Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Silicon Valley Singles Are Giving Up On the Algorithms of Love (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

The Washington Post: Melissa Hobley, an executive at the dating app OkCupid, hears the complaints about the apps [being unable to find good matches] regularly and thinks they get a bad rap. Silicon Valley workers "are in the business of scalable, quick solutions. And that's not what love is," Hobley said. "You can't hurry love. It's reciprocal. You're not ordering an object. You're not getting a delivery in less than seven minutes." Finding love, she added, takes commitment and energy -- and, yes, time, no matter how inefficiently it's spent.

"You have a whole city obsessed with algorithms and data, and they like to say dating apps aren't solving the problem," Hobley said. "But if a city is male-dominant, if a city is known for 16-hour work days, those are issues that dating apps can't solve." One thing distinguishes the Silicon Valley dating pool: The men-to-women ratio for employed, young singles in the San Jose metro area is higher than in any other major area. There were about 150 men for every 100 women, compared with about 125 to 100 nationwide, of never-married young people between 25 and 34 in San Jose, U.S. Census Bureau data from 2016 shows. That ratio permeates the economy here, all the way to the valley's biggest employers, which have struggled for years to bring more women into their ranks. Men make up about 70% of the workforces of Apple, Facebook and Google parent Alphabet, company filings show.

126 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. A lesson learned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's a big data experiment and the result is exactly as expected. Go figure you can't cheat at this either.

    1. Re:A lesson learned. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think they screwed up somewhere. From what I understand about half of the male population is gay, so the dating pool should be pretty good no matter which way you swing. Of course, there is the number of lesbians to counteract that, but urandictionary doesn't have any data on that, so I can only guess.

    2. Re:A lesson learned. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Funny

      We're all nerds here, so if technology isn't solving the problem the answer is MORE TECH. In this case the obvious solution is user reviews, which are conspicuously missing from dating sites. I am a solid four-star guy, and I realize that five-star chicks are out of my league, but I also don't want to waste time on two-star and three-star women. It would be great if I could downvote women whose photoshopped pictures don't match reality.

    3. Re:A lesson learned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That doesn't seem to be born out by surveys:
      http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2015/03/24/silicon-valley-lgbt-population-among-nations-smallest/

    4. Re:A lesson learned. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're right, but for the wrong reason. The gay population of males is tiny, but the unfit male population is huge, far more than 50%. Remember, half of all men are below average, which pretty much gets them out of the dating pool. The Silicon Valley women are accomplished, so they are only interested in a small percentage of top-tier men. These men who do qualify...what would they want with a driven, programmer wife? Thus do both sides claim there isn't anyone available.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re: A lesson learned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Again, average != median

    6. Re:A lesson learned. by iampiti · · Score: 1

      In this case what tech could do to solve the problem, given the male to female ratio is robot girlfriends. That would be tech advancement worthy of being seen :)

    7. Re:A lesson learned. by narcc · · Score: 2

      The problem, at least in your specific case, isn't the women.

      After reading your post, it's pretty obvious that it's you.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    8. Re:A lesson learned. by ghoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a marriage someone has to marry up and someone has to marry down. Traditionally men have married down as women have not really had real jobs. That has changed. Now women have equally good jobs so now some women need to marry down. But women have been brainwashed that the perfect man will earn more than them, be handsome, a great father and help around the house. The fairytale cannot happen for everyone. Some women computer engineers will have to marry baristas. Its not because there is a shortage of men, its because now women have equally good jobs and given the silicon valley costs and lifestyles 2 bristas getting married cannot afford to live here and 2 engineers getting married would be too busy to run a household.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    9. Re:A lesson learned. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      We have not reached true gender equality until it's socially acceptable for a man to reject a woman because she's too poor.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:A lesson learned. by deek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, he's not wrong. Most women do act quite entitled. He just failed to mention that most men also act that way as well.

      I call this phenomenon the natural population governor of the developing world. The more materialistic we become, the more choosy we are about our partners, the less we spawn. I've often thought that China didn't need a law for birth restriction. They just had to give them bling.

    11. Re:A lesson learned. by Rande · · Score: 1

      Or full immersion VR girlfriends - less cleanup afterwards and no embarrassment when you have fleshy friends over.

    12. Re:A lesson learned. by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      You missed a word.

      ^average^average height

    13. Re:A lesson learned. by thecatt · · Score: 1

      Or just ditch the fleshy friends. Your plastic pals are more fun to be with.

      I for one welcome our new robot girlfriend overlords.

    14. Re:A lesson learned. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      These men who do qualify...what would they want with a driven, programmer wife?

      I read that first time as a "programmable wife", and thought - has this man not heard of Galatea (though the name is much more recent than the myth), or the Stepford Wives, or modern robotic sex dolls.

      Ever since the (mass) production of the first (common) condoms (around 1850), sex and reproduction have been two distinct questions. But people still struggle to understand this. Sex robots and teledildonics are just another step along this road. When, for example, you can rent use of a sex robot and 10 minutes shared time up the best rent boy in Bangkok for the price of five beers, the sex industry is going to change, a lot. And it'll get even more separated from reproduction.

      I was checking the most-recent census data recently. 20% of women who reach age 45 (currently the practical end of child bearing, for demographers at least) do so with no children. That's up from a low of 10% for women who were child-free through the "baby boom". Given the increase in availability of assisted fertility through that period, one can only conclude that significant numbers (10% or higher) of women in the last few decades have chosen to not reproduce.

      Of course, it won't be enough. The acceleration of materials demand as living standards rise will become unsupportable before populations start to fall. Then populations will fall, faster, but with more suffering.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Here I am reading slashdot at 5:30 PM Saturday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not surprising. Here I am reading slashdot at 5:30 PM Saturday night.

    1. Re:Here I am reading slashdot at 5:30 PM Saturday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Get married so you have an excuse like us winners.

    2. Re: Here I am reading slashdot at 5:30 PM Saturday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So your off masturbating in the bathroom?

  3. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The article summed up the issue quite well.
    On paper, people are far too picky and don't want to just meet/explore. However, given a different setting they relax expectations.

    My advice, break dating rules and do something fun. If the date turns out as a no go at least you had fun.

    1. Re:Hmmm by chuckugly · · Score: 2

      So you're saying match.com and saucey.com should co-brand and cooperate?

