>As online dating has become the norm, this causes a drought for a larger portion of men than before.

From my own experience, it's impossible for me to find a date on Tinder. No matter how much time I spend on profile pictures or crafting bios.

On the other hand in face to face interaction it's not a problem.

From my experience women are more choosy online when they only have data (height, salary, picture). For in person interaction talking, physical interaction (e.g. dancing), energy, smile etc. have more weight.

Tinder became impossible for me too. Take a look into Hinge. The demographic is a lot more focussed and fewer people use it. If you at least ostensibly fit the demographic, then you'll have a big chance.

Sadly I had a different problem on Hinge. Lots of dates with physically very attractive girls, but nothing to talk about. That is not necessarily a problem, but it does make things difficult, at least given how I work. Obviously well educated, well connected, stable, attractive and interesting girls (and actually guys) have no need for online dating anyway.

I was left quite confused as to why they were meeting up with me, and I was quite open about my educational background and interests on my profile. It's also not the case that I have a terribly out of this world salary that I could imply or was implying in my profile.

A few years ago I was getting consistent success through Tinder. It was pretty much my main source. Growing up, your age puts you into a different set of priorities which you are measured by.

I did notice a lot of questions recently about my living situation. Personally I prefer to pay less, live with others and save up. I've always preferred independence. However I might now be entering the demographic where it's expected that I pay for a place on my own. I have been pressed multiple times in the past to move into somewhere on my own by girls who would not be able to afford the same for themselves.

The fact stands that Tinder and Hinge give girls easy short-term access to the guy who doesn't even need to save up. Forget earnings, Adonis is a swipe away too. It's either a blessing or a curse depending on where you stand.

However much song and dance either side likes to make over dating, both sides know the deal, and you're not meeting up just to chew the fat. I've decided to cut my losses and focus on other things for now.

> I did notice a lot of questions recently about my living situation.

Don't sweat it. We are not all Zuckerbergs. You don't have to get your own place in anticipation of finding someone. As you mentioned, its the woman without a place that is very concern. Even though, I live on my own & have my own car. While dating, I initially say that I live with my parents & don't have a ride. More than 10 matches, unmatched me. I am not a chauffeur or bed & b'fast place.

I do the same. I also usually tell girls I'm fat and generally try and make the conversation bad as well. /s

I'm not sure why you would think a car and place are unreasonable ways to judge how attractive someone is.

I agree! As a man, you're in for a really hard dating life (and life in general as a result) if you're relying on these apps. Meeting women in person, an increasingly rare opportunity, is far more likely to result in a positive outcome.

At some level I hold the apps them selves responsible. I think they create some kind of negative loop in the dating world. I don't believe the results of these apps are a net positive for society but my perception is colored.

It's not a negative loop at all. This is now how the market works. The task is to be aware of how it works and to use it to your advantage as far as you can.

I mean yeah, you can exploit it to your benefit by going full pickup artist with your profile(s) but that's a) a lot of work if you're just trying to get normal dates and b) generally frowned upon in polite society.

Going full pickup artist does not generally work if you are physically unattractive (mainly based on face and height if you go by what various studies have shown). Dating apps have utterly decimated dating for a big percentage of the young population - that did not win the genetic lottery - and exposed various strong biases and conditioning in the female sex [1].

The following was deleted since many expressed fears that it would further fuel "incel culture" not to mention it's bad for business, but I managed to find it on archive.org.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170330131859/https://theblog.o...

That's quite an interesting analysis. On OKCupid women shift their attractiveness expectations only slightly ahead of the curve when compared with men. OKCupid is generally accepted to be more of a long-term thing than the alternatives. I predict that this does not apply to Tinder and Hinge.

Bear in mind that that post was 2009, and Tinder launched in 2012.

This isn't about whether you go full peacock fedora pickup artist. The thing I would like to emphasise is that each side knows the deal. Women are provably better at festooning the deal in the presence of other men, but the deal remains. This includes "normal" dates.

I can't know what sort of girls you are generally around, but I was with a group of girls the other night, who were comparing their recent Tinder matches and fucks with each other. They were not talking any differently about the guys they'd met to how men are generally portrayed to talk about women, including size appraisals of varied body parts.

On the polite society comment, each gender is just as calculating as the other. From my experience, this fact does not change particularly based on education level, though the festooning around it might well.

A girl who really has no prospects of a quick fuck might indeed be more inclined to settle for what you would be implying with a normal date. The same goes for for guys in a similar bracket as well.

