Can science help?

[qu****]

Though some don't like to admit it but we are ***s🐁🐁

[ey****]

of course looking at data - a lot can depend on what you're looking for in the data.

if say...

you are a sub male, looking for Dominant female in and around your local area

If 500+ guys join in a week, we can disregard those who are not submissive, or not looking for a Dominant female - we can disregard those from other countries and continents - and probably most of them from the same country but live at distance 

then if there are many left, we can disregard those with poor profiles and poor messaging

It ends up that there's not really all that many new sign ups who are a threat.  

[qu****]

That's the thing with data and or statistics, it can mean what you read into it, take the euromillions here, they say it could be you, but we are told it's highly unlikely to be struck by lightning, even though that's four more times likely than winning the lottery 🤷

[ey****]

Haha - don't start me on lotteries and gambling

lotteries are one of the biggest scams going because only half the ticket *** goes into the prize pool - but people get swayed by the big jackpots.   If you started with £1 and guessed 5 correct roulette numbers in a row (putting all the winnings onto a number) you'd have £60m (I mean, you wouldn't as the casino would give you the table limit and send you on your way) but this is something which seems absurd to people.  

[qu****]

I remember once a few years ago on a garden show one of the stall holders we were friendly with was going around excited as he'd just won £500, on asking how long he'd done the lottery (years), we worked out and told him if he'd just saved the *** he'd of had around the £6000 mark, all we got rest of the weekend was "bastards" 😂😂😂 ( sorry for digressing ☺️)

[so****]

Exactly, men are straight up f***** trying to use dating apps lol the top 20% get the top 80% of women. So basically the top tier guys are getting almost all the women lol I never really have too much trouble, but I truly feel for that bottom 80% of men. This is how incels are created. The way women just ignore them as if they aren't even human is terrible for mental health.

[ey****]

It's a weird economy because the person is happy they have won the £500 - if someone else says "if you'd just put that *** in a jar you'd have £6000" it's possible a counter response could very much be "do you play the lotto?", "no", "OK, so where's your £6000?"

and that logic is transferable.  

But, no, lotteries are a false economy unless you win the jackpot - everyone else is a net loser.

-- 

I guess to tie it in with kink - if someone messages a lot of women, the percentage that reply will be low.  But if someone is only messaging people where there is a heightened chance of compatibility, the amount of responses will be higher. 

 

[Be****]

Excellent post. You seem to have an informed opinion I like informed opinions whether I agree with them or not. I want to respond to the whole thing but time restrictions may cause me to break my response into several post. SCIENCE can most definitely help with this situation. This is a perfect example this post will bring those capable of critical thinking out of the shadows where we can see them. I am an outspoken out of the closet sapiosexual This post stiffened my resolve enough to send my existential crisis back into remission. Then I looked Charilias is a bald male same as me that extinguished that flame. That’s my limitation I’ve learned to live with it. I didn’t ask to be straight I was born this way.

Thanks for compiling those numbers. They sound like better ratios than one could expect in non kink sites. 1 to 5 or 1 - 15 Doesnt matter much to most men. This site’s intention is to help people find people compatible with Their kink. That has to exacerbate those odds considerably. That’s okay to. Where else can you provide a list of kinks to be window shopped? If males don’t like those odds all they have to do is sign up at one of many sugar baby sites. I have heard from no one I would consider credible that the most infamous of those sites has a 7 to 1 sugar baby to sugar daddy ratio. I live in Fort Worth Tx  I recently did a filtered search for distance from down town Forth Worth inside of 15 mile radius there 24,000 female profiles.

That is a better numbers game but women there don’t disclose their kinks. You have to ask. That can reduce your success rate by itself

Biologically Monogamous I don’t agree. I’m just a laymen so anything I know is self taught. This is a discussion not a debate though. What I know about that I learned from the collection of lectures on Human Behavioral Biology by Dr Robert Sapolsky of Stanford University. I haven’t watched the entire collection but I’ve made a good dent in them. I am very casual in how I watch them too. I don’t take nots and so far there hasn’t been a quiz. Dr Sapolsky is a brilliant MF. That can’t not be denied. I went back for a quick refresher on Monogamy. I think lifetime monogamy in humans is exceptionally rare. There social monogamy which is different from sexual monogamy. Social monogamy is what’s on display for everyone unlike sexual monogamy. He cited a couple of studies one of which collected dna of new Norns and both parents. It was conducted in unnamed Western European countries where depending on the country between 10 and 40% of children are gathered by someone not part of the marriage. Humans are more likely serial monogamist in 2 to 4 year cycles roughly the same amount of time that newborns are the most in need of constant parenting. I didn’t hear him give his opinion which way evolution is taking us. Social monogamy is maybe on the rise. I read millennials are having less sex than any generation for the last 60 years. My personal experience isn’t 60 years but it is in its mid 40sv it’s my humble opinion that most of the younger women available to men my age are nowhere nearly as freaky As they’re grandmothers. I’ve stopped telling them that. It wasn’t going over well. 

