Maybe you didn't realize this, but the "dying in the ocean" is analogy is because ocean water isn't drinkable. So while, on the surface, it seems great to be surrounded by water when you're thirsty, it doesn't help if that water isn't drinkable.

That's the exact problem this article discusses for women -- being surrounded by "un-dateable" men. It's why moderation tools are mentioned repeatedly in the article.

Yes, i know ocean water is undrinkable but the analogy is still incredibly stupid since you can't tell me with a straight face that absolutely all men on dating platforms are undatable(the undrinkable ocean water).

It's more accurate that women on dating apps are far too picky and have far higher standards online (it's been well documented by percentile of sipes) and therefore in their eyes see most men as undatable even if that's not the case (someone might not have the most exciting or handsome profile but he could still be a fun date or a great dad and yet never get any dates).

But women being too picky online is a completely different issue to not being any datable men out there, which can't be true, and the fact still stands that they have the oversupply which lets them be choosy, which is still better than men having an undersupply issue which is the life of men online dating.

So the more accurate "water analogy" would be that online dating women are surrounded by loads of drinkable water but they refuse to drink it because most of it is average tap water which they see as undrinkable, as they all go online looking for the VOSS/Evian water which is indeed in short supply not just online but also IRL, except IRL they're more aware of it and mostly go online looking to find what they don't have IRL.

> It's more that women on dating apps are far too picky.

Not only that but I guess many of them are there for ego boosting pusposes and such rather than dating.

The point is that it's difficult to differentiate salt water from regular water.

I think you also misunderstand. If given the choice, I'd rather die of dehydration in the ocean than in the desert. They both suck but that one seems better (having spent significant time in both regions). You'll get sunburned in both but in the desert there's nothing to cool you off. You'll be much more likely to survive longer in the ocean than desert, even if we ignore food availability.

So you're giving a really unfair interpretation because no one is saying they're equally bad. They're (I'm) just saying that you're going to die in both situations

As with anything in language, remember that your job is to figure out what the person means, not what they say. The words they use are a signal but it's compressed and fuzzy (especially on the Internet where we have many cultures -- big and small -- interacting with many different expected commission and decompression expectations).

It's always possible to gravely misinterpret anything anyone says, no matter how carefully they say it.

> It's always possible to gravely misinterpret anything anyone says, no matter how carefully they say it.

> So you're giving a really unfair interpretation because no one is saying they're equally bad. They're (I'm) just saying that you're going to die in both situations

It is also possible for a person to simply contradict themselves.

What you are saying is they are equally bad outcomes.

You're also simultaneously implying that one is objectively worse than the other in every possible way.

There's no contradiction. Equally bad outcomes does not mean that they paths to those outcomes is also equal.

As a clear example, in both these cases the outcome is "death" right? I think we all know we'd rather go out in our sleep that have our intestines ripped out. Both these have equal outcomes but I'd call you a liar if you didn't have a strong preference.

You might say these don't compare. I'd say that they do. If we come to that conclusion, one of us must be misinterpreting the other.

It doesn't mean that but your analogy implies that what's important is the outcome being death either way.

That the paths may seem less or more preferable isn't actually the point of your analogy, it's that either way in the end: You die.

You also made this analogy as a counterpoint to the claim that women are the big winners on dating apps by far.

It's like if someone said smokers and non-smokers are both going to die anyways.

While that's certainly true, the implication (that it doesn't matter whether or not you smoke), is wrong.

Likewise, the implication of your analogy is wrong in my opinion.

One is clearly far worse and you have already acknowledged this.

Getting 0 matches and being inundated with matches that don't work out are in no way comparably bad outcomes on a dating app. Especially because these are -matches-, and that's the key metric of success on virtually every dating app.

> your analogy implies that what's important is the outcome being death either way.

No, the analogy means both genders are not achieving their intended and goal.

Apples and oranges are both round fruit, but we still use this as an idiom because the distinction are important. In fact, the idiom itself is about things that have surface level similarities but that details matter.

Which you're right to point out that the details matter. I'm not disagreeing with your thesis. I'm disagreeing with your interpretation. If a doctor says you should eat more fruit, they don't care if you eat apples or oranges. Basically, context. You put too much information into what was intended to be conveyed. This has been explained to you. So now if you don't understand that's on you.

And I need to reiterate. Language is imperfect. You'll always be about to find reasons to disagree or misinterpret. This whole conversation is an illustration of the imperfection.

> and [dates are] the key metric of success on virtually every dating app.

