Tinder is shit
-
-
@Groaner said in Tinder is shit:
My takeaway from this is that modern dating sucks
I'm not sure how much modern dating is at fault, vs. dating in all times.
Sure, maybe in the fabled and legendary Olden Days you could say that every dating situation was officially aimed at creating a long-term relationship,and that some expectations (who pays the bill etc.) were clearer. Except that it still didn't prevent people from lying when they actually only meant they wanted to bang (but social pressure was such that admitting it was impossible). And having to have absolutely all of your dating happening in public and under the eye of some third party also made it almost impossible to discuss some private topics. Even leaving aside forced mariages and mariage-by-correspondance (which, AFAICT, only ever really happened for the 1% or even the 1% of the 1%), dating was very much judging a book by its cover -- without being allowed to ask someone else about that book.
Maybe the only thing that sucks more nowadays is that people actually expect to end up in an happy and loving relationship, whereas in the past in many cases people expected to get in a long-term relationship, but while the "happy and loving" part was hoped for, it wasn't really expected.
-
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@djls45 said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@Groaner also. The kind of people who are serious about "until death do us part" are usually also the kind of people who get offended by a prenup.
This is only logical. If you're committing to staying together until death separates you, then what's the point of having something that pries open the door, however slightly, to not staying together until you or your spouse's demise?
It's like life insurance. Nobody wants to die (barring a few exceptions). People who buy life insurance don't plan to die. They don't buy it because they're likely to die. It's just that it may happen, for a variety of reasons over the course of your life, and when it happens it will really suck for those they leave behind. But the insurance payout will help them go through it a whole lot easier.
It's nothing like life insurance. People buy life insurance because they know that everyone is going to die eventually, and they want something prepared in case it's sudden or sooner than they think.
A prenup is preparation for something that ought not ever happen, and is only used by those who think that it might, not by those who decide that it never will.
As I mentioned previously, shit happens. And I have first-hand experience (well, first-row view to the events) with marriage-breaking shit happening out of the blue. My parents had a divorce quite a few years ago already
This is the part that I disbelieve from your story. I think that they were just really good at hiding the true state of their marriage from their kids. I mean, if all the adults around them thought it was a good idea, too, and especially if they weren't surprised by it, then it makes you wonder what did they see that you, Gąska, may have missed.
-
@Groaner said in Tinder is shit:
My takeaway from this is that modern dating sucks (and you're not wrong). But I'm not seeing how there's a connection to failure aside from having impossibly high standards and suffering the natural consequences of those standards.
If she had instead said that modern dating sucks, do you suppose your reproach would have been milder, if any?
- Success is open-ended, floating, continuous effort of flawed persons recognizing faults and, if at all possible, working around them. It is unavoidable. Most people are terrible.
Do you think there comes a point where having to deal with those faults and flaws is a lesser pain point than being lonely? I mean, living in this world means having to deal with faults and flaws on a regular basis, such is the human experience.
There is such a point, yes.
- There are no guarantees regardless of the process used.
If there isn't a reliable path to success, I'm not sure it's fair to call lack of success a failure.
There must be at least one clearly defined limit on that axis, otherwise the whole process is stochastic and without meaning. From remaining single to bad dating experience, to break-ups and divorces - those are all failures. In case of the latter two sometimes the good and the bad can be almost balanced out, but time has been irrevocably spent.
- No. But failure is terminal.
What do you mean by that? That once failure sets in, no further attempts are made, or that failure is not assured until one takes one's last breath?
When no further attempts are or can be made.
I do not have the kind of negative connotations for the concept many people have (perhaps I should have led with that?). There is a particular advice given by (usually) self-appointed life coaches -- you've failed only if you don't get up -- that I find detestably trite. If it cheers people up, okay, but to me it always sounds like being afraid to admit there's something wrong with the approach or the entire situation.
The other one -- every failure is a learning experience -- might sound equally banal, of course, but only so far that all generalizations are false.
- Not necessarily. One example, I believe, would be yours truly.
As long as you're at peace with it.
I am not. The pain you mention is very real and reminds about itself often enough. But it's only 1/2 about me, and neither half is more important than the other.
- The billionaire one. Remaining without a partner should be acceptable. I'd recommend - but not demand - that reasons for doing so are accounted for.
Fair enough. It may disappoint you, though, that many people do not have that kind of agency/self-mastery or accountability.
It's one of the tragedies of the human experience. And it doesn't cease to be disappointing once learned.
The problem is not living together with another person. It is living with yourself, together.
-
@djls45 said in Tinder is shit:
As I mentioned previously, shit happens. And I have first-hand experience (well, first-row view to the events) with marriage-breaking shit happening out of the blue. My parents had a divorce quite a few years ago already
This is the part that I disbelieve from your story. I think that they were just really good at hiding the true state of their marriage from their kids.
For obvious reasons I don't want to go into details. But over a course of one year they went from buying a new house together to move away from now-adult kids to one half of extended family cannot understand how could she just leave him like that right when he needed her the most, and the other half of extended family cannot understand how is he not in prison yet after what he's done.
Usually it's just people neglecting each other for years until they can't stand each other anymore. But sometimes it really is just things suddenly going to shit and it's nobody's fault. I fully understand it's hard to imagine things playing out like that if you've never experienced it yourself, and so any attempts to make you see are futile. But this is exactly why I'll never marry someone for whom marriage is literally forever, no buts. It's much easier to just find someone faithful yet still open to the possibility of divorce.
I mean, if all the adults around them thought it was a good idea, too, and especially if they weren't surprised by it, then it makes you wonder what did they see that you, Gąska, may have missed.
Note that I also agree they should stay apart. Ideally 5000 miles apart, on different continents. Which they are.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tinder is shit:
- What would constitute a "success?"
Everyone who's dating ideally has one clear purpose in mind when they do so.
Ideally, yes, but in reality, it's rare. I was somewhat disappointed to hear from my dating coach that I was far ahead of the pack because I knew what I wanted. Many people don't even think such things through.
- Could a randomly selected person have reasonably attained success based on the resources that person had available?
Sure. It's a lot of goal setting and clear thinking that most people aren't willing to do, though.
I disagree. I know and know of a lot of good guys who have made it into their 30s without ever having gone on a date or having been in a relationship, and not for lack of effort.
- Are the criteria and metrics for success well-defined, measurable, and can be reduced to process?
To the extent that the person is goal oriented and a clear thinker, their metrics for success are well defined and measurable. To the extent that they're not, their metrics are not.
It's time for a car analogy! When I say "reduced to process," I mean that the process is simple, effective, and reliable enough that it's on par with, for example, buying a car in America. If you walk into a car dealership, practically everyone working there will bend over backwards to ensure that you walk out with a car bought from said dealership. That is absolutely not the case with dating. You might have to walk into 100 different dealerships before you find one that's even willing to let you go on a test drive, and when you get to the negotiation table, you won't be presented several forms that are easy to sign, but will be shit-tested and asked tough questions like if you've ever owned or leased a car before, how long your previous lease was, or what were some specific things you have learned from previous car purchases. In the meantime, the dealership might complain in front of you about their previous customers (which may be either the fault of those customers or of the poor business acumen exercised by the dealership) and expect you to listen intently. In spite of your best efforts, and all your paperwork being in order, your request to purchase a car could be declined for myriad bullshit reasons such as, "we seem to be in different stages of the sales process," or "our interests as customer and vendor are too closely aligned."
It can't be reduced to process because the prospective partner's goal orientation and clear thinking gets a vote too.
Indeed. And such negotiations aren't even guaranteed to be made in good faith.
- Is failure, by whatever definition, exclusively bad, or are there cases where it might be good?
It's exclusively bad. But see the next answer.
- If failing to attract a partner is a failure, is it a greater or lesser failure than being with a partner but in an incredibly toxic relationship? Or how about versus a string of short relationships, or being divorced?
As you're alluding to, some things are famously Worse Than Failure. If you roll a 1 on The Cosmic D20 Of Life, somebody ends up dead. (Maybe you get the girl pregnant and need to get an abortion. Maybe you accidentally go on a date with a serial killer. Et cetera.)
There's various gradiatons of Worse Than Failure in between "can't find a partner" and "somebody dies."
Would it be fair then, to say that acquiring a partner is an important accomplishment in life and anyone who has not has failed?
- Are failures of this nature like "failing an exam in school," or more akin to "failing to become a billionaire?"
I might not be understanding this analogy. I see the billionaire thing as a long term life goal that some people have. Failing at your purpose in life is worse than the minor setback of failing a test in school. The first girl from all the way up at the beginning of the post (the one who's looking for a spouse) probably feels closer to "fail at life goal" than "minor setback."
Then I should clarify. In high school, generally, the exams are of a fair, just and reasonable difficulty in that if the average student puts in the work studying the material that will be covered on the exam, the student will pass. (College is a different story, in that you might study all the material but only know how to answer two questions on a one-hour, five question exam, but I digress).
In dating, you can message hundreds of profiles, you can keep a full social calendar, you can hit up bars and shoot your shot, and still have nothing to show for it. Thus, I don't think it's fair to classify both "failures" as the same sort or degree of failure.
TLDR: Decide what you want to get our of a relationship before you ask the girl out. Make sure that she wants the same thing as you from the relationship by very early in the relationship.
Won't work. I've dated someone who on our first date made very clear that she was looking for something long-term, only later to hear her admit to having had a colorful past with dozens of exes and gush about how she wanted to steal her married friend's husband because he had big arms and was good around the house.
Can you see how it's not just as simple as putting in the work?
Also, most importantly, I had the opportunity to make a joke about Worse Than Failure and I fucking took it.
I'd expect nothing less.