[kb****]

Frost bite 😂 the dangerous of exposed dicks

[kb****]

Data nerd😍 love it.

[Deleted Member]

35 minutes ago, kbenhavn188 said:

Frost bite 😂 the dangerous of exposed dicks

That made me laugh as well. 

The best analogy for me was the cold calling comment by @Lady_Char 

*Tips hat to both 

[ey****]

I had a little look into the whole 80/20 thing

Interestingly if you google 80 20 dating rule you get a whole bunch of different stats related to 80/20 - it's like someone really liked those numbers and liked to apply them everywhere.  And similar comes from capitalism (that 20% of the population own 80% of the wealth)

The Pareto Principle is worth further reading.

But still.

With regard to dating it was something that was attributed to a tinder study - and referring to swipes : that it was deemed 20% of the men were receiving 80% of the swipes from women (I'd be interested to know how this relates the other way round) but we don't know what makes those 20% stand out.  Whether it was a better profile, nicer picture, or whatever.

And while "top 20%" seems unobtainable it is simply 1 in 5.  When you start removing those with no/poor profile or profile picture you automatically start to climb the ranks.  There are probably men in this "top 20%" who don't actually realise it.  

And of course while this is just based on swipes - the men have every opportunity to blow this when swapping messages. Which could be simply between their then approach/attitude or simply not being compatible.  It's numbers that on the whole don't actually mean a lot, if anything, if "top 20%" get "80% of the attention" then it's actually saying this is really easy to get a lot of attention because you just have to rise above the basic dross.

--

And of course what's also different is this was applied to tinder and matches where someone is making a judgement based on just a picture and a basic bio - which doesn't really apply a lot to either "real world" dating, or, other sites where there are more/different opportunities to make an impression. 

[charlias]

1 hour ago, kbenhavn188 said:

Data nerd😍 love it.

Yep :) numbers are fun haha

[charlias]

1 hour ago, eyemblacksheep said:

I had a little look into the whole 80/20 thing

Interestingly if you google 80 20 dating rule you get a whole bunch of different stats related to 80/20 - it's like someone really liked those numbers and liked to apply them everywhere.  And similar comes from capitalism (that 20% of the population own 80% of the wealth)

The Pareto Principle is worth further reading.

But still.

With regard to dating it was something that was attributed to a tinder study - and referring to swipes : that it was deemed 20% of the men were receiving 80% of the swipes from women (I'd be interested to know how this relates the other way round) but we don't know what makes those 20% stand out.  Whether it was a better profile, nicer picture, or whatever.

And while "top 20%" seems unobtainable it is simply 1 in 5.  When you start removing those with no/poor profile or profile picture you automatically start to climb the ranks.  There are probably men in this "top 20%" who don't actually realise it.  

And of course while this is just based on swipes - the men have every opportunity to blow this when swapping messages. Which could be simply between their then approach/attitude or simply not being compatible.  It's numbers that on the whole don't actually mean a lot, if anything, if "top 20%" get "80% of the attention" then it's actually saying this is really easy to get a lot of attention because you just have to rise above the basic dross.

--

And of course what's also different is this was applied to tinder and matches where someone is making a judgement based on just a picture and a basic bio - which doesn't really apply a lot to either "real world" dating, or, other sites where there are more/different opportunities to make an impression. 

Its an interesting fractal ratio that one. It seems to span everything from the habits of people businesses volume of lakes, mass of stars and black holes. Weird...

[Gidorra]

Science is a process for uncovering facts about nature and its laws, while trying to exclude human bias in doing so, in an attempt to arrive at objective results. So I think you are asking too much of this poor little word and it really only is plain old statistics  

I think dating online, like in the real world, is very much based on the love-on-first-sight principle. You don't read 3 pages of profile content and only following that take a look at the pictures - which is when you figure that you are not in to one-legged midgets from Bosnia or some such...

