Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Dating and Love Advice  > About leagues. . .      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Paderic
Joined: 2/23/2010
Msg: 228
About leagues. . .Page 10 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

There is no objective data for those who don't want to see it. How many guys are in these forums complaining that the women didn't read their profile compared to the number of women pointing out the obvious fact that guys didn't read theirs ? No objective data at all.


I see. Maybe you should brush up on the definitions for objective and data.

As for your question, you tell me how many. I sincerely doubt that you've counted anything, though. And if you did, I doubt you did it objectively.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 229
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/7/2013 1:22:44 AM





As for your question, you tell me how many. I sincerely doubt that you've counted anything, though.


It serves no purpose to point out the obvious to those who do not have a grasp of it. As I said before, how many guys are there complaining that women didn't read their profile compared to the number of women ?... do you really need to count them to figure out there are more of one kind than the other ?...



Maybe you should brush up on the definitions for objective and data.


Maybe you should try to notice the obvious. Practice, that might help.


 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 230
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/7/2013 12:23:33 PM
It serves no purpose to point out the obvious to those who do not have a grasp of it. As I said before, how many guys are there complaining that women didn't read their profile compared to the number of women ?

That's not a good litmus test, though. It's a very gender un-sided environment on a (free) site like this, where you'll get guys doing "hey what's up babe?" to any girl who's picture looks OKAY or better to see if he can get responses. :)

I have had women ask me how old I am or a question about my work -- things that can be gleaned from a profile or even from talk ALREADY had. They have a lot of incoming messages to juggle around. Even some women on their profile looking for a god-fearing Christian man and going on about, but writing me (Non-Religious selected).

When women write men, yes, statistically, I would guess that they probably look closer as they aren't carpet-bombing guys much, as guys definitely can. But you weed out the carpet bombing initial-message people, I think both parties are going to look at the profile -- there's no gender difference there.

Women are into looks huge. Guys are into looks huge. It's biology. We make assumptions and have feelings about their personality based on their looks, consciously but usually more on the sub-conscious level -- even among those of the same sex.

Women tend to be more meticulous about looks -- greater detail. It takes a strong "metro" guy to compare to a typical avg American Jane. So attention to looks is carried by women in many ways. Guys tend to care to a lesser extent about a lady's accomplishments, bragging rights to his peers of her popularity, etc compared to a gal about a guy -- so looks will remain stronger for him.

Guys are more apt to engage with a woman on a physical level when a Relationship isn't in the cards, moreso than the other way around -- so the "immediate gain" -- looks will be more important. With that said, though:
(a) People on Spring Break -- looks matters equally for guys & girls (it's about having fun & very possibly hooking up; Relationships aren't in the cards)

(b) When guys are wanting some tail, at the end of the night, they're more apt to care LESS about looks than a woman in the same position

If looks didn't matter to women, then I guess many guys could get away with saying "Yes, you do look fat in those jeans; you're not quite as pretty as you used to be." :)

I think it's just that more women have a settle-down mentality and less frequent desire to have a fling, when compared to guys. When anyone, guy or girl, is in that mode (girls more often than guys) -- they look toward the long-term -- as such, the guy or girl is not going to let looks carry the whole thing as if they were on the rebound or something.
 Paderic
Joined: 2/23/2010
Msg: 231
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/7/2013 12:29:46 PM
It serves no purpose to point out the obvious to those who do not have a grasp of it. As I said before, how many guys are there complaining that women didn't read their profile compared to the number of women ?


Agreed, I should probably stop pointing stuff out to you. But first...

Regarding your metric, it could be argued that it doesn't prove a thing. Have you considered that women have been socialized to not make the initial contact on this type of website, and as such they are more likely to be the ones complaining about those that contact them? There are a number of other metrics that could be selected which might indicate something different. Regardless, the mere fact that it's an interpretation of a metric that you've chosen makes it extremely subjective. It's not even close to being objective.

Maybe you should try to notice the obvious. Practice, that might help.


Maybe you should consider that the obvious answer is not always correct.

 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 232
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/8/2013 9:50:51 AM



@paderic



Agreed, I should probably stop pointing stuff out to you.


That would be quite nice, particularly if you could refrain from doing so until you have something that is actually correct to point out for a change.



Regarding your metric, it could be argued that it doesn't prove a thing.


It comes as no surprise you'd argue such a thing.



Have you considered that women have been socialized to not make the initial contact on this type of website,


I have considered that and, I have no doubts you believe that's the reason they _apparently_ don't make initial contact. However, since you mentioned it, that appearance seems to be your personal experience, it is not an experience shared by all males. Unlike guys, women seem to be quite a bit choosier in who they initiate contact with, which again, points to the fact that looks are not their main concern. Personally, I believe that women have been "socialized" to limit their initial contact to interesting men. I'm sure that's another "subjective" assessment on my part.



they are more likely to be the ones complaining about those that contact them?


I have to admit to having read complaints from women regarding initial messages they get from aspiring Shakespeares that drop literary pearls in their inbox such as "wasup babe" and "ur hawt". Such high quality messages must be the result of reading the woman's profile, otherwise where would those guys derive that much inspiration from ?



It's not even close to being objective.