    2. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Step 1. Meet and see if the person is remotely compatible.
      Step 2. Do something fun on second date (or an extended first).

      First dates should be a quick hit and run.

    3. Re:Hmmm by arth1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not just about how picky people are if there aren't enough women to go around. If there are 150 hetero males for every 100 hetero women, there will be 50 males that can't get any women no matter whether they drop all requirements to zero.

      And to make it worse, women are even more picky. If you're neither tall nor powerful, most women just won't be interested, and would rather be alone.

    4. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In fact, the traditional belief that men are more promiscuous than women can't actually be correct, due to basic maths. if you have e.g. 100 men and 100 women, and each man has dated 3 women on average, then each woman must have dated 3 men on average as well, out of mathematically necessity.

      The same with cheating. If some men are cheaters, they must be cheating with someone, which implies female cheaters they're cheating with. Or, if they somehow are only cheating with single women, then some other single men must be getting *zero* partners to make up the difference. e.g. if married men are more promiscuous than married women, then single men must be less promiscuous than single women, which is a result that would seem to be contradictory to common sense: what's more likely is that married men and married women are equally likely to be cheaters.

      "male/female pairings" are a *shared* statistics that counts for +1 for both genders, so any statistic that purports to show a big gender difference in something that by necessity involves *both* genders is clearly based on bad data, e.g. people are lying in surveys.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/weekinreview/12kolata.html

    5. Re:Hmmm by Another+Mouse+Coward · · Score: 2

      Although I no longer give a flying-fuck about sex, I once did and I can tell you that, 1) I could give FUCK-ALL if a man was tall! I'm 5/3" if I stretch and my last boyfriend was 5'7" (self-reported, but if I had to guess I'd say he was STRETCHING WAY TALL!) I didn't care! He ended it, I didn't. 2) I've forgotten, but just don't get so down-hearted and defeated about it! It's not your height; it's your breath! Or body odor! or I dunno what, just keep putting yourself out there. And don't be so damn picky yourself! Somebody is out there.

    6. Re: Hmmm by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I can't believe no you haven't figured this out, but there could be 100 men and 10000 women and there will still be 50 arth1s with whom none of the women would want to be in the same room, nevermind date.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    7. Re: Hmmm by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In fact, the traditional belief that men are more promiscuous than women can't actually be correct, due to basic maths. if you have e.g. 100 men and 100 women, and each man has dated 3 women on average, then each woman must have dated 3 men on average as well, out of mathematically necessity.

      It's more about the distribution than the average. Say, in a group of 100 men you have 50 who have never dated, 25 who have 1 date, 15 who have had 2 dates, 5 who have had 3, and 5 who have had 50. Then in the corresponding female group you have 5 who have had 1 date, 20 with 2 dates, 25 with 3 dates, and 50 with 4 dates. The average is the same for both groups, but any random woman you select is likely to be more "promiscuous" than any random man.

      The same with cheating. If some men are cheaters, they must be cheating with someone, which implies female cheaters they're cheating with. Or, if they somehow are only cheating with single women, then some other single men must be getting *zero* partners to make up the difference. e.g. if married men are more promiscuous than married women, then single men must be less promiscuous than single women, which is a result that would seem to be contradictory to common sense: what's more likely is that married men and married women are equally likely to be cheaters.

      No that doesn't work. You're mixing promiscuity and cheating, which are two different things, so your conclusion simply doesn't follow from the rest of your argument. But, even ignoring that, it falls apart for the same reason I listed above; distributions matter more than averages.

      Besides which, if, say, 100% of men cheat, and 0% of women cheat, it's quite possible that there is a subset of women who service a large number of cheaters. Professionally. There might even be a name for sure a profession.

    8. Re:Hmmm by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      And to make it worse, women are even more picky. If you're neither tall nor powerful, most women just won't be interested, and would rather be alone.

      Yeahhhh right.

      And how many women have you passed over because they weren't attractive enough for you? I mean would date that 85 year old granny over there? Ah thought not.

      I think you're just not counting sufficiently attractive women as existing for the purposes of the poit you're attempting to make.

      As a second exercise, you may wish to look around. You will see some guys who are not rich, not tall and erhaps who resemble inside out toads who are happily married. You may wish to consider what they offer that you do not.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re: Hmmm by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, you shouldn't purport to know anything about math. Your own fucking example proves you're wrong. A man goes on 3 dates. 3 women go out on a single date. 3 > 1. Fuck, you are stupid. The world isn't fair, we're not all getting equal dates.

    10. Re: Hmmm by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      You're so short, you're excluded from the group in question. Seriously, you're too fucking short and I'm only 6ft. The bigger the difference, the creepier it is.

    11. Re: Hmmm by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      distributions matter more than averages

      It depends how you perceive or ignore things. Although your point is interesting, I keep seeing newspaper articles about how survey X shows that men on average have had 30% more sexual partners than women. They're not talking about distribution at all. The conclusion fits with our stereotypes on male/female sexuality, but it's a mathematical impossibility more easily explained by self-reporting bias.

    12. Re: Hmmm by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      Assuming you're not trolling, the OP's example would be
      - Population of 3 men and 3 women
      - 1 man dates each of the 3 women, the other 2 men date no one

      Male average: 1 date
      Female average: 1 date

    13. Re:Hmmm by Rande · · Score: 1

      The granny said no, saying it would feel creepy to date a guy young enough to be her grandson.

    14. Re: Hmmm by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Although your point is interesting, I keep seeing newspaper articles about how survey X shows that men on average have had 30% more sexual partners than women.

      Surveys could well show that without anyone lying ... if there is a small outlier group which isn't properly represented.

      For the sake of the argument, assume that men frequent prostitues far more often than women (it's a stretch, I know, but just go with it). How many prostitues would you imagine were interviewed for these surveys? If a hooker gets a random phone call saying "we want to ask you about how many partners you've had", how likely is she to tell the caller to fuck off, compared to someone not employed in her trade?

      The reported disparity could well be explained by sampling bias, or other statistical quirks. In this case distribution makes a huge difference because if there are small but significant outliers who refuse to be part of your survey, you're going to get shit results.

      The conclusion fits with our stereotypes on male/female sexuality, but it's a mathematical impossibility more easily explained by self-reporting bias.

