHomrighausen: I dated a lot and had several relationships throughout college, but that has apparently had no bearing on my finding a mate after college. It was certainly much easier to meet people to date in college, but there is not a single person I met in college that I would consider marrying. I know several people from my college class that are divorced already (and we only graduated 3 years ago). I think about 50% of the people I know who got married right out of college are divorced, and several more are headed in that direction. I think that implying to people that they need to find a mate in college or they are S.O.L. is not only inaccurate but detrimental.

>4 leahbird: Amen!

>8 _Zoe_: The issue that I personally have with the "activities I enjoy independently" angle is that all of the activities I enjoy independently are completely solo pursuits (reading, knitting, traveling, internetting, etc.) and I really only enjoy doing them by myself.

>9 LolaWalser: What a great perspective, Lola! Thanks!

______________________________________________

Re: "hooking up"
The problem isn't the "hooking up" itself, whether it be casual sex or something less than that. The problem with hooking up, as I see it, is a lack of communication and often an imbalance of feelings or expectations. If both parties are willing to say, "I'm attracted to you but I don't feel you're a contender for a serious relationship. Let's make out anyway.", then that is great. But often one person has high expectations and the other low and there is a lack of communication of those expectations. And that's where the trouble lies.

>9 LolaWalser: I agree with Nora, thanks for that great post!

>11 norabelle414: I don't know, this site is based around reading and it somehow seems to have taken on a very social aspect anyway. Twice-a-year DC meetups mean that I see you as much as I see any of my college friends in Toronto.

The issue I saw with hooking up wasn't anything wrong with it per se, just with establishing one pattern in college and then expecting suddenly to end up with something entirely different at the end of it. This is a point that the author of The Defining Decade makes concerning work as much as relationships: if you think of your 20s as a time that doesn't count for anything, and plan to work as a barista while hanging out with your friends, and suddenly start a "real" career in your 30s, you'll be that much farther behind people who were working steadily toward where they wanted to end up (and that doesn't mean you even have to know where you want to end up--but you can explore possible career paths and gain experience that will help you obtain other employment). With dating, the idea is that failed early relationships give you a sense of what works and what doesn't, what's important to you, and so on. This doesn't preclude casual hook-ups in between, but if your ultimate goal is to end up with a long-term relationship, it makes sense to remain open to that possibility all along and not wait until after college even to start looking.

I'm not sure how many college students do deliberately avoid serious relationships, though.

>12 _Zoe_: I'd argue that the social aspect of this site is more about "talking about reading" than just reading. Furthermore I can guarantee that I'm not going to find a date on this site, and it's quite possible that it has detrimentally raised my expectations for a date. I used to be perfectly content going out with guys who did not talk about reading (largely because I thought I was alone in that hobby), but that's no longer the case.

I agree that college is definitely a great place to date, just as it's a good place to explore different interests, hobbies, or careers. The problem arises when one expects to (or is told that they must) have everything figured out by a certain point in their lives. If people expect to know what career they are going to have for the rest of their lives by 25, many of them will be disappointed. If people expect to find their life-long mate by 25, many of them will be disappointed.

I have some very entertaining (and horrifying) stories about college students who deliberately avoid serious relationships, but I believe they are the exceptions, not the rule ;-)

I'm glad you didn't think of my post as interference!--as on the actual topic of online matchmaking I got nothing.

#12

I like what you said above about simply meeting people in the course of your activities. Seems the way most likely to bring one in touch with good prospective mates.

People who want children definitely have more to consider, but things aren't necessarily bleak for the late bloomers, even if biology doesn't catch up with our extended lifetimes. My best friend had her first child at 41 and second at 43 ("naturally", without even trying for long). It's a lottery, but frankly, chance and randomness play a much greater part in our lives than hardcore "planners" seem to be willing to acknowledge.

> 10

So much interesting conversation!

I think about 50% of the people I know who got married right out of college are divorced, and several more are headed in that direction. I think that implying to people that they need to find a mate in college or they are S.O.L. is not only inaccurate but detrimental.

Not "need to find a mate in college," but what Zoe said - should build relationship skills in a variety of different settings and with a variety of different people. (Unless you are one of those rare people who marries your high school sweetheart and it works.) And even if you do end up marrying your college beau, that doesn't mean it needs to happen right after college. We young people are so broke nowadays that waiting until mid to late twenties to tie the knot is more common. And perhaps we have less pressure to marry young than previous generations, so we need not "settle" to make mom and dad happy.

The high divorce rate among people who marry right out of college could even be seen to prove my point. Perhaps they jumped into a marriage without thinking about its consequences or about long-term compatibility, a symptom of insufficient relationship skills and a lack of prudence. This is not hard in my generation, where we are likely to have been raised by divorced parents and lack role models for healthy long-term relationships. With my girlfriends' parents divorced and me having been adopted by a single mom, we have had a hard time figuring out what works and what doesn't. (Note I am not blaming the parents; sometimes divorce is inevitable and unavoidable. This is just one more consequence of it.)

The hooking up culture, while I generally disagree with it in theory, is just one symptom of lack of relationship skills. Kerry Cronin points out it is often used to put off the hard work of emotional intimacy and vulnerability. Apparently that too can wait until ones' late twenties or early thirties, a belief which, as Zoe points out, doesn't exactly lay the foundation for healthy relationships in those years.

I agree that people should be building relationship skills in a variety of different settings and with a variety of different people, but I think that getting into a long-term relationship is just as much about locating the right person for you as it is about utilizing your relationship skills honed elsewhere. I think the chances are slim that the "right person for you" is going to be the same person at 18 years old as it is at 81 years old.

