Do you think it's necessary to add "Looking for One Night Stand" option?

Vote

Want to post a match question to the forums?

It's easy! Simply click the "open for debate" link on any match question.

NextTimer

Mar 19, 2013

They would filter it for "one night stand" only. And dramatically reduce an amount of messages for other options. 

Sushibitch

Mar 19, 2013

^ What makes you think they would, though? I mean, I've never listed casual sex, and these days my profile specifically says I'm not looking for dates, hookups, or flirtation, but I still get "DTF?" messages now and then; clearly the guys sending them haven't paid any attention to what I'm looking for, so I'm not convinced that adding another option would make the slightest difference. It's certainly not going to cause more women to _want_ indiscriminate one-night stands, which I suspect is actually what's at the bottom of this.

NextTimer

Mar 19, 2013

I suggest you try putting "casual sex" and see what would happen just for experiment. 

Sushibitch

Mar 19, 2013

That won't actually tell me anything new though; I'm not saying that people who list casual sex (or hookups) don't get contacted for casual sex, I'm saying that people who _don't_ list it do still get contacted, which tells us that the people looking for casual sex aren't limiting themselves to people who list it.

Professor712

Mar 19, 2013

Most women don't get slammed by guys with junk mail even when they do put casual sex down. Many times it is just life happening and you don't see your profile for a week and you get around 0-10 emails a day - now you have 30 when you get to it. That isn't getting slammed - that is 4 emails a day.

That is not being able to answer those emails for a week. Now if you got about that many emails in a typical week - you would think somebody is going to eventually be very interesting sooner or later and contact you. Instead you get lame emails over and over again - which just makes you very jaded on top of increase your expectations even more because you are expecting someone to sweep you off your feet any moment. Which makes women less interested in mailing first due to the expectation something will happen next week or the next.

On top of that - not many people who contact you have much in common with you, there isn't much to talk about with them because their profile is basically generic, many topics in your profile get commented to the point you get upset when someone brings up your favorite topics in a message at times, they are often unattractive, they are rude, they are humorless, they remind you more of Richard Nixon and his nickname "Gloomy Gus" in a classroom more than a date, they are too old, too young, too short, they act like your profile didn't mean much, or they say things you never want to hear in private let alone read.

Professor712

Mar 19, 2013

OkCupid tried filters for people looking for casual sex - the people who looked for casual sex stopped putting casual sex in their looking for section to get around the filter. I think we even tried sexual remarks filters for a little while. Nope - they just created new profiles or used terms that were impossible to ban. And, people who had a decent conversation with someone that went sexual found nether could chat or message each other anymore. The more you try to police something; the more people who want that will try to evade it. 

sfguyyy

Mar 20, 2013

Lolling at the legions of men who apparently exist in a narcissistic hall of mirrors and can't even conceptualize what it's like to be a female even when it is explained to them 1,000 times and the evidence of these things is everywhere around them.

Amazing.

It's like a meme around here.

Passionately advocating for policies that work directly against their own self-interest.

 

Informavore

Mar 20, 2013

^^I don't remember that ever happening.  I think you're mixing it up with one of PoF's insanely stupid filters.

The rest of this, some people have no idea the realities of human communication.  Then again, if you think the solution involves adding a redundant check box, your problems have more to do with your approach than any site design.

sfguyyy

Mar 21, 2013

^I think he was talking about the match search option or notification option to exclude anyone with "casual sex" listed in "looking for" from results.

Nowadays we can filter on any one of the "looking for" relationship types so the "casual sex" restriction doesn't stand out so much. Couldn't do that before.

(Edit: I still have the following tickbox in my IM filter options: "Users must not be looking for “Casual Sex”."  Some newer users don't have any IM filter page at all though, I'm told.)

 

Sushibitch

Mar 21, 2013

 Some newer users don't have any IM filter page at all though, I'm told.

Really?

Good grief, they really do seem to be putting in considerable effort to make the site less and less useful!

sfguyyy

Mar 22, 2013

^Actually if the filters go away for certain people they will probably return in some other fashion. I don't think it's the intention to remove that feature forever.

I also can't yet determine how many people might be missing it at this point. Like many other "removed" features, it seems to "magically return" for such users if they manually go to the URL that it is accessed by people who still have the direct link. (Which, at the present time, appears to be this.)

 

amp-here

Mar 22, 2013

   Hookup and FWB are different, and deserves their own categories, rather than the all-encompassing "casual sex".

amp-here

Mar 22, 2013

but I still get "DTF?" messages now and then

 

   Yet a fair share of women lie on their profiles they are not up for sex and use it as a cock-block to keep unattractive guys from asking them for sex, but will gladly PM attractive guys saying otherwise. Also, many women list married, but PM as "it's complicated" if they find an attractive enough guy.  Men know this and take their chances they will be said guy.

 

   If a guy DTF-messages you, it makes sense to let him know you aren't lying...and are not one of those women who simply lies to cock-block unattractive men.

