site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   2431 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 12, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Maybe it's time to join a church or something.

I fail to see what relevance that has to dating, online or otherwise. I don't want to hear about how great jesus is any more than I want to hear about how bad orange man is.

So everything points to an issue with your text game between matching and the first date.

I've never had an online date ghost me and here are my 8 simple rules i always followed.

  1. Don't over match, be picky.

  2. If they are not responding promptly, unmatch.

  3. Decide if you are interested after no more than 60 minutes of conversation.

  4. Ask on a date. Don't ask for input, you choose where.

  5. No more than 3-5 days delay for the date. If they hedge unmatch.

  6. Communicate every day up til the date. Flirt aggressively but wittily, You want them hot under the collar. You should have them thinking about you sexually before you meet. If they aren't receptive unmatch. You are dating not finding friends.

  7. Be assertive, on the day of the date, don't ask if they are still coming, tell them you're looking forward to seeing them later so you can see if they can keep up with you, like they have been saying over text.

  8. Promise them you won't have sex with them on the first date even if they beg.

After the date if it went well get their number if you haven't already and call them the next day to arrange a second date. Maintain pressure. This is a hunt, just like your ancestors, you must run your prey to ground. No later than date 3 have sex with them and decide if you want to continue, if so tell them you want exclusivity immediately. If they refuse ditch them.

Do not give a chance for other hunters to snare your prey. Do not give them a chance to get bored. Move quickly. Move with purpose. You are the hunter, and you are valuable. Do not hesitate to unmatch if you are not getting enthusiastic messaging. It won't get better. Cut bait (to mix our hunting metaphor with a fishing one).

Women have huge amounts of choice particularly in online dating so you must be swift and certain and aggressive. Be borderline blunt if necessary.

I was online dating for a year. 15 women, all converted to first dates 13 to 2nd, 10 to 3rd. In all cases I was the one who ended it if i wasn't feeling it. Of those 10 i ditched another 5 after the 4th date, 4 after a couple of months and the 5th is now my wife.

I've never had an online date ghost me and here are my 8 simple rules i always followed.

I did a ton of online dating (80ish first dates in a year before I met my now-wife) and I think I had my game pretty downpat. There's just always gonna be flakes, and I know female friends who are terminal flakes in their own online dating escapades. I agree your 8 dotpoints are fine (though 8 is kinda weird but depends your personal social dynamic), but a lot of women are on the apps for egoboost more than they are for actually finding somebody. For what it's worth I was only stood up once, and it seemed like a genuine mistake on their end (they thought it was Sunday instead of Saturday) since we ended up meeting the day after for the same thing.

I do definitely agree that getting stuck at penpal stage is never great. You're either selecting for women who aren't intending to actually do anything, or you're leaving yourself open to get pipped.

I already do most of that. I don't know what you mean by 60 minutes of conversation, I typically get (scant) replies the next day.
None of the above stops them from flaking, though.
Mentioning not having sex with them sounds like it'd get them all pissy at my assumption of their sluttiness, something something toxicity, something something entitlement.

I already do most of that.

That explains a lot. With the obvious exception of this sentence, you should probably stop taking advice from strangers on the internet. If you follow a set of rules to attract women, the women you attract will be the ones who play by those rules.

If you are getting scant replies cut bait. Interest should start high on their part. If they are not communicating freely that an indicator of non interest. Take the indication and move on.

The sex part is about playfully and aggressively flirting so if you have them warmed up and they complain about entitlement they failed your test and unmatch. Be selective.

But look out for mild pushback that is designed to be overcome. Tell them you aren't saying they are easy, just you know you are hard to resist. Be playfully arrogant.

I bet you'll get fewer calls of entitlement than you imagine if you have properly escalated aggressive flirtation.

Remember shit yests are just tests of compatibility and you should have your own bars for women to overcome. If they do not, politely turn them down.

You are in control.

I think all this depends on size of the metro area/prevailing cultural conditions. Some places are just not gonna have enough people to sustain a solid experience.

Yeah, i was about an hour from a large city and I did have to extend my range to include the city.

Couldn't have said it better.

Sarker was referring to the community aspect of church moreso than the religious one. Though the former doesn't work super well without the latter, so if you aren't religious then it's true church isn't much of a help. But perhaps there are other community organizations you could join in order to meet people? I have no idea what options exist in Chicago, and they might be just as politicized as the examples you mentioned in your post, but I think those are going to be your main option apart from dating sites.

I tried volunteering to clean up the local park.

It was mostly trannies.

I've been told that people meet women at church.

How long do you spend texting these women before meeting up?

Well, I don't meet up with them, that's the whole problem, but typically a day or three, with the date itself set within the same week as matching. Two exchanges of messages per day at most.

Also, I thought the problem these days is that too many men go to church and they're all too trad. Also, since I'm a catholic atheist, not really my scene.

Out of curiosity, how many dates have fallen through since 2019 and how many have actually successfully taken place? Is there any possibility that you are giving them the ick in between the time the date has been set up and the date itself?

I don't keep a spreadsheet. 90% cancellations/flakes/ghosting/stood up is my best guess. This applies to people met IRL too. Unless "looking forwards to seeing you today" gives the ick, I don't know what I'm doing wrong.

I think it must simply be the case that you are saying something you shouldn't or not saying something you should. You said there's usually a few days of texting, presumably you aren't just repeating "looking forward" every day.

"Forward" instead of "forwards" would be a very simple solution if this is indeed the case. Mispelling ick!

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats