I've done nothing with online dating for more than a month; nothing bad happened, but neither did anything good, and I've been very busy working on website stuff and fiction and various real life activities. Also, to some degree I've been denying myself dating since I wasn't getting enough fiction writing done, and felt like dating should be a reward for doing good work on important things, rather than a distraction from said activity. And I'm very good at letting it (and other momentarily enticing activities) become entirely too distracting, at the expense of spending time on what I should/could to spend that time on.
I also have held back since I don't have an approach I want to take in my attempts to entice complete strangers, women no less, into spending time with me. I've tried various different methods during my few months of online dating, and all have been roughly equivalent in their success. Or lack thereof. Longer, personalized emails. Shorter emails. Short form letters with a few details personalized. Longer mails musing on the whole process of online dating with a short personalized note at the end. Etc.
My natural inclination is to look at profiles of potential dates, read their personal info, and then write a couple/few paragraphs about what interested me in them and/or why I think they'd be interested in me. This doesn't work that well, or at least it doesn't elicit more replies than short mails, or form letters, etc. I've not noticed much of a qualitative difference either, which is more important to me than a qualitative improvement. I'd much rather send out 20 emails and have a couple/few interesting, intelligent, simpatico-enabled women reply, than get 10 replies from boring, average women I won't want to date once I get to know them. And that calculus has some impact on my approach, since while the longer, more intelligent/interesting mails get fewer replies, the ones who do reply are more likely to be similar to me in terms of personality, attitude, etc. At least in theory. (Not so much in practice, to this point.)
I think the most effective (on a quantitative level) approach would be pare back and dumb down my own profile info, claim a six-figure income in some suit-wearing profession, and send a short form letter. "Hey you look great! Do you like to travel and dine out and laugh a lot? Me too!"
Those 3 activities hit high on the "DO WANT!" list of about 98% of the female profiles I've so far seen online, as does a suit-wearing man with a high salary. Checking the boxes for liking puppies and wanting kids would pretty well seal the deal.
Now obviously that wouldn't last, since I don't own a suit and aren't about to liquidate my investments to artificially swell my bank account. (Though locking everything into a 2% checking account 6 months ago would have been a phenomenally wise course of action. Hell, so would lottery tickets, compared to the stock market.) That would, I'm quite sure, result in a huge uptick in first date prospects. Would I enjoy any of those dates, or be interested in actually dating any of the women? I have no idea. I'd have to try it to find out. In fact, the IG keeps subtly encouraging me to do that, which seems something of a betrayal to her gender. I ask her about that, and she's like, "Every guy lies about everything when he's trying to get a date, so you might as well join them."
Kind of depressing to hear the unvarnished truth of the dating game, from the PoV of a beautiful young woman, eh?
I'm not doing that yet, or much of anything else though. I'm posting today though, since I've had a few dating observations written down for months, and while going through my notes page today to find something for another project, I stumbled over them and thought, "Oh yeah. Didn't I used to have a blog that I posted words, and stuff, on? These would be good. There."
I don't say these are universal truths that can be used to divine the inner essence of a woman's soul, but they are all things I've noticed holding true in multiple trials.
1) You can tell a LOT from the first hug. First hug of a given date, but especially first hug of the first meeting. Yes, how she hugs you is partially based on what she knows about you, how interested she is in the date, how well she likes you, what she thinks of you 5 seconds after first seeing you, etc. But it's more indicative of her personality and uptightness.
(BTW, don't go for a handshake. I've never had a first date who wanted a handshake. Women don't do that to potential romantic dates. Friends, colleagues, etc, sure. But not on a date. Open your arms and see how she comes into them. Or not.)
Bad signs: If she gives you a sideways shoulder hug., Or an awkward, quarter-turned, high arm hug. Or the bend at the waist one, where only the top of her shoulder touches your chest. All bad signs. She's not comfortable about physical contact, she doesn't like you, she's frigid (emotionally and personality, though sexually too), etc. Women who start off with that sort of hug are generally uptight, don't like to talk about anything personal or intimate (I don't necessarily mean sex), won't give much in conversation, tend to be non-spontaneous and reserved, and are generally quite boring dates. On the first date, at least. I'm sure they're much less reserved and are more open and friendly and genuine with their real life friends and family, and some women are reticent about physical contact but not emotional/intellectual interaction, but I've had enough trials by now to say with pretty strong certainty that if a date starts off with such a hug, it's going to be a stiff one.
