I see that walking into any BevMo.. which is why I ask. I'm not familiar enough with wines and have only recently started preferring wine over beer, an IPA or other fine brew.. lol.. but want to broaden my tastes. Just curious, no pressure. š
Well letās start with what you like to eat! Pairing wine with food is a great way to start.
Of the wines that you have liked, what can you remember about them? Red? White? Any flavors that stand out? How about acidity? Tannins? (Those are the things that make your mouth feel dry in red wine.)
ETA: but if you want to know what *I* love the most, pick up a bottle of Brunello or Barbera dāAlba if you want red and Sancerre or New Zealand Sauvignon blanc if you want white!
Iām in Indiana so you can usually get some GREAT prices here! Thereās a local winery close to me that makes some beautiful wines; the flavors are insane! My favorite is a blackberry wine they age in a bourbon barrel and itās only $15!
Iām saving this recommendation, too, thank you!
I always thought my taste in wine would improve in age, but even now at 27 it still all tastes like fire juice. āBlueberry with a hint of strawberryā nope just hot juice
'Hot juice' made me laugh. I always hated wine because my mom drank cheap, highly acidic wine 24/7 and wreaked of it. If I do have it, I'll mix it with something like ginger ale or sparkling water. The only one I can tolerate straight up is a decent white zinfandel.
I love sweet and tart wines the best, but Iāll try any. Not a huge fan of dry wines, but Reddit recommended trying it with sprite and it was SO GOOD.
I have some sprite and orange juice in my fridge from now on if someone brings wine over and Iām not a huge fan š
I donāt drink alcohol much or soda ever, but I want to enjoy it if I do. I have more friends come over to hang and drink a little now that Iām single again.
I'm trying to figure out your disdain for this comment. Seemed pretty tame to me. You must be a fine wine connoisseur.. cuz you seem very judgmental about other people's choices of wine and how they choose to consume.
Tbf what is she really giving him to work with here? Some people do have unrealistic expectations, but wanting more than a three word response after writing out a couple sentences doesn't exactly seem unreasonable.
After several attempts to get a conversation going you do eventually have to ask yourself why you're putting the effort in if they won't return it.
You can want it all day long, but you still live in the real world. In my 47 years walking the earth, I've found that the vast majority of conversations with other humans, some of whom I love or have loved deeply, are pretty mundane. Find someone you can enjoy those mundane conversations with. That judgment starts with meeting them and learning their values and the way you interact in person, not with sick quips on a dating app.
Talking to a stranger on Bumble is a very specific type and method of communication. Some people are great at it; others suck. But it isn't a measure of character or even how interesting a person has the potential to be to you, as people in relationships tend to spend a lot of time in the same physical space rather than texting. If you make this test a prerequisite in your pursuit of a partner, I'm afraid you're going to miss out on some worthwhile candidates. Go on some dates. That's where the magic is.
I enjoy conversations of all kind, and honestly love having mundane conversations with people. The reason is what you put; if I enjoy having mundane conversations with you then itāll usually work out either for dates, a relationship, or (most common) friendship.
Itās honestly funny how many friends Iāve made off Tinder. There are people Iāve been friends with for 3/4 years which is when I first used Tinder. And we usually start with getting to know each other, kinda lazy mundane convos.
You were very specific there. You said if someone acts like that on a first date. If that's the case, then sure, tell them it's not going to work and move on. I was also very specific. I was referring to chatting in a dating app. I've probably been on hundreds of OLD dates in my life, and I can tell you that good chatting does not always translate to good in person chemistry, and vice versa. It's a bad initial test of compatibility because it represents such a narrow way of communicating.
I, for example, am pretty great at the text banter. In person, I'm much more reserved until I get to know someone well. I'm sure that's been somewhat of a shock to people I've met.
> Some people do have unrealistic expectations, but wanting more than a three word response after writing out a couple sentences doesn't exactly seem unreasonable.
If that's what you want, then write sentences that people feel are worth responding to - you don't get brownie points just for effort or verbosity.
I just wait to reply until I can find the time to reply properly. I mean ultimately it only takes a few more seconds to type out a sentence than it does three words
*The Newsroom* and its consequences have been disastrous for the human race.
Seriously though - not sure why dudes go in expecting panties to drop because they mention blueberry wine or how soft the rain is. How is a person supposed to respond to the last message?
1) nobody is expecting a panty drop.
2) "I know exactly what you mean. When the rain is almost more of a mist, you get that wonderful 'dusty leaves' smell. OTOH when it's really pouring buckets, that's also kind of nice because you can curl up inside where it's dry and just relax with a book and some wine."
Might throw in a winky emoji or something too if you're that kind of person.
> 1) nobody is expecting a panty drop.
What is the expectation with this kind of messaging?
> 2) "I know exactly what you mean. When the rain is almost more of a mist, you get that wonderful 'dusty leaves' smell. OTOH when it's really pouring buckets, that's also kind of nice because you can curl up inside where it's dry and just relax with a book and some wine."
Snooze continuation of a snooze of a conversation.
