Are we forgetting how to open the box?

[an****]

I'm running so many overlapping ideas Schroedinger, Beridan (modified), Calhoun, tech, AI, time, options (financial), and a few others. This applies to dating, kink, roles, and choosing something that isn't perfect instead of endless search.

Are we becoming good at finding potential while practicing the exact skills that make choosing and maintaining a relationship more difficult?

Or are we just creating longer pathways to more curated version of relationships that can become more than 'settling for good enough'?

[3E****]

It’s a race to the bottom where it feels like no one truly engages with anything anymore.

[Ne****]

We've become choosier and pickier based on people's self marketing skills. Yes that sucks, because people are either much more interesting than they appear on the surface or much less than they want to appear to be.
There are risks involved in dealing with total strangers, too.
The problem is exacerbated because originality is tossed out in favor of what works.
But at the same time, expressing yourself means to make yourself more ***. Some people will mock it endlessly and heartlessly to zero consequence.
If we want to break the cycle, we need to become kinder, more honest, and less judgemental.

[ey****]

I feel... while there are people who allow "good" to be the enemy of "perfect" - there's always an issue of people settling for "good enough" that overall leaves them unsatisfied

Similarly, no one can be content being made to feel like a "you'll do" 

and, well, you can't fall in love with 'potential' 

The kinda biggest shift really is people no longer feel like they HAVE to have a partner, and no longer feeling like they have to stick with a relationship which isn't working in the hope things 'get better'.   

Like, how often do we see people on these sites or similar where it's like "I've been with my partner 10, 20, years and... they won't do kink with me... or won't do this" and deep down something they passed at good enough 10, 20 years ago came down to bite them down the line and maybe there's more stuff like property and family involved now 

[an****]

10 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

I feel... while there are people who allow "good" to be the enemy of "perfect" - there's always an issue of people settling for "good enough" that overall leaves them unsatisfied

Similarly, no one can be content being made to feel like a "you'll do" 

and, well, you can't fall in love with 'potential' 

The kinda biggest shift really is people no longer feel like they HAVE to have a partner, and no longer feeling like they have to stick with a relationship which isn't working in the hope things 'get better'.   

Like, how often do we see people on these sites or similar where it's like "I've been with my partner 10, 20, years and... they won't do kink with me... or won't do this" and deep down something they passed at good enough 10, 20 years ago came down to bite them down the line and maybe there's more stuff like property and family involved now 

"you can't fall in love with potential", hold my beer 🤣

[ey****]

13 minutes ago, anotherusername said:

 

"you can't fall in love with potential", hold my beer 🤣

it's something which is somewhat flawed

Because the person is then projecting and falling in love with the idea of what they hope the other person will be; rather than who they are right in front of them

It sets up for disappointment when they don't fit the fantasy projected upon them.

 

[Co****]

Women don't have to put in any effort because regardless what they post, they'll get tons of replies. Men don't put in any effort because the likelihood of getting a reply is so low, so they spam the same low-effort opening to many profiles. It's a catch-22. Once in a rare while you'll read one with some actual personality and you take your chance, otherwise it's largely a numbers game. The amount of times women have messaged me asking questions I already answered in my (usually) brief bio is disheartening.

[SJ****]

6 minutes ago, Coffee_enthusiast said:

Women don't have to put in any effort because regardless what they post, they'll get tons of replies. Men don't put in any effort because the likelihood of getting a reply is so low, so they spam the same low-effort opening to many profiles. It's a catch-22. Once in a rare while you'll read one with some actual personality and you take your chance, otherwise it's largely a numbers game. The amount of times women have messaged me asking questions I already answered in my (usually) brief bio is disheartening.

I get the catch-22, but the numbers-game approach also helps create it.

If you assume most people won't reply, send the same low-effort opener to everyone, and they can feel that immediately, the response rate probably stays low. That doesn't mean every message needs to be customized just for them. Just show you actually noticed the person.

And women asking questions already answered in your bio is the same problem in reverse. Low effort is low effort. It's not really a gendered defense so much as a dating-app culture problem.

[Ja****]

👍

[an****]

I'll concede your definition of potential. If I say 'I love your potential', I'm technically loving a version of a person that doesn't exist yet. That is projection.

