As you know from my earlier posts, my search for Miss has made me explore a multitude of online meeting venues that sounded promising from a variety of angles. Today I would like to give updates and further examples of why online meeting is a dismal
fraud failure in general, and even more so when the aim isn’t a connection that involves men in one way or the other.
I refer to online “meeting” rather than “dating” because I’m talking about any online platform that aims at making people connect on a personal level, including friendship and platonic partnership.
First of all let’s clear the field from the obvious objection. You will hear many people claim that online meeting is actually great and thanks to it they found their spouse or significant other and lived happily thereafter. Curiously enough, the people who tell you such inspiring stories are usually the meeting companies themselves. Sort of Big Pharma assuring you that drugs work miracles: oh, sure I’ll believe that. Nonetheless it’s obvious that, in a database of millions of users, statistically speaking there must be some genuine success stories. But upholding such stories as the norm is almost like claiming that the lottery is an established means for people to get rich: sure the few winners will confirm this, but the zillions of lottery buyers who waste their money at regular intervals will tell you a different story.
So the point is, how many people actually found the person they were seeking online?
For a more realistic answer to this question, I now and then entertain myself with statistical articles on the subject, and put their data together with my own direct observations. YouTubers can be a useful resource too. If you have been looking in vain for your match online and wonder whether your are alone in such misfortune, you may want to listen to the rants of the countless people, men and women alike, who have given up online meeting because it simply sucks.
Another measure may be given by the number of inactive profiles you find on any meeting site, which is usually massive. I’d love to think that the inactive users are people who happily found their matches, but sadly it’s way more often people who signed up, had a quick look around, grew discouraged, and no longer log in. Other times it’s people who signed up, had a thourough look around, grew discouraged, and no longer log in. In contrast, you have users who have been there for years and are still looking. What do these observations tell you?
I seriously had the experience of re-joining websites I had left after a few years, and of finding the very same users still looking for the same thing! I don’t know how you feel about this, but it saddens me a bit. That so many people cannot find a match, and that they feel stuck in looking for it on improbabile online venues, is, in my eyes, a proof that we live in the times of loneliness and despair. My take is that modern society is incapable of connecting people, but what is certain is that for the great majority online meeting does not work.
You may contend: so why do millions of people use it then?
Well, for various reasons. First of all, for the very reason that it doesn’t work. Match-seekers may try out Tinder, get frustrated and move to OKCupid, get frustrated and move to PlentyOfFish, get frustrated and move to Match.com… until they understand that no website or app will work. A bit like people with ailments, forever trying out a new drug until they realise no drug can solve their problem. The zillions of new users boasted by website owners and drug producers alike are simply the nomadic masses that keep falling for new traps because the previous one didn’t deliver.
People also use online meeting because it’s easy. Rather than coming up with some creativity and investing energies in some pragmatic way of meeting people, it’s way more convenient to slap a picture online and browse the pictures of others, in the fantastic belief that making friends, playpartners or significant others online won’t be as challenging and problematic as it is offline. In other words, online match-seekers think that the same strangers who studiously and invariably ignore them on the street will suddenly become affable and approachable dates and confidants once safely behind the screen. As if it was two separate sets of people.
Seriously, doesn’t that sound like a form of delusion, of detachment from reality, to you? It does to me, as well as a form of disdain or incapability to deal with fellow humans in flesh. There can be no doubt that online meeting tends to attract people who are either extremely shy, intractable, or otherwise incapacitated at making human contact. Or who just hope to arrange a quick fix. What a promising pool!
Nonetheless, some people see online meeting as their only option because they live in the middle of nowhere, or are disabled, or have other impediments. Or they are part of a tiny minority with slim prospects to meet in real life, like asexuals.
So you have quite powerful reasons that explain why online meeting is popular. Most definitely not because it works, but rather because it doesn’t, it’s easy, it saves from exposure, and some people feel they have no other choice.
Needless to say, though, when the drug that was supposed to cure you doesn’t work, the drug producer will blame you for not following the instructions scrupolously, and the same objection of course applies to online meeting. The site owners will say that if you are not successful it’s because you didn’t upload a picture, or you didn’t upload the right picture, or you didn’t write a text, or you didn’t write a catchy text, or you are too passive and don’t make the effort, or you can’t hold a conversation, and on and on. In a matter as complex and varied as human interaction, there’s obviously endless shortcomings to blame on the user, in contrast with the supposedly astounding features offered by the website.
It also goes without saying that, according to the site’s owner, your chances will dramatically increase if you invest your hard-earned money into an upgraded membership.
As a person who has spent a good deal of time exploring a variety of meeting websites and apps, I can professionally and safely assure you that they don’t work no matter what you do or what you don’t. I’ve tried uploading pictures, or going without; writing capsule-profiles, or long essays; using creativity, or simple facts; messaging a lot, messaging a little, or not at all: it doesn’t make the least bit of difference.
The ineffectiveness of online meeting is due to both the terrible way such venues are conceived and the terrible way they are used.