Of course not. The ratio of men to women asking for profile reviews is about 20:1 (feel free to go to the profile review section and count away - I didn't count them because it's one of those "subjective" things that is obvious). It is completely "subjective" to even think that this might be because men tend not to read profiles and pay attention mostly to the woman's looks whereas women do read the profile and generally pay close attention to what's in it.



Maybe you should consider that the obvious answer is not always correct.


And maybe you should consider that often the correct answer is obvious. That's not subjective, just relative.




@ Confident-Realist



It's a very gender un-sided environment on a (free) site like this, where you'll get guys doing "hey what's up babe?" to any girl who's picture looks OKAY or better to see if he can get responses. :)


I believe you are making my point. They are going mostly, if not entirely, by the woman's looks.



I think both parties are going to look at the profile -- there's no gender difference there.


True when both parties are interested in more than the looks of the person. I am not saying that looks aren't a consideration for a woman but, I am saying that it is much more common for males to go entirely by the looks than it is for a woman to do so when making the decision whether or not to contact someone.



When women write men, yes, statistically, I would guess that they probably look closer as they aren't carpet-bombing guys much, as guys definitely can.


Exactly. The reason women aren't carpet bombing is because looks are not sufficient to justify contacting a guy, whereas in the case of males, it is obviously sufficient in quite a few cases.



Women are into looks huge.


Women are into looks but rarely will a man's good looks compensate for him having a poor profile, unlike many guys here the woman will most likely read the profile, whereas guys here will commonly initiate contact based on looks alone, i.e, without reading the profile.



Women tend to be more meticulous about looks -- greater detail.


True. Women have a tendency to place more importance on their own appearance than most guys do but, that's a completely different subject from how important a guy's looks are to them.



Guys tend to care to a lesser extent about a lady's accomplishments, bragging rights to his peers of her popularity, etc compared to a gal about a guy -- so looks will remain stronger for him.


It seems you are reinforcing the fact that males, in general, pay more attention to looks than women do in the selection of a mate. The bragging part seems to be particularly telling in that area.



If looks didn't matter to women, then I guess many guys could get away with saying "Yes, you do look fat in those jeans; you're not quite as pretty as you used to be." :)


You're mixing apples and butts here. We already established that, generally speaking, women tend to place more importance on their own appearance than men do. A man telling a woman "yes, you do look fat in those jeans" has nothing to do with how important the looks of such a "tactful" guy were in her selecting him as a mate. Two completely different subjects.



I think it's just that more women have a settle-down mentality and less frequent desire to have a fling, when compared to guys.


That may be true but, I am not convinced it is due to them having a settle-down mentality. I suspect the reason has more to do with the fact that, in the case of a fling, the lack of the guy's appreciation for who she is as a person is often enough of a turn off for most women to simply "pass". To state it a different way, I suspect women are keenly aware that a man that appreciates them as a person is much more likely to be a much more pleasurable fling than one that is concentrating on her looks (which indirectly implies he is likely more focused on his personal pleasure than on hers.)

Confident-Realist, I actually agree with most of what you said in your post. I think that what you wrote reinforces the fact that men, in general, pay more attention to looks in the selection process than women do.


 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 233
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/8/2013 12:59:31 PM

I believe you are making my point. They are going mostly, if not entirely, by the woman's looks.

Looks are a HUGE thing to both parties. When one goes into carpet-bombing mode, they're going by the surface of what's the 1st and foremost thing -- for both genders -- Looks. You can't go by much if you're carpet-bombing. Well, besides the search filter like no kids, no smoking, etc. But again, it's a bad measuring stick to determine in society that guys care only about looks and for women it's a mere attribute.

I am not saying that looks aren't a consideration for a woman but, I am saying that it is much more common for males to go entirely by the looks than it is for a woman to do so when making the decision whether or not to contact someone.

It's more than a mere "consideration". It's HUGE. It's biology. This is a sausage-fest environment, where guys have few options comparatively to girls. POF can be a huge ego-boost to an Average Jane, while for an Average Joe it's a hike. When anyone's put in that situation of more degree of difficulty, girl or guy, they're going to seem more superficial -- they're going to be less picky overall. They'll be more apt to be on the side of playing the "numbers game" and then looking closer at the fish they catch afterward. Noticing that the pursuers online, culturally guys of course, hit up women by merely gleaning their profile moreso than women who are not the pursuers, doesn't mean guys are just into looks.

The reason women aren't carpet bombing is because looks are not sufficient to justify contacting a guy, whereas in the case of males, it is obviously sufficient in quite a few cases.

No, that's not the reason. Women get their inbox filled up quite quickly, FAR FAR more than men, comparatively speaking. Hitting people up hastily doesn't mean you're just into looks. You're just saving yourself some time and it's quicker to glean the big deal breaker for both genders equally -- LOOKS -- faster than reading through and analyzing every profile. That doesn't mean they're ONLY into looks. It's a different environment than IRL.

Guys are into looks Huge.
Girls are into looks Huge.
Guys will look into more than mere looks when it comes to more than just hooking up.
Girls will look into more than mere looks, frequently being more picky, when it comes to more than just hooking up.

It doesn't take away from Girls not being into looks huge. It is huge. In other ways about looks, women are very much into image, looks, etc than men.