-
@djls45 said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@djls45 said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@Groaner also. The kind of people who are serious about "until death do us part" are usually also the kind of people who get offended by a prenup.
This is only logical. If you're committing to staying together until death separates you, then what's the point of having something that pries open the door, however slightly, to not staying together until you or your spouse's demise?
It's like life insurance. Nobody wants to die (barring a few exceptions). People who buy life insurance don't plan to die. They don't buy it because they're likely to die. It's just that it may happen, for a variety of reasons over the course of your life, and when it happens it will really suck for those they leave behind. But the insurance payout will help them go through it a whole lot easier.
It's nothing like life insurance. People buy life insurance because they know that everyone is going to die eventually, and they want something prepared in case it's sudden or sooner than they think.
Median life insurance policyholder is 43 years old. A vast majority of people don't die at 43. And policies are usually only valid for 1 year. There's between 0.1% and 0.3% chance you die any given year; even less if you aren't reckless driver. By far, the vast majority of policies in that age group end up being a total waste of money. A very predictable waste of money. And yet people keep buying them, on the off chance they're the unlucky ones this year.
-
@Groaner said in Tinder is shit:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tinder is shit:
- What would constitute a "success?"
Everyone who's dating ideally has one clear purpose in mind when they do so.
Ideally, yes, but in reality, it's rare. I was somewhat disappointed to hear from my dating coach that I was far ahead of the pack because I knew what I wanted. Many people don't even think such things through.
- Could a randomly selected person have reasonably attained success based on the resources that person had available?
Sure. It's a lot of goal setting and clear thinking that most people aren't willing to do, though.
I disagree. I know and know of a lot of good guys who have made it into their 30s without ever having gone on a date or having been in a relationship, and not for lack of effort.
- Are the criteria and metrics for success well-defined, measurable, and can be reduced to process?
To the extent that the person is goal oriented and a clear thinker, their metrics for success are well defined and measurable. To the extent that they're not, their metrics are not.
It's time for a car analogy! When I say "reduced to process," I mean that the process is simple, effective, and reliable enough that it's on par with, for example, buying a car in America. If you walk into a car dealership, practically everyone working there will bend over backwards to ensure that you walk out with a car bought from said dealership. That is absolutely not the case with dating. You might have to walk into 100 different dealerships before you find one that's even willing to let you go on a test drive, and when you get to the negotiation table, you won't be presented several forms that are easy to sign, but will be shit-tested and asked tough questions like if you've ever owned or leased a car before, how long your previous lease was, or what were some specific things you have learned from previous car purchases. In the meantime, the dealership might complain in front of you about their previous customers (which may be either the fault of those customers or of the poor business acumen exercised by the dealership) and expect you to listen intently. In spite of your best efforts, and all your paperwork being in order, your request to purchase a car could be declined for myriad bullshit reasons such as, "we seem to be in different stages of the sales process," or "our interests as customer and vendor are too closely aligned."
It can't be reduced to process because the prospective partner's goal orientation and clear thinking gets a vote too.
Indeed. And such negotiations aren't even guaranteed to be made in good faith.
I think one of us is
ing, because it seems like you're on board with the idea of goal oriented dating, and lamenting the fact that there are too few women in your dating pool who are goal oriented, especially oriented toward your specific goal, which is to find a spouse.I'm not sure that we actually disagree on any of this stuff.
- Is failure, by whatever definition, exclusively bad, or are there cases where it might be good?
It's exclusively bad. But see the next answer.
- If failing to attract a partner is a failure, is it a greater or lesser failure than being with a partner but in an incredibly toxic relationship? Or how about versus a string of short relationships, or being divorced?
As you're alluding to, some things are famously Worse Than Failure. If you roll a 1 on The Cosmic D20 Of Life, somebody ends up dead. (Maybe you get the girl pregnant and need to get an abortion. Maybe you accidentally go on a date with a serial killer. Et cetera.)
There's various gradiatons of Worse Than Failure in between "can't find a partner" and "somebody dies."
Would it be fair then, to say that acquiring a partner is an important accomplishment in life and anyone who has not has failed?
After a certain point in life (probably in your late 20s), I think it's a fair thing to reach that conclusion. But not all failures are equal, and this kind of a failure should be read as a setback rather than soul-crushing.
- Are failures of this nature like "failing an exam in school," or more akin to "failing to become a billionaire?"
I might not be understanding this analogy. I see the billionaire thing as a long term life goal that some people have. Failing at your purpose in life is worse than the minor setback of failing a test in school. The first girl from all the way up at the beginning of the post (the one who's looking for a spouse) probably feels closer to "fail at life goal" than "minor setback."
Then I should clarify. In high school, generally, the exams are of a fair, just and reasonable difficulty in that if the average student puts in the work studying the material that will be covered on the exam, the student will pass. (College is a different story, in that you might study all the material but only know how to answer two questions on a one-hour, five question exam, but I digress).
