Just when you thought it was safe - OK CUPID PART 3: The Return of the WOO!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (8288 of them)

Wow. I got about 54%. It's not a skill that I am particularlt displeased not to have though. I rarely go hunting for virgins.

― hmmm (hmmm), Thursday, 22 July 2004 12:17 (8 years ago) Permalink

I'm loving the Compare tool today. I am kinkier yet less indie than Carsmile.

Hey! I'm getting better at spotting virgins! 66%.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Thursday, 22 July 2004 12:37 (8 years ago) Permalink

I am roxymuzak, obv.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:21 (8 years ago) Permalink

Friends networks! Virgin games! IT'S FULL OF STARS!

― Gregory Henry (Gregory Henry), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:36 (8 years ago) Permalink

you'd think you'd get better at the virgin game but you don't.

― dog latin (dog latin), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:37 (8 years ago) Permalink

So true.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:39 (8 years ago) Permalink

I did poorly on the virgin game, even though I thought all of the following would hold true:

girls with teeny-emo webcam shots = 14-year-old virgins
dorky girls with dorm-room pictures = college-freshman virgins
young boys trying hard to look "nice" = virgins
people with photos in apartments or bars = not virgins

My world is all topsy-turvy now.

― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:40 (8 years ago) Permalink

How did I get 50% on a 21-question test?

― Gregory Henry (Gregory Henry), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:47 (8 years ago) Permalink

One of them had had a blowjob.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:51 (8 years ago) Permalink

magic.

― dog latin (dog latin), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:51 (8 years ago) Permalink

how the fuck did it come up with the statistics at the end? how did it know who'd had sex within an hour of the test? Actually I don't ever remember it asking me if i was a virgin in the first place.

― dog latin (dog latin), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:53 (8 years ago) Permalink

There's a "how many people have you, well, you know?" on the Type Test though, no?

― Gregory Henry (Gregory Henry), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:53 (8 years ago) Permalink

oh. okay.

― dog latin (dog latin), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:54 (8 years ago) Permalink

Isn't this frivolous application of collected responses against some kind of data protection act? Have these people agreed to have their profiles turned into a spot-the-virgin game?

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:56 (8 years ago) Permalink

You can opt out in your settings.

― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:57 (8 years ago) Permalink

yes. it says it in the FAQ and sort of in a roundabout way on the front page. you can request it to be taken off if you so wish too.

― dog latin (dog latin), Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:58 (8 years ago) Permalink

Oh, fucking hell. I just did the whole thing and then got an error page at the end so I don't know what my score is.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 22 July 2004 15:13 (8 years ago) Permalink

Bah. So did I.

― marvin wang (marvin wang), Thursday, 22 July 2004 15:31 (8 years ago) Permalink

The relevant page, post email provision (http://www.okcupid.com/signup) is down. Maybe if they fix it I can refresh the page later.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 22 July 2004 15:34 (8 years ago) Permalink

Still don't know what I got the first time, but I did it again and only got 38% correct, which is appalling. So I did it again, trying to go more for the obvious choice this time, and got 71%.

It says: "In general, males are about as good as females at spotting virgins. But females almost always guess correctly with female pairs."

Unless my logic is skewy, surely this also implies that men alomst always guess correctly with male pairs, unless they instead make up all the ground by getting much better scores in the mixed pair ones, which would be very odd.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 15:51 (8 years ago) Permalink

(I think I fucked up the first time by assuming that dumpy, unattractive teenage girls were actually quite promiscuous, as a means of making themselves feel better about themselves, or as a product of sexual abuse. I now feel ashamed of this strategy.)

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 15:54 (8 years ago) Permalink

Alba, your logic is wrong - all that tells us is that women must be rather less good at anything but female pairs, and it certainly doesn't imply what you infer.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 24 July 2004 19:12 (8 years ago) Permalink

But how do the two sexes end up being about as good as each other overall? There are only three sections to the test - m/m, f/f and f/m. They must be losing ground to the men on one of the sections other than f/f. If it's f/m, then as I said, that's weird. If it's m/m then then male contestants must be, as I said, as good at that as the female ones are at f/f.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:09 (8 years ago) Permalink

(I'm struggling to articulate why I can't countenance the possibilty that they would be better at f/m and the same as men at m/m. I guess that's where I'm stepping out of strict reason)

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:14 (8 years ago) Permalink

Hang on, now I'm confused.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:15 (8 years ago) Permalink

you're not alone.

― cºzen (Cozen), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:16 (8 years ago) Permalink

Oh. I confused myself by making a typo - in the post three above I mean "I can't countenance the possibility that they would be worse at f/m and the same as men at m/m."

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:17 (8 years ago) Permalink

I've played around with some examples of possible averages and see my logic was indeed skewy. For a 70% overall score, it could be:

Women

f/f = 90
m/f = 75
m/m= 45

Men =

f/f = 68%
m/f = 75%
m/m = 67%

Which would be mean men are better at spotting m/f than either m/m or f/f. Hmm.. that would also be weird. Other combinations I've tried result in both sexes being bettter at spotting female virgins than male ones, which seem noteworthy enough for them to put up on the website.