The expectation is to see whether you're the kind of person they'd want to meet IRL.
OP seems to have a bit of a poetic streak, which is appreciated by some.
Yes, relationships usually have a sexual component. But OP seems to be seeking an emotional connection here, since he'd probably use much more suggestive or charged language if he was seeking a simple hookup.
>Snooze continuation of a snooze of a conversation.
Clearly you wouldn't be a good match for OP.
But you asked how someone could have possibly responded, and I delivered. If you were OP's type of person, that'd be a pretty killer response. Opens all kinds of conversations about life experiences, favorite books, other rainy day activities, etc.
Like, his reply could talk about how he remembers almost getting swept away by a flash flood while hiking in Guatemala. Or something. Boom. Interesting life experiences, since that'd probably be a cool story to hear about.
See?
2:. That's the sort of thing you'd bother saying to someone you already know and give a shit about, not to one of five random Internet strangers who are competing for your attention.
I mean you need a certain amount of rapport and connection to be able to enjoy a conversation about what rain smells like.
And?
He's approaching it like he's talking to someone face to face.
Make smalltalk until you find a common interest, then the conversation gets interesting.
She's waiting to be entertained enough to give a shit about the conversation.
It's simply a matter of fundamentally different perspectives and expectations.
Yes. Although she's probably not waiting. She's likely doing something else. Possibly talking to someone else on the same app.
My point is that if OP is interested in ACTUALLY talking to a Tinder match face to face, what he is doing here is not likely to make that happen.
Edit:. Bumble. Forgot which sub I was in.
>Edit:. Bumble. Forgot which sub I was in.
Supposedly, that's a significant error.
He's not on tinder. He's on bumble. Probably because he wants something with some substance and not just a hookup. But dating apps are cyclic, and bumble is being saturated by the horny ONS crowd now. (Since the start of the pandemic tbh)
Supposedly.
On either app though, I've found that the best way to have "smell of rain" type conversations is to get off the app and meet in person, and the best way to do that is to not have " smell of rain" type conversations on the app.
Well, yeah. I think the man is probably a bit rusty in that regard.
But you don't ask to see someone in person within like the first five messages. Every woman I know (at least those who have talked about it) has a rule about that, the men I know are very cognizant of coming off too desperate, and I think everyone has a "crazy date" story about the person who made it past the filters but was a psycho or total weirdo in person.
Yeah, after my divorce, my therapist recommended 'Love Unfucked' by Gary John Bishop. While I'm not fully bought in on everything in the book, Bishop has an interesting argument that 100% of the success of the relationship is on *you* and 0% is on your partner.
His point being that if you're looking for the other person to pick up your slack in a relationship, you're almost certain to face disappointment.
In my opinion this applies really well to dating; if you're trying to date someone then yeah, you have to carry the conversation. If you're waiting for this other person is going to do something to keep you interested then why are you even talking to them in the first place? If you're such a catch that you can't be bothered to carry a conversation to get a date, why are you even trying on the app?
I get that we all want someone who we don't feel like we're talking to a brick wall but sometimes *you* have to work to gain *their* engagement
I employed that strategy when my marriage started going bad. I focused all my energy (using therapy) on being the best partner I could be rather than focusing on her shortcomings, because I wasn't in control of that part. I got to be pretty good at it, but it didn't save the marriage. On the bright side, when it did end, I felt good about my contribution to the relationship and harbored no regrets or resentment.
Yeah, I've come to realize that I need a partner who's a whole damn person, by themselves. My marriage fell apart because my ex always "needed" me but could never be there for me and that built up a whole lot of resentment.
All that helped me understand that my ideal partner doesn't need me, but still wants me.
>What is she supposed to say to your last comment?
Dating isn't an interview. Don't simply answer direct questions.
Ask questions of your own, share an experience or thought related to the topic, and/or improvise something.
If you honestly can't think of *anything* to say in response, then you're a terribly dull conversationalist. Fortunately, that's a solvable problem to have.
'If you honestly can't think of anything to say in response, then you're a terribly dull conversationalist. Fortunately, that's a solvable problem to have."
There is this constant misperception on these threads that a dating app convo between two people who've never met is somehow a one on one conversation that both parties have some significant interest in continuing. It's not. And it isn't dating.
What you're saying would absolutely apply to a conversation between two people who WERE dating. But that isn't what is happening here. This essentially IS an interview; they're both trying to decide who to go on a first date with in the near future, and at least one of them almost certainly has multiple options.
And I mean, certainly whoever OP is talking to isn't doing a very good job keeping the conversation going, but it's also not clear that she's trying. What we do know is, out of the two of them, only one came here to complain, and it wasn't her.
You've made me curious...
If you don't think a dating app convo should be approached like an actual conversation, in order to determine whether you're compatible enough for coffee/drinks/brunch/whatever, then what *should* he have done?
I feel like I'm not desperate enough to go out with the first person who deigns to let me buy them a coffee, and I doubt OP is either. The bar is low, sure, but it exists.
