The length of a message doesn’t imply the amount of thought that went into it.
Thats horseshit and you know it, come on.
These are extremely boring, ho-hum questions which required no thought or creativity.
Again, yes, they are basic, not very creative questions.
But they could be so much worse.
‘Hey’
‘Sup’
‘Whatcha up to?’
… at least the questions this guy is asking indicate he has actually read her profile.
In a very balanced way, we can understand that no-effort initiations will result in no-effort responses.
No, she is putting in even less effort.
…
As to your entire second paragraph:
Ah, yes, heteronormativity exists, therefore we should all just keep doing that.
Its the mans job to perform safe masculinity by being entertaining!
Be genuine?
No! Bad!
Be more flirty and fun than you normally are, that certainly won’t set any false expectations!
… Your prescribed approach here, from or for both sexes/cisgenders, is generally going to create failed chat logs with one or another person blocking or ghosting the other, in all cases other than ‘the man is a total pushover simp’, which uh, most heteronormative women find disgusting, in terms of their view toward such a person, they won’t respect him at all and will come to despise him or at the very least become very bored and unsatisfied.
So you promoting a strategy that will not work well at all for heteronormatives, and your reasoning underlying why this must be the paradigm is that heteronormativity exists and is mainstream.
This is a self defeating and contradicting total concept.
In the medium to long run, it doesn’t work for heteronormatives, or anyone else, as a widely normalized… norm of how dating app chats should work.
The only thing it even kind of works for is basically flings, short term relationships, and most of those will become confused and unstable ‘situationships’.
This is a terrible paradigm for anyone looking for a longer term partner.
If your defence is that these questions are better than literally the worst possible messages one can send, I got news for you - “not the worst” isn’t good enough, lol. Like, would you go to a restaurant that billed itself as “second worst in town?”
Ah, yes, heteronormativity exists, therefore we should all just keep doing that.
I mean, you can do whatever you want. If you want to try to end heteronormative gender roles, go right ahead. But if you wanna, yaknow, go on dates - accept that the world is the way it is and start doing what is necessary in order to get what you want. Ie, don’t be boring.
Be genuine?
No! Bad!
I said be interesting. Not don’t be genuine. You can be - get this - genuinely interesting.
Be more flirty and fun than you normally are, that certainly won’t set any false expectations!
Become a more fun and flirty person in general if this feels like you can’t live up to the image you need to present. Honestly, why would you not want to be a fun person who turns their partner on?
a strategy that will not work well
Works great for me, idk what to tell ya. I’m a nonmonogamous cis het guy dating multiple women, and about half my leads come from online.
The only thing it even kind of works for is basically flings, short term relationships, and most of those will become confused and unstable ‘situationships’.
People looking for ling term partners want to not be bored also. And the OOP is from tinder - the hookup app.
Ah yes, a guy who doesn’t have fun questions is “second worst.” We can assume murderers are “the worst,” so the list so far is:
Worst - Murderer
Second worst - Boring questioner
Third worst - Probably rapist I guess
Fourth worst - Domestic Violencer?
Fifth worst - Disney adult
Yadda yadda yadda
Second best - Pedro Pascal
Best - Me
If your defence is that these questions are better than literally the worst possible messages one can send, I got news for you - “not the worst” isn’t good enough, lol
You said:
She’s putting the same amount of effort into her answers as OOP is putting into his questions.
I said, no, she is putting in less effort.
You are changing the goalposts, or, you just simply do not have equivalent standards you judge men and women by.
Like, would you go to a restaurant that billed itself as “second worst in town?”
If the choice was between that and the actual worst restaurant in town… yes, duh?
I mean, you can do whatever you want. If you want to try to end heteronormative gender roles, go right ahead. But if you wanna, yaknow, go on dates - accept that the world is the way it is and start doing what is necessary in order to get what you want. Ie, don’t be boring.
More completely contradictory, self-defeating nonsense.
