Slashdot Mirror
The Problem With Internet Dating's Frictionless Market
Hugh Pickens writes "Peter Ludlow writes in the Atlantic that the internet has turned the dating marketplace into a frictionless market that puts together buyer and seller without transaction costs. And that's a bad thing. 'Finding a partner used to be expensive, and the market was inefficient. If you lived in a large city, there were always people looking for partners, but the problem was how to find them.' But one advantage of inefficient dating markets is that in times of scarcity we sometimes take chances on things we wouldn't otherwise try while in times of plenty, we take the path of least resistance (someone who appears compatible) and we forgo difficult and prima facie implausible pairings. Another problem with frictionless online markets (PDF) is that assume we know what we are looking for. But sometimes we simply don't know what we are looking for until we stumble across it in a search for something else, says Ludlow. 'The result is often unexpected and beautiful. So it is with relationships; compatibility is a terrible idea in selecting a partner,' concludes Ludlow. 'We often make our greatest discoveries and acquire our greatest treasures when local scarcity compels us to be open to new and better things.'"
well, lets hope it's as frictionless as possible...inadequate lube leads to broken condoms and accidental babies.
I don't understand how this is even /. related news.
AOL was the best tool for getting laid ever created. RIP.
Did the author just tell us that sometimes it's better to simply "settle" for whoever you can find instead of finding someone compatible? :)
Are the divorce rates changing or staying the same? That would lend some credence to his arguement that the old, difficult method produces a more beautiful and unexpected match. The problem with the old method is that it's often a game of attrition, namely you keep dating until you give up on finding someone that you are lifetime compatible with, and settle whoever's around at the time.
Internet dating might help find prospective partners easier, but does not guarantee success. Not everybody is looking for a 100% compatible mirror image.
Trust me, I found my husband on the internet but that was the first approach,then real world interactions take place and we're back to square one.
"Chemistry"(whatever that means to you) , the sound of someone's voice, their smell, their quirks, eventually sexual compatibility and millions of years of instinctual darwinian stuff will intervene.
I call this one bull IMHO. You still have to kiss a lot of frogs...maybe less than before 1994... but a lot nonetheless!
Go to the stacks looking for stuff, and bring home stacks of non related but vastly interesting reading material you had not thought to look at.
You meet interesting people when doing interesting things, when 'meeting people' is the interesting thing you do to meet people conversations can get very short.
To an extent maybe but I KNOW I don't want someone who smokes and there are other traits that I damn well know without any doubt that I don't want. Matchmaking can weed out the chaff.
I met my wife through a good, and free, online dating service. The problem with the ones you pay for is that most of the members(95%?) can not reply back and they make it impossible to tell who is a paying member or non-paying member. But a good service allows you to find someone that is a great match. Without online services you have what? Bars, work, church? Even then you have to hope for good timing and the geographical range is limited.
The articles statement about you taking people for granted is BS. Some might, but that's because they have issues that exist outside of online dating. Know what you want and don't be afraid to set deal breakers. If you hate smoking and can't deal with it, no smokers, or the reverse if you love smoking. You need to be honest with yourself and your potential mate.
Saying "libraries are better than ebooks" is like saying "Video stores are better than movies"; you're comparing the distribution model with the product it's distributing. Also, the "discovery" aspect of libraries (and bookstores) is present with online bookstores too. Have you never been to Amazon.com?
Staying single is more popular than ever before.
This is probably because of a few factors:
1) being wealthier means people don't need each other as much. Being more able to survive and find entertainment alone makes your time worth more and your need for a partner diminishes, so we would expect fewer people would date.
2) the culture of equality has made dating a lot harder than it used to be. Modern couples are no longer a leader and a follower, but rather two leaders. Naturally, that doesn't work well in most cases.
3) People, by virtue of being able to afford more luxury, develop a sense of entitlement that drives potential mates away. Men expect that their greater wealth means that hotter women will throw themselves at them, and women expect that their independence + beauty should result in even more devotion (or obsession, as some seem to demand) from even higher quality of men. So, nobody is willing to settle, and when people find someone willing to date them both parties feel like they are settling and expect the other party to act like they are "dating up," and be more devoted....of course THAT doesn't work well either.
Unless breeding is an important goal for you, these days you are usually better off single.
Just move country.
You will be an interesting foreigner. With or without the internet, this gives you an edge.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
...says the great big nerd.
And does amazon let you come home with a big armload of books to read at your leisure for free?
We know what we are looking for, and look for what we are looking for, but we don't know what we want. Would a person who shares 20% of our interests be more interesting than someone who shares 80% of our interests because they drive us to new things? Maybe, but when looking, we look for the 100% match because it's easier to find someone who likes the same movies, rather than arguing or trading off preferred movies. Scarcity drives us out of our comfort zone, and our best match may be outside our comfort zone.
Learn to love Alaska
The market be damned. If I can tell at a glance whether a woman spells 'you' as a single vowel or not, society, traditional marriage, the divorce rate, whatever - it can all go to hell.