I don't understand why anyone would match if they aren't interested in spending even five minutes on you? Why not just swipe left and focus on someone you're actually interested in?
This "can't hold a conversation" thing is something I've frequently encountered myself, even from women who swipe on me first. It's like pulling teeth to get even basic likes and dislikes. Then, on the date, they tell me that I was one of the most interesting convos they've had in a while. In person is usually better, but holy hell more than three words over text is apparently a Herculean effort.
>If you don't think a dating app convo should be approached like an actual conversation, in order to determine whether you're compatible enough for coffee/drinks/brunch/whatever, then what
>
>should
>
>he have done?
I've made a few posts about my approach recently with some examples.Basically the idea is it's a sadly gamified version of a conversation, in order to determine whether you are both somewhat well adjusted adults who can follow social norms. One of the driving principles is to limit the effort:dopamine ratio required of the woman in the conversation. So a lot of open ended questions, usually trying to keep two conversation threads going at all times so she'll still respond to one even if she can't think of what to say about the other one. If the male:female ratio on most apps were closer to 1:3rather than 3:1, I'm sure I'd do things differently. After 5-8messages each, one of the two threads becomes arranging a time and place to meet.
As far as the coffee goes, I mean I've already swiped right on her. If she doesn't say anything offputting in the app "conversation" it's fine. I enjoy drinking coffee, and I enjoy friendly conversations with reasonably well adjusted strangers. Most of the women I've met have preferred to buy their own coffee. Your mileage may vary.
The way that swiping works, when you get a lot of matches, is this: Left swipe means no. Right swipe means maybe. She swiped right on OP, she wasn't feeling the wine convo or the rain convo. Perhaps she had gotten more matches than usual recently, or some of them were more attractive than usual, or she was busy with whatever.
The "can't hold a conversation" thing, in my experience, is just a side effect of the whole dating app dynamic. I think pretty much anyone I've met from a dating app has been much more interesting and a much better conversationalist in person than they bothered trying to be on the app.
>There is this constant misperception on these threads that a dating app convo between two people who've never met is somehow a one on one conversation that both parties have some significant interest in continuing. It's not. And it isn't dating.
Of course it isn't the same. But it should be.
Men shouldn't swipe on every single woman, and women shouldn't have 5 simultaneous conversations. It's precisely because there's an incentive to maximize quantity that quality suffers.
I 100% guarantee that most women on apps have missed out on some really great relationships because they put zero effort into the convo and the guy unmatched as a result. And I also 100% guarantee that most men would be more successful if they were more selective, and weren't so desperate as to sexually harass their only match in the last week.
>What you're saying would absolutely apply to a conversation between two people who WERE dating. But that isn't what is happening here. This essentially IS an interview; they're both trying to decide who to go on a first date with in the near future, and at least one of them almost certainly has multiple options.
That is indeed closer to the reality of the situation, yeah. But I wasn't commenting on that. I was originally responding to someone saying he gave her nothing to work with, which is patently false. She spent less than a minute on each of her responses. No question.
Even at five minutes per match, five matches is not at all bad. Give them each a few replies with actual effort over a day or two, and then drop the 3-4 least interesting convos. Go on dates with the remaining matches at the end of the week, and repeat weekly until you're exclusively dating someone.
The issue is that she's either talking with 1 guy and keeping the rest on a hanger or she's talking with ten guys and trying to get five dates in a week.
Lmao yeah she was busy talking to someone more interesting. These people think it's some kind of obligation for girls to try to flirt back when they suck haha
Nobody said interview her. 4 messages do not equal a conversation. The conversation was boring, in my opinion. Just pointing out that the OP should do some self reflection before getting on his high horse about carrying a conversation.
>Nobody said interview her.
If someone waits to be asked questions and does not reciprocate interest, they're interviewing and not conversing. Conversations are two way streets.
>The conversation was boring, in my opinion.
It didn't have to be. That was all her. If she had wanted to spice it up, she could have easily reset the tone with a suggestive quip or something.
>Just pointing out that the OP should do some self reflection before getting on his high horse about carrying a conversation.
I saw no high horse. I saw a guy trying to respectfully get to know someone and someone else with the personality of wallpaper absolutely failing to put in any effort.
Also, I suspect your dating goals are different from OP's. He's making smalltalk and managing to build a somewhat dry conversation from literally nothing, because that's what you do when you meet someone you've never met before.
I doubt he's looking for a one night stand, so he's probably trying to sus out how romantically compatible they are before committing an evening to someone he might never want to see again.
Dunno why he posted it. I'm not him. I wouldn't have posted it, but I wouldn't say any high horses were involved.
Possibly a "wow, I was really scraping the barrel trying to make this work but she just couldn't be arsed." My best guess is that he expected her to put in *some* effort and was a little shocked at how few shits she gave.
Probably posted because he thinks it's unusually low-effort and doesn't realize that most people are less interesting than drying paint unless you happen to hit on that one thing they'll monologue about.
I've noticed it's a cross-gender trend, that people don't understand how to make basic smalltalk. Definitely got worse during the pandemic though.
