This ignores the far bigger reaching impact of online dating, that which includes some uncomfortable gender dynamics for hetrosexuals; The top percentage of men get the lions share of the dating options and presumably more frequent sex with no reason to commit to the ladies in question while lower tier men suffer disillusionment from their lack of options. The OK Cupid blog page is a filled with these sorts of nuggets, such as women rate 80% of guys as worse-looking than the medium: https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0...
If you actually read the rest of that post, it says that in their actual behavior to those men that they rate as less-than-medium they're less judgmental of looks than the men:
> As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.
But this also ignores the fact that you as a man are judged by other things that only your looks. Money, power, social status, personality to name a few. Men have a lot more strings to play when it comes to increasing their value in the "sexual marketplace".
Looks matter more than anything else, at least until you reach 8 figures of wealth or you attain some level of fame/celebrity.
I'd also hope that all of us are being progressive and judging women based on those things (especially wealth) as well. I certainly am. Need that huge combined income to comfortably afford a house and kids anywhere that I'd actually want to live, after all.
If you have 8 figures of wealth your looks are pretty secondary. But no you don't need anything like that for enhancing your chances and pushing looks further down the list. If all you do is online dating, then yes. People will judge on what they see. But in real life you have lots of possibilities to swing the pendulum in your direction.
Some people certainly look for features like intelligence, wit, personality, wealth, etc, in women too. Many people, however, actively look for the opposite - someone who isn't very smart. It all depends on what you want in a life partner.
Unless you are really ugly or have a deformity looks don't matter all that much for men. They may matter more for if you get a reply or not using an online dating site but not for dating success in meatspace.
Well, when most men put in zero effort towards making themselves look attractive on their profile, then it makes it very easy for those that do to get results.
>The top percentage of men get the lions share of the dating options and presumably more frequent sex with no reason to commit to the ladies in question while lower tier men suffer disillusionment from their lack of options.
This tacitly implies that women are sex objects and that men only seek them out as such. I find that offensive, but more so than that, sad.
You'd also have to prove that online dating has 'caused' this effect, and what you've posted is a complete lack of evidence, at best.
It could simply be that many women have better career options and don't have to settle for early marriage to whichever man in a bid for financial security and social acceptance, or changing attitudes towards more casual sexual encounters, or a number of other things.
> This tacitly implies that women are sex objects and that men only seek them out as such. I find that offensive, but more so than that, sad.
I find it ridiculous that you are offended and sad. Your assumption is leaping to a cause that 'women are sex objects' for these men because they have higher date counts. Maybe they are more picky because they can be. Or is that so surprising more attractive men have more sex partners? And even if so, what is wrong with wanting to have sex? And why is this a bad thing for men here? I know plenty of women that at some point in their life who only want flings for whatever life reason.
Sorry a bit of a rant but I find this judgement about people having sex so archaic.
First off, I made no statement about promiscuity. So you're the only one talking about that. Are you sure you're replying to the correct person? Your entire judgement of my post has nothing to do with what I said.
The context was:
>The top percentage of men get the lions share of the dating options and presumably more frequent sex with no reason to commit to the ladies in question while lower tier men suffer disillusionment from their lack of options.
It is explicitly stated that more attractive men have 'no reason to commit'. This seems to be an incredibly sad statement about the possibility of having a connection with another person on levels other than sex.
edit: I don't get what's wrong with what I said here? Can someone explain.
Nothing directly “wrong”, but you seem to be judgmental towards people who have (just) casual sex, going so far as to imply they objectify women, which is a word that has a strongly negative moral connotation in today’s world. But really, there’s nothing wrong with casual sex.
If you carefully parse the original sentence ("The top [..] men get [..] frequent sex with no reason to commit") it is making the absolute statement that good-looking men have no reason to commit, implying that the only reason for commitment is securing a frequent sex partner.
They can be completely accepting of all sorts of kinky shenanigans (as I am), yet still not consider it a good idea to paint all men with the same brush.
Nope. “With no reason to...” is a contextual connector, it adds to the first statement. Your interpretation would be correct if it read “therefore have no reason to...”
The context is "a person who has no trouble getting people to have sex with him."
The statement within that context is that he has "no reason to commit to a woman."
I guess it could be just a statement of fact. "A lot of these people, they're just doing it."
It seems sloppy to throw that contextual tidbit into the middle of an unrelated sentence. Particularly given that it is a fact that doesn't really need to be explained to anyone listening. So yeah, maybe it is just sloppy writing.
But I think that is being very generous given it would have to be superfluous information within an entirely unrelated thought, meaning the writer basically made two mistakes at once.
People also tend to use with and therefore fairly interchangeably in colloquial settings.
As somewhat more intelligent primates you can rest assured that sex is a primary male driver in seeking the attention of women, if not the only reason. Let’s not ignore a million years of biological inperative and assume a few hundred years of civilization has changed us.
You've given a generalized historical basis for heterosexual sex, you haven't explained the nuances of a sentient being in modern society making a mate selection. Do some critical thinking about this, how do you personally decide who to mate with?
Are you suggesting that men have no reason whatsoever to seek the attention of men and that sex is the only reason for men to seek the attention of women? If so, I'm reasonably confident I can find plenty of counterexamples.
The majority of modern men who use (resort to?) dating apps are seeking companionship first and foremost, and being left wanting.
Which is fine and completely fair, of course. Not everyone deserves companionship. Not everyone deserves happiness, or even a base level of satisfaction.
I agree that happiness is not guaranteed, but also think everyone deserves it, even if they don’t get it. Small distinction, but to imply that someone perhaps suffering from depression or stuck in really terrible circumstances doesn’t even deserve happiness sounds very harsh.
'God Almighty himself is under the necessity of being happy; and the more any thinking being is under that necessity, the nearer it comes to infinite perfection and happiness.'
Not sure, perhaps you are reading too much into this statement, or alternatively you’re reframing it in the worst possible way. In any case I’d say chill out a bit.
I read it differently, as in: the most sought for men, those actively pursued by women, have more options so the date churn is higher.
Also: what’s wrong with “Just for benefits”? If both consent and agree I see nothing sad about it
>This tacitly implies that women are sex objects and that men only seek them out as such. I find that offensive, but more so than that, sad.
Extremely attractive people belonging to either sex, of all sexual orientations, do this. Extremely attractive men treat women on dating apps as sex objects. Extremely attractive women treat men on dating apps as sex objects. Happens with same-sex pairings too. Not sure why everyone is focusing on gender when it's really looks that matter the most when it comes to behavior and options.
They're objecting to the idea that there is no reason, never, for anyone good-looking to commit to anyone.
See again the original sentence: "top percentage [get] frequent sex with no reason to commit".
That sentence is simply too strong to be true. Nobody is denying that the possibility of easily finding someone for casual may cause some people to hesitate before entering committed relationships. But as it is written, it denies the existence of reasons for commitment other than to secure frequent sex.
There must be at least some people who, despite their excellent looks, top IQ, huge penis, and high political office still found a reason to commit to a partner. The previous US president comes to mind...
In another reply to an indignant comment I suggested that “whith” just adds qualitative description to the first sentence, not implication. Had it been “therefore” it would be a different matter.