Specifically, for those of us who have figured out what we want. No more spelunking in bars, hoping the local gaming night has a single female available, or hitting up women in sports clubs. Just a simple hang-out shield. Also helps when being hopelessly shy - email/messaging is much easier than just randomly walking up to someone.
All in all, this is looking really hard for a drawback to online dating. Kinda like the people who argue about how bad it is to have 1 million in the bank, and how simple life was when they had only 1000 dollars in the bank.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Dating sites come with a bunch of filters. Find me a well education intelligent white catholic girl (hey, I'm atheist but catholic girls' schools seem to produce my sort of woman) who's a good cook, likes to dance, can put up with 4 hours of computer gaming on non-dance nights and has a slim or athletic build.
Or skip the dating site and find yourself with an interesting person that has few of those attributes but is great to spend time with. Bonus if it's a girl and she fancies you.
That said, I'm still reluctant to ask out the intelligent female dancer that's about my age and fancies me, purely because we have the same dress size. Sadly I appear to be sufficiently superficial to want someone slimmer than I am.
I've always had really poor luck in dating other girls who were in a technical field of some kind. I think it requires people with different kinds of minds to make a good relationship.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I know my library doesn't, they close as soon as school is out, and are not open on the weekends. I have never even been in the place and I am starting to wonder if they actually do unlock the door once in a while.
No, but Project Gutenburg does.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The computer matches are so perfect as to eliminate the thrill of romantic conquest?
Where have I heard that before? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE7mi-gdIYw
This was not my experience with online dating AT ALL. I spent two years on online dating sites every day and only got three dates with three different girls out of it (finally met my current girlfriend on OKCupid, have been dating for over a year, yay me). I got three more on the phone and found them to be uninteresting. For those of us who don't live in the biggest metropolitan US cities, I imagine there just aren't as many options if you're looking for a relationship and not a lay. In my area, one or two new girls would pop up every day but most of them weren't very interesting (didn't seem terribly ambitious, bright, or well read). When I see personal op-eds lamenting the state of dating, it always seems like these people are dealing with the dating culture of hip metropolitan cities. The rest of us are probably having a very different experience. Or maybe I'm just really picky.
Exactly what this guy says, as well. From the article:
I don’t know if the editors of The Atlantic have found a goldmine of reader interest in the topic or if they are just irritated by their kids being online all the time, but once again we read in their pages that the Internet is destroying the good life. In 2008 Google was making us stupid; last year Facebook was making us lonely (it isn’t); and now online dating is “threatening monogamy.”
My local library has the 'Freegal' service that allows patrons to download any 3 drm-free Mp3s each week. A lot of libraries use it, I think it's the entire Sony catalog (get revenge on them for their locked down Playstaions!).
I'm separated, and I can't think of any good reasons to be in a relationship again.
Probably because you haven't met the reason yet. It's ok to be single. If the right person comes along, wonderful. If not, enjoy whatever suits you.
Yes, random relationships can produce beauty. They can also produce heartache, rape, theft, and divorce.
Just because meteor strikes make beautiful sunsets doesn't mean we should welcome them.
Now you go online, select a partner, and you are immediately dating someone who is at least interested in you. Of course online dating is still work, but the emotional labor and risk of failure has been significantly reduced.
Methinks TFA is complaining about a problem that doesn't actually exist. At least from the male perspective, online dating has a great deal of friction.
You can't just select a partner and immediately start dating them. You need to message them. It better be good or they don't respond. Actually, they probably won't respond even if it is good.
You need to do this over and over again until you get a response.
After you get a response, you need to carry about a conversion for a little while until you can arrange a first date. Most will stop replying before you reach that stage.
Only after you've met and your date hasn't stood you up or canceled at the last minute for no reason are you dating. Everything before that is just a headache.
The market has just as much friction as before. It has just moved from the finding to the getting part. It's like shopping online where there are many shops selling but hardly have stock and none will tell you one way or the other until after you've filled out a detailed order form.
>> bring home stacks of... vastly interesting reading material
Binders full of women?
Don't forget the "professional" Child Support moms.
They seduce guys, get a baby, put in a token two years because they need Dad to cover the other half of the diaper stage, then divorce them and collect child support. Then they get new boyfriends for the cuddlin' and help under the table but get to collect the child support as free cash.
Posting as AC because this comment will get pummeled in 12 minutes. But it's true.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I actually RTFA this time, and it blew my mind!
Turns out I had the whole concept of Internet Dating wrong! I've been dating the Internet itself!
mind-gasm
Didn't need to be pay
BG (Before Gore) and public internet access. /. handle.
I used to run a Bulletin Board System (BBS) thus the
AmigA 2000/3000. Cnet software, with 6 phone lines coming in.
It was a Chat board, and the most popular thing around to those
who knew of modems. blatant yet innocent flirting was rampant
and the most fun.
It cost me thousands of bucks (a lot), I not only provided it free to all,
I condemned the pay sites and would provide what they did (downloads)
just to bug them.
In my experience people frequented the BBS's and chats sites because they were
looking to meet others, and/or something to do. I provided that for both myself as well
as the others (users).
