RE: A female perspective?

RE: A female perspective? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

kiwisub12 -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 7:24:49 AM)
I've never had a large number of cmails - wrong age/location I think (hope). However, one thing I have noticed that men that try to send out cmails that sound as if they are taking a bit of time and effort really fall down on the job when one of the first things they say is that they liked my profile - AND I can tell that they haven't ever looked at it......[8\|] Silly twitwiffles - womens are only for men! [:D]

Apocalypso -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 9:18:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MAINEiacMISTRESS As for your brother's theory of males' bombarding strategies: I had a male friend once who happens to be quite the "player". I'm talking a different gal every week, and often sex the first night (I was actually keeping count out of scientific curiosity, it was that crazy). Anyway, he had one time confessed his strategy, "I learned it in salesmanship training: Ask 10 people to buy something. Nine say no, but one might say YES...and then you ask another ten, and so on. It's just a matter of asking as many people as possible...and I use this same strategy with women. Ask ten women out, nine might say no, but one says yes...then you move on and ask the next ten women, and so on..." There's actually an old Russian joke about that strategy that is very similar to how your friend operates. quote: Kniaz Andrei Bolkonski asks Poruchik Rzhevsky: "Tell me, Poruchik, how did you come to be so good with the ladies? What is your secret?" - "It's quite simplement, mon Prince, quite simplement. I just come over and say: 'Madame, would you like to fuck?'" - "But Poruchik, you'll get slapped in the face for that!" - "Oui, most of them slap, but some of them fuck. However, as the core of the Rzhevsky jokes is the fact that he's unsophisticated and vulgar, in a high society world, I'd agree with you it's not a good approach to take to relationships in general.

windchymes -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 9:31:17 AM)
Based on what I've read in other forums on other sites, it is a double-edged sword for men. Many have said that they took the time to write a well-thought out introductory email and it got ignored 99% (or thereabouts) of the time. So they don't want to waste, or take, the time composing a well-thought email for every single profile that interests them if it's just going to get ignored. So they just send a short "Hi" or "Hello, how are you?" or "Check out my profile and if you're interested, message me!" over email, and it gets ignored because women don't like those short, impersonal messages because they figure the guy just sent one to 150 women and are just looking for anyone to reply. I still believe that dating sites are all about the photos. There are exceptions, but so many men have started threads asking what they can say when writing an introductory email that will get them a response. They're tried long and descriptive, they've tried cheesy and romantic, they've tried short and to the point, they've tried rude because they heard that women liked bad boys, and some have claimed that rude actually gets responses, go figure. Like a kid, negative attention is better than no attention, I guess, lol. I've read posts from women who say that they wouldn't have written back except that the guy's photo was smokin' hot. So looks enter into it a lot. For the most part, if they don't like your photo, you could write an award-winning letter but they still wouldn't answer. There are no guarantees for success. In the long run, it's pretty much hit or miss, and you just have to put in the work and take the losses as they come.

tj444 -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 10:21:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blonderfluff Still get the wankweasels, though. my solution was to change my age to 90.. even the wankweasels use age as a screening tool [:D] so I make sure I miss most of them this way.. and that works pretty good.. I get hardly any spam emails.. [:)]

MasterCaneman -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 11:44:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MAINEiacMISTRESS Actually, I already thought up a solution to this problem, but needed a technical expert to help get the plan rolling. It involved requiring males to wear a SHOCK COLLAR in order to use the internet, and We on the other end would have a button (similar to the little Windows, or perhaps F8, etc) that would give him a good FRYING if he offended. If someone on the computer tech side can help Me design this, I think it will be a big seller. As for your brother's theory of males' bombarding strategies: I had a male friend once who happens to be quite the "player". I'm talking a different gal every week, and often sex the first night (I was actually keeping count out of scientific curiosity, it was that crazy). Anyway, he had one time confessed his strategy, "I learned it in salesmanship training: Ask 10 people to buy something. Nine say no, but one might say YES...and then you ask another ten, and so on. It's just a matter of asking as many people as possible...and I use this same strategy with women. Ask ten women out, nine might say no, but one says yes...then you move on and ask the next ten women, and so on..." Incidentally, this guy is poor as dirt, still lives with his mom at age 40, has never had a full time job in his life. Yet using the above strategy he has more sex partners than the average man...however he also makes a lot of enemies that way and has screwed himself out of a lot of relationships (and professional contacts) that could have improved his life. He will die lonely and poor, so NO, I don't recommend this approach when trying to reach out to someone for a relationship. Eventually word gets around (boys, many of us Dommes are FRIENDS and we compare notes on you bozos) and you end up burning up what chances you could have had. quote: ORIGINAL: Crashdaddy47 I would just like to know if any women out there would prefer a system to force men to send less messages out and put more effort in? No idea how this would work, obviously!!! But theoretically? Basically to shut him up, because I'm sure he's being very 'male' about it -which is ok I suppose, but he really is a guy that's easy to argue with! Bolded statement: As a car salesman (once in, never out), that is very true. It's called the "hammer protocol" in some circles. It works, but doesn't make you many friends. And the shock collar idea is intriguing, I can see a bunch of 's'-types getting into that one big time. As for it being a moderating device, I can see many ways to defeat it, though. In the six months I've been here, I'd probably sent less that ten unsolicited messages on the profile side. A few were to people I thought I knew from my days in SLC, two were sent to people I suspected were related to me (non-creepy here-just lost touch with them), and one was give a poster some private information discreetly.

