So, after a lot of internal conflict about how okc has become really depressing for me (given that my profile has reached its expiry date or whatever, such that my ego is hurting from the fact that I get a fraction of the messages/replies I used to, and the one person I thought I had a connection with is most likely leaving me out in the cold) and despite my repeated attempts to take a break or at least leave my account alone, I've arrived at the solution of setting up an additional account. In other words, this is my response to my call to cut down on okc. Ay ay ay...
― formerly EDB (ed.b), Sunday, 6 January 2013 05:41 (eleven years ago) link
Anyways, its a long story, but I want to try playing around with an anonymous (i.e. Photoless) account where I honestly and frankly lay out my sexual apprehensions (i.e. virginity) and use that as a platform unto itself. Probably a self indulgent thing to do, but I am getting NOWHERE otherwise.
― formerly EDB (ed.b), Sunday, 6 January 2013 05:45 (eleven years ago) link
I cant say I ever go for people who have no pics on their profiles but hey, if its just an experiment...
― Una Stubbs' Tears (Trayce), Sunday, 6 January 2013 06:26 (eleven years ago) link
In re: my last post, I currently have tentative dates lined up with no fewer than...six? (seven?) OKC ladies, without having expended much more effort in their pursuit than a little casual conversation. And this after months of getting almost no indication of interest from anyone. So patience occasionally pays off. The secret is apparently being so broke that you can't afford to go out on dates and openly stating as much in your profile. Who'dathunk that would be a draw? I do think there's something to the "NY resolution" and "seeking a warm body for the winter" theories of increased OKC activity. But, y'know. Gift horses' mouths and all that.
― Nutzhak Perlman (Old Lunch), Sunday, 6 January 2013 09:40 (eleven years ago) link
atlantic trollin
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/a-million-first-dates/309195/?single_page=true
― goole, Monday, 7 January 2013 19:39 (eleven years ago) link
so much bullshit to unravel
― mh, Monday, 7 January 2013 19:46 (eleven years ago) link
instances of:
interviewed women = 0wife-blaming = 1
― goole, Monday, 7 January 2013 19:49 (eleven years ago) link
Trollin hard.
― grossly incorrect register (in orbit), Monday, 7 January 2013 19:51 (eleven years ago) link
Past girlfriends had complained about his lifestyle, which emphasized watching sports and going to concerts and bars. He’d been called lazy, aimless, and irresponsible with money.
*gag*
Mate scarcity also plays an important role in people’s relationship decisions. “Look, if I lived in Iowa, I’d be married with four children by now,” says Blatt, a 40‑something bachelor in Manhattan. “That’s just how it is.”
lol *retching noises*
Justin Parfitt, a dating entrepreneur based in San Francisco, puts the matter bluntly: “They’re thinking, Let’s keep this fucker coming back to the site as often as we can.”
ahh, here we get to the meat of it
People seeking commitment—particularly women—have developed strategies to detect deception and guard against it. A woman might withhold sex so she can assess a man’s intentions. Theoretically, her withholding sends a message: I’m not just going to sleep with any guy that comes along. Theoretically, his willingness to wait sends a message back: I’m interested in more than sex.
oh, seriously?
― mh, Monday, 7 January 2013 19:52 (eleven years ago) link
lol iowa
― mookieproof, Monday, 7 January 2013 19:53 (eleven years ago) link
I think my counter-argument would be: - A lot of people have a stable relationship and/or having children as a major life goal, to the extent of prioritizing it above other life goals - Some people jump into a relationship although they might not be that socially mature. Others have social maturity at a younger age. Some people are about as mature as they'll get at age 20. - They're completely discounting the existence of people who have goals or interesting lives who either like dating casually or aren't into online dating
― mh, Monday, 7 January 2013 19:55 (eleven years ago) link
also, lol iowa
whats the gagging for? I watch sports and am all of the other things in that opening paragraph you fucker
― let's bitch about our stupid, annoying co-ilxors (darraghmac), Monday, 7 January 2013 19:56 (eleven years ago) link
I thought you have a lady who finds your wandering romantic, though
― mh, Monday, 7 January 2013 19:58 (eleven years ago) link
Interestingly though just this morning I was idly remembering the relationship I stayed in for 18 mos while wondering if that was as good as it got and dissatisfaction was the curse of modern life's endless variety, looking for a better match, etc. I had a moment of surprised pleasure thinking that I'd avoided any further ties with that guy despite my own self-sabotage at the time. It felt good to appreciate my freedom from that, not in a mean way, just...relief and delight.
― grossly incorrect register (in orbit), Monday, 7 January 2013 20:05 (eleven years ago) link
I certainly have had this idiotic tendency to drag mediocre relationships out interminably in the past. I think I'd attribute its demise more to maturity and insight than constantly pursuing relationships to learn about myself. You can learn that stuff through other social interactions than spree dating, I would guess.
― mh, Monday, 7 January 2013 20:10 (eleven years ago) link
He worries that, with so many alternatives available, he won’t be willing to wait. ... He wants to be a nice guy, but he knows that sooner or later he’s going to start coming across as a serious asshole.
lol
― grossly incorrect register (in orbit), Monday, 7 January 2013 20:14 (eleven years ago) link
good unintentional invocation of "nice guy" trope
― mh, Monday, 7 January 2013 20:15 (eleven years ago) link
I think I might be ready to have crushy feelings again. I haven't had the energy to bother with anyone lately, if I'm being honest, but I might now. I should make okc work a little harder for me.