We (my site and other BBS's) would have coffies (sic), "ice cream socials" and
spontaneous gatherings. Everybody wanted to know who was behind the handle,
and posts. Costing 10 cents a minute for long distance, BBS's were mostly local
(a very few PC Pursuit'ers)
My board saw three weddings, one groom being a phone phreaker from England
who met a girl on my board (west coast, USA). I have a son I often claim cost me
$280 the cost of my first 2400 baud modem and many other romances as
others were able to meet.
BBS's were dating sites, just not called that. It's said that "there's someone for
everyone", I've seen some very odd partnerships and can say yes it's true.
-Not known for my writing, which in this case sad. Those BBS days are still some of the best days of my life.
The article is just a bunch of buzzwords trying to appear profound on that basis. There are only three things that matter in the world of online dating sites: (1) Have an attractive picture, (2) Have an attractive picture, and (3) Make sure your picture is attractive. That's 99.44% of online dating right there. You can write out the most heartfelt and sincere profile in the whole world and it will go unreplied to. Likewise when responding to womens' profiles; I don't think it matters at all what you write beyond a certain minimum of decorum. It's a meat (meet) market, pure and simple, and it's pure Darwinism.
Don't forget the "professional" Child Support moms.
They seduce guys, get a baby, put in a token two years because they need Dad to cover the other half of the diaper stage, then divorce them and collect child support. Then they get new boyfriends for the cuddlin' and help under the table but get to collect the child support as free cash.
Posting as AC because this comment will get pummeled in 12 minutes. But it's true.
Do you have any evidence that this problem actually exists?
1) I don't think child support is that generous, particularly when you consider the costs in time and money of raising a child.
2) Why get rid of the dad? Wouldn't they be able to extract more value by staying in the relationship?
3) I don't think it's nearly as easy for a women with children to attract a man who will support her as you suggest.
I stole this Sig
I met my wife online (in a chat channel...). If internet dating tools had been prevalent then,a nd if we had used them... we never would have turned up as a compatible match.
Sometimes it's the things that you disagree on that make you a good match, as well as the things that you agree on. I suspect that only a narcissistic few would be truly fulfilled with someone who had the exact same way of thinking, likes, dislikes, etc as themselves.
The problem exists, though I'll say it doesn't necessarily require a marriage to start with. I'll avoid the "Citation needed" gig, and instead reply that you should ask around about the "Head of Household" income tax status on the US tax code. The kids appear, the marriage collapses, and then the father is on the hook by law because the woman doesn't re-marry (which would end the child support). Then the woman "conveniently" gets a new boyfriend in her life who pays for the perks of living, and the child support payments come in on top of that for 18 years but the ex only gets to see the kids twice a week or whatever.
"Why get rid of the dad" is the point, because for the women who do this, sometimes they're all hot and saucy and even like it for a year, but then they get bored and move on but now the kid is in the picture. It's about a lack of commitment to hold down the marriage "for better and worse" etc. And this isn't "we tried for 9 years and it didn't work", just look at the ages of the kids. 2 year olds etc.
It's NOT the majority, but it DOES happen.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Don't forget the "professional" Child Support moms.
They seduce guys, get a baby, put in a token two years because they need Dad to cover the other half of the diaper stage, then divorce them and collect child support. Then they get new boyfriends for the cuddlin' and help under the table but get to collect the child support as free cash.
Posting as AC because this comment will get pummeled in 12 minutes. But it's true.
Do you have any evidence that this problem actually exists?
It only has to happen once for the problem to "exist", but doesn't imply that it happens with any significant frequency. I happen to know someone who has 5 kids to 5 different guys and would be raking in the child support (different arrangement here in AU than in the US, but a similar net effect) if she hadn't picked 5 deadbeats to have kids with.
Don't worry, getting jumped by gold digging mommas is a pretty standard experience for Slashdotters, I'm sure they can relate to your comments.
Don't forget the "professional" Child Support moms.
They seduce guys, get a baby, put in a token two years because they need Dad to cover the other half of the diaper stage, then divorce them and collect child support. Then they get new boyfriends for the cuddlin' and help under the table but get to collect the child support as free cash.
Posting as AC because this comment will get pummeled in 12 minutes. But it's true.
Do you have any evidence that this problem actually exists?
It only has to happen once for the problem to "exist", but doesn't imply that it happens with any significant frequency. I happen to know someone who has 5 kids to 5 different guys and would be raking in the child support (different arrangement here in AU than in the US, but a similar net effect) if she hadn't picked 5 deadbeats to have kids with.
Well in that context the problem existing means that it's a relatively common problem. The example you give actually suggests that "professional" Child Support moms might simply be women who have significant relationship issues and have no intent of deceiving men into some kind of child support scheme.
I stole this Sig
... as the slashdot moderation control.
I met my wife on the internet, but it was via ytalk on a vt100 terminal at uni in 94 and at the time she was only as far away as the other side of the campus (or possibly in the next room). We've nearly been together now for half the time i've been alive.
Back in my day we didn't even need dating sites!
Posting as AC because this comment will get pummeled in 12 minutes.
Huh. TaoPhoenix. I always wonder who that AC character was.......
