@65: Why can't it ever be on the folks sending the messages to take ten seconds out of their day to get to know the person they're attempting to proposition? Why does it have to be on the person who has clearly laid out their expectations to respond in a manner YOU find appropriate?

@ 100: Yeah, it's very strange.

For the people who think she was entirely justified, I have a hypothetical I need to ask: When I walk into the Apple store, and an employee asks if I'm interested in an iPhone when I'm not, what's the appropriate response? Scream at him? Insult him? Punch him?

Let me specify that it should be a respectful "man they're not interested in or attracted to" that women should try to refrain from being knee-jerk hostile towards. Skeevy, pushy cologne addicts with poor listening skills should get the finger.

@80: Actually, I can and I will blame the guy for trying. How many other OKC profiles that included "I am interested in casual sex" did he pass up? His fault he got a mean-sounding reply, he should have been paying attention to who he was sending his little letter form out to.

@ 101: Are you aware of how the demographics make the power dynamics on these sites work?

Some people get to receive countless messages and pick the ones they like--or send their own messages, and receive a pretty good answer rate--and some people have to send out lots of messages, and receive a response rate of almost zero. Think about what constitutes optimal behavior under those conditions.

...that's a long way of saying "no, I have no idea why men bother with dating sites." It sounds awful.

@86: Dude tried to get laid by somebody WHO WAS VERY CLEARLY NOT INTERESTED IN THE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES HE WAS OFFERING. That is HARMFUL.

I bet he wears a fedora...

@94: Oblivious men deserve to be shamed. He wasn't innocently looking for sex, he was going out of his way to harass people regardless of their feelings on the matter.

@ 104: How many other OKC profiles that included "I am interested in casual sex" did he pass up?

Of the ones that were interesting to him? Probably zero. It is not his fault that one of the people he messaged decided to be an asshole. Inevitable, yes, and entirely to be expected, but not his fault.

@99. I didn't say that the situations were the same. I said the comment streams were the same.

And they are. Exact same arguments. Exact same types of people coming forward trying to explain what it is like to get this kind of unwanted attention (not once, not twice, but constantly). Exact same non-empathic non-listening in response.

Yep. I recognize it.

@97: You're forgetting something very important about this exchange then. The LW has made it very clear that she doesn't find this sort of pass to be respectful. In fact, he ignored her clearly laid-out desires in order to make it.

@109: It IS his fault if the people he's messaging, the ones who are interesting to him, are the same ones who have ALREADY MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT HE'S DOING.

At that point, what he is doing is not innocent, it is not fun. It is ignorant at best and harassment at worst. There are profiles on dating sites for a reason. READ THEM.

@ treehugger:

Oblivious men deserve to be shamed.

No, they do not, they are humans. Try to behave accordingly.

He wasn't innocently looking for sex,

No, that is exactly what he was doing. What is wrong with you that you want so badly for him to have been doing something wrong, when he clearly was not?

@102: Could you try to pick a scenario that actually fits with the situation? This would be more like her walking into a Windows store and being asked if she wants some casual sex with a nameless, faceless stranger in a random location.

Her "humorous" sarcastic response (my BIL does this shit - buries mean digs in 'humor) was disproportionate to his original come-on. That she describes his initial come on so strongly (and out of keeping from what is presented here) makes her an unreliable judge of the follow up (after she jabbed at him). Her response was humor, but 100% at his expense - it was not a shared joke.

No doubt she's fed up with clumsy come-ons from boors, and who can blame her?, but taking it all out on this guy - and expecting him to take it well or appreciatively - is just dumb. She fed up? She wants to thrown down? Fine, do it, you're perfectly entitled, but don't act all butt-hurt when the person lashes back at you.

@Eudaemonic: Unless @18 is completely making it up, there is a box indicating a desire for casual encounters available to all users. It's not unreasonable to expect that someone check to see if said box had been checked before they send a request for a casual encounter. The real-life equivalent would be telling a guy "I'm not interested in casual hook-ups" and then having him proposition you anyway. Again, kind of gross.

@113: What was wrong with him, that he couldn't take a few minutes to see if the profiles he was messaging even wanted messages from him? It's very nice and all that he found somebody who was interesting to HIM, but he couldn't bother to see that she had already laid out that she simply wasn't interested?

It's not all about his intentions. His intentions mean shit when they clash with another person's desires.

@115: He's messaging random people hoping one of them will be down for a fuck, and he shouldn't expect to get anything except politeness (if he gets a response at all)? Yeah, no. Thanks for playing, no consolation prize for you.

Oh, and I want to say: thank goodness I'm getting married this weekend and have left the dating scene once and for all.

I was on OKC and Match, and even reading profiles and sending polite messages based on the content (never w/ pictures of my junk, one in a bathing suit), the response rate was low. So so glad the uninterested didn't feel the need to belittle and insult me just to make sure I knew just how uninterested they were.

@83 "...just as I have no proof that any of this ever happened at all."
I have: if you google the username, a male chest pic comes up.

The LW has made it very clear that she doesn't find this sort of pass to be respectful. In fact, he ignored her clearly laid-out desires in order to make it.

That isn't true. You know it. I know it. I know you know it. Are we done here?

The LW has made clear--to us--that she doesn't find casual, respectful, and inept passes to be respectful. That tells us she's an asshole. It tells us nothing else.

@110: I didn't say that the situations were the same. I said the comment streams were the same.

Okay. Was your statement intended to mean something? Are you aware that a response can be appropriate in one situation and not appropriate in another? Sometimes, people are accused of overreacting when they did not. Sometimes, people are accused of overreacting when they are. The accusations look similar. Thanks for pointing that out, I guess?