I mean, the way you phrased this literally juxtaposes ‘end heteronormativity’ and ‘go on dates’ as two opposing things that … hilariously, are a binary choice, you can only do one or the other.
You are clearly only interested in one of these things.
I said be interesting. Not don’t be genuine. You can be - get this - genuinely interesting.
And this is why other people are calling you entitled and gross.
Get this - most people are really not that genuienly interesting.
Many just think they are, when they’re not.
In fact, the ‘impress me’ attitude is very stereotypical of someone who is rather basic.
Become a more fun and flirty person in general if this feels like you can’t live up to the image you need to present. Honestly, why would you not want to be a fun person who turns their partner on.
… So for starters, this really is all just ‘man perform for woman’ in your eyes, ie, extremely old fashioned heteronormative.
Some women don’t like this, and prefer a more genuine, slow roll conversation, maybe they are shy or nervous and prefer to build up to things slowly, establish some basics first.
Some women get tired of people performing for them and just want to have a real, on the level human conversation about just really anything.
(Literally all the long term relationships I’ve had via meeting online or via a dating app or website began this way)
I could go on, but the second big problem with this is… you are just assuming all other women want what you seem to think they all want.
A lot of women do not want to be impressed in a performative way because they have enough experience to know that that is an act, its a gimmick, that will one day fade, and they are looking for something that will not fade.
You have an extremely superficial view of relationships, one that is built around appearances and performances instead of being two people who can be themselves around each other and mostly effortlessly just gel, vibe, click.
You use the language of a gender critical person, but you use it to promote extremely stereotypical male peacocking.
This ain’t gonna work for heteros seeking anything beyond a fling, and it ain’t gonna work for anyone who isn’t atttacted to hetero male peacocking.
Works great for me, idk what to tell ya. I’m a nonmonogamous cis het guy dating multiple women, and about half my leads come from online.
Great, I’m glad you’re a polyamorous dudebrochad in a bunch of simultaneous situationships, anyway, what I said was this is a terrible strategy for:
Heteronormative medium to long term relationship, ie, traditional monogamy, as well as anyone who isn’t interested in performative men.
People looking for ling term partners want to not be bored also.
Apparently you would be surprised.
Its quite common for people seeking any kind of long term relationship to value stability over excitement, mutual enjoyment and true compatibility that does not constantly require a large amount of performative effort.
And the OOP is from tinder - the hookup app.
I mean, ok?
I have already made clear with the specifics of what I have previously written that I am talking about dating norms and culture more generally than just short term hookups.
… Also, I’ve met and had multi year relationships from women (trans inclusive) I’ve met on tinder…so… yeah tinder is obviously more geared toward flings, but its definitely possible to use it to establish longer relationships than that.
Thats horseshit and you know it, come on.
Again, yes, they are basic, not very creative questions.
But they could be so much worse.
‘Hey’
‘Sup’
‘Whatcha up to?’
… at least the questions this guy is asking indicate he has actually read her profile.
No, she is putting in even less effort.
…
As to your entire second paragraph:
Ah, yes, heteronormativity exists, therefore we should all just keep doing that.
Its the mans job to perform safe masculinity by being entertaining!
Be genuine?
No! Bad!
Be more flirty and fun than you normally are, that certainly won’t set any false expectations!
… Your prescribed approach here, from or for both sexes/cisgenders, is generally going to create failed chat logs with one or another person blocking or ghosting the other, in all cases other than ‘the man is a total pushover simp’, which uh, most heteronormative women find disgusting, in terms of their view toward such a person, they won’t respect him at all and will come to despise him or at the very least become very bored and unsatisfied.
So you promoting a strategy that will not work well at all for heteronormatives, and your reasoning underlying why this must be the paradigm is that heteronormativity exists and is mainstream.
This is a self defeating and contradicting total concept.
In the medium to long run, it doesn’t work for heteronormatives, or anyone else, as a widely normalized… norm of how dating app chats should work.
