Recommend a dating site

An issue with trying to land a pretty, smart and professional woman via online dating is they want a relationship but they aren't desperate to have one. They have their own things going on as well. So if your profile and/or message reeks of desperation or even coming on too strong it can easily be off putting to them. Even being a male using an online dating site is already a red flag for most women despite them also being on an online dating site.

My wife has two friends who are very pretty, very smart and have good jobs and they simply will not settle for anything less than a handsome, smart, funny man. And good for them. They shouldn't have to settle. They aren't in any rush to be in a relationship. Both of them want a relationship (sucks for them I really don't have too many friends and the ones I have are married or engaged) but aren't in any hurry to push one. But from countless dating threads on the internet I've come to the conclusion guys simply can't rate themselves accurately. They think they're the whole package when they're actually semi-educated with a job but nothing fancy and average looks. And they expect to land this dynamite girl. And if that is their standards than that is fine. No one should settle. But keep in mind these girls are rare and also have standards themselves.

Tenks_sl said:

I always hid my income in my online dating profile (or left it lower than it actually was) and didn't really have problems. Perhaps your friend is making excuses to something outside his control because it's easier to think that since he's a lower income guy thats why he isn't getting dates?

Granted this is also when I was like 25. I'm sure as you get older it becomes more important to women.

Click to expand...

OKC blog did that one, it is that important. Not even a question. Second only to the guy's picture.

EDIT: And OKC blog again. Men rate women pretty fairly, women rate men harshly. I don't know if guys on average would rate themselves fairly, you're right about that, but it seems most women have no clue what an average guy is like. So by their standards "above average" is literally in the top 20% of guys, I shudder to think of where "exceptional" would be. Top 1%? Since most women aren't in the top 1% of women.... well, it isn't going to work out.

Fun fact, women have a high sexual fluidity. There has been a small uptick in the incidence of lesbianism correlated with financial success. All those financially successful women who can't find a guy who they feel is their equal, so they are turning to other women in the same predicament for relationships.

The Master_sl said:

OKC blog did that one, it is that important. Not even a question. Second only to the guy's picture.

Click to expand...

The issue with these statistics is that "most important" can still be overcome. I still maintain a quality profile is the best way of getting dates via online dating. I know you'll cite OKC blog here and here and here that says this is statistically false. But I put a ton of time into online dating and I started to get a very good feel of what worked and what didn't.

Khane_sl said:

I did a little experiment once. I never had all that hard a time getting dates on these sites but I found that professional women's response rates to my messages were way lower than non-professional. This is when I did not have my income listed. So then I listed my income to see if it would make a difference. I got even less responses from professional women. But my responses and especially the amount of messages I received without sending a message first from non-professional women fucking skyrocketed. I had almost 100% response rate from hair dressers and bartenders.

It's like women with decent careers have some sort of internal strife and turmoil about actually wanting a man who has a career. So they want someone who makes more money than they do, but if you list it you must be a show-off and they certainly don't want that. Who the fuck knows...

Click to expand...

There is definite truth to this. I didn't notice a change in the amount of "professional" winks/emails myself, but you are right on the money about hairdressers/bartenders/admin assistants/strippers.

And you point out an interesting irony about the professional types. I went on a few dates with a lawyer that said me listing my income was "cocky, but you thankfully made up for it elsewhere in your profile", yet when I asked her if she would date me if I made less than her and she said "no", I then asked her how she could find it cocky while simultaneously it basically being a requirement to date her.. Female logic..

Tenks_sl said:

The issue with these statistics is that "most important" can still be overcome. I still maintain a quality profile is the best way of getting dates via online dating. I know you'll cite OKC blog here and here and here that says this is statistically false. But I put a ton of time into online dating and I started to get a very good feel of what worked and what didn't.

Click to expand...

What's better evidence? Anecdotal or statistical analysis of a huge population?

