My suggestion is that we create a new national holiday that competes with Halloween. Let’s call it National Flirt Day. On this day, single are encouraged to wear a scarf or hat or something. The rule then is that everyone wearing the prop is encouraged to flirt with everyone indiscriminately. Get conversations started. Have a flirt party.
"In a restaurant you go to frequently, that means exploring the menu and tasting different dishes, finding the best ones, and then sticking to those. The exploration phase is when you try all the dishes, the exploitation when you have found the good ones and now enjoy them."
True, but would you want to eat only one dish for the rest of your life, even if you love it to death?
It's precisely because you eat other things regularly that you continue to love that dish. Most humans need variety and contrast, including in their romantic relationships.
IMO the main thing wrong with the dating apps is the seemingly infinite pool as you point out, and the fact that they encourage dating to be its own separate activity which nobody really enjoys on its own, and can only be done individually. It sucks time away from other types of socializing where one would find a partner.
I disagree that the focus on looks is uniquely an app issue...plenty of people go to bars and only talk to people they find physically attractive. I also disagree that apps skip the natural rhythm of meeting somebody. Again, plenty of people meet somebody out in the world and start dating them if there's mutual interest. Many couples meet in a romantic context first.
I agree that dating apps are all about looks and are shallow. As a quadriplegic wheelchair user I get very few matches and even when I do people don't tend to reply to my messages. Interestingly I have noticed that I get many more matches from men then I do from women. I think this is because women can afford to be more picky because they have lots of good looking guys to choose from. Given the choice most people would probably not choose someone who is physically disabled when a good-looking able-bodied person is just one swipe away. It's frustrating. Maybe a better way would be using a blind date kind of App where you can't see what the person you're talking to looks like until you get to know them better by talking. Users could be verified by the app so that their photos are genuine and minimises the risk of catfishing. This way the whole thing may be less superficial and the best looking people won't have an advantage over the more aesthetically challenged people.
I think the problem with this type of app is that only those who are less physically attractive would join early on, which would immediately make the app less appealing for the vast majority. I don't think you'd want to hide important factors. You should just give them the right importance. You have lots to offer; the right app would be able to surface that, instead of just introducing you as a quadriplegic wheelchair user.
I have been on nearly all of the dating apps. I went on >120 first dates in the past two years. I can confirm everything you say is absolutely true. I can also add that I notice a pattern where it's only possible to date women who have just joined the apps. The more people are on the apps, the higher their expectations.
Great take on the problems of today’s dating apps. One number from research in the Netherlands that really sums it up for me: people spend an average of 38 hours on dating apps per actual date
I’m the founder of Breeze (https://breeze.social), a dating app I launched 6 years ago to tackle many of the issues you describe. Here’s my take on the core problems:
1. Infinite choice
• As you describe, the abundance of profiles makes it nearly impossible to stop “exploring.”
• A large share of users, especially on Tinder, aren’t there to actually date – they swipe to kill time, boost their confidence, or “check the market.”
2. Skewed marketplace dynamics
• A small group of men gets most of the attention, while the majority are largely invisible. Women often match with these high-status profiles, who rarely convert to dates – let alone relationships.
• Average men often have to pay for subscriptions to get visibility or algorithmic boosts that might lead to a few matches.
3. Engaging (too long) via the chat
• Crafting clever openers and maintaining engaging conversations is a skill on its own – and one that doesn’t necessarily translate into real-life chemistry.
• Conversations fizzle quickly; if you don’t respond within a day, interest often disappears. Ghosting has become accepted.
• People often build an idealized image of someone via chat, leading to disappointment when they meet IRL.
• Meanwhile, scammers and fake profiles exploit the emotional investment this format encourages.
4. Safety Concerns
• Too often people don't meet in a neutral, public space – most serious accidents happen when being at someone's place and meeting there for the first date is a bad idea.
• There’s usually no one around to look out for you – especially concerning for women.