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Three dates, got married, to a body that was way out of my league (age 22). She ended up completely crazy... but what do you expect when you marry someone who is also willing to get hitched after three dates. Eight years later, she's 30.... I've managed to prevent pregnancy only due to my own due diligence (she poked holes in condoms, said she was on the pill when she wasn't, etc). She's washed up, filed for divorce a year ago, she's holding it up, but it doesn't matter now. I'm in my mid 30's and want to cut through the BS and find the mother of my children. Online dating fits the bill perfectly. An online match, even if it's with someone less physically desirable, sounds pretty damn good. Hell, after 40, nothing is physically desirable anymore. Sign me up.
Well for evidence an article from a reputable newspaper would do (my very brief search didn't find anything). Besides, you're now arguing that the marriage is failing, not as part of a deliberate scheme, but because the woman has no commitment, which is a much weaker claim.
As for "the woman doesn't re-marry (which would end the child support)", and 'cuddling under the table' comment from your first post, this appears to be false. The woman's relationship status does not affect child support. You could be talking about alimony, but that's something completely different (and probably harder to get after a short term marriage).
In short your comment is factually inaccurate and has a chauvinist tone, it should be pummelled.
I stole this Sig
Methinks TFA is complaining about a problem that doesn't actually exist. At least from the male perspective, online dating has a great deal of friction.
Umwelt:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-people-write-you-back/
There is a guy in Finland who really believes what you wrote. He goes even further: those predatory women chase men even at workplaces, to collect the most wealthy ones, marry then, make a child and force the guy to work overtime, build a house, etc. Then chases for next one.
You see, men cannot think with their brains therefore the "seducing" works easily.
And as the GP says, they cannot even take a few beatings and rap...foced-coituses, they divorce! What ungrateful bastards those feminists are! Worst is that you have to pay alimony - after all it was the woman who got pregnant, not the man!
I'd like to suggest that online dating is an example of a cloud service, where freedom # -1 applies, namely:
the freedom to interact with all other USERS of a social network, and portability of the communications.
One of the major problems with Internet dating now is that the market has fragmented - we need a single, global site where ALL single people can be found, and which is free and searchable. We don't want a monopoly of service providers, but we need a single common standard and interface. Otherwise, every site has the incentive to lock in its own users and to do the whole bait-and-switch thing (aka "free to join, pay to reply").
Incidentally, I run one such site, and I posed this very problem to RMS.... his response was very insightful (though not very helpful): he said "not every social problem can be fixed with a software license".
Internet dating is a great thing. Call me a fucking arrogant asshole, if you like. Some people dont realize that what follows is my honest opinion:
Yes, in fact the problem is not finding the people looking for a date. My procedure for the last time i looked for somebody (together for four years now) has been the following:
(1) Throw out everybody who has more than one education level difference. Same education level preferred.
(2) Remove women from set who use sterotypical language
(3) Remove women from set who speak less than 2 language fluently and understand less than 3 languages
(4) Technical/Scientifical Jobs preferred
Why, o why? I made the experience that having a Phd in physics while the partner struggles to finish a bachelor in a quite simple and non-demanding subject is an indicator for problems to come, even if you may love each other otherwise. So is a speed difference in reading of a factor of about 5 or more. Beyond some self-esteem issues of the partner:
1) Mobility. Its better if both persons have the same degree of mobility
2) similar income. Strongly strongly different incomes mean that the person with the lower income will probably follow the peroson with thhe higher income (since it is economically reasonable), making the situation usually even worse
3) Similar wordview. Do i really want to have a future wife with whom i will have to discuss wether evolution of creation is correct? Do I really want to have a fight about the ideals? Do i really, really want that my future wife has books in the bookshelf which classify as cheap esoteric bullshit which I would feels needs to be thrown in the thrash? The problem is less that the current worldvie may be different, but a scientific education strongly increases the bullshit filter (AKA scepticism) you have against various forms of political and religious propaganda. And believe me - its annouying to explain the problems over and over.
4) Similar lifestyle and ideals. Living in a big house in front of a city, going everyday to the same work for 30 years by travelling one our by car in one direction is not my lifestyle. "Settling down" means for me more something like "Settling down for 10 years". So no, somebody who expects me to settle down for 30 years may have some severe - unsolvable - conflicts with me.
So that is how i met my current significant other and i cant complain.
Well played^W^W^W^W^W^Wkarma-whored, sir.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
It's all about economics. Women went into the work force in the late seventies, that's what allowed the economy to restructure and prolong itself
You want productivity, right? You want the country producing more stuff, don't you? Putting more people into jobs is a way to do that. More people working == more stuff produced, which is your net productivity. Now, it might not increase your per capita productivity, but it does increase your net productivity.
people have to work more to get less, but you can thank the government for that, with all the inflation, taxes, regulations, which pushed productive jobs elsewhere
Oh, that's right. I forgot that you want to pay employees nothing for their time. You want to be able to buy and sell them like cattle or cord wood on the open market. You want all workers to be "at-will" so that they can be hired and fired on a whim without any avenues for recourse. You want to ensure that power is concentrated in the hands of the very few and kept away from working class people at all costs.