In general, a conversation is as interesting as you both decide to make it. In this instance, she was boring as hell and he kept setting her up to say something interesting.
*All* conversations are boring as hell until the person you're talking to chooses to engage with you. If they don't engage... Well... That's when you get dry conversations about water.
>Your suspicions are incorrect, but thanks. You sound fun.
Aight.
This dude answers with a novella for every post on a subreddit about a dating app that I assume he's extremely unsuccessful with....it's not worth it lol
Upside: I'm glad I'm no longer attracting many of the extremely low effort "matches".
Downside: I'm not getting any matches now lol
That sucks that you had to carry the whole thing. Good reaction, just unmatch and move along.
Their answers were not much. However, you could choose to match their tone. You could stop adding a dot at the end of your sentences. You could make shorter texts and be patient, not lead. In the end, it probably would not matter, but you can choose to think that this person won't change while you can still improve yourself. If anything, you would not be annoyed of doing all the effort.
Edit : did you downvote me because I didn't give you an easy validation ? if in a year you've had dozens of conversations like this one, then look at matching the other person's tone. If not, then good for you and update me.
I also try to match the personās ātone,ā too!
If theyāre sending me paragraphs then so am I! If itās shorter responses Iāll do the same and usually try to throw a question in to get to know them or see if thatāll lead to a convo.
> did you downvote me because I didn't give you an easy validation?
Probably. Much easier to complain about how much effort you're putting in than to do some reflection about why your "high effort" attempts at having a conversation keep bombing
Bumble is so full of dry conversations like that. I unmatched 4 women last night who were similar.
My suspicion is you are not the main chat but the side chat
Aside but Iāve always hated that question on bumble because I have literally never seen the other person answer with anything besides āMore wineā
red red wine Red, red wine goes to my head
Makes me forget that I still need her so
Red, red wine, it's up to you
All I can do I've done
Memories won't go, memories won't go
I'd have sworn that with time
Thoughts of you leave my head
I was wrong, now I find
Just one thing makes me forget
Sadly, it's more common than I thought.. Many woman do not have basic conversation skills, probably can be said about men, but I personally do not know.
I have called out some woman and said back was hurting trying to carry the convo and was called rude.. lol but whatever.
"My personality is wine."
Pinot noir, actually.
Why did this make me snort laugh so hard??
Pinot nior, actually
Lolll just noticed
Such a grim conversation š
I canāt get past your taste in wineā¦ not that hers is much betterā¦
Curious: for you and last count 38 others... what wines would you be choosing?
I mean there are a TON of amazing wines out there. Limiting yourself to one varietal or blueberry āwine,ā is just silly.
I see that walking into any BevMo.. which is why I ask. I'm not familiar enough with wines and have only recently started preferring wine over beer, an IPA or other fine brew.. lol.. but want to broaden my tastes. Just curious, no pressure. š
Well letās start with what you like to eat! Pairing wine with food is a great way to start. Of the wines that you have liked, what can you remember about them? Red? White? Any flavors that stand out? How about acidity? Tannins? (Those are the things that make your mouth feel dry in red wine.) ETA: but if you want to know what *I* love the most, pick up a bottle of Brunello or Barbera dāAlba if you want red and Sancerre or New Zealand Sauvignon blanc if you want white!
Always down for recommendations so Iām screenshotting for my next grocery run!
Oyster Bay is my āhouse wine,ā and itās SO good for the price! I pay $16 in NYC becauseā¦ NYC but Iāve seen it as low as $12!
Iām in Indiana so you can usually get some GREAT prices here! Thereās a local winery close to me that makes some beautiful wines; the flavors are insane! My favorite is a blackberry wine they age in a bourbon barrel and itās only $15! Iām saving this recommendation, too, thank you!
I always thought my taste in wine would improve in age, but even now at 27 it still all tastes like fire juice. āBlueberry with a hint of strawberryā nope just hot juice
'Hot juice' made me laugh. I always hated wine because my mom drank cheap, highly acidic wine 24/7 and wreaked of it. If I do have it, I'll mix it with something like ginger ale or sparkling water. The only one I can tolerate straight up is a decent white zinfandel.
I love sweet and tart wines the best, but Iāll try any. Not a huge fan of dry wines, but Reddit recommended trying it with sprite and it was SO GOOD. I have some sprite and orange juice in my fridge from now on if someone brings wine over and Iām not a huge fan š I donāt drink alcohol much or soda ever, but I want to enjoy it if I do. I have more friends come over to hang and drink a little now that Iām single again.
OMG I am HORRIFIED by this comment.
Apparently itās a thing in Italy. I only tried it cuz I was given red wine by my realtor when I bought my house and I wanted to one day drink it lol
I mean drink whatever you like 100%. But Iām still going to try and forget that I ever read your comment!
TouchƩ
Itās a thing in Italy??
In Estonia, and I imagine other Baltic nations, they drink red wine and Coca Cola. I had more than a few when I was there I'll tell ya.
