Slashdot Mirror
Online Creeps Inspire a Dating App That Hides Women's Pictures
HughPickens.com (3830033) writes "Tricia Romano reports at the Seattle Times that Susie Lee and Katrina Hess have developed Siren, a new online dating app designed to protect against men inundating women with messages that are by turns gross, hilarious, objectifying and just plain sad. A 2012 experiment by Jon Millward, a data journalist, found that women were messaged 17 times more than men; the best-looking woman received 536 messages in four months, while the best-looking guy received only 38. Lee hopes to change the nature of the messages and put women in the driver's seat. As online dating options have grown, Lee noticed that her friends' frustration did, too: With every good introduction often came a slew of lewd ones. "I just started looking (at online dating options) and very quickly realized how many things are out there and how immediately my 'creepy meter' went up," Lee says. The free iPhone app, currently launched to a select market in Seattle in August, allows women to peruse men's pictures and their answers to the "Question of the Day" ("You found a magic lamp and get three wishes. What are they?") and view their Video Challenges ("Show us a hidden gem in Seattle"). If a woman is suitably impressed by a man's answers, she can make herself visible to him. Only then can he see what she looks like. "It's a far more thoughtful — and cautious — approach than the one taken by the dating app of the moment, Tinder, which is effectively a "hot or not" game, with little information beyond a few photos, age and volunteered biographical tidbits," writes Romano. "And the implicit notion that it's a "hookup" app can be uncomfortable for some women."
OK Cupid's stats as illustrated by co-founder Christian Rudder give another example of how steep the curve is, when it comes to physical attractiveness vs. messages received on online dating sites.
Women just message the men they like instead.
That doesn't work, because the women don't want to look "easy". They want the man to do the work.
But existing dating websites already offer the option of hiding your picture, so this adds nothing new. The problem is that hiding your picture results in far fewer messages, by a factor of eight. I met my wife through match.com (now married for 12 years, with two kids). I never messaged any women that didn't display their pictures. In addition to issues of chemistry/attractiveness, photoless people are more likely to be married or in other relationships.
Dozens, or even hundreds of guys email a couple of women and almost none get any response at all; is it any wonder they escalate to crap?
Yes it is a wonder. If you don't get a response and your reaction is to escalate to stalking, harassment, gross pictures, that's not a normal or healthy response at all and shows that there's something wrong with you.
Otherwise: you get treated like shit, whichever side your on.
"Not getting a response to an unsolicited message" -- this isn't being treated like shit, not at all. If you send out an unsolicited message then you should have ZERO expectation or entitlement of getting a response.
(I'm male by the way, probably about a 6/10 on hot-or-not, and spent several years dating on match.com.)
I am, indeed, female. (And bi, so I have experience flirting with both men and women. Though, y'know, not straight women, though a femme-y bi woman isn't necessarily going to have social removed from a similarly femme-y straight woman.)
I think it's more complicated that simple fearing of rejection. Women are strongly socialized not to initiate (you will be seen as fast! and too pushy, and forward, and generally undesirable!) and to be leery of the advances of men. (And, frankly, to be afraid of men. And not for no reason, though women are not uniquely vulnerable. Men, of course, are suppose to never admit to being either afraid or having been hurt.) Meanwhile - and probably partly as a buffer against their fear of rejection - men often ritually objectify women amongst themselves* and focus on the more trivial sexual aspects of the relationship. I mean, don't get me wrong, sex is great, but you don't expose yourself, emotionally, as a man, by saying you're looking for sex.**
Really, I think many parts of this are pretty ridiculous, and not just on one side or the other, but it's useful to understand where it comes from. It's a lot less useful to get stuck there. And, of course, especially as the gender roles of days past fade, we have more and more evidence that guess what? Men and women both crave emotional connection. And men and women both crave sex. (Sadly, none of that guarantees we'll be on the same schedule for any of our cravings.)
Now, that I'm generally pretty willing to make the first move doesn't men that I'm that interested in getting random nonsense from strangers online. Especially of the "Hur, hur, suck my dick. No? Well, you were ugly anyway," variety. Back in my hometown (Seattle) I could even handle being on sites like OKCupid, because folks were generally polite, but in Ohio it was just ridiculous and I disabled my account. (I also really didn't tend to find folks I had much in common with, and the more polite folks who contacted me mostly seemed to hope that I'd make their lives more interesting and I've tried that and it ends badly.)
* Or in groups with small numbers of women where they feel comfortable, I've been present for enough of that, and I suspect at that they were holding back.
** And, of course, there's all the social stigma around women liking sex. Which is ridiculous, at least in these days of decent birth control, but there are still strong cultural currents. (It's kind of ridiculous how many times I've invited a guy into my bed, he made sure I meant for no strings sex, I cheerfully agreed... and then in the morning he decided we should be in a relationship. Um, what?)