For some reason you call this freedom. Thinking people see this as fascism for the people.
Complete polar opposites personality wise, they met by chance at Princeton in the 30's as she was the recently divorced sister of a colleague of Dirac's. No dating algorithm in the world would have paired them up as matches and yet they had two children and were happily married the rest of their lives. Dirac's own children were at a loss as to how the marriage was successful since it defied logic that a mathematical genius who rarely spoke ended up with a talkative, self described "scientific zero" and yet, there they were.
...is that it doesn't solve the division problem Gregory House once described: 5 doesn't go into 8. Internet dating does not make hot women attracted or in any way receptive to ugly guys. Since no matter how dim the lighting is, a fake profile picture will be found out, that leaves lying about your income... and if you were any good at lying convincingly, you could probably handle the bar scene.
Come on, really? Nerds don't date!
Did you miss the part where the majority of profiles are bots/spam? So you have to find a pay service in order to weed out the fake profiles. Outside of that, the only other part that annoys me is its like in all the clubs/bars. There are 100 guys for every one doable woman.
A computer programmer happens across a frog in the road. The frog pipes up, "I'm really a beautiful princess and if you kiss me, I'll stay with you for a week". The programmer shrugs his shoulders and puts the frog in his pocket.
A few minutes later, the frog says "OK, OK, if you kiss me, I'll give you great sex for a week". The programmer nods and puts the frog back in his pocket.
A few minutes later, "Turn me back into a princess and I'll give you great sex for a whole year!". The programmer smiles and walks on.
Finally, the frog says, "What's wrong with you? I've promised you great sex for a year from a beautiful princess and you won't even kiss a frog?"
"I'm a programmer," he replies. "I don't have time for sex.... But a talking frog is pretty neat!"
I've seen a half dozen of these situations in 30 years and so I can speculate some answers for you.
1) Child support is 23% of the man's income for one child and scales up from there. There is NO requirement or enforcement that the money be spent on the child. If the couple owned a house and the man makes "good money", they are often required to pay part of the house payment while not being allowed to live there. For bonus points, in pro alimony states the man also pays child support.
2) The mom gets nearly complete control over how the child is raised. The dad gets to enforce his rules 6 days a month.. the mom gets the rest. This has declined since 2000 as joint custody occurs more. For bonus points, the 6 days plays out as free weekend baby sitting for the mom.
3) If she's "hot" then it's pretty easy to attract a lothario-- especially if said lothario doesn't have to pay her rent. He doesn't have to support or deal with the kids. But if lothario turns into a step dad... he usually has no say in how the kids are raised. unless she repeats (which I have no personal experience with in 30 years but have heard about third hand). Oh wait.. there was one- high school friend, he was totally in love with one of these. She had 4 kids by 4 guys by the time she was done. And we are pretty sure that his daughter wasn't really his daughter.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I'm sure that situation (more or less) has indeed happened. However, what about the (much more common) occurrence of men treating women as just a place to stick their dick? With little regard for what happens afterward to her or her child? Like, for thousands of years? Obviously not all men, even long ago, were like this, however I think my point is clear.
Yes there are laws that have been put in place in the last hundred years that theoretically give women legal standing and power (as opposed to none), however even in our modern society, I'd say that on balance, women still get the short end, in a society still mostly ruled by rich old white men.
Look at fucking *current events* with "women can reject rape sperm" and other dark-ages bullshit like that? There are *many* men that still think that way. And they're pissed that they can't *literally* own their women anymore, as their grandfathers did.
I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, but one has to look at context, and frequency.
Sure, there are women that abuse the power afforded them by law. Are you saying that men never do that? Of course not, since that'd be absurd. Both men and women have selfish drives, though I think men still win in that department, statistically speaking.
Also I'd be surprised if the *vast* majority of couples (married or otherwise) started out as anything but two people genuinely caring about each other. Things can go sour fast, and they do often, for many reasons.
I just don't think there's the same level and frequency of sociopathy in women as there is in men.
Don't think so! Anyone single would rather find some kind of Ok date than no date at all. And if you are that adventureous you can just try meeting people the old fashioned way, without going through software algorithms, you know?
1. Individuals who are in the high attractiveness quandrant, the company I worked with referred to the as "date bacon," have high rates of being replied to, high rates of physical meetings, and moderate levels of dating success. If you are, or present as, a young, never married, childless, photogenic, of median for the site intelligence, and slightly above median earning and intelligence, male, the e-dating world looks like the one in the article: it is easy find partners, though it was fairly obvious who was real (the disappeared after 1-3 physical dates) and who was not (serial daters with complaints coming in after ward). There were some echo quadrants: people who were post a short "starter marriage," which could also have been a non-married domestic LTR, had date bacon like rates of reply etc. There was a distant echo quandrant among post-child individuals. Date bacon was the product: getting these people on was a high intensity activity, because everyone else on the site messaged and joined to message date bacon. This was irrespective of genders and orientations: women had a very narrow range of men the wanted (near their age, but slightly older, attractive, financial success signalling men of above median educational attainment), as did men (who were actually less visually correlated than the women). Date bacon did not stay on the site long, and date bacon indexes were good predictors of matching. Bacon goes with bacon.