Not "real-life" but street

@118 - he was polite enough, if clumsy, obvious and a boor. Yes, politeness (if anything) is appropriate. I don't know if anybody here is entitled to expect anything.

@88 Oh puh-lease. She did sound angry, and right now you are belittling TheMisanthrope.

@89 There weren't any cockshots.

That the LW used language like "banging your hot hot husband" is quite confusing in this context. She's wanting to present herself as a delicate flower, and yet uses this language with Dan?

All of you who think this woman is an asshole are nuts. She's doing a random stranger a huge favor. Not only did she state exactly WHY she rejected him, which is a lot more than most dumb guys get, but she also told him how he can succeed at finding casual sex on the internet. She was rude, but if this guy isn't an idiot, he will realize how lucky he is that an attractive girl is helping him hook up.

@95 Hey! It's totally different from getting catcalls as you walk down the street. It's annoying to get messages like this but by no means traumatizing. Stop demeaning me as a woman by implying that I simply can't deal with stuff without falling apart at one freaking letter, okay? Comparing real-time harassment in real life to an annoying letter on a dating website is just fucking stupid. I said earlier that the guy should have had the balls to post a picture of his face. Well, this applies to women too, if you are so delicate you can't handle some cut-and-paste letters, don't register on a dating website! It's such a big scary world!

@ 114: Could you try to pick a scenario that actually fits with the situation? This would be more like her walking into a Windows store and being asked if she wants some casual sex with a nameless, faceless stranger in a random location.

Are you unaware that OKCupid is a dating site? That would explain a lot about your responses here.

@ 118: He's messaging random people hoping one of them will be down for a fuck, and he shouldn't expect to get anything except politeness (if he gets a response at all)? Yeah, no.

Hey, you've actually made a true statement! Congratulations! Next, let's work on actually addressing what other people are saying, rather than arguing with the voices you made up. No one said he should expect nobody to be an asshole to him. People are often assholes. That does not somehow transform her asshole-ish behavior into not-asshole behavior.

@ 116: Unless @18 is completely making it up, there is a box indicating a desire for casual encounters available to all users. It's not unreasonable to expect that someone check to see if said box had been checked before they send a request for a casual encounter. The real-life equivalent would be telling a guy "I'm not interested in casual hook-ups" and then having him proposition you anyway. Again, kind of gross.

Again, this would be true if there was a "Not Interested In Casual Encounters Ever, Don't Even Ask" box.

There is not. The real-life equivalent would be walking up to someone in a singles bar where people frequently meet casual hookups and asking someone who has not specifically indicated one way or the other, and asking--politely--if they want a hookup. Not gross. Inept, and normal, but "gross" is stretching it.

For the analogy to work perfectly, some people in this crowd are hollering "Yo, I want me some casual sex up in here!" and some people are not. The people who are not currently and explicitly announcing their interest in casual sex are not explicitly stating that they are not interested. They are not making any statement.

I have not currently told you whether or not I would like some ice cream. I could tell you that, but as of this moment I am not currently doing so. Does this, to you, mean that no one should ever offer me ice cream under any circumstances, even when I walk in to a dessert shop?

We have no evidence that this man cut and pasted his letter.

@128: Stop demeaning me as a woman by implying that I simply can't deal with stuff without falling apart at one freaking letter, okay?

Thank you, and on their behalf I'm sorry for their "women are delicate flowers and not real people" crap. It probably sucks to have to put up with this from people who think they're helping you.

So often, in their efforts to condemn men, fake anti-sexists denying the humanity of men are not-strangely willing to deny the humanity of women as well.

@127: All of you who think this woman is an asshole are nuts. She's doing a random stranger a huge favor.

If I give you a lift home and then kick your dog twenty times, I'm both doing you a favor and an asshole. She's giving him some advice ("Pay more attention to the 'casual sex" box!') and being an asshole. Turns out, women are humans, and humans can sometimes do more than one thing at once!

@treehugger (@106 et al) we don't know anything about when she made clear. She never posted her profile name for us to check. We know nothing about her desire for NSA, FBs, FWBs, etc. Your entire narrative is essentially made up. She didn't "clearly indicate" shit.

@95: "I'll bet every person here who says -- hey, no harm, no foul, the letter was polite, just ignore it -- says the same thing about a woman walking down the street who gets catcalls on the street."

I'm a person who says the letter should just have been ignored (or, if not ignored, that the meanness of her response was out of proportion to the perceived slight of the initial message) who would not say the same thing about catcalls down the street. Because the two situations are not at all comparable.

I'll point out the difference for you: a woman walking down the street is walking down the street. This does not invite contact. A (hetero) woman on a dating site is seeking to be contacted by men. This does.

@112 - if you are so sure that she has made it clear that she is not interested to the point that you feel justified in screaming it at us, could you please indicate in the letter where that is stated? Thank you.

Look, I'm a woman, and I used to be a pretty cute woman, years ago. I've gotten a lot of unwanted male attention, and some of it was seriously disrespectful, and some of it was scary. But a man who is not in the room with you, a man who can be ignored by the flick of a finger, letting you know (once!) he'd be interested in having sex if you are, is neither disrespectful nor scary. He's the equivalent of an ad for a product you don't want to buy - clutter that can be ignored. I know what it is like to be sexually pressured, I know what it is like to be raped. This scenario is not like either of those things. Pretending that it is, and getting wildly excited about the pretense, is not helpful to women who really are facing inappropriate sexual attention in their real lives. In fact, it's disrespectful, and even a little scary.

@129: To make the singles bar analogy perfectly apt, you'd have a give everyone in attendance a placard with their basic information and specific desires written on it and pinned to their chest. Some would have "interested in casual sex" on their placard, others would not. These placards are displayed in order for the participants to self-identify and to expedite and elucidate the dating/hook-up process. To then either ignore the information on the placard or never bother to absorb it before one makes a move makes one either a creeper or deeply careless. So, yeah, kind of gross.

