It's Not the First Date, That Kills, it's the 2nd.

[Tom1990]

The options thing is real as I have female friends that have admitted to me it has influenced them greatly. Now most of them are 40 to 50ish so that might make a difference.

Many have come from marriages where they feel like they settled so they simply are so set on not settling this time it consumes their view. Some may not be all that serious about finding the ONE either and like to browse through men.

 

Interesting observation. When I was young, most people I knew were looking for "Mr./Mrs. Right Now" instead of "Mr./Mrs. Right". I thought once they got older, they'd be ready to settle down. I mean, everyone in their 40's or 50's were happily married with kids, nice house, white picket fence, and a dog named "Scruffy".

 

Fast forward to today, and I'm in my 40's now, and everybody's still the same. I think it's more a generational thing than an age thing. We are who we are.

[Ms Darcy]

I heard this advice many years ago and it has always stuck with me.

 

It's not real until it's a relationship.

 

I went on a ton of first dates and, contrary to what dating forums might suggest, most of the time I never heard from the guys again. I didn't really sweat it. I actually have a harder time remembering details of when my husband and I were first dating than he does. It's not that I didn't take it seriously. I did - I dressed up and was fun and we had good times. But I didn't take it TOO seriously.

 

I would NEVER imagine (and I'm not talking about you Sportster) freaking out about some guy I had communicated with online for two weeks who fell off the radar. And I had so many one-hit wonder dates that second dates were a total surprise and bonus. And I didn't really start to get serious about boys until they became my boyfriend.

 

I sort of wish people would stop taking this stuff so seriously so soon. I mean, it's not like you are in love. It's probably more about the fantasy of a relationship than anything. First date connection means very little in the long run. I had a first date connection with a guy at a 10 but a compatibility level with him at a 3 ... and that quickly became apparent over time.

 

I totally get disappointment though. I do. I went on so many dates and for a few months, it was kinda fun. After a while, it was a DRAAAG. I didn't even like going out that much, but I had a goal in mind. I would just separate the feelings of disappointment about being alone from the negative feelings about the dating process.

 

The dating process sucks because it's unpredictable. Your success is dependent on so many factors. And somehow you have to find someone who is not only what you are looking for but is looking for YOU.

 

It's also unpredictable because you aren't really meeting that person at first (nor are they meeting you). You are meeting their representative. And it's only when a relationship starts that you get a sense of the real dynamic and commitment between the two of you. It's not real until it's a relationship.

[Ms Darcy]

Getting hundreds of messages will affect choices in many.

 

I don't want to make assumptions about who your friends are BUT there are OK Cupid studies about how different demographics of women get differing responses.

 

So I think white and Asian women get the most responses. Then Hispanic and other ethnicities. Then black women get the fewest.

 

It's a sort of flip for men where Asian men get the least.

 

I bring this up to say I think we have to be a bit more broad-minded about our generalizations here. Not every woman has tons of options. If you narrow, I think there will also be differences when you think about the age and weight of women and where they live, and that will affect options.

 

But we live in a world where (for some reason), a guy will hear from Taylor Swift (just to add a visual) that she has a bunch of options and think that's the case for all women. It's not.

[IAmFCA]

Its important to remember that 100 messages from people whom I wouldn't let wash my car much less date me is worth to 0 messages, to me. Less so, because I have to wade through them. Anyone who is getting 100 messages is sifting through a broad array of traits and likely still trying to discern what they want, or simply looking for looks / casual / power etc.

 

Getting 100 messages DOES NOT equate to having many options.

 

I have hidden my profile. I choose men who I want to explore, and only those people can see it. Once I did that, my options - men I would choose for myself - reduced to less than 20, and that's before I found out whether they are interested.

[faraday]

I heard this advice many years ago and it has always stuck with me.

 

It's not real until it's a relationship.

 

I went on a ton of first dates and, contrary to what dating forums might suggest, most of the time I never heard from the guys again. I didn't really sweat it. I actually have a harder time remembering details of when my husband and I were first dating than he does. It's not that I didn't take it seriously. I did - I dressed up and was fun and we had good times. But I didn't take it TOO seriously.

 

I would NEVER imagine (and I'm not talking about you Sportster) freaking out about some guy I had communicated with online for two weeks who fell off the radar. And I had so many one-hit wonder dates that second dates were a total surprise and bonus. And I didn't really start to get serious about boys until they became my boyfriend.

