1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Edit: because a few comments make me worry that some are taking this seriously - this meme is a play on the type of hopeless dating posts you might find in less healthy corners of the internet. The joke is a suggestion that the real problem is that one man in the image has some sort of arrow-attracting superpower.
Damn, people just straight-up don't care about the content of an image if they see an opportunity to go on a tangent.
I wonder how ridiculous you have to make the text- paired with a pictograph of a problematic take like the original for this one- before people realize it's not actually repeating the original sentiment or even saying anything at all
Society is borked in many ways, and dating sites often reinforce this with their policies.
The Wikipedia article about online dating tells that typical (I assume: card stack, like / dislike) dating sites cause different genders to adopt different strategies:
Men liked a large proportion of the profiles they viewed, but received returning likes only 0.6% of the time; women were much more selective but received matches 10% of the time. Men received matches at a much slower rate than women. Once they received a match, women were far more likely than men to send a message, 21% compared to 7%, but they took more time before doing so.
By sending out questionnaires to frequent Tinder users, the researchers discovered that the reason why men tended to like a large proportion of the women they saw was to increase their chances of getting a match. This led to a feedback loop in which men liked more and more of the profiles they saw while women could afford to be even more selective in liking profiles because of a greater probability of a match.[15]
P.S.
My biggest peeve is that the monopolist Match Group (runs Tinder, bought and ruined OkCupid, etc) and its nearest competitor Bumble have both adopted a card stack system that makes searching impossible. They also won't display any statistics to a user about the number of people who saw their profile - keeping their customer in perfect darkness.
In most fields of life, a customer would not be satisfied with this kind of shit. A company advertising their product would demand instant feedback about the number and profile of people who viewed their ad, where they came from, how long they browsed, etc.
Basically, we are all getting scammed by a few monopolists, who are actively ruining people's ability to find partners. I would support a politician who promises to let the best university in the country to build a non-profit dating site.
What is okcupid like nowadays? I found a partner there like 7 years ago and out of all the dating sites I've tried, it was the best by a good margin.
It no longer respects geographical preferences. Here in Estonia, if you go on OkCupid from Tallinn, you see about 30 Finnish people from Helsinki (across the sea, 80 km away) before you encounter a local (you also get 30 likes from Central Africa and South-East Asia).
It also has the card stack system now.
The question system remains and remains helpful, just the rest is broken.
Oh come on the lack of a stack system was such a positive. I loved how I could look over all profiles around me, see who managed to write more than 10 words about themselves and just send them a message. I guess that system just worked to well, I never felt the need to pay for anything
"Take the ferry from Helsinki and bring me some long drink."
I love those edits
now THIS is a proper repurposing of that stupid incel diagram! xD
Dating apps are VEERY superficial. You are better off meeting people in real life.
Joke's on that guy, all the women on the Internet are really just this guy:
This is absolutely how online dating goes. There have been studies that show women always go for the most attractive guys on the site, despite whatever BS they might claim.
Real life, not necessarily.
A more detailed description:
Provided a card stack system, the dynamic balance of liking vs. skipping tends to stabilize into a state where men like everyone reasonably cute ("to get more chances"). This is also caused by their inability search for a conversation partner in a rational manner, because it's a card stack system. Often enough, all the information you have is a photo, age and city.
This causes women to experience a saturation of likes: everyone likes them. This causes them to be extremely picky about who they like back.
The result: unbalance. Dating sites view women as a "resource" to attract men, and men as customers to be scammed out of money to actually show their profile to someone, once in a while.
There was a blog by the creator of OKcupid, which was available on the site, that laid all this out pretty clearly. Something like 80% of the women were after 20% of the men, or perhaps it was even worse than that.
Women also, on average, rated men something like 1.5/5, whereas the average for men rating women was almost exactly 3/5.
It was a pretty depressing read actually.
You have to also look at the fact that men outnumber women on the app overall. It's about 65% men, so women are going to have a bigger pool to reject from. And while it is true that women rate men less attractive, they also put less value on their apperence overall as a factor in dating. It also came out that this was based off of first glance only with no review of the profiles attached to them and, when looking at overall trends, it's more even, (outside of men tending to like young women regardless of their age).
I think the okcupid data also went on about how certain races get more or less attention as well. At the end of the day, both sides can be picky. I think people like to push that data to help with the "80/20" idea to help push this idea that men are now being unfairly judged in comparison to women to help with the gender war narrative.
Edit: Just wanted to add that I don't think that means dating isn't hard for men, but I just don't believe dating websites to be a reflection of real life.
The racial data was also fascinating, Asian men and black women were shit outta luck, from memory.
No, it’s like that irl too. I’m in a dance community and women are routinely all hooking up with the same handful of guys, and then being shocked that they’re not the only one booking up with that guy. It was like that in yoga when I was in yoga too
But what's attractive is very subjective especially for women. Yes there are some general things being somewhat fit, decent hygiene, symmetrical proportions but there are plenty of studies that show women find the same man with a wide range of attractiveness vs men who have a much more narrow and agreed upon what is attractive. One thing that's more consistent is appearance of wealth makes men more attractive to most women.