FieryOpal -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 12:49:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman quote: ORIGINAL: MAINEiacMISTRESS "I learned it in salesmanship training: Ask 10 people to buy something. Nine say no, but one might say YES...and then you ask another ten, and so on. It's just a matter of asking as many people as possible...and I use this same strategy with women. Ask ten women out, nine might say no, but one says yes...then you move on and ask the next ten women, and so on..." Bolded statement: As a car salesman (once in, never out), that is very true. It's called the "hammer protocol" in some circles. It works, but doesn't make you many friends.... Any truly successful salesperson or professional worth his salt knows that repeat business and referrals are wherein the longevity of his continued success lies. Building up a customer/client base. Sell a crappy product and/or rip people off (or be a lousy lay), and this isn't happening.

kalikshama -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 1:04:53 PM)
quote: Many have said that they took the time to write a well-thought out introductory email and it got ignored 99% (or thereabouts) of the time. Did you ever see examples of these so-called well thought out emails? ;) quote: I've read posts from women who say that they wouldn't have written back except that the guy's photo was smokin' hot. Ya, my ex has success with the shotgun approach...and has smokin' hot pics.

windchymes -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 1:45:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: Many have said that they took the time to write a well-thought out introductory email and it got ignored 99% (or thereabouts) of the time. Did you ever see examples of these so-called well thought out emails? ;) I have, actually. [:)] Not many, but they do happen, and more so on the regular dating sites. To be fair, there are some guys who have upped their game and really do try. I usually do respond to them, even if to say thanks but no thanks, but in a nice way, lol. And those that actually progressed to emails and phone and then meeting for real turned out to be nice guys, but there wasn't the mutual spark of interest.

Crashdaddy47 -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 2:09:01 PM)
The few that I would send, I would certainly try my hardest to pay a compliment, explain why I wrote, explain why I thought we'd get on and what particularly about the written bit of her profile I liked. If there isn't a reason for the last one, I would never write. I know that sounds corny, but it's true. I loves words and intelligence, in friends and in partners. The argument with him actually started because I said I hate the internet for contact because in 'real life' I would never chat a woman up 'cold'. I would only approach those I had good eye contact with. You can still make a twat of yourself of course, but it is the difference between the woman willing you not to be a twat, rather than expecting you to be one. The one mail I sent on this site is still unopened! I'm pretty sure it was ok, and not even really an approach more I like what you wrote type of thing. So I can see both sides too. As far as I am concerned I would never take the time to write if I thought it would't be read. That's how the whole thing started anyway.

OsideGirl -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 2:14:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crashdaddy47 The one mail I sent on this site is still unopened! I'm pretty sure it was ok, and not even really an approach more I like what you wrote type of thing. A lot of women here have their email accounts set up so that anybody that doesn't meet their criteria goes into their bulk folder, unseen.

Crashdaddy47 -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 2:32:48 PM)
I reckon sending a great mail to someone unsuitable is as bad as sending a crappy one to someone suitable. "I know you're looking for black sub women under the age of 40 that live in the U.S., but hear me out....." :) Anyway, like I said I really enjoyed this discussion and actually learned something from it! That doesn't happen all the time.

DesFIP -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 2:56:15 PM)
He may be right about pure mathematics. But the easy response is that if this is correct, then why doesn't he have a date or three this week. Looking at things scientifically, it had been proven that bumblebees are too heavy to fly. We all know that's wrong. How long has he been bombarding women with lame messages? Has this ever resulted in a date? Has this ever resulted in a relationship with a woman he finds fascinating, someone who he loves to be with? If he just wants to stick his wick into any pool of melted wax (to stretch a metaphor) then he should try Craigslist. If he wants to be with someone wonderful who thinks he's wonderful, then he needs to appeal to women in a different way. So what is he looking for; a relationship or just getting laid this once?

JstAnotherSub -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 3:02:21 PM)
~fr~ I had a male friend who would use the same lines on every chick he saw that he wanted to fuck. I finally asked him do you use that same line on every woman you meet? He said just the ones I wanna fuck. I said damn man all I see is you getting shot down. He grinned and said yeah I might get shot down 99 times of 100, but that 1 in 100 has always been some great pussy so I aint changin!

Crashdaddy47 -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 3:10:40 PM)
Sorry. He is annoying, but I do have to stick up for him. He's married and is most definitely not a 'playa'. Not even a wannabe one. This was an argument the two of us had about reproductive strategies that just lead on to this topic. I said how it started already. Like I said, he thinks in terms of pure mathematics and like some of the earlier posters mentioned he hadn't factored in human psychology. When it comes to women, he is a bit of a mathematician, not an a-hole! :) Sorry if that wasn't clear He would be amused at the thought of him being a wannabe ladies man, even a crap one!!! :) He's a full on nerd! Anyway, that's me for the topic

sunshinemiss -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 3:42:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss Aren't there websites that allow one to write only a certain number of private messages per month? I thought there were. Alt.com used to limit messages from men to three per day unless you bought a paid membership, with women having unlimited messages. This resulted in fun things like men with multiple profiles, and men setting up female profiles. Now the accounts are so crippled as to be useless unless you pay for a membership (I believe. I haven't visited Alt for years). Ah thank you Steven. Best wishes, sunshine

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 4:29:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crashdaddy47 Hi there, I have got into an argument with my brother, a very intellectual guy, about 'dating' or contact sites or sites like this and I'd love to have a female perspective. As a generalisation of course, it has usually been the male reproductive strategy to 'spread the seed' with as little emotional commitment as possible. And historically women have preferred the more discriminating, but emotional effort approach. Now I know lots of people are different and that IS a generalisation, but what I mean is this. It seems to be the male strategy on sites like this to send LOTS of messages without much content and then see who replies. Reading a LOT of women's profiles and it seems like they HATE being bombarded with these pointless messages and would prefer less messages and more personalised content. I have seen a few women's profiles like - here one day and 150 messages in inbox, give me time to reply!!! I believe that it boils down to a male/female thing and I think the way most sites work is geared towards the male strategy. Now, he has given me lots of complicated mathematics as to why it has to be this way, but I still say if there was an alternative that forced men to take the 'female' way for a want of a better term it would be successful, certainly with some women Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to build one or anything!! I wouldn't have a clue. I would just like to know if any women out there would prefer a system to force men to send less messages out and put more effort in? No idea how this would work, obviously!!! But theoretically? Basically to shut him up, because I'm sure he's being very 'male' about it -which is ok I suppose, but he really is a guy that's easy to argue with! So, forgive the generalisation and I do know that both men and women come in all sorts with all sorts of desires, so if I'm coming across as sexist I do apologise. Just taking a bit of a straw poll for the female perspective Sorry for being long winded You lost me on "it has usually been the male reproductive strategy to 'spread the seed'"

slavekate80 -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 8:11:28 PM)
I don't think it's necessarily that most men send bad messages, but that the men sending bad messages send MORE messages. If five guys send out 50 dumb mails each, and ten guys send out 5 readable, useful mails each, then the borderline-spam messages outnumber the useful ones 5 to 1, even though the majority of senders are sending good stuff. I wouldn't want a system that makes it more difficult to send me messages. When I get one that looks like a waste of time, I just ignore it or delete it. I don't want an arbitrary rule on how long a message has to be or what content it has to have because it might reduce the number of good messages I get too just because it didn't pass that particular filter.

DesFIP -> RE: A female perspective? (1/13/2014 8:17:01 PM)
The other thing is that women are set up to weed out liars and anyone who makes us feel unsafe. His approach doesn't convince anyone he's sincere or someone safe to meet. Or even safe to talk to. We don't respond because when we do, a certain percent of guys we turn down go postal on us. The nicest thing these crazy types do is tell us we're all fat cunts. The nasty ones send long, detailed, death threats. He's not taking any of that into account. That we screen out anyone who gives us the slightest vibe of that. And his scattershot approach screams creep who will send multiple threatening emails in response to rejection. This is all just theoretical for him. It's real for us.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875