And as I said before, looks overlaps personality assessment, psychologically/biologically speaking.

If you're in the dating scene long enough as a guy, and you go from not-in-shape wearing "okay" clothes etc -- and then to in great shape wearing good fashionable clothes -- you notice a HUGE difference. And not just from personal confidence. You begin to realize that women ARE into looks moreso than they know. A psychological study showed this (while men are more into a woman's finances & social status more than they know), but with enough experience in the "scene" ya realize it.

It's just that a guy's popularity/status, if it sticks out, will make up for looks -- whereas with guys, that won't bring it up so much. That's all. Personality-wise? Guys will just as much as girls drop the other if their personality ends up sucking.

When either guy or girl is into merely hooking up/having a fling/etc (guys more often), looks will reign the day and other things won't matter so much. When all a guy cares about is a gal's looks and nothing else -- he's just looking to bang. When all a gal cares about is a guy's looks and nothing else -- she's just looking to bang. It's that guys are much more often in that mode.

In the end, just because more guys are into just hooking up -- doesn't mean guys are only into looks. In fact, such guys are not going to be super-picky about looks at all if it's just hooking up. They just don't care about the other stuff because that only matters when real Dating is in the picture. When you're just looking to hook up with a particular guy or gal, real Dating is Not in the picture.
 Nj2ut
Joined: 11/5/2012
Msg: 234
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/8/2013 6:17:02 PM
>>Women are into looks but rarely will a man's good looks compensate for him having a poor profile, unlike many guys here the woman will most likely read the profile, whereas guys here will commonly initiate contact based on looks alone, i.e, without reading the profile. >Confident-Realist, I actually agree with most of what you said in your post. I think that what you wrote reinforces the fact that men, in general, pay more attention to looks in the selection process than women do.<<

So what if men pay attention to looks in the selection. Offline, looks are the only thing a man has to use in the very beginning. If you're out in public, do you think the first thing a man is thinking when you enter his line of sight is "wow, she is probably an intelligent woman with a great personality". There needs to be some starting point and looks are the most readily available thing to use.

By the way even if a man reads and writes a 1-2 paragraph message response to a woman's ad, she isn't going to go "hmm well I don't find him attractive, and I'm not interested, but he wrote a nice message so I'll give him a chance anyway to show his personality and character ."

Women make the assumption that what they value in a man is what a man should also value in women. When men don't play along, certain women cant handle it.
 rockstar1118nj
Joined: 3/28/2013
Msg: 235
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/8/2013 9:23:16 PM

By the way even if a man reads and writes a 1-2 paragraph message response to a woman's ad, she isn't going to go "hmm well I don't find him attractive, and I'm not interested, but he wrote a nice message so I'll give him a chance anyway to show his personality and character ."


Most truthful thing in this entire thread.

Listen, ladies, if it wasn't all about looks, way more guys would be getting way more responses from you, and not just responses, but then conversations, meeting, dating, then getting married. Personality really plays very little of a role in that initial message. When it's between two guys you think are insanely hot, then you're going to pick the better personality. While looks will never make up for a lack of personality, personality will never make up for a lack of looks. To way too many women out there, it's the full package or nothing... Sadly, that fairytale ending just doesn't exist in real life. Even the perfect guy with the perect personality, who looks flawless, still has some skeletons he's hiding from you.

Guys get targeted for being the ones who are hung up on looks, but that's just not true. Look at how many more fat women are with a guy than fat men. Look at how common an ugly girl is with a guy, and how rare it is to see the ugly guy with the girl (unless he's rich, money can buy attraction).

Where this guy was wrong, is women don't value a man's personality at all. Really break down what you're looking for in a man, and I can guarantee you that at least 3/4 of the things you list are completely superficial, and have nothing to do with his personality, or how well he can write a profile. It's not about the guy, it's about the pictures.
 BelleAtlantic
Joined: 11/7/2012
Msg: 236
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/9/2013 3:04:38 AM
By the way even if a man reads and writes a 1-2 paragraph message response to a woman's ad, she isn't going to go "hmm well I don't find him attractive, and I'm not interested, but he wrote a nice message so I'll give him a chance anyway to show his personality and character ."


I've done it. I've gone on dates with someone I wasn't physically attracted to or dream to, because they wrote a compelling message to me. I figured, he may not be what I prefer on the outside but he is aligned with my thoughts and in gentlemanly ways in the inside. After all, a date is just a venue to keep learning more about each other, making an informed decision thereafter. I'm on this site to meet people, not find "the one" from a first date. IRL, we may end up with people who are not even our types because other things drew us to that person and none of it was physical.

It may not be what most women do but I've done it. After my LTR ended, my friend told me to get out there and meet everyone and anyone (within reason) and have a great time. Be exposed to all kinds of people and how they treat you. I tended to go with the flow and stick to what I knew and the people around me. Meeting people from different backgrounds and cultures expands one's horizons and ideas about what you really want versus how you envision what is attractive to you.
 CynthiaSM
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 237
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/9/2013 7:05:44 AM

So what if men pay attention to looks in the selection. Offline, looks are the only thing a man has to use in the very beginning. If you're out in public, do you think the first thing a man is thinking when you enter his line of sight is "wow, she is probably an intelligent woman with a great personality". There needs to be some starting point and looks are the most readily available thing to use.

