What's the best online dating site?
September 7, 2006 11:21 AM   Subscribe

What's the best online dating site?

I've tried a bunch of online dating sites, with somewhat middling results but really want to do an all-out campaign and need some good ideas for sites to try. I'm a 38-year old female in San Francisco looking for a long term relationship.

I've tried:

Match.com - I'm sorry but the profiles here just don't speak to me. I'm currently on the site but mostly I get much, much older divorced sad guys looking for a housekeeper or a mom for their kids. I'm told my profile is good and I do make an effort to contact people I'm interested in, but so far, I'm getting nowhere.

Nerve - It used to be much more successful for me and I've met and dated a couple guys from here. They changed the way the site works in the last few years since I used it with any regularity though and now it just doesn't seem to turn up much for me. But I should try it again. I'm not currently using it though the profiles are much more interesting to me. I like a little bit of edge. Or maybe a lot.

Craigslist - I post occasionally there and have also had some success. I adore CL and use it for all sort of things but for personal ads, you do have to do quite a bit of filtering. I don't mind doing that though and so far, I think CL has been the best match for my needs even though I'm happy to pay for a commerical service too.

Lavalife: Does anyone use this for more than casual hook-ups? I was on it about a year ago and that seemed to be the only active area. I actually met a guy that I'm still friends with through this site but wonder if LTRs are really happening here.

eHarmony: I went through the massive questionaire and tried the site for a few days but found the people I was being matched with to be comepletely unlike me. Sort of like Match.com with a lot of boring people (I know that's mean of me and I'm probably not giving them a decent chance but that was really my impression)

So, yes, I know I'm very picky: I want to meet someone with a fairly cultured and urban lifestyle. Creativity and intelligence are important. Looks, not so much (really!).

So what else is out there?
posted by otherwordlyglow to Human Relations (63 answers total) 19 users marked this as a favorite
okcupid.com isn't bad, I guess. I didn't actually meet anyone through it though, due to meeting someone at work. But okcupid.com is free, which is what drew me to it in the first place.
posted by glip at 11:23 AM on September 7, 2006

I know you say you're not having luck with it, but certainly in the 20-30 age range I've found Match.com to be excellent, and many of my friends and contacts have said the same. That's how I met my partner :)

But.. maybe you'd also do well to get into situations where it's not entirely about dating, and become friends with people in other ways.. while playing games, perhaps? I imagine there are quite a few good SF online communities that aren't dating focused but could prove to be a rich mine of eligible men.
posted by wackybrit at 11:24 AM on September 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

You know, I was just reading this

cockeyed.com on online dating services

I don't know if it's any help to you, but it's interesting and might help someone else.
posted by crabintheocean at 11:29 AM on September 7, 2006

okcupid is fantastic.
posted by mmdei at 11:33 AM on September 7, 2006

I had the best luck using the website of our local alternative paper. I've been out of the market for a few years (due to one very successful ad), but that's the route I'd suggest.
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:35 AM on September 7, 2006

I've wondered this too -- where did all the interesting folks go after Nerve/Salon Personals got so shitty? (My boyfriend and I met through Nerve/Salon right before they switched, and I previously met several other really nice guys via Nerve/Salon.) I wonder if okcupid and Yahoo Personals might have siphoned some of them off.

Also, if political leanings are important to you, maybe give one of those sites (e.g., democraticmatch.com, etc) a try?

I'd suggest possibly giving eHarmony a longer shot than just a few days -- see if you can get one of those "three months for the price of one." While they do seem to sometimes (often?) make matches that can be wildly off-base, I also know a few couples who met that way (including one of my best friends, who's now happily married to a guy she met there).
posted by scody at 11:37 AM on September 7, 2006

People write their profiles to be generically appealing to as many people as possible. The more popular the site, the more generic the profile. That is a reason that you are having such a problem with match. I have used match myself. I met my wife there. I went on there one time and met a few people over the course of a few weeks. It was very tiring. The people were nice enough, but nothing worked. I tried again six or so months later and met my wife.