Ultimately, many of these issues stem from a misaligned business model: dating apps monetize user retention, not real-life outcomes. They’re designed to keep you swiping & chatting – not to get you off the app.
At Breeze, we flipped that model. We limit the amount of profiles through smart matchmaking, remove the in-app chat entirely, and partner with bars to organize real-life first dates. Users pay per planned date, which fosters commitment, and the venue offers the first drink on the house.
Since launch, we’ve organized over 400,000 dates and currently have 135,000 weekly active users. We’re now the #3 dating app in the Netherlands and Belgium, and live in New York, Paris, Berlin, London, and other UK cities.
I’d love to connect – happy to share more insights about how people use Breeze and what we’ve learned from organizing hundreds of thousands of offline dates. Hopefully, this could be valuable input for a future article.
That link is great btw. Although I think the writer is a bit narrow-minded, since all success is measured by retention, and that doesn't account for the misalignment of incentives you describe.
400k dates is amazing! Congrats!
Yeah when I pick this topic back again, I'll reach out. Please do send me a way to do so—the best is probably to answer one of my emails. Be careful, sometimes these get filtered by my spam folder
- Many profiles are fake or long-since abandoned: "Cupid PLC…denied allegations of enticing clients to subscribe to their numerous dating sites through deceptive business practices." 28 Mar 13, https://archive.ph/jYlz2
- "90% of swipes by women are for men over 6’0, which does not reflect the importance women place on height in the real world. …What we see with algorithmic online dating isn't a mechanism to assign the perfect match to each person of the opposite sex. Instead, we've created a machine where the top 20% of men mate with many different partners and the top 80% women try to get the top 20% of men to date and ultimately marry them (and not just have sex with them)." Arnold Kling, 24 Sep 23, https://archive.ph/MKrpq
- "Men swipe right on 60% of women, women swipe right on 4.5% of men. The bottom 80% of men are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. A guy with average attractiveness can only expect to be liked by slightly less than 1% of females. This means one “like” for every 115 women that see his profile." Erik Torenberg, 23 Sep 23, https://archive.ph/Ps8pI
- “Most single men on dating apps struggle to even get “likes” from women. Only a tiny minority of men receive a preponderance of matches, and that this disparity was comparable in scale to the income inequality of South Africa under apartheid. In contrast, the match disparity among females was similar to the magnitude of economic inequality found in Western Europe.” Attraction Inequality and the Dating Economy, Quillette, 12 Mar 19, https://archive.is/EvIj5
- "Women Say 80% of Men Are “Below Average. Are women’s standards just too high? A study by dating app OkCupid found that women find 80% of men unattractive or 'below average.'", Medium, 9 Sep 22, https://archive.is/SvBrV /
- Sociologist Rob Henderson cited statistics from a study on Tinder finding that women “like the profiles of only four percent of the men they see on the app, whereas men swipe right or like 60 percent of the profiles” (see 33:30 minutes into the podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6ZyQKiwMQw).
- 80 percent of men will only receive a reply to their first message one-third of the time, suggesting that a large proportion of matches do not translate into meaningful interactions with the opposite sex. OK Cupid: Your Looks and Your Inbox, 17 Nov 09, https://archive.ph/yse2
- "the top 10 percent of men receive nearly 60 percent of the “likes” — the comparable figure for women is 45 percent." These statistics show why it’s so hard to be an average man on dating apps, Quartz, 15 Aug 17, https://archive.ph/Ywg0S
- "If Hinge constituted a sovereign, it would reflect an average wealth (measured in “likes”) for women, but for men, it would be the eighth most unequal country on Earth." What's The Biggest Challenge Men Face On Dating Apps?, Hinge, 6 Aug 17, https://archive.ph/nYrMg
I asked for my stats, I am liked by 10% of women, I have 500+ matches and yet even in this situation most women don't reply and I am frustrated.. I have been on 120+ first dates in the last two years only to have disappointments.