Not really. If you spend more than a couple seconds watching her you will pick up personality and intelligence clues such as - what is her fashion sense? hygiene? is she smiling? reading (and what)? interacting with service people in a friendly, considerate, non-descript, or offensive manner? etc, ad nauseum.

My thing is men caring for their children. A man I would consider 'average' looks (to my particular taste) becomes 'above average' if/when I see him interacting with children in a caring and protective way. And, yes, that includes greying or balding hair and a paunch. That doesn't mean I'm building up some fantasy that we would live happily ever after and looks mean zero. I'm just saying that especially when one is out and about in real life there are MANY more ways to determine compatibility than looks. If you don't realize this then you're not trying very hard.

By the way even if a man reads and writes a 1-2 paragraph message response to a woman's ad, she isn't going to go "hmm well I don't find him attractive, and I'm not interested, but he wrote a nice message so I'll give him a chance anyway to show his personality and character ."

I've done this and recently. He had only one pic on his profile and I didn't find it particularly attractive but thought some people don't photograph well. His profile is basic - nothing I would have felt compelled to write to him if he hadn't written to me. But, his message to me was attractive so we skipped phone and further emails and just met for lunch.

Also about 4 yrs ago I met a man who didn't even have a picture and his profile was one line but his email to me was incredible - essentially a profile and message personalized to me. We dated for about 8 months.
 jessebunnies
Joined: 2/18/2013
Msg: 238
view profile
History
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/9/2013 7:39:14 AM

By the way even if a man reads and writes a 1-2 paragraph message response to a woman's ad, she isn't going to go "hmm well I don't find him attractive, and I'm not interested, but he wrote a nice message so I'll give him a chance anyway to show his personality and character ."


I've done this as well. I've gone out on many dates where I wasn't particularly attracted to their physical looks but their message was very attractive. The funny thing is that after spending time with these men they become more and more attractive, at least in my experience. I spent 8 years with a man I met off the net who had no picture. So sometimes it isn't all about "looks".
 Paderic
Joined: 2/23/2010
Msg: 239
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/9/2013 8:20:31 AM
It comes as no surprise you'd argue such a thing.


Likewise, it comes as no surprise that you'd argue the POF forum is a reliable database for you to form judgments on the entire population.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 240
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/10/2013 10:28:21 AM



@Confident-Realist



Looks are a HUGE thing to both parties. When one goes into carpet-bombing mode, they're going by the surface of what's the 1st and foremost thing -- for both genders -- Looks.


One of the many problems with your premise is that it seems to be only guys that go into "carpet-bombing" mode. The fact that women do no engage in such activity should already be a very strong indicator that looks are not their main concern. If looks were the "1st and foremost" of women's concerns then carpet-bombing would work and we know, from the comments of both men and women in these forums, that it does not.

Looks are _not_ the 1st and foremost concern for a very significant number of women.



This is a sausage-fest environment, where guys have few options comparatively to girls.


This is a sausage-fest environment because guys are making it that way. If guys didn't go into "carpet-bombing" mode, it would not be a sausage-fest. All the "sausage-fest" does is indicate the very low quality of the available sausages. It shouldn't surprise anyone that women would neither be impressed nor interested, which accounts for a lot of the complaints from guys about women not replying to their messages.

Also, the number of options are the same for both genders. Women just seem to be better at not exercising the "poor" options.



POF can be a huge ego-boost to an Average Jane, while for an Average Joe it's a hike.


I doubt that being pestered by an abundance of "sausage-for-free" guys can be that much of an ego boost to Average Jane. I could be wrong but, I believe Average Jane would get a much greater ego boost from being noticed by a guy that doesn't desperately give himself out as a free sausage sample to any woman that would take it.

If anything, I think it would be depressing for any Jane to get an inbox full of lame "ur hawt" and "wasup babe" messages everyday.



When anyone's put in that situation of more degree of difficulty, girl or guy, they're going to seem more superficial -- they're going to be less picky overall.


It shouldn't be a surprise that selecting entirely or mostly by looks is going to make things very difficult for those who engage in that "solution". The degree of difficulty drops significantly when a guy reads the woman's profile and sends a message that shows genuine interest in her personality.



Noticing that the pursuers online, culturally guys of course, hit up women by merely gleaning their profile moreso than women who are not the pursuers, doesn't mean guys are just into looks.


Not all guys are just into looks but, the "carpet bomber" is obviously only into looks. Also, the guys that send the infamous "wasup babe", "ur hawt" and so on, obviously didn't read the woman's profile (it would be even worse if they had read it and that's the best they could come up with).

Women pursue guys that peek their interest whether here or IRL. The most obvious difference is that, in the case of women, their interest is rarely if ever based solely on a guy's looks. That said, good looks can certainly be good bait but, in the case of women, the fish is rarely going to stay on the hook if there isn't anymore to the bait than just good looks.



Guys are into looks Huge.


Generally speaking that is true.



Girls are into looks Huge.


Girls like a good looking guy but, in the majority of cases, his personality and character are more important to them than the guy's looks. The fact that women respond to messages and even go on dates with guys they initially don't find particularly attractive attests to the fact that looks are _not_ huge to them.