2. For everyone else, things were a great deal worse, however for, what was euphemistically terms "alternatively monogamous," read people in sexless marriages who were searching for relationships on the side, had high rates of use, and would score partners out of sheer persistence. The site had an equivocal relationship with cheaters, because these people were the income, but too many and it drove down site stats. I did some work to figure out the optimal level of cheaters. Yes there is one.
3. The least satisfied quadrant was non-date bacon individuals searching for monogamy. The difference here is a factor of about 10 from date bacon. People in this quadrant see a totally different dating world: low rates of reply, few physical dates, low chance of a relationship, though, as you might guess, if people did make it over these hurdles, they tended to leave the site. Males in this population did not stay paid members, were as many females in this population did.
4. There were two other populations, one "the non-daters," mostly women who got replies and were either hostile or non-responsive. Part of the project was to weed these people out, because they were "payment killers." One interaction was enough to get a member to cancel. The other were what the programmers called "subprime," people with significant geographic, personal, or physical barriers, or women with children. This was a fairly large base of people, who were culled periodically because too many again dropped membership rates. Essentially, people who had few other alternatives.
5. Very specific people were also consistent long term users, and were shunted to more specific sub-sites, this is because outside of their subset, they are non-daters, but inside they look more like date bacon. Hence sub-sectioning and bucketing run rampant.
6. The upshot of this is that there is about 10% of the population that e-dating works well, or very well for, and another 20% which has no good alternative. These individuals were satisfied, or at least repeat, users. For another 30% the experience was highly negative, indeed, even soul crushing.
7. YMMV - because personal relationships are heavily based on factors which do not capture from dating sites, many relationships happen even in low probability areas,
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
After taking stock in my life during 2012 on New Years, I realized it was the first year since 2007 that I hadn't been involved in a long term committed relationship. I also had a match.com membership from 12/15/2011 - 12/15/2012...
I can't help but wonder if there is a correlation. I did go out on dates regularly, sometimes things got hot, but rarely. Really, the only emotional fling I had was in the summer with someone I met "off"line.
Are you from Virginia?
Remember, Cousins don't count.
Australia. We don't do that here. Except for the people down south in Tasmania, or so i've heard.
See the article a few above this one - they are starting to figure them out. I am only one of many though!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Okay, my initial post was a little uneven. Both innocent commitment issues and other cases of sneakiness are involved. An infant child is worth over $5,000 in some cases per year depending on the tax benefits claimed, and it's "instant" because it's tax law driven, no application anywhere needed. So then there ARE some mothers who game the system. Ask around in the right places.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
In an almost empty sauna, the 5 only guys who are there have lots of hot steamy fun together.
I just don't think there's the same level and frequency of sociopathy in women as there is in men.
And here is where you are absolutely wrong. Your post was fairly convincing until then.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There is evidence (in Aust.) of single moms who keep having babies making enough from baby bonuses from welfare, effectively cheating the system. That's OK with the government as they want to increase population. The strange thing is that the kids grow up and replicate this behaviour. I've seen married couples pop out extra babies just for the additional payments. As long as the kid remains dependent and in one form of education - even past the age of 18, more money comes into the household.
So yes, it is a profession and it's called raising children and there is a lot of single mums here - all wanting boyfriends for physical support and more babies.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
So much for political correctness. It may of been necessary at the time (Think Star Trek New Generation), but I think it's passed its use-by-date.
We're all are taken with feminism and you are sprouting the PC version of this as it has been ingrained into the common conciousness of men AND women. So it's right that you have that view. Women will take advantage of relationship situations a lot more than a man, especially if Mr Right is nowhere to be found, 2nd or 3rd best is good enough as long as they bring in the sheckels, fix leaking cisterns and don't smell too bad. That's not a mysogynistic statement either.
It's a gamble with them. Just ask a 18-25yr old single girl what they want in a man. I'm pretty sure the word 'love' is not high up on their list. How they behave while their on their chase can be seen as sociopathic.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
I've met every woman that I've ever been involved in in my life online, one way or another. But then, I've always been a geek so that's probably par for the course.
My ex-wife, I met through a site that wasn't actually a dating site but a school-friends-reunion kind of deal with a forum attached. We had nothing in common, educationally, historically, or geographically, and were strangers. After a month of talking every day online by email, we met up, eventually got married and had a daughter and it worked for 9+ years in total, which I would consider a pretty damn good success (9 years of happiness and no bitter break-up but just a mutual realisation that things were tailing off is not to be sniffed at).
My current girlfriend, I met because after my wife and I split up, I moved out. That meant trawling through various websites looking for rented accommodation, finding something the other side of town with a flat-mate who sounded like they were "normal" enough to not make me want to kill them within a month of living with them (I value peace and quiet more than anything else), but quiet enough that I could be left to my own devices to sort out my life.
I was not "dating" in person at that point, and still answering questions about where my daughter would live etc. Within a week of renting there, I was convinced my new flatmate was gay, to be honest, and that was fine by me - it removed a complication. But within 3 months, we were dating after realising that neither of us wanted to go to bed of an evening because we enjoyed talking so much and would be up at 3am still talking.