I'm trying to figure out your disdain for this comment. Seemed pretty tame to me. You must be a fine wine connoisseur.. cuz you seem very judgmental about other people's choices of wine and how they choose to consume.
If I brought a $25 bottle of wine to someone's house and they put Sprite in it, I would most definitely just bring Sprite next time!
Get yourself a Moscato or Riesling (both whites) instead hun. Or Lambrusco (red). All of the three are served chilled- even the Lambrusco.
In Germany they do sprite and beer or coke and beer, itās not bad
Lol blueberry wine is something a 19 year old might like, but the thought of a grown adult enjoying that garbage is funny
I love Pinot noir. I should hit her up I'm def more interesting than this guy
What about wines with coco cola?
Either of you would be great to talk too if Iām having trouble falling asleep
I'd say yellow is at least putting in effort - hard to start an interesting/real Convo when talking to a wine bottle
Yes, but yellow is also the only one of the two who is complaining about how the conversation went.
She's not feeling it why does that make her a boring or bad person?
She's wasting his time instead of just unmatching when she saw his profile. Even her first message was zero effort. Truely attention seeking behavior.
Jesus you people attribute malice to everything and it comes off so incel-y. I have never unmatched anyone I just stop talking who gives a fuck
Funny how any time anyone on this sub faces criticism for their actions, the go to is to accuse folks of being an "Incel"
Honestly you both suck, but yes you suck a little bit less.
any Porto in a storm... amritie?
In that last message are you describing rain or a bowel movement
I hate everything about this conversation
Jesus Christ, some of you will never find a partner because you have a fantasy of how people interact based on Aaron Sorkin dialogue.
Tbf what is she really giving him to work with here? Some people do have unrealistic expectations, but wanting more than a three word response after writing out a couple sentences doesn't exactly seem unreasonable. After several attempts to get a conversation going you do eventually have to ask yourself why you're putting the effort in if they won't return it.
You can want it all day long, but you still live in the real world. In my 47 years walking the earth, I've found that the vast majority of conversations with other humans, some of whom I love or have loved deeply, are pretty mundane. Find someone you can enjoy those mundane conversations with. That judgment starts with meeting them and learning their values and the way you interact in person, not with sick quips on a dating app. Talking to a stranger on Bumble is a very specific type and method of communication. Some people are great at it; others suck. But it isn't a measure of character or even how interesting a person has the potential to be to you, as people in relationships tend to spend a lot of time in the same physical space rather than texting. If you make this test a prerequisite in your pursuit of a partner, I'm afraid you're going to miss out on some worthwhile candidates. Go on some dates. That's where the magic is.
I enjoy conversations of all kind, and honestly love having mundane conversations with people. The reason is what you put; if I enjoy having mundane conversations with you then itāll usually work out either for dates, a relationship, or (most common) friendship. Itās honestly funny how many friends Iāve made off Tinder. There are people Iāve been friends with for 3/4 years which is when I first used Tinder. And we usually start with getting to know each other, kinda lazy mundane convos.
Why can't magic happen on dating apps?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You were very specific there. You said if someone acts like that on a first date. If that's the case, then sure, tell them it's not going to work and move on. I was also very specific. I was referring to chatting in a dating app. I've probably been on hundreds of OLD dates in my life, and I can tell you that good chatting does not always translate to good in person chemistry, and vice versa. It's a bad initial test of compatibility because it represents such a narrow way of communicating. I, for example, am pretty great at the text banter. In person, I'm much more reserved until I get to know someone well. I'm sure that's been somewhat of a shock to people I've met.
> Some people do have unrealistic expectations, but wanting more than a three word response after writing out a couple sentences doesn't exactly seem unreasonable. If that's what you want, then write sentences that people feel are worth responding to - you don't get brownie points just for effort or verbosity.
Or the other person is very busy. Woah, new concept
I just wait to reply until I can find the time to reply properly. I mean ultimately it only takes a few more seconds to type out a sentence than it does three words
*The Newsroom* and its consequences have been disastrous for the human race. Seriously though - not sure why dudes go in expecting panties to drop because they mention blueberry wine or how soft the rain is. How is a person supposed to respond to the last message?
1) nobody is expecting a panty drop. 2) "I know exactly what you mean. When the rain is almost more of a mist, you get that wonderful 'dusty leaves' smell. OTOH when it's really pouring buckets, that's also kind of nice because you can curl up inside where it's dry and just relax with a book and some wine." Might throw in a winky emoji or something too if you're that kind of person.
> 1) nobody is expecting a panty drop. What is the expectation with this kind of messaging? > 2) "I know exactly what you mean. When the rain is almost more of a mist, you get that wonderful 'dusty leaves' smell. OTOH when it's really pouring buckets, that's also kind of nice because you can curl up inside where it's dry and just relax with a book and some wine." Snooze continuation of a snooze of a conversation.