      Absolutely, that's one of the factors. I read an interesting study talking about the difference in how men and women actually come up with their numbers when asked to do so. Women tend to try and count their partners by name, which tends to result in a low estimate because they invariably forget some. Whereas men tend to go for a rough guess of the total, which often results in overestimates. None of them are necessarily trying to be untruthful; they just use different methods which result in different biases.

      This, along with my previous couple paragraphs, are some of the reasons why surveys are often pretty useless.

      But none of that really has much to do with the perception of differences in promiscuity; people tend to base those perceptions on personal observation/experience rather than surveys.

  4. Expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Can apps help you find "love"? No. Can apps help you find sex? Yes.

    The complainers don't understand the difference between love and sex. That's why they fail.

    1. Re:Expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      too true
        you can use an app to date, talk about something in common and fuck for a few years and get married but real love won't be there until you go through some hard times together

    2. Re:Expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wasn't Tinder originally meant for quick hook-ups, and not for making marriages like some people use it now? Just imagine the conflict when some people send dick pictures with "how-abouts" while others want to find the true, romantic love. It's like somebody didn't read the fucking manual, literally.

    3. Re:Expectations by Another+Mouse+Coward · · Score: 1

      So insightful!

  5. Best way to get laid in Silly Valley by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

    Write a heartfelt but rather naive memo explaining that you value diversity but want your company to enhance it in ways that don't 'incentivize illegal discrimination'.

    Get promptly fired by your Ivy League Communist wannabe management.

    Go on the paid speaker circuit and start a Patreon. Sue your company.

    Meet blonde alt right hottie with rich conservative parents on the paid speaker circuit.

    "Value her diversity" HARD. Start a family and write a book.

    It beats slogging away knocking out boilerplate code in a single sex environment.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    1. Re: Best way to get laid in Silly Valley by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dunno, I think I'd have more cognitive dissonance pretending to approve of SJW nonsense at work in order to not get fired than debating Reactosphere types. Ironically the Reactosphere is more tolerant of diversity than the SJWs.

      On the Alt Right

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re: Best way to get laid in Silly Valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You keep saying 'faggot' like it's an insult the right care about. The right is actually pretty accepting of gay people, trans people and so on. Look at Dave Rubin, Milo, Blaire White, Theryn Meyer and so on.

    3. Re:Best way to get laid in Silly Valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Dang dude. You have never even seen a woman naked, have you? I mean, outside of a .jpg.

    4. Re: Best way to get laid in Silly Valley by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      You're incredibly homophobic. You must be a Tea Party member wishing Ted Cruz was president.

    5. Re:Best way to get laid in Silly Valley by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dear Penthouse,

      I never thought that I would be writing one of these, but you know, sometimes life can get pretty crazy. When I wrote a memo "valuing" diversity I though my career was over. But then I decided to sue my company and go on the paid speaker circuit. You'll never velieve what happened! I met this alt-right blond hottie with rich conservative parents with a thing for skinny engineers...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Best way to get laid in Silly Valley by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I notice you didn't respond to this

      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  6. Maybe not OkCupid, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "You can't hurry love. It's reciprocal. You're not ordering an object. You're not getting a delivery in less than seven minutes."

    Actually, isn't Tinder that?

    1. Re:Maybe not OkCupid, but... by smallfries · · Score: 1

      You'll just have to wait.
      It doesn't come easy.
      It's a game of give and take.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  7. Not Scaleable or Quick by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OKCupid has long used their userbase for social experimentation. They only match people with those unlikely to work out, because it means they keep coming back and paying while thinking "well, it's matching me with people and I'm getting dates, it must just not be the right one." They're especially fans of social justice matchmaking.

    1. Re:Not Scaleable or Quick by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      OKC lets you search by criteria, and you can essentially select any that you want.

    2. Re:Not Scaleable or Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I used a dating service to find my wife. We get along and rarely argue.

      She laid it out for me what women want. Strength to support them when they are balling their eyes out. Not 'oh I am there' but actual sympathy. Not but maybe I can get some if I act interested. But actual strength. The 'bad boys' that most men fail out to women like because those losers project that strength. But women quickly find out it is a facade.

      The service I used laid out the odds. For every 100 people you meet 25 or so you may like you. They called it 'chemistry'. Out of those 10 will get along with you. Out of that maybe 5 you can get along with short term. Out of that 1-2 you can get along with long term.

      'bad boys' play the odds. They match out to lots of people. My sister played this game in college. She hit the bars and probably went through about 20-30 boyfriends. I didn't as more than that because I didnt want to know. But she had an easy test. Commitment. She would invite me over to meet them. Suddenly most would ghost out. One she wanted me to meet and I did meet him started crying in a bar about how I hated him (I had just met the guy and bought him a beer and basically said 'hi'). Instant turn off.

      Friend zoned guys are trying too hard to be friends. Women have dozens of those. They want strength. Not fake strength but actual "I can help you" strength.

      The "I want someone who can make me laugh" is just them matching out for chemistry. Do you get along and have things in common. Like actually in common.

      Do not be fake. Women can sniff out fake. A lot of their friends are that. They live it and breath it. Men are amateurs at it compared to they BS they put up with from other women and 'bad boys'.

      Women are looking for safety. Then a friend. Dont be fake. Meet those needs and your in. Remember they are people too. Treat them as such and you might find someone you like and they may like you back.

    3. Re:Not Scaleable or Quick by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Check their blog, they go on at length about their social experiments.

    4. Re:Not Scaleable or Quick by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "I want someone who can make me laugh"

      This is not just an expression. If your problem with women is having esoteric interests that they don't share, humor is actually surprisingly good at breaking the ice. And if you're concerned about height, hit the gym. Change those things about you that you CAN change.

    5. Re:Not Scaleable or Quick by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      She laid it out for me what women want. Strength to support them when they are balling their eyes out.

      If someone balled their eyes out, I'd probably call an ambulance then nope the fuck out of there. That sounds seriously unpleasant.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Not Scaleable or Quick by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That sounds seriously unpleasant.

      It's a lot easier and less messy if you use a spoon.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982... by Kjella · · Score: 2

    I graduated high school here in Seattle in 1973, and none of my technical friends have ever had a girlfriend. Some of them have had boyfriends, but that's a different story entirely. Girls don't want independent males.