In the past, though, I had long signed up to OKCupid - and there I managed to find lots of people I liked the sound of. Let's just say that the site is wonderful (come for the quizzes and the forums and stay for the friends and the dating), but that it doesn't work magic and it has a lot of cliques that may not be your sort of thing using it as the primary way to meet up. If you're not aware of this, it's almost impossible to discover. At the time I was also on other dating sites and got a fairly ordinary array of responses from them, paid or free, and that seemed to be the same for OKCupid at first.
Bearing in mind that I'm a heterosexual male (hey, I'm on Slashdot!) and was searching purely for a heterosexual female, the few from OKCupid that got to the point of me actually considering meeting up can be described thus:
- Transsexual (revealed to me the day before our first "date", taken with good humour because I'm a gentleman and took them out for lunch anyway, and still a good - if infrequently seen because of geography - friend of mine)
- A lovely girl who was overly posh and condescending and with whom I had no chance but was fun to be with and even nice to be seen with (I mark that as the "most successful" response on OKCupid)
- Another transsexual (revealed to me the day of the first "date" again, and again given that I'd got to that point communicating with the person in question and had enjoyed the conversation, tried to keep as a friend and took them out for a meal after clarifying that friends-only was the only possibility) that was then highly aggressive in person (nothing to do with the dating or me, but just the way they were, I later learned from other OKCupid friends who'd also met them. And on that only meeting I had with them, they were aggressive to the point of fearing for my safety in public, and my refusing to be alone with them even when they offered to take me home where I could "do what I wanted". I was honestly in fear of some kind of aggression or rape because of the way they behaved and I refused and literally had to wait to do so in a public place because of their response)
- A lovely girl who had a boyfriend but had kept on the site for the chats who I made good friends with but wished she'd updated her profile to reflect that earlier
- Someone who suffered from horrendously prevalent multiple-personality-syndrome with severe child-abuse issues i
Oh yeah? Well I had the whole concept of Carbon-14 Dating wrong!
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
"I have no idea why more guys don't try that line."
Because you said, "as much lube as I need", not "WE need".
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
And no, the old argument about the govt giving tax breaks for kids because they want higher child birth doesn't hold water.
People will fuck, people will have kids...and I dare say there has never been a moment in the heat of passion where the couple said, HELL, take off the rubber, if we have a kid, we'll get a tax break!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
We call them "Welfare Moms" over here....and you can see them quite readily sitting on the porches in the summer in the projects if your route takes you by them in my city (New Orleans).
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Why is it a "problem" with the market? People getting what they want instead of what sociologists' (sorry, psychopaths') believes of what they need? That's how "satisfaction" is defined -- getting what you want. The fact that strangers, who would rather be entertained by troubles in your relationship than see you be genuinely content, don't get to enjoy the show of your relationship fiascos is not a "problem."
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
And if the child support isn't enough, there's welfare. The fact is that since the installation of the "great society", single motherhood has skyrocketed. It is financially advantageous for a mother to be single.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
If I got "gamed" in this fashion, and as long as they are healthy, at least I'd have healthy children! And that, even if it was only for my money and for a short time, a woman who is able to bear children chose me. That thinking is in any case too cynical-- complaining that she's only digging for gold when she did in fact bear you a child is like complaining that a car you received as a gift takes too much gas, or is not your favorite color. Many men would give their all for healthy children.
The $5000 tax credit is a joke. Caring for a child costs far more than $5000/year, unless you can't (or don't bother with) such niceties as adequate nutrition, a reasonably safe environment, and a decent education. Think of the pay you must forgo to stay at home to care for a child. Or you must pay for daycare, which alone costs at least $5k/year. It's not seriously meant to cover the expense of raising a child, but only to lessen the burden a little bit. Quite possibly it is that small because a bunch of smug moralists for whom having more children is entirely too easy are worried about "welfare queens" and "octomoms". They aren't even worried about overpopulation, only that people stick to Biblical notions of how families should be formed. And perhaps you are too. The evidence is that we are actually not a monogamous species.
I really don't see what you're complaining about. Some of us would gladly pay alimony.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
18 years? Try 25 in some states. In New Jersey, the mother only has to claim that the child is attending college to keep the checks coming. No proof has to be provided, and if the father isn't in a financial situation where he can assume full custody of his kids (this happens a lot due to the divorce judgement and said child support payments) he risks losing ALL access to his kids if he gets his ex put in jail for fraud.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Going for the 5-digit UID cachet today, PopeRatzo?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
We don't care about your Finnish straw men.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It's as simple at this one fact.
Divorce radically changes the power dynamic of the relationship. It shifts drastically into the womans favor. Court ordered alimony and child-support is collected from the man. The woman now has complete control over how that money is spent. She also has majority shareholder type authority over what is going on with the kids.
It's not right. It's not fair. It shouldn't be allowed to continue. Some women are wretched things with no souls and do all this out of selfishness.
