I would replace “thought you were kinda cute” with “thought you were really cool/interesting”, OkCupid’s data shows that women respond negatively to physical compliments.
I’ve never really tried using Facebook even though I have an active account with a good variety of people. I guess I don’t think that “we went to the same middle school together” is a better criterion for a match than “your profile shows we have a ton of things in common”. Also, if someone’s on a dating site you know that they’re actively looking, and the pool is much bigger.
If you are reaching out on FB to someone you’re really into, I would recommend again writing about a unique interest (‘Hey, I saw your dancing picture, is that Argentinian Tango?’) and not appearance. I assume that good looking women on FB get unsolicited messages a lot, you always want to start a conversation and show that you looked at more than their pretty face.
I might be overextending here but what would you say if I think OKC stuff is specific to OKC (and online dating sites specifically) and could not apply to other places?
Also, does OKC define “physical compliments” more precisely? My real life experience says otherwise, and there’s also the question of why women wouldn’t like their appearance to be appreciated despite spending a non-minor amount of their time on it.
As for reasons, I can only offer some speculation since I’m 0⁄2 on being hot and/or a woman. First of all, I also spend a non-negligible amount of time on my appearance and I like people who are into my humor/intellect/interests/personality and not my looks. Commenting on appearance can also seem vulgar or indicate that you’re only looking for sex. Finally, good looking women get complimented on their looks a lot, and not very beautiful women may be insecure about their appearance and question the sincerity of your compliments. I think this applies not just on OkCupid but in most online and offline situations.
I don’t give out a lot of compliments in general. But when I do, I’ve had better luck complimenting people on appearance when it’s stuff they obviously chose and put effort into: a haircut; tattoos; choice in clothing. Few people like to be complimented on stuff they didn’t do anything for; many people like to be complimented on stuff they did.
(If you try clothing, though, be aware that “nice top” is likely to be read as “nice breasts”.)
There’s a difference: on OKC you can filter people based on whatever, in non-OKC situations you don’t have that information available to you. I only have the woman’s looks (and the women have a perv-o-meter) to notice.
Re-reading your article I think a better way to describe this is “approaches with comparative advantages” and “approaches without comparative advantages”.
You have context. If you meet a woman at a bar, she’s probably the kind of person that hangs out at bars. At an Iron Maiden concert, she’s probably a metalhead. At a climbing gym, she’s probably athletic and at least a little outdoorsey. Even if you just ran into her in a Starbucks, it’s still one Starbucks in one neighborhood, and she was there and not somewhere else for a reason. You’re filtering, but you’re filtering less on what she wrote in one of the little boxes and more on what you both bothered to show up for—which can actually end up being a stronger filter.
And if you talk to her for a couple minutes, you have more than that. That’s true on OKCupid, too, but striking up a conversation there is a stronger indicator of interest than it is in person, so people might be more reluctant to indulge it.
I think I referred as “comparative advantage” to something different from what you mean. I was speaking to the advantages of the person hitting on someone: all else being equal you should focus on fora where your skills come to play. If that forum is large enough (like OkCupid), I think it makes sense to focus on that exclusively. In any situation where you meet potential dates specific skills matter and some people are better than others.
For example, I’m at a strong comparative disadvantage when hitting on people on the subway because I have a really goofy accent that people don’t expect from my appearance and it lconfuses them. Someone who looks hot and has a great voice will do well on the subway without needing any context or background info on the person they are talking to.
My real life experience says otherwise, and there’s also the question of why women wouldn’t like their appearance to be appreciated despite spending a non-minor amount of their time on it.
The point isn’t that woman don’t like their appearance getting appreciated, it’s: (1) Opening a conversation that way signals a focus on physicality instead of getting to know them as a person. It signals only wanting sex. (2) If you wouldn’t find a girl “kinda cute” you wouldn’t ask her out. There no additional information communicated.
(1) Opening a conversation that way signals a focus on physicality instead of getting to know them as a person. It signals only wanting sex.
I’m using Mark Manson’s methodology* and I’ll just be lazy and quote him
At MarkManson.net, I encourage men to pursue women with honesty and
authenticity because this screens for women who are honest, authentic and
conscientious themselves, making for far better relationships.
In other words, telling a woman that she’s pretty and I’d like to get to know her is both about honesty and self-expression AND the woman herself.
Something feels quite wrong about the second statement though. It’s common knowledge that men want sex. Is there any harm in expressing yourself about it?
(2) If you wouldn’t find a girl “kinda cute” you wouldn’t ask her out. There no additional information communicated.
That’s quite general (if girl X didn’t Y then nothing) but I’ll break it down as I see it.
First of all, it implies at least one side believes there might be compatibility (far fetched, because there’s plenty of pretty women or I just have low standards) which is the first step toward anything. Surely nobody would do something they wouldn’t like, so we now have a minimal start. And compatibility aside it also satisfies the man = assertive thing that seems to be recommended by seemingly all dating advice (for men).