Metrics are the downfall of meritocracies. Maybe this is why you're misunderstanding. No, dates are not the goal. Dates are a step along the path to the goal. The goal is to find a partner. Not for everyone, but that's definitely the goal in the context of this thread.

You're goalpost shifting in quite a major way.

Your argument is that women are not the big winners on dating apps because the outcomes for both men and women are equally bad.

That is false.

Language is imperfect but that's not the problem right now, it's that you are playing fast and loose with words and blaming it on language.

I also very intentionally said "matches" and not "dates" because again, this entire thread is based on who the big winners of dating apps are.

The goal of dating apps is to get matches. Someone else has even pointed out that these apps might more appropriately be called "matching apps", and I don't think anyone including you would disagree. (But in case you do, note that these apps have no concept of "dates"... Only matches)

I'm not misunderstanding that this is a major failing of dating apps, I'm stating that as they are currently structured, based on the current rules: women are winning in dating apps.

That is and was the topic of conversation.

It wasn't stated that women are the big winners of romance and dating in general, and that's not what this thread is about. But you are attempting to make it about that in order to get away from your original point, which is still wrong, no matter how far we depart from it.

Going to put a pin in this though.

> Would you also tell the chronically unemployed person that you being flooded with job offers all day means you're dying just like him, but in water instead of sand?

The analogy would be one person not getting any job offers while the other is only getting job offers with compenation that are too low to support their family.

The thing is, in the scenario you described, I am pretty sure the person getting no job offers would trade places with the person getting offers, but the reverse is obviously not true.

Which would you rather die of dehydration in? Desert or ocean?

I'm not sure why these are being treated as equally bad. To be one is clearly worse than the other, though both tremendously suck. You'd at least survive longer in the ocean, even if we ignored the higher availability of food.

Because the analogy you provided implies that the outcome in either end is inevitably death, and that there are no other options.

That doesn't accurately reflect the reality though. You can adjust your standards to find a mate if you have options, if you have no options, there is literally nothing you can do. I would think "death" or "game over" is having zero moves left. Not having few favorable moves and a high chance of making an unfavorable one.

It also implies women exclusively suffer from quality issues when dating.

There are for sure just as many bad actors on the female side of dating apps as there are on the male side.

You're reading way too much into an analogy. I'm not sure how to tell you this, but analogies aren't... The full story. I don't know what you want, a book? And I hate to break it to you, the tortoise and the hare never actually raced. Nor can they talk.

If you're going to focus in on details and the generalizations that are clearly for convenience and not actual, make sure you don't do this too. Because we both know that the type and number of bad actors that men and women face aren't the same. But I'm not going to hound you for it because that'd be in bad faith. It'd be a willful misinterpreting of what you meant.

I'm actually focusing on the context of the thread.

Your entire presence here is in response to the statement "Women are the big winners of dating apps"

You disagree with this and your analogy was your way of explaining your disagreement.

You could have used another analogy and I would still disagree if your conclusion was different from the person you were responding to.

> Because we both know that the type and number of bad actors that men and women face aren't the same. But I'm not going to hound you for it because that'd be in bad faith. It'd be a willful misinterpreting of what you meant.

We don't both know that (in regards to number). Bad actors is a very broad term. I have pretty explicitly stated multiple times in this thread (in response to you, IIRC), that I believe the quality of interactions men and women face on dating apps is roughly the same. (To clarify this, I mean the ratio of good vs bad interactions on the app in a binary ranking system is roughly the same for men vs. women)

Yes, that includes all of the bad things you are thinking of, and including some I'm sure you have never thought of if you have never lived in a rough place.

> You're reading way too much into an analogy

You do realize that analogy was pretty much your entire original comment, right? I am directly responding to your entire point, not harping on semantics or nuance.

> I'm not sure why these are being treated as equally bad.

I'm supposed to respond to that without mentioning your analogy..? Because the analogy is why these things are being treated as equally bad. It's literally the entire point of your analogy.

How about a chronically unemployed mathematician that is flooded with job offers to work as a miner in a coal mine?

Presumably this is versus a chronically unemployed mathematician that gets the occasional job offer to work as a coal miner.

I think this is incorrect because it assumes the job offers are equal. My understanding is that it is much more like two chronically unemployed people: the first doesn't get an interview 99% of the time, the second one is 99% only offered MLM job interviews where they're expected to "invest in themselves first" by buying the MLM product aka scams.

I think generally the quality of interactions both sexes have with the opposite sex on these apps is roughly equal.

That said, even by this analogy, that would imply the 1% of the time the first person gets an interview, it is also likely a scam or a non-start 99% of the time.

So the second person is still 100x as likely to find a job as the first person. The market just happens to suck for everyone.