I think that these dating services are like cities. No city has not good men or women. You just have to figure out how to find them. Match has good men and women. I advise you to write a very specific profile that might make some people run the other way. Don't be afraid to offend. You don't want those people anyway. Learn to use the keyword search feature. Search profiles for certain words or phrases. Look in other cities for examples of profiles that you like. Find keywords or phrases in their profiles and use them in your own city search.
posted by flarbuse at 11:37 AM on September 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

I advise you to write a very specific profile that might make some people run the other way. [...] Search profiles for certain words or phrases.

chiming back in to second this advice, if it's not something you're doing. My profile had lots of specific details (references to James Joyce, Russian constructivism, dive bars, Tom Waits, road trips for cherry pie and thrift stores, blah blah blah) that I knew wouldn't all match up with anyone, but would help flush out the guys who at least found some of those things interesting. I also did keyword searchs for favorite authors, artists, etc. to find similar profiles, which is how I stumbled across the guy who would become my boyfriend.
posted by scody at 11:45 AM on September 7, 2006 [2 favorites]

Response by poster: wackybrit: i'm plenty social already and do put myself in what i think are good situations for meeting folks. that's not really a problem. online gaming just doesn't really appeal to me though.

jitterbug perfume: yes, that aspect of eharmony does piss me off and is another reason i'm hesitant to try it again.

flarbuse: my profile is quite specific and detailed but i really get the feeling that most of the people who respond to it don't even bother reading it. i'm happy to allow a group critique of my match profile, if anyone wants to take a look.

oh also, i forgot: i'm on myspace too but that just seems like a bunch of hormone-addled high schoolers while i, myself, am a hormone-addled middle-aged broad about to attend my 20-year high school reunion.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 11:46 AM on September 7, 2006

I know people who have had success at the free Plenty Of Fish.
posted by cgg at 11:46 AM on September 7, 2006

I met my now-husband on match.com, but that was four years ago, so things may have changed a bit. My experience was that I got a ton of email from guys who clearly had not read the bleeping profile and were just writing because they liked my photo. I had to do a lot of weeding. Yes, I got the emails from the sad divorced guys with three kids clearly looking for help with the kids, and from guys in Hamburg or Miami when I'd set my distance at 20 miles from San Francisco, and the guys who made mean cracks about things I had mentioned liking in my profile. Despite all that, I found a great partner, and we probably never would have crossed paths if not for the internets.

Let me throw out another suggestion: come to the Metafilter meetups! Cultured, urban, creative, intelligent guys abound there and magic has been known to happen...
posted by ambrosia at 11:49 AM on September 7, 2006

Response by poster: < let me throw out another suggestion: come to the metafilter meetups! cultured, urban, creative, intelligent guys abound there and magic has been known to happen.>>>

ah, now there's an idea. i didn't even know they existed!
posted by otherwordlyglow at 11:55 AM on September 7, 2006

Just bookmark this link and keep and eye on it. Bay Area meetups happen once every few months or so.
posted by ambrosia at 12:00 PM on September 7, 2006

same city, same boat. it's kinda just luck of the draw.
posted by judith at 12:15 PM on September 7, 2006

Second the part about giving eHarmony a wide berth... in addition to whatever weird moralistic hangups they have, they also filter out a large part of the population based on... uh... some arbitrary set of criteria. I saw an ad for them a couple of years ago, signed up, spent two hours doing their exhaustive personality survey, and was then politely informed that I'm part of the 20% that's beyond their ability to fit into neat categories, and that they therefore can't help me. Since I'm presuming that most of us don't particularly like being or being set up with folks who can be so neatly placed into bins based on a sorting algorithm, I'd say there are probably better places to spend your time.
posted by Mayor West at 12:17 PM on September 7, 2006

jitterbug - eharmony's founder is an evangelical religionist, and the site tends to attract a somewhat less enlightened audience -- hence the frequency of eharmony adverts during AM wingnut shows like "Dr." Laura. And, though he has denied it, hence the exclusion of other lifestyles besides 1 man + 1 woman.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 12:20 PM on September 7, 2006

I have to say, MySpace is not a bad option. I have tried many of the dating sites over the years (Nerve.com used to be my fav before the change), but MySpace allows for people to put up far more interesting and detailed profiles, and since it's not really a dating site, it kinda takes some of the pressure off.