The majority of people I have met on dating sites are perfectly normal, socially skilled people who have had relationships in the past. They are just using a dating site as a way to be introduced to other people who are also looking for dates, whom they can then meet in person. Personally I enjoy dating sites because I'm getting to a point where a majority of the men my age that I meet in-person (around the office, on the bus, at my volunteer job, etc.) are married/engaged/in a long-term relationship.

I just came across this article (from January) on Twitter, and it seemed relevant: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/fashion/the-end-of-courtship.html?smid=tw-shar...

Yeah I've seen that going around. As with most articles about "my generation" (whatever that means), I have all kinds of issues with it.

Yeah. It laments the demise of so-called "traditional" dating without making any sort of effective case about why that's better than the alternatives. (Oh no, starting with coffee instead of jumping straight to an expensive meal? The horror!). But interesting reading anyway.

Anyone read any books on online dating?

I just recently read Love in the Time of Algorithms, which was interesting enough but not quite as good as I'd hoped. It was more about the historical development of online dating than about studies etc. on its effectiveness.

I won a book from LTER called The Geek's Guide to Dating by Eric Smith, but it hasn't arrived yet. I'll definitely post my review here when I get to it.

Ah, I talked myself out of requesting The Geek's Guide to Dating. I figured it would be informative and encouraging or depressing and disheartening, and took a "better safe than sorry" approach. Of course, I take the same approach with people, and look where it has gotten me. :P

>24 Ape: Yeah, page one probably says "talk to people in person"

Pffft. I can handle that. I talk with my eyes.
*Squints and wiggles eyebrows*

I couldn't resist, Ape.

Yep, it's true, you are definitely evil. :P

How about books that celebrate being single??

>29 RuthieD: Some of those would be lovely! But the ones currently available seem to mostly involve males.

12 Reasons a Book is Better Than a Boyfriend . . . .
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/blog/12-reasons-a-book-is-better-than-a-boyfriendx...

Haha! Yeah, 2 things I can't compete with...vibrators and books. I am useless! :P

Ehh, both of those things are wonderful but neither has ever taken me to a movie. Or purchased themselves for me as a gift. Boy/girlfriends still have their good points.

My husband (who I met online) is a book-buying-enabler, lol. :P Personally I prefer it that way, don't buy me books you're not 110% certain I want, right now, just be supportive of me buying all the books hahaha.

But movies are way less orgasmic than vibrators...and books. :P

I do believe I would be the ultimate book-enabler, although there may be fierce battles over space on the book shelves.

Oh we've long since run out of space on the shelves, hahaha

Interesting article: How to Hack OkCupid

I've seen that article around a lot lately and it does not seem like "hacking" OkCupid AT ALL to me. The guy put in days and days and days of work (using the time and resources of his school/job, which I hope he got in trouble for) and then went on EIGHTY-EIGHT first dates before he found the person he has now been dating for a year. How is that at all less effort than just using the site normally?? He could have gotten similar results with the method that many men on OkCupid use - message everything that moves. I don't think one one-year relationship out of eighty-eight dates is anything better than dumb luck.

Additionally, I think his attempted "gaming" of the system genuinely hurt his results. He reminds me of a guy I met on OkCupid and went on a date with (I've probably mentioned him before) who basically did the same thing, but he didn't realize it. When crafting his profile he thought about the women he would like to date and wrote the profile about THEM vs. about HIMSELF. So for example, his profile said he wanted to date a woman who liked independent movies and documentaries (regardless of the fact that he had not seen any independent/documentary movies himself....but he wanted to) and who liked to travel (he did not travel himself....but he wanted to) and was an eclectic and adventurous eater (he pretty much only ate at Olive Garden.....but he wanted to be a foodie). He wasn't ever completely dishonest about anything on his profile, but once I met him in person I realized that he was way more focused on getting a woman he wanted to be with than getting a woman who wanted to be with him.

My high school friend that I'm most jealous of (she used to work at Penguin and now writes for HuffPost) wrote a great article on love and online dating. Check it out.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4752950

HA I just saw you posted that on Facebook and thought "hmm that should be posted on LT"

Today, the hated day of Valentine's, I randomly choose to play a freebie PC game which turned out to be about a woman who meets a handsome man online, falls madly in love at first (picture) sight, TRAVELS TO HIS CASTLE, and quickly discovers that he is the vessel for a demon that has been forcing him to enslave women's souls in paintings for over a hundred years.

At one point she literally says "I'm never meeting men on the internet again!"

I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Valentine's Day is pretty much always the most unpleasant day of the year. As for the PC game, I promise never to lure any internet ladies to my castle and enslave their souls in paintings. But only because I don't own a castle. :P

I'm on a really hot date with a once-full bottle of wine right now.

I would gladly spend my day off fake love and expensive candy that just makes us all fat and pimply with you guys over a dude with a castle any day.

>44 leahbird: Don't buy candy today! It's a trap.

Everybody knows Feb 15 is the best day to buy candy.

I hold out for the Easter Eggs from Reeses. Far superior to anything else except for the Reeses pumpkins come Halloween.

But, but, but what about Reese's hearts???

Oh! Can I join in on the candy fest, or is it no-boys-allowed?

For some reason I don't like Resses hearts as much. Maybe it's psychological.

Everyone is welcome with candy. Candy doesn't judge. Which is how people get in trouble.

Yay! I looooove you, candy... *eats 10 bags*

>37 _Zoe_:, >38 norabelle414: I saw an article today which reminded me of the "How to Hack OKCupid" article that we read in 2014

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/08/01/this-guy-has-swi...

A guy wrote a computer program to swipe right on hundreds of thousands of Tinder profiles, and manage his account. He went on 150 first dates, and he's still single.