I had to go look at my okcupid profile. Here's the deal. The profile includes eleven subjects from top to bottom, as follows:

My self-summary
What I'm doing with my life
I'm really good at
The first things people usually notice about me
Favorite books, movies, shows, music and food,
The six things I could never do without
I spend a lot of time thinking about
On a typical Friday night I am
The most private thing I'm willing to admit
I'm looking for
You should message me if

Most of these are filled with prose answers completely provided by the profiled person. However, the tenth category, near the bottom of the page has five lines of categories based on boxes checked. The last line identifies what you are looking for amongst the following five options: new friends, long-term dating, short-term dating, casual sex. From one to all four options may be chosen. If you don't choose casual sex, that option just doesn't show up.

Yeah. This guy should not have sent casual sex solicitations to people who didn't indicate an interest. But not checking the box does not result in a clear "I am not interested in casual sex" message. Which may be why some people put that message in their "You should message me if" box. Even then, the wisest response to such unwanted solicitations is none. Discard the junk mail.

Hope this helps clarify the issue for non-OKCupid members.

@ 135 or not really clued in to how the site really works.

Nobody is saying that she was obligated to take him up on his offer. Nobody is saying that she was obligated to send him a polite response.

Many of us are, though, not impressed by her "Hey, look at me, giving a smackdown to a horrible jerk" attitude, given that as far as jerks go, he wasn't that horrible, and her response seemed out of proportion to the offense. His offense was minor, and deserved a minor response - ignoring, for choice. If she felt she must educate him on dating site manners, even that would, IMO, be reasonable, though not what I would do. What I don't find reasonable is that she seemed to expect congratulations for doing so, and that she is getting them.

Beyond the LW, Dan indicated, based on the letter this poor guy wrote, that he'd be willing to publish his email address to subject him to more public shaming.

Seriously Dan?

I for one would love to see (1) her original OKCupid ad and (2) his "scary misogynist asshole response."

(1) Even if there is a "not under any circumstances ever interested in a casual encounters" box, I think a simple checked box would have been easy enough to miss. If the suggestion of having a casual encounter is a deal-breaker for her, I think it would have been worth her time and effort to include a phrase or sentence to that effect in the ad.

(2) I suspect, if she took such umbrage at this relatively innocent and respectful response (and actually she was the rude one, especially in her final kiss-off, which I'll bet she thought was extremely clever), that the response was nowhere near as offensive as she is portraying it. No wonder she didn't want to send it to Dan (and, by the way, I am surprised that Dan bought into her own assholishness, but then again she did stroke his ego by paying his husband a huge compliment, so why not? We're all human, I guess).

135: I like that addition. But again, that's gross if there is a "Do Not Ask Me For Casual Sex, Ever" box and it is checked. There isn't one; all that is made clear is that the person hasn't gone out of their way to specify one way or the other. No information is... no information.

No one is ignoring information that is on the placard. That information is not on the placard.

We're ignoring, of course, that asking that sort of thing in person is inherently more gross than doing it over the internet. To compensate (and to make it more accurate) let's assume this is the kind of bar where there's a pile of people having an orgy in the corner. And that a lot of the people in the orgy did not check "Interested In Casual Sex" on their placard.

Similarly, if you're straight, think of the women with whom you've had casual sex: how many of them explicitly told you upon introduction that they were interested in casual sex? I'm guessing zero; there are cultural barriers here. So let's say, to incorporate that into the analogy, that adding "Interested In Casual Sex" to your placard means you might not get the happy hour discount here--or at least that there's a widespread rumor to that effect.

I have posted ads on CL. While those random answers which clearly seem to be copied and pasted, are annoying, they are NOT scary.

I also understand that he hasn't got a face pic there: I don't like to send my pic to just anyone who I might never even meet in person. I don't think a chest pic is scary or offensive.

So, he might be clueless, obnoxious, etc. I don't think he is creepy, nor disrespectful.

@119

I'm getting married this weekend

Nice!
Congrats and Best Wishes!

Honestly, I'm with whoever said that it's the combination that makes this guy deserve the snarky response. I think a lot of people are getting fooled into thinking this is a good, respectful message because of its length and relative quality of writing. It's just a dressed-up version of "Ur hot. Wanna fuck? I have more pics if u want." Nowhere in it is any indication that he read any of her profile, and since he sent her a message about casual sex, he clearly didn't understand that people who want to be propositioned in messages check the damn casual sex box. The fact that he doesn't even show his face and that his profile was apparently mostly empty indicates to me that he didn't even consider that women generally don't sleep with guys solely based on their chest.

Also, for those of you who are saying "But so many women don't check the 'casual sex' box because they don't want to look like sluts," I have news for you: women who are interested in casual sex who don't check the box are trying to reduce the volume of messages like this. Even women who want casual sex would like to go on an actual date to vet the guy first, as a general rule. Which is why I think her snarky reply was justified. It helps indicates a few key things to this clueless guy:

1) That this kind of message is pretty goddamn irritating (enough to make her pissed off), and that he should knock it off.
2) That the inadequacy of his chest is not the reason he's not getting any responses he wants (because he's probably not getting any responses he wants).
3) That there are other strategies he can employ to try to get the results he wants. And they're outlined right there in the letter.

Was she kind of mean? Yeah. But you know something? Being mean to someone who is doing something you don't like isn't the worst thing, especially when you throw in advice on what they should be doing instead. Sometimes people need someone to tell it to them in a mean way to get the message. Clearly this guy didn't react well, but she didn't know he wouldn't before she sent it.