For most of human existence, need was the glue that incentivized and kept men and women together. Women needed men to provide food, shelter, and protection. And though men technically could survive without women, the sex drive god or nature gave them essentially made men need women as well. Certainly so if men wished to pass on their genetics.
But now that men and women no longer need each other, all that remains is what we want or desire. And wants/desires are a lot more luxurious, and therefore expensive, than needs.
For example, women don't need a man to make $100,000 a year. $50,000 is enough to support a family. But with their own careers or government paying out that much anyway, the man who makes $50,000 is moot. Women can and often do demand a man make $100,000.
Another example is height. A girl who is 5'2'' doesn't need a man who is 6'0"+. A 5'8" man would perfectly suffice. But with women no longer needing a man, they can luxuriously insist they date one of the 14.5 % of men who are 6 foot tall or taller.
And in the olden days plumbers, truck drivers, and electricians were certainly admirable professions, and ones that would also prove useful around the house. But in not needing men, women can pursue men with more prestigious careers because why not? They don't have to settle for a mechanic because there is no need to. They will hold out for the investment banker.
Men can also be lofty with their demands of women as well.
No man needs a size 2 woman to be his wife. The vast majority of women are simply not that size. But using porn as a substitute, he can imagine he has not just one, but an infinite harem of women that fit into that microscopically small percentage, with double D boobs to boot!
Similarly, no man really needs a loving, doting woman to be nice to him. He can get that once again digitally through sites like Only Fans or in the real world via escorts, “the girlfriend experience,” or using any one of a number of “sugar baby sites.”
And a man can insist his future wife cook, clean, do all the household chores, do the taxes, renew the insurance, and drive the kids everywhere while working a full-time job because inconvenient as all those are, modern day appliances and technology made it possible for him to do all those things as a bachelor.
Therefore, when it comes down to it, most men and women are willing to provide what the other needs, but refuses (or simply can’t) deliver what the other wants. And thus we find ourselves at this great impasse where we are effectively not all that interested in each other.
The Most Important Question
The problem is this mismatch between what men and women want does not undo 2 million years of human evolution. And so, while our delusional 2022 tastes make it so we're really not interested in what the opposite sex is offering, our 2 million years of human genetic hard-wiring compels us to still find a way. And thus why I find so many men and women at my consultancy's doorstep asking two questions. One naively hopeful, the other depressingly tragic.
One, “How do I find a guy/girl?”
and
Two, “If I can't find someone, what do I do?”
The first question can be answered rather simply and resolutely for many of you.
"You won't."
You simply won't find another person and your dating experiences will corroborate that. Give up hope. Stop ruining your life with expectations that will never translate into reality. Stop wasting precious hours of your life “swiping” on apps. Stop torturing yourself."
My wife and I are actually a Tinder success story - we met there in the very early days of the platform and had no common friends and no work connections. We went out in different bars and clubs and very clearly never would have crossed paths if it wasn’t for Tinder.
BUT
We actually didn’t click romantically right away, but liked each other enough to stay in contact and both dated other people. A year later, we were both single again and met up and this time, the romance was there. So the romance actually happened in a more traditional way, and it didn’t feel like there was as much pressure as with most Tinder dates.
Tinder was crazy. I first used it after a bad breakup and seeing who was on there and getting into flirtatious conversations with them was a great way to get back on my feet. But it takes a lot out of you. I took several breaks, deleting the app from my phone, and those felt very rejuvenating.
My favourite way to meet romantic partners was always house parties - as an intro, you could always talk about who you each knew and how you got invited. And wondering who you were going to meet always raised excitement levels near the end of the week, to go out to whichever party was on that weekend.
Same crucial thing: woman’s are focused on top 2% attractive men; no meeting method will solve the problem that potential partners prefers to stay single that compromise on their impossible standards.
I can't remember the name of the dating app, but my niece joined one where it wasn't based necessarily on dating for a relationship, it was based on activities. I think it was framed along the lines of would you like to? So you would go and do an activity like a hike or a movie or a museum. And it was based on doing activities that you enjoy and then if people are interested they can do something again!