In dating, you can message hundreds of profiles, you can keep a full social calendar, you can hit up bars and shoot your shot, and still have nothing to show for it. Thus, I don't think it's fair to classify both "failures" as the same sort or degree of failure.
OK, I read the analogy the other way. Given those bounds of your analogy, assuming that the person's life goal is to be a billionaire, failing to have become a billionaire yet while working to become one is closer than the high school test as you defined it.
TLDR: Decide what you want to get our of a relationship before you ask the girl out. Make sure that she wants the same thing as you from the relationship by very early in the relationship.
Won't work. I've dated someone who on our first date made very clear that she was looking for something long-term, only later to hear her admit to having had a colorful past with dozens of exes and gush about how she wanted to steal her married friend's husband because he had big arms and was good around the house.
Can you see how it's not just as simple as putting in the work?
I didn't say it was as simple as putting in the work. Of course it's not. That would be stupid.
It sucks that the girl you were dating lied to you about her intentions. I'm sorry, man. I've been there. (I've accidentally gone on dates with two lesbians, and almost a third.)
Did you break things off once you found out that you and her actually had different goals, though? Because that's the important part of what I'm saying. Too often. people either date without having goals in mind, or stay in relationships once they recognize their goals have changed.
-
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@djls45 said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@djls45 said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@Groaner also. The kind of people who are serious about "until death do us part" are usually also the kind of people who get offended by a prenup.
This is only logical. If you're committing to staying together until death separates you, then what's the point of having something that pries open the door, however slightly, to not staying together until you or your spouse's demise?
It's like life insurance. Nobody wants to die (barring a few exceptions). People who buy life insurance don't plan to die. They don't buy it because they're likely to die. It's just that it may happen, for a variety of reasons over the course of your life, and when it happens it will really suck for those they leave behind. But the insurance payout will help them go through it a whole lot easier.
It's nothing like life insurance. People buy life insurance because they know that everyone is going to die eventually, and they want something prepared in case it's sudden or sooner than they think.
Median life insurance policyholder is 43 years old. A vast majority of people don't die at 43. And policies are usually only valid for 1 year. There's between 0.1% and 0.3% chance you die any given year; even less if you aren't reckless driver. By far, the vast majority of policies in that age group end up being a total waste of money. A very predictable waste of money. And yet people keep buying them, on the off chance they're the unlucky ones this year.
"Policies are only valid for one year" is only true in the most technical sense. A common arrangement is called "Level term life insurance" where you agree to a contract up front under which the insurance company promises to offer you the same insurance for the same premium for 20 or 30 years. Yes, technically it's 30 one-year policies and not a single 30-year policy, but both sides of the deal are doing the amortization and risk calculation based on the full term.
-
@Groaner said in Tinder is shit:
I know and know of a lot of good guys who have made it into their 30s without ever having gone on a date or having been in a relationship,
Come to think of it, I tried a video dating service back in the day, and got one date from it, and that might have been in my very late 20s; it's been so long I don't remember for certain any more. (And a very expensive date it was, too; the dating service cost over $1000/year. I could have gotten another date, but the service didn't bother letting me know there was another woman who'd expressed interest until after I'd let my membership lapse.) Not another date until I was 32.and not for lack of effort.
Maybe. In my case, it was mostly extreme shyness and fear of rejection. Therefore, I chose not to put in the effort.
I've dated someone who on our first date made very clear that she was looking for something long-term, only later to hear her admit to having had a colorful past
Ouch. That hits close to home. On our first date, my now-ex-wife and I both said we were looking for marriage and children (not necessarily with each other at that point; it was our first date, after all, and had no idea yet whether the other person was at all suitable). Later, we were discussing our histories (or lack thereof, in my case), and she told me she'd been in a relationship for 8 years, and later had lived with a fiance until she'd broken it off. "The rest were just dating." (I never inquired further into "the rest"; I probably didn't really want to know.) As for risk of STDs, it had been two years since she'd been with a man, and she'd been tested twice since then.
Not until we were filling out our marriage license application — because "I'd see it on the license and find out anyway" — did she tell me the 8-year relationship had been a marriage, and she was divorced.
Years later, we were both working a 12-step program and heard a testimonial by a woman who had struggled with affection addiction — trading sex for affection — and she said that sounded like her own life story. Um, just how many "the rest" were there?
Later still, when we were separating, she informed me she'd had two emotional affairs while we were married. They never became physical, but at least one wasn't due to lack of trying on her part. (He wasn't interested; he's gay.) And oh, BTW, the two-year gap before we started dating was only two weeks.
And she accused me of lying about my past!
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tinder is shit:
@Groaner said in Tinder is shit:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tinder is shit:
- What would constitute a "success?"
Everyone who's dating ideally has one clear purpose in mind when they do so.
Ideally, yes, but in reality, it's rare. I was somewhat disappointed to hear from my dating coach that I was far ahead of the pack because I knew what I wanted. Many people don't even think such things through.
- Could a randomly selected person have reasonably attained success based on the resources that person had available?
Sure. It's a lot of goal setting and clear thinking that most people aren't willing to do, though.
I disagree. I know and know of a lot of good guys who have made it into their 30s without ever having gone on a date or having been in a relationship, and not for lack of effort.
- Are the criteria and metrics for success well-defined, measurable, and can be reduced to process?
To the extent that the person is goal oriented and a clear thinker, their metrics for success are well defined and measurable. To the extent that they're not, their metrics are not.
It's time for a car analogy! When I say "reduced to process," I mean that the process is simple, effective, and reliable enough that it's on par with, for example, buying a car in America. If you walk into a car dealership, practically everyone working there will bend over backwards to ensure that you walk out with a car bought from said dealership. That is absolutely not the case with dating. You might have to walk into 100 different dealerships before you find one that's even willing to let you go on a test drive, and when you get to the negotiation table, you won't be presented several forms that are easy to sign, but will be shit-tested and asked tough questions like if you've ever owned or leased a car before, how long your previous lease was, or what were some specific things you have learned from previous car purchases. In the meantime, the dealership might complain in front of you about their previous customers (which may be either the fault of those customers or of the poor business acumen exercised by the dealership) and expect you to listen intently. In spite of your best efforts, and all your paperwork being in order, your request to purchase a car could be declined for myriad bullshit reasons such as, "we seem to be in different stages of the sales process," or "our interests as customer and vendor are too closely aligned."
It can't be reduced to process because the prospective partner's goal orientation and clear thinking gets a vote too.
Indeed. And such negotiations aren't even guaranteed to be made in good faith.
I think one of us is
ing, because it seems like you're on board with the idea of goal oriented dating, and lamenting the fact that there are too few women in your dating pool who are goal oriented, especially oriented toward your specific goal, which is to find a spouse.I'm not sure that we actually disagree on any of this stuff.
Ok, great. Then let us continue to agree, violently or not.
- Is failure, by whatever definition, exclusively bad, or are there cases where it might be good?
It's exclusively bad. But see the next answer.
- If failing to attract a partner is a failure, is it a greater or lesser failure than being with a partner but in an incredibly toxic relationship? Or how about versus a string of short relationships, or being divorced?
As you're alluding to, some things are famously Worse Than Failure. If you roll a 1 on The Cosmic D20 Of Life, somebody ends up dead. (Maybe you get the girl pregnant and need to get an abortion. Maybe you accidentally go on a date with a serial killer. Et cetera.)
There's various gradiatons of Worse Than Failure in between "can't find a partner" and "somebody dies."
Would it be fair then, to say that acquiring a partner is an important accomplishment in life and anyone who has not has failed?
After a certain point in life (probably in your late 20s), I think it's a fair thing to reach that conclusion. But not all failures are equal, and this kind of a failure should be read as a setback rather than soul-crushing.
IME, the soul-crushingness comes of setbacks repeated once (or twice, or thrice, etc.) too many.
- Are failures of this nature like "failing an exam in school," or more akin to "failing to become a billionaire?"
I might not be understanding this analogy. I see the billionaire thing as a long term life goal that some people have. Failing at your purpose in life is worse than the minor setback of failing a test in school. The first girl from all the way up at the beginning of the post (the one who's looking for a spouse) probably feels closer to "fail at life goal" than "minor setback."
Then I should clarify. In high school, generally, the exams are of a fair, just and reasonable difficulty in that if the average student puts in the work studying the material that will be covered on the exam, the student will pass. (College is a different story, in that you might study all the material but only know how to answer two questions on a one-hour, five question exam, but I digress).
In dating, you can message hundreds of profiles, you can keep a full social calendar, you can hit up bars and shoot your shot, and still have nothing to show for it. Thus, I don't think it's fair to classify both "failures" as the same sort or degree of failure.
OK, I read the analogy the other way. Given those bounds of your analogy, assuming that the person's life goal is to be a billionaire, failing to have become a billionaire yet while working to become one is closer than the high school test as you defined it.
Great. I don't think it's reasonable for someone to beat oneself up over failing to become a billionaire. Failing an Algebra 2 test carries perhaps a bit more shame.
TLDR: Decide what you want to get our of a relationship before you ask the girl out. Make sure that she wants the same thing as you from the relationship by very early in the relationship.
Won't work. I've dated someone who on our first date made very clear that she was looking for something long-term, only later to hear her admit to having had a colorful past with dozens of exes and gush about how she wanted to steal her married friend's husband because he had big arms and was good around the house.
Can you see how it's not just as simple as putting in the work?
I didn't say it was as simple as putting in the work. Of course it's not. That would be stupid.
It sucks that the girl you were dating lied to you about her intentions. I'm sorry, man. I've been there. (I've accidentally gone on dates with two lesbians, and almost a third.)