To make this more accurate for modern dating apps, you should keep all the men, but only have like 3 of the women. Dating apps aren't there to get you a match, they're there to convince you that you will get a match...eventually. The money is in creating a feeling that doesn't reflect reality.
So what you're saying is to go to an archery field to find a woman! I've been doing it wrong the whole time!
The fact that dating apps allow you to filter by height and not weight literally says it all
Dating shouldn't be monetized. Even sending messages often requires a subscription. You'll also notice these dating app companies own several products, like the Match Group. They buy up competitors or spam out the same software under different names with a marketing campaign to try to get people to join. Then they restrict features and charge more to maintain their position. That's without even getting to all the data they collect and sale while also charging you a subscription. Just imagine talking to someone you want to date in real life and having a middle man come up and say, if you want to talk to them you need to give me $20 a month. All the "science" they use to connect people is just bullshit too.
If dating apps worked, they wouldn’t really “work” under capitalism - you’d find someone, cancel the subscription and move on.
The only really exception is if you focus on hookups or polyamory, but het cis women tend to risk a lot more on hookups (at bare minimum pregnancy and side effects related to whatever precautions are being used to prevent it), so they aren’t going to seek them out and they tend to get flooded with low quality messages anyway.
No matter what your age, race, gender, sex, size, you can always find a man willing to put their dick inside your orifices. Grindr works so well because it’s basically just old school cruising culture with extra frills. Match Group uses it’s monopoly to impose a dating culture that doesn’t really match with how het people form relationships.
So a possible answer is to live as a hermit in the middle of nowhere. And if a woman appears for some reason, she will have no choice but your long bearded, long matted haired, musk scented, disheveled, gaunt self as a possible mate.
Ah, the actual 'last possible mate in the world' strategy.
We must procreate for thr human species!
lol
Damn Windrunners
I know it’s a joke, but I feel like to be fair to both genders, each man here should arrows pointing to every woman.
The original image, and your extension, are an emergent behavior as a result of The Algorithm - due to "scarcity", Player B (men) is (are) encouraged to roll the dice as frequently as possible.
This whole dynamic is real, results in negative interactions for both players, and is intentionally set up by the apps to maintain engagement and extract as much money via pay-to-play advantages as possible. Dating apps are rigged to give men and women bad experiences so they (largely men) become desperate enough to pay $25 a month or whatever to have an unfair advantage.
The internet (and other players!) likes to hate the players, not the game, and the only "comfort" many young men have is Tate and Co.
Dating apps are rigged to give men and women bad experiences so they (largely men) become desperate enough to pay $25 a month or whatever to have an unfair advantage.
It gets worse, as the engagement mechanic populates the apps with a particular kind of guy who is obnoxiously aggressive, persistent, and convinced that this is a game they can brute force with time/money. So women end up being introduced to a string of guys who believe they've "won" a date by "beating" the game while women are left fishing for profiles that don't look completely gross or insane.
And that's before you get into end-users who are straight up escorts or pimps or predators, fully internalizing the idea that site participants are just resources to extract.
It isn't merely about giving people a bad experience, but to give them a cheap thrill that keeps them coming back to the apps without ever finding a fulfilling relationship that would render the website superfluous.
The internet (and other players!) likes to hate the players, not the game, and the only “comfort” many young men have is Tate and Co.
Tate on one side and Estee Williams on the other. Men are told to treat women like a commodity - interchangeable, disposable, and ultimately hostile to your personal interests - that you rent out when you've accrued enough surplus wealth. Women are told to embrace submissiveness, obsess over superficial appearance, and pursue men based entirely on their socio-economic status in pursuit of the same kind of passive incomes that Tate is selling.
These conservative icons put men and women into an inherent contradictory position, with the idea of two people coming together as collaborators (much less romantic partners) is fully alien. You're purchasing a man's income with your looks. He's purchasing your looks with his hustle-money. You're both purchasing the other's status, with an eye towards a higher rung on the ladder. Neither one of sees the other as a life partner.
If you're an average guy tempted to believe this, allow me, as an average guy who gets plenty of women, to tell you how it works. You are the one with the arrows, but if you don't shoot your shot, out of fear of rejection, you're never going to get what you want. So get out there and start shooting your shot.
Straight up, the best living proof of this I've ever seen was a fifty-odd year old co-worker whose face looked like if you stuck Don Knotts' face in a microwave/centrifuge combination for about 45 seconds. Dude had teeth poking out forward at near right angles. He pulled so much fucking tail, it was a constant problem at work. Incels refuse to believe me when I tell them about it, but, just, shit, idk what you want me to say, this quasi modo ass dude had game, so what's your excuse?
Sperm retention 😭
I remember hitting puberty and realizing most of the guys had crushes on the same three or four basic makeup pasted fake ass girls so….sure whatever you say
my dude if this were to be true we would experience total population collapse
I mean, good meme but no, wouldn't it need to be the inverse to cause this?
