Jesus christ I spent three whole minutes on OKCupid after giving it a rest for about a half a year. How do women get away with such absolute bullshit?
>>27500316
they have a vagina boobs and ass
that's it
vaginas are the destroyer of men and civilizations
What bullshit? Story time OP.
The game is rigged in their favor. And you gotta play their little fucked up narcissistic ego bullshit system to get anything out of it. And anytime you just want to opt out of the whole stupid vapid process you get mocked and demeaned for being "a virgin"
Most women are smart enough to realise they do not need to go on Okcupid to get attention, love, sex, and money. A female does not need to put herself on a computer and make an effort to talk to males if she is worth anything.
The women who go on Okcupid and other dating sites are usually there to get easy attention from betas who they can then proceed to emotionally abuse. It's about the power of rejecting males.
Dating sites are really not that bad.
Like I've tried making a profile a few times on some of them. Usually I'll answer somewhat honestly and okay looking girls pop up. Course I was totally the wrong socio-economic class.
I've even had one where I answered somewhat more honestly about wanting casual sex and no relationship. The right type of girls popped up, not really bad looking either. Although reading their profile it's sort of a "hmmmm, guess this isn't what I really want after all".
Just can the shit though there is nothing wrong with women.
>>27500363
This is a perfect summary of my own experience with OkCupid.
>>27500348
Fine, you want storytime? Here it is...
>go on okc because its been a while and im feeling cocky
>find cute-looking girl within my mediocre standards
>tranny
>ridiculous pronouns
>fuck that im out
>find another homely/dorky looking girl
>right the fuck up my alley
>she likes all the same dorky shit I do
>fuck yeah
>oh wait she's "seeing somebody"
>half of her pics feature some chad i cant possibly hope to compete with
>she want some fuck on the side
>all i want is a genuine relationship
>doesnt even seem possible in this day and age of cuckoldry and ridiculous female standards
I fucking quit, lads
The only winning move is to not play. OKCupid is a place where females are on top of the hill, and can easily push you down.
I'm not going to subject myself to that.
>>27500498
OKCupid is filled with degenerates. You're better off without them.
Give us details. What was such bullshit?
I met my wife on OKCupid. I've gotta say I found it to be good (this was 5 years ago, in the UK).
I had a bunch of dates from it, and all the women I met were nice.
If you only go for people who are like a 90%+ match, they'll be cool. Unless you are a total asshole that is, in which case a high match will be a psycho hose beast
>>27500802
Nah bro, literally every 90%+ match of mine is a nightmare waiting to happen. Your luck is a phenomenon.
![OkCupid-experiment[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/iQgDtrV.png "OkCupid-experiment[1].png")
>>27500316
The biggest mistakes in online dating is
>being under 25
>being in college
Girls in both those categories are swarmed with dick and relationship prospects IRL, so they wouldn't join OkC if that's what they wanted.
>>27500802
>If you only go for people who are like a 90%+ match
OkC's own research shows that the rating is literally a placebo.
>>27500962
I love OKCupids stats. They really do it properly, and have the sample size to calculate proper statistical significance and effect size etc...
Those stats are interesting. It looks like match percentage doesn't make as big a difference as I'd thought it would in terms of starting a conversation, although with the sample sizes they employ, even 1 percent is going to be statistically significant.
I'm sure that the actual content of a message is far more important than simply looking at all messages en masse however. Messages which are simply dick pics or something like "wassup babe?" are going to be less likely to get a response than a more thought out message by someone who's actually read a persons profile and sent a relevant message. That is qualitatively obvious but not something that OKC can crunch the stats for
>>27501063
The sample size for this particular experiment was "less than 1000 users".
If the message content is what matters then you shouldn't only go for people who are like a 90%+ match.
>>27501099
Strange that they only did that analysis on a <1000 sample. Their blog is full of hilarious analyses of >200,000 user samples.
Its still enough to show that match percentage doesn't make much difference when it comes to getting a response (I bet how good you look in your photos makes a big difference too). I think match percentage makes a big difference with how well you get on with someone though.
One thing is that the match percentage is far better if you actually bother to answer 50+ questions, or more. Some people answer like 5 and the matching system really doesnt work well for them at all.
None of this guarantees you'll be attracted to a person, or that they'll be attracted to you, but it did mean that when I met girls I knew they wouldn't be a dog hating tory with no sense of humour and a hatred for drugs
>>27500498
so you chose a degenerate and then got mad she's crazy?
come on m8
i'm giving up soon. no one good on there.
>>27500498
Sounds like you're ugly and have high standards