Did you break things off once you found out that you and her actually had different goals, though? Because that's the important part of what I'm saying. Too often. people either date without having goals in mind, or stay in relationships once they recognize their goals have changed.
I didn't break it off, she did. Up until that point, things seemed to be going swimmingly - each of our dates was a whole afternoon, then we'd talk for a couple hours twice a week during the weeks before seeing each other again. She ticked off literally every checkbox of what I was looking for in a lady - intelligent, beautiful, kind, funny, fun, successful, and self-respecting. There were perhaps some red flags, but it seemed pretty clear based on her effort expended (from helping plan the dates to splitting the check 50/50 to driving an hour out of her way on a couple occasions to see me) that she wanted this to work. She called me "amazing" on multiple occasions. Even during the breakup spiel ("we're too alike in our traumas, and that can make a relationship painful"), she conceded that we were compatible and that she enjoyed our time together. It makes no sense and has confounded me for the better part of a year and a half. Only thing I can conclude is that she had some issues and I perhaps dodged a bullet.
Still pisses me off, though. I have to bust my butt to get a handful of solid dating prospects, and this particular prospect would throw everything away, allegedly, because of what might happen. To have done everything "right" and still be faced with failure is quite a mindfuck. It makes you question whether it's even worth giving your all to another person if they can just nope out of it.
-
@Groaner said in Tinder is shit:
I don't think it's reasonable for someone to beat oneself up over failing to become a billionaire. Failing an Algebra 2 test carries perhaps a bit more shame.
Failing to become a billionaire, if that is one's goal, seems obviously to me to be a much bigger failure than an algebra test. However, it's a very unrealistic and unreasonable goal for most people, and failure is the almost-certain outcome. So there should be little or no shame in failing to achieve it. Failing an algebra test is most likely your own fault.
-
Count me into the "male, over 30, with no relationship history" category. And yes, I consider that a personal failing. Mostly due to not trying, plus spending most of my most "productive" (in that category of thing) years with severe self-confidence issues (ok, really self-hatred) stemming at least in part from gaslighting by my older brother during my childhood.
Looking back, I passed up a bunch of opportunities because I was too self-absorbed and sure that no one could ever like me (because I hated myself). And it'd have been way easier back then, when I was surrounded by other single people of my same religion and culture who were eager to date and get married. Now that I'm not (and in fact very much not) around such people frequently, and more set in my ways, it's way harder.
-
@Benjamin-Hall Have you tried cruising the streets of the red-light district at 2am in a dark green sedan, with a Bible and a shotgun in the backseat, alternately lit by the streetlights?
-
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@djls45 said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@djls45 said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@Groaner also. The kind of people who are serious about "until death do us part" are usually also the kind of people who get offended by a prenup.
This is only logical. If you're committing to staying together until death separates you, then what's the point of having something that pries open the door, however slightly, to not staying together until you or your spouse's demise?
It's like life insurance. Nobody wants to die (barring a few exceptions). People who buy life insurance don't plan to die. They don't buy it because they're likely to die. It's just that it may happen, for a variety of reasons over the course of your life, and when it happens it will really suck for those they leave behind. But the insurance payout will help them go through it a whole lot easier.
It's nothing like life insurance. People buy life insurance because they know that everyone is going to die eventually, and they want something prepared in case it's sudden or sooner than they think.
Median life insurance policyholder is 43 years old. A vast majority of people don't die at 43. And policies are usually only valid for 1 year. There's between 0.1% and 0.3% chance you die any given year; even less if you aren't reckless driver. By far, the vast majority of policies in that age group end up being a total waste of money. A very predictable waste of money. And yet people keep buying them, on the off chance they're the unlucky ones this year.
"Policies are only valid for one year" is only true in the most technical sense.
So is "everyone is going to die eventually". My point was, unless you're in the age group that pays over $1000/month for life insurance, it's very likely your policy will go unused - and the same goes for a prenup, so the comparison is absolutely appropriate.
A common arrangement is called "Level term life insurance" where you agree to a contract up front under which the insurance company promises to offer you the same insurance for the same premium for 20 or 30 years. Yes, technically it's 30 one-year policies and not a single 30-year policy, but both sides of the deal are doing the amortization and risk calculation based on the full term.
Really? Didn't know that. Sounds like a sucker deal. You effectively end up paying your later years' premiums in advance while getting nothing in return (it's not like insurance prices vary from year to year; death rates and life expectancy are among the most stable metrics in the world).
And being a bad deal is exactly why I believe you it's very common.
-
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
it's not like insurance prices vary from year to year
They go steadily up year after year. If you buy life insurance at age 20, you pay (pick a number, almost certainly unrealistically low, but whatever) $10/month as long as you keep paying the premium, no matter how old or sick you get. Buy the same insurance at age 40, you might pay (again, pick a number) $100/month. Wait until age 70, when you're quite a bit more likely to need it, and you'll pay $1000/month, if you can buy it at all.