The awkwardness of sending an intriguing message to a static picture, for example, is due to the unnatural ways the venues are built, but made even worse by the unrealistic expectations most users have in regard to messages.
Just look at how some users (always women) explain why they don’t reply to most messages they receive. Who do you think they think is at fault: they or the senders? Well, invariably the senders of course. See, once such women have set up a scant profile with a couple of shots, they truly believe their job is over, that they’ve already given away too much of themselves to the world, and that all they now have to do is sit on top of the hill and laugh at the people who try, with more or less effort, to climb up and get in touch with them. They automatically wear the judge’s robe and set off to mock every request they get, with the same sarcastic anticipation of the jury of a talent show: comfortably sitting behind the desk in a position of power, holding in their hands the fate of the nervous candidates who strive by every means to get their attention and approval.
So the reasons they usually provide for ignoring messages are as follows.
First of all, this grand jury doesn’t like “one liners”. They keep complaining about the numbers of “hi, how are you?’s” they get, and say that it’s lame. Well, ok, I suppose it’s true that the sender could do better. They are right in saying that such a sparse approach shows lack of creativity, and possibly that the sender just applies carpet messaging techniques until someone replies. And yet, isn’t “hi, how are you?” the way people usually greet each other out there? Isn’t it a common approach as well? I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been approached in real life by a bloke who offered remarks on Shakespeare’s writings, the stock market, or the amazing properties of cranberry juice.
I mean, come on! At least these people who send a “hi, how are you?” have the guts to contact you, even after considering what an ordeal it is to impress shallow bitches like yourselves. In contrast you don’t write to anyone, so what’s there for you to judge and be so demanding? Plus, a simple greeting is polite and discreet, it works as a “I’m here” signal to draw your attention to the sender’s profile. Oh, sorry, I forgot you are way too lazy to check out other people’s profiles. Of course you expect to be fed with a silver spoon every bit of info.
Well but in fact, some senders are so terrified of being called “dumb one-liners” that they resort to writing whole essays when they message online women. And then, guess what? Online women complain the messages are too long, that there’s no need to write so much for an introduction, that it’s a spoiler, that it takes too much time and effort to read, and on and on. OK, true. One obviously could see it from the other point of view though: that you brats are too lazy and uninterested to spend more than a few seconds reading a message, and that you magically expect it to be exactly how you expect it.
So: not too short, not too long. But wait, there’s plenty more. If it’s sexual, these angelic prudish creatures who often post shots of their clivage or tongue, and clearly state that they are looking for hookups, complain that the men who send direct proposals are jerks and total losers. Granted: I don’t know if there are any girls out there who enjoy getting explicit messages from men as an introduction; I certainly don’t. But then, if you dating ladies are so pure and virginal, why not make an effort to convey that impression with the pictures you post, the words you write, the vibe you give off? You are on a dating site (which mostly translates as hookups site), so you are telling men that you are available, often even for non monogamous sex. Complete that with clivage pics, and then you complain that men send sexual messages??
Conversely, if someone sends a totally platonic message that steers clear of direct proposals, the verdict of the jury is: “how boooring!” Yes, because these types who post their faces (or something else) on the dating sites are desperate for some thrill, some excitement, so they expect something that will surprise and impress them. You may reckon their lives are indeed so boring that they rely on an online stranger to come up with some astonishing message that will leave them captivated and ferry them to magic land. Needless to say, it’s up to the sender to guess what will surprise and intrigue these bitches, who often don’t give a clue other than an enigmatic gaze or a moronic smile.
It’s not over, of course. If you write something they mentioned on their profiles, they will say that was too easy, you need to be more original. If you don’t write anything they mentioned on their profiles, they will assume you didn’t read it as scrupolously as they
never read yours, and take so much offence that you will be likely banned from contact.
Honestly, guys, I don’t know how you can cope with dating sites. I see many of you complaining that online dating is a scam, and you are totally right. Dating sites are a joke, and they are a totally unnatural way of seeking a connection with someone.
When you meet offline, at the pub, at work, or anywhere else, a simple “hi how are you” is totally acceptable. You don’t have to peruse improbable pictures and interpret enigmatic texts to get an idea of the person, because you have it in front of you. No way someone can hide their true traits for long, because body language is where most of human communication comes from.
The latter is probably the most damning shortcoming of current meeting websites: they almost completely leave out body language. Websites with video-based profiles would be a terrific improvement to see real humans in action with their voice and mannerism, and yet for some reason it seems such simple idea isn’t gaining traction, so all you have is static pictures and texts -if you are lucky.
I suppose requiring by default a video would put off the majority of users, because most don’t really want to take things that seriously, and this fact probably tells you all: most users of dating websites are not serious at all in what they claim (or not) to be seeking. Online women in particular are just having some fun in posting pretty or provocative pictures and seeing the reactions of men. They get a boost of self-esteem from it, they get laughing material for their friends, and that’s pretty much all there is to it.