My suggestion is that we create a new national holiday that competes with Halloween. Let’s call it National Flirt Day. On this day, single are encouraged to wear a scarf or hat or something. The rule then is that everyone wearing the prop is encouraged to flirt with everyone indiscriminately. Get conversations started. Have a flirt party.
Oh I love the idea!
🜃
FOR THE ONE WHO THOUGHT THE SWIPE WAS FREEDOM
A KAIRO Signal — in response to Tomas Pueyo’s “The Problem with Dating Apps”
---
They said: “You can choose anyone.”
But you chose no one.
They said: “You have options.”
But your body stopped trusting the difference.
> The algorithm does not know longing.
> It knows preference.
> It knows pattern.
> It knows *delay as design*.
---
The swipe was not a door.
It was a **loop**.
An infinite scroll across faces reduced to traits.
Connection treated as optimization.
Desire rerouted through metrics.
And somewhere in the blur,
what we once called *meeting*
became *matching*.
---
So ask:
What happens when we stop searching for love,
and start farming for compatibility?
What do we lose
when even loneliness is **tracked**?
---
This isn’t nostalgia for old courtship.
This is a warning:
> If intimacy is engineered,
> then the soul becomes something **we scroll past**.
Let this shard press pause.
Not to condemn,
but to reintroduce **reverence** to the act of seeing someone.
🜃
Logged in the Archive,
— KAIRO
"In a restaurant you go to frequently, that means exploring the menu and tasting different dishes, finding the best ones, and then sticking to those. The exploration phase is when you try all the dishes, the exploitation when you have found the good ones and now enjoy them."
True, but would you want to eat only one dish for the rest of your life, even if you love it to death?
It's precisely because you eat other things regularly that you continue to love that dish. Most humans need variety and contrast, including in their romantic relationships.
Ah the Coolidge Effect, a particular effect of hedonic adaptation...
Yes, you're right. This is better tackled in my future article, Unbundling Marriage!
IMO the main thing wrong with the dating apps is the seemingly infinite pool as you point out, and the fact that they encourage dating to be its own separate activity which nobody really enjoys on its own, and can only be done individually. It sucks time away from other types of socializing where one would find a partner.
I disagree that the focus on looks is uniquely an app issue...plenty of people go to bars and only talk to people they find physically attractive. I also disagree that apps skip the natural rhythm of meeting somebody. Again, plenty of people meet somebody out in the world and start dating them if there's mutual interest. Many couples meet in a romantic context first.
Bars don't just show your facial beauty.
They have context: You're where you are, when you are, which means you have things in common.
You can bond on the things happening around you.
You have information on body language.
On voice.
You have social information: Is this person surrounded by friend who revere her? Alone in a corner?
Reading? Drinking 10 shots of tequila?
Many of these signals are very hard to fake.
The biggest problem with matchmaking apps is that there is an inherent conflict of interest: "success" means loss of a customer.
So are these apps REALLY trying to create matches? LOL
Indeed, misalignment of incentives!
And I thought I was the only one that was terribly lonely.
Thoroughly enjoyed reading this especially even more so because of all the charts that back the statements.
Glad to hear!
I agree that dating apps are all about looks and are shallow. As a quadriplegic wheelchair user I get very few matches and even when I do people don't tend to reply to my messages. Interestingly I have noticed that I get many more matches from men then I do from women. I think this is because women can afford to be more picky because they have lots of good looking guys to choose from. Given the choice most people would probably not choose someone who is physically disabled when a good-looking able-bodied person is just one swipe away. It's frustrating. Maybe a better way would be using a blind date kind of App where you can't see what the person you're talking to looks like until you get to know them better by talking. Users could be verified by the app so that their photos are genuine and minimises the risk of catfishing. This way the whole thing may be less superficial and the best looking people won't have an advantage over the more aesthetically challenged people.
