Ten years after creating a new model for dating apps with its “women make the first move” feature, Bumble is opening the door to men starting conversations on the app.
You absolutely can love someone because of who they are alone. And if you genuinely, truly, can “get it up for anyone”, then great. Or maybe you don’t have a need for that stuff in your relationships in the first place.
But as someone who is borderline haphephobic (the fear of touch), yet also absolutely have a psychological and physiological need for physical intimacy, loving someone as a person is not enough to automatically mean I’m also going to feel something physical.
It doesn’t matter how strongly I feel about who they are. If I don’t want to touch their body, no amount of wishing I wanted to, changes that.
It’s just that there should be a higher degree of variety on the online dating scene.
Some people absolutely do care for looks, and can’t - and shouldn’t - help it.
But for those who care less - alternative avenues should be provided.
Also, to clarify - I don’t “get it up for anyone”, it’s just that sexuality has more to it than looks, and for me the looks isn’t the first thing I think of when I hear “sexy”.
No one is being provided any avenues. These services do not work any better if you swipe based on looks.
My point is that none of it matters. The real problem is bigger.
Everyone has their preferences, and any current system that actually respects that and helps people find each other, will inevitably shift to blue-balling its users with people that are never quite what each person is looking for, because actually doing it right means you lose “customers”.
Because of that, different “avenues” for different people to find what they are looking for, don’t exist. For anyone.
No matter what you specifically need, matchmaking companies are incentivised to identify exactly what you are looking for, and then give you anything but that.
If things actually worked, it wouldn’t matter that the service has pictures. If you don’t care about that part, just swipe accordingly. As long as the people queued up for you are genuinely random (they aren’t) you will find someone you like, and someone who likes you will find you.
Except that these systems explicitly do the opposite. You will be shown every person the system can find who is your type, as long as you aren’t their type.
Meanwhile your profile will be shown to everyone who’d like you, as long as they aren’t the kind you like.
This way, everyone gets the illusion that there’s plenty of fish in the sea. While in reality everyone gets their own algorithmic fence between them and anyone with whom the interest might be mutual.
Which is why I tend to find people on social media rather than dating apps, and I think Lemmy can be a great place for that - unbiased, full of various people, and everyone is active outside of dating sphere, allowing you to get to know them better before you even go in.
My two best and longest (multi-year) relationships were on the Internet in places where I didn’t know anything about looks of my partners.
With one of them, I said I love her before I first saw her. And I’m not the kind of person to take such words lightly.
But yes, you have a point about retaining audience here.
You absolutely can love someone because of who they are alone. And if you genuinely, truly, can “get it up for anyone”, then great. Or maybe you don’t have a need for that stuff in your relationships in the first place.
But as someone who is borderline haphephobic (the fear of touch), yet also absolutely have a psychological and physiological need for physical intimacy, loving someone as a person is not enough to automatically mean I’m also going to feel something physical.
It doesn’t matter how strongly I feel about who they are. If I don’t want to touch their body, no amount of wishing I wanted to, changes that.
And personally, I do need to want that.
That’s perfectly valid!
It’s just that there should be a higher degree of variety on the online dating scene.
Some people absolutely do care for looks, and can’t - and shouldn’t - help it.
But for those who care less - alternative avenues should be provided.
Also, to clarify - I don’t “get it up for anyone”, it’s just that sexuality has more to it than looks, and for me the looks isn’t the first thing I think of when I hear “sexy”.
No one is being provided any avenues. These services do not work any better if you swipe based on looks.
My point is that none of it matters. The real problem is bigger.
Everyone has their preferences, and any current system that actually respects that and helps people find each other, will inevitably shift to blue-balling its users with people that are never quite what each person is looking for, because actually doing it right means you lose “customers”.
Because of that, different “avenues” for different people to find what they are looking for, don’t exist. For anyone.
No matter what you specifically need, matchmaking companies are incentivised to identify exactly what you are looking for, and then give you anything but that.
If things actually worked, it wouldn’t matter that the service has pictures. If you don’t care about that part, just swipe accordingly. As long as the people queued up for you are genuinely random (they aren’t) you will find someone you like, and someone who likes you will find you.
Except that these systems explicitly do the opposite. You will be shown every person the system can find who is your type, as long as you aren’t their type.
Meanwhile your profile will be shown to everyone who’d like you, as long as they aren’t the kind you like.
This way, everyone gets the illusion that there’s plenty of fish in the sea. While in reality everyone gets their own algorithmic fence between them and anyone with whom the interest might be mutual.
True as well.
Which is why I tend to find people on social media rather than dating apps, and I think Lemmy can be a great place for that - unbiased, full of various people, and everyone is active outside of dating sphere, allowing you to get to know them better before you even go in.