Why people have fallen out of love with dating apps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I met on eHarmony over a decade ago, but I tried multiple sites. The experience was usually not great. The problem you’re not starting with a random distribution of people. The guys who were 9s and 10s often weren’t on the site. They generally locked down gorgeous women in college. So you’re starting with guys who range from 1 to 8 with a tiny fraction of 9s/10s thrown in. Then, the above-average men find their partners and leave, increasing the percentage of below-average men in the population.

I’m sure the exact same phenomenon is true for women.

I had to go on many, many bad dates to find my husband over a series of years. No idea of eHarmony is still around, but I know it refused to match some of my acquaintances. I also never met a felon on eHarmony, which I can’t say for other sites. If it hadn’t changed, I would recommend eHarmony to the committed single.

This is why apps don't work for women. Every woman is entitled to a guy who's a 9 or 10, but those guys aren't on the dating apps. We need a different system for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems that a growing number of men as are not very active on the dating scene. I am not sure why. They are also having less sex. I am not sure why either. Perhaps women don't want to date as well.

The apps are geared to make people avoid good matches and keep you single so you use the app longer.

There's no regulation of apps like that. Most are scams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I met on eHarmony over a decade ago, but I tried multiple sites. The experience was usually not great. The problem you’re not starting with a random distribution of people. The guys who were 9s and 10s often weren’t on the site. They generally locked down gorgeous women in college. So you’re starting with guys who range from 1 to 8 with a tiny fraction of 9s/10s thrown in. Then, the above-average men find their partners and leave, increasing the percentage of below-average men in the population.

I’m sure the exact same phenomenon is true for women.

I had to go on many, many bad dates to find my husband over a series of years. No idea of eHarmony is still around, but I know it refused to match some of my acquaintances. I also never met a felon on eHarmony, which I can’t say for other sites. If it hadn’t changed, I would recommend eHarmony to the committed single.

This is why apps don't work for women. Every woman is entitled to a guy who's a 9 or 10, but those guys aren't on the dating apps. We need a different system for women.

I’m the pp you quoted. I can’t tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic. People exist on a bell curve. Most people are inherently below a 9 or a 10, due to the nature of a bell curve. I’d say I took a 5 and turned him into at least an 8. DH needed a haircut, facial hair, and a new wardrobe. He was a winter wearing mostly summer colors and he looked ill. His OLD pictures were old and unflattering. DH’s personality had always been a 10 for me, so I’m glad I was able to help his outsides better match his insides. I would have married him if he’d refused the makeover, but I’m glad he was flexible. Moral of the story? Just because you can’t score a 10 doesn’t mean the guy isn’t worth dating. What constitutes a 10 for one woman won’t constitute a 10 for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems that a growing number of men as are not very active on the dating scene. I am not sure why. They are also having less sex. I am not sure why either. Perhaps women don't want to date as well.

My nephews are late 20s and are turned off by the large number of Hos on the apps. Some real crazies and many that have slept with 100s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ask any guy on the apps. You get a match, she’s juggling at least five other guys, she’s constantly looking for a better deal, eventually she ghosts you. Waste of time.

Yep. And banging all of them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dating apps rely on paid subscriptions from men to survive. If they are failing, or their numbers are down it's because men have learned that dating apps can really suck.

For example, Bumble chose to market their app as one where women make the first move. Sounds good in theory, to women. You don't get 100s of messages from men. You get to choose who you talk to. But then Bumble learned what us men all know. Women on dating sites are lazy AF and horrible at making the first move or even writing a complete sentence if they do.

Women may complain about all the messages they get but, especially from really crude men but they still won't put in the work to look around and actually find a guy who looks interesting and write to him. They'd rather sort through the messages.

So Bumble had to add "features" to their site where men-who paid-could "send a compliment." In other words, make the first move. It's still not working for them and Bumble is actually one of the better dating sites.

The site is much better to navigate than most of the others which all seem to be run by the same parent company on code written decades ago. Bumble does a good job of eliminating scammers where sites like POF or Tinder seem to rely on the users to weed them out.