Two of my better first dates were with women who weren't all that bright or clever, but who gave me a big, torso-to-torso hug right at the start, and that hug was very indicative of their personalities. They were open, giving, flexible, enthusiastic, unabashed, and a lot of fun to talk to and interact with, all in non-sexual ways. I'm not a woman and I don't know exactly where the "pressing my boobs into a guy I just met" experience factors into their overall personality, but it's a very strong "tell" of how they'll behave on a first date.
2) Okay, #1 was pretty obvious. Here's a bit more of an odd one. If you can, somehow contrive to hear where they stand on the Angelina Jolie vs. Jennifer Aniston contretemps regarding Brad Pitt. It doesn't really matter who they side with. What matters is how strongly they feel about it (if a woman's strongest opinion is about stupid celebrity dating bullshit, it's a very bad sign), how they express their opinion (if they have original thoughts of opinions, or just parrot some ritual condemnation of X or Y), and most importantly, if they have any empathy or understanding of why Brad Pitt dropped Jen for Angie.
On two different dates the issue came up (we saw a movie theater showing some new movie by one of the principles), both times the woman swung into an unprovoked tirade about that slut Angelina Jolie stealing away Brad Pitt, and both expressed puzzlement that any man could make such a decision. It's the last one that's the sign of doom. When I heard that for the second time, I might as well have just ended the date right then.
It's not that I don't think think Angie was a man-stealing slut, or that Brad wasn't a cad for dumping Jen... it's that their breakup and hook up serves as a wonderful litmus test for comprehension of human nature. You can think Brad was a total asshole and hate Angie, but if you honestly don't understand why Angie is about 5000x more enticing than plain white bread lumpy oatmeal Jennifer, there's a gulf between our personalities and understandings of human nature that will never be bridged.
The most boring first date I've ever had ("date" referring to the event and to the person) offered her only strong opinion all afternoon in regards to that celebrity coupling, and as I watched her opinion about how horrible Angie was and what a great girl Jen was and how she'd never see another Brad Pitt movie again, I bit my tongue and clamped my lips. It was hard not to interject with some sarcastic comments about how Jennifer Aniston was the most boring butterface in today's popular culture. It was harder not to laugh, or sigh, over the fact that a grown adult woman wouldn't understand male psychology enough to grasp why a famous, dashing, rich moviestar like Pitt was bound to be more attracted to a wild, gorgeous, edgy woman like Angelina, rather than a suburban housewife sitcom type like Jen.
I don't know if Angie and Jen are perfect, tarot card-like opposites (while still remaining within the realm of attractive slim white women), but they're a pretty good case study of extremes. Jen's image is wholesome and bland and cute and average. Angie's images is dark and wild and crazy and dangerous and knife-wielding. I'm far more attracted to the later than the former, and I think most guys share that urge, though most guys have to settle for the former, since they outnumber the later by about 5000 to 1. That proportion if probably for the best, since the Angelia types are generally unstable and crazy and dangerous and substance-abusing. But they have a darkly seductive vibe that no boring brunette like Jennifer Aniston can hope to compete with.
I didn't ask any of the good dates I've had their opinion on this issue, but I do have some evidence for the prosecution. Malaya practically idolized Angelina's looks, style, knife-fetish, attitude, etc, and since she'd always thought Brad Pitt was super hot, they were probably her favorite celebrity couple. Not that she had any other favorite celebrity couples, AFAIK.
The IG is much younger than Malaya (or me). She was too young to appreciate Brad Pitt in his golden-era, and doesn't find him that hot now since he's more than 20 years older than her. But she can see that women in their 30s or older would die for him, and she instinctively understands why he, or any man, would be much more drawn to exotic Angie than to white bread Jen. I didn't coach her to that conclusion; she brought it up herself at one point, and when I related my Angie vs. Jen for Brad observation after the aforementioned dates, the IG was like, "Of course Angie is hotter. What woman is so dumb she can't see that?"