Say you live to be 80.
Age at purchase Premium/year Years until death Total premium paid 20 $120 60 $7200 40 $1200 40 $48000 70 $12000 10 $120000
The numbers are probably nowhere near realistic and probably greatly exaggerate the effects of waiting to purchase life insurance, but the general idea is real.
No, I did not buy life insurance when I was young and keep the policy continuously active. The only life insurance I've ever had was a job benefit (usually company-paid for the base policy and optional payroll deduction for higher payout value) and disappeared when the job did.
-
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@djls45 said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@djls45 said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@Groaner also. The kind of people who are serious about "until death do us part" are usually also the kind of people who get offended by a prenup.
This is only logical. If you're committing to staying together until death separates you, then what's the point of having something that pries open the door, however slightly, to not staying together until you or your spouse's demise?
It's like life insurance. Nobody wants to die (barring a few exceptions). People who buy life insurance don't plan to die. They don't buy it because they're likely to die. It's just that it may happen, for a variety of reasons over the course of your life, and when it happens it will really suck for those they leave behind. But the insurance payout will help them go through it a whole lot easier.
It's nothing like life insurance. People buy life insurance because they know that everyone is going to die eventually, and they want something prepared in case it's sudden or sooner than they think.
Median life insurance policyholder is 43 years old. A vast majority of people don't die at 43. And policies are usually only valid for 1 year. There's between 0.1% and 0.3% chance you die any given year; even less if you aren't reckless driver. By far, the vast majority of policies in that age group end up being a total waste of money. A very predictable waste of money. And yet people keep buying them, on the off chance they're the unlucky ones this year.
"Policies are only valid for one year" is only true in the most technical sense.
So is "everyone is going to die eventually". My point was, unless you're in the age group that pays over $1000/month for life insurance, it's very likely your policy will go unused - and the same goes for a prenup, so the comparison is absolutely appropriate.
A common arrangement is called "Level term life insurance" where you agree to a contract up front under which the insurance company promises to offer you the same insurance for the same premium for 20 or 30 years. Yes, technically it's 30 one-year policies and not a single 30-year policy, but both sides of the deal are doing the amortization and risk calculation based on the full term.
Really? Didn't know that. Sounds like a sucker deal. You effectively end up paying your later years' premiums in advance while getting nothing in return (it's not like insurance prices vary from year to year; death rates and life expectancy are among the most stable metrics in the world).
And being a bad deal is exactly why I believe you it's very common.
By definition, all insurance is a bad deal. An insurance company would go bankrupt if most people's insurance paid out.
But if you're the unlucky one who gets killed in whatever way and leaves your wife a widow, she and your kids will need the money.
That's why people take out life insurance.
Retired people, who by definition don't have income, don't need life insurance. Single people without dependents generally don't need life insurance. If your wife works and you don't have kids, you might not need life insurance.
But people do the risk analysis based on protecting the people who depend on them from the worst case scenario, which is why insurance is a thing.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tinder is shit:
Single people without dependents generally don't need life insurance. If your wife works and you don't have kids, you might not need life insurance.
Even so, you might decide to get a minimal, low-value policy to cover funeral expenses. Even the cheapest possible (legal, not @Lorne-Kates-style) disposal of human remains, with no funeral or other add-ons, is expensive. As I said
, my mom and dad both pre-paid their arrangements; otherwise, it probably would have cost me something like $10k apiece. An absolutely no-frills immediate cremation, with maybe a DIY memorial service at home, can maybe done for as little as $500 (maybe, depending on where you live and how old the blog post that gives that number is), and maybe $1k for a no-frills "green" burial (if you live in a place that allows that, which if you live in a US city, you probably don't, and transporting remains to a place that does might cost more than an inexpensive funeral where you are). An average funeral costs $8k–$10k, depending on whose figures you believe, and funeral homes are notorious for high-pressure upselling to grieving families.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Tinder is shit:
If you buy life insurance at age 20
I thought this part is obvious enough that I don't even have to say it. Same with inflation.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tinder is shit:
By definition, all insurance is a bad deal. An insurance company would go bankrupt if most people's insurance paid out.
But if you're the unlucky one who gets killed in whatever way and leaves your wife a widow, she and your kids will need the money.
That's why people take out life insurance.
Yes, of course. Now that we're past all the low hanging fruits that assume one side of this conversation has intelligence of aborted puppy embryo with Down's syndrome, can we talk about the actually interesting part - which is, why in the ever loving fuck would I, somebody proficient with a calculator, ever consider taking a 10-year life policy instead of 1-year policies 10 times in a row?
-
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@HardwareGeek said in Tinder is shit:
If you buy life insurance at age 20
I thought this part is obvious enough that I don't even have to say it. Same with inflation.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tinder is shit:
By definition, all insurance is a bad deal. An insurance company would go bankrupt if most people's insurance paid out.