    Uh, how many dependent males are there? Like, guys with little to no education who couldn't get by on their own because they've been stay-at-home dads and housewi... househusbands? Is that even a word? Is there a market for sugarmoms? My impression is that most men can't stand women that are richer and more successful than themselves, it hurts their pride. I'm afraid I may have to give you some shocking news: It may not be the economic independence that is the reason why your technical friends are single. They're probably just dorks or nerds. Not geeks, they can be kinda popular. P.S. None of them can be truly rich, if they were they could get trophy wives. It's basically long term prostitution, but if you have enough money it works.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  9. Trying to ignore the actual issue? by Nemyst · · Score: 5, Insightful

    None of this is even remotely of the same magnitude as the core issue of online dating: men outnumber women on all these sites by a factor of 10:1, if not worse. Women get overwhelmed by the number of messages they receive and either drop out of the service or become extremely picky. Men end up with an extremely low positive response rate and so turn towards a "shotgun" approach of just sending identical messages to dozens or even hundreds of women, further exacerbating the issue.

    As long as the gender imbalance isn't solved, online dating is going to remain a game of chance and a mess for both genders. Right now, all it's doing is taking the already fairly dated (but still very widespread) social norm that men should be the ones initiating romantic advances (and therefore take on the numerous refusals and the emotional toll that goes along with them) and push it to a ridiculous limit.

    1. Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue? by Kjella · · Score: 1, Informative

      While your description is pretty much spot on you say it's a mess for both genders and I don't really see how. Women certainly can make romantic advances if they like someone, but if they just sit back they get plenty offers and can pick and choose. Sure they complain about not finding Mr. Right and all the guys looking for a one night stand, but if you look at the standards in the lower end of men where the choice is between a girlfriend or no girlfriend... eh. Anything with a pussy and a pulse can get a boyfriend. If they want, as more women than men seem happy with artificial substitutes.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because men are the pursuers. When women are asked why they don't pursue men, they usually say they don't like the rejection. In the end, women complain about this mating ritual but don't want to change it. Also, based on OKC's own data, women tend to be pickier, going after only the hottest guys. Whereas the men will start in the middle range and work their way up.

      We also have a world were casual sex is the norm and as much as women complain about the meat market, they engage in this behavior too.

    3. Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Men should be strong enough to handle the emotional toll rejection. If you're not good enough to deal with it, maybe that's life trying to teach you a lesson. Don't try to fob this heartbreak off onto women, they have enough problems already.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re: Trying to ignore the actual issue? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Why?

    5. Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The problem is people not having enough opportunity to socialize. Online dating is a time saving measure, but it makes the effort required so low that we get the problems you describe.

      As well as a lack of time, there is a lack of venues. Lots of places to drink, but that isn't really what you want for a serious relationship.

      This is definitely a cultural problem. For example, in Japan it's going the other way, with some guys deciding they are happy without a girlfriend and women but being able to find a partner. They are trying nerd friendly social events as a solution, and women's magazines that explain nerd culture etc.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are exactly correct. It's a horrendous experience for everyone. The men who have any self-awareness (ie most decent people) get very quickly disillusioned, the repeated effort to make contact and get nothing back eats away at the ego. Rather quickly these men give up and leave. The ones that stick it out are the ones where this treatment doesn't bruise their ego - the ones that don't care and will behave in any manner.

      The women on the site get tens of messages per day, and a good number of those will be from the men who have no shame and will say fairly inappropriate things. Words do matter, and that constant stream of unpleasant things means they don't have a good reason to hang about either.

      It's bizarre that the new technology actually takes us backwards in male-female heterosexual interaction. The social norm that men approach women, in real life is tempered by the fact that women have multiple ways in communicating their interest without doing the main approach - through looks, touch, etc., in a way that is ambiguous and deniable. You can negotiate interest without actually breaking the 'order'. On the internet everything is formalised so much that it is impossible to have any ambiguity. Someone presses the 'like' button first. Someone sends the message first. So that is left for men, who have to do it without any information about whether they will be welcomed. Women have to handle many inappropriate advances, men have to approach without any idea whether it's appropriate.

    7. Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Men should be strong enough to handle the emotional toll rejection. If you're not good enough to deal with it, maybe that's life trying to teach you a lesson. Don't try to fob this heartbreak off onto women, they have enough problems already.

      I don't think anyone's blaming the women - they do have their own problems (constant streams of inappropriate messages being one of them). The system is flawed, that's what's at fault.

      Also, why the hell should men be 'strong enough'. If you are strong enough to handle multiple rejections then you're probably not paying attention, you could well be being an awful person but you wouldn't notice because you're being 'strong' and 'handling it'. This is exactly toxic masculinity - that being affected emotionally is bad and that you shouldn't.

    8. Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't you? After a while? If you get 50 rejections in a row you probably should be taking it personally. I know we're all supposed to be self-sufficient in confidence but at some point you need to calibrate to the outside, otherwise you may well be being an arrogant arse, or any number of character flaws that you can't see from the inside. At some point you need to listen to how people react to you.

      The question is, when, and how much.

    9. Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the best strategy for women is to hide their profile and then make first contact with any man that appears to be a good match. But, that would require doing some actual work, and few women think that should be required.

      The end result is a system where nobody is really happy. I got plenty of first dates by being a better guy, but they never went anywhere because the women weren't serious about finding somebody and didn't mind wasting men's time because all that really matters is themselves.

    10. Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue? by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      I'll absolutely agree on the lack of venues and cultural issues, but I disagree it's about an opportunity problem for socialization. If that were the case, men and women should realistically be affected to a similar extent, but that's not the case. The problem is almost exclusively cultural, in that men are expected to court women and thus women tend to have an easier time finding relationships without having to resort to online dating.

    11. Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue? by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      The social norm that men approach women, in real life is tempered by the fact that women have multiple ways in communicating their interest without doing the main approach - through looks, touch, etc., in a way that is ambiguous and deniable. You can negotiate interest without actually breaking the 'order'.

      I think we're headed straight for a big culture shock in that particular aspect though. As women rightfully rectify the state of things regarding sexual harassment, assault, etc., the expectation that ambiguity in responding to advances is acceptable will also have to vanish. Most men will not attempt an advance if the response could potentially turn into some form of accusation of depravity. Women will have to be more direct and obvious in their responses, or we'll see a sharp decline in relationships as overly cautious males avoid ambiguous women (which is currently still the majority of them). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

      Mind you, I see that as a good thing. As a man, the last thing I want is to have to decipher the mess of social cues and ambiguous responses that women use. Give me a firm "yes" or "no" so we can both get on with our lives, and if that makes women have to shoulder part of the emotional distress that comes with rejection rather than just delay and muddy the waters until the man gives up? That's called equality.