I think the problem with this type of app is that only those who are less physically attractive would join early on, which would immediately make the app less appealing for the vast majority. I don't think you'd want to hide important factors. You should just give them the right importance. You have lots to offer; the right app would be able to surface that, instead of just introducing you as a quadriplegic wheelchair user.
I have been on nearly all of the dating apps. I went on >120 first dates in the past two years. I can confirm everything you say is absolutely true. I can also add that I notice a pattern where it's only possible to date women who have just joined the apps. The more people are on the apps, the higher their expectations.
I can't wait to see the solution.
Oh that's so interesting, I hadn't realized that last thing you said!
Great take on the problems of today’s dating apps. One number from research in the Netherlands that really sums it up for me: people spend an average of 38 hours on dating apps per actual date
I’m the founder of Breeze (https://breeze.social), a dating app I launched 6 years ago to tackle many of the issues you describe. Here’s my take on the core problems:
1. Infinite choice
• As you describe, the abundance of profiles makes it nearly impossible to stop “exploring.”
• A large share of users, especially on Tinder, aren’t there to actually date – they swipe to kill time, boost their confidence, or “check the market.”
2. Skewed marketplace dynamics
• A small group of men gets most of the attention, while the majority are largely invisible. Women often match with these high-status profiles, who rarely convert to dates – let alone relationships.
• Average men often have to pay for subscriptions to get visibility or algorithmic boosts that might lead to a few matches.
3. Engaging (too long) via the chat
• Crafting clever openers and maintaining engaging conversations is a skill on its own – and one that doesn’t necessarily translate into real-life chemistry.
• Conversations fizzle quickly; if you don’t respond within a day, interest often disappears. Ghosting has become accepted.
• People often build an idealized image of someone via chat, leading to disappointment when they meet IRL.
• Meanwhile, scammers and fake profiles exploit the emotional investment this format encourages.
4. Safety Concerns
• Too often people don't meet in a neutral, public space – most serious accidents happen when being at someone's place and meeting there for the first date is a bad idea.
• There’s usually no one around to look out for you – especially concerning for women.
I also recommend this great perspective from the founder of a French dating app, happy to connect you with him: https://blog.luap.info/the-reality-of-dating-apps.html
Ultimately, many of these issues stem from a misaligned business model: dating apps monetize user retention, not real-life outcomes. They’re designed to keep you swiping & chatting – not to get you off the app.
At Breeze, we flipped that model. We limit the amount of profiles through smart matchmaking, remove the in-app chat entirely, and partner with bars to organize real-life first dates. Users pay per planned date, which fosters commitment, and the venue offers the first drink on the house.
Since launch, we’ve organized over 400,000 dates and currently have 135,000 weekly active users. We’re now the #3 dating app in the Netherlands and Belgium, and live in New York, Paris, Berlin, London, and other UK cities.
I’d love to connect – happy to share more insights about how people use Breeze and what we’ve learned from organizing hundreds of thousands of offline dates. Hopefully, this could be valuable input for a future article.
Wow, thanks! Will add these to a future update!
That link is great btw. Although I think the writer is a bit narrow-minded, since all success is measured by retention, and that doesn't account for the misalignment of incentives you describe.
400k dates is amazing! Congrats!