Second of all is to filter (perhaps harshly) women who aren’t comfortable with themselves. Now I think this will make people feel somewhat bad and disincluded but at some point in life you just have to take responsibility. This means putting some effort into yourself (and others in extent) and unless she’s really pretty it’s going to be difficult and annoying being reminded of how much of a pervert you or the book says you shouldn’t or (INF x possibilities). It’s understandable that not everyone will be comfortable with everything but it’s a change for the better in yourself. (So there’s no reason not to)
And third (coming from the second) is that it raises the question of WHEN should you express yourself? It gives the woman a (possibly unjust) ultimatum to decide about you. I personally don’t like this but the alternative—the wait-then doesn’t seem like a better idea.
Something feels quite wrong about the second statement though. It’s common knowledge that men want sex. Is there any harm in expressing yourself about it?
The question isn’t so much whether the man wants sex but whether he wants more than just sex. Whether he also wants an emotional relationship in addition to sex.
First of all, it implies at least one side believes there might be compatibility (far fetched, because there’s plenty of pretty women or I just have low standards) which is the first step toward anything.
The basic act for asking a woman out states that you believe there’s compatiblity.
In other words, telling a woman that she’s pretty and I’d like to get to know her is both about honesty and self-expression AND the woman herself.
It doesn’t express anything about you that’s different from other guys that approach her. It doesn’t express anything about her that makes her special as you are saying the same thing to plenty of woman.
A woman on a dating website get’s a lot of messages and if you are just like the other stereotypical man who want sex with her because you find her pretty.
Yes, you might only express that she’s exchangable and you don’t care about her in particular and any number of other pretty girls would be just as good as her, but that’s not what she wants to hear.
A first message thus should present you in a light that doesn’t make you seem like all the other guys who message her.
And third (coming from the second) is that it raises the question of WHEN should you express yourself?
In person good self expression is often about being in touch with the moment and expressing what you feel exactly when you feel it strongly.
I agree with what Christian is saying, but that doesn’t make Manson wrong either.
The difference is in the context. There’s a lot of nuance to it, but one big piece that hasn’t been mentioned yet is that saying things in person allows you use nonverbal communication to signal things you cannot signal in text.
A message like “You’re cute. I’d like to get to know you” opens you up to rejection, and a willingness to face this unafraid is attractive because it’s a fairly credible way of showing that you must have reason think you’re worthy of her—stuff like that. Online, anyone can shoot off a “You’re cute. I’d like to get to know you” without having to be able to back it up. Even if you can’t say with a straight face that you’re good enough, you can hit ctrl-v and send on the hope that she bites anyway—which is why the line won’t have the same oomph behind it as it can in person.
I would replace “thought you were kinda cute” with “thought you were really cool/interesting”, OkCupid’s data shows that women respond negatively to physical compliments.
I’ve never really tried using Facebook even though I have an active account with a good variety of people. I guess I don’t think that “we went to the same middle school together” is a better criterion for a match than “your profile shows we have a ton of things in common”. Also, if someone’s on a dating site you know that they’re actively looking, and the pool is much bigger.
If you are reaching out on FB to someone you’re really into, I would recommend again writing about a unique interest (‘Hey, I saw your dancing picture, is that Argentinian Tango?’) and not appearance. I assume that good looking women on FB get unsolicited messages a lot, you always want to start a conversation and show that you looked at more than their pretty face.
I might be overextending here but what would you say if I think OKC stuff is specific to OKC (and online dating sites specifically) and could not apply to other places?
Also, does OKC define “physical compliments” more precisely? My real life experience says otherwise, and there’s also the question of why women wouldn’t like their appearance to be appreciated despite spending a non-minor amount of their time on it.
Here’s the data.
As for reasons, I can only offer some speculation since I’m 0⁄2 on being hot and/or a woman. First of all, I also spend a non-negligible amount of time on my appearance and I like people who are into my humor/intellect/interests/personality and not my looks. Commenting on appearance can also seem vulgar or indicate that you’re only looking for sex. Finally, good looking women get complimented on their looks a lot, and not very beautiful women may be insecure about their appearance and question the sincerity of your compliments. I think this applies not just on OkCupid but in most online and offline situations.
Again, just speculating.
I don’t give out a lot of compliments in general. But when I do, I’ve had better luck complimenting people on appearance when it’s stuff they obviously chose and put effort into: a haircut; tattoos; choice in clothing. Few people like to be complimented on stuff they didn’t do anything for; many people like to be complimented on stuff they did.
(If you try clothing, though, be aware that “nice top” is likely to be read as “nice breasts”.)
There’s a difference: on OKC you can filter people based on whatever, in non-OKC situations you don’t have that information available to you. I only have the woman’s looks (and the women have a perv-o-meter) to notice.