    12. Re:Trying to ignore the actual issue? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Wow... You've got some issues there, buddy...

  10. Re:Date out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    While you're trying to force people to change their preferences, remember that if you just stop caring about gender it more than doubles your dating pool!

  11. Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In Silicon Valley they just want someone that showers regularly, doesn't "code" 14 hours a day, and can hold a conversation about something other than their shitty blockchain startup written in node.js. I live here and it's pretty fucking obvious why most of these socially stunted retards can't get dates.

  12. Their algorythms don't work because they are BAD. by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It has nothing to do with love being hard, it's because their algorithms SUCK. Mainly because they look for "desireable" traits rather than excluding 'deal breakers'.

    This a 'one night stand' mindset - you end up finding the desirable/attractive but damaged people, not the acceptable ones.

    Example:
    OKCupid asks people if they have cats or dogs. Then they let you look for someone that already owns a cat or a dog. They do NOT let you exclude people that have cats or dogs.

    That is a one short term relationship system. If you only date people that already have a cat or a dog, you are looking for someone that won't have to change their life style to fit with yours. Perfect if all you want is a couple of months of fun.

    However, let's say you want to get married. If they love you, they will grow to love your cat or dog. It will not be a 'deal killer'. But if you are allergic to a cat or a dog, you NEED to exclude those people. You can't ask them to give up their pet just to date you. If you tried that, your success rate plummets.

    Same thing with many other such factors. If you are a short man WITHOUT a complex, then you are perfectly willing to date women, regardless of their height. You have no problem asking out someone a foot taller than you. That's healthy, non-discriminatory thinking. But if you try to ask out most tall women, you will be wasting your time, because most such women only want to date tall men.a

    The truth is short men do not want to search for short women. Short men want to search for any woman that is willing to date men their size. Guess what - OKCupid knows which women are not willing to date short men but OKCupid will not let you exclude those women from your search..

    The dating web sites are all seriously flawed by their 'show me a 10' mindset, rather than a "no deal breakers" mindset.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  13. Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This oft-repeated notion that "men are afraid of successful/rich/strong women" is getting really old. The truth is that a large number of the women that feel the need to broadcast those attributes loudly turn out to be shitty people. It's not that he's afraid of her success, it's that she's an asshole. The problem is that these "rich successful women" spent all their time on their status and none of their time on learning to build genuine caring relationships with other human beings, but they'll be damned if it's any fault of theirs. "I gotta blame somebody, otherwise it's my fault. Fuck that.

    Now that that retardation is out...maybe you should stop casting large numbers of males you know nothing about into bullshit stereotypes. You must be loads of fun at parties.

  14. True enough, but misses the point I think... by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

    "You can't hurry love. It's reciprocal. You're not ordering an object. You're not getting a delivery in less than seven minutes." Finding love, she added, takes commitment and energy -- and, yes, time, no matter how inefficiently it's spent.

    The complaint, Ms. Hobley, isn't that your site/app fails at finding a match that a person is already in love with; it's that your site/app fails at even finding a match that a person could fall in love with.

    Yes, your users have to work at making a lasting relationship. I think there are very few people who don't understand that on some level. But if people are finding your site/app less useful than meeting people through their hobbies, you're probably doing something wrong.

    Although, to be fair, I do wonder what the actual "satisfaction rating" among users of dating websites might be.

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    1. Re:True enough, but misses the point I think... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Yes, your users have to work at making a lasting relationship. I think there are very few people who don't understand that on some level. But if people are finding your site/app less useful than meeting people through their hobbies, you're probably doing something wrong.

      Actually, that's a pretty high bar. People you meet through your hobbies are more likely to have common interests, which makes them much more compatible than randomly selected people using almost any other metric.

      One big problem is that the dating sites don't take hobbies into account nearly enough, and don't let you provide detailed enough information about hobbies. Worse, most people don't provide information about more than maybe one or two of their hobbies and interests, which means the data needed to get a good match just isn't there.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:True enough, but misses the point I think... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Because in Silicon Valley, dating apps know not to ask about hobbies.

  15. Executive summary by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    Lonely Silicon Valley men:

    How long must I wait
    How much more can I take
    Before loneliness will cause my heart
    Heart to break?

    No I can't bear to live my life alone
    I grow impatient for a love to call my own
    But when I feel that I, I can't go on
    These precious words keeps me hangin' on

    Melissa Hobley:

    You can't hurry love
    No, you just have to wait
    She said love don't come easy
    It's a game of give and take

    You can't hurry love
    No, you just have to wait
    You got to trust, give it time
    No matter how long it takes

    (Apologies to the Supremes and/or Phil Collins)

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Executive summary by nerdonamotorcycle · · Score: 1
      First thing I thought of when I saw this quote in the article summary:

      "You can't hurry love. It's reciprocal. You're not ordering an object. You're not getting a delivery in less than seven minutes." Finding love, she added, takes commitment and energy -- and, yes, time, no matter how inefficiently it's spent.

    2. Re:Executive summary by Calydor · · Score: 4, Funny

      It made me wonder if it's even possible to say the sentence "You can't hurry love." without breaking into song halfway through.

      It leads to the eternal question, though. What is love?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  16. Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sure you don't have any massive personality flaws or anything. Just bury your head in the sand and don't look inward at all. After all, it's not like there are hundreds of millions of educated males that are in perfectly happy relationships right now.

  17. Re: I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yep. I would apply that to California as a whole. SJWtards, NRxtards, Technotards, Hollywoodtards - it's the only place in the world where a person can summarily dismiss an entire population on the basis of mental illness. A relationship requires actually caring about *someone else*.

  18. Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This doesn’t even begin to address all of the other shortcomings and deficiencies of OKCupid. I dated a string of psychos even after answering the 500-question profile. People still lie, and attempt to project some weird and pre-conceived notion of their ideal partner upon a mere date. And then it isn’t a date, but rather an interview to ascertain if you’re that pre-determined “match.”