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

There is definite truth to this. I didn't notice a change in the amount of "professional" winks/emails myself, but you are right on the money about hairdressers/bartenders/admin assistants/strippers.

And you point out an interesting irony about the professional types. I went on a few dates with a lawyer that said me listing my income was "cocky, but you thankfully made up for it elsewhere in your profile", yet when I asked her if she would date me if I made less than her and she said "no", I then asked her how she could find it cocky while simultaneously it basically being a requirement to date her.. Female logic..

Click to expand...

Something else I've always wondered. Is there a "no-fly" zone in regards to a listed income. For instance if my income was say... $80k/yr would it be OK to list it because it's decent and shows I have at least some ability to be an adult and provider but if my income is $170k/yr and I list it am I just arrogant and narcissistic because obviously I think I'm amazing? Extrapolate that further and say my income is $900k/yr is that so high that women no longer give a shit at all about anything else in your profile including your pictures and just want to throw their panties at you?

Tenks_sl said:

The issue with these statistics is that "most important" can still be overcome. I still maintain a quality profile is the best way of getting dates via online dating. I know you'll cite OKC blog here and here and here that says this is statistically false. But I put a ton of time into online dating and I started to get a very good feel of what worked and what didn't.

Click to expand...

By acknowledging you're starting in a position of disadvantage that can be overcome with a great deal of effort, you're agreeing that the disadvantage exists. Imagine if you put in all the effort but started from the point of having the perfect picture and the right income?

Khane_sl said:

What's better evidence? Anecdotal or statistical analysis of a huge population?

Click to expand...

Don't disagree. But you have the cards in your hand and you need to do the best with what you've got. Unless you want to just straight up lie and pull aces out of your sleeve that way but eventually you'll get found out. That'll work if you want a quick lay but not an actual relationship. I also don't hold any notions I wasn't playing online dating on easy mode. I was a 25 year old 5'10" white college educated male making (at the time) $50k+. But when I first started online dating all that was still the same and I still fucked it up left and right and couldn't get a date to save my life. I went through the whole "Its not my fault! Its the womens fault!" phase until I decided to blame myself and completely reinvent my profile and messaging strategy. Once I did that I was getting 2-3 dates per week and new messages at least daily.

Khane_sl said:

Something else I've always wondered. Is there a "no-fly" zone in regards to a listed income. For instance if my income was say... $80k/yr would it be OK to list it because it's decent and shows I have at least some ability to be an adult and provider but if my income is $170k/yr and I list it am I just arrogant and narcissistic because obviously I think I'm amazing? Extrapolate that further and say my income is $900k/yr is that so high that women no longer give a shit at all about anything else in your profile including your pictures and just want to throw their panties at you?

Click to expand...

I think if you're making in the $200k/yr range you should hire a professional match maker and ditch online dating

Khane_sl said:

Something else I've always wondered. Is there a "no-fly" zone in regards to a listed income. For instance if my income was say... $80k/yr would it be OK to list it because it's decent and shows I have at least some ability to be an adult and provider but if my income is $170k/yr and I list it am I just arrogant and narcissistic because obviously I think I'm amazing? Extrapolate that further and say my income is $900k/yr is that so high that women no longer give a shit at all about anything else in your profile including your pictures and just want to throw their panties at you?

Click to expand...

Here you go, message rate relative to income and age. No, there is no ceiling, they cut it off at 100k+ because it made zero difference.

At first I was wondering what happened between 22 and 23 to make such a jump. Then I remembered people graduate college. Although it doesn't fully answer Khane's question since it cuts off at 100k+. Which is a good salary but nothing godly. I think he's wondering if you list yourself as 500k+ is it off putting?

Tenks_sl said:

At first I was wondering what happened between 22 and 23 to make such a jump. Then I remembered people graduate college. Although it doesn't fully answer Khane's question since it cuts off at 100k+. Which is a good salary but nothing godly. I think he's wondering if you list yourself as 500k+ is it off putting?

