In several recent posts there have been many discussions about on-line dating, so I thought a dedicated thread might be a good idea.

I'm not a big fan of on-line dating. My reasons for this is generally experiencial - mine and many, many others. Generally, on-line dating does not work. Oh, there is the rare "success" story, but so far, I have never known anyone who has found the love of their life on-line. I've known a few who have had some short-to-medium term affairs, but that's about it.

On-line dating is conceptually flawed. All sites are predicated on essentially the same concept: matching participants based on how closely they respond to radio-button questions. The comparison algorhyms these sites use is really quite simple and have no true validity. Certainly some of them make sense. If for, example, Sally likes to go clubbing three nights each week and John is a quiet homebody, who prefers to curl up in front of the fire with a good book; the two aren't going to get on very well. But must of the match criteria these sites use are downright silly and put people together for all the wrong reasons. Most sites are now incorporating "personality profiles" into their matching engines. But these are just gimmicks and do not accurately assess one's ture personality type.

There is a more fundamental flaw in this matching scheme. It is based on the fallacy that the more alike to people are, the more likely they are to be compatible. This simply isn't true. Two people can be very different in many ways and still hold the same basic values, and it is commonality in basic values which is the more accurate predictor of compatibility. e|Hamony, at least, bases it matching on values rather than interests, but even it's system is flawed.

Let's consider a brief recent history of "dating." Back when I was in my early 20's the daing game was completely different. Back then you'd meet someone in college, at the library, a museum, a festival, etc., be attacted and decide to see one another again. A date was taking your interest to dinner, for a walk in the park, or some other activity that would allow the two of you to get to know one another better. Once a relationship began to form, you weren't dating anymore. You didn't make deals to see one another a couple of evenings per week. Rather, you spent as much of your free time as possible together. See the differece? You began right from the start with face-to-face interaction that gave you all the visual and body language cues needed to consider whether you had any interest in getting to know the person better. If things worked out, you naturally spent more and more time together. There was no question of exclusivity; it was a given.

But things were changing even then. Americans crave instant gratification. We want instant food, instant credit, instant entertainment, and instant love. We are fogetting that the effort of striving for a goal makes it that much more enjoyable and rewarding when we finally acheive it. This thinking gave rise to the singles bar. Now, instead of meeting people in places while doing things that interest us, we'd head on down to the singles bar, which is is something of a convenience store for romance. There we would find hundreds of people ostensibly looking for the same thing we were. The only problem is that in order to stand out in the crowd and be noticed, people had to adopt somewhat artificial personnas. This introduced the danger of being attracted to the personna instead of the person. Additionally, the increased freedom rising from the sexual revolution made the singles bars great places to seek out sexual partners. The result was everyone started playing a game that runs contrary to the process required to find your life partner. Because of this, it doesn't take the relationship-minded long to become disenchanted, even jaded, with the singles bar scene.

How does this relate to on-line dating? On-line dating extends the singles bar mentality to the cyber world and introduces two aspects which are even more unhealthy: anonymity and depersonalization. The on-line personna, owing to the anonymity, is even more artificial than the singles bar personna. Really, you don't know who you are dealing with when you pursue on-line relationships. More often than not, an on-line profile is written to tell you exactly what you want to hear, not who the person really is. There are books and web sites and seminars to teach you how to write the perfect profile, how to manage the first calls and meetings, etc. So you may be dealing with a formula marketing plan and find out after you've made significant emotional investment that Mr. or Miss Perfect is really nothing more than an emtpy promise that he or she could never fulfill. Not only does this result in an unsatifactory experience in which you must devote quite a bit of time and effort chasing dead ends, it can also be downright dangerous. The anonymity brings the sickos out in droves.

Can you find true love at an on-line dating site? Certainly it's possible, but it's more like trying to hit the lottery. You'd probably do just as well going door-to-door. It's the same thing really. You'll knock on hundreds of doors before someone who makes your heart flutter opens one. Consider, too, that people who use on-line dating are often taking shortcuts - not interested in doing the real work it takes to find a compatible partner. If they aren't willing to do this up-front work, they certainly won't be willing to do the much harder work down the road. This is why so many on-line relationship end so quickly. The first time the relationship hits a snag, the on-liner decides that it's easier to drop this relationship and go back to the well. Finally, many on-liners actually prefer this method. They don't want a real relationship, but only the excitement that comes from the initial stages. When that excitement fades, so do they. If you pay close attention to an on-line dating site, you will identify people who have been there for years. They change their profiles and log names every few months, but they are permenent residents.