@137 or not really clued in to what I wrote:

I never said that anyone was "saying that she was obligated to take him up on his offer". I never said that anyone was "saying that she was obligated to send him a polite response." I did say that he was either a boundary-ignoring creeper or just careless. And I did say that as a result, I understood her irritation, though I probably wouldn't have been as cutting as she was. That's all I said.

I can't believe how wrong Dan is on this one. This guy asks the LW if she'd like to have sex (on an online dating service). There is nothing crude, presumptuous, or threatening in the language he uses. She responds by belittling and insulting him. She accuses him of trying to lure her to an undisclosed location, speculates on his masturbatory frequency, and takes a gratuitous shot at his physique.

And please spare me the argument that she was giving him "helpful" advice. If a guy shoots down a girl because she's chubby, and then gives her the number for Nutri-System, he's not being "helpful." He's just being insulting with different words.

The LW chose to escalate the exchange from clumsy and casual to personal and mean-spirited. It may not excuse his response, but she did draw first blood.

Good grief! That's not scary or misogynistic AT ALL compared to some of the tripe I've received.

@142 - thanks so much...I'm really excited. And yeah, I'm super-relieved to be out of the dating scene.

@ 143: LOL. I think a lot of people are getting fooled into thinking this is a good, respectful message because of its length and relative quality of writing. It's just a dressed-up version of "Ur hot. Wanna fuck? I have more pics if u want."

Q: What's the difference between a "dressed-up" version of a question and a "polite" version of a question? A: There isn't one.

Also, for those of you who are saying "But so many women don't check the 'casual sex' box because they don't want to look like sluts," I have news for you: women who are interested in casual sex who don't check the box are trying to reduce the volume of messages like this.

Some questions arise. How many women responded to the survey you issued? What was the date of your election as Spokesman For All Women? What is the duration of your term in office?

Your job as Spokesman For All Women is a complicated one, and I wish you luck with it. I assume you aren't self-appointed, since no sensible person could ever want to be the sole spokesman for a group so large and diverse. Reading 147 repeatedly might help, though, as well as noting that some of your constituents don't seem to agree with you at all.

You might want to pay attention to that, since knowing more about women will help you in your surely-not-self-appointed role as Spokesman For All Women. It's a tough job; you'll need to try much harder.

I'm mostly disappointed in Dan on this one -- speaking of swing and a miss, rare for him. Perhaps it was dashed off quickly and that's why he missed all her unreliable-narrator tells.

Also, though the profile's been deleted, the chest pic is still cached. Am I crazy or is that a better-than-average chest?

That is an above average chest. Very nice actually.

Holy hell, I take a break and suddenly the LW has been sent cock shots (Undead Ayn Rand @89) and has been threatened to be raped with broken whiskey bottles (Allison Cummins @82). Or, possibly had been threatened with stuffing her dead dog up her ass (Allison Cummins @82).

Good trolling! Better than Dan's or the LW's.
8/10

@88 I read your response as delightfully lightly snarky, even if it was aimed at me. I still read hers, which is not aimed at me, as bitter and angry. Using words like creepy is not lightly humorous. The whole letter is condescending, cutting and bitingly sarcastic.

I like cutting and bitingly sarcastic letters, and I liked her use of it. That doesn't change my mind that she escalated a meh letter with a poisoned pen, and responded out of scale.

@ 145 - yeah, sorry, that part of my post was not specifically aimed at you. It was aimed more at the posters who are acting as if that IS what is being said. Some of the response here today makes me wonder if they think we're holding the woman down for the rapists to have at 'er.

One of the things that made me ditch online dating was the sheer volume of "swing and miss" emails. Some like this one, looking for hookups when I was very clear in my interest in relationships. Others where they didn't read a single thing I wrote. I was very, Very, VERY clear about myself: no kids, no religion, no conservatives, TYVM. Wanna guess the content of the bulk of the emails I got? I found - and still do find - it disrespectful to send an email listing your needs to every face you deem pretty enough, without even taking 2 seconds to look at the major headlines (age/sexual orientation/religion/kid status/relationship goal are pretty common and quickly summarized leads). And, yes, it's misogynistic to purse women, however casually, based only on looks when there's easily-accessible information about them and their preferences 2" down the screen. That is the point of online dating, no? To jump an hour into the bar scene to where you've both been able to put a little about yourself out there?

The kicker was, the reason I was getting a decent chunk of these emails is that the algorithms often put the sender and I as "well matched." Okay, we both like Monopoly and can see the humor in Dude Where's My Car?...that does not a match make if something HUGELY IMPORTANT like has/wants kids, religion, political leanings, educational attainment/job status (sorry, kids, between jobs might be okay (depending on circumstances and effort expended in finding new employment), para-professional maybe, but I have exactly zero in common with a high school drop out who just got fired from their fifth fast food job), and relationship goals are mis-matched. I quit completely after one too many "I can bring god's light into your life and you will bear me beautiful babies" emails. If they were less common, I would assume I was being trolled by friends with fake profiles. As it stood, they constituted easily 50% of the emails I got, and I checked the fuck out. At least if I go to an event/social location and the scene is creepy I can leave right away.

Most people who have casual sex say they don't.

I've noticed that when you poke someone that's offended by men seeking casual sex, you generally find a pile of slut shaming and sex negativity.

So how about this: a woman is in a bar for her bachelorette party. A guy approaches her, says he finds her attractive, and politely asks if she'd like to go home with him.

Keeping in mind that SOMETIMES - perhaps rarely but SOMETIMES - brides-to-be in bars DO accept propositions...

...is the appropriate response for her to:

a) ridicule his appearance, snarkily comment that he obviously beats off excessively, stomp on the 'line' he used and THEN point out his failure to recognise her about-to-be-married status?

or

b) say 'I'm getting MARRIED - why would you even ask?!'