Click to expand...

Again, apparently it makes no difference. So either there was insufficient data above 100k (possible) or it literally doesn't make a difference.

EDIT: Also 109k is top 3% of income. That is amazing if you actually think about it.

Well he said they cut it off at 100k+ because it didn't make any difference (which is why it just says 100k+)

The only problem with that statistic is that it includes all women, so it doesn't really answer my question. Not the subset I was specifically referring to (Professional women. Doctors, Lawyers, Marketing and Finance, etc)

I'd like to see a graph that correlates the # of messages men receive at reported income levels to women sending those messages at certain reported income levels.

My bad I simply saw the graphic and didn't see his blurb prior to it

Khane_sl said:

Well he said they cut it off at 100k+ because it didn't make any difference (which is why it just says 100k+)

The only problem with that statistic is that it includes all women, so it doesn't really answer my question. Not the subset I was specifically referring to (Professional women. Doctors, Lawyers, Marketing and Finance, etc)

I'd like to see a graph that correlates the # of messages men receive at reported income levels to women sending those messages at certain reported income levels.

Click to expand...

I haven't read his book, it might be in there, but that sounds like a reasonably interesting question. I think there was an e-mail somewhere for asking him questions relating to dating stats, I'll see if I can find it and ask.

Khane_sl said:

Well he said they cut it off at 100k+ because it didn't make any difference (which is why it just says 100k+)

The only problem with that statistic is that it includes all women, so it doesn't really answer my question. Not the subset I was specifically referring to (Professional women. Doctors, Lawyers, Marketing and Finance, etc)

I'd like to see a graph that correlates the # of messages men receive at reported income levels to women sending those messages at certain reported income levels.

Click to expand...

Yeah it would be interesting if inside each box there were sub boxes of a heatmap related to the female income sending the message. I would *assume* higher income women will only mingle with higher income men. But possibly some women prefer to assume the breadwinner role and like the idea of being the provider. Dunno. Would be pretty cool.

BrotherWu_sl said:

What if she was 9+, smart, engaging, made killer pancakes, but only ever wanted to work as a clerk at a health food store?

EDIT - Just saying, I bet you have your limits on the career thing.

Click to expand...

Since I happen to share Khane's view on this, I can tell you it ultimately boils down to respect. If you're a guy that makes six figures, short of inheritance or lotto winnings, you got there through hard work, ambition, dedication, organization, and most likely education. You respect these skills because they are important to you. No matter how hot she is, or how fun she is, if she's just looking to take early retirement at your expense she's either going to possess few of these skills, or they'll be demonstrated in an incompetent fashion that you will look upon with derision. It is very hard to maintain a relationship with a woman no matter how hot/fun she is if you don't respect her. I've been sucked down this road too many times, lured by my admitted weakness for a nice set of boobs/legs, only to regret it three months later when I realize I am basically taking care of a mental teenager.

It's even worse if she is actually intelligent and engaging. Because then she's just lazy and/or wasted talent. Ambition is a must for me.

Khane_sl said:

What's better evidence? Anecdotal or statistical analysis of a huge population?

Click to expand...

When it comes to your own dating profile, tenks's approach is the correct one. You should start with OKC's general advice about the best profile, because being the group mean, it is most likely to be closest to the actual correct answer for you (in any population, when all other info is absent, the mean is the best predictor of a given score). Then you should see if that approach is getting you the type of girl you are interested in. It's basically hypothesis testing. If it's not getting who you want, you should tweak something and see what happens then. Continue tweaking until you've settled in an optimal profile strategy for yourself.

This is how stats are used to inform medical and psychological treatments, circumstances in which individual differences are important. Start with the general best, collect "data" for this specific individual, and revise approach to fit the individual.

The broad stats view is a "general best." It would be silly to use okc's strategy, find it doesn't work for you, then keep using it. That's an incorrect use of statistics.