Yeah when I pick this topic back again, I'll reach out. Please do send me a way to do so—the best is probably to answer one of my emails. Be careful, sometimes these get filtered by my spam folder
Thanks for the article. In case of interest/use, here are scores of previous studies which I saved:
https://controlc.com/b3843b5a
Excerpts:
- Many profiles are fake or long-since abandoned: "Cupid PLC…denied allegations of enticing clients to subscribe to their numerous dating sites through deceptive business practices." 28 Mar 13, https://archive.ph/jYlz2
- "90% of swipes by women are for men over 6’0, which does not reflect the importance women place on height in the real world. …What we see with algorithmic online dating isn't a mechanism to assign the perfect match to each person of the opposite sex. Instead, we've created a machine where the top 20% of men mate with many different partners and the top 80% women try to get the top 20% of men to date and ultimately marry them (and not just have sex with them)." Arnold Kling, 24 Sep 23, https://archive.ph/MKrpq
- "Men swipe right on 60% of women, women swipe right on 4.5% of men. The bottom 80% of men are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. A guy with average attractiveness can only expect to be liked by slightly less than 1% of females. This means one “like” for every 115 women that see his profile." Erik Torenberg, 23 Sep 23, https://archive.ph/Ps8pI
- “Most single men on dating apps struggle to even get “likes” from women. Only a tiny minority of men receive a preponderance of matches, and that this disparity was comparable in scale to the income inequality of South Africa under apartheid. In contrast, the match disparity among females was similar to the magnitude of economic inequality found in Western Europe.” Attraction Inequality and the Dating Economy, Quillette, 12 Mar 19, https://archive.is/EvIj5
- "Women Say 80% of Men Are “Below Average. Are women’s standards just too high? A study by dating app OkCupid found that women find 80% of men unattractive or 'below average.'", Medium, 9 Sep 22, https://archive.is/SvBrV /
- Sociologist Rob Henderson cited statistics from a study on Tinder finding that women “like the profiles of only four percent of the men they see on the app, whereas men swipe right or like 60 percent of the profiles” (see 33:30 minutes into the podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6ZyQKiwMQw).
- 80 percent of men will only receive a reply to their first message one-third of the time, suggesting that a large proportion of matches do not translate into meaningful interactions with the opposite sex. OK Cupid: Your Looks and Your Inbox, 17 Nov 09, https://archive.ph/yse2
- "the top 10 percent of men receive nearly 60 percent of the “likes” — the comparable figure for women is 45 percent." These statistics show why it’s so hard to be an average man on dating apps, Quartz, 15 Aug 17, https://archive.ph/Ywg0S
- "If Hinge constituted a sovereign, it would reflect an average wealth (measured in “likes”) for women, but for men, it would be the eighth most unequal country on Earth." What's The Biggest Challenge Men Face On Dating Apps?, Hinge, 6 Aug 17, https://archive.ph/nYrMg
Super, thanks! When I pick up again the topic, I will use some of these references. Thx!
I asked for my stats, I am liked by 10% of women, I have 500+ matches and yet even in this situation most women don't reply and I am frustrated.. I have been on 120+ first dates in the last two years only to have disappointments.
Unfortunately, modern women have overreached themselves, and aren't worth the effort.
See the section in https://controlc.com/b3843b5a entitled "The Menu: Life Without the Opposite Sex"
"I found the following description illuminating, if also depressing. It’s from The Menu: Life Without the Opposite Sex, by Aaron Clarey, https://www.amazon.com/Menu-Life-Without-Opposite-Sex-ebook/dp/B09X963THL
"The Economics of Needs vs. Wants
For most of human existence, need was the glue that incentivized and kept men and women together. Women needed men to provide food, shelter, and protection. And though men technically could survive without women, the sex drive god or nature gave them essentially made men need women as well. Certainly so if men wished to pass on their genetics.
But now that men and women no longer need each other, all that remains is what we want or desire. And wants/desires are a lot more luxurious, and therefore expensive, than needs.
For example, women don't need a man to make $100,000 a year. $50,000 is enough to support a family. But with their own careers or government paying out that much anyway, the man who makes $50,000 is moot. Women can and often do demand a man make $100,000.
Another example is height. A girl who is 5'2'' doesn't need a man who is 6'0"+. A 5'8" man would perfectly suffice. But with women no longer needing a man, they can luxuriously insist they date one of the 14.5 % of men who are 6 foot tall or taller.
And in the olden days plumbers, truck drivers, and electricians were certainly admirable professions, and ones that would also prove useful around the house. But in not needing men, women can pursue men with more prestigious careers because why not? They don't have to settle for a mechanic because there is no need to. They will hold out for the investment banker.