Please vote.

@156 That problem is rather easily solved by seeking out men and messaging them yourself.

At least on OKC if you've answered enough (and I mean a LOT of) questions and marked their importance accordingly, the match ratings with people (who have done the same!) become rather accurate. If you mark all the liberal/conservative, religion and relationship-related questions as essential, no one who answered them differently will have a very high match with you. Then you can just sort your search results or whatever by match. I did that and just skimmed through all the 99% matches - and bingo, it worked. :) Btw, all those 90%+ matches had a decently filled out profile and pictures. You can always first double check these very-important questions and see if the person answered the same.

@62,

One problem with your argument is that there is no *right* way to deal with people like this online. Women get propositions like this all the time. If they don't respond, they get vitriolic emails. If they respond politely, they get vitriolic emails. If they offer snarky responses, they get vitriolic emails. If they respond rudely, they get vitriolic emails. Christ. There are entire websites set up detailing this kind of shit.

The guy sent a douchebaggy), questionable, cut-and-paste proposition to a woman who wasn't looking for a hook-up, and the response he got was not that far out of line with what he could reasonably expect. (Although she really should have just told him to go fuck himself.) *He* is the one who shouldn't have responded to it. *He* is the douchebag, the idiot, the asshole here.

Guys like this get pissed off and insulting if you reply with any kind of a rejection at all.

Just today I had a guy on OkCupid ask if I'd be interested in giving him a weekly sensual massage while he looks for a woman 10 years younger than me to have his babies. When I told him I was not interested, and that he might want to consider seeking out the services of a professional, he told me I was old and mean.

There's nothing you can say to these guys. They're self-centered enough to think that every woman would welcome their advances. People that self-centered cannot take even the most mildly worded criticism.

@161 But... can't you just look at your match percentage before even bothering to read the message? I'm somehow certain it can't have been too high.

@131, true, but if someone was going to kick my dog, I'd rather they give me a description of why they are kicking my dog and how I can avoid getting my dog kicked in the future, than just kick the dog and leave. Ok... that analogy has gotten weird.

Still, even if the reply is assholish, I think it's better than saying nothing. I'm getting tired of women acting timid all the time, and tired of men ignoring every part of a dating profile other than the photo.

How is kicking the dog better than saying nothing?

And how are you unable to find the huge excluded middle between "women acting timid all the time" and "this woman being asshole-ish to someone who was being only mildly rude?" It's possible to be neither; almost everyone manages it.

That was a lot of effort to antagonize someone, and then she wonders why he responded angrily?

If the point she wanted to make was "Pay attention the the "casual sex" checkbox, ya moron!" she could have said exactly that, including the "ya moron!" on the end, and it would have been exactly what he deserved. Instead she chose to rip pretty much everything she could think of about his post, his character, and his physique, at great length.

I'm not saying she shouldn't have responded the way she did, but to then pull the "poor widdle me" act when she knows damned well she had just been assholish right back at him is just dishonest. Yes, you're justified in telling him off. But if you kick a skunk, the end result is pretty predictable.

Maybe it would be better for that checkbox to engage the equivalent of a spam filter, that checks incoming messages for heuristics of an NSA proposition?

Make it a part of the private profile, rather than something people could see and judge you on, and that solves the problem with people worrying about looking like a slut to others, or whether idiots ignore it.

@166 the problem with that is that it would be hard to filter out the hook up messages (on which criteria would you filter out this one? It's several paragraphs long) and at the same time avoid accidentally filtering the non hook up ones (which can be banal and short too).

@167: No heuristics expert here, but the following jumped out at me from his message: "hook-up" "consenting adults" "indecent proposal"

Maybe have the filter bounce the message, telling the sender, "Hey, it looks like you are trying to proposition someone who has set their "Don't proposition me" flag. If this was accidental, be a little more polite. If this was deliberate, be aware that you are violating your terms of service."

I'm sorry. I've read through all these comments, and I can still find no reason why a human being propositioning another human being for causal sex is either A) misogynistic, or B) deserving of that rude and baseless response. I am a bisexual male and was on OkC and some other dating sites for a long time. I was propositioned by both sexes several times for casual sex, including by two different couples wanting a third. This was despite saying in my profile that I wasn't interested in casual sex. I didn't find them to be threatening, creepy, or anything of the sort. Just as fetishists can't find fellow fetishists without disclosing, people seeking casual sex can't find casual sex without disclosing. A simple "No thank you, I'm not here for casual sex" would have been enough, I am sure. The fact that Dan supported the LW in her actions worries me greatly, because I've always had great respect for Dan and his advice, and this is so in the wrong field it's confusing and upsetting.

Dan seems to be all over lately on the topic of online dating and profiles. Maybe this is one of the guys who said one of the 6 things he can't live without is sex (remember the recent podcast?).

I also didn't think this guy's initial message was all that bad, especially considering some of the ones I received when I was on OKC. I deleted my profile after getting two of these propositions in one day from guys almost half my age, one of which who thought it was a plus to say that "no one needed to know, it could just be a one-night stand, we wouldn't even have to go out". Yes, I'm so looking forward to inviting strangers from the internet to my home to use my dusty old vagina. I never responded to these messages, I just deleted them.

I was much more offended by Dan's response to the female caller who said don't guys realize it's a turnoff to say they can't live without sex. If a guy writes that he can't live without masturbation, YOU DO YOU, HORNY DUDE! If he said in his profile that he has a high sex drive, I'd look at the profile and say "he's cute, but we've got mismatched sex drives." Saying you can't live without sex implies that you expect frequent servicing from your partner, and if you don't get it you'll go out and get it wherever you can. Sex implies that there's another person present. For too many guys (no, not you, you're different) it means the woman is not meeting his needs if he doesn't let her stick his dick inside her whenever he wants. Sex is a privilege, not a right. Masturbation is a right.