Of course, there are the thousands of retards and such, but if you are willing to filter them all out, it might be worth looking into.
posted by eas98 at 12:26 PM on September 7, 2006

It's all a crapshoot, unfortunately. I think that regardless of the sites you choose to be on, you've got to have a specific attitude about it: you will take your time, you will be picky, you will not go out with a so-so person because you're frustrated and feeling like you'll never meet someone, etc.

I'm giving Consumating a spin, at the moment--though only for friends.
posted by gsh at 12:27 PM on September 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

consumating.com is free. Totally Web2.0, both in the style and in the community. That is both a praise and a criticism.

And free.
posted by gmarceau at 12:32 PM on September 7, 2006

Not to be too self-promotiony, but the team at Consumating hears a lot of great success stories all the time from people who have found interesting, fun people to date. Our technology helps you find people who are into the same kind of things you are, so like, I can find girls who are perl programmers who also play Nintendo DS. heh.
posted by benbrown at 12:40 PM on September 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

If you're looking for Jewish men, JDate is THE site! Congrats on putting yourself out there. I think the dating world can be a scary place.
posted by rglass at 12:41 PM on September 7, 2006

Plenty Of Fish
posted by DandyRandy at 12:47 PM on September 7, 2006

for the record, there are dating sites for various sexual preferences. adultfriendfinder.com, bondage.com or alt.com come to mind. the number of m4m sites must be in the hundreds.

my problem with okcupid is that they really do delete any image that is not showing your face (I had one of my shoes on there once. I felt they explained my sensibility at that moment in time) and that's it's rather tough to browse people by their geographical location. eharmony strikes me as old and conservative. if that's you, go ahead. it's not me.

yahoo personals, I have heard, is big in some cities. craigslist is okay.
posted by krautland at 12:50 PM on September 7, 2006

Sorry, otherwordlyglow, I will only respond to AskMeFi questions with pics.
posted by ill3 at 1:02 PM on September 7, 2006 [2 favorites]

I saw an ad for them a couple of years ago, signed up, spent two hours doing their exhaustive personality survey, and was then politely informed that I'm part of the 20% that's beyond their ability to fit into neat categories, and that they therefore can't help me.

Haha! That exact same thing happened to me, and I entertained many a friend with that story, ending with "I was even fucking rejected by online dating!" eHarmony blows.

I met my boyfriend on okcupid, so I feel I have to plug it. It's pretty fun, lots of different types of folks, and easy to screen out the freaks.

There's also a Mefite who started impersonals.com, though I haven't tried it yet.
posted by tristeza at 1:04 PM on September 7, 2006

I'll humbly suggest my site, The Impersonals, but only half-heartedly because my server is down at the moment with a hard disk problem.
posted by the jam at 1:05 PM on September 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

Hooray, someone beat me to it.
posted by the jam at 1:06 PM on September 7, 2006

one more thing. give a young and coming photographer a couple bucks to take a really good photo of yourself. it will make a huge difference on these sites, where people see your pic first and then click onto your profile.

matt armendariz in LA is someone I really dig. check out these portraits he did.



and there are so many more people. look for a food photographer.
posted by krautland at 1:08 PM on September 7, 2006

It's unfair to say eHarmony blows because they reject the people they think they can't match -- that's actually a nice, honest and ethical policy to refuse the money of people you think you can't serve. Other dating sites gladly take money from people who post profile / pic combinations that are obviously guaranteed to fail. Not saying that they're wrong to do so, just that eHarmony is right not to do so.
posted by MattD at 1:21 PM on September 7, 2006

Careful with the professional photos, though. I liked the ones krautland linked to (and I recognized one of the subjects--meta!), but I always shied away from the ads that included Glamour-Shots-esque portraits. They always seemed a bit plastic, to me.
posted by MrMoonPie at 1:23 PM on September 7, 2006

I met my current girlfriend through lavalife, and I know a couple of other LTRs that started that way. I'm in Toronto, and as been mentioned before, lava has Toronto in some sort of virtual online dating headlock.