How about choosing them where they are while believing there is room to grow together? What's that?

[an****]

3 hours ago, Coffee_enthusiast said:

Women don't have to put in any effort because regardless what they post, they'll get tons of replies. Men don't put in any effort because the likelihood of getting a reply is so low, so they spam the same low-effort opening to many profiles. It's a catch-22. Once in a rare while you'll read one with some actual personality and you take your chance, otherwise it's largely a numbers game. The amount of times women have messaged me asking questions I already answered in my (usually) brief bio is disheartening.

You did not say, women don't put in any effort, I appreciate that. That keeps this civil.

I also know that an empty profile that says female on it will be flooded with messages and views. Like a dish of food around puppies 😋.

All my interactions came from one genuine message that was a paragraph long love bombing someone who I absolutely adored 🤗 and it was all truthful, and I only message people I could see as a life long partner, even on here, I don't talk to anyone I wouldn't see as wife material even if they live thousands of miles away. That is my rule.

Your reply was written generally so I will ask these questions generally.

Why continue to spam if spamming doesn't work? Does it work sometimes?

If you're limited to one introductory message why waste it on spam? If you're going to be spending time on this site anyways what is stopping people from taking time and writing a intentional introduction or interacting in the topics and getting to know people a little bit before sending them a direct message?

Personally I will ask you what is disheartening about being chosen in this pool and asked a question that was answered in your profile? Is it the disproportionate effort?

Can a woman chime in on why they might not take time to go through a profile?

[Deleted Member]

Ive had a 37% return rate from the real the app accounts are generally easy to avoid, be honest, incorporate their profile into your responses.

Its amazing what actual thought generates

[Deleted Member]

Oh and, every single response after viewing my profile has engaged in conversation and as of this moment, several want to meet for an initial "greet" to see if the click that we feel is still there when in person.

I expect 20-25% fall off, leaving a decent grouping. And thats from a 49 yo, 5'7", 205lb, dude who works as a social worker,

Everything is possible, you have to put the work in and be honest about what you want, need, and expect

[xl****]

3 hours ago, arizonaconsentingfun said:

Oh and, every single response after viewing my profile has engaged in conversation and as of this moment, several want to meet for an initial "greet" to see if the click that we feel is still there when in person.

I expect 20-25% fall off, leaving a decent grouping. And thats from a 49 yo, 5'7", 205lb, dude who works as a social worker,

Everything is possible, you have to put the work in and be honest about what you want, need, and expect

Your profile bio is fantastic by the way. I'm into guys too and yours is the sort of profile I'd message for. The way you've written it shows maturity, intelligence, and respect, kudos.

[ey****]

9 hours ago, Coffee_enthusiast said:

Women don't have to put in any effort because regardless what they post, they'll get tons of replies. Men don't put in any effort because the likelihood of getting a reply is so low, so they spam the same low-effort opening to many profiles

So we're saying the problem is men.  Agreed. 

[ey****]

8 hours ago, anotherusername said:

I'll concede your definition of potential. If I say 'I love your potential', I'm technically loving a version of a person that doesn't exist yet. That is projection.

How about choosing them where they are while believing there is room to grow together? What's that?

Yeah, that's different for sure.   I think there's often different stages within relationship and that even if someone is looking for a long term relationship the acceptance that most relationships are short.  Perhaps in the first meetings the question is "can I see myself meeting them again" and then after a few months can be "can I see myself with them in the long term?" cos the no in the first meetings is when stuff stops at first dates, the no after the few months is when most relationships end the so called 'honeymoon' period.

[Ne****]

10 hours ago, Coffee_enthusiast said:

Women don't have to put in any effort because regardless what they post, they'll get tons of replies. Men don't put in any effort because the likelihood of getting a reply is so low, so they spam the same low-effort opening to many profiles. It's a catch-22. Once in a rare while you'll read one with some actual personality and you take your chance, otherwise it's largely a numbers game. The amount of times women have messaged me asking questions I already answered in my (usually) brief bio is disheartening.

I wouldn't say women don't have to put forth effort on dating sites. We just often have to deal with an onslaught of low-effort messages.