 

I sort of wish people would stop taking this stuff so seriously so soon. I mean, it's not like you are in love. It's probably more about the fantasy of a relationship than anything. First date connection means very little in the long run. I had a first date connection with a guy at a 10 but a compatibility level with him at a 3 ... and that quickly became apparent over time.

 

I totally get disappointment though. I do. I went on so many dates and for a few months, it was kinda fun. After a while, it was a DRAAAG. I didn't even like going out that much, but I had a goal in mind. I would just separate the feelings of disappointment about being alone from the negative feelings about the dating process.

 

The dating process sucks because it's unpredictable. Your success is dependent on so many factors. And somehow you have to find someone who is not only what you are looking for but is looking for YOU.

 

It's also unpredictable because you aren't really meeting that person at first (nor are they meeting you). You are meeting their representative. And it's only when a relationship starts that you get a sense of the real dynamic and commitment between the two of you. It's not real until it's a relationship.

 

Exactly. I can't even remember the names of most of the guys I met once or twice...or even dated for a month or two. Way too much investing for many people in online dating. Just because you met a few times doesn't mean ANYTHING will happen...or that anything is owed (like an explanation or whatever). If someone falls off the face of the earth...let them. Be so busy with your life and your own stuff that you don't even notice. I rarely noticed when guys poofed on me...even ones I liked...because I had so much going on when I was dating (intentionally) that I had no idea who was in the cue. It's an easier way to exist.

[reinventmyself]

I read somewhere once that women tend to go into a date wondering `is he my forever after' ?

I suppose the same goes for both sexes.

We need to set that mindset aside and try to stay in the moment and bring our best selves, not our anxious selves.

Let the rest happen organically.

Besides. . it's just a date.

[lostandhurt]

I don't want to make assumptions about who your friends are BUT there are OK Cupid studies about how different demographics of women get differing responses.

 

So I think white and Asian women get the most responses. Then Hispanic and other ethnicities. Then black women get the fewest.

 

It's a sort of flip for men where Asian men get the least.

 

I bring this up to say I think we have to be a bit more broad-minded about our generalizations here. Not every woman has tons of options. If you narrow, I think there will also be differences when you think about the age and weight of women and where they live, and that will affect options.

 

But we live in a world where (for some reason), a guy will hear from Taylor Swift (just to add a visual) that she has a bunch of options and think that's the case for all women. It's not.

 

So here is a little known tid bit about OK Cupid.

The CEO admitted that they manipulate things on their site. They actually did testing without the knowledge of the profiles owner by recommending matches that were not matches just to see what happens. Basically they cooked the numbers just to see what happens so I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in any studies OKC has done.

 

As far as generalizations go all I have is anecdotal evidence from talking to women I know or have dated. So yes it is true for the women in my zone I guess but obviously not for all women.

In sportsters case he seems to attract and be attracted to very beautiful women with athletic figures that have all their stuff together and I can tell you that these women have plenty of options online. It is a number game and you will never win if you don't play but playing can be brutal over the long haul...

 

Lost

[lostandhurt]

I read somewhere once that women tend to go into a date wondering `is he my forever after' ?

I suppose the same goes for both sexes.

We need to set that mindset aside and try to stay in the moment and bring our best selves, not our anxious selves.

Let the rest happen organically.

Besides. . it's just a date.

 

I agree 100%

Remember when we were young and had no expectations other than having fun and what ever happened happened? Having not dated in 2 years and really enjoying my life as it is now I think I am very close to that place now.

I totally get were sportster is coming from though, when you meet someone that is really great especially after a lot of failures our minds place way to much importance on making it work.

 

Lost

[reinventmyself]

I agree 100%

Remember when we were young and had no expectations other than having fun and what ever happened happened? Having not dated in 2 years and really enjoying my life as it is now I think I am very close to that place now.

I totally get were sportster is coming from though, when you meet someone that is really great especially after a lot of failures our minds place way to much importance on making it work.

 

Lost

I can see when you've had recent losses, you are on the look out for future ones and trying how to somehow circumvent them or least lesson the damage. It's not a game one can play while white knuckling it. I speak from experience

[Ms Darcy]

In sportsters case he seems to attract and be attracted to very beautiful women with athletic figures that have all their stuff together and I can tell you that these women have plenty of options online. It is a number game and you will never win if you don't play but playing can be brutal over the long haul...