I don't think this is a right/wrong preference, BTW. It's a personality test. I'm sure there are lots of men who would much prefer a woman who took Jennifer's side. It's a very plain, safe, uncontroversial view, and a lot of guys like those traits in their woman. I do not though, which is why this is a relevant Rorschach for my psychological screening of potential mates.
It might be a bad one to use in my current battleground though, since from what I can tell from their online dating profiles, FAR more of the women out there are Jennifers than Angelinas. There are very few artistic types, very few who express any sentiments out of the ordinary, very few who want to date a guy with original ideas and wordy proclivities, etc. And yes, obviously that's from my POV as just such a guy who hasn't had as many dates as he would have liked thus far.
It's also age related; single women in their late 20s/early 30s on online dating sites are going for the safe choice. They want a male version of Jennifer. Stable, well-off, conventional in likes and dislikes, unfree spirited, ready to settle down, etc. The sort of guy they ignored all through their teens and twenties while throwing themselves at every faux-bad boy who came along. And now the math is against them.
Reports stressing that women in their 30s and 40s have better odds to be killed by terrorists than married abound, and
untrue or not, there's a popular perception that women had better find a man while they're still young and pretty, or they're going to die alone. That's changing, as seemingly everyone (in Western culture) waits until later to get married these days (and then reproduces below the replacement rate, thus dooming our
country and
culture, or so say various mathematically-disinclined alarmist racist/Christian propagandists).
That said, and digressed upon, there are an amazing number of never-married 33-38 y/o women on online dating sites, almost all of whom say they "definitely" want 2 or 3 kids and a male Jennifer Aniston type husband in his 30s. I don't think I need to point this out, but that's simply not going to happen. The numbers don't work out. There aren't that many eligible bachelors in their desired age range, and if those guys are
that eligible they're looking at 26 y/os. There are a lot now, and in 5 or 10 years there are going to be a lot more single, childless women in their early 40s. Aside from serving as career advice (if you're a young doctor, start learning advanced turkey baster techniques now, cause white women with financial resources are going to place a heavy demand on your services), this demographic trend is an odd one for me to be caught up in.
I was prepared (and looking forward) to spend the rest of my life with Malaya. That didn't work out, for reasons not entirely unrelated to the subject matter of the previous paragraph, and now that I'm single and looking to date women in their late 20s and early 30s... I'm finding that most of them aren't datable. For reasons directly related to the subject matter of the previous paragraph. Most of the interesting ones are gripped by baby fever. They fucked around from 18-30, and now that they're 32, or 34, or 36, their ovary clocks are ticking, and they want to date their next husband.
Earlier this year I blogged about one woman who after a good date came right out and said that she liked me a lot and would have dated me in years past, but that she was looking for a husband (with a viable sperm count) now, and was going to keep making multiple first dates a week until she found him.) It was a pity, since she had slim thighs and a great first hug, too. She was 32 with a face going on 40, and to be honest, I didn't think much of her chances. I certainly wouldn't have considered her marriage material, (too flaky, no career or ambition, not that hot) even had I been actively looking for a wife.
This glut of would be moms in my demographic hasn't really modified my online dating behavior, but honestly... it probably should. I have changed a bit; when I look at a profile these days, I always check the age and what they say about kids. If they're over 31 or 32 and say they definitely want kids, then I cross them off the list. They're not looking to date; they want to get married, and whether or not that desire is going to help them actually find a mate, it definitely does much to DQ me from their boyfriend considerations. At least unless/until I start lying more about my job and income.
The funny part is that I'm sure those women are as or more likely to "put out" than single women a decade younger. It's not that these 33 y/os are saving themselves for marriage, or aren't interested in sex, it's that they're going to use their bodies to try to encourage their chosen man to marriage. They'd probably put out on the first date if I drove up in a Porsche and worked in a law firm. And not out of some cynical, conniving attempt to entrap or entice that hypothetical me; but because they'd be strongly attracted and would do what women (and men) do when they're on a date with someone they're strongly attracted to.
