There are plenty of reasons why I do not answer first messages:. Like, typos you can never unsee. Perhaps this is just me - but I find it difficult to juggle any more that guys at a time in terms of messaging, getting to know each other, potentially setting up dates etc.
It then becomes an exercise in scheduling and endurance and takes all the fun out of it, IMO. So you see, there are many reasons why a girl might not respond to your first message and only one of them is true non-interest. I guess it should be noted that the others kind of hinge on lack of intense interest too. That being said, I have in the past responded to a second message and in fact, just this past weekend, went out with someone who had first written me almost 2 months ago.
What I think it all boils down to is this: You know, as I was thinking about writing this contribution, a funny thing happened - I received a second message from a woman. On the one hand, what have you got to lose? A minute of their time? My apathy was the culprit here… not necessarily non-interest.
I think her approach here is key: If you messaged about hanging out and got no response, pull back, set up some more messaging. Conversely, if you sent them a laundry list of questions, condense it, and go straight for the setting up a time to talk in person. I'm 34 years old, and am comfortably set in all the personal and professional endeavors that make living a single life in New York City super rad. But the idea of finding that one person who I want to see every day and like more and more the longer I know him?
Yeah, I'd be down with that. In my 20s, I was bold and brash I made up for lost single gal time by bouncing from one fabulous mini-relationship or fling to another, until I naturally slowed down after that year mark. Finding that next great guy became harder in my 30s: I don't party as often, I work from home, and while I now have more to offer a partner, I'm not as assertive about finding sex or love as I was in my younger years.
Most of the "meeting" part comes online now, as we've talked about thoroughly on Love Bites. A lot of our guests have shared their own mantras and pep talks, so now they're like cheerleaders in the back of my mind reminding me to "assume everything is flirting! Empowered by their voices in my head, I took to the Internet. OkCupid tells ladies that those who reach out to men get better-quality matches.
My guy friends lament the poor rate of return of first messages. So what would it look like if I were to make the first move? What would those responses look like, by the numbers?
Would I get quality responses from guys I actually wanted to date? So I set out to send 50 messages over the course of two weeks. I used OkCupid as my source since it's the dating site I interact with most often. And here's what I learned:.
It ends up there's a huge difference between glancing through and "liking" a potential profile and being interested enough to shoot over a message. But screw that, I want to be picky. I don't want kids, so biologically I'm in no rush. I want big love with all its challenges and triumphs, and I'll wait for that. But as messaging time went on, what I discovered was two-fold:. First, it broadened the type of guy I was looking for.
There is no way 50 perfect guys were going to happen to be in my feed over the two days that I did the majority of the messaging. And a guy who looks ideal on paper doesn't mean he's going to be a potential romantic partner when met in person, anyway. Some guys I didn't consider fully ended up being the guys I actually dated for a while, too!
So I started branching out a bit, messaging guys who had a lot of good going but who might be even better when we'd meet IRL. Which was sorta fun! Second, it changed the kinds of messages I sent. At first, I'd focus on something that seemed important to both of us, mince in something flirty, and sign off with a question so that he'd feel more of a pull to respond.
By the time I was in the something-message zone, they were three sentences and a bit more general.
Did that make a difference? I have a lot more sympathy for guys online, as they are usually the first ones to make a move. It's a lot of work, and a lot of time. It's made me rethink the messages I get, dismissing them less readily.
Overall, I messaged 33 men, and 13 responded, most of them within hours if not only a day. There was no difference in response if I sent a particularly thoughtful message or something simple.
Maybe I should start doing that. Now you need to work on your second message……. Bt dubz, instead of harping on the negs, tell us clueless guys what you do like. I never had a response, but I was not really expecting one. So you see, there are many reasons why a girl might not respond to your first message and only one of them is true non-interest. Yeah, I'd be down with that.
Ben's take on that? Out of those 13 guys, only seven messaged a second time after I'd responded to them, and out of those guys, only five asked me out. You'd think that, hell, five dates from 33 messages to guys you actually wanna meet isn't bad, right?
It wouldn't be if all five of those invites led to real dates. But out of those five guys plus the additional three that moved to texting conversations , only one led to a real, live, in-the-flesh meeting. And nine just ghosted completely at one point or another.