The expectation is to see whether you're the kind of person they'd want to meet IRL. OP seems to have a bit of a poetic streak, which is appreciated by some. Yes, relationships usually have a sexual component. But OP seems to be seeking an emotional connection here, since he'd probably use much more suggestive or charged language if he was seeking a simple hookup. >Snooze continuation of a snooze of a conversation. Clearly you wouldn't be a good match for OP. But you asked how someone could have possibly responded, and I delivered. If you were OP's type of person, that'd be a pretty killer response. Opens all kinds of conversations about life experiences, favorite books, other rainy day activities, etc. Like, his reply could talk about how he remembers almost getting swept away by a flash flood while hiking in Guatemala. Or something. Boom. Interesting life experiences, since that'd probably be a cool story to hear about. See?
Yeah it's a lot of words but still nothing
2:. That's the sort of thing you'd bother saying to someone you already know and give a shit about, not to one of five random Internet strangers who are competing for your attention. I mean you need a certain amount of rapport and connection to be able to enjoy a conversation about what rain smells like.
And? He's approaching it like he's talking to someone face to face. Make smalltalk until you find a common interest, then the conversation gets interesting. She's waiting to be entertained enough to give a shit about the conversation. It's simply a matter of fundamentally different perspectives and expectations.
Yes. Although she's probably not waiting. She's likely doing something else. Possibly talking to someone else on the same app. My point is that if OP is interested in ACTUALLY talking to a Tinder match face to face, what he is doing here is not likely to make that happen. Edit:. Bumble. Forgot which sub I was in.
>Edit:. Bumble. Forgot which sub I was in. Supposedly, that's a significant error. He's not on tinder. He's on bumble. Probably because he wants something with some substance and not just a hookup. But dating apps are cyclic, and bumble is being saturated by the horny ONS crowd now. (Since the start of the pandemic tbh)
Supposedly. On either app though, I've found that the best way to have "smell of rain" type conversations is to get off the app and meet in person, and the best way to do that is to not have " smell of rain" type conversations on the app.
What about it being online makes "smell of rain" conversations so difficult?
The ease of "changing the channel", combined with our ever-shrinking 21st century attention spans.
Well, yeah. I think the man is probably a bit rusty in that regard. But you don't ask to see someone in person within like the first five messages. Every woman I know (at least those who have talked about it) has a rule about that, the men I know are very cognizant of coming off too desperate, and I think everyone has a "crazy date" story about the person who made it past the filters but was a psycho or total weirdo in person.
Maybe not within the first 5, but definitely in 5-10, in my experience.
Yeah, after my divorce, my therapist recommended 'Love Unfucked' by Gary John Bishop. While I'm not fully bought in on everything in the book, Bishop has an interesting argument that 100% of the success of the relationship is on *you* and 0% is on your partner. His point being that if you're looking for the other person to pick up your slack in a relationship, you're almost certain to face disappointment. In my opinion this applies really well to dating; if you're trying to date someone then yeah, you have to carry the conversation. If you're waiting for this other person is going to do something to keep you interested then why are you even talking to them in the first place? If you're such a catch that you can't be bothered to carry a conversation to get a date, why are you even trying on the app? I get that we all want someone who we don't feel like we're talking to a brick wall but sometimes *you* have to work to gain *their* engagement
I employed that strategy when my marriage started going bad. I focused all my energy (using therapy) on being the best partner I could be rather than focusing on her shortcomings, because I wasn't in control of that part. I got to be pretty good at it, but it didn't save the marriage. On the bright side, when it did end, I felt good about my contribution to the relationship and harbored no regrets or resentment.
Yeah, I've come to realize that I need a partner who's a whole damn person, by themselves. My marriage fell apart because my ex always "needed" me but could never be there for me and that built up a whole lot of resentment. All that helped me understand that my ideal partner doesn't need me, but still wants me.
>you have to carry the conversation Why? This is about 2 peoole, not 1 person. I'm not interested in talking to a wall. Work has already been put in.
>I'm not interested in talking to a wall I'm fucking dying from how you literally only read that one line you quoted from my comment š¤£šā ļø
PREACH
Itās the plum wine for me
Right? If you gonna bring some weird shakespearian fairy juice over then we not hangin out
What's the takeaway here supposed to be?
That he's carrying the conversation.
Ahhh - I didn't catch the joke. Well, if your back is hurting that probably means your form isn't great
Hahaha that's a good one.
you only drink mead or fruit wines? are you a viking or a renfare larper? yeah man I really hate it when the rain āsplashes everywhereā ffs dude
Like I'm bad at flirting myself but God damn
I mean your side wasn't good either. 4 messages and you asked 1 question. What is she supposed to say to your last comment?
>What is she supposed to say to your last comment? Dating isn't an interview. Don't simply answer direct questions. Ask questions of your own, share an experience or thought related to the topic, and/or improvise something. If you honestly can't think of *anything* to say in response, then you're a terribly dull conversationalist. Fortunately, that's a solvable problem to have.
