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.
it upsets the natural order of men pursuing women. Women wont be able to handle being in the driver's seat and facing rejection.
My recommendation is take the rejection at face value and in private, instead of meeting up for a date and have the guy run screaming because you're a 450 pound overweight lard-ass
They are already there (in the dating game). And they were always there.
I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
The whole dating situation is ridiculous these days. 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? A response, positive or negative, is better than no response to a lot of people.
If you're in the top 20% on looks, congrats. Otherwise: you get treated like shit, whichever side your on.
As if I'm going to jump through hoops just to get to look at a girl? This starts the relationship out on a bad note -- one where the guy has accepted responsibility for the actions of others and is willing to make sacrifices as a result. This is sexism at its strongest, unless it works in both directions -- ie, no pictures are displayed until a user chooses to present themselves to another.
>A 2012 experiment by Jon Millward, a data journalist, found that men would have to initiate courtship and solicit meetings 17 times more than women
>The free iPhone app also allows women to passively wait around expectantly, but also be able to one-sidedly judge men's physical appearances and answers to the "Question of the Day"
k.
Can't women just do this on any other dating site by not having any photos on their profile and sending photos once they've been talking to a man for a while?
Why would a man join this site compared with dating sites that let him see photos and don't make him jump through silly hoops?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
" If a woman is suitably impressed by a man's answers, she can make herself visible to him. "
It seems pretty unworkable to me. I suppose these women must be a mix of Angelina Jolie/Kate Upton and Jennifer Lawrence, to insist on being anonymous.
What I don't understand is why would a desirable man put up with all of these games just to view a woman's picture? If a man is attractive enough to get replies and messages from women on online dating sites in general (most men can easily send out hundreds of messages to get only a handful of replies), presumably he's attractive enough to go on other sites that don't make the man jump through these hoops, just to view the woman's picture, let alone go out on a date.
Which means that the men who are willing to put up with these kinds of hoops wouldn't be attractive to these women in the first place.
This Sig does not Exist.
...have a "report" system that censures or bans someone after enough negative reports are made about them, either in absolute terms, or in relation to the number of conversations that have an exchange of more than two volleys?
This doesn't seem like it would be all that hard to fix, without resorting to unusual measures like the ones brought up.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
If you TRULY want to solve the problem of abusive men, then the solution is simple:
Create a website where the men can NOT make first contact.
You don't have to require the women to actually write an email - heaven forbid you do that. Just set it up so that the women have to 'wink' (or whatever you want to call it), at the men before the guy can write back.
This would have several advantages - including saving the men from wasting their time.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
While im not saying its okay to dig up personal information through google searches and then freaking out the girl by sharing the information the creep dug up, I do find it concerning that she is victim blaming google for finding this information that she was responsible for making public in the first place. Google doesn't make available information that you hadn't posted online in the first place.
Video Challenge: Upload a video of your paycheck.
I haven't been on a dating site for some time since having found someone (not on a dating site, BTW) and taking myself out of the game. But several years ago I was on a couple of dating sites geared specifically towards Christians. I was in my 40's and looking for age-appropriate matches. I try to be as well mannered online as I am face to face, especially on a dating site. I had very little problems getting responses, and what I learned from many of the women I talked to surprised me. A lot of them told me about how lewd and creepy the men were -- and this was supposed to be a Christian dating site! In contrast I always behaved as a gentleman, and in fact, I had to hide my online status sometimes because when I logged on I would get inundated with chat requests.
Unfortunately I never found anyone who was a great match. Distance was usually a problem. I met someone the traditional way.
It seems to me that a lot of people cannot handle the anonymity that an online presence provides. This is true, not just of dating sites, but everywhere. There is a tendency to objectify everyone. Men are particularly bad at it, but I've seen women do it too. The thing is, people like to be treated like people. A good rule of thumb is to not say anything to anyone that you wouldn't say within arm's reach.
Proverbs 21:19
You're doing it wrong.
Not wrong as in "that's wrong to do", but wrong as in "you'll do better with people you interact with in the real world."
If, of course, you can put the cellphone/iPad/keyboard down for enough minutes to interact with the people around you.