― grossly incorrect register (in orbit), Monday, 7 January 2013 20:19 (eleven years ago) link
How much of the enchantment associated with romantic love has to do with scarcity (this person is exclusively for me), and how will that enchantment hold up in a marketplace of abundance (this person could be exclusively for me, but so could the other two people I’m meeting this week)?
"Exclusively for me" is such a weird way to frame a first date. In fact I'm comfortable saying it's a bad way.
― grossly incorrect register (in orbit), Monday, 7 January 2013 20:29 (eleven years ago) link
that's just how it works, you're shopping for the person you're going to take home and lock in your fortress forever
― mh, Monday, 7 January 2013 20:30 (eleven years ago) link
Yeah, it's a pretty terrible article all around. Wouldn't be surprised if "Jacob" was the author.
― Vinnie, Monday, 7 January 2013 20:33 (eleven years ago) link
finally wrote up a full profile, feeling a wee bit intimidated also weirdly like browsing on Amazon
― Kindle Nagasaki (Noodle Vague), Monday, 7 January 2013 21:00 (eleven years ago) link
i get what you're saying (i think) L, about 'exclusively for me' but tbh this- how will that enchantment hold up in a marketplace of abundance (this person could be exclusively for me, but so could the other two people I’m meeting this week)? sometimes strikes me as the way a lot of people go about this these days. i'm all for an open marketplace and all, but idk does it leave a person always waiting for the next, better date to come along, and i'm not sure how *i* would cope like that (well, i'm sure- i wouldn't).
not that the two positions sketched out are the only two available, of course.
― let's bitch about our stupid, annoying co-ilxors (darraghmac), Monday, 7 January 2013 22:13 (eleven years ago) link
next better date only works within reason, anyway
it's like traveling on the interstate highway system, thinking "oh, I'm not too hungry yet, I'll wait until the next city" and that place ends up being two hours away due to a traffic jam and all they have that's still open is applebees
― mh, Monday, 7 January 2013 22:20 (eleven years ago) link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem
― s.clover, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 02:39 (eleven years ago) link
The problem has a strikingly elegant solution.
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 02:40 (eleven years ago) link
ok i'm sold. how do i figure out what e, the base of the natural logarithm, is?
― messiahwannabe, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 02:57 (eleven years ago) link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)
― mh, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 03:03 (eleven years ago) link
Glad they went on to talk about the unknown quantity problem, as that was a glaringly obvious flaw in the 'strikingly elegant' solution.
― emil.y, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 03:27 (eleven years ago) link
^^ knows her stuff
― mh, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 04:13 (eleven years ago) link
man, that's filthy. 'n rankable applicants'
― j., Tuesday, 8 January 2013 04:33 (eleven years ago) link
keepin on trollin
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/sympathy-for-the-nice-guys-of-okcupid/266929/
― goole, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 19:25 (eleven years ago) link
I thought The Atlantic was supposed to be, like, SMART? Why are they publishing non-articles?
― check the name, no caps, boom, i'm (Laurel), Wednesday, 9 January 2013 20:02 (eleven years ago) link
atlantic has a long history of trolling on anything involving feminism/gender
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 20:12 (eleven years ago) link
Their web presence is pretty much standard blogroll click bait now
― mh, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 20:31 (eleven years ago) link
I am suddenly a hot commodity on OkC, but seemingly okay dudes! And right when I am in the throes of a very dramatic affair. Interesting.
― homosexual II, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 22:08 (eleven years ago) link
pvmic!
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 22:10 (eleven years ago) link
indeed
― oralita buttrose (electricsound), Wednesday, 9 January 2013 22:17 (eleven years ago) link
http://i.imgur.com/Zp0Lt.png
― 乒乓, Thursday, 10 January 2013 18:49 (eleven years ago) link
loll
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 11 January 2013 02:53 (eleven years ago) link
Aw someone called me "scoopable."
He lives in Seattle.
― grossly incorrect register (in orbit), Friday, 11 January 2013 03:03 (eleven years ago) link
scoopable in seattle
― the girl from spirea x (f. hazel), Friday, 11 January 2013 03:19 (eleven years ago) link
shit, I meant to type scoopless in seattle
― the girl from spirea x (f. hazel), Friday, 11 January 2013 03:20 (eleven years ago) link
Nice try tho
― grossly incorrect register (in orbit), Friday, 11 January 2013 03:21 (eleven years ago) link
one day
― the girl from spirea x (f. hazel), Friday, 11 January 2013 03:22 (eleven years ago) link
looks like you just got ... scooped
― 乒乓, Friday, 11 January 2013 03:24 (eleven years ago) link
*puts on sunglasses*
― 乒乓, Friday, 11 January 2013 03:25 (eleven years ago) link
holds out ice cream scoop
― mh, Friday, 11 January 2013 04:52 (eleven years ago) link
would scoop
― mookieproof, Friday, 11 January 2013 04:53 (eleven years ago) link