 

I can agree that it can be very brutal over time. I also think "very beautiful women with athletic figures that have all their stuff together" have plenty of options period. Whether they choose to pay attention to the real life options is their choice.

 

I think when we get into these conversations, sometimes (not always) there is this implicit (and sometimes explicit) admonishment for people having options.

 

Very handsome men with athletic figures that have all their stuff together have numerous options. Whether online or not.

 

I don't know if there is resentment with that. But I have the feeling that folks who are decent looking feel really upset that the men or women they may be attracted to pass on him or her. And I kinda think that's unfair.

[saluk]

So here is a little known tid bit about OK Cupid.

The CEO admitted that they manipulate things on their site. They actually did testing without the knowledge of the profiles owner by recommending matches that were not matches just to see what happens. Basically they cooked the numbers just to see what happens so I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in any studies OKC has done.

 

As far as generalizations go all I have is anecdotal evidence from talking to women I know or have dated. So yes it is true for the women in my zone I guess but obviously not for all women.

In sportsters case he seems to attract and be attracted to very beautiful women with athletic figures that have all their stuff together and I can tell you that these women have plenty of options online. It is a number game and you will never win if you don't play but playing can be brutal over the long haul...

 

Lost

 

Actually this kind of manipulation is needed for studies to eliminate confirmation biases etc. Ethics and good statistics usually conflict. (If there is such a thing as good statistics) I work at a survey company and basically think statistics are mostly bogus, but they can help point you in a direction, sometimes it's the right direction.

[tiredofvampires]

Its important to remember that 100 messages from people whom I wouldn't let wash my car much less date me is worth to 0 messages, to me. Less so, because I have to wade through them. Anyone who is getting 100 messages is sifting through a broad array of traits and likely still trying to discern what they want, or simply looking for looks / casual / power etc.

 

Getting 100 messages DOES NOT equate to having many options.

 

I have hidden my profile. I choose men who I want to explore, and only those people can see it. Once I did that, my options - men I would choose for myself - reduced to less than 20, and that's before I found out whether they are interested.

 

Thanks for that idea. I might think about that for myself.

 

I agree that having tons of options to wade through does NOT feel like a delightful smorgasbord. Mostly, they are totally unsuitable, so it's just a lot of hassle. And disheartening.

[reinventmyself]

Thanks for that idea. I might thank about that for myself.

 

I agree that having tons of options to wade through does NOT feel like a delightful smorgasbord. Mostly, they are totally unsuitable, so it's just a lot of hassle.

 

I've been off and on long enough I recognize what I call `squatters'

Men that sit there for years and poach newbies for sport.

 

Seriously, I see profiles from 10 years ago. Same pictures too.

 

Yah, all those emails people talk about - aren't so flattering when you look at it for what it is.

[John John]

Sportster, I didn't read the whole thread and all the responses, but I think you're mostly right. I think women decide within the first two dates. I think getting to a second date with a woman you like nowadays is quite an accomplishment in and of itself. I personally decide within the first two dates as well. Sometimes I feel attracted to them on the first date and things go smoothly, but then on the second date, I find I'm just not as attracted to them as I had hoped and them promptly end it via a text or just fade away. I feel your pain. Haven't actually dated in a while, although with all the unread emails I have on Match, I'm starting to re-consider it. I just really REALLY don't want to...so over online dating and dating in general. Sign me up for an arranged marriage lol. Regardless, I'm much pickier with women that I even entertain the notion of a first date with. No time for women I'm lukewarm about at best.

 

 

I also have made up my mind that women are definitely mentally stronger than men. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. I have been through things in my life that others wouldn't imagine, and have come out the other side stronger and wiser. But despite all of that, I kinda feel like men (or maybe it's just me - I can't speak for everyone) almost "need" female companionship (read: not talking about just sex, but all the benefits that come from a relationship) more than women need us. Women were raised to be civil, nice and polite...but that little "wall" of civility is crumbling, and it's quite brutal out there.

 

I heard this advice many years ago and it has always stuck with me.

 

It's not real until it's a relationship.