I agree with others that the effectiveness of various sites varies from city to city and within age groups. I have found that those sites with even a slight entrance/connection fee tend to attract slightly less spammy/stupid responses than the free sites (even though I have met a couple of people through OkCupid).
posted by flipper at 1:24 PM on September 7, 2006

okcupid.com is decent - I met my wonderful girlfriend there. However, in the past year it's been taken over by a lot more of the younger/myspace types, and there are a LOT of annoying poly people on there now too. (isn't there a polymatch.com site or something?)

I had a lavalife account but let it expire ages ago because I never met one single person there. Search results were fruitless, and overall it was a complete waste of time. A startup I worked for in 2004 was about to jump into the online dating industry before looking at it seriously and realizing that it was becoming overly saturated.

Yahoo Personals worked for me before. Although the relationship didn't really work out due to the distance, the person I met is still a friend.

And due to the fact that you're in SF, craigslist might just be the best option.

As for the meetups: "cultured, urban, creative, intelligent guys" - oh, I'm sure I can lower that bar.. a lot. ;-)
posted by drstein at 1:29 PM on September 7, 2006

but I always shied away from the ads that included Glamour-Shots-esque portraits

agreed, which is why I advocate using a location shoot and just a photog without a high-flying concept behind it. skip the makeup artist and more than one light, offer him a little money and let him (okay, or her) do what they want. if you pick the right person, you and the photog end up with something fun.
posted by krautland at 1:33 PM on September 7, 2006

if you go to a Bay Area meetup, you'll probably get the most flattering picture of your life -- for free! -- courtesy of the amazingly talented DaShiv.
posted by scody at 2:00 PM on September 7, 2006

As far as I'm concerned, eharmony DOES blow. I was not getting suitable matches, I couldn't browse by photo, and the introduction process was silly at best. I was getting matches with children even though I requested otherwise. I tried to cancel about 12 hours after my 7 day trial period was up--they kept my money. Fair enough, but I'm here to tell y'all: eharmony blows goats.
posted by vaportrail at 2:12 PM on September 7, 2006

Is it true that eHarmony doesn't do same-sex matching? (Off to google ... ) Yup. Well, though I'm straight I would never give them money I think that just sucks. There will be an SF meet up soon -- I'm going to organize and/or help organize one in the next 6 to 8 weeks. (I'm new-ish around here so am wanting to get a bit more settled/established before jumping in with an event.)
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 2:34 PM on September 7, 2006

I tried eharmony (hah!), match (HAHAHA) and craigslist (um, not in this area, kthnx). But I used lavalife and I had absolutely no prospects.... except for one email.

I was listed in the "relationship" area, but constantly got bombarded with sexual propositions left and right. And a good chunk of the other emails I got were from people that didn't even have a pic on their profile.

The day I was going to cancel my profile - in fact, during the cancellation process - I got an email from a guy that sounded... well... like a catch. Instead of cancelling, I put my account on hold and talked to him on a messenger. We were compatible in almost every way. True, we didn't work out - but not because of anything that could be talked about in the beginning.

So..... over 1,000 emails and only one prospect - and we ended up together for several years. In other words, YMMV.
posted by damnjezebel at 4:29 PM on September 7, 2006

damnjezebel: considering the kind of website you have, I hope you weren't too surprised by the sexual propositions. :P

Then again, it's a double edged sword.. the websites that are mainly for hookups are filled with fake profiles from (fake) women designed to do nothing more than entice lonely & horny guys to pay them money.

and match.com (and others) have been busted doing the same thing to both sexes - "bait profiles." I was hit by the bait profiles by match.com.

Meeting people online used to be free and easy. The marketing drones have ruined everything. I remember the days of the local BBS, where someone could go into teleconference and say "Coffee in ten!" and 15-20 minutes later, the 50 people that were in tele would converge on Java City. The WWW killed those days off really quick.
posted by drstein at 4:54 PM on September 7, 2006

I don't like eHarmony because my good friend (who, for the record is Indian-american but totally an equal opportunity dater) signed up with them and has only EVER been matched with Indian guys. I don't know if this is because eHarmony's survey system has issues with inter-racial/ethnic dating or if ALL of its non-Indian male customers in the metro DC area would prefer not to date a Hindu/Indian girl, but I think it's strange.