Can you come up with a set of average scores that fits what we know without any interesting implications at all?

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:38 (8 years ago) Permalink

I always spoil everything.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 24 July 2004 21:21 (8 years ago) Permalink

I can't stop looking at her:

ihttp://www.okcupid.com/profile?pic=0&tuid=8878330946154156249

― cºzen (Cozen), Saturday, 24 July 2004 22:59 (8 years ago) Permalink

Ew. I can.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Saturday, 24 July 2004 23:07 (8 years ago) Permalink

is that the Joker?

― dog latin (dog latin), Sunday, 25 July 2004 00:15 (8 years ago) Permalink

I can't stop looking at her:

http://www.okcupid.com/profile?tuid=12703610378878205705

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 02:04 (8 years ago) Permalink

I can't stop looking at her:

http://www.okcupid.com/profile?tuid=1366843686365106737

haha

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Sunday, 25 July 2004 02:11 (8 years ago) Permalink

I can't stop looking.

― cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 25 July 2004 08:49 (8 years ago) Permalink

My username is lixenixen, and right now I'm scared of logging in to OkCupid, because I haven't checked it for a few days, and now I fear there's yet another bunch of messages waiting for me, and I have to reply them all, because I feel like a bad person if I don't reply. I'm such a wuss!

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 09:55 (8 years ago) Permalink

On the positive side, lately I've been chatting with this Irish girl who plays in a punk band and seems very nice.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 09:59 (8 years ago) Permalink

radcliffy = oxbridge

I still don't get this... Could someone please explain it to this poor foreigner?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 14:21 (8 years ago) Permalink

okay... I'm FrancesBean with an incredibly obnoxious photo.

― j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Sunday, 25 July 2004 14:29 (8 years ago) Permalink

Oxbridge = Oxford and Cambridge. The elite of British universities. Traditionally deemed snobby as well as brainy.

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 15:36 (8 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I knew what Oxbridge meant, but I didn't know it could be used as an adjective. So "radcliffy" = "snobby and brainy"?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Sunday, 25 July 2004 15:44 (8 years ago) Permalink

Well it isn't really a fully functioning adjective, I suppose. You'd have to say something was 'a bit Oxbridge' or 'Oxbridgey' rather than 'it's Oxbridge'. I never knew the word 'radcliffy' before, btw, so I don't know how close the comparison is. Is radcliffy a bit 'preppy', 'WASPy' or 'Ivy League' too?

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 15:50 (8 years ago) Permalink

It's in the okcupid glossary, anyway:

radcliffy

adj. Consisting of the broad range of personality traits normally associated with Harvard girls.

Bob's organized, ambitious, and smart. I wish I were more Radcliffy like he, because I can't get a job at Morgan Stanley. He needs to fuckin' loosen up, though

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 25 July 2004 16:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Aaron, you're supposed to woo a person.

I don't like this new layout. The most off-putting part is probably the "Real Friends: None (0)" part. Sheesh.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 20:31 (8 years ago) Permalink

OH MY GOD. MY SECOND LOCAL MATCH IS THIS GUY:
http://www.okcupid.com/profile?tuid=12237521857448720993

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 20:33 (8 years ago) Permalink

holy crap.

― teeny (teeny), Sunday, 25 July 2004 20:54 (8 years ago) Permalink

that dude is how I imagine nickalicious.

― cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:24 (8 years ago) Permalink

I was gonna just copy and paste part of his rhyme, but then I clicked on his whole profile and the landscape of awful just expanded and came into total view and I just put the link there.

― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:27 (8 years ago) Permalink

sorry dude.

― cºzen (Cozen), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:29 (8 years ago) Permalink

Everything about that profile is really fucking funny, except the bits where he raps.

x-post.

― Fergal (Ferg), Sunday, 25 July 2004 21:30 (8 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 8188 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

forums?

― goole, Monday, 13 May 2013 13:58 (1 week ago) Permalink

http://www.okcupid.com/forum

― the girl from spirea x (f. hazel), Monday, 13 May 2013 14:00 (1 week ago) Permalink

Are "perfect" guys online getting all dates or is it female failure to grasp reality by Chaeddd posted

oh hail no

― goole, Monday, 13 May 2013 14:01 (1 week ago) Permalink

I like the notion that there are perfect men and perfect women getting all the dates, forming noble couples and dining on rooftops and being given hotel suites. and we are doomed to love them, our relationships being crude approximations using dirt cakes and flowers made from potato peels.

― the girl from spirea x (f. hazel), Monday, 13 May 2013 14:05 (1 week ago) Permalink

Which way do you face in the shower?
On Force-Fields, Or Rather, Fields Of Force
Where's The Common People's Music?
SEEKING ASIAN FEMALE?
What do you hate about toilet seats?
cant believe i have to pay to search for fatties
Vampire Paedophiles
Mean girls are sexy

― scintilla (seandalai), Monday, 13 May 2013 14:29 (1 week ago) Permalink

u know what, fuck those toilet seats

― Nhex, Monday, 13 May 2013 14:30 (1 week ago) Permalink

i keep starting these promising conversations with attractive people, and then realizing that i don't actually have enough time or interest to be trying to 'date' somebody from scratch right now. and i wind up just not-responding when it gets to the 'so where do you want to meet up?' portion

Yeah, that's kinda me too. I've been busy with other things lately and have spent almost no time on the site, and paradoxically have gotten way more people interested in meeting me than when I was actively messaging people. I've met a few of these people with the idea that if I meet someone amazing, I'll pursue it further, but honestly I'm just being unfair to anyone I meet because I'm not the type that's gonna think someone is amazing from one date. Maybe I need to finally deactivate the ol' profile.

