One of the threads from yesterday got me to thinking about how there really is a huge difference between being attracted to someone on line as opposed to being attracted to someone in real life.

The thread had more to do with the presence/absence of pictures, and while I can readily admit that this is a criterion, it’s certainly not the only one I look at.

Anyway, when I’m looking at profiles, I do occasionally run across one with a pic that I consider attractive – but there’s (almost) always some sort of dissuasionary element (I think I just made up another word, heh!) that results in, say, clicking “No” if this is in Mutual Match or whatever. It could be distance or bad spelling or “Looking for man for marriage” or “Looking for man for lab assistant creating giant radioactive wasps” or so on.

Sometimes I ask myself “Would I be more interested in this person if she lived six blocks away?” and sometimes I have to admit that I might be. Well, except for the bad spelling and the wasps.

But if I were to meet someone in “real life,” so to speak, there’s this (presumed) idea that maybe she wouldn’t be anything like her admittedly pathetic and largely-plagiarized excuse for a profile. I mean, I have never been real-life-introduced to someone who immediately said “I’m laid back and easy going” or “I don’t know what to write here.”

It just seems to me – and I’m probably wrong here, because I usually am, when it comes to these things -- that people on line, particularly if they’re being evaluated on their miserable, brain-dead, vapid, informationless (oooh, there’s another one!), worthless, cliché-ridden, garbage heap of a profile, are just not going to come across as being especially interesting, compared to what they might be like in real life.

In real life, they’ve got a voice you can hear, you can see their movements and gestures, whether they have an accent, a lisp, whether they scratch their feet obsessively – things you just can’t get on line.

On line, I hate to say, most people come across as pretty boring. And that’s sad. Because, in real life, it takes a few months for them to PROVE that they’re boring….!

And that is my great revelation for today!

Nice! But I would have to agree. I think people only tell/show you what they want you to know in both real life and online. In real life it is easier to spot the BS....if you have half a brain anyway.

Hmmmmmm..... there are some individual that are just as boring and annoying in real life as they are online. Prime example, my date with 'sneeze in hands' guy! I gave him a chance even though he was boring online and on the phone.... I figured that maybe a combination of nerves and not being a phone person made him boring. But! Oh no! It was even worse in person.


SO.... to get back to what you were saying..... could the person be more attractive if they lived six blocks away (for you lex, more likely, they would have a couple more points, because that is what you are looking for)....

Now.... if they are boring online, does that make them boring in real life..... nope! They could be chalked full of drama in real life!

Anyways, I am done babbbling (btw, do you really think that I am boring online?)

I agree and visa versa, would you find the person you meet in real life, as interesting as, if you had met them online.

I think, for me, the real difference lies in the greater amount of immediate sensory input in a real-life scenario. There's more THERE -- you see the person, you hear the person, they're moving, they're speaking, they're providing you with any number of things to focus on. Whereas the on line thing is comparatively one-dimensional -- so, if that one dimension isn't grabbing you, you're just more inclined to yawn and move on.

But I've found this to be misleading, in the end -- because the real-life ones, ultimately, never (or rarely, maybe) turn out to be any less boring in the long run, than the on line ones. It's just that they have a means to cover it up until the facade wears off.



Well, that's just a practical consideration. On some level, I'm more likely to be "interested" in someone I have access to. That doesn't make them more "attractive," necessarily, in the aesthetic sense, but it certainly makes them more attractive in the "realistic possibility" sense. I'm not even addressing the issue of whether one sense outweighs the other. My hunch is that would be on a case-by-case basis.



I don't think there's a direct linear correlation between boring on line and boring in real life -- because some people are simply "better" (in terms of self-expression, etc.) in one scenario than the other.

But I wouldn't be surprised if there was SOME correlation; i.e., some people are just flat-out boring regardless of venue.



No, but you're a remarkable exception....!

Ooooo! I like being a remarkable exception!

One more thing ... when y' meet people online, y' can't tell if they need to use moisturizer.

I'm not sure there's a huge difference in the attraction factor between on-line and real life, insofar as attraction is just what initially draws two people towards each other. I think the real difference lies in where that initial attraction can lead.

Whether on-line or in person, you're attracted to somebody based on whatever criteria you have that makes somebody attractive to you. You use whatever they give you to make the judgement, in either venue, so you can only trust that you're seeing the real them and not some made up version.

I agree that 'real life' gives one a far better chance of making an accurate evaluation, with nuances seen in person that can't be observed on-line coming into play. On the other hand, getting to know someone on line can allow you to develop friendships with people outside your immediate location that you might otherwise never get to know.

It's a double-edged sword really. There are positives and negatives for both meeting people on-line and in real life, but I don't think there's much difference in the attraction part. Attraction is just the initial pull towards something, or someone in this case, for whatever reason. The real difference between on-line and real life is exploring that attraction. It's much easier to do in real life than on-line, in my opinion.

I just automatically assume they do. Also that they're three inches shorter and 30 pounds heavier than they claim. Sometimes they're actually thirty inches shorter and only three pounds heavier, so it skews the averages.

Exactly -- it'a all about making an impression. But the impression falls apart pretty quickly most of the time, in my experience -- because it has no substance.

One learns how and when to shut it down quickly, though.