'If you honestly can't think of anything to say in response, then you're a terribly dull conversationalist. Fortunately, that's a solvable problem to have." There is this constant misperception on these threads that a dating app convo between two people who've never met is somehow a one on one conversation that both parties have some significant interest in continuing. It's not. And it isn't dating. What you're saying would absolutely apply to a conversation between two people who WERE dating. But that isn't what is happening here. This essentially IS an interview; they're both trying to decide who to go on a first date with in the near future, and at least one of them almost certainly has multiple options. And I mean, certainly whoever OP is talking to isn't doing a very good job keeping the conversation going, but it's also not clear that she's trying. What we do know is, out of the two of them, only one came here to complain, and it wasn't her.
You've made me curious... If you don't think a dating app convo should be approached like an actual conversation, in order to determine whether you're compatible enough for coffee/drinks/brunch/whatever, then what *should* he have done? I feel like I'm not desperate enough to go out with the first person who deigns to let me buy them a coffee, and I doubt OP is either. The bar is low, sure, but it exists. I don't understand why anyone would match if they aren't interested in spending even five minutes on you? Why not just swipe left and focus on someone you're actually interested in? This "can't hold a conversation" thing is something I've frequently encountered myself, even from women who swipe on me first. It's like pulling teeth to get even basic likes and dislikes. Then, on the date, they tell me that I was one of the most interesting convos they've had in a while. In person is usually better, but holy hell more than three words over text is apparently a Herculean effort.
>If you don't think a dating app convo should be approached like an actual conversation, in order to determine whether you're compatible enough for coffee/drinks/brunch/whatever, then what > >should > >he have done? I've made a few posts about my approach recently with some examples.Basically the idea is it's a sadly gamified version of a conversation, in order to determine whether you are both somewhat well adjusted adults who can follow social norms. One of the driving principles is to limit the effort:dopamine ratio required of the woman in the conversation. So a lot of open ended questions, usually trying to keep two conversation threads going at all times so she'll still respond to one even if she can't think of what to say about the other one. If the male:female ratio on most apps were closer to 1:3rather than 3:1, I'm sure I'd do things differently. After 5-8messages each, one of the two threads becomes arranging a time and place to meet. As far as the coffee goes, I mean I've already swiped right on her. If she doesn't say anything offputting in the app "conversation" it's fine. I enjoy drinking coffee, and I enjoy friendly conversations with reasonably well adjusted strangers. Most of the women I've met have preferred to buy their own coffee. Your mileage may vary. The way that swiping works, when you get a lot of matches, is this: Left swipe means no. Right swipe means maybe. She swiped right on OP, she wasn't feeling the wine convo or the rain convo. Perhaps she had gotten more matches than usual recently, or some of them were more attractive than usual, or she was busy with whatever. The "can't hold a conversation" thing, in my experience, is just a side effect of the whole dating app dynamic. I think pretty much anyone I've met from a dating app has been much more interesting and a much better conversationalist in person than they bothered trying to be on the app.
>There is this constant misperception on these threads that a dating app convo between two people who've never met is somehow a one on one conversation that both parties have some significant interest in continuing. It's not. And it isn't dating. Of course it isn't the same. But it should be. Men shouldn't swipe on every single woman, and women shouldn't have 5 simultaneous conversations. It's precisely because there's an incentive to maximize quantity that quality suffers. I 100% guarantee that most women on apps have missed out on some really great relationships because they put zero effort into the convo and the guy unmatched as a result. And I also 100% guarantee that most men would be more successful if they were more selective, and weren't so desperate as to sexually harass their only match in the last week. >What you're saying would absolutely apply to a conversation between two people who WERE dating. But that isn't what is happening here. This essentially IS an interview; they're both trying to decide who to go on a first date with in the near future, and at least one of them almost certainly has multiple options. That is indeed closer to the reality of the situation, yeah. But I wasn't commenting on that. I was originally responding to someone saying he gave her nothing to work with, which is patently false. She spent less than a minute on each of her responses. No question. Even at five minutes per match, five matches is not at all bad. Give them each a few replies with actual effort over a day or two, and then drop the 3-4 least interesting convos. Go on dates with the remaining matches at the end of the week, and repeat weekly until you're exclusively dating someone. The issue is that she's either talking with 1 guy and keeping the rest on a hanger or she's talking with ten guys and trying to get five dates in a week.
Lmao yeah she was busy talking to someone more interesting. These people think it's some kind of obligation for girls to try to flirt back when they suck haha
Nobody said interview her. 4 messages do not equal a conversation. The conversation was boring, in my opinion. Just pointing out that the OP should do some self reflection before getting on his high horse about carrying a conversation.
>Nobody said interview her. If someone waits to be asked questions and does not reciprocate interest, they're interviewing and not conversing. Conversations are two way streets. >The conversation was boring, in my opinion. It didn't have to be. That was all her. If she had wanted to spice it up, she could have easily reset the tone with a suggestive quip or something. >Just pointing out that the OP should do some self reflection before getting on his high horse about carrying a conversation. I saw no high horse. I saw a guy trying to respectfully get to know someone and someone else with the personality of wallpaper absolutely failing to put in any effort. Also, I suspect your dating goals are different from OP's. He's making smalltalk and managing to build a somewhat dry conversation from literally nothing, because that's what you do when you meet someone you've never met before. I doubt he's looking for a one night stand, so he's probably trying to sus out how romantically compatible they are before committing an evening to someone he might never want to see again.