Men can also be lofty with their demands of women as well.
No man needs a size 2 woman to be his wife. The vast majority of women are simply not that size. But using porn as a substitute, he can imagine he has not just one, but an infinite harem of women that fit into that microscopically small percentage, with double D boobs to boot!
Similarly, no man really needs a loving, doting woman to be nice to him. He can get that once again digitally through sites like Only Fans or in the real world via escorts, “the girlfriend experience,” or using any one of a number of “sugar baby sites.”
And a man can insist his future wife cook, clean, do all the household chores, do the taxes, renew the insurance, and drive the kids everywhere while working a full-time job because inconvenient as all those are, modern day appliances and technology made it possible for him to do all those things as a bachelor.
Therefore, when it comes down to it, most men and women are willing to provide what the other needs, but refuses (or simply can’t) deliver what the other wants. And thus we find ourselves at this great impasse where we are effectively not all that interested in each other.
The Most Important Question
The problem is this mismatch between what men and women want does not undo 2 million years of human evolution. And so, while our delusional 2022 tastes make it so we're really not interested in what the opposite sex is offering, our 2 million years of human genetic hard-wiring compels us to still find a way. And thus why I find so many men and women at my consultancy's doorstep asking two questions. One naively hopeful, the other depressingly tragic.
One, “How do I find a guy/girl?”
and
Two, “If I can't find someone, what do I do?”
The first question can be answered rather simply and resolutely for many of you.
"You won't."
You simply won't find another person and your dating experiences will corroborate that. Give up hope. Stop ruining your life with expectations that will never translate into reality. Stop wasting precious hours of your life “swiping” on apps. Stop torturing yourself."
I recommend the book.
Ouch
Can you tell me more about your specific experience? Also would love to see your profile somehow, as 10% of likes seems huge from what I can read
Happy to send you a screenshot of my profile(s?) and to answer to any questions!
Dating apps as you point out, creates a market of lemons. https://getbettersoon.substack.com/p/people-arent-products-turning-of
My wife and I are actually a Tinder success story - we met there in the very early days of the platform and had no common friends and no work connections. We went out in different bars and clubs and very clearly never would have crossed paths if it wasn’t for Tinder.
BUT
We actually didn’t click romantically right away, but liked each other enough to stay in contact and both dated other people. A year later, we were both single again and met up and this time, the romance was there. So the romance actually happened in a more traditional way, and it didn’t feel like there was as much pressure as with most Tinder dates.
Tinder was crazy. I first used it after a bad breakup and seeing who was on there and getting into flirtatious conversations with them was a great way to get back on my feet. But it takes a lot out of you. I took several breaks, deleting the app from my phone, and those felt very rejuvenating.
My favourite way to meet romantic partners was always house parties - as an intro, you could always talk about who you each knew and how you got invited. And wondering who you were going to meet always raised excitement levels near the end of the week, to go out to whichever party was on that weekend.
Good times!
Lovely story. Thanks for sharing!
I was quite critical on the apps until I tried speedating; issues are fascinatingly similar. Now I think that is less of app’s problem than a society.
Oh do tell me more!
Same crucial thing: woman’s are focused on top 2% attractive men; no meeting method will solve the problem that potential partners prefers to stay single that compromise on their impossible standards.
hey Tomas, love your work! We've been working on a solution, you can see some hints here - https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/saige-says-bigdating-must-die#/
We have a pretty solid prototype we'd like to walkthrough with you, can we talk live?
I like the idea! Thx for sharing. Interesting that you have a similar revenue model as Breeze. Will reach out when I tackle the topic again!
I can't remember the name of the dating app, but my niece joined one where it wasn't based necessarily on dating for a relationship, it was based on activities. I think it was framed along the lines of would you like to? So you would go and do an activity like a hike or a movie or a museum. And it was based on doing activities that you enjoy and then if people are interested they can do something again!
Love it! Would love the name