Even with the time and effort I've put into my profile, I still get low-effort messages, blatant copy-and-pastes, or just a "Hey." I've put effort into describing who I am, what I'm looking for, and what I'm not looking for. My profile has been modified, updated, and fleshed out many times to make sure it's accurate and clear.

And despite all that, I still get messages from guys who are way outside my range of interest. But I still take the time to look at every damn one of them. Yes, I probably don't respond to 75% of them, but I still read the message, take a ***k at the profile, and make a decision about whether there's any potential there.

So, yes, there's a lot of effort on women's part. Maybe it's not always the same kind of effort men are putting in, but it's still effort. Or at least some of us are putting it in.

[Ro****]

Maybe "opening the box" means something different depending on your history. If you've already opened a box that looked "good enough" on paper but ended up making both partners unhappy, you learn to look for different metrics. For me, it's not about over-analyzing options, it's about knowing that true connection has to add to my peace, not disrupt it.

[Deleted Member]

18 hours ago, Coffee_enthusiast said:

Women don't have to put in any effort because regardless what they post, they'll get tons of replies. Men don't put in any effort because the likelihood of getting a reply is so low, so they spam the same low-effort opening to many profiles. It's a catch-22. Once in a rare while you'll read one with some actual personality and you take your chance, otherwise it's largely a numbers game. The amount of times women have messaged me asking questions I already answered in my (usually) brief bio is disheartening.

Oh it is funny how many women don’t read the bio and yet complain no one us reading their bio first…🤣😂

[ey****]

34 minutes ago, SuperVenture said:

 

Oh it is funny how many women don’t read the bio and yet complain no one us reading their bio first…🤣😂

Not really.  The ones complaining that you don't read bios aren't typically the ones messaging.

But particularly... when they haven't read your bio is it annoying? A waste of your time? Go nowhere? Then it just backs up the importance of reading bios

Mind, in my experience. Excluding those who just want a chat (nowt wrong with that) the majority who have contacted me and not read my bio are usually either spam or scammers and blatantly so.  

[Al****]

You are hitting on the exact paradox of modern intimacy. We have become master curators, treating potential connection like financial options or data points to be optimized. We keep the box closed because a closed box holds the infinite, flawless potential of Schrödinger’s cat—or in this case, a perfect, simulated partner.

But algorithms cannot solve for the physical and emotional reality of human connection because they operate on optimization, whereas true intimacy, especially sexual and kink-oriented intimacy, thrives on the unoptimizable. An algorithm can match preferences, keywords, and curated profiles, but it can never calculate the chemical friction of two bodies in a room, the messy vulnerability of shedding roles, or the raw, unpredictable somatic tension that makes a physical connection meaningful.

By practicing the skill of endless filtration, we aren't learning how to choose; we are learning how to reject. We are building hyper-curated, longer pathways that simulate progress while actually insulating us from the terrifying, imperfect reality of being truly seen by another person. Real chemistry isn't "settling for good enough"—it is the willingness to open the box, abandon the safety of the predictive model, and engage with the beautiful, chaotic friction of a real, physical human being.

[an****]

5 hours ago, AlexStormOffical said:

You are hitting on the exact paradox of modern intimacy. We have become master curators, treating potential connection like financial options or data points to be optimized. We keep the box closed because a closed box holds the infinite, flawless potential of Schrödinger’s cat—or in this case, a perfect, simulated partner.

But algorithms cannot solve for the physical and emotional reality of human connection because they operate on optimization, whereas true intimacy, especially sexual and kink-oriented intimacy, thrives on the unoptimizable. An algorithm can match preferences, keywords, and curated profiles, but it can never calculate the chemical friction of two bodies in a room, the messy vulnerability of shedding roles, or the raw, unpredictable somatic tension that makes a physical connection meaningful.

By practicing the skill of endless filtration, we aren't learning how to choose; we are learning how to reject. We are building hyper-curated, longer pathways that simulate progress while actually insulating us from the terrifying, imperfect reality of being truly seen by another person. Real chemistry isn't "settling for good enough"—it is the willingness to open the box, abandon the safety of the predictive model, and engage with the beautiful, chaotic friction of a real, physical human being.

This branch is something interesting.

With the integration of AI and the ability to create 'memories' (Christmas morning, beach vacation, intimacy, etc.) with a single photo in some cases.

We know people can form attractions to unmet celebrities, or form relationships with people by only living in their social media, so it is safe to assume a curated digital interactive character would be an easy transition. That covers the visual and auditory senses along with quite a few emotional dynamics.

If this robot 🤖 and companion technology advances (as tech does). At what point do we create options that drive our humanity into second place? Are we there now with our ability to 'trade up' real people at our first inconvenience?

What are the long term effects or assumed dangers of these practices? How do we avoid these traps?

What happens when someone no longer has to open the box to 'experience' the infinite possibilities? What happens when losing the possibilities is more ***ful than the reward of choice?

Now I don't expect a machine or digital partner to ever replace the thrill of power exchange or respond to impact appropriately or the multitudes of wonderful attributes each living person brings to a dynamic. It is just all very interesting 🤔 and you don't know what you don't know. So, if you never experience 'real play' how would you know the difference? Maybe there's some insight baked into this question about why we have so many 'fake' this or that too?

[SJ****]

12 hours ago, AlexStormOffical said:

You are hitting on the exact paradox of modern intimacy. We have become master curators, treating potential connection like financial options or data points to be optimized. We keep the box closed because a closed box holds the infinite, flawless potential of Schrödinger’s cat—or in this case, a perfect, simulated partner.

But algorithms cannot solve for the physical and emotional reality of human connection because they operate on optimization, whereas true intimacy, especially sexual and kink-oriented intimacy, thrives on the unoptimizable. An algorithm can match preferences, keywords, and curated profiles, but it can never calculate the chemical friction of two bodies in a room, the messy vulnerability of shedding roles, or the raw, unpredictable somatic tension that makes a physical connection meaningful.

By practicing the skill of endless filtration, we aren't learning how to choose; we are learning how to reject. We are building hyper-curated, longer pathways that simulate progress while actually insulating us from the terrifying, imperfect reality of being truly seen by another person. Real chemistry isn't "settling for good enough"—it is the willingness to open the box, abandon the safety of the predictive model, and engage with the beautiful, chaotic friction of a real, physical human being.

I think I get what you're saying. But it's not a choice between filters or chemistry, that's a false dichotomy. Filters just get you to the door. Chemistry is what happens when you knock walk through. Meeting is in between, whatever that means for those involved. So yeah, endless scrolling can be an avoidance thing, but it's not the same as saying that all filtering is ***. Sometimes it's just knowing your needs.

[Wa****]

Wednesday at 04:48 PM, Deleted profile said:

Oh it is funny how many women don’t read the bio and yet complain no one us reading their bio first…🤣😂

I actually prefer to read bios first. however my bio doesn't quite match my dom guide, which is still in construction because of cross referencing, also I'm getting particularly annoyed with men coming on here without doing their research. I may have Psychiatric issues but what part of that says I'm easy! a relationship and bond must be established first! coming back into the dating pool after 17 years of a crappy marriage, and talking to guys thinking is sex all they care about? what ever happened to intellectual conversation and getting to know people!?! so I have some kink. the kink is less important than the bond.

[ja****]

5 hours ago, Warriors_Heart112 said:

I actually prefer to read bios first. however my bio doesn't quite match my dom guide, which is still in construction because of cross referencing, also I'm getting particularly annoyed with men coming on here without doing their research. I may have Psychiatric issues but what part of that says I'm easy! a relationship and bond must be established first! coming back into the dating pool after 17 years of a crappy marriage, and talking to guys thinking is sex all they care about? what ever happened to intellectual conversation and getting to know people!?! so I have some kink. the kink is less important than the bond.

I've been online dating on and off for over 26 years, I was an early adopter I was out there from the time of Hot or Not AOL chat rooms Yahoo personals. And I've watched as women have become more and more impatient and intolerant of anyone who doesn't say the perfect things. Women by and large act like nobility. They say goofy things like I don't owe you an answer not responding is an answer you're not entitled to my time and it's like well okay duchess what do you want from me