Personally, I've found match.com to be average (literally, the guys are nice and normal, but not incredibly exciting), and I've met a couple witty, smart and entertaining men through craigslist (I mean I had to sort through the freaks to find them, but that's what worked the best for me).
posted by echo0720 at 5:23 PM on September 7, 2006

drstein - not really. Then again, my opinion was/is horrible about all of those dating sites. I wasn't so much pissed as having reached a limit. I gave myself 3 months to try it out. It pretty much lived up to my opinion, if you consider that the guy I ended up with became a dick.

on preview: echoo - you totally nailed why i didn't like match. the guys aren't shitty - they're just.... eh. Nothing really special about any of them. I mean, I like nice guys as much as the next girl... but if you don't have anything that sets you apart from the pack, then there's no reason for me to answer your email.
posted by damnjezebel at 6:11 PM on September 7, 2006

Not a personal experience, but my college roommate (we're now both in our late 30's) recently got frustrated with the dating world and chose online dating. He's super picky, has an overly cynical sense of humor that puts a lot of people off, and is definitely more attracted to someone who is intellectual and culturally active. After some thought, he felt that his best chance for someone fitting his criteria would be the Onion Personals, the meet-up section of the likewise cynically humorous Onion newspaper. Within a few months he met his future wife ...
posted by General Zubon at 6:36 PM on September 7, 2006

I just had a wonderful experience at GreenSingles.com. (I'm a gal.)

My profile was viewed 1010 times before I deleted it - that's over about five months. I got 40-50 contacts, some were the free "smiles" and some were email.

I narrowed down the choices to four men I really liked, and proceeded to have email relationships for a couple of months. They are all educated, professional, interesting and kind, but very different from each other.

Finally met my favorite bachelor in person, and it's a match! A very good one, I think. Yay!
posted by shifafa at 7:45 PM on September 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

The thing I didn't like about the Onion personals was that they use the same system as Nerve, Salon, ActFor Love, and a few other sites, so you're not really getting just the sarcastic/quirky onion people, you're also getting the nerve guys, the political activists from ActForLove, etc, etc... I thought it kind of defeated the whole purpose of having personals specific to the onion.
posted by echo0720 at 7:45 PM on September 7, 2006

If I may (unfairly of course) lump together the preferences expressed by the women in this thread: you (Woman) want men who stand out from the pack yet aren't freaks and aren't, you know, "nice guys," but looks don't particularly matter. The only possible intersection of these requirements I can think of is: you want men with power. I know how ridiculous this sounds but what exactly am I misunderstanding here?
/defensive and obviously insecure
posted by Astragalus at 8:08 PM on September 7, 2006

Two of the guys I know who signed up for eHarmony were told there was no possibility of there being anyone out there for them, which increased my desire to take their test but really decreased my desire to give them any of my money.
posted by dagnyscott at 8:11 PM on September 7, 2006

"but looks don't particularly matter" - oh yes they do. In online dating, if your photo isn't hitting a home run with the ladies, yer out. I'm a long haired white guy, and I got quite a few rejections with "lose the hair." or other really rude and crass remarks. The fact that I am childfree by choice is apparantly another huge ass turn off.

Of all the dating sites out there, I'm surprised there aren't any for "girls looking for men that DON'T want kids." heh. But as I said, okcupid.com has worked out great for me. :D
posted by drstein at 8:11 PM on September 7, 2006

I just wanted to chime in and say that I have made a successful match on the jam's Impersonals site. :)
posted by sarahsynonymous at 11:16 PM on September 7, 2006 [2 favorites]

I'd just like the express my disgruntledness with the current state of online personals. I'd like to begin this with a particular gruntle: once I hit 30, people stopped answering my ad, men and women. Boom, completely, even though my style of writing, my interests, and my looks haven't changed.