If you're in the dating scene long enough as a guy, and you go from not-in-shape wearing "okay" clothes etc -- and then to in great shape wearing good fashionable clothes -- you notice a HUGE difference.


The largest part of that difference is the implications of those changes in the guy's personality. Specifically, does the guy take care of himself, does he have his stuff together and so on. An individual's look (not his/her looks) says a lot about an individual's personality, women are incredible at picking up on those things. It's not the guy's looks, it's the guy's look and its implications. Two totally different things.



You begin to realize that women ARE into looks moreso than they know.


Generally speaking, women pay close attention to their personal appearance, more so than guys. That has nothing to do with the looks of a man. Again, two totally different things.



When either guy or girl is into merely hooking up/having a fling/etc (guys more often), looks will reign the day and other things won't matter so much.


Very rarely true in the case of a woman. In the case of a hookup, the woman will, more often than not, figure out first if the guy will give her a good time, which is a lot more important than his looks. An average looking guy that is a good lay trumps a great looking guy that is a lousy lay any day. The difference between the two is in the personality, something women will pay close attention to even when just hooking up.



When all a guy cares about is a gal's looks and nothing else -- he's just looking to bang.


Which explains why a large number of guys have a "three-date-rule" to get laid whereas there are extremely few women with such a rule. That alone makes it rather evident where the interests are for each gender.



When you're just looking to hook up with a particular guy or gal, real Dating is Not in the picture.


In either case, the woman will, more often than not, be evaluating the guy past his looks. Her having fun depends a lot more on the guy's personality than on the guy's looks.

.........................................................................................................................................................................


@Nj2ut



she isn't going to go "hmm well I don't find him attractive, and I'm not interested, but he wrote a nice message so I'll give him a chance anyway to show his personality and character ."


The fact that the guy wrote a "nice message" made him interesting as some women later attested. That seems to be the "little detail" some are failing to see.



Women make the assumption that what they value in a man is what a man should also value in women.


Are you suggesting that what is truly of value in an individual differs by the gender of the individual ?

.........................................................................................................................................................................


@ rockstar1118nj



Most truthful thing in this entire thread.


It was very likely sincere but, it didn't prove to be true.



Look at how many more fat women are with a guy than fat men.


I doubt you meant to say that.



women don't value a man's personality at all.


The man has to bring the personality to be valued to the table. Women can't do that for the man.

.........................................................................................................................................................................


@paderic



it comes as no surprise that you'd argue the POF forum is a reliable database for you to form judgments on the entire population.


I wouldn't be the only one. Anyone who has a moderate amount of knowledge in mathematics, statistics and probabilities would make the same argument. After all, it only takes a random sample of 1300 people to determine with 97% accuracy the result of an election involving over 100 million people.

That said, if the pof forum participants are not from planet earth then, in that case, they would not be a "reliable database" for _anyone_ to "form judgments" about anything but, that is very unlikely to be the case.

If can post some links to tutorials in statistics and probabilities that would help you understand that the pof population is not only large enough but, also an excellent sample when it comes to determining dating behavior.

 Paderic
Joined: 2/23/2010
Msg: 241
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/10/2013 11:14:40 AM

Anyone who has a moderate amount of knowledge in mathematics, statistics and probabilities would make the same argument.


Wrong.
 activemelaney
Joined: 9/8/2012
Msg: 242
view profile
History
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/10/2013 1:13:30 PM
Natural looks almost meaningless to me in a man. I'm attracted to a man who takes care of himself physically. Most my friends would take a fit, active man over a handsome one. As for well thought out messages...they are so welcome. Unfortunately also rare. My guy had me hooked right away by the way he expressed himself and focused on little things in my profile.

Keep whining and writing the same empty messages and you are guaranteed an attractive woman will not show interest. Have you made her feel special? Why exactly would she respond to you and not the other 100 empty messages?
 Midwest_Southwest
Joined: 9/9/2012
Msg: 243
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/10/2013 3:48:01 PM

By the way even if a man reads and writes a 1-2 paragraph message response to a woman's ad, she isn't going to go "hmm well I don't find him attractive, and I'm not interested, but he wrote a nice message so I'll give him a chance anyway to show his personality and character ."


Like others, I've done it too. Most of the time. I have terrible eyesight, so personality, intelligence and character have to win.
 Nj2ut
Joined: 11/5/2012
Msg: 244
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/10/2013 5:49:46 PM

One of the many problems with your premise is that it seems to be only guys that go into "carpet-bombing" mode. The fact that women do no engage in such activity should already be a very strong indicator that looks are not their main concern. If looks were the "1st and foremost" of women's concerns then carpet-bombing would work and we know, from the comments of both men and women in these forums, that it does not.


Most women don't approach men or initiate contact to begin with (yes there are exceptions to the rule..so no need to reply with "well I ask out men"). They either have plenty of options contacting them first or they play the "Im old fashion" card .

Guys do what works. If sending out well written messages doesn't work, then they go to go copy and paste etc.


This is a sausage-fest environment because guys are making it that way. If guys didn't go into "carpet-bombing" mode, it would not be a sausage-fest. All the "sausage-fest" does is indicate the very low quality of the available sausages. It shouldn't surprise anyone that women would neither be impressed nor interested, which accounts for a lot of the complaints from guys about women not replying to their messages.