So in a one sentence summary it is a good place to find sex, but not love?

I am not so sure. I mean do we really know all of the succes rates? If one out of 100 people that sign up are able to have a good time and one serious relationship is it considered a success?

Or what if one out of 1000 get married is it successful?

Dating in itself is a pretty crazy thing. Unless you have time to devote to finding single women once you are in your 30's and beyond it gets harder and harder to find single people in your age range. Two people could live next to each other and be single and interested in dating yet never communicate with each other and therefore never meet. Online personals solves some of that problem.

Hey, for me if I were single I would want to date many women. Some I would meet online, some I meet at bars, others at church, college games etc. Man, the women of this world would have to run for the hills should things between me and the wife not work out. Forget getting married anytime soon, I would be all about having some fun, until I meet that woman who knocks my socks off. I guess the thing is to not rely completely on online services but rather include them into your repetoire of date sources.

Check,

Your points were all valid and definitely ring true.
Excellent post indeed. I think for some people, online dating is a great tool for those with hectic work schedules and life in general. I happened to have traveled extensively with my career. My focus on the weekend was to be in my own abode, my own bed...certainly not out with the girls in bars looking to meet a man. So in this respect, online dating worked very well for me. But my mindset wasnt at all about meeting the ONE...but more about meeting people in a large city that I would have never otherwise crossed paths with.

It has its flaws, just like anything does. But I think it can work. I have had good luck with it. I recommend it to anyone thinking about it, but if it's not your cup of tea, then don't do it. Again, it's like anything in life - if you had a bad experience with it, you're likely to not try it again.

You have to be smart about it, just like any other type of dating. There's different "rules" to follow, when dating someone you've known for years at work or church, vs meeting someone that just moved into the neighborhood, vs meeting a friend-of-a-friend, and therefore different rules when dating online.

So, my opinion is don't rule out one of these categories, just adjust your "rules", and be smart about it.

"Two people could live next to each other and be single and interested in dating yet never communicate with each other and therefore never meet. Online personals solves some of that problem."

Actually, Tibolt, it's the other way around. As we becomed more engaged in this cyber world, be are becoming less engaged in the real one. And that's the problem. Don't you find it odd that we don't know anything about our neigbors, but we will go to a web site searching for someone to love? Am I alone in thinking this to be at least a little perverse? We are rapidly loosing our sense of community and surrendering ourselves to a fantastic world of circuits, chips and keyboards. We are telling ourselves that we must adapt to a new set of "rules" while the rules that served us so well for so long are being forgotten.

Ruby, I have a story for you. When I last tried on-line dating, I met a woman who travelled extensively for her work. Yet she said that she was really looking for a good solid relationship that would lead to marriage. She contacted me. We went through the initial email exchange, getting to know one another. She seemed a smart lady who knew what she wanted. Or did she? You see, she wanted a relationship, but she was only in town one weekend out of every four to six weeks. The rest of the time she was on the road, mostly in Europe. She absolutely loved her work (nothing wrong with that) and stated that under no circumstances would she give up her job or decrease amount of travelling she did. Any man she hooked up with would have to be 100% accepting of this -- no negotiation. I told her that her goal was incompatible with her chosen lifestyle. Building a relationship requires investment and that couldn't happen when you were 8000 miles away 90% of the time. She said she got that alot, but it wasn't her problem. She'd do it her way or no way. Yet, she coudn't understand why she was so unsuccessful at affairs of the heart.

[color:"brown"] That seems true enough.

I had an online guy who tried to convince me to go out with him when that was all he was looking for - an occasional companion for weekends he travelled into town. I told him that he sounded married to me... Probably a DJ, but honestly, who wants to live their life waiting for their partner to come "home"? Unless you are an extreme independent sort that likes the freedom.

Anyway - I don't meet a lot of people - not at church, not at my kid's school, not at the store, not through my neighbors.