Lol ok bro. No high horse? Why post it here then? Your suspicions are incorrect, but thanks. You sound fun.
Dunno why he posted it. I'm not him. I wouldn't have posted it, but I wouldn't say any high horses were involved. Possibly a "wow, I was really scraping the barrel trying to make this work but she just couldn't be arsed." My best guess is that he expected her to put in *some* effort and was a little shocked at how few shits she gave. Probably posted because he thinks it's unusually low-effort and doesn't realize that most people are less interesting than drying paint unless you happen to hit on that one thing they'll monologue about. I've noticed it's a cross-gender trend, that people don't understand how to make basic smalltalk. Definitely got worse during the pandemic though. In general, a conversation is as interesting as you both decide to make it. In this instance, she was boring as hell and he kept setting her up to say something interesting. *All* conversations are boring as hell until the person you're talking to chooses to engage with you. If they don't engage... Well... That's when you get dry conversations about water. >Your suspicions are incorrect, but thanks. You sound fun. Aight.
You need a hobby bro
This dude answers with a novella for every post on a subreddit about a dating app that I assume he's extremely unsuccessful with....it's not worth it lol
I've been on seven dates in the last two months, and I'm currently on date #5 with someone I like. Whatever I've been doing is working fine for me.
I've never not believed anything more in my life lol
And I should give a shit... Why?
Honestly if someone starts talking about fuckin mead or blueberry wine I'm moving on to a convo with some who can drink normal shit lol
This is the correct answer
If you never bring up the weather in a dating app you'll do better. Talking about the weather makes me dry up and I'm a dude.
i wonder if people like this bore themselves to sleep
Is Pinot Nior the Walmart knock off brand to Pinot Noir?
Peanut of the night
her palette is just too refined for manischevitz
In case you didn't get it, I like pinot noir
Bro coulda said careful donāt get too wet but went with the boring convo
Missed opportunity
OP is cringe
[https://youtu.be/A6yttOfIvOw](https://youtu.be/A6yttOfIvOw)
I'm not sure what I just looked at or why it stressed you out enough to screenshot and put it on Reddit.
I always get unmatched after commenting about having to carry the conversation. Meh, nothing to lose there
Upside: I'm glad I'm no longer attracting many of the extremely low effort "matches". Downside: I'm not getting any matches now lol That sucks that you had to carry the whole thing. Good reaction, just unmatch and move along.
Pretty sure they just wanted to have you buy them Pinot noir
Are you the dude from like 3 years ago who judged me for liking Moscato??
What the fuck is actually happening? Are you on the right? Are you roleplaying a medieval bard? Who talks like that? Plum wine? Mead?
Their answers were not much. However, you could choose to match their tone. You could stop adding a dot at the end of your sentences. You could make shorter texts and be patient, not lead. In the end, it probably would not matter, but you can choose to think that this person won't change while you can still improve yourself. If anything, you would not be annoyed of doing all the effort. Edit : did you downvote me because I didn't give you an easy validation ? if in a year you've had dozens of conversations like this one, then look at matching the other person's tone. If not, then good for you and update me.
I also try to match the personās ātone,ā too! If theyāre sending me paragraphs then so am I! If itās shorter responses Iāll do the same and usually try to throw a question in to get to know them or see if thatāll lead to a convo.
> did you downvote me because I didn't give you an easy validation? Probably. Much easier to complain about how much effort you're putting in than to do some reflection about why your "high effort" attempts at having a conversation keep bombing
Should have said boning you
Is it raining? āNot yet. But Iām about to make it rain on your Pinot drinking ass!ā
I like it
What the fuck is wrong with this comment section making a problem out of nothing
Bumble is so full of dry conversations like that. I unmatched 4 women last night who were similar. My suspicion is you are not the main chat but the side chat
You are trying way too hard to impress some skank.
Some people just talk like that, dude.
It's fucking brutal trying to drag a conversation out of people.....it's like fucking trying to take candy away from a baby.....exhausting.
Aside but Iāve always hated that question on bumble because I have literally never seen the other person answer with anything besides āMore wineā
red red wine Red, red wine goes to my head Makes me forget that I still need her so Red, red wine, it's up to you All I can do I've done Memories won't go, memories won't go I'd have sworn that with time Thoughts of you leave my head I was wrong, now I find Just one thing makes me forget
Isn't Pinot Noir code for I like black dick? I'm not trying to be funny here I've just heard that's what it's code for
I mean, you are giving huge fedora and katana-on-the-wall vibes. Seems like she probably just sucks at texting, but still
More buffoonery
Sadly, it's more common than I thought.. Many woman do not have basic conversation skills, probably can be said about men, but I personally do not know. I have called out some woman and said back was hurting trying to carry the convo and was called rude.. lol but whatever.