 

 

 

Sushibitch

Mar 22, 2013

Yet a fair share of women lie on their profiles they are not up for sex and use it as a cock-block to keep unattractive guys from asking them for sex,

That's not what "cock-block" means.

And you seem to be suggesting that it's dishonest and unfair for women to want sex, but only with men they find attractive (rather than with all comers), and that makes you sound like a rapey moron.

Informavore

Mar 22, 2013

To be fair, when you account for the sperginess, he's saying that women often respond well to things they say they don't like, and don't respond well to things they say they would like.  Which complicates matters when people have to interpret rather than taking things at face value.

(The above being a human flaw, based as it is on the fact that humans are often shit-for-brains who don't really know what they want.  It's still fun when people fail to take the realities of human nature/communication into account.)

amp-here

Mar 22, 2013

That's not what "cock-block" means.

It's used informally for protecting against anything that could lead to sex.

    Regardless of technicalities, the point is women actively use it to block guys they find unattractive from contacting them for sex in the first place.

 

 

And you seem to be suggesting that it's dishonest and unfair for women to want sex, but only with men they find attractive

  *sigh* Hell no.  All I'm saying is, when the men push past your warnings, they may be doing so because they suspect you are lying.

  What's unfair is

*) when a woman claims she doesn't want sex and does (unfair to men, who either get told off after wasting time at the PM stage...or acts cautious and misses a hookup because he read the unattractive guy warnings as "for him" and backed off even when the woman found him attractive)

...and, in return...

*) Once men suspect lying from experience with women...they may take women who are not lying as lairs, inconveniencing them (unfair to women who don't lie)

------------------

It fucks up things for *both* sexes.  Less hook-ups from people who want them are made and more women who don't want hook-ups are bugged about them.

amp-here

Mar 22, 2013

To add: cockblocking need not be applied in the third person: the woman herself can also cockblock.

he's saying that women often respond well to things they say they don't like, and don't respond well to things they say they would like.

*sigh* They act differently depending on how attractive they find a person.

  When a woman says on a profile "I (finally) want a nice guy", she usually doesn't.  When she says "I don't want games"...chances are she's had several men who played games...and she thought they were worth it (otherwise, she wouldn't have "just" gotten over that).

--------------

   If a woman says she thinks you're cute, it doesn't mean a thing.  If she kisses you and wraps her legs around you, even after calling you an "asshole"...it does.  Experienced men know this.

 

 

 

 

Sushibitch

Mar 22, 2013

To be fair, when you account for the sperginess, he's saying that women often respond well to things they say they don't like, and don't respond well to things they say they would like.

Not really; he's saying that sometimes women don't want to be approached for casual sex, but are happy to approach specific individuals whom they fancy for casual sex. Which is fair enough really; I'm not going to advertise to the whole world that dinner is at my place tonight, but I may well invite someone I actually want to have dinner with.

It's used informally for protecting against anything that could lead to sex.

It's used informally to refer to preventing to _other_ people from having sex, not to turning someone down. Big difference.

Regardless of technicalities, the point is women actively use it to block guys they find unattractive from contacting them for sex in the first place.

And that's absolutely appropriate; there's nothing dishonest or sneaky about it at all.

They act differently depending on how attractive they find a person.

Yes; that's pretty much the definition of dating, isn't it?

amp-here

Mar 22, 2013

It's used informally to refer to preventing to _other_ people from having sex, not to turning someone down. Big difference.

   Ok then...  There's really just not an obvious term for it, since it's not really rejection as it happens before the guy even makes an approach e.g. saying on a profile "we won't be compatible if..." before talking to someone, leaving to both bad matches/necessary rejections and missed hookups.  It often applies for some men (unattractive) and not others (attractive enough to compensate for it).

 

Regardless of technicalities, the point is women actively use it to block guys they find unattractive from contacting them for sex in the first place. -me

And that's absolutely appropriate; there's nothing dishonest or sneaky about it at all.

    Right, that alone is all good, in theory.  The problem is, in reality, some women who do want hook-ups lie on their profiles about it...and ruin things for the women who aren't lying really don't want hook-ups as men can't tell which is which by the profile alone.  Same deal as with women running the "nice guy" line.

 

They act differently depending on how attractive they find a person.

Yes; that's pretty much the definition of dating, isn't it?

Absolutely!  However, that reality appears to escape Informavore, hence I was clarifying.

Sushibitch

Mar 22, 2013

There's really just not an obvious term for it, since it's not really rejection as it happens before the guy even makes an approach e.g. saying on a profile "we won't be compatible if..." before talking to someone. 

It's filtering, nothing more. And it is not in any way problematic; it's an entirely appropriate and normal thing to do.

The problem is, in reality, some women who do want hook-ups lie...and ruin things for the women who aren't lying really don't want hook-ups as men can't tell which is which by the profile alone.

They're not lying, they're just not issuing a general invitation. And again, there's nothing problematic about that.

Post a comment