Online dating has been a rich source of potentials for me. Although I have to weed like crazy. I would guess that for every 15 potentials, 14 made it pass a cursory is his weight unhealthy. Lose another 3-4 because they are too old. Then lose another 4 because they can't string two words together. I might call 6, and three would never get a second phone call for either being creepy or boring. The last three might get a date. One out of thirty got a second date. Pretty low odds, but imagine trying to meet thirty potential guys at the local grocery store? Odds are much worse there for even finding someone casually.

V. [/color]

From my own experience, online dating has about the same "success rate" as blind dates.

It's just another avenue to meet people. Nothing more, nothing less. There are just too many variables involved that know whether you will like a person before you meet... no matter how descriptive your profile or how much your friend/aunt/sister/mother knows about you.

LOL... I wish all I had to do was weed...

After I've narrowed down my list of potentials, then I have to write a witty, charming and original email (why does this remind me of an avian mating ritual??) to my prospective [fill in the blank]. Now, I do try to stay in the confines of what she is looking for age and weight and interests, etc. and if I get a 1 in 20 response rate, I consider that pretty good. Why not better? Who knows, maybe they're seeing someone, maybe one inadvertant word or phrase put me in the recycle bin, maybe they're having a bad day. Or maybe their "type" just doesn't happen to be someone who looks like Billy Joel. Not a problem, doesn't matter. I've got 5 seconds to catch her attention with an email that takes me many times more than that to write. That's life.

Of the one in twenty I get a response from, half will progress to a telephone call. Half will end there either from me or from them. Of the other half we'll go out on a date with about half of those progressing to a second date.

So... lets do the math...

1 second date =

2 First Dates
4 Telephone Conversations
8 Email Correspondences
160 Initial Emails @ 20 minutes/email (hey, it takes time to be witty, charming and original)

For a grand total of...

53 hours, twenty minutes invested writing emails to strange women. And they wonder why guys just write "Hey Babe, wanna have sex?"...

LOL

Check - I think you've identified a different kind of modern problem (re the woman travelling a lot) besides email dating. In today's society, we are not taught to share. Everything from houses with more bedrooms than people to ads (I cringe at the ads for Cheezits "Get your own box!") to rush hours full of single user cars. We don't want to make compromises and more and more frequently we don't have to.

Now, the online dating fulfills another modern desire - (seemingly) more choices. Just like going to buy an everyday something like ice cream and being able to buy low fat, calcium fortified, lactose free, etc, we think online dating gives us choices. But it does take time to weed through the profiles.

I think that the low success rate makes people widen their search perimeters too much, leading to a lot of people wondering why so and so contacted them.

I think of it this way. One could go to social events, or join hobby groups or church groups to try to meet people. But in a group of, say, 30 people, how many are single that you are interested in and are interested in you? How much time do you spend investing in those activities?

At least here, you know they are interested in a relationship (well, if not, hopefully they'll clue you in quickly), so you get past an initial stage. I liked having that established. Like anything worthwhile, it takes time and patience. It worked for me and I'd do it again.

The other interesting thing I noticed about women in my age group were the number in their late 30s who would go on about all the leisure activities they enjoyed and wanted to do with a significant other. Skiing, sky diving, dancing, trips to exotic locations, you name it. But I could discount all that if I saw this buried away in their profile: never been married, don't have children, want children. Finishing up a divorce, the last thing I needed was to be put back on a schedule! That eliminated a lot of people for me.

[color:"brown"]Funny - about 30-40% of the guys in my age category are never married no children and looking for women younger - in their early 30's. My bet is that they want to start their family now that they are panicking in their late 30's early 40's.

And I still don't understand how a guy in his 50-60 age thinks that a 40 year old with young children is interested? They are empty nesters - they will admit if you ask that they don't want to go there - so why did they contact me? Sigh

V.[/color]

A one in 20 response rate? Oh, TBG, you machine! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Maybe I went about on-line dating all wrong! I probably only initiated contact with five women in the few months I did it. I got many ore women initiating contactw with me. Actually on Match, I was doing well if I got a dozen matched profiles, but I have stringent requirements and expected that. And most of them were wackos, so I can imagine that a more flexible set of requirements would really increse the number.