 

I went on a ton of first dates and, contrary to what dating forums might suggest, most of the time I never heard from the guys again. I didn't really sweat it. I actually have a harder time remembering details of when my husband and I were first dating than he does. It's not that I didn't take it seriously. I did - I dressed up and was fun and we had good times. But I didn't take it TOO seriously.

 

I would NEVER imagine (and I'm not talking about you Sportster) freaking out about some guy I had communicated with online for two weeks who fell off the radar. And I had so many one-hit wonder dates that second dates were a total surprise and bonus. And I didn't really start to get serious about boys until they became my boyfriend.

 

I sort of wish people would stop taking this stuff so seriously so soon. I mean, it's not like you are in love. It's probably more about the fantasy of a relationship than anything. First date connection means very little in the long run. I had a first date connection with a guy at a 10 but a compatibility level with him at a 3 ... and that quickly became apparent over time.

 

I totally get disappointment though. I do. I went on so many dates and for a few months, it was kinda fun. After a while, it was a DRAAAG. I didn't even like going out that much, but I had a goal in mind. I would just separate the feelings of disappointment about being alone from the negative feelings about the dating process.

 

The dating process sucks because it's unpredictable. Your success is dependent on so many factors. And somehow you have to find someone who is not only what you are looking for but is looking for YOU.

 

It's also unpredictable because you aren't really meeting that person at first (nor are they meeting you). You are meeting their representative. And it's only when a relationship starts that you get a sense of the real dynamic and commitment between the two of you. It's not real until it's a relationship.

 

And this is why you're one of my absolute favorite posters. Too much truth Darce!

[John John]

I am going to start a new thread on an experience I had a few months back that gave me much to ponder.

 

Lost

 

I'm toying with the idea of doing my own OLD thread. Honestly, the thought of going back to OLD sorta makes me cringe...but ya gotta be in it to win it, right?

[lostandhurt]

Actually this kind of manipulation is needed for studies to eliminate confirmation biases etc. Ethics and good statistics usually conflict. (If there is such a thing as good statistics) I work at a survey company and basically think statistics are mostly bogus, but they can help point you in a direction, sometimes it's the right direction.

 

In the case of OKC they have you answer hundreds of questions and then tell users the percentage of match based on those answers. Manipulating data or simply playing with users by recommending a match when they are total opposites is misleading at least and fraud at worst. When you portray yourself as offering a service that does XYZ and then secretly do ABC without notification that is not right. Justifying it as necessary doesn't make it okay...

 

Lost

[lostandhurt]

I'm toying with the idea of doing my own OLD thread. Honestly, the thought of going back to OLD sorta makes me cringe...but ya gotta be in it to win it, right?

 

Good to see you buddy.

 

I say go for it! Your thread may help you are someone else.

 

Lost

[lostandhurt]

I can agree that it can be very brutal over time. I also think "very beautiful women with athletic figures that have all their stuff together" have plenty of options period. Whether they choose to pay attention to the real life options is their choice.

 

I think when we get into these conversations, sometimes (not always) there is this implicit (and sometimes explicit) admonishment for people having options.

 

Very handsome men with athletic figures that have all their stuff together have numerous options. Whether online or not.

 

I don't know if there is resentment with that. But I have the feeling that folks who are decent looking feel really upset that the men or women they may be attracted to pass on him or her. And I kinda think that's unfair.

 

I am not saying having lots of options is a bad thing necessarily. I was explaining what I have been told when I asked questions. I am not a beautiful woman so obviously I cannot speak for them but I do know and have been lucky enough to date a few. For them as they told me having plenty of options gave them the sense that there was no rush to choose as there would always be another great guy around the corner whether or not that is true is irrelevant if that is what they believe. I can't speak for sportster but my running around days are long gone. I do not want to see how many women I can get, I just want to meet someone special and share my life with them. I thought just came to me.... Stay tuned.

 

From being on ENA for many years I have noticed that the ladies here are not a representation of what I would find on a dating site for the most part. The reasons you are here and/or the fact that you are all here and help others make you special, thoughtful, caring and selfless as well as a great many other wonderful traits. Perhaps the fact that this is a different type of forum allows that to show as apposed to a dating site.

 

 

Lost

[mhowe]

Nice thought Lost...but I don't think the ladies of ENA are selfless, but self aware. And THAT attribute may be missing on the OLD profiles!