  19. Prior Art by McGruber · · Score: 1

    My mama said you can't hurry love

    No, you'll just have to wait

    She said "love don't come easy

    But it's a game of give and take"

    You can't hurry love

    No, you'll just have to wait

    She said "love don't come easy

    But it's a game of give and take"

    You can't hurry love, no you'll just have to wait

  20. I See by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    "Giving Up On the Algorithms of Love" just tells me the kids are pretty smart! ;)

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  21. Re:70% male? by BeauHD+(Sr.+Editor) · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Why is it that you are posting as anonomys...COWARD?

    We try here to stay politically neutral and inoffensive as possible. Sometimes that means we can't be in your face at all about things like these topics I would like to joke around all day about living the single Oakland lifestyle, but I can't. Some people to this day take offense to anything that isn't straight. It is the type of hurdle we must get over as a society. I tried both Tinder and Grindr to find guys and gals and it was hideous and I now feel empty for even trying. I was swiped so many times and days later I would see an account that was obviously the same person...different person and same picture, all lit up. But these people proved to be real shallow. Especially the guys. It never went anywhere, and thankfully I didn't end up with an STD. So I do what I used to do all throughout HS and just hang out with my bros on a Sat night play a little PS4 and lite it up and wherever the evening takes us, it takes us.

  22. misunderstanding by supernova87a · · Score: 1

    Lots of people seem to misunderstand what Silicon Valley is.

    Silicon Valley is not much different than North Dakota and the oil/gas industry, where lots of young men go to earn big bucks for jobs that need some certain skills and are in demand compared to the average population. The housing prices are ridiculous there too and the aren't many women in oil/gas fields because they're sensible enough not to want to do that kind of work.

    Silicon valley just looks a little bit nicer and appears like a place where you might try to raise a family, but it's actually almost as hard and unpleasant as trying to raise a family in North Dakota.

    Don't be surprised that things aren't as good as they seem. There's a reason people get paid a lot for living and working in with places. Few things come for free in this life.

  23. Re: here is my experience, and it's not pretty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Also, why do you think a 15-25 year old would be interested in your saggy ass other than for your wallet?

    You have absolutely nothing to offer them but raw hard cash. You're grandpa age, not boyfriend age. And the fact that you're trying to date under 18 at any adult age is just fucked up.

    Go to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. (But you can pay $200 for a bj).

  24. Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So you murdered the cat then. Ok.

  25. Re:70% male? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nah, the thing is, men drive women off the dating platforms because they operate on a "I want to fuck that" principle. So they keep spamming people until someone who doesn't know better responds.

    You'll find the same complaint on every site "everyone just spams until they get a response" whatever algorithm is underlying is irrelevant.

  26. You don't find love. by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 3, Funny

    You make love.

  27. Re: here is my experience, and it's not pretty by guruevi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Regardless of matching ages, the issue stands. Even OKC admitted it years ago when they did the first analysis of data: men with higher salary ranges on their profile got more responses and more dates.

    The raw data is there, you CAN craft the perfect profile, it won't be PC but it's very well known what both men and women want from their first impressions in order to get a first date. I don't know if OKC still publishes the data, they used to when they first started and with some data mining you can make a good profile, initial message etc and your success rate skyrockets. I think my 'success rate' was like 40-50% in terms of responses and I would say about 10% in terms of dates, I still didn't meet my current partner there but I did a number of my previous partners, sometimes simultaneous.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  28. Re:70% male? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wow, it is almost like there is some kind of unknown factor where males are more likely to seek out these types of employment

    The factor isn't unknown. It's basically avoiding people like you.

    And now you can't find a girlfriend. Wonder why. It's probably the girl's fault, right?

  29. Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    It has nothing to do with love being hard, it's because their algorithms SUCK. Mainly because they look for "desireable" traits rather than excluding 'deal breakers

    This is laughable, and demonstrates a severe lack of comprehension of interpersonal relationships, even the bare minimum self awareness.

    We all like to believe we know ourselves inside and out, but the fact is we don't know shit. We're just kinda riding these chemical signals. Our bodies are this amazingly complex machine; we can't hope to know a 10th of what's going on, nevermind being fully cognizant of what we like. Your exclusionary list that you seem to fond of would only serve to deprive people of their choices, virtually guaranteeing misery except for those lucky few.

    Not that these dating websites are any better. They're trying to nail down a chaos system that puts the weather system to shame. It's little more than snake oil.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  30. Re: I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982... by Another+Mouse+Coward · · Score: 1

    I *heart* that comment!

  31. Ratios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "There were about 150 men for every 100 women"

    While true, that doesn't portray the reality of the situation. The top 90% of women sleep with the top 10% of men. Of those 150 men, only 15 have a chance.

  32. Re: Which algorithm would find love for by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Oh come on, it's a single line of code. if(creimer) return(ice_cream);

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  33. Ha yes saw that by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Initially I tried to type a long good message... Only to get AT MOST a single 6 word sentence as response, at worst a one word sentence "Yes." (wtf ? Do you want me to continue speaking ? Are you interrested ? Not at all ? WHATTTTT ?). And there there is the scammer. So after a month or so I took the shotgun approach and got a few response (funnily enough I estimated the number of single women in my region using OKCupid for my age : 55. Everybody else is 100 +km, so that service does not seem to be widely used here). So I am part of the problem, but then again, we are human we don't persist into using what do not work, we do try to use other method and stays with what works.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  34. Re: Being a single woman in SV... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    So you are saying they are surrounded by undrinkable men?

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  35. Create a female profile and test it out by FeelGood314 · · Score: 2

    It does suck for women. Create a female profile on POF and test it out. Men come across as undesirable on these sites. A woman who doesn't have something seriously wrong with her will get 10 messages a day and probably one every 5 minutes when she is logged in. A guy has to stand out in this noise and keep a woman's attention for 3 or 4 messages over a span of 15 minutes. Stand out to much and she will reject you as not being normal enough. Stand out just the right amount and you seem to needy and too easy to be worth her effort. Women don't want a guy who sounds like he is chasing them. If one of her messages is only 6 words long, she might still be interested but was lazy but now the guy is screwed because he can't respond with a short message because then the conversation will die.

    Sites like POF let you do a fair bit of mining. In Ottawa, Canada - age range 30 to 50, excluding BBW - Active men on a given day outnumbered women 3.5 to 1*. The median time before a woman's account becomes inactive or deleted was 88 weeks (that blew me away). Seeking "a relationship" or "marriage" makes your profile significantly more attractive.