@140: "No one is ignoring information that is on the placard. That information is not on the placard."

Not explicitly, but if there are only two choices- 'Yes, I am interested in casual sex!' and nothing- and every one in the singles bar filled out the same information to produce their own placard, isn't it reasonable to assume the casual-sex seeking patrons could quickly deduce their preference and move along?

Similarly, if you're straight, think of the women with whom you've had casual sex: how many of them explicitly told you upon introduction that they were interested in casual sex? I'm guessing zero; there are cultural barriers here. So let's say, to incorporate that into the analogy, that adding "Interested In Casual Sex" to your placard means you might not get the happy hour discount here--or at least that there's a widespread rumor to that effect.

I'm not, but I can still respond to your example. The whole point of sites like OKC is to pair up the like-minded with as little shame and bullshit as possible; this is the point of all online dating services, right? So while I'm not saying that the dynamic you describe above is entirely absent from sites like OKC, I am saying it should be greatly reduced- no one should feel such reticence to state their desires in this context. People who use the service and then fear being shamed- or people who use the service and would then shame others- are violating the spirit of the whole enterprise. It's like going to Power Exchange and getting shamed for exhibitionism or going to see a Valentine's Day screening of Love, Actually and getting laughed at for being a romantic. I can't really see it.

That's a terrific response! It's blunt and funny and fair! If I played the online dating game and got that from someone I'd offended, I'd apologize graciously. The fact that this asshole didn't proves he's a creep with bad manners. Well done.

Hooray for judybrowni at #60. Listen to this woman. Especially you, Eudaemonic.

@ 160, 161 - Part of being an autonomous adult is having personal standards that aren't dependent on other people. If one gets the same results whether one is an asshole or not, it's still better not to be an asshole, simply because it's better not to be an asshole.

This thread has gotten completely out of hand, with wild conjectures flying in all directions. I'm in awe of the pure spectacle of it. It's a frothy mix of the ever-popular topics of harassment, Internet assholery, and portrayals of male vs female sexuality. All we need is a gun rights activist and some Hitler references, and the circle will be complete.

@91: "He did not do so. Everyone who wants to condemn the guy keeps making up fictional details (and falsely present them as true) in order to do so. That pattern means something.

If your position isn't defensible without lying, your position is not defensible."

You can fuck right off, considering-

"I was pretty excited when I saw your message… because as you know, every woman dreams of being bedded by a mysterious out of town businessman who takes naked torso selfies in his hotel bathroom mirror"

@125/@153 as well. If she wasn't referring to HIS SPECIFIC INCIDENT, why did she call him out on it?

Bleh, saw "naked", missed the "torso" specificity. My apologies.

@176: Amen!

@159, have you ever done this online dating thing? My male friends who do it tell me they never respond to women who message them because women sending messages are "obviously desperate." But, despite that, this was years ago before I was so well-informed and I did message some guys I thought were interesting...I think I got one response and he turned out to be not so interesting after all (but he wasn't a complete jerk, so a "win" I guess?).

I used multiple platforms for the year-ish I did it, and with the same results. If the guys don't answer the "bigs" (religion: prefer not to say; kids: prefer not to say) and only answer a few other questions, then there's no stopping them. There's no option to block people who don't answer those questions, or at least there wasn't one over 5 years ago. I quickly grew sick of sifting through dozens of "what was he thinking" messages to get to one that had some potential. YMMV, but as a young-ish woman at the time I did this I found lots of offensiveness and little substance. I found my "nearly one" by doing things that made me happy OFFLINE. In fact, even over the year I did the online thing, the only promising prospects that came my way were through professional groups, neighborhood groups, interest groups...you know, real, live people getting together over a common thing. Though the "Match meal plan" sometimes sounds intriguing (and filling, if not fulfilling), I'm glad I cut my losses (time, energy) pretty quickly.

I find Internet dating to be dehumanizing and horrible; nevertheless, at my age and with my life, I don't have much opportunity to meet potential romantic partners. So I keep on. I've been doing it, off and on, for over 5 years now, and have been on both Match and OkCupid.

I'm not young, and I'm not slender. And though the messages have fallen off in terms of frequency once I had been on for a few years (same old people see the same old profiles) and once I passed the magic cut-off age of 49, I still get a fair amount (several per week) of cheesy, sleazy, skeezy come-ons (as well as sincere, heart-felt introductions) from men who clearly haven't read my profile--the profile I spent a lot of time crafting so that it would give an accurate picture of me and I wouldn't have to wade through emails from men who are religious, conservative, blah blah blahs.

I get irritated, not so much from the offers of casual sex, as from the fact that people don't seem to read the profile before sending an email. They don't look to see what I say I'm interested in, so a lot of poly or married guys write; they don't look to see that I've said I'm interested in men aged 42-62, so a lot of guys in their 20s write, always starting off by saying, "are you interested in younger men?" Well, no, no I am not; that's why I answered several questions saying as much very explicitly, and that's why my age range lists 42 as the bottom number (I'm 50). They don't notice that I say I'm an atheist and don't want to date a Christian. I say that the thing you can do to turn me off fastest is to write in text-speak, and I get messages like this: hey how r u doin? do u date younger men?

Meanwhile, I read a man's profile very carefully before I consider sending him a message; I make sure that not only is he interesting to me, but that according to what he has indicated via his profile summary and his answers to whatever questions he's responded to, I stand a reasonable chance of being interesting to him. So if a man says he wouldn't consider dating a woman "even a little bit overweight," which is an answer to a question, or if he says his age range is 30-40, or if he describes himself as Christian "and somewhat serious about it," or "and very serious about it," or if he says he is allergic to cats (I am a cat-owner and I want to date someone who can set foot in my house), or if his profile is riddled with spelling and grammar errors and he doesn't punctuate or capitalize, I don't write to him.

