Technological Dating Pitfalls:

Get ready for what surely will be another classic Insightful Awakening post, as I discuss my thoughts on sites such as Match, Zoosk, OkCupid, and perhaps more.   As always there will be humorous personal experiences I share, but my goal is to discuss some of the dehumanizing features of online dating. 

Can you guess what features I may be hinting at?  Is it the ridiculous swiping feature, the pay to play mentality, the blatant misleading of the “like” or “interested” feature, or the total lack of polite behavior by many of the users.  If you guessed all, DING DING DING…. you’ve guessed correctly.     

 

Dehumanizing Feature One- The Infamous SWipe:

 

I’m not sure what application first implemented this, but it hits me as something Tinder would pioneer.  The Idea that you can jump into an application, and ascertain by a single selfie if someone if right for you is laughable.  To be fair, if this was originally a Tinder thing, it would make sense.  Tinder being mostly a hookup site, most people who use the site are not looking for love, only Sex.  Thus they typically have little interest in personality, outside of the bedroom that is, and are mostly driven by physical attraction.  As such, a quick glance may be all a user needs to determine if they found their next…well you know.

What amazes me, is how fast swiping made its way into other applications.  Match, Zoosk, and OkCupid are only a few that have introduced the feature.  Personally I would never date anyone solely based on their physical features, and the idea of displaying people like they are a new item on a store shelve is dehumanizing in my opinion.  We are not looking at new cars, on a rotating platform in some showroom, these are human beings after all. 

On a side note, if you’ve seen the 70’s movie Logan’s Run, it should be clear that “Swiping” was around long before public smart devices.

 

          

 

Dehumanizing Feature Two- Pay To Play:

While a pay wall certainly helps reduce dating site scammers, it has gotten ridiculously out of control.  I’m going to focus on Zoosk for a moment, because it probably has one of the worst P2P engines I’ve seen.   Like most of the dating applications available at the time of this post, Zoosk allows you to create a free profile and peruse their site.   However, that’s all you can do, you can’t send messages, and if someone shows in interest in your profile and “likes” you,  Zoosk will not allow you to view their profile.  Unless of course you pay for a subscription. 

If it was only one payment to have access to all the features of the application, it wouldn’t be that bad, but it’s not the case here.  When I was using Zoosk, I actually payed for a six month subscription, so I could communicate with other members.  After tax, it cost me about $80, which I was Ok with.  Here is the kicker, on Zoosk in order for another user to respond to one of your messages, they also have to have a subscription.  So if you send a message to a user who only has a free account, chances are they will not even be able to see your message.  Other sites add in a stipulation, which is even free accounts can send messages to each other, but only if both individuals match via “Swiping”,

Almost immediately after I purchased my subscription, I received a notification that if I wanted to be able to talk to members with free accounts, it would be another $10 a month, or $60 dollars for the six.  What followed eventually was another notification, that if I wanted read receipt functionality it was another fee.  Zoosk also implements something called “coins” on their site.  This is digital currency, which you can use to buy digital gifts for other users.  Of course if you want to use coins you have to purchase them, and they are not cheap. 

Do you see the madness here?  Anyway these sites can make money off you they will.  I’m not against a pay wall, as I said it reduces scammers and fake accounts, but enough is enough. 

 

Dehumanizing Feature Three- Misleading BEHAVIOR:

I’m going to get a little personal on this one.  This is something that has personally occurred to me on multiple dating apps.  To be specific, Match and OkCupid.  In both instances I had a free account, and had no intention of paying for a subscription.  I figured I would just peruse, and if anyone caught my eye, I may pay for a brief subscription so I can open a dialog with them. 

In this case, both OkCupid and Match does not allow you to see who “liked” you if you have a free account.  They will certainly inform you when someone does, but you will only be able to see a blurred out image of the individual, with their basic demographic information.   However, the image is never blurred out completely, so you can still see features of the individual to some degree.  I’ll be honest, I never knew why they did this, until fairly recently.

Again what I’m about to share has occurred on both applications, but most recently occurred on Match.  A day or so after I had created my Match account, I got a notification that someone had liked me.  Being curious I wanted to view their account, but couldn’t (only having a free membership).  However I could see that the user was roughly my same age, and appeared to be wearing a yellow shit with gray jacket.  Additionally it was obvious she had blonde curly hair, and appeared to be in shape. 

Naturally I thought to myself “hmmmm I want to read her profile”.  So guess what, I gave in a payed for a three month premium membership that cost me another $80.  You could imagine my surprise,  when after I payed for the subscription and Match removed the “blur” from the profile, that it was someone who was completely different.  The individual became a brunet, who had a complete different body type and was wearing completely different clothes.

Needless to say I was pissed, this type of behavior is immoral and misleading.    I can only assume, Match is blurring out stock photos of overly attractive individuals and showing them to their free members when someone “likes” them.  In attempt to get them to pay for a subscription.  I will admit I should of known better.

  

Dehumanizing Feature Four- Impolite Behavior :

The final topic I’m going to talk about today, has to do with the members you’ll find on these sites.  Some members are just plain rude.  When I’m on a dating site, I’m very aware that it’s not an ideal situation, nor do I behave like I’m the hottest thing around.  I consider myself pretty average, but I have charm.  However, there are some who like to act as if they are the an Olympian God.  Seriously if you were, you wouldn’t be on dating site.

If I receive a message, I do try and respond to the individual, even if I’m not interested in them.  I see nothing wrong with answering a question or two, and who knows maybe you’ll make a friend even if your not interested in dating them.  I do understand that most people are not like this though, and even I have my moments.

Personally I only tend to send messages, if I see something that catches my eye in another member’s profile.  While there also needs to be some physical attraction, I also need what I call “soul substance”.  I want to know a little bit about you.  If you’re drop down gorgeous, but can’t take the time to fill in the basics of your profile, I’ll skip over it.

I also am a big believer that if someone “likes” you, and you send them a message they should respond.  I’ve actually had people “like” me on dating applications, but when I sent a message to start a conversation they never respond.  Or they respond much later…. I find this extremely rude. 

Also, while this has never occurred to me personally.  People who try and get other members banned from a site, because they weren’t into them need to grow up.  Yes this does happen a lot apparently.  In the age of rampant political correctness, even dating has been effected.

Well I hope you’ve enjoyed this post, and by all means if you’ve had similar experiences on online dating platforms, do comment below.   Also if you’ve missed my ridiculously humorous post  related to cutting karmic relationships click here.  

 

 

 

Leave a Reply