    *Ottawa has a lot more single women than men due to the federal government being here.

    1. Re:Create a female profile and test it out by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Yes, all of this. I actually think this should be a thing that everyone experiences - very few things expose the difference in gender experience better than what it's like to be a man (ignored) and a woman (inundated) on a dating site.

  36. Inferior Social System by PerlPunk · · Score: 1

    Compared with the Indian engineers (male or female) who are expecting an arranged marriage and are not in the dating pool, the non-Indians (mostly Anglo-Americans) are not happy. Suggest the lonely Anglo-American men to try switching over to the Indian system. Some of your Indian friends might even help you.

    1. Re:Inferior Social System by Average · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At one level you might think it. But, I've talked about it with a number of Indian co-workers. At least, of the castes that end up working in America, there's some *stupidly* expensive wedding expectations, *stupidly* expensive rings and gold, and you'd f-ing well better have the house and car figured out before the wedding. Because your mother-in-law is moving in. These nice cricket-playing engineers were all working themselves silly over this stuff.

      When I suggest to them that they just elope and have a $50 civil wedding (like I did), they just don't even fathom how that's a possibility. Trust me, the Indian system sucks, just in different ways.

    2. Re:Inferior Social System by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I've known several Indian colleagues that gave up on the American dating scene and had their parents arrange a marriage. However, I know some that have been very successful with the American way of courtship (mostly women). However, one colleague of mine had quite a bit of drama in his family when he married a girl he met from another caste.

      They all seem happy regardless of how they met.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  37. Where are the missing women? by HuskyDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, there are a lot more men than women in Silicon Valley. OK, but since babies are born in almost exactly a 50:50 ratio that means that some places in the US must have more available women than men? I presume single men in Silicon Valley can't move to these places since there are no suitable jobs, but perhaps they could at least vacation there. Ahh, perhaps people in Silicon Valley don't get vacations either.

    Notes:
    1: Since I am in the UK and married I am asking where all the single women are purely out of curiosity.
    2: My wife is from a different European country, so I don't see that there is a problem with dating someone in a different US state.

    1. Re:Where are the missing women? by Average · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The key words in the story were "singles 25-35".

      There are a statistically significant surplus of single men 25-35. There is also a statistically significant surplus of single women 55-65.

      This visualization is fascintating. http://jonathansoma.com/single...

      Underlying factor--there are quite a lot of 25 year old women (especially those who are single moms already) willing to become a 45-year-old middle manager's second wife. There are exceedingly few 25 year old men (especially who would like to be fathers) who are willing to become a 45-year-old elementary school teacher's second husband.

    2. Re:Where are the missing women? by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

      At Cisco in 2000, I met a tech writer in another building (so as not to have to see each other every day). We went to dinner and concerts. 3 months on, she yells at me; I had me as I had not planned a Valentines Day getaway. Ouch.

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
    3. Re:Where are the missing women? by Cederic · · Score: 2

      There is also a statistically significant surplus of single women 55-65.

      Yeah, and they all make googly eyes at me when I'm dancing with them.

  38. Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    It has nothing to do with love being hard, it's because their algorithms SUCK. Mainly because they look for "desireable" traits rather than excluding 'deal breakers

    We all like to believe we know ourselves inside and out, but the fact is we don't know shit. We're just kinda riding these chemical signals. Our bodies are this amazingly complex machine; we can't hope to know a 10th of what's going on, nevermind being fully cognizant of what we like. Your exclusionary list that you seem to fond of would only serve to deprive people of their choices, virtually guaranteeing misery except for those lucky few.

    Are you seriously suggesting that riding on the love hormones will cure cat/dog allergies? Because that was a good example of a deal breaker, something you cannot change by willpower alone.

    More generally, I agree with your general argument that we people don't really know what we want. If you're looking for the "10" you imagine right now, it's probably not that great for you in the long run. OTOH, from personal life experience of myself and others, I believe it's much easier to know what you don't like than what you do.

    For starters, you can only know how you feel about things you've actually experienced. If you're choosing a "10" only based on your past experience, you're missing out on a lot of potential happiness. But you know your bad experiences and you know to avoid them in the future. Besides allergies and other physiological limitations, there are personality traits such as introversion/extroversion you cannot simply grow out of.

    The same idea is often discussed on /. with political elections. There are a lot of OK candidates but a few bad apples stand out, so it would be great to give negative votes. In other aspects of life, it's often easier to weed out sources of unhappiness than come up with new positives. For instance, when your parents told you not to hang out with that particular kid because he's bad influence.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  39. Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982... by Knuckles · · Score: 1

    I know when I tell a girl that I can afford a spouse that doesn't have to ever work that they get turned off.

    Problem spotted. Maybe if you didn't talk about a possible future spouse like you were buying a car.

    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  40. Ah, the p-word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    None of them can be truly rich, if they were they could get trophy wives. It's basically long term prostitution, but if you have enough money it works.

    What you fail to understand is that almost all long-term relationships are prostitution. You don't think so? Stop providing money / sex / housing / etc. and just see how long the SO stays around.

    Marriage is simply formal prostitution. Someone who admits being a prostitute is just more honest than most other people. "I do it for what I get back" is pretty much the refrain of almost everyone, where "it" covers a very wide range of... services.

    But don't worry. 10-20 years down the road, when the kids are out of the nest, it'll end with a nice new Porsche for your lawyers.

    1. Re: Ah, the p-word. by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Your definition is so narrow, all the volunteers at the hospital are prostitutes. You need better relationships if you equate marriage to formal prostitution and not making an over the top joke.

    2. Re: Ah, the p-word. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, if we backed up a century or two he'd have a good case. Nowadays, women can earn their own money and support themselves, so they don't have to put up with a guy just for money.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  41. Just put your deal-breakers in your profile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm also up front in my profile with personal characteristics which are likely deal-breakers for some women.

    Once you take the attitude that you're primarily filtering out unsuitable partners instead of just trying to attract someone it actually works quite well. That's why my account is deactivated.