Clearly you don't know what the term sausage fest actually means. Just like at the club, no guy has control over the fact men out number women. Even if every guy wrote some well written message to each woman he caught his eye, women would have still multiple guys sending her a message to choose from.

What every guy learns early on is even if you have decent profile and send well written messages it does not guarantee your going to get a response in most cases (despite what the exception to the rules say) or the opportunity to prove you are "quality sausage".

There was a woman in my area who said she recently moved here from Colorado and was looking for FRIENDS. Well I moved here from the ast coast a few years ago and offered to be friends. Wrote her a 3-4 sentence paragraph. NO ...""Ur hot", showed her I read her ad. Did I get a response just to be even friends...NOPE.Not even a thank you for welcoming me to the state and the offer of friendship but im not interested.

By the way go to profile reviews section and count the number of guys requesting a reviews versus the number of women. Trust me not every woman who has an ad on here is writing online gold. At least there are guys trying to improve themselves to more successful with online dating.


Also, the number of options are the same for both genders. Women just seem to be better at not exercising the "poor" options.


Really? If that was the truth then I doubt there would be so many ads by women that include:

"no players"
"not looking for sex"
"prove to me that not all men are the same"


In either case, the woman will, more often than not, be evaluating the guy past his looks. Her having fun depends a lot more on the guy's personality than on the guy's looks.


Care to explain why some women have height requirements? If it has a lot to do with the guys personality then technically height would be irrelevant.
 LathaMath
Joined: 1/2/2013
Msg: 245
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/10/2013 7:53:18 PM

is it too simplistic to assume because someone is physically more attractive than yourself, that it is simply pointless to try starting a conversation
Never try to tell a woman who to sleep with. She'll make up her own mind. Go ahead an offer yourself if you're interested. I don't mean that literally, of course. You don't say "Hey, baby, wanna f*ck?" You say, "Isn't that a great Picasso? I've always been intreagued by the way his early Parisian experience influenced his later political works."
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 246
view profile
History
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/11/2013 3:52:52 AM
How would someone know if a message is copy/pasted anyway? The few times I've messaged a woman, when reading a lot of the things like about copy/pasting etc, I'd wonder if a woman thought my message was part of a mass-mailing (is that what we're talking about?), I never had a concrete reason for thinking this, but it just came to mind. I think it's because I'm used to so many people having the expectations and preconceptions born of cynicism and bad experiences. Buy anyway, how would one tell? - A first-message of mine might not be very personal, because that seems s0 useless when talking to a stranger, and I might just be stating that I've seen their profile, am inviting them to read mine, etc...I'm afraid that's a bit generic so it might be dismissed. Which to me is ridiculous though.

(the discussion about whether or not women versus men are "into looks"):

I figure both men and women are. How much of the male population versus the female population, I don't know. The difference might be inconsequential. And the differences of how each is into the looks, might also be inconsequential...concerning whether it's men or women that are more into looks, that is.

I make two immediate observations -

- a female poster above pointed out that she's went on a date with a man she didn't immediately find attractive...and the guy became very good looking to her.

- on the other hand, I rarely message anyone, and I recently messaged a woman, based on her profile, because her profile reflected a person of some depth, of some seriousness, with things in common with myself...I'd have to get into what those things are for this post to be really understood, but I'm not going to bother with that (and my profile is different now than it was)...anyway, her response to me was disappointment that I no longer had my 2 feet of hair, and was now bald/burr, and that's the only message I've ever gotten from her. What's that mean? Dunno...you decide.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 247
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/11/2013 4:34:27 AM





Most women don't approach men or initiate contact to begin with


A male that believes that statement is one that obviously misses all the subtle ways women use to approach men. Women initiate contact all the time, they just do it with a "little more" subtlety than many guys do. You are not going to get a "wasup babe" or "ur hawt" message from a woman.



They either have plenty of options contacting them first or they play the "Im old fashion" card .


I doubt those that send the "wasup babe" and "ur hawt" messages are considered "options". Once those have been removed from the population, the number of "options" worth a woman's consideration has shrunk significantly, likely below the number of "options" males have. I have to point out too that, I doubt there are a lot of women that like to be considered an "option" as if they were cans of coffee sitting on a grocery store shelf.



Guys do what works. If sending out well written messages doesn't work, then they go to go copy and paste etc.


If there is one thing reading the posts in these forums and the women's profile shows is that "carpet-bombing" does _not_ work. If it did, there wouldn't be so many complaints from males about not getting responses to their messages.



Clearly you don't know what the term sausage fest actually means. Just like at the club, no guy has control over the fact men out number women.


The sausage-fest isn't a result that there are more men than women. It is a result that there is a large percentage of males that goes around offering their sausages indiscriminately, which rarely, if ever, impresses a woman. By the time the "sausage-for-free" options are ignored, there are very few good "options" left for the women to consider.



Even if every guy wrote some well written message to each woman he caught his eye, women would have still multiple guys sending her a message to choose from.


So ?... there is competition... let the best guy and the best woman who are the best mutual match find themselves and get together. Theoretically, the purpose of a site like this is to find the best match, not shoot in the dark and hope to "score".



