I married my ex-wife from eharmony. (thanks for the compatibility match guys!) I married my current wife, and the mother of my two children, using yahoo personals. I also dated using match.com
In my opinion, dating sites are still extremely efficient ways of meeting people. I exclude eharmony, both from personal bias, and from the fact that they don't allow you to really search the database.
After you leave college, real life meetings become much more complicated. The bar scene is a lottery. How likely is it that you'll actually coincide in time and space with somebody who you would be happy with, and then how likely is it that you'll even get to talk to them if they are there when you're there? Grocery stores and other non-traditional meeting places, I personally avoided bothering women in, assuming there should be some neutral ground where a woman might wish to be left alone.
For me, I wanted college educated women who had opinions about politics and whose opinions I shared. I wanted women with no children, who lived within 50 miles of me and didn't smoke or do drugs, but who did drink socially, wanted children, had traveled the world some, and were not strongly religious. I wanted women who enjoyed outdoor sports such as scuba, skydiving, and rock climbing. I wanted women who didn't own small yap dogs.
Can you imagine bumping into women like this randomly? But with a dating site, it became so much easier.
I still went out on a lot of dates that were bad matches, but I definitely skewed my chances of finding somebody I could respect and have fun with by taking the random chance aspect out of the equation.
EDIT: The article doesn't actually disagree with this. It's saying that paid dating sites will lose out to unpaid. I was responding to the HN title which derides all dating sites.
> Grocery stores and other non-traditional meeting places, I personally avoided bothering women in, assuming there should be some neutral ground where a woman might wish to be left alone.
So many of the single women in my social circle complain they can never meet decent guys and would kill to be talked to be a decent, intelligent guy at the grocery store.
Worst-case scenario is a 15 second disturbance of minor flattery following by each of you carrying on with your day. Really, that's the worst case scenario. Really.
Maybe the disconnect between single men and women could be resolved by a survey that asks a random sampling of men and women when they think it would be appropriate to approach or be approached by a potential SO, and finding the discrepancies. For example, if it is found that most "decent" men think it's rude to approach a woman at location X, but most "decent" women would prefer to be approached at location X, the men could be told to change their behavior. Maybe someone can suggest this to OkCupid (if it hasn't already been done); it seems they do a lot of statistical research already.
> So many of the single women in my social circle complain they can never meet decent guys and would kill to be talked to be a decent, intelligent guy at the grocery store.
Tell them to take the initiative, then. Make eye contact, smile, and make a comment to start a conversation. Most women are far better at that than men, anyway, especially in a place like a grocery story where most of the time if a guy takes the initiative he comes off desperate.
I am guessing you haven't approached women much? Your "worst case scenario" only applies if they actually think you are a decent guy up to their standards. Otherwise they might be offended that you even dare to talk to them (best case scenario: they just pretend they didn't see or hear you).
Not that I advise against approaching women, just saying.
> I am guessing you haven't approached women much?
That's not really called for! The GP is right though; you're unlikely to be, say, given a slap or yelled at! This assumes, of course, your not being leery or crude and not asking them on a date straight off. etc. (where you will likely get a slap).
But there is nothing wrong with saying hi and having casual conversation with someone in the grocery store. 99 times out of 100 it will just fizzle out after a couple of seconds - one time in a hundred you might hit on a common interest and the rest, as they say, is history. I've met a number of great girlfriends in this way.
It's also a great way to get over shyness.
Also; you should talk to random people anyway. It brightens up their day and yours in a perfectly harmless way.
There is this social convention that we all must be silent and look dead ahead when queuing, for example. Everyone I know thinks it is silly but they don't want to be the first to broach the convention - just in case....
Didn't mean it in a nasty way. And yes, actual physical attacks are unlikely as a response. Unfriendliness is rather likely, though. But if you have a hardened "shell", no problem. Or if you have become very adept at chatting.
Also, if those single girls at grocery stores are so desperate, why don't they make a move themselves?
I'd say that is highly unlikely also. At worst you'll just get ignored :) but generally anyone will talk to you if you look and speak normal/friendly.
> Also, if those single girls at grocery stores are so desperate, why don't they make a move themselves?
Social convention. Also; this is the beginnings of a strawman because it's not like that at all :) the GP is just suggesting we talk to people more - which is always a good thing!
Your analysis excludes the fact that the sampling of people you meet is not uniform but biased according to what you do.
The chances of meeting women who do outdoor sports is extremely high if you do them yourselves, you are more likely to meet a girl like you want in a bar than in a church, etc. My point is that bumping into a girl like that randomly is actually very high, as long as you don't spend your life only at home or at work.
I agree completely. If you love X (and it's a social activity), keep doing X and odds are pretty good you'll eventually meet someone you like. Worked for me.
In my opinion, dating sites are still extremely efficient ways of meeting people. I exclude eharmony, both from personal bias, and from the fact that they don't allow you to really search the database.
After you leave college, real life meetings become much more complicated. The bar scene is a lottery. How likely is it that you'll actually coincide in time and space with somebody who you would be happy with, and then how likely is it that you'll even get to talk to them if they are there when you're there? Grocery stores and other non-traditional meeting places, I personally avoided bothering women in, assuming there should be some neutral ground where a woman might wish to be left alone.
For me, I wanted college educated women who had opinions about politics and whose opinions I shared. I wanted women with no children, who lived within 50 miles of me and didn't smoke or do drugs, but who did drink socially, wanted children, had traveled the world some, and were not strongly religious. I wanted women who enjoyed outdoor sports such as scuba, skydiving, and rock climbing. I wanted women who didn't own small yap dogs.
Can you imagine bumping into women like this randomly? But with a dating site, it became so much easier.
I still went out on a lot of dates that were bad matches, but I definitely skewed my chances of finding somebody I could respect and have fun with by taking the random chance aspect out of the equation.
EDIT: The article doesn't actually disagree with this. It's saying that paid dating sites will lose out to unpaid. I was responding to the HN title which derides all dating sites.