That said, for most men, dating sites can really be a waste of time. I can write a nice message to ten different women and when I look at it a week later, maybe 7 messages have not even been read and less than 1 in 20 messages will get an actual response. So no, I'm not paying for that.

I do much better getting out and socializing and meeting people in person and through friends the old fashioned way.

I'm sure dating sites are great for women. I've talked to a lot of women from dating sites and they will all say they got 100s of messages the first week of joining so yeah, I get why my message goes unread or unanswered. They don't even need to bother paying for the features that come with a paid subscription. Why bother with that kind of response?

Again, it's men who pay for dating sites and the old days are gone. Dating sites were much better a few decades ago but they have not changed enough with the times.

Maybe if men bothered to read profiles and not send identical generic messages to multiple women it would help

You assume a lot. I never sent copy/paste messages and always responded to something she wrote in her profile, along with maybe asking her a question about something she wrote or a photo she posted. It doesn't matter, those are the odds. A erll written, thoughtful but brief message that shows I read her profile barely helps with those odds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What site would be helpful to meet dates? Female, 47, tall thin/blonde/blue eyes, have a career. Would I even find someone?

I makes no difference at all. You will get a phenomenal response on any dating site if you post even one photo and barely fill out two words of your bio. That said, I'd stay away from Plenty-of-Fish just because it sucks. If I were a woman, I'd probably look at Bumble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dating apps rely on paid subscriptions from men to survive. If they are failing, or their numbers are down it's because men have learned that dating apps can really suck.

For example, Bumble chose to market their app as one where women make the first move. Sounds good in theory, to women. You don't get 100s of messages from men. You get to choose who you talk to. But then Bumble learned what us men all know. Women on dating sites are lazy AF and horrible at making the first move or even writing a complete sentence if they do.

Women may complain about all the messages they get but, especially from really crude men but they still won't put in the work to look around and actually find a guy who looks interesting and write to him. They'd rather sort through the messages.

So Bumble had to add "features" to their site where men-who paid-could "send a compliment." In other words, make the first move. It's still not working for them and Bumble is actually one of the better dating sites.

The site is much better to navigate than most of the others which all seem to be run by the same parent company on code written decades ago. Bumble does a good job of eliminating scammers where sites like POF or Tinder seem to rely on the users to weed them out.

That said, for most men, dating sites can really be a waste of time. I can write a nice message to ten different women and when I look at it a week later, maybe 7 messages have not even been read and less than 1 in 20 messages will get an actual response. So no, I'm not paying for that.

I do much better getting out and socializing and meeting people in person and through friends the old fashioned way.

I'm sure dating sites are great for women. I've talked to a lot of women from dating sites and they will all say they got 100s of messages the first week of joining so yeah, I get why my message goes unread or unanswered. They don't even need to bother paying for the features that come with a paid subscription. Why bother with that kind of response?

Again, it's men who pay for dating sites and the old days are gone. Dating sites were much better a few decades ago but they have not changed enough with the times.

Maybe if men bothered to read profiles and not send identical generic messages to multiple women it would help

The reason for this is that every single woman is getting spammed by 300 guys, and that means each guy has to spam hundreds of women to have any hope of a response. There isn't enough time to craft an individual message to each woman, and she's not going to read it anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you plan to be a SAHM, there are no benefits to datimg a man if you’re a woman.

Yep, just have a kid on your own. It's much easier, and better for the kid.

100% this.

Agreed! Studies show that fathers are detrimental to kids' development. This is especially true for boys. A father is invariably a toxic presence in a boy's life.

As the product of a single mother, and as a father myself, you and these studies are completely full of feces.

Fathers are essential to the proper development of sons and daughters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I met on eHarmony over a decade ago, but I tried multiple sites. The experience was usually not great. The problem you’re not starting with a random distribution of people. The guys who were 9s and 10s often weren’t on the site. They generally locked down gorgeous women in college. So you’re starting with guys who range from 1 to 8 with a tiny fraction of 9s/10s thrown in. Then, the above-average men find their partners and leave, increasing the percentage of below-average men in the population.

I’m sure the exact same phenomenon is true for women.

I had to go on many, many bad dates to find my husband over a series of years. No idea of eHarmony is still around, but I know it refused to match some of my acquaintances. I also never met a felon on eHarmony, which I can’t say for other sites. If it hadn’t changed, I would recommend eHarmony to the committed single.

This is why apps don't work for women. Every woman is entitled to a guy who's a 9 or 10, but those guys aren't on the dating apps. We need a different system for women.

I’m the pp you quoted. I can’t tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic. People exist on a bell curve. Most people are inherently below a 9 or a 10, due to the nature of a bell curve. I’d say I took a 5 and turned him into at least an 8. DH needed a haircut, facial hair, and a new wardrobe. He was a winter wearing mostly summer colors and he looked ill. His OLD pictures were old and unflattering. DH’s personality had always been a 10 for me, so I’m glad I was able to help his outsides better match his insides. I would have married him if he’d refused the makeover, but I’m glad he was flexible. Moral of the story? Just because you can’t score a 10 doesn’t mean the guy isn’t worth dating. What constitutes a 10 for one woman won’t constitute a 10 for others.

But what was your score when your DH met you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you plan to be a SAHM, there are no benefits to datimg a man if you’re a woman.

Yep, just have a kid on your own. It's much easier, and better for the kid.

100% this.

Agreed! Studies show that fathers are detrimental to kids' development. This is especially true for boys. A father is invariably a toxic presence in a boy's life.

As the product of a single mother, and as a father myself, you and these studies are completely full of feces.

Fathers are essential to the proper development of sons and daughters.

The entire post you quoted was sarcastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I met on eHarmony over a decade ago, but I tried multiple sites. The experience was usually not great. The problem you’re not starting with a random distribution of people. The guys who were 9s and 10s often weren’t on the site. They generally locked down gorgeous women in college. So you’re starting with guys who range from 1 to 8 with a tiny fraction of 9s/10s thrown in. Then, the above-average men find their partners and leave, increasing the percentage of below-average men in the population.

I’m sure the exact same phenomenon is true for women.

I had to go on many, many bad dates to find my husband over a series of years. No idea of eHarmony is still around, but I know it refused to match some of my acquaintances. I also never met a felon on eHarmony, which I can’t say for other sites. If it hadn’t changed, I would recommend eHarmony to the committed single.

This is why apps don't work for women. Every woman is entitled to a guy who's a 9 or 10, but those guys aren't on the dating apps. We need a different system for women.

I’m the pp you quoted. I can’t tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic. People exist on a bell curve. Most people are inherently below a 9 or a 10, due to the nature of a bell curve. I’d say I took a 5 and turned him into at least an 8. DH needed a haircut, facial hair, and a new wardrobe. He was a winter wearing mostly summer colors and he looked ill. His OLD pictures were old and unflattering. DH’s personality had always been a 10 for me, so I’m glad I was able to help his outsides better match his insides. I would have married him if he’d refused the makeover, but I’m glad he was flexible. Moral of the story? Just because you can’t score a 10 doesn’t mean the guy isn’t worth dating. What constitutes a 10 for one woman won’t constitute a 10 for others.

DP. Wow, you just keep digging that hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I met on eHarmony over a decade ago, but I tried multiple sites. The experience was usually not great. The problem you’re not starting with a random distribution of people. The guys who were 9s and 10s often weren’t on the site. They generally locked down gorgeous women in college. So you’re starting with guys who range from 1 to 8 with a tiny fraction of 9s/10s thrown in. Then, the above-average men find their partners and leave, increasing the percentage of below-average men in the population.

I’m sure the exact same phenomenon is true for women.

I had to go on many, many bad dates to find my husband over a series of years. No idea of eHarmony is still around, but I know it refused to match some of my acquaintances. I also never met a felon on eHarmony, which I can’t say for other sites. If it hadn’t changed, I would recommend eHarmony to the committed single.

This is why apps don't work for women. Every woman is entitled to a guy who's a 9 or 10, but those guys aren't on the dating apps. We need a different system for women.