So I think all this empty-profile talk is over-rated. For example, unrelated to an ad, I got mail by a lady at that other kink site a few days ago. She was very opinionated regarding what she wants and who should even bother contacting her etc bla-bla... Now, I have an empty profile over there, so I should not have qualified by any of her standards. So obviously she liked my pics and immediately threw all of her lengthy dating directions out the window... that is how that works IRL as well - you do not chat up people in a pub to ask them for their autobiography first, either. It will be the result of a near instant visual assessment. We all know how to read people, isn't it.

Also, especially with kinky dating, many people keep their profiles empty on purpose, because they *** detection by colleagues, family or whatever... that seems to be understood by everyone on the scene.

It is well known that if someone likes your face, all that bla-bla you may have written at your profile, or not, hardly matters at all. If we see someone who appeals to our eyes, we drop them a line and the rest can be sorted out later... so I think a lot of this dating stuff has been over-thought in many ways, people read too much in to it while trying to make sense of their situation or the dating circus as a whole. In the end I think it is not all that complicated - if we see an interesting/cool/hot whatever person according to our personal standards, we often stop caring about all those fine-grained details rather quickly, they can go out the window like 1-2-3, isn't it? 

So what is left? It seems there are simply not very many ladies on here in general, which does not get better if you are looking for someone within a reasonable distance. As far as I am concerned, the results are near-static, I basically see the same 20 profiles every day - and that's already a 100 mile radius. That is the problem, not that my profile is empty or that I am too handsome for this world  Don't tell me you see that super hot chick but will not write to her because her profile is empty... yeah right.

[qu****]

Genetic dating is now a thing apparently, as well as the normal stuff some sites seem to have sprung up where you have a genetic test done and then matched apparently appropriately, whilst I personally can't see it working I know there will end up being thousands clamouring to sign up, even though the DNA tests done by ancestry sites have been shown not to be, let's say as accurate as claimed, some groups have tested this and over a one year period discovered the results came back different each time they did them

[kb****]

3 hours ago, Gidorra said:

Science is a process for uncovering facts about nature and its laws, while trying to exclude human bias in doing so, in an attempt to arrive at objective results. So I think you are asking too much of this poor little word and it really only is plain old statistics  

I think dating online, like in the real world, is very much based on the love-on-first-sight principle. You don't read 3 pages of profile content and only following that take a look at the pictures - which is when you figure that you are not in to one-legged midgets from Bosnia or some such...

So I think all this empty-profile talk is over-rated. For example, unrelated to an ad, I got mail by a lady at that other kink site a few days ago. She was very opinionated regarding what she wants and who should even bother contacting her etc bla-bla... Now, I have an empty profile over there, so I should not have qualified by any of her standards. So obviously she liked my pics and immediately threw all of her lengthy dating directions out the window... that is how that works IRL as well - you do not chat up people in a pub to ask them for their autobiography first, either. It will be the result of a near instant visual assessment. We all know how to read people, isn't it.

Also, especially with kinky dating, many people keep their profiles empty on purpose, because they *** detection by colleagues, family or whatever... that seems to be understood by everyone on the scene.

It is well known that if someone likes your face, all that bla-bla you may have written at your profile, or not, hardly matters at all. If we see someone who appeals to our eyes, we drop them a line and the rest can be sorted out later... so I think a lot of this dating stuff has been over-thought in many ways, people read too much in to it while trying to make sense of their situation or the dating circus as a whole. In the end I think it is not all that complicated - if we see an interesting/cool/hot whatever person according to our personal standards, we often stop caring about all those fine-grained details rather quickly, they can go out the window like 1-2-3, isn't it? 

So what is left? It seems there are simply not very many ladies on here in general, which does not get better if you are looking for someone within a reasonable distance. As far as I am concerned, the results are near-static, I basically see the same 20 profiles every day - and that's already a 100 mile radius. That is the problem, not that my profile is empty or that I am too handsome for this world  Don't tell me you see that super hot chick but will not write to her because her profile is empty... yeah right.

For me, a long term partner requires more research. Yes, I will read their profile and decipher if he’s a decent human with a good head on their shoulders.

Kink dates on the other hand, my standards are different. I’m looking for an experience that I haven’t tried, want to try or my partner won’t do— with a safe and reasonable person.