With that said, when my wife and I divorced (no kids) we were pretty amicable. I made more money, but she didn't want alimony. I pulled some money together out of my pocket and paid for a new vehicle (nothing extravagant but she picked it out) and set her up in a rental, paying the deposit and 6 months rent. After some healing/recalibration time, we are still friends today and our kids (from later relationships) play together on occasion. I am also lucky enough to have a good relationship with my kids' mom (we never married). We never went to court over custody and support. We share 50% custody and no substantial amounts of money have ever changed hands.
Not all women are harpies but the ones who are seem to have no depth to which they will sink. (just like not all men are ogres.. but the ones who are....)
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
AC, what Bachelor's degree do you have?
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Except it's not your mom who is doing the filtering.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Been shaving since 2004.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Your comment is outragous. If you breastfeed and avoid or get free childcare you will still be out of pocket around $5k in expenses every year, bare minimum. So you might break even if you are extremely frugal.
Cheap storage VM.
Most art you just observe at a distance, not interact with.
If you just observed women, you'd be quite the stalker!
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
Don't know about Australia, but any woman having kids in order to get more welfare here in the US would be a moron since the additional money isn't sufficient to actually maintain a child. Not that there's a shortage of morons here (such as Octomom), but most of them would learn after the first one.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Last time I tried, maybe four years ago, three quarters of the responses were from presumably 46 yr old fat scammers claiming to be 23 yr old Russian girls, or whatever.... Wading through the crap isn't my idea of "frictionless".
mark, met someone in the RW, and happily married,
This article sounds like it was written by someone who never actually tried online dating.
"Now you go online, select a partner, and you are immediately dating someone who is at least interested in you. Of course online dating is still work, but the emotional labor and risk of failure has been significantly reduced."
Dude, you're an idiot. After having spent a year and a half on numerous dating sites with absolutely zero success, I can attest that the emotional labor is every bit as trying as it is in the real world. Personally, I prefer being snubbed in person, at least then I can get the satisfaction of making the person uncomfortable.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
And he's a professor who is pissed that the coeds he used to be able to nail because of the "inefficient market" are all taken.
Seastead this.
Frictionless dating sounds like no fun at all. A little friction is a very good thing!
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
Single mums do survive here with handouts. a $30 prescription drops to $6 - Free or low cost travel, free medical and dental, rental assistance if they don't live at home, free schooling, concessions on power. If you can prove aboriginal descent (not sure if it is 1/8th or 1/16th), a child with ADD or ADHD or some other disability, then payments go up.
No joke, but a typical weekly wage here for a shop assistant is around $500-$700, most of that goes on rent, food and power - food is very expensive here. If you can tick enough boxes, a couple can get similar income from welfare. A single mum coping alone at parent's home with 1 child can make do as there is a strong family network that most can depend on. One family I know brought in $1200/fortnight on welfare as the woman was paid a carer's pension to look after her 'disabled' husband, 3 children with 'disabilities'. Another family fosters 2 children for a total of $1200/fortnight. The gov hands children under state care to 3rd party organization who place these children into vetted homes. It's the 3rd party who pays the family $600/fortnight/child, so you can see that the gov finds this cheaper than institutionalizing them. Generally these high payments exist because the gov. finds it cheaper to pay individuals to care for others in a family setting. This works for older people too where aged carers come to their homes to help, delaying institutionalization for some years.
The US Republican naysayers on Obamacare + other welfare initiatives have pointed out that there is not much incentive to go to find work because it is cheaper to stay at home, live on food stamps, cheaper drugs and other benefits. To some extent that is true for here, but I think you've got it much harder.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Marriage does not end child support. And yes I agree the problem exists.
This romantic notion of "...sometimes take chances on things we wouldn't otherwise try..." when it comes to dating is bullshit. When trying a new restaurant, sure it works just fine, but that's also because you know that, at most, you'll have one bad meal. But relationships are not restaurants, and regardless of what Ludlow has to say, compatibility is key.
The reason for the high divorce rate isn't Feminism or a casual attitude toward Marriage, it's the concept that "Opposites Attract" should be the norm. Opposites Attract doesn't work. It's fun for a month or two, but then the changes start. "I love him, but I wish he'd do..." or "I love her, but I wish she'd stop..." are the death knells of relationships. People need to learn that if someone you're dating isn't compatible with you, don't try to change them, simply end the relationship. If Tommy doesn't ring Sally's bell, then Sally doesn't have to feel she needs to stay with him while they're dating. The dumbest thing I've ever heard is, "Oh, I know that makes me crazy, but that will all change once we get married."
What's at the heart of the matter is that young people don't know who they are, nor take the time to learn. There's so much pressure to get married and pop out kids that people in their twenties don't take the time to learn about who they are and what makes them tick. So when it comes to picking a mate, they don't know what they're looking for. Once someone knows themselves, then they can seriously start looking for someone with whom they'd like to spend the rest of their lives, and THAT'S when sites like eHarmony and Match.com show their true strength.
In the words of RuPaul, "If you don't love yourself, how in the hell you gonna love somebody else?"
This is all self-serving crap. Markets are supposed to be slippery and free to allow buyers and sellers to get together without any impediments. There should never be a charge to enter a market.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
I thought it was going to be about the low response rate on these sites.