― Vinnie, Monday, 13 May 2013 14:49 (1 week ago) Permalink

I don't know why I said paradoxically. There's no paradox there.

― Vinnie, Monday, 13 May 2013 14:50 (1 week ago) Permalink

Hi Crabbbits, nice to see you around - seems like it's been a while.

I'm wondering if this guy answered the question about whether it's okay to maintain an active OKC profile while in a LTR.

When I see people answer that it's okay to do that, I feel like I'm some kind of jealous monster.

― Je55e, Monday, 13 May 2013 16:03 (1 week ago) Permalink

Yeh, I would say it was a bit odd to maintain a profile on a dating site when you're in a committed relationship. Ultimatums suck, but if someone isn't hearing you when you voice your concerns, then they may be the only way to go. Crabbits deserves only the best.

Also, further to the conversation upthread, even I sometimes get confused by the emil.y/emilys. thing. "I don't remember posting that? Oh, wait, no..." I don't mind though, the emily sistren must be united.

― emil.y, Monday, 13 May 2013 17:06 (1 week ago) Permalink

yall confuse the hell out of me

― Nhex, Monday, 13 May 2013 17:49 (1 week ago) Permalink

Don't give up hope everyone http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2325450/Painting-premonition-Artist-31-creates-oil-painting-perfect-man--marries-spitting-image-years-later.html

― 乒乓, Thursday, 16 May 2013 20:53 (6 days ago) Permalink

I'm gonna meet a lot of cartoon cats in the next ten years.

― the girl from spirea x (f. hazel), Thursday, 16 May 2013 21:18 (6 days ago) Permalink

irl lol

― ljubljana, Thursday, 16 May 2013 21:21 (6 days ago) Permalink

damn i just did that thing where i saw a picture and sighed, i think that means i should message one last person before shutting this shit down.

― steening in your HOOSless carriage (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 02:52 (Yesterday) Permalink

ie the one i spontaneously sighed at

― steening in your HOOSless carriage (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 02:52 (Yesterday) Permalink

Twice now the system has sent me an email saying that someone I rated highly to had also rated me--when that happens, it matches you up? Both times I have waited a while and then emailed the dudes, and both times they haven't written back. LOOK, YOU STARRED ME, OKAY?

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 03:01 (Yesterday) Permalink

yeah i've had that happen a couple times, very strange

― steening in your HOOSless carriage (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 03:05 (Yesterday) Permalink

bear in mind one strategy is to five-star every single person you see just to see who stars you back.

― the girl from spirea x (f. hazel), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 04:07 (Yesterday) Permalink

People, man. They're terrible.

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 04:08 (Yesterday) Permalink

― mookieproof, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 04:14 (Yesterday) Permalink

does OKC set you up with the expectation that people you rate will msg you? if i were on it i'd probably just rate a million profiles out of boredom

― Nhex, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 04:16 (Yesterday) Permalink

i think that's somewhat common--the rating out of boredom.

ime if you and a match both rate each other highly you get an automessage that says 'you rated each other highly, go say hi!'

that creates a weird thing sometimes.

― steening in your HOOSless carriage (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 04:22 (Yesterday) Permalink

yeah and if you're doing it in the quickmatch" mode, you dont get to see their whole profile, and once you DO get to see their whole profile, maybe theres something thats a turn-off

― gr8080, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:48 (Yesterday) Permalink

bamf

― steening in your HOOSless carriage (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:59 (Yesterday) Permalink

No, you can actually scroll down and see the profile in quickmatch mode. xpost

― emilys., Tuesday, 21 May 2013 21:00 (Yesterday) Permalink

yes but not their "details" (height, religion, diet stuff etc) or their "you should message me if" essay

― gr8080, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 22:11 (Yesterday) Permalink

in quickmatch you can skip the profile (or rate it 3* or something) and then when it says something like 'oh are you sure?' you can click on their profile. I think? I've deactivated my account now. okc's worked out pretty well for me.

― useless chamber, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 22:24 (Yesterday) Permalink

If they look promising I always skip, then on the next screen click on the little icon of the person you just viewed.

― Doctor Casino, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 22:25 (Yesterday) Permalink

sure, i'm just attempting to explain how a casual user could rate someone highly in quickmatch and then not give a shit about getting in touch with them once the site notified it was a mutual attraction

― gr8080, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 22:36 (Yesterday) Permalink

Posting to ilx about things seems to spur them to happen, even if to no effect? I got a response from the 2nd co-starring person but a profoundly unenthusiastic one that asked me nothing. Ho hum.

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Tuesday, 21 May 2013 22:59 (Yesterday) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.