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.

20 of 482 comments (clear)

  1. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Women just message the men they like instead.

    1. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      OH MY GOD quit oppressing women you sexist patriarch!

    2. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      MISOGYNIST!

    3. Re:How about... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:How about... by Kielistic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These women seem frustrated that there are so many men they don't approve of approaching them. Apparently they think continuing to enforce the paradigm of "men must do all the work to gain my favour" is going to fix that.

    5. Re:How about... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Funny

      I met my wife the old fashioned way - mutual desperation and booze.

      Bars never worked for me. I don't drink, and I am not interested in desparate drunks. Match.com was great. I met many women, and had a date (or two) almost every weekend for six months. I already knew that my future wife's goal was marriage and kids before I even clicked on her link. We exchanged a few emails, chatted on the phone, and then met two days later. Everything clicked. The only real question was whether we had compatible indentation styles. On the second date, she had her laptop with her, so I asked to see a code sample and take a look at her ~/.indent.pro. Her code was perfect BSD style, like a snippet from from the FreeBSD kernel. We were married eight months later.

    6. Re:How about... by fche · · Score: 5, Funny

      "We were married eight months later."

      What took that long? Getting emacs vs. vi settled?

    7. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      These women seem frustrated that there are so many men they don't approve of approaching them. Apparently they think continuing to enforce the paradigm of "men must do all the work to gain my favour" is going to fix that.

      ok, so since I used to work on an online dating service, I had a female fake profile in addition to my male fake - I'm male. You would not believe the level of crap some men think is a good idea to send to women, and no, it does not go the other way. This is not about playing hard to get or expecting favors, this is about creeps with very lacking social relationship skills. Even as a man I got mad about "males".

    8. Re:How about... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Funny

      "We were married eight months later."

      What took that long? Getting emacs vs. vi settled?

      No. I use emacs. She uses vi. Who cares? If you share code, and use the same git repository, then a common indentation style is important. Using the same editor is not. The only thing we argue about is which editor the kids will learn.

    9. Re:How about... by KeensMustard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's your problem. You think women are on the site to meet YOU. They aren't. They are there to meet a man (not a creep).

    10. Re:How about... by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They should add a moderator ability to both men and women. Sort of like Slashdot. You get a few mod points to use to vote up or vote down the behavior of the person's interactions. Then you can set their messages to whatever threshold of moderation you want. "Only show me messages from people modded on average above 3.5"

  2. Women in the drivers seat`? by Poorcku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. yeah, ok, whatever. by topham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Why not... by scubamage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Why not... by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  7. Treat people like people by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  8. Arranged marriage was so much better by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    than this crap.

  9. Grossly inaccurate article. by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  10. Damn girl by Rinikusu · · Score: 5, Funny

    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