  42. Re:70% male? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Well it is a chicken and eggs problem.
    Women as a fact of cultural norms will not normally make contact with the guys profiles they are interested in. So the guy while actually looking for something more worthwhile have to initiate first. Making them seem like the same sleeze balls as the guys trying for a one night stand. So the woman will not answer the guys who contact first.
    So the guys stay lonely and the woman stay lonely.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  43. Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1) I didn't whine, I stated a fact - one you agree with (that short men are fine asking tall women out and that women are NOT OK with it.) You are the only person here whining.

    2) What would you think if someone said "jews are money grubbing bastards?" But you are fine attacking nerds as immature perverts.

    3) Stop being upset when people call you on your personal flaws. It's OK for women to complain about men being shallow pigs only interested in sex with thin women. It's also OK for men to complain about women being shallow pigs only interested in relationships with tall men.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  44. Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

    OKCupid asks people if they have cats or dogs. Then they let you look for someone that already owns a cat or a dog. They do NOT let you exclude people that have cats or dogs.

    That is a one short term relationship system. If you only date people that already have a cat or a dog, you are looking for someone that won't have to change their life style to fit with yours. Perfect if all you want is a couple of months of fun.

    Your words do not back up this assertion.

    Why it it only perfect "if all you want is a couple of months of fun"? Aren't relationships built upon congruencies as well as fascinating differences?

    Regards.

  45. Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    Are you seriously suggesting that riding on the love hormones will cure cat/dog allergies?

    That's not what I said, Ms Newman.

    What I said is we don't know ourselves anywhere near as well as we like to pretend we do. So someone with a cat/dog might realize they'd rather be with an amazing person who has animal allergies ( than have animals ), but only if s|he were looking to find them first ( and visa/versa ). Or perhaps those animal owners are themselves allergic, and so have hypoallergenic animals.

    You are artificially, and inappropriately, limiting your pool of potential matches through hard exclusions that you create based on ignorance.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  46. Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA by HyperQuantum · · Score: 2

    That is a one short term relationship system. If you only date people that already have a cat or a dog, you are looking for someone that won't have to change their life style to fit with yours. Perfect if all you want is a couple of months of fun.

    This could be intentional. If you find a permanent relationship, then OKCupid will permanently lose you as a customer. Even if you don't pay them to be a member, they will have one less profile they can use as bait for attracting new members.

    --
    I am not really here right now.
  47. Fits my experience. by Qbertino · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I've had a very solid share of affairs and relationships within the last decade, fuled by a growning aged geek-perspective and the cool that comes with it, a "silver-back" bonus, social dancing and systematically practicing the mating game and doing some PUA research. It worked out very well. Awesome pr0n-style sex, all-out "let's just f*ck like there's no tomorrow" ONSes and all. ... Looking for something different I started to use Tinder last year (Oh the irony, I know). And while the effect in "time-to-business" was palpable, the overall experience wasn't all that spectacular, especially with always-online addicts and ladies with the attention span of a squirrel. I quit after a few weeks. I don't use social media for the same reasons.

    Right now I'm having an affair that looks out to become a long-term relationship and we got together in a very old-school regular fashion. Feels awesome. We screw like bunnies 3 times a day on average and are continuously getting better at it. Good sex takes practice with the partner :-) .

    My conclusion on this: I do think dating apps can significantly improve your throughput and first-encounter experiences but the actual time it takes to slowly shift your priorities and your experience with one another and start moving together for an LTR won't go away by using some app. There is only so much you can leave to computers and the internet. The real deal always involves humans and "human labour". Especially when it comes to relationships. It's that simple.

    My 2 eurocents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  48. Personals online and a condo ownership helped us. by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

    My spouse and I met when I was working in Berkeley at Ion Systems and she had part-time work at universities. This was sixteen year ago. She was impressed that I had saved up to get a loan to buy a condo in San Bruno.

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  49. Re:70% male? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do you believe that in your heart?

    Do you believe that throughout human history, across the north american IT landscape, across the globe that 70% is entirely because women want to avoid men? That 70% is only in application to google which massages the numbers by cherry picking candidates according to political criteria. The more realistic numbers are 100(m):1(f) for those who will spend the blood sweat tears and years it takes to become a professional in something so complex and full of minuet.

    Being a programmer is a forceful act of will to follow your obsession down the rabbit hole. Why do more women not do this? I do not know, but I refuse to be blind to the reality that more men are attracted to this than women.

    I refuse to live in an illusion to assuage the screetching of whatever political movement de jeur is bellowing loudest on this particular day. It is how you make bad policy and bad decision.

  50. Re:here is my experience, and it's not pretty by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    If you're 64, you are entering a demographic that has an exceedingly favorable male-female ratio. Wanna meet lonely women? Offer to fix their computers.

  51. Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982... by omnichad · · Score: 1

    It's not that he's afraid of her success, it's that she's an asshole

    Which is also how people become "successful" in business in the first place. When the tables are turned, there's far too many women attracted to this kind of toxic personality.

  52. Re:I turned 18 in Seattle in 1982... by Average · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Uh, how many dependent males are there? Like, guys with little to no education who couldn't get by on their own because they've been stay-at-home dads and housewi... househusbands? Is that even a word? Is there a market for sugarmoms?

    More than you might think at first. I know a *surprising* number of professional 40-something women (doctors, college profs) supporting educated but generally ne'r-do-well "indie filmmaker type" stay-at-home man-baby hubbies.

    I think the reasoning is this. "I don't really have the assets/looks/personality that men above or even paralleling my social status want. If I marry someone a little below my station (university staff, male nurses, etc), there'll always be a lot of unspoken tension about that power imbalance. But, if I marry some good-looking 6'2" drifty-doofus who is good with kids, we both know where we stand".

  53. Re: This isn't surprising by Cederic · · Score: 1

    The welfare system severely punishes the poor for being married

    The legal system severely punishes men for being married, which is one reason so many fewer are risking it.

  54. Tough titties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are enough people already.

    The world needs more unmarried, childless people. Especially the US Tax Dept.

  55. Re:Their algorythms don't work because they are BA by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    short men are fine asking tall women out and that women are NOT OK with it

    Is that true though? I know a few people who demonstrate otherwise, but of course that's not data. Is there any statistical evidence?

    Being tall tends to give people an advantage in almost every aspect of life (except flying) so I do wonder if any observable trend is more related to that.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  56. Hang the DJ by sad_ · · Score: 1

    obviously this is the answer, let a virtualized world figure it out for you.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.