So What's New?

[Admin]

The following statements are excerpted from a recent publication (attribution below):

1. Dating websites may warp a person's outlook and expectations in ways that can actually lower the chances of building a successful relationship. [Admin note: This is the opening hypothesis in the publication - details to follow.]

2. Online dating . . . allows people access to potential partners they otherwise would not have. [Admin note: The same could be said for ANY specific dating activity - i.e. going to church if one does not normally attend church could ALSO create new dating opportunities - as would attendance at AA or anything else one does not normally do where there are potential dating partners present.]

3. One of the weaknesses of online dating is an over reliance on "profiles." Although most dating websites feature photos and detailed, searchable profiles covering everything from personality traits to likes and dislikes, this information isn't necessarily useful in identifying a partner.

4. Daters don't always know what they want in a mate -- even though they generally think they do. Studies suggest that people often lack insight into what attracts them to others (and why), and therefore the characteristics they seek out in an online profile may be very different from those that will create a connection in person. [Admin note: One of the long-term members at PL says; "Folks looking for a partner overseas need to start with a check-up from the neck up before they take the first step."]

5. You can spend a zillion hours studying profile after profile and, at the end of that Herculean effort, how much closer are you to knowing if there's a romantic spark? [Admin note: This is a statement in the form of a rhetorical question.]

6. The abundance of profiles online also may make daters too picky and judgmental. The sheer number of options can be overwhelming, and the ease with which people can sift through profiles -- and click on to the next one -- may lead them to "objectify" potential partners and compare them like so many pairs of shoes - leading to . . .

7. Online dating creates a shopping mentality, and that is probably not a particularly good way to go about choosing a mate. The shopping mindset may be efficient online, but when carried into face-to-face interactions it can make daters overly critical and discourage "fluid, spontaneous interaction" in what is already a charged and potentially awkward situation. [Admin note: Do any of you remember some of the early feminist criticisms of agencies? Here is a link to a topic at RWD in which there was considerable discussion of a "shopping mentality" -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=5388.msg94585#msg94585]

8. Communicating via email or instant message before meeting in person doesn't always cure this problem. Some online communication is a good thing, but too much of it can skew expectations and ultimately sabotage a match. People tend to read too much into emails and other online conversations, which increases the potential for misunderstandings and disappointment.

9. Some services, such as eHarmony and PerfectMatch.com, claim to minimize the guesswork involved in online dating by using mathematical algorithms to match couples according to various traits -- including, in one case, the ratio of index- to ring-finger length (said to be a marker of testosterone levels). It is wise to be skeptical as research suggests it's extremely difficult to predict the likelihood that a relationship will succeed before two people meet.

10. Worse, these algorithm-based services may encourage a counterproductive "destiny" mindset that prizes initial compatibility over other factors that are important to the long-term health of a relationship, such as the social and economic support individuals offer each other, or their ability to cope with stressful life events.

11. Websites are a valuable resource for daters -- as long as a person doesn't put too much stock in the profiles or matchmaking claims. [Admin note: I distinctly recall a VERY contentious debate on the topic of "matchmaking" claims by the agencies and their qualifications to make such claims. The first such dust-up involved Kevin of KhersonGirls, but there is no shortage of 'challenge' at RWD awaiting any agency owner who claims to offer "matchmaking" services.]

12. Identify promising partners and move the conversation off-line as quickly as possible. [Admin note: Reference the RWD Ten Commandments.]

13. Don't assume that more time spent browsing profiles is going to improve the odds of meeting someone who is really compatible. Instead of poring over more profiles and comparing height, weight, occupation, and interests, arrange for a personal meeting.

14. There's probably never going to be a substitute for getting two minutes from another person across a cup of coffee.

Source: Psychologists Highlight Pitfalls of Online Dating. Please note I took some liberties with edits and small wording changes in the above numbered statements for the sake of clarity. I made no substantive changes of any sort and the original is available for review at the provided link.

The points made in the article are the very same points being stressed at RWD for nearly a decade now. Nothing new and the only 'differences' between the domestic online dating being researched is that it is more difficult for those of us interested in cross-cultural relationships to setup meetings and to navigate the legislative terrain (IMBRA and USCIS).

In the RWD Ten Commandments we published many years ago, the following quotation is Item #9 on the list and addresses both the direct parallel to domestic dating and the heightened costs when looking overseas:

Treat international dating the same as dating someone from your home country. The biggest difference is the cost (travel, phone. etc). This is an expensive process. Don't believe anyone that tells you otherwise.

Nothing has changed.

FWIW

- Dan

[JR]

There's probably never going to be a substitute for getting two minutes from another person across a cup of coffee.

 
Amen!

[GQBlues]

There's probably never going to be a substitute for getting *two minutes* from another person across a cup of coffee.

 
Amen!

Make that '3'....
 
Dan-
 
Not too long ago you asked me about the symmetry and merit between meeting someone through the IMB lens vs meeting someone (domestically) via venue such as speed dating. I know I mentioned I once tried speed dating for no other reason than I was dared to do it just to find out how 'well' I can operate within its confines. They were paying the bill and I was just along for the ride (yes, we had too much time in our hands), so I did.
 