So it's kind of funny; the best way to get sex and dates with single women in their 30s is to appear to be completely interested in and eager to marry. Whereas a smarter, fitter, better-looking guy who was honest about his non-desire to marry would find a lot of friendly women who hugged him amicably at the end of the date and moved off like a Zerg queen, desperately seeking a man willing to be infected for the good of the hive. (I probably failed at that gaming metaphor, but hey, I didn't play Starcraft and haven't been following the development of Starcraft 2. A fact that would come as a great surprise to the beta-begging hordes who emerged from the woodwork this weekend, after the SC2 beta was just announced.)
Since I'm not that junior partner, and don't care enough to pretend to be him, I'm ruling out a lot of women I would otherwise have considered dating, since from their profiles and my previous first dates, they're not going to be interested in me. So now I'm looking at younger women (never a painful experience), and considering divorced women in my age range. I don't see myself marrying a woman with kids, unless she was interested in having another one or two with me, but for dating, they could be ideal. They're not gagging for remarriage or an immediate LTR, they don't need a lot of maintenance, they're not going to be dependent since they've already got people they love best, and they don't have so much free time that they'll expect more from a relationship than I'm currently looking to give. I've seen several single mom profiles that are like, "I'm very busy with work and my kid but I miss dating and it would be great to meet a guy who wanted to go out and have fun once or twice a week."
Honestly, that sounds about perfect to me. One of the things that wore one me with Malaya and living together was the time consumption. She wasn't high maintenance on gifts or activities, but she really wanted to spend a lot of time together, and it was usually up to me to amuse/entertain her. So we ended up watching bad TV, or driving to the mall, or going to movies, or out to eat a lot, simply to kill some time together and to get her out of the house before she got stir crazy. I didn't mind those activities, and enjoyed interacting with her, in the 2+ years since we split up I've never once missed going to the mall, and I gave away my TV last month after turning it on maybe 2 or 3x a month post-Malaya. (Less than that really, since I never subscribed to cable and didn't have an antenna on the TV, so it was only functional for DVDs.)
At this point, a girlfriend I see once or twice a week, for dinner or a movie or just hanging out, with occasional sex and emotional closeness that doesn't extend to deep love, sounds perfect. It just looks like I'll have to find that from a 27 y/o, or a single mom.
Finally, some related eye candy. I don't know if it's due to some new ad selling guidelines, or the collapsing economy killing off their usual booze/trucks/sporting goods advertisers, but lately every time I look at ESPN.com I see an ad for True.com. They're a personal ad, online dating service that I may or may not be a member of, and their ads amuse me. Maybe they have more balanced ads in other venues, but here's a random selection of the ones they run on ESPN.com, the #1 online sports site. Notice a common theme? Eighteen year olds with big tits, perchance?
I wonder about these ads. I'm sure the average ESPN.com reader enjoys the view, and savors the idea of horny college-aged girls, but 1) isn't the average ESPN.com reader (and ESPN viewer) a 49 y/o, married, fat, balding white male who desperately hopes his boss doesn't bother to check the internet monitoring software which would tell him just how much time his employees spend on ESPN.com vs. actually doing their work? (At least I assume that's their average viewer, based on the onslaught of Viagra, Rogaine, and indigestion pill ads I see when I do watch ESPN.) 2) Doesn't the average guy, no matter how horny, realize that 21 y/o women who look like webcam pornstars don't run ads on personal sites because they meet so many men in real life that they don't need to? And 3) aren't guys too young and/or dumb to understand #2 still young enough that they're meeting tons of girls at school or work or at parties, and are thus uninterested in online dating?
The choice of models, basically porn stars in porn poses, but with (some) of their clothing on, seems inappropriate to the service and the demographic at hand. Really, they look just like the webcam strippers you see pop up ads for. Never quite beautiful, but always with slutty eyes and usually with implants, as they loll around on beds or couches. The ad with 4 women was webcam like, with the 4 women all shown in a short movie, looking hungrily at the camera, shaking their shoulders to draw attention to their bobs, etc. I laughed. And then I took a screenshot. Which I pasted into the collage you see below. Enjoy.
Click to see it full size, if the subtle nuances of its appeal aren't percolating through the obfuscation I provided by slightly thumbnailing it.
Labels: advertising, online dating