[John John]

Nice thought Lost...but I don't think the ladies of ENA are selfless, but self aware. And THAT attribute may be missing on the OLD profiles!

 

I think the ladies on ENA (at least, the "regulars" that are clearly intelligent, articulate, and give great advice) are also a lot more mature than many of the women that are out there.

 

And maturity doesn't necessarily have a linear relationship with age. I've dated cougars who were anything but mature. I'll stop there!

[saluk]

In the case of OKC they have you answer hundreds of questions and then tell users the percentage of match based on those answers. Manipulating data or simply playing with users by recommending a match when they are total opposites is misleading at least and fraud at worst. When you portray yourself as offering a service that does XYZ and then secretly do ABC without notification that is not right. Justifying it as necessary doesn't make it okay...

 

Lost

 

I was not arguing against the ethics, but against the claims that the data they report on is bogus. In fact my point was that the poor ethics may have improved the data. (Heck, getting better data by running an evil experiment is WHY you run an evil experiment!)

[tiredofvampires]

I was not arguing against the ethics, but against the claims that the data they report on is bogus. In fact my point was that the poor ethics may have improved the data. (Heck, getting better data by running an evil experiment is WHY you run an evil experiment!)

 

If we were looking at this from a scientific perspective, "blinding" the populations being studied would in fact not be considered evil or deceptive, but part of getting an unbiased set of data. Double-blinding (so that the experimenters themselves don't know who is answering what) would improve the data further, but in this case that's impossible.

 

While I'm not crazy about misleading users, frankly, the most important part of the OKC profile for me is the questionnaire, and that's what people should be paying attention to imo. Because it's not a number -- it's the response a user has to important questions that affect our compatibility. It also shows you the personality, somewhat -- their tendency to add more of their own comments, or not; their sense of humor if they do add their own comments; the tone of their comments and what they say. Which questions they answered and considered important. Of course, the answers themselves. There are some dealbreaker questions for me in there, and so even if I have a match that is in the 90's, if those dealbreaker questions are answered in a way that doesn't line up with me, I have to move on.

 

So the match numbers may or may not accurately reflect a person's compatibility (within a certain margin of error), but the answers don't lie. I also don't bother with someone who has a high match score but they haven't even bothered to answer more than a few dozen questions. Too few questions answered gives a very skewed result, especially when the questions they answered are particularly non-specific and impersonal (like how many times a day you brush your teeth).

 

Fortunately, I haven't run into anyone whose match score was grossly inconsistent with their questions, indicating the site had manipulated us. But hopefully a few good matches weren't downgraded for experimental purposes, while I just overlooked them!

 

All in all, I just use the match score as a starting point with a profile -- the meat is in the questions (not even as much the write-up). I've read some really great sounding write-ups, and there are many points of incompatibility on the questions so I end up going "nah."

[saluk]

I agree that's how I use the site as well. I got to a phone number yesterday faster than ever before from a profile with NO profile information filled out, but good answers to a few of my key questions. I just commented on her name, 5 minutes later she said she'd rather text than chat on the site, and we went from there and had a really nice text conversation. It was actually refreshing NOT to know so much about someone before chatting.

 

I think we will have a first date at least. Who knows about the 2nd... There are some things that are coming up already that might point to concerns. I'm worried she might be closed off, but I have things in my past as well. I'm excited because usually it is so hard to even get a response from someone, but can't turn my head off.

[Ms Darcy]

From being on ENA for many years I have noticed that the ladies here are not a representation of what I would find on a dating site for the most part. The reasons you are here and/or the fact that you are all here and help others make you special, thoughtful, caring and selfless as well as a great many other wonderful traits. Perhaps the fact that this is a different type of forum allows that to show as apposed to a dating site.

 

What an eloquent way to disagree!

[Ms Darcy]

So here is a little known tid bit about OK Cupid.

The CEO admitted that they manipulate things on their site. They actually did testing without the knowledge of the profiles owner by recommending matches that were not matches just to see what happens. Basically they cooked the numbers just to see what happens so I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in any studies OKC has done.

 

I like the discussion around data.

 

One thing I wanted to add about the OK cupid data [ is the assertion that there was external validation of the results from other dating sites. This information is not based on how millions of OK cupid members rated people (of different races) on Quickmatch.

 

Anecdotally, I have heard this to be true as well.