Online profiles are far more "crafted" than real-world interactions, and real-world interactions provide far more clues when someone is gaming you.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
than this crap.
I doubt this will work better than anything on any other site. I've been trying to get a date through OkC, PoF, Match, eHarmony et al for 10 years. Next summer I will be 40 and still a virgin. I intend to shoot myself.
And they wouldn't recognize heavy metal if it fell from the sky and crushed them. Fuck that shit.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
They claim that the best looking man only received 38 messages in four months. That's totally untrue. I received 43 messages.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
"the best-looking woman received 536 messages in four months, while the best-looking guy received only 38."
That's a significant difference, are women expecting to be pursued (in the right way) online too?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Well, let's say, hypothetically, in some totally imaginary universe, where some women find the obnoxious behavior of men on some dating sites sufficiently repellant to only consider sites with this feature. Some men would choose to use those sites on the basis of being able to talk to those women, because the "odds" would be quite good if they were the only women there.
" Tinder, which is effectively a "hot or not" game...And the implicit notion that it's a "hookup" app can be uncomfortable for some women."
Implicit notion? Thank you Captain Obvious.
If a woman assumes Tinder is anything but a "hookup" app, then she has just shown me the very reason to avoid her, for my ignorance alarm is blaring. I really don't need to take a look at the intelligence meter or even the rest of the package.
It's not like our online dating app choices are Tinder and...Tinder.
And Tinder is used for one thing.
I can report that my findings indicate that the worst-looking guy receives 0 messages in four months.
Your font looks so good. How about we get together and kern that shit?
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
This topic has the unstated assumption that reactions to men's looks should be compared to reactions to women's looks. Women tend to judge men by their wallet or social status far more than looks. If you are a rich dude with a Lamborghini, you would get flooded with potential suitors just like a female super-model look-alike.
Table-ized A.I.
It has been tried. A dating site was made where only women could initiate contact. The result? It went nowhere because women wouldn't initiate contact in almost any case. Men couldn't women wouldn't, so it didn't go anywhere.
The thing is not only do we have a cultural bias that men are supposed to initiate relationships, but the person who initiates puts their emotions on the line, sets themselves up for rejection. Women do not wish to do that by and large, and do not need to since men are very willing to initiate so they just don't.
Unless we are able to change that, such a site will go nowhere. The vast majority of women will just be unwilling to initiate a relationship and thus the site will wither and die.
...then simply create a profile that doesn't have a picture. Then state in the profile that pictures are available upon request. The fact of the matter is that everyone has a standard that they will not go past. Some peoples standards are lower/higher than others. If you are overweight you can't expect to date an underwear model. If you are lower middle class you can't expect to date someone making six figures plus. The only exception to the rule is a women making less than six figures may be able to land a guy making more than six figures if she is smoking hot that is where the phrase "Arm Candy" came from.
First, answering dumbass interview questions and showing hidden Seattle gems is actually dating. That's not finding a date, that's dating. Forcing guys to date a mystery woman before being able to see her only to then try to date her just won't work. You've done nothing but add another layer to the already-anonymous layer. Can you imagine even the most successful online dating guy, who engages ten women in a month, is now being interrogated twice each week, coming up with hidden gem videos and countless other things. Poor guy! That's a lot of work. Or would you accept a guy who sends the same videos and answers to every women he engages? That's called a profile. A big one. Which is creepy again.
Second, the definition of a creepy guy is one who is on a dating site. Every guy on a dating site is creepy. Quite frankly, so are women on dating sites. Welcome to the concept of a list of people looking for other people. That's creepy from the get go. If you're looking for not creepy, then you're seeking a guy who pretends to not be doing exactly what he/s doing which is exactly what you wanted him to be doing -- looking for you.
Third, 17 to 1. Because a guy will engage 17 women, whereas most women won't engage anyone. 17:1 is less of a message ratio and more of a browsing ratio.
Here's a solution: a site where guys aren't able to engage women at all. That'll solve your problem. then you can just wait for women to engage men. the species will die out, and this problem will be solved.
Glad I'm through with dating -- hope I never find myself back there, certainly not online dating.