So maybe, I’m just idealistic, but I prefer substance over looks, and actually, the best sex I’ve had, I wasn’t initially attracted physically to the guys in the first place. So— keeping an open mind may allow you something more attraction than just looks.

Of course looks helps, but I find the longer playmates become more attractive to me over time.

You know the crazy hot scale? That theory is flawed. I think it’s more like the amount of orgasms, memorable experiences, and emotions makes guys crazy hot to me 😉

[charlias]

1 hour ago, quietlysure said:

Genetic dating is now a thing apparently, as well as the normal stuff some sites seem to have sprung up where you have a genetic test done and then matched apparently appropriately, whilst I personally can't see it working I know there will end up being thousands clamouring to sign up, even though the DNA tests done by ancestry sites have been shown not to be, let's say as accurate as claimed, some groups have tested this and over a one year period discovered the results came back different each time they did them

I had a fleeting idea for movie, a bit like that, never gave it too much thought but genetics would fill the tech side. Basically, someone in a perfectly good loving relationship, downloads an app that matches people so perfectly, it will find your "one". The then story tracks the ruin of the current relationship and so on till we conclude with the Hollywood happy ending.

[Gidorra]

53 minutes ago, kbenhavn188 said:

For me, a long term partner requires more research. Yes, I will read their profile and decipher if he’s a decent human with a good head on their shoulders.

Kink dates on the other hand, my standards are different. I’m looking for an experience that I haven’t tried, want to try or my partner won’t do— with a safe and reasonable person.

So maybe, I’m just idealistic, but I prefer substance over looks, and actually, the best sex I’ve had, I wasn’t initially attracted physically to the guys in the first place. So— keeping an open mind may allow you something more attraction than just looks.

Of course looks helps, but I find the longer playmates become more attractive to me over time.

You know the crazy hot scale? That theory is flawed. I think it’s more like the amount of orgasms, memorable experiences, and emotions makes guys crazy hot to me 😉

I didn't say it is only the looks, but it certainly often is the catalyser. It makes you want to talk to people, or not, and of course you still have to click with a person. Kinky matters are highly personal/private matters to many, everybody here knows that, so only because one does not plaster their profile with their intimate needs, does not mean that you are open to chat about them in private. Anyway, of course we can have different opinions about that, I just wanted to clarify it.

Btw, women, too, should make an effort to say more than just "hi!" - I do get a lot of that and that is more of a downer for me than an empty profile.

[qu****]

Technically humans are naturally polygamous, the same as the majority of all mammals, but with the advent of society we evolved monogamous tendencies, primarily to protect offspring in emerging group settings, as for blind ovulation, males could detect ovulation through pheromones and slight changes in behaviour, breast swelling and such, though it is possibly now a forgotten trait, as for women studies have shown that even though a woman desires a kind, gentle partner, at ovulation there is a marked increase of desiring in effect a "bad boy", akin to when mates were chosen as to who was most able to protect and provide food

[ca****]

Pure geeky aside beginning with “well actually….”:

Humans are weird in the *** kingdom in that, in all societies, women also compete and do the plumage thing, a lot, and in some aspects much more obviously and intensely than men, and men have strong preferences between women. I believe that this is probably related to the exceptionally long period of infancy, that meant Porto human females got stuck with this *** infant, and could really do with a male to help out consistently, so selected for loyalty and love, as well as general fitness. So with females evolving to want devotion, and therefore consuming more and more of one male’s time, males couldn’t spread their time indiscriminately between females, and had to evolve to be picky about where their courtship and relationship time went, just like females had always had to be picky. This meant females evolved a strong incentive to stand out in their attractiveness, just like males. The difference is that men still have a strong incentive to get in there for a quickie with any female wherever possible, while simultaneously playing the long game with the most desired and picky women, whereas women have never had any evolutionary incentive to want a meaningless quickie.

There’s also the near-monogamy aspect. The more monogamous a species is, the more the males and females resemble each other (look at swans). Monogamous make ***s do not have remotely crazy plumage. Evidence suggests that proto humans were evolving in a monogamous direction (males became less monstrously bigger than females over the millennia, and balls got smaller as there was less chance of encountering competing male sperm in the same) which I think meant less intense inter-male competition.

[pa****]

.... I didn’t read everything but your missing a point or two of relevant data

[pa****]

Gender is not disclosed often now