What every guy learns early on is even if you have decent profile and send well written messages it does not guarantee your going to get a response in most cases (despite what the exception to the rules say) or the opportunity to prove you are "quality sausage".


Those who want guarantees should be looking for a toaster. A well written message does not "guarantee" a guy is a match for the recipient. It doesn't matter if a guy is a "quality sausage", it must be a "quality sausage" that matches what she wants and, hopefully the converse to be true as well. Sending a "wasup babe" message puts the quality of the sausage in doubt thereby negating the need to establish if there is a match or not.



NOPE.Not even a thank you for welcoming me to the state and the offer of friendship but im not interested.


Ok, that wasn't nice but, too many women here have gotten hate responses when they reply with a "thank you but no thank you". Really, in most cases, it is the unsavory and irrational behavior of males that have caused that behavior.



By the way go to profile reviews section and count the number of guys requesting a reviews versus the number of women.


That's because we know that women generally read the guy's profile therefore it is sensible for a guy to do his best to have a good profile. We also know that a significant number of guys don't read women's profile, therefore there is less incentive for them to write a good one.

What happens in the profile review section is a strong indicator that a significant number of guys only look at the woman's pictures whereas a significant number of women will read the profile. This reinforces the fact that guys rely more on looks than women do.



At least there are guys trying to improve themselves to more successful with online dating.


As posts from several women indicate, it does pay off for a guy to have a well written profile _and_ send a well written message. It may not work every time but, it works a lot better than the "wasup babe" insipid message they get all too often.



Really? If that was the truth then I doubt there would be so many ads by women that include:

"no players"
"not looking for sex"
"prove to me that not all men are the same"


Yes, really. Why would you think anyone, man or woman, is going to be _genuinely_ interested in a player, a get laid anytime for anyone and/or, in the last case, another guy that thinks of a woman as an "option" on the shelf ?



Care to explain why some women have height requirements? If it has a lot to do with the guys personality then technically height would be irrelevant.


They have height requirements because that's what they like. IRL, a guy with the right personality could make them reconsider the boundaries of that requirement. However, here it is much less likely to happen but, that is due to the medium not the person.

Obviously lying about height isn't the solution to that problem. Not only is the guy too short, he is a liar too. The latter isn't a desirable personality trait, it won't make up for "being short".

Bottom line remains the same, the fact that many males send cut-n-paste messages is a clear indicator that many males only go by women's looks. This is in stark contrast to women who, first, do not use that method, second, almost always read the guy's profile before replying and, third, are unlikely to reply to a lame "ur hawt" message even if the guy is good looking. That behavior clearly indicates that, in general, while women do take looks into consideration, it is not their main concern.

 or_current_resident
Joined: 6/3/2013
Msg: 248
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/12/2013 5:10:06 PM

I'm attracted to a man who takes care of himself physically. Most my friends would take a fit, active man over a handsome one.

So far so good...

As for well thought out messages...they are so welcome. Unfortunately also rare. My guy had me hooked right away by the way he expressed himself and focused on little things in my profile.


My lady feels the same way, as we did not meet here but by chance at a Xmas Charity thingy. Go figure,mutual attraction & respect......lol


Have you made her feel special?


It grows every day the love & affection in the core values we both admire in each other.

Where as, in our past relationships it was not that much,or that often.As in a commonality of a lasting,loving union. jmo
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 249
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/13/2013 6:51:32 PM

One of the many problems with your premise is that it seems to be only guys that go into "carpet-bombing" mode. The fact that women do no engage in such activity should already be a very strong indicator that looks are not their main concern.

First, not all guys carpet-bomb. All it takes is a loud minority to stir the pot, to make people believe it's a majority when it's not. Second, guys do approaching, offline and online, although it's more open for women to reach out online. Third, women don't have to reach out much -- their inboxes get pretty filled up with prospects compared to guys AND again, guys are the ones who tend to reach out. Fourth, those who DO reach out -- and play the number game -- does not mean they're more into looks than the next person! In fact, those who are obsessed & super picky about looks are NOT going to carpet-bomb. Many who carpet-bomb are just trying to get the ball rolling when statistically it's a low % chance.

You're equating folks who write others hastily as just being into looks. A guy looking for a piece of a$$ is going to be less picky about looks if he has to carpet-bomb to get some, vs others who don't have to. It's just that when you are firing off form emails out to people -- you're just looking at the basics -- looks + possibly categorical criteria like age, kids, smoking, etc. -- and will deal with the rest later -- whether you're picky about the other stuff or not.

Girls like a good looking guy but, in the majority of cases, his personality and character are more important to them than the guy's looks.

And for a relationship, to a guy, her personality is huge too. It's also human nature where one's assessment of someone's personality is influenced by their LOOKS. Fashion -- looks. Facial expressions -- looks. Cleanliness -- looks. Height -- looks -- just as facial structure is looks -- and weight/body-size. For both genders, especially online where people are Strangers -- LOOKS gets ya in the door. With women and men, someone who's better looking than most of their potential "catches" has a greater margin of error with their personality, too -- but that's a whole other story.

Point is -- looks is not just a mere "attribute". It's huge for both. A guy isn't going to stay in a relationship with a psycho girl who's out of his league any more than a girl isn't going to stay in a relationship with a psycho guy out of her league.

