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.
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.
Strange, I've never been unable to handle this...
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.
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.
The issue is, you'll start having malevolent users filing false reports against people. "He doesn't look like an underwear model! Ugh! Gross! *complaint filed*" Any guy who doesn't look great has had to deal with this in meatspace - getting a nasty rebuke, getting ignored, getting stared down with that "how dare YOU talk to ME" look just for saying hello. For all of the stereotypes about how men are shallow, women are entirely capable of being far, far more cruel and arrogant about looks.
Because these systems are built on milking the ugly men who have no real chance of ever doing anything but creeping out women. Banning them removes the sites bread and butter.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Could always shadow-ban them temporarily... That's mean, but might not violate the original terms of service depending on how they're written.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
You are an exception (I'm presuming you are female). Most women do not wish to initiate a relationship. Part of it is cultural that historically in western (and most other) cultures men pursued women and that carries over to today. However part of it, no small part from the women I've discussed it with, is emotional. You take the emotional risk when you initiate a relationship, when you ask the other person to date you. If they say you, then you have been rejected, which nobody likes. Many women would prefer not to do that, they'd rather be the ones who get to do the rejecting.
Hence we have a setup online where men send tons of messages, because if they don't they don't get a response, and most women send none.
If you are different that is wonderful and I applaud you. However recognize you are by far in the minority.
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.
But either way, AC can imagine away about "how beta I am." I'm married and have a kid on the way. In pure biological terms, I'm about as successful as I can be. Financially, I'm pretty well off too. Work wise, I've owned businesses and currently have a great engineering job. So, if this is being "beta," well, beta I be. I don't really care, I'm happy where I am. Though I agree with you - usually people who have to start going into the alpha/beta thing are just really, really insecure. I got more from Dale Carnegie than I ever got from Neil Strauss.
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?)
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.
and probably partly as a buffer against their fear of rejection - men often ritually objectify women amongst themselves*
* 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.
This is extremely single sided for two reasons. One: men are allowed to find women physically attractive and they are allowed to express that. It is not a buffer against anything; it is human sexuality. Talk about social stigma about a gender not being allowed to like sex. Sheesh.
Two: Women do this too! I have been privy to many female "ritual objectifications" about men. (And I expect they were holding back). There is nothing wrong with that.
** 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?)
Your bracketed text seems to contradict your other bit or is completely unrelated. Men and women seem to be fairly equally vocal about not wanting someone from the opposite sex that is just interested in sex. They both also seem to be equally unconcerned about that aspect when it comes down to getting some from someone they are attracted to. I will agree that women are more vocal about other promiscuous women than men are about other promiscuous men though (promiscuous in the has lots of no-strings sex).
From a numbers game it makes sense to go for someone that does not have tonnes of random sex if you are looking for a relationship. For both genders.
What natural order? Among both our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, the females are at least as agressive in pursuing mates as the males, if often somewhat subtler in their approach.
You mean like make-up, pushup bras and clothing explicitly designed to broadcast female sexuality? Because women are pretty aggressive and compete fiercely with that stuff. Or is that not subtle enough?
You have a rather incomplete knowledge on this. It was not "buying" a wife. It had many functions and reasons but to think it was about ownership, slavery or chattel is just plain wrong. In fact its main purpose in Europe was specifically to assign wealth to the woman in the event she outlived her husband. Also to give incentive to the husband to treat his "chattel" right. We'd call it preemptive alimony or divorce insurance.
It was also customary for the bride's family to provide holdings in a marriage. Would you normally pay someone to take your chattel from you? If so I think we should do business.
You should really look into dower and dowry laws and traditions from non-feminist sources. They are brazenly biased.
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.
So we get all sorts on the gaming threads about how mysogniy doesn't exist and it's all made up by social justice warriors (e.g. Batman?) and so on and so forth.
And then we get this:
it upsets the natural order of men pursuing women. Women wont be able to handle being in the driver's seat and facing rejection.
And it's modded up. A big fat sexist post on how all women won't be able to handle the things than men apparently can. Well, good job I have karma to burn because these days anyone pointing out blatant sexism on slashdot gets modded down.
SJW n. One who posts facts.