Nerve was the best seven years ago, but it died when spring street took it over. Planetout was fantastic until they went pay, and then women stopped using it (women generally occupy a lower economic niche to begin with, doubly so for lesbians for a lot of reasons, although that's beginning to change). I tried p2p personals once, and met someone cool through it, but that's been static for a couple of years. I've tried match (I'm too weird for most people there), lavalife, yahoo personals, excite personals (a million years ago), and tons I can't remember. You name it, I've tried it.

Okcupid was good for a while, but as someone noted, it's been taken over by the kiddie pool and the polyamorous clamoring. I checked out impersonals, but it's still fairly new, thus not much of a dating pool yet.

Lately the only thing that's been working for me is meeting people through friends, and that's touch and go at best. I know too many introverts and computer geeks. I told someone recently that 90% of the people I meet are polyamorous. She wanted to know where I'm meeting people. Through friends, but I'm cursed by location.

Let me note that one of the features I like BEST about personals is a keyword search. When Nerve changed to spring street they ditched the keyword search, one of the worst things they could have done in my opinion.
posted by digitalis at 12:16 AM on September 8, 2006

I entertained many a friend with that story, ending with "I was even fucking rejected by online dating!" eHarmony blows.

Oh man - exactly! Good to know I'm not the only one. I filled out their stupid four-hour long test only to be told by the computer that I wasn't compatible with anyone at all on the entire eastern seabord. At least I got a good yarn out of it. (I have always suspected that the minute the computer learned I was a fairly militant atheist, all the other questions were moot.)

I've been on match for a year now - I have friends who met the loves of their lives on there, and I thought since you have to pay, the men would be more serious. But they are *too* serious. It seems more bland and corporate and while I've had numerous email exchanges I've still not met anyone face to face from there.

OKCupid is much better. It's free and goofy and you can IM people, which is the real draw for me. (You get a lot of psycho IMs as soon as you log on, but you can ignore them and it's nice to be able to drop a casual line to someone you like if you see they are logged in. And I've met several interesting people in other countries just to chat with.) The casual, fun feel of the site makes it much easier to connect with people, and I've been on a dozen dates now, only two of which were downright horrible, but none of which have worked out. And, as others have said, OKC is mainly a fetus playground, great for the 20-somethings, not so much for those of us hitting 40. (And yeah, what's with all the "come join me and my wife, you bring the whipped cream" stuff suddenly?)

I had sworn the whole thing off, a sentiment hardened last week when I heard my friend's horror story about the match guy she was dating seriously for nearly a year who turned out to be secretly trolling for girls - successfully, too - on a half dozen sites the whole time. But then last night at a party, I saw another old pal and he's blissfully in love with a match girl, so who the hell knows.

I idly looked up yahoo personals a few weeks ago and the first search I did turned up a guy who was simply perfect, just marvelous, but I was so beaten down by the whole dating thing that I didn't bother to pay for a membership so I could contact him. Hmm, I wonder if he's still there.....
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:21 AM on September 8, 2006

Response by poster: okay, so i've signed up on okcupid and consumating. may do another one this weekend. maybe greensingles though i suspect i don't have the kayaking/biking/mountaineering background despite my environmental policy credentials. maybe impersonals.

and i do have some really good pics finally. i had a friend do a photo shoot and went through four outfits and 100+ shots to come up with about a dozen pics that i like that show a range of "me."

and it sounds like a bunch of you have the same impression of Match: that it's somewhat blah so at least i know i'm not being unreasonable.

drstein: "In online dating, if your photo isn't hitting a home run with the ladies, yer out."

oh please! like guys are any better about judging women based on looks? that's preposterous.

and it sounds like my suspicion that since i'm over 35, the online world isn't as interested in me (i swear i'm still fertile!) i somewhat correct.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 9:20 AM on September 8, 2006

Astragalus -- it's not about power, it's about personality. And of course looks matter, but most of us (especially those of us on metafilter) aren't looking for the super slick guys, we're looking for the cute quirky dorks who make us laugh.
posted by echo0720 at 10:25 AM on September 8, 2006

Response by poster: [we're looking for the cute quirky dorks who make us laugh.]

truer words never spoken
posted by otherwordlyglow at 11:46 AM on September 8, 2006

Consumating. I've met quite a few great people on this site, mainly friends, but I did date one of them for a bit. They have meetups pretty often, scattered around the US, which are a blast to attend.