Sunny, what makes you think that a 40 year old woman and a 50 year old man are a bad match up? Actually that's almost perfect. 60 is too old, though. Stasitcally, the most successful marriages are those in which there is 8 to 15 years difference in the ages of the man and the woman. So a 33 year old man and a 25 year old woman are a pretty good match, since males mature much later. In many parts of the world, places where divorce is almost unheard of, if a 25 year old woman were to bring home a man her own age, her parents would probably tell her that he's too young for marriage. Her parents would be looking for someone around 35 for her. A settled man, whose sown his wild oats and is now serious about taking a wife and raising a family. It used to be that way here in America. Educated men almost never married before 30. And you know what? That trend is returning.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> What can I say... I'm pistachio ice cream in a chocolate fudge world... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Honestly, at this point in my life, I can't imagine finding a date any other way than doing it on-line. I go to a very small church. At this moment, I'm happy there and have no intention of moving, but there are ZERO dating prospects (that's not what I'm going to church for). I work a full time job as a manager of a small accounting department for a senior living community--really like my job, but again, there are ZERO potential dates around here. I don't really have many hobbies that I enjoy doing by myself. I like to go on drives and to travel, but those are best reserved for a partner. So I enjoy just bumming around, shopping. taking care of my house, playing around with digital photography, etc. Again, not a lifestyle that is conducive to meeting a bunch of potential dates. I have great neighbors, but they're all married and so far there has only been one who even began to suggest a friend of a friend for me to go out with. And I wasn't interested in him because he's into partying and has been married a couple times, and I really am looking for a stable Christian guy.

So, where better than to try and weed through the prospects that on-line.

Granted, I've read about how the stats are very low of meeting your perfect someone. But I went about my matches a little differently. Well, first, most of the people I've dated found me and not vice versa. But still, I tended to just look at their religious beliefs and if they matched "Christian-Protestant" or "Christian-Other", I started looking through profiles based on my age requirement. It didn't matter if they liked all the same things I do. I think it's good to be a little bit different from each other--opens up new ideas and possibilities for both people.

Do I think I'll find a future marriage partner on here? Don't know. I do go to church with a couple who met on eharmony and and were recently married, and also have a business associate/friend in Florida who is currently in a long-term relationship that looks like it has potential--he also met her on eharmony.

I didn't hold out as much hope with Match, which is what I'm currently on. I initially saw it as a way to break into dating, but I've met a guy I really like so we'll see where it goes. And he's done all his dating through there, because he mostly hangs out with his family and really doesn't socialize a lot with friends (kinda' like me), and he's a school teacher so hangs out with teenagers all day. So where else was he going to meet people?

So, for people who have a lot of social contacts, on-line dating probably isn't the best idea. But for those of us who are in our 30's with an established career and who maybe don't socialize all that much, it's about the only way I can come up with to fairly quickly get out there and meet people.

LL

Well, my xWS at age 47 had an affair with a 21 year old. That was the same age as his oldest child. Obviously there was some kind of attraction there! He denies it had anything to do with being an ego boost for a middle-aged man...or her looking for a father figure. She got pregnant during their affair, and they now have a 3 year old son to raise.

My xWS and I had been looking forward to the last of our children leaving the nest...to move on toward being "couple focused" Guess his nest is going to be full for quite a few more years! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

[color:"brown"]The age of men for a first marriage is around 27 now. I'll agree with you on that point. I see no trend for those 27 year old men, however, to be marrying 17 year old women. (how ridiculous is that?) They are marrying women their own age.

As for my point - the life expectancy for men is 5 to 8 years less than that for women.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_06.pdf

Why would I want to marry a man 10 years older than me so that I can be alone again as a widow for 18 years? Women should probably consider men that are 5 to 8 years younger than they are to be the best compromise to these data.

I am amused that you think by the time they are 40 that men have not caught up to women on a maturity scale. Do you all remain boys forever? I believe they called that the Peter Pan complex. Women marry older men simply for economic reasons. They have more money than the men their own age. http://www.chss.iup.edu/economics/alfall96.htm

[/color]

Your statistic about the age men marry is for all men. For educated men (16+ years education), it's now around 30. I work with a lot of men, all of whom are college educated and many with advanced degrees. Only one of them married before age 30 and he recently divorced. The statistics on divorce tell the tale/ The younger you marry, the higher the probability the marriage will end in divorce.