Re-reading your article I think a better way to describe this is “approaches with comparative advantages” and “approaches without comparative advantages”.
You have context. If you meet a woman at a bar, she’s probably the kind of person that hangs out at bars. At an Iron Maiden concert, she’s probably a metalhead. At a climbing gym, she’s probably athletic and at least a little outdoorsey. Even if you just ran into her in a Starbucks, it’s still one Starbucks in one neighborhood, and she was there and not somewhere else for a reason. You’re filtering, but you’re filtering less on what she wrote in one of the little boxes and more on what you both bothered to show up for—which can actually end up being a stronger filter.
And if you talk to her for a couple minutes, you have more than that. That’s true on OKCupid, too, but striking up a conversation there is a stronger indicator of interest than it is in person, so people might be more reluctant to indulge it.
I think I referred as “comparative advantage” to something different from what you mean. I was speaking to the advantages of the person hitting on someone: all else being equal you should focus on fora where your skills come to play. If that forum is large enough (like OkCupid), I think it makes sense to focus on that exclusively. In any situation where you meet potential dates specific skills matter and some people are better than others.
For example, I’m at a strong comparative disadvantage when hitting on people on the subway because I have a really goofy accent that people don’t expect from my appearance and it lconfuses them. Someone who looks hot and has a great voice will do well on the subway without needing any context or background info on the person they are talking to.
The point isn’t that woman don’t like their appearance getting appreciated, it’s:
(1) Opening a conversation that way signals a focus on physicality instead of getting to know them as a person. It signals only wanting sex.
(2) If you wouldn’t find a girl “kinda cute” you wouldn’t ask her out. There no additional information communicated.
I’m using Mark Manson’s methodology* and I’ll just be lazy and quote him
In other words, telling a woman that she’s pretty and I’d like to get to know her is both about honesty and self-expression AND the woman herself.
Something feels quite wrong about the second statement though. It’s common knowledge that men want sex. Is there any harm in expressing yourself about it?
That’s quite general (if girl X didn’t Y then nothing) but I’ll break it down as I see it.
First of all, it implies at least one side believes there might be compatibility (far fetched, because there’s plenty of pretty women or I just have low standards) which is the first step toward anything. Surely nobody would do something they wouldn’t like, so we now have a minimal start. And compatibility aside it also satisfies the man = assertive thing that seems to be recommended by seemingly all dating advice (for men).
Second of all is to filter (perhaps harshly) women who aren’t comfortable with themselves. Now I think this will make people feel somewhat bad and disincluded but at some point in life you just have to take responsibility. This means putting some effort into yourself (and others in extent) and unless she’s really pretty it’s going to be difficult and annoying being reminded of how much of a pervert you or the book says you shouldn’t or (INF x possibilities). It’s understandable that not everyone will be comfortable with everything but it’s a change for the better in yourself. (So there’s no reason not to)
And third (coming from the second) is that it raises the question of WHEN should you express yourself? It gives the woman a (possibly unjust) ultimatum to decide about you. I personally don’t like this but the alternative—the wait-then doesn’t seem like a better idea.
http://markmanson.net/content/PDFs/Guide%20to%20Attract%20Women.pdf (There’s also his Models book if you’re looking for a more thorough read)
(also upvoted, can’t see why that’s at −1)
The question isn’t so much whether the man wants sex but whether he wants more than just sex. Whether he also wants an emotional relationship in addition to sex.
The basic act for asking a woman out states that you believe there’s compatiblity.
It doesn’t express anything about you that’s different from other guys that approach her. It doesn’t express anything about her that makes her special as you are saying the same thing to plenty of woman.
A woman on a dating website get’s a lot of messages and if you are just like the other stereotypical man who want sex with her because you find her pretty.
Yes, you might only express that she’s exchangable and you don’t care about her in particular and any number of other pretty girls would be just as good as her, but that’s not what she wants to hear.
A first message thus should present you in a light that doesn’t make you seem like all the other guys who message her.
In person good self expression is often about being in touch with the moment and expressing what you feel exactly when you feel it strongly.
Alright. I give up. I’m now convinced my methodology was bad. I should read a book.
Upvoted for updating my beliefs.
I agree with what Christian is saying, but that doesn’t make Manson wrong either.
The difference is in the context. There’s a lot of nuance to it, but one big piece that hasn’t been mentioned yet is that saying things in person allows you use nonverbal communication to signal things you cannot signal in text.
A message like “You’re cute. I’d like to get to know you” opens you up to rejection, and a willingness to face this unafraid is attractive because it’s a fairly credible way of showing that you must have reason think you’re worthy of her—stuff like that. Online, anyone can shoot off a “You’re cute. I’d like to get to know you” without having to be able to back it up. Even if you can’t say with a straight face that you’re good enough, you can hit ctrl-v and send on the hope that she bites anyway—which is why the line won’t have the same oomph behind it as it can in person.