And hey, where else can being a physics dork get you the ladies?
posted by Loto at 5:50 PM on September 8, 2006

we're looking for the cute quirky dorks who make us laugh.

I call bullshite on that.

if it were any different, the only ones responding to something like this wouldn't be leftovers.
posted by krautland at 8:48 PM on September 8, 2006

Response by poster: [if it were any different, the only ones responding to something like this wouldn't be leftovers.]

if i still lived in chicago, i'd totally respond to that ad. does that make me a leftover?
posted by otherwordlyglow at 10:35 PM on September 8, 2006

if i still lived in chicago, i'd totally respond to that ad.

me too. That's exactly the kind of ad that would crack me up and make me respond. So if that makes me a leftover, then Vive Les Leftovers!

I call bullshite on that.

I love it when men will simply REFUSE to accept any and all evidence that refutes their cynical "women only want rich, handsome laywers with sailboats" narrative to explain why they're not in a happy relationship. After having been married to a lawyer, dated guys over 6'2", and been with someone who's independently wealthy, I'm currently in the best relationship of my life with a guy who's slightly shorter than me, balding, doesn't have a powerful job (he's a writer and a bartender in Hollywood -- if anything, being a bartender gets more respect here than being a writer), and drives a shitty car -- and he basically said as much in his personal ad that *I* responded to! He's also the most hilarious, sexy, strong, insightful, loving, and self-aware man I've ever met, and I'm the luckiest woman on the planet to get to call him my boyfriend.

You can call bullshite on that all you want, krautland, if it'll make you feel any better. But it still won't make you right.
posted by scody at 1:59 PM on September 9, 2006 [2 favorites]

I'm going to third this sentiment -- if I was still in Chicago, I'd totally have responded to that, too. Seriously, girls like us like guys like you. We just don't know where to find ya (except that I recently met a guy that has potential via CL and a similarly goofy ad).
posted by echo0720 at 5:35 PM on September 10, 2006

And I'm not anyone's leftovers.
posted by echo0720 at 5:36 PM on September 10, 2006

echo0720, otherwordlyglow and scody ... who knows. I can only speak as to who actually did respond.

"women only want rich, handsome laywers with sailboats"
that is absolutely not what I said. the problem here is that you clearly misunderstood me. what I did in fact imply was that they wanted a photo, which I am not inclined to give out to a site like CL right away, I value my privacy thankyouverymuch.

so. the statement was content=less relevant than people would like you to believe.
posted by krautland at 10:23 PM on September 10, 2006

This illustrates the fundamental problem with online dating: the guy who wrote such a charming ad is the same guy who so uncharmingly calls girls "leftovers."
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:39 AM on September 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

you are right, CunningLinguist. that was frustration speaking.
posted by krautland at 4:28 PM on September 11, 2006

By the way http://www.socialgrid.com/ looks like it could become an interesting search/personal function.
posted by digitalis at 10:20 PM on September 15, 2006

"oh please! like guys are any better about judging women based on looks? that's preposterous."

Did I say that men were any different? Nope. But if you're going to deny the fact that men are WAY more likely to write up a long initial email only to be rejected, you would be sorely mistaken. I had a job at a place that ran a dating site. We did research. I had interesting conversations with the guy that started friendfinder.com about it. Research shows that women look at the photos for about 2 seconds before deciding whether or not to even read the rest of the email. There is a *huge* disconnect between the way men function on online dating sites and the way that women do.
Now before the feminists jump all over me, note that I'm just repeating what I learned from a guy that has started & ran dozens of highly successful dating sites. It's also something i've noticed (and discussed) with female friends. A male is far more likely to go on a date with a woman that he doesn't think is all that attractive. Women seem to operate very differently.
Like it or not, it's what many studies into online dating have shown.
posted by drstein at 10:14 PM on September 16, 2006

« Older How can I add words to my text-message dictionary...   |   Smarter than your professor? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.