But if you're the unlucky one who gets killed in whatever way and leaves your wife a widow, she and your kids will need the money.
That's why people take out life insurance.
Yes, of course. Now that we're past all the low hanging fruits that assume one side of this conversation has intelligence of aborted puppy embryo with Down's syndrome, can we talk about the actually interesting part - which is, why in the ever loving fuck would I, somebody proficient with a calculator, ever consider taking a 10-year life policy instead of 1-year policies 10 times in a row?
If your health changes drastically in year 3, your rates go up significantly if you're actually shopping for new insurance every year. But if you lock in the lower rate in year 1, you get to keep that rate in years 4-10.
Also, I'm not even sure most carriers actually sell term life insurance with a term of one year in anything more than a technical sense. I know my carrier didn't make it obvious that they have an option for a shorter term than 10 consecutive 1 year policies. Maybe they sell it and I never asked, but I've never seen it in the paperwork or marketing material.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear I have life insurance through my employer. Every year it's a new policy with new rate, new terms and conditions and sometimes a new carrier.
-
There is a bar called "term life insurance, what a good idea" and, as I take an interest in such bars,
ed. silencio
-
I feel like either or all of these pictures may or may not be relevant to the discussion.
Not a failure:
All you need:
Not for a lack of trying:
Too much trying:
-
And I figure I’ll try that next:
-
@topspin I was kinda expecting
The Hellbound Heart(Hellraiser 1 for plebes) vsSpongebobfor the last one.
-
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@GuyWhoKilledBear I have life insurance through my employer. Every year it's a new policy with new rate, new terms and conditions and sometimes a new carrier.
Oh. That must be a gigantic pain in the ass to redo every year. (If you do it. As I understand your situation, you might not need life insurance.)
I have insurance that I set up individually through a private carrier. But my employer has a long term contract with the carrier they use. They haven't switched carriers in the decade plus I've been there.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@GuyWhoKilledBear I have life insurance through my employer. Every year it's a new policy with new rate, new terms and conditions and sometimes a new carrier.
Oh. That must be a gigantic pain in the ass to redo every year.
Not for me. It's part of our benefits package, along with health, dental, vision, accident insurance, and a few others. I just have to click "next" 20 times once a year. I don't even know what company it is right now.
(If you do it. As I understand your situation, you might not need life insurance.)
It's like 3 bucks a month (the other 10 is covered by the employer). Don't know how much it's due to collective bargaining and how much it's due to being under 30, but I'd be stupid not to take it. The payout is equal to yearly salary IIRC.
-
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tinder is shit:
@Gąska said in Tinder is shit:
@GuyWhoKilledBear I have life insurance through my employer. Every year it's a new policy with new rate, new terms and conditions and sometimes a new carrier.
Oh. That must be a gigantic pain in the ass to redo every year.
Not for me. It's part of our benefits package, along with health, dental, vision, accident insurance, and a few others. I just have to click "next" 20 times once a year. I don't even know what company it is right now.
(If you do it. As I understand your situation, you might not need life insurance.)
It's like 3 bucks a month (the other 10 is covered by the employer). Don't know how much it's due to collective bargaining and how much it's due to being under 30, but I'd be stupid not to take it. The payout is equal to yearly salary IIRC.
OK, if it's guaranteed issue, that's probably different.
In my experience with insurance, where it's multiples of the annual salary and it's expected to be a 30 year deal, you have to take a physical with the carrier's doctor before they issue you the policy. That would be a bit much to ask to do annually.
-
-
@boomzilla okay but can she cook?
-
@Gąska 'Course not! She eats her beef RAW!
...
What's that? Parasites? Her immune system eats them for brunch.
-
@boomzilla said in Tinder is shit:
cannot read and DO NOT want to learn.
If that was regex I would send her a ring.
-
@DogsB said in Tinder is shit:
If that was regex I would send her a ring.
It better be M24 axle nut.
-
@boomzilla I like her sense of humor.
-
@boomzilla if she cannot read, and does not want to learn, how will she read what I have to say to her, or write me a response when we inevitably match?
-
@Arantor said in Tinder is shit:
@boomzilla if she cannot read, and does not want to learn, how will she read what I have to say to her, or write me a response when we inevitably match?
I guess your only choice is to resort the universal language.
-
@Arantor said in Tinder is shit:
how will she read what I have to say to her, or write me a response when we inevitably match?
Same as always, grab a scribe. People what can read and write, thems is little.
-
-
-
@Groaner said in Tinder is shit:
I disagree. I know and know of a lot of good guys who have made it into their 30s without ever having gone on a date or having been in a relationship, and not for lack of effort.
Oye!
Though I suppose I could make an effort....
-
-
-
I don't think advising people to get into abusive relationships is a good idea.
-
-
-
@boomzilla g-eulogy.
-
-
-
Are you into Geology
Hmm why do ask?
So I have somewhere to put my dickinsonite