The only thing it even kind of works for is basically flings, short term relationships, and most of those will become confused and unstable ‘situationships’.
This is a terrible paradigm for anyone looking for a longer term partner.
If your defence is that these questions are better than literally the worst possible messages one can send, I got news for you - “not the worst” isn’t good enough, lol. Like, would you go to a restaurant that billed itself as “second worst in town?”
I mean, you can do whatever you want. If you want to try to end heteronormative gender roles, go right ahead. But if you wanna, yaknow, go on dates - accept that the world is the way it is and start doing what is necessary in order to get what you want. Ie, don’t be boring.
I said be interesting. Not don’t be genuine. You can be - get this - genuinely interesting.
Become a more fun and flirty person in general if this feels like you can’t live up to the image you need to present. Honestly, why would you not want to be a fun person who turns their partner on?
Works great for me, idk what to tell ya. I’m a nonmonogamous cis het guy dating multiple women, and about half my leads come from online.
People looking for ling term partners want to not be bored also. And the OOP is from tinder - the hookup app.
Ah yes, a guy who doesn’t have fun questions is “second worst.” We can assume murderers are “the worst,” so the list so far is:
Worst - Murderer Second worst - Boring questioner Third worst - Probably rapist I guess Fourth worst - Domestic Violencer? Fifth worst - Disney adult Yadda yadda yadda Second best - Pedro Pascal Best - MeAccurate
You said:
I said, no, she is putting in less effort.
You are changing the goalposts, or, you just simply do not have equivalent standards you judge men and women by.
If the choice was between that and the actual worst restaurant in town… yes, duh?
More completely contradictory, self-defeating nonsense.
I mean, the way you phrased this literally juxtaposes ‘end heteronormativity’ and ‘go on dates’ as two opposing things that … hilariously, are a binary choice, you can only do one or the other.
You are clearly only interested in one of these things.
And this is why other people are calling you entitled and gross.
Get this - most people are really not that genuienly interesting.
Many just think they are, when they’re not.
In fact, the ‘impress me’ attitude is very stereotypical of someone who is rather basic.
… So for starters, this really is all just ‘man perform for woman’ in your eyes, ie, extremely old fashioned heteronormative.
Some women don’t like this, and prefer a more genuine, slow roll conversation, maybe they are shy or nervous and prefer to build up to things slowly, establish some basics first.
Some women get tired of people performing for them and just want to have a real, on the level human conversation about just really anything.
(Literally all the long term relationships I’ve had via meeting online or via a dating app or website began this way)
I could go on, but the second big problem with this is… you are just assuming all other women want what you seem to think they all want.
A lot of women do not want to be impressed in a performative way because they have enough experience to know that that is an act, its a gimmick, that will one day fade, and they are looking for something that will not fade.
You have an extremely superficial view of relationships, one that is built around appearances and performances instead of being two people who can be themselves around each other and mostly effortlessly just gel, vibe, click.
You use the language of a gender critical person, but you use it to promote extremely stereotypical male peacocking.
This ain’t gonna work for heteros seeking anything beyond a fling, and it ain’t gonna work for anyone who isn’t atttacted to hetero male peacocking.
Great, I’m glad you’re a polyamorous dudebrochad in a bunch of simultaneous situationships, anyway, what I said was this is a terrible strategy for:
Heteronormative medium to long term relationship, ie, traditional monogamy, as well as anyone who isn’t interested in performative men.
Apparently you would be surprised.
Its quite common for people seeking any kind of long term relationship to value stability over excitement, mutual enjoyment and true compatibility that does not constantly require a large amount of performative effort.
I mean, ok?
I have already made clear with the specifics of what I have previously written that I am talking about dating norms and culture more generally than just short term hookups.
… Also, I’ve met and had multi year relationships from women (trans inclusive) I’ve met on tinder…so… yeah tinder is obviously more geared toward flings, but its definitely possible to use it to establish longer relationships than that.