It's also bad if you're actually interested in finding someone to actually date seriously. Do you want someone who falls for your act?

Kundera: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughable_Loves

Nietzsche: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24702467-aphorisms-on-lo...

Houellebecq: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomised

Bukowski: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38500.Women

Kundera: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unbearable_Lightness_of_Be...

I appreciate the reading list, but wouldn't mind more clarity. Why do you suggest these readings in particular?

Anyhow, I've only read Women from the list. The book seemed to be a male perspective about women. Bukowski doesn't know why they prefer what they do, or why he would be attractive to them. He doesn't know how to get involved with them without some degree of harm or drama either. A great book, but how do you feel it relates to the conversation at hand?

These books have reinforced my belief that all relationships are transactional. Why should romantic relationships be the exception? They have reinforced my belief that romance is something made up by guys for guys, that women gladly play into the romantic ideal to their own ends, and that by focussing on finding an interesting woman to date seriously as an end in itself, you lose that woman. It’s a lost cause. I don’t mean this negatively or positively.

I think that's cynical and incorrect. Charles Bukowski's Women is not an example of a normal relationship.

By a vague enough definition, all relationships are "transactional." Both parties can intellectualize their feelings and point to what they get out of it, and both parties can point to a theoretical breaking point, where the transaction no longer has any benefit.

But, when most people say "transactional" they mean something a bit different: that the relationship is devoid of genuine emotion, and instead based on some selfish benefit, such as money or shelter. I think you're equivocating the two here. Real, genuine affection does exist. The fact that both people are "getting something out of it" doesn't mean that it's transactional.

This is why I said that I do not mean it positively or negatively. The foundation of a relationship is the transaction. It is not necessarily a bad thing.

The emotion exists on top of the transaction. Real, genuine affection and love do not exist, as they cannot be defined objectively. Romance is the terms, such as love and affection, and framework we use to describe our subjective emotions in the context of the transaction.

One party can use the other's emotion and his or her conception of romance around that emotion to sway the transaction to her or his benefit.

Charle's Bukowski's relationships were normal for him. The relationships described in the other books were normal for their authors. The settings change, but the unproductive idealisations of romance and desire for motherly affection remain.

> Meeting women in person, an increasingly rare opportunity, is far more likely to result in a positive outcome.

Yeah, it will take another 100 years until women are hired 50:50 into engineering jobs. Or probably so many jobs.

I thought the new school of thought was never, ever attempt to date a colleague. Too much risk, even in considering.

Yeah, you could also hang out with your actually funny and interesting female colleague and meet her female engineering college friends. In pre online dating times you'd meet people by physically hanging out in groups, having fun and eventually meeting other friends. Good times. Y'all should try it eventually.

And have your after hours discussions and activities now possibly jeopardize your job if something is misinterpreted? Not even once.

I think the risk of this is widely exaggerated.

I have had many, many long and interesting conversations with women colleagues, and there's never been any risk of anything being misinterpreted, because I:

* don't joke about how I would like to date them (because I don't want to and it isn't a good joke),

* don't suggest that we should meet in places that would be appropriate for dating (romantic restaurant, one of our places, quiet bar, etc),

* don't joke about having sex with people (because those aren't good jokes and I wouldn't discuss having sex with people who aren't close friends),

* don't talk about or joke about pornography.

Carving out that handful of broad exceptions of things I don't discuss with colleagues (men or women) leaves a huge amount of things to discuss -- and places to discuss them -- that aren't really open to misinterpretation.

I also don't think most women want to call out their coworkers, because of the intense social scrutiny turned back on them when they do so, even when their initial calling-out was warranted.

So telling that these simple behavioural rules actually have to be spelled out instead of being normal common sense behaviour.

You can follow the rules laid out and still be accused of saying something offensive. The risk reward isn’t worth socially engaging with colleagues.

Certainly, it's possible one can be accused of anything, with or without any basis in reality.

I don't believe the risk of being accused of inappropriate behavior is anywhere near what you seem to, and accordingly have spent many, many hours and evenings socializing with colleagues, many of whom (men and women) remain friends long after the job is over.

Govern yourself according to what you deem appropriate, but suggesting that it is a fact of society that women are untrustworthy is neither true nor useful to society at large.

Whoever's left after several generations of this consumer technology will look at apps like this and the associated lifestyle the way humans look at snakes, open sores, and other dangerous, reproductive-fitness harming things today. This may be counterintuitive, but since birth control there is an inverse relationship between the number of sexual partners and the number of children.