Article is about the picture's attractiveness... website only provides low res pictures so that the readers can not independently judge attractiveness or determine if perhaps there is something else in the picture that matters.
And socially aware men take the implied put-down that "all men are sending dick pics in every message" as offensive, and they choose not to use the site. The dick pic guys show up anyways and just start sending dick pics, because there's no requirement to see someone's photo before you send them your dick pic. A better approach would be to block photos for everyone from the beginning. Then you'll at least have some decent guys in the mix along with the dick pic senders.
Is it really that huge an issue ? Screen the uploaded photos and don't let people attach one in their initial message, but as a guy I prefer not to be treated like a creep just because a few of us are.
Don't know what man would want to send messages to women they can't see.
And the ratio of messages sent by men and by women?
As a short guy how much it sucks to try and date. I'm lucky in that I'm quite tall but man, are women stuck on height. Most women will NOT date a man shorter than them. It is a deal breaker to them for whatever reason. They also seem to feel it is perfectly reasonable, and not just very shallow.
It really sucks for short guys because at least with looks you can generally do something. While you can't change your looks radically you can lose weight, work out, wear better clothes, etc and improve your looks at least somewhat. Also cosmetic surgery is a more drastic approach that can modify some things. There's fuck-all you can do about height though. You are 5'1"? That's what you are.
Women like to think they aren't shallow, and of course some really aren't (as some men aren't) but most are they just lie to themselves about it. One of the issues is that women tend to have a skewed view of men. They believe most men are below average. OKCupid did an interesting study on this. Men rated women's pictures on a bell curve of attractiveness, as one would expect. Women rated most men below average. So what you get is a lot of women who believe they've "settled" for a below average guy and thus aren't caring about looks, when in reality they've "settled" for an average or above average guy and just haven't gotten a hunk.
So..
Attractive women get more replies, implying that they have an advantage in that they have a larger pool of prospective partners to choose from, allowing them to be much more highly selective, and they are complaining about.. having options? That must be so terrible for them.
Everyone has a "type", and physical attraction will always matter, to a degree.
I absolutely guarantee the women who may be tempted to use the dating website referenced in this thread have a "type", as well - 5'10" or taller, height/weight proportionate, no thinning receding hairline, attractive facial features, car no more than 4 years old, and any and all photos taken at home will have the background scrutinized with the skill of a CIA photo interpreter to determine your relative level of career and personal success.
A Redditor conducted a little experiment on Tinder a while back. He constructed three fake male profiles. One "ugly" guy, one "average looking guy", and one "underwear model." .. Would you care to guess the resul.. oh wait, you already did! The top 10% of Tinders' users get 90% of the attention, and if you aren't moderately to extremely attractive, you are all but invisible.
http://redditlog.com/snapshots...
The women mentioned in the parent article need to simply hit the "block" or "report" buttons on whatever dating site they're on, and get over themselves already, because they're just as bad if not worse than the men in the "chasing looks" department.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Where does the score for a post come from? Can anyone score another post?
Not so much blows to their egos. But a peek has to be paid back. If it's not from a desireable man, it isn't welcome. If the man is OK, then there has to be something in it for the woman.
The ultimate in female rage is just looking with no intention of following up. If you are a loser guy, you got that eyefull without permission. If you are dating material, then the look with no follow up implies that there is something else lacking in the woman.
Your body and face are scanned when you join, and if you like the spoken text in your contact's profile, your body is 3D printed at 1:16th scale for your potential suitor to fondle.
You could always take a look at Japan. While I wouldn't say it has gone that far, it isn't too far off. That is one big reason why the birthrate is so low. Of course, those who aren't obsessing over their dating sims and sleeping with their anime-girl pillows can probably get all kinds of 'tang and from what I hear, adultery is pretty much standard operating procedure for any married man.
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Did Anita Sarkeesian take a shit all over Dice? First the Facebook/Trans article, then the Intel/Gamergate article, and now this? Come on, you are better than stooping to this level.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
Uh, you seeing somebody about that paranoia?
Like, I'm serious, you got some issues you need to be working out.
The women will be there, and you won't have to write hundreds of messages just to get one reply.