I suspect that it's not so much the fact that this guy has the nerve to suggest a casual sexual encounter to this woman; it's that she went to the trouble to write a profile detailing who she is and what she's looking for (as well as, by implication, what she's not looking for), and she gets a barrage of come-ons from men who pay so little attention to her that it is clear that to them, any vagina-haver will do. In fact, it's clear that they've probably sent this very email to about 30 vagina-havers in the last hour.

While you "can't blame a guy for trying," and while you know that one has to send out a lot of queries before one can reasonably hope to make a real connection (or get laid), no one wants that kind of blatant evidence that the only source of her interest to someone is a basic feature of her anatomy.

Now, perhaps she over-reacted. But her letter was meant to call him on the fact that there is nothing in her profile to suggest she'd be open to an approach like the one he is using, that he's lazy and narcissistic, and arrogant, and it's not going over well. To the extent that he got all insulted and bent out of shape suggests that she succeeded if that was her goal. If she really hoped to make him reflect and examine his behavior and to change his tactics, she was naive. But she was no ruder than he was. Because making it clear that you don't value a person as a person, but only see them as a piece of ass is a fairly rude approach to getting any action.

@179 Now that you realize it was just a bare chest shot, does that change you mind a little bit in the appropriateness of her response (since @89 you had specified not out of line with cock shots)?

@181 Yes - I actually described my experience in post 159 which you are referring to. No man I know who's worth anything thinks that women are desperate if they initiate contact, be it on Facebook or okc. If someone doesn't reply - their loss, but my experience has been pretty good.

Now, perhaps she over-reacted. But her letter was meant to call him on the fact that there is nothing in her profile to suggest she'd be open to an approach like the one he is using, that he's lazy and narcissistic, and arrogant, and it's not going over well. To the extent that he got all insulted and bent out of shape suggests that she succeeded if that was her goal. If she really hoped to make him reflect and examine his behavior and to change his tactics, she was naive. But she was no ruder than he was. Because making it clear that you don't value a person as a person, but only see them as a piece of ass is a fairly rude approach to getting any action.

Look at it this way. The guy's a spammer. You're allowed to get upset about spammers, you're allowed to ridicule and vent about spammers if you really feel like it. But expecting them to stop spamming is unrealistic, and stressing about them only stresses you out with nothing to show for it.

If you know what's going on behind the scenes, most sites do have some mechanisms in place to keep the spammiest of the spammers in check. It's just that your options are somewhat limited when the whole nature of the site involves making people available for cold approaches from other people.

@185: I agree. I said that I thought TFTWE was being naive if she thought that her reply was actually going to make him reexamine his approach and change it in the future (or apologize to her). But people who are taking her to task aren't allowing her the same freedom of expression they're willing to give him a pass for. Yes, it's a dating site. And maybe some of us think she is unduly upset. I saw very little truly offensive in his overture as written, and lord knows, I've gotten some really offensive or crude advances on OkCupid in the past. But I can also see how she has gotten fed up with clumsy come-ons that indicate the guy hasn't read her profile, and the letter she wrote back, while requiring more time and effort than I would have spent on the guy, doesn't warrant either a vitriolic response from him (I wish we could see it, so we could judge how vicious it really was) or the ridicule of the commentariat.

BTW, when a 20-something propositions me and I very politely turn him down, he inevitably gets pissy and churlish and starts to mock the staying power or ability to get hard of a man closer to my own age. It doesn't do a lot to make me regret my position.

oh no! someone got a message on a dating site asking them for sex! Stop the presses!!

I don't think his email is offensive at all.

Like her, I wouldn't be receptive to it if I received it, but it seems to be a relatively pleasant, polite, honest attempt to explain what he's looking for and why he's emailing her. I don't see the need to take offense or to write him an angry, critical response as if he had done something wrong--in online dating, if someone writes and you're not interested, simply ignoring them is the normal way to respond.

It'd be interesting to see his response, but at least based on his email, I don't see cause for her "shocked, shocked that someone on a dating site might politely express an interest in sex" response.

@189: It's a form of collective harassment. It's the difference between the first person who politely asks if you've accepted jesus as your personal lord and savior, and the thousandth person who does. I can't really fault person 1,000 any more than I can fault person 999, but I also can't really fault someone for getting upset.

@186: We're on the same page, I was just saying it to everybody else. It's weird how many people are taking boring spam and reading so much more into it.

@ 172: Not explicitly,

First, thank you for finally--FINALLY--acknowledging that someone who has not explicitly said something has not explicitly said it.

...but if there are only two choices- 'Yes, I am interested in casual sex!' and nothing- and every one in the singles bar filled out the same information to produce their own placard, isn't it reasonable to assume the casual-sex seeking patrons could quickly deduce their preference and move along?

Now we're into the mind reading part, specifically "how much mind reading can be expected from strangers you have not met." I have not told you "I want some ice cream." I could have; we've been communicating for a while, and "I want some ice cream" is not to type; I could have done so at any time, and have not yet done so. How much information does this convey? If you have some ice cream and I walk up to you, and you offer me ice cream, and I do not in fact want any, can I scream at you? Punch you? Publish your picture while calling you a hateful misogynist?

Someone not checking the "casual sex" box means that they either didn't notice the box, or think they checked it when they didn't, or haven't gotten around to it yet, or aren't interested in it, or are assholes who will flip their shit if you ask, or are interested but nervous about saying so in a "public" forum, or haven't learned to say what they want yet, or...