I’m the pp you quoted. I can’t tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic. People exist on a bell curve. Most people are inherently below a 9 or a 10, due to the nature of a bell curve. I’d say I took a 5 and turned him into at least an 8. DH needed a haircut, facial hair, and a new wardrobe. He was a winter wearing mostly summer colors and he looked ill. His OLD pictures were old and unflattering. DH’s personality had always been a 10 for me, so I’m glad I was able to help his outsides better match his insides. I would have married him if he’d refused the makeover, but I’m glad he was flexible. Moral of the story? Just because you can’t score a 10 doesn’t mean the guy isn’t worth dating. What constitutes a 10 for one woman won’t constitute a 10 for others.

DP, but you missed the joke/point.

That poster was obviously saying how all women, even those 1/10 think they deserve a 8/10+ guy, due to being raised in a culture of participation trophies and being told how special and great they always were.

Women, and men, have too high self-valuation and never realize that no matter what they think they rank, it's usually well below that.

If one were to ask 10 random people to rate them 1/10 to 10/10, the majority of people will rate a person 7/10 just to be polite, unless one is really a 10/10 in perceived attraction to them.

Side note, sure looks are subjective, but when talking large sample groups, they really don't become subjective anymore as outliers are eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dating apps rely on paid subscriptions from men to survive. If they are failing, or their numbers are down it's because men have learned that dating apps can really suck.

For example, Bumble chose to market their app as one where women make the first move. Sounds good in theory, to women. You don't get 100s of messages from men. You get to choose who you talk to. But then Bumble learned what us men all know. Women on dating sites are lazy AF and horrible at making the first move or even writing a complete sentence if they do.

Women may complain about all the messages they get but, especially from really crude men but they still won't put in the work to look around and actually find a guy who looks interesting and write to him. They'd rather sort through the messages.

So Bumble had to add "features" to their site where men-who paid-could "send a compliment." In other words, make the first move. It's still not working for them and Bumble is actually one of the better dating sites.

The site is much better to navigate than most of the others which all seem to be run by the same parent company on code written decades ago. Bumble does a good job of eliminating scammers where sites like POF or Tinder seem to rely on the users to weed them out.

That said, for most men, dating sites can really be a waste of time. I can write a nice message to ten different women and when I look at it a week later, maybe 7 messages have not even been read and less than 1 in 20 messages will get an actual response. So no, I'm not paying for that.

I do much better getting out and socializing and meeting people in person and through friends the old fashioned way.

I'm sure dating sites are great for women. I've talked to a lot of women from dating sites and they will all say they got 100s of messages the first week of joining so yeah, I get why my message goes unread or unanswered. They don't even need to bother paying for the features that come with a paid subscription. Why bother with that kind of response?

Again, it's men who pay for dating sites and the old days are gone. Dating sites were much better a few decades ago but they have not changed enough with the times.

Maybe if men bothered to read profiles and not send identical generic messages to multiple women it would help

The reason for this is that every single woman is getting spammed by 300 guys, and that means each guy has to spam hundreds of women to have any hope of a response. There isn't enough time to craft an individual message to each woman, and she's not going to read it anyway.

That's true but I always do. It's not a long message but enough to show I read her profile, picked something out of it and commented. Tried to engage her with a question. I'll sit down and write maybe 20 women then leave it alone for a week. In that time, most of the messages are not even read. In 2-3 weeks maybe half are read and usually not not one has responded. I've had women friends look at my profile, help me edit the bio, select better photos. It just is what it is. Dating sites are terrible for men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you plan to be a SAHM, there are no benefits to datimg a man if you’re a woman.

Yep, just have a kid on your own. It's much easier, and better for the kid.

100% this.

Agreed! Studies show that fathers are detrimental to kids' development. This is especially true for boys. A father is invariably a toxic presence in a boy's life.

Really? What studies? Especially for boys, lack of a father figure is a real detriment. I've dated many single women with sons and they are clueless how to raise a young man and it shows. I won't even go into what lack of a strong father figure does to young women but we see the results all the time.