I don't think the gender difference in life expectancy should [i]ever[/] be a factor in mate selection. The point is to have a great life together, not plan for your old age.

Most, not all men I know over 40 are very mature and have left the little boy games behind long ago. A man in his 40s has not time for such foolishness. Sure, there are men out there suffering from Peter Pan syndrome and will do so for their entire lives. Peter Pan sysdrome is the result of psychosexual maladjustment and very few of us suffer from it. I think you are generalizing to much, and extending your experence with the men you've chosen to all of us. Don't think this'll get you into trouble? Think again.

BTW, the link you post is about economics, not psychology or sociolgy. My comments were based on these disciplines.

[color:"brown"]A study is a study - there are references on that page for the original data which was published in the Journal of Political Economy. Please include the link or the journal reference to the data that you reference for your own conclusions. [/color]


[color:"brown"]I don't think you read my post very carefully, or perhaps you didn't understand. The statement was:


Meaning by 40 men have caught up... and there is no significance to women wanting an older man for "maturity" - the statistics show clearly that it is economics and not maturity.

Incidentally - I have heard although I do not have a reference (yet) that the remarriage rates have gone down and the most dramatic gap is that women who economically stable remarry less than women who are not economically stable. Hmmmm... they don't need a man for his money, so they are not getting married again.

As for "having a life together" and "not planning for old age", how does that make sense? If you are healthy and you choose a mate 10 years older whose health fails before yours, how can you have as fulfilling a life as you could with someone of your own age/activity/health level?

Unless you like taking care of some rich old geezer.

V.[/color]

[color:"brown"]

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf

CDC study - on page 38 a table that shows income at the time of the first divorce affects remarriage. I was mistaken - higher family income (but not education) is associated with both higher post marital cohabitation and with remarriage for white women.

I wonder if they get used to the good things in life?

V. [/color]

No, a study is not a study and economics is as far away from psychology and socioligy as it is possible to be. I was talking about the psychology and sociology, not the economics of marriage.

Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your statement. But Sunny, the 39 in your title I am assuming indicates your age? If so, men your age will more than likely be looking for women in their early to mid 30s. Men around 45-50 are looking for women your age to about theirs. Grown men usually prefer their women to be bit younger than them.

OK, let me try to explain how my statement makes sense. You meet two men one is exactly your age and one is ten years your senior. You are attracted to both, but you see that the younger man has some issues very similar to the ones you are currently dealing with and the realionship and, while invigorating, is going to be difficult. The older gentleman is settled, gentle, kind, patient, and attentive. He just treats you better and doesn't play games at all. He's even a better lover. You would go automatically to the man your age, because in all probability the older one is going to sicken and die a few years earlier than you'd like? So you are willing to settle for a guy you know will be a struggle, just for the sake of a few more years? You do understand that there are no guarantees, that your younger man could get sick and you'd have to take care of him too? Regardless of the age, men tend to die before women, so your argument "If you are healthy and you choose a mate 10 years older whose health fails before yours, how can you have as fulfilling a life as you could with someone of your own age/activity/health level?" doesn't make much sense. You can have a fulfilling life, even if your mate's health fails and he dies before you. Fulfillment isn't about time; it's about living for now and making the best of it. You can plan for a sound financial future, and after making the investments, it's pretty much on auto-pilot. But insuring a sound emotional future depends on how healthy you make yourself today, tomorow and every day of your life. If you are to be married, you need the right mate to help you do that.

In addition, the man ten years older is much more likely to be more financially secure than the man your age. So if ecomomics is important to you, you really need to be looking for an man a bit older than you. They are far less likely to risk their financial security than a younger man.

I'll try not to resent your implication that I, at 47, am an old geezer. <wink> just teasing you....I know you weren't. Really, though, I'm not suggesting that you go out looking for a rich man old enough to be your father. But don't limit your choices simply because you've been socially conditioned to believe that your potential mate must be within a few years of your age.