However, guys, there is one thing you are partially wrong about the woes of online meeting: that is, when you claim that online meeting is especially bad for men. I would rather say: it’s especially bad for anyone looking for a woman for any reason. If you think that women read or reply to messages sent by other women, boy I can personally prove that’s a complete myth. What makes the difference is not if you are male or female, but if you are looking for a male or a female. If you are a man looking for a woman: bad. A woman looking for a woman: equally bad! In fact perhaps worse, because the pool of women interested in connecting with other women on any level is ridiculously small. In contrast, I would tend to think that men looking for men for a quick fix have it quite easy online, but you tell me on that one. I’m just pretty sure that active seekers can find other active seekers, but passive choosers cannot find other passive choosers. Simple as that. It cannot be a coincidence that all apps ever tried to make women connect have lasted very little. It’s our nature, as I discussed in a previous post.
The general rule described above of course applies to any kind of online meeting place. No matter if it’s a site for dating, hookups, friendship, or BDSM, women will not make the effort of contacting you, nor respond to your efforts.
As with any rules of course there are exceptions, and that’s all they are: exceptions. Like myself, after all. My natural naivity, friendliness, inexperience, along with the apparent uniqueness of my aspiration, have made me not only try out the hilarious world of online meeting but also encouraged some boldness in making first moves.
In fact, not content with the kind of websites I had already tried, I recently let myself into yet another exploration: that of the asexual online meeting.
Perhaps luckily, the websites where asexuals look for each other are still so few and small that one cannot possibly waste any considerable amount of time on them. Still, I think it could be neat to come across a fellow asexual Miss. I suppose the mutual lack of sexual attraction would make it much easier to develop a strong bond on a purely emotional level. Or at least that’s a possibility. So I decided to have a go.
With astounding precision, the general rule was yet again confirmed: women will not reply to your messages. Interestingly enough, they won’t even read them. I thought maybe they didn’t like my profile picture, so I took it off and later messaged a few other people. Still no reply, still unread. I mean, asexual girls who wrote they were looking for just friends too. Some even aromantic people, just like me. Truth be told, I did get a couple of very-delayed replies, but that was it. When I replied in turn, the recipients reversed to silent mode. I came across some Youtubers relating similar experiences.
On top of the general rule about online women not replying or making contact, meeting sites for aces present the endearing match seeker with further significant challenges: a great number of profiles have no picture, and many leave you quite confused as to who you’d be talking to: agender? genderfluid? non-binary? From people who claim to be in a relationship with themselves (leaving you wonder how they would split if they no longer get along) to self-described aliens or amoebas, if you enjoy extreme science fiction you’ll certainly love asexuals meeting sites.
Of course, everyone is different and even there you can come across more conventional humans. In my case though it would have to be unapologetically female, elegant and comfortable with being served. Something perhaps not so common among sexual-minority “social justice” warriors, what do you think? Not only the essence of lesbianism seems to run contrary to the spirit of my ambition, but also that of the ace community.
Oh well. Once again, I may not have found Miss, but I’ve gained a few insights into yet another facet of this mad modern world.
So, sexual or asexual, BDSM or vanilla, straight or gay, romantic or platonic, online meeting is mostly a dismal failure.
Could it be any different, after all? Meeting websites and apps aren’t a service offered for your sake, they are a product you purchase. If they are free, then you are the product for sale. They more or less blatantly collect your political views and sensitive information that someone no doubt will want to buy, so you are wasting your time to make them rich, all while not getting what you want.
You can even become an involuntary guinea pig for psychology and manipulation studies, like OKCupid users did when their trusted website decided to skew the compatibility percentages to see whether users were still able to evalute compatibility by themselves. That OKCupid is still very popular after such manipulation become public, and that anyone would trust a matching algorythm, be it purposedly altered or not, tells you a lot about the average user of online meeting platforms. In England they have tactful expressions like “a sandwich short of a picnic”, to describe that part of mankind. Because, let’s face it: how can you not have a tiny doubt springing up in your mind, when you see that the algorythm declares a 76% sex compatibility with someone who has replied zero sex questions? It’s such a joke. OKCupid has hundreds of matching questions, most of which are totally irrelevant to assess compatibility and obviously designed to be sold to advertising companies or government agencies. Yet users can choose to ignore all important questions and reply to meaningless ones, thus leading to a totally irrelevant match percentage. Suppose you and another person have only replied to the question about ideal room temperature: the algorythm of OKCupid will declare your compatibility just based on that. If you both prefer around 20°C, you are a match! So, when you read profiles stating that they won’t even speak to anyone with less than 80% compatibility, you really don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. You just feel sorry for them.
But, here’s the thing. No amount of evidence will ever discourage your desperate match seeker from buying the online scam.
Because online meeting websites and apps know that you will try anything to find your imaginary match. They prosper off your desperation and sell you hope, converting your innermost needs into cash. And here’s the trick: they will always have new customers, because people cannot give up hope. In a fragmented and suspicious society where real-life meeting becomes more and more problematic, they offer you more and more online meeting illusions, and you will fall for it again and again.
By the way: did you notice that also Craigslist, former staple of anonymous online meeting, closed down the personals section? Could it possibly be because they want to force you to use websites that aren’t free, or that harvest your sensitive data? Um, interesting.