I'll give you an example -- There is a certain physical "type" I find myself strongly attracted to -- and, at one point, I ran across a profile, on this site, of someone who was practically a prototype of this type!

This was somewhat amazing, as I almost never see this sort of person on a dating site. I would say I was attracted to this person at that instant.

However, a mere few seconds into the investigation, I discovered that she lived much too far away for me to do anything about. I'm not saying I was no longer attracted, just that reality took precedence and there was no point in pursuing the issue.



Well, that's another consideration.

Most of the people I've met from dating sites turn out to be so egregiously one-dimensional in real life that there really is no danger of deception in a real-life entanglement -- there simply is nothing there to deceive with and/or about.



Sure, but at that point, the "attraction" thing really loses its place as a descriptor. I've always taken the position that I could be friends with pretty much anybody.



The reason I brought this up in the first place is because I was looking at profiles on another site, and the question hit me: "If this person lived six blocks away, would you want to get to know her?" And there were several times when I found myself thinking, "Yes, I probably would." But when they live 897,000 miles away, it puts a monkey wrench in the ointment.

I've always made similiar observations...and you will see me more than once commenting to someone that they should try to do what they do in real life when meeting someone. This is a 'sell-yourself' type of deal, and of course most people are not going to put into their profile the stuff they constantly screw up, well, I did, but that isn't the point.

This is why you come across so many profiles that are exactly the same as other profiles you came across, because, in a sense, they are the exact same. And it is pathetic, even on the forums people don't tend to usually fess up to their mistakes, yes, some do but most will not. This creates a rather large lie of who we are in real life as opposed to online...as I've always said, I'm Batman online and Bruce Wayne in real life.

And that's a huge part of the problem. How am I supposed to pick one person who's "laid back and easy going" out of a trillion who make that claim?





Right, and I have to wonder what's behind this need for people to pretend they're somehow so "got it all together, look at me."

But we ALL screw up sometimes -- I mean, I'm not looking for someone "perfect" (doesn't even need to be said, since it doesn't exist), because I'm sure not even close myself -- but I'd like to think I have something to offer, even if it's not mainstream enough for anyone to want to mess with.

i find it very easy to say 'no' to someone online, which is probably why i ended up with someone so far away, someone i got to know through participating in the forums.

there's always something that isn't quite perfect for me if all i have is a photo and a few words on a page. it's got to be quite the picture and quite the profile for me to ever send an email, or even to reply to a message.

although attraction is, of course, physical, mostly (for me anyway) it's built over a getting-to-know-you phase that lasts for weeks, or even months and the person becomes more attractive as my interest grows. the small issues that would be a reason, in and of themselves, to not reply, would be overlooked or at least accepted because i were more able to see the person overall and not focus on the only aspects which were presented.

i don't think i'd ever look online again if i found myself back in the dating pool. i find the entire process very discouraging actually.

maybe that would be a good profession to get involved in; helping people write their profiles.

I have discovered I prefer the real thing to the online.

So as soon as I have completed working on myself I am going to start dating again out in the real world. Well what some people refer to as the real world. Okay it may not be real at all but you know what I mean...

It is discouraging, yes. If there are any "good ones" out there, they're always 897,000 miles away, and the nearer ones always come across as being slightly less interesting than the underside of the dryer's lint screen.

It's discouraging to think that, in a world of 6.8 billion people, all but maybe a dozen or so are committed to the sort of homogeneity and regimentation that would make lemmings jealous.

As for helping people write their profiles: I get little indication that it's any kind of priority for most; rather, a "necessary evil" type of obligation ("It's making me write four whole sentences!") that they'd just as soon do without.

Online dating is nothing more than an online meat market. No one is going to buy the beef if it is all bruised and fatty, are they? Nope, it is the same idea in online dating, sell yourself to the highest bidder...and you can't do that being honest, no one really wants to know how after high school you swallowed an entire tube of Anbesol for a cigarette when you were stoned off your *** (yes, I did it).

Honesty is a rarity online, this is why we have millions of nice guys suffering from the same issue and numerous nice girls that can't find a man...it is redundant, boring, and just plain pathetic more often than not.

I can't argue, but the whole thing strikes me as ridiculously counterintuitive.

I mean, if we're ostensibly here to try to meet someone, why wouldn't you want to let people know who you are (really) and about your life, values, history, etc.?

Instead, it seems more of a contest to find out whose profile can be the blandest, the emptiest, the least informative and useful. And practically everybody wins!

One of the reasons I post in the forums a lot, and one of the reasons my profile is as long as it is, is so that people CAN get an idea of who I am and what matters to me. But the longer I'm here, the more I think it's a bad idea -- not a "bad idea," per se, just not particularly productive, just not what anyone is really interested in or looking for. All they really seem to want is someone who's as cardboard as they themselves are -- "less is more," so to speak. I think "I drink a lot and I'm sorta stupid" would probably generate better results.

Unfortunately, friend, that is the way this site has been since I became a member. Hell, I eliminated my profile completly because it doesn't seem anyone is really all that interested if it goes on more than a paragraph (or numerous 'sentences' if you will).

Keep your profile up, Lex, I like to read it from time to time (though, admittedly these 'time to times' are really just a couple of days split apart).

I'm not planning on taking it down anytime soon. You never know who might accidentally end up reading it....