Some women who believe they don't care that much about "looks" won't count certain things as actual LOOKS -- because they see it differently. In another thread (I believe in my state's forum section), the topic came up and this woman was talking about how she isn't into looks -- but is into height. When called out on that, she said she doesn't count that as looks. It is! So is weight... shoulder width... style/fashion, the way they walk, the class of shoes they wear, etc. Some matters more than others -- but some won't claim particulars as "looks" because they classify "looks" as frat-boy mentality, raw-sexually-driven aspects.

And in THAT sense, sure, you will find more guys who are upon looks from a more primitive, basic perspective. You'll find more guys caring less about a woman's fashion sense than a woman caring about a guy's fashion sense. One impact is greater to the other & vice versa.

But to say that women aren't picky about looks and will date a sub-par looking guy because he isn't a jerk and has a nice personality, and that guys will get into a relationship with a crazed characterless woman because she's above-par in looks is off the mark.

Guys will be more open for a one-night hookup. And when just-a-hookup is on one's mind, guy or girl, yes, it's pretty much just looks. That's very different in terms of what one's looking in a man or woman they'd like to be with.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 250
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/14/2013 3:27:55 AM





First, not all guys carpet-bomb.


Fortunately, that's true but, the noticeably large enough minority who does makes it very clear that looks are their main concern. It is also notable that women don't do it because the incentive to do it, which is looks, is not a valid reason for them to indulge in that kind of behavior.



Second, guys do approaching, offline and online, although it's more open for women to reach out online.


Women commonly initiate contact both online and irl, they just use a different method, one that is more subtle, not to mention generally classier (no "wasup babe" coming from them)



Third, women don't have to reach out much -- their inboxes get pretty filled up with prospects


Not quite. Their inbox isn't filled with "prospects", it is often filled with "creative" "wasup babe" refuse and in some cases pictures of what those guys consider is their main "asset" (sadly, it might very well be).



You're equating folks who write others hastily as just being into looks.


You are correct. Haste indicates no interest in the person past their looks.



It's just that when you are firing off form emails out to people -- you're just looking at the basics -- looks + possibly categorical criteria like age, kids, smoking, etc. -- and will deal with the rest later -- whether you're picky about the other stuff or not.


Count me out of the "you" in that sentence. What you are describing there is the behavior of a guy that is making a lame attempting at getting laid. As you pointed out, the attempt is mostly, if not entirely, based on looks.



And for a relationship, to a guy, her personality is huge too.


I would hope so. However, it seems a bit peculiar that a lot of guys would have a "three date, get laid" rule if the woman's personality was such a huge concern. It seems to indicate that personality is taking a backseat to other "concerns".



Point is -- looks is not just a mere "attribute". It's huge for both.


Point is, it is generally much more of a concern for guys than it is for girls. Also, leave the hookups out of the picture. That's a different case than looking for a relationship and, even in that case, while looks may play a greater role in a woman's decision that it would otherwise, the guy's personality is still as important, if not more than his looks.



to say that women aren't picky about looks and will date a sub-par looking guy because he isn't a jerk


That has never been the point. The point is that a guy with "sub-par" looks as you put it, can be a very interesting, and attractive, guy to a woman depending on his personality. That is what is a less common occurrence for guys than it is for girls. That is the point. That point has already been exemplified by various female posters in this thread and we are yet to have a single example from a guy, though it is applicable to guys too, it just is not as common.



Guys will be more open for a one-night hookup. And when just-a-hookup is on one's mind, guy or girl, yes, it's pretty much just looks.


Even in the case of a hookup, the guy's looks aren't likely to be a girl's main consideration. Her safety and also, the amount of fun she may get from the hookup, depend a lot more on the guy's personality than on his looks and, women are generally very aware of that.

Either way, in a majority of cases, a guy's looks won't be a woman's primary concern. That said, good looks certainly won't hurt.

 grizzelda
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 251
view profile
History
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/14/2013 11:43:11 AM

It's just that when you are firing off form emails out to people -- you're just looking at the basics -- looks + possibly categorical criteria like age, kids, smoking, etc. -- and will deal with the rest later -- whether you're picky about the other stuff or not


While CR is trying to argue with JustLooking, his postings continue to support Justlooking's position, IMO this paragraph illustrates exactly the vast majority of men and how they go about approaching women. I bet every woman on here has heard the comment "why is a good looking woman like you single?", or "I cant believe a good looking woman like you isnt taken", both of these statement are based on the fact that her looks are the more valued aspect of who she is as a person, because I have never heard a man say to a woman, "why is a nice or good lady like you single", but this is the most often line heard by men from women, to me this is a very clear indication of what is valuable to each sex and what drives them to approach a possible mate.
 Paderic
Joined: 2/23/2010
Msg: 252
About leagues. . .
Posted: 6/14/2013 1:29:54 PM
Anyone who actually believes that looks don't matter to women should try an experiment I conducted a few years ago. Create two identical male profiles, except put pictures of an average looking guy on one and pictures of a good looking guy on the other. One profile will receive zero initial contact from women, the other will be inundated with emails. Guess which one gets all the attention?
Show ALL Forums  > Dating and Love Advice  > About leagues. . .