It is reasonable to assume that casual-sex seekers could quickly deduce their preferences and move on. It is reasonable to assume that anyone with two hands could reliably shoot a basket from the three-point line. But a lot of them, when they make the attempt, will not do so. You could be giving me ice cream right now, but you are not. What punishment is appropriate for you?

Additionally, there are a lot of questions. Most people don't answer all of them. What answers is everyone else obligated to "deduce" for the other questions that didn't get answered and boxes that didn't get checked?

So while I'm not saying that the dynamic you describe above is entirely absent from sites like OKC, I am saying it should be greatly reduced- no one should feel such reticence to state their desires in this context.

I agree with you. Healthcare should also be a basic human right; unfortunately for us both, we do not live in the world of "should." Women shouldn't feel ashamed of being interested in casual sex. Men shouldn't be publicly attacked for being interested in casual sex. Women shouldn't be constantly pestered for sex. Men shouldn't have to constantly pester women in order to have a normal sexual existence. Nobody should have to use dating sites.

That's not the world we live in. "This should not be that way" is not evidence that it is not, in fact, that way.

It's like going to Power Exchange and getting shamed for exhibitionism or going to see a Valentine's Day screening of Love, Actually and getting laughed at for being a romantic. I can't really see it.

That's an excellent analogy for what just happened to this poor idiot guy. It's interesting that you can't see it. Have you considered... feeling empathy for other humans? Even ones who are heterosexual and male? It will help.

@188
Exactly. As far as heterosexual "love" goes, men and women are natural enemies. One of nature's cruel jokes.

alguna_rubia @143 “Even women who want casual sex would like to go on an actual date to vet the guy first, as a general rule.” Nope. Women who will head over to the guy’s hotel room to fuck right then and there are not generally interested in having dinner together first.

keshmeshi@160 “If [women] don't respond, they get vitriolic emails.” These guys have sent out too many messages to waste time sending nasty follow-ups to everyone who didn't reply. You'll get occasional nastiness back, but at that point you can block them, and then you won’t get anything more from them. Every time you reply, you remind them that you've rejected them, and they get nastier and nastier. Much happier results from just ignoring anyone who is clearly a bad fit.

lolorhone@172 Many women are on OKC to find a relationship. They don’t generally do casual hookups, and they certainly don't plan on doing casual hookups once they're in a relationship, so they don't want the guy-they-going-to-date-and-maybe-marry to think of them as a girl who does casual hookups.

They also don’t generally eat a whole pint of ice cream and you can be sure that they don't list "sometimes likes to eat a whole pint of Ben & Jerry's" on their profile. Nevertheless, sometimes at 11pm, after a bad day, they may go ahead and eat a whole pint, right out of the container.

And sometimes, at 11pm, after a hard day and several months without sex, they may say 'oh, fuck it' and go over to the hotel room of the guy with the above-average chest pic and have some nasty sex and then go home and eat the ice cream anyway. This is a thing that happens. People are weird, and women's profiles are not reliable as to their interest in casual sex. Which is why guys target women who show no interest in casual sex.

@193, note that I'm not saying she was wrong to send her message, if it amused her to send it, which clearly it did. I'm just saying, like nocute @186, that she was naive if she believed this would get him to reexamine his approach.

Is there a website devoted to mansplaining we can submit this comment section to for some fun?

"People who use the service and then fear being shamed- or people who use the service and would then shame others- are violating the spirit of the whole enterprise."

You're aware there's an ongoing debate on the Podcast threads and callbacks about whether a man who answered an OKCupid question about "six things that you cannot do without" by listing "sex" as one of those six things should be slutshamed out of doing so, right?

You know, if some people, who are both on OKCupid and followers of Dan's podcast (which audience is probably more liberal than the average person) think that MEN should be slutshamed for admitting that part of what they want in a romantic relationship is sex, there are probably some women on the system who are interested in casual sex but unwilling to admit it. I know that I, as a guy, avoided mentioning that I am interested in sex, not casual sex but sex as part of an LTR, on my OKCupid profile because I was afraid that that might cause women not to reply. Based on the podcast threads, that decision was well-founded.

Hehe, lots of pissed-off men who mindlessly trawl OKC and don't like being called out in here. :-P

That response is clever, sardonic, and not in any way rude. If you guys can't handle humorous rejection, I can't imagine you can handle any rejection, in which case you have no place soliciting sex from anyone.

@196 Well, I've always made sure to ignore men who didn't answer any sex-related questions and the mentioning of sex in an otherwise filled-out profile doesn't bother me at all. So you might be missing out on some actually sex-positive women.

@196 - Plenty of women list "sex" as one of the [6] things they can't live without.

At least in Brooklyn among the 20s/early 30s non-gays.

I don't think she was "upset" or anything. I think she was hilarious. :-) And not nearly as mean as she could've been. :-) Score one for humor.

@191: And just when I thought we were having a respectful debate, you turn back into a condescending dick. And a blind one as well, apparently- I repeatedly wrote that I probably would not have been so cutting to the guy, but I understood her irritation. Let's just agree to disagree and not ever converse again, alright?
@194: It's still a proposition to someone to hasn't indicated interest in what you're proposing, which can then reasonably lead to getting shut down hard in response. Yeah, he could have conceivably caught her on the right night and scored the casual encounter he had hoped for, but he didn't. He took a needless risk (he could have limited his responses to women who had actually checked the casual sex box), and he was rejected. He's not a victim because of that.
@196: I'm aware. And it's bullshit that the fear of being slut-shamed for being honest about their desires and intentions would even be a factor w/r/t to an online dating service (which, BTW, is not what the LW did to the guy- she went off on him for what @197 perfectly referred to as "mindlessly trawl[ing] on OKC" )