Reading the article above, it struck me as something I've read before (or a similar writing) during the period my friends and I were reading a company's FAQs brochure relating to speed dating. It touches on almost all the items written here, most notably #14.
 
Speed dating involved 20 women and 20 men. You are all limited to only 3 minutes to make an impression. But this is the easiest part of the process, and admittedly, the most exciting, too. The most challenging segment is the screening process. You send you bio/profile, and you are picked by your peers. Meaning...completed men bios are voted on by the female participants and vice versa...eventually, this will net an equal groups of 20 men/women earning the most vote. The 3rd segment, and likely one you can start an office pool on, is the period where all the participants are asked to make their 3 choices. Then this is paired accordingly if people had mutual choices...Meaning, if I chose ladies 1, 10, and 20...and if any of those ladies happened to have chosen me as well (along with their respective 2 other choices), it is only then do the 'host' released contact information for both persons. So there's 3 segments...the screening, the meeting, the choosing.
 
The other alternative to this was their Socials. Almost the same type of screening with the exception that you can go on groups e.g. if you want to bring a wingman or two. But each you must meet approval and be voted on as well by other participants. Then it's all one big party.
 
The neatest thing about this is (or was), you can actually choose as many locations you want within the lower 48, or wherever they are having them. If you live in some socially challenged locations but would love the opportunity to meet top quality prospects, then this is a good way to do that with. Not sure if that's being done today. Each 'entry' bio then was $100.00. I'm not sure how much it is today.
 
http://www.screendate.com/early-access
 
http://www.screendate.com/events
 
Can this approach work with the present day IMB?
 

[Jack]

Can this approach work with the present day IMB?

Can this approach work with present day IMB?

Women join site in hopes to meet good man.  Men's Bio/profile sent to selected female participants.  Femail particpants decide if they have interest to attend "speed dating" function. 

Five women one table, 12 minutes at each table, each woman as 2.5 minutes to make impression.  Man makes list of interested ladies.   After visiting all the ladies the man's female assistant/interpreter/wingperson meet's with each lady on man's list asking each lady if she would have interest in seeing man.

Can this approach work with present day IMB?    Has for a dozen years, why would it not work now.

[tfcrew]

From the article..

It is wise to be skeptical as research suggests it's extremely difficult to predict the likelihood that a relationship will succeed even develop before two people meet.

It can be a crap-shoot...or someone can bet the horse, the rider, track conditions, and everything else that be calculated.

 
 

[Gator]

I concur with everything.  As you say,   "nothing has changed."  I particularly liked:

4. Daters don't always know what they want in a mate -- even though they generally think they do. Studies suggest that people often lack insight into what attracts them to others (and why), and therefore the characteristics they seek out in an online profile may be very different from those that will create a connection in person.

This is phrased  as "Daters don't always know..." as if most Daters do know.  Do most Daters know what they want?  Even the analytical shoppers are open to surprises provided certain mandatory criteria or met.  Intuitive shoppers don't know what they want until they encounter it and experience it. 

[Gator]

Five women one table, 12 minutes at each table, each woman as 2.5 minutes to make impression.  Man makes list of interested ladies.   After visiting all the ladies the man's female assistant/interpreter/wingperson meet's with each lady on man's list asking each lady if she would have interest in seeing man.

Can this approach work with present day IMB?    Has for a dozen years, why would it not work now.

Does a lady make a speech for the entirety of her 2.5 minutes?  Or is there some give and take?  This is not my style. 

I recall the second RW I met during my first trip.  We had traded several emails and talked three times.  We met at the prearranged meeting spot in Kiev (she came from Kharkov).  She said nothing and  just looked deeply into my eyes for over a minute.  It went from interesting, to uncomfortable to sensual.  And I had three days with her, not three minutes.  We took a walk.  Within 30 minutes she turned to me and said sadly, "You no marry me."   Hey, we just met, WTF, are these RW crazy,....

[GQBlues]

...Can this approach work with present day IMB?    Has for a dozen years, why would it not work now.

Well Jack, I'm sure I don't need to elaborate but the process I showed above, and the socials you conduct, have very obvious disparities...for starters, each participants will be highly matched in every conceivable facets from their bios....social standings, age, looks, professional worth, etc...
 
Besides, it will be highly cumbersome to exchange much of anything having to parse through an interpreter whatever you and the other is saying to one another. You'll only have 3 minutes to spur enough interest with one another.
 
Maybe in 10 years at the soonest.

[Jack]

Of course GQ no matter what I say you would disagree, it's just your nature, most people here for 6 months know that, and if I wanted to devote the time to debate your arguments, which I do not, I could of course run circles around many of your not so accurate statements as I have in the past and a good example of your lack of knowledge I would start out with would be this statement of yours  ......   "it will be highly cumbersome to exchange much of anything having to parse through an interpreter whatever you and the other is saying to one another"...... 

With around 80% of the ladies attending our functions able to speak English, again your ignorance is magnified.   The interpreter's main function is to talk with each of the ladies the man has interest in after he has met them all, although there could be a few cases where an interpreter could be needed to assist in communicating, it is the exception, not the norm.  And we all know you are the exception to almost everything GQ, people should marry in there own race, except you, etc, etc,



...."You'll only have 3 minutes to spur enough interest with one another.".....     


So?    It's what you described in your American version.   Surprise GQ, with your overall lack of in depth knowledge of Russian and Ukraine women, the same 3 minutes work just as well with Ukraine and Russian women who speak English.


Anyway GQ, what you described above is very similar as to what I have been doing for 12 years.   Sorry, I know that's not what you wanted to hear as it doesn't fit with the picture your trying to paint.

[GQBlues]

...With around 80% of the ladies attending our functions able to speak English, again your ignorance is magnified.....

Well Jack, then suit yourself.

Even a grade schooler could've easily told you that the 20% who cannot speak English easily voided your silly point and therefore won't be in the same guidelines that speed dating is.

Who the heck will vote for women in who cannot be understood? It's SPEED DATING, for chrissakes. What will the men do when they get to one of the four ladies? Rub toes to see if they're compatible?

Look at you, your native tongue is English and yet you still have a hard time understanding what you just read - in English. Sheessh.

However, since I like you enough I'll be more than happy to explain this to you step-by-step and v-e-r-y-s-l-o-w-l-y and in a monotone voice so you can understand it a little better. Mums the word...

Just like the topic title....So what's new?...and no, this system doesn't include feed the squirrel, or whatever else you do in your parties...

[Jack]

Sorry GQ, no time or interest, your going to have to play with yourself, which I'm sure your quite good at based on the every waking hour your on a discussion board.  Sure sign of a rock solid marriage.   

[GQBlues]

Sorry GQ, no time or interest, your going to have to play with yourself, which I'm sure your quite good at based on the every waking hour your on a discussion board.  Sure sign of a rock solid marriage.   

I'm happy I was able to shine a little light on your little mass between your head Jack. Anytime...

[Admin]

Not that I care to intervene in a perfectly good pissing match - but you guys realize you managed to derail the topic - right?

How about the two of you keep your bickering between THE TWO OF YOU, and leave the rest of us out of it?

And yes, I am aware that this same sort of message could (and maybe should) be directed to many others - and often. You guys just drew the short straw today.

- Dan

[Valkyrie]

I agree with GQ.   Jack will defend because it is in his business interest.  It is also interesting the twice divorced male knows so much about someone else's marriage.  GQ sent his wife to school.  He did not toss her aside when she was no longer useful so she could work as a shop girl at minimum wage and make extra cash as a nude model, did he Jack?  Who is a better man?

I used online dating and it is like a big nightclub.  Men probably women too lie. 

[Eduard]

The following statements are excerpted from a recent publication (attribution below):

1. Dating websites may warp a person's outlook and expectations in ways that can actually lower the chances of building a successful relationship. [Admin note: This is the opening hypothesis in the publication - details to follow.]

2. Online dating . . . allows people access to potential partners they otherwise would not have. [Admin note: The same could be said for ANY specific dating activity - i.e. going to church if one does not normally attend church could ALSO create new dating opportunities - as would attendance at AA or anything else one does not normally do where there are potential dating partners present.]

3. One of the weaknesses of online dating is an over reliance on "profiles." Although most dating websites feature photos and detailed, searchable profiles covering everything from personality traits to likes and dislikes, this information isn't necessarily useful in identifying a partner.

- Dan

If I may share a few thoughts on these with you guys...
It has been discussed on another thread that MOB agencies edit or rewrite women's profiles, and this doesn't exclude EM either. So when you are reading a profile like that you are just reading what an agency staff writer decided to put there and the only things you can figure out is a woman's age, hight and weight, whether she has a child and her profession. The rest is agency fluff and there is very little chance that a woman actually wrote any of the stuff which you can judge her personality by.


The situation is different on free local Russian sites because no one edits or writes info for women. They do it themselvesYou can actually get an idea about a woman and her personality, sense of humor just reading some of those profiles (not always but sometimes you can especially if you are a Russian speaker). Still you can only get a good feel for what a woman is like by communicating with her for a period of time and the less language barrier is in the way the better you will get to know each other. I also noticed that what people (both men and women) write to each other about themselves may not always correspond with reality. Not because they are trying to deceive each other rather because they are not able to be entirely objective about themselves. I always find it fascinating to meet people after reading their letters and chatting on skype or phone for 2 or 3 months and to be able to compare the virtual persona to the real life one. Quite a few times they are quite different in real life. I think this is the reason why WMMF (write many meet few) really makes sense especially when travelling a long distance from Canada, US or Australia IMO. Quite often the one woman that a WM feels is "the one" while communicating virtually does not live up to the expectations while one of the "back up plan" women winds up to be the real gem.
Ed