Pfft. Hahahah, you take a something about filtering out the specific men who do do that, and turn it into some slight against all men. That's really sad bro.
Ok so she posts that she prefers men who are at least six feet tall. I post that I prefer women with small waists and a 38D bra size and it must not be enhanced breast sizes. Is that any worse than her preference for tall men? Or if I post no women over 110 lbs will be considered is that any worse than a post saying that she will only date height and weight proportional men? Women are far more prejudiced than men as a general rule.
Stereotyping and treating all members of one sex differently than the other sex is the literal definition of sexism.
men cant see pictures, women cant see job/income.
seems fair.
Note to women: if you dated and then married a guy who is charming and able to approach a strange woman (you) with self-confidence, do you really have any right to complain when he continues to exhibit those characteristics after you are married?
The answer of course is Yes. Even if being able to talk to women made you a playa, getting into a relationship and particularly marriage means you're not supposed to do that any more.
But don't make it too easy for them. Basically, make them work for it. Everyone appreciates more what they can't have.
Really liked your comment, particularly the last line.
I've done online dating. And my friend has told me what gay male dating is like. I'm curious as to what women WLTM women online dating is like.
Christ Slashdot is depressing these days. Any article at all that mentions how women have a shit time in the digital world and the overwhelming majority of comments disagree, and those marked Insightful or Funny are almost exclusively whines from men about how it's all the fault of women and the "SJW crowd". If you're lucky, there'll be one or two +5 Interesting comments expressing alternative view. And they're always Interesting, never Insightful - it's as if these alternative views are *news* to people. It's just depressing.
What was this website called? Any evidence to support your claim that it failed "because women wouldn't initiate contact in almost any case" rather than some other reason?
Thought I stumbled into r/TheRedPill.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Arthur C. Clarke
This shit just isn't an issue for me. ;>
Absolutely true, is there any evidence that this system is unidirectional? Or did you make that part up too?
So you're saying being a creep helps drive technological innovation? You're welcome!
These things should be discussed prior to 'going steady' or whatever kids call it these days.
From RTFA men have to have pictures and answer questions, whereas women do not. So, different treatment based solely on sex. A better, non sexist, system would treat both sexes equally.
You're absolutely right, and I do not contest this argument.
Women get a ton of messages because guys are supposed to start the conversations (in the US). Some females even list that they wont message you first on their Tinder profile. Being submissive is the way things go and then people bitch about it when people go out of their way to message them? Jesus, just push ignore and move on. No one is forcing you to continue to listen to them. Just another thing that's wrong with female culture in the US as well.
But we all know a app where females have to communicate first wont fly, so they have to make something ass backwards like a dating show for every female out there. The amount of messages each female gets will decrease over time as females become more prominent online as well.
Women just message the men they like instead. NEW! Ã... Vine Compilation 2014 Ã...3 min ! Ã... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There is a French site called AdopteUnMec.com (adopt a guy) that works by being heavily biased towards women :
- free for women, men pay
- women can message any men, men need to ask permission first
- site is marketed like a shopping site where men are considered products, with tongue-in-cheek ads highlighting their features, or offering "sales".
Profiles with pictures are all public though.
It is very successful in France but it failed to gain traction when they tried to export the concept to other countries. Due to their policy they boast a 50-50 men/women ratio and deeper relationships for both sexes.
Too many people here could benefit from having a look at the amount of shit women on dating sites receive.
First of all, yes, women are socialized not to make the first move and to be fucking defensive, and with due reason.
You have no fucking clue about how many of the women around you have been raped, and you have no fucking clue about how it feels like to be objectified every day.
I had no fucking clue myself and could not believe it until I started asking to women who trusted me enough.
My ex gf showed me her OkCupid inbox. It was daunting, outright dehumanizing.
(BTW yes, she does make the first move every now and then.)
I'm wasting a lot of time on OkCupid trying to write to women who are not interested in me or have to sift through huge piles of shit to even find my message anyway, so being able to contact only those women who are actually interested would be an awesome change for me.
BTW, to all the dudebros complaining about being called misogynists: Christie Mack was beaten savagely by her boyfriend and a shitload of people sided with HIM. At least admit that there is a cultural problem.