Q&A from “Phishing With The (Inter) Net: Baiting the hook”

Wise Readers,

Curb/curve appeal:  You acknowledged its vitality in personals ads.  But what’s the best photo to present—how we appear everyday?  A glamour shot?  Or could it even be advantageous to post pix that look somewhat less hot than The Real You?    Why is the Pool deeper at paid-subscription than free dating sites?  Why is it okay—desirable, even—for men to post photos of themselves with their kids…but works the opposite for women seeking men?  And when and how should children be mentioned?  Read on! 

Cheers, Duana

 Reader Comments (9)

You’re spot on Duana. Men are visual creatures. I recommend that Justine invests in a great profile pic. It’s like buying a home…great “curb appeal” captures our attention. Great advice for 21st century daters.

March 30, 2010 | David Milne

I love it! Is it odd to wish that the internet had been available back when I was dating?

March 30, 2010 | Monica

What a strange and wonderful world we live in, where the predators are actually the prey, The viperfish comes to mind for fishing.

Great blog Doc!

March 31, 2010 | Vincent

How does having minor-age children affect a woman’s chances to remarry?

When and how should the children be mentioned?

March 31, 2010 | Joan

Thank you all for the affirming (and amusing) comments.

David, the “curve appeal” thing is key, indeed. I’d like to add that a great profile pic is not the same thing as a glamourous or misleading profile pic; the photo should look like the woman’s real everyday best. The but-you-looked-so-much-better-online impression is to be avoided, as visually disappointing a man at the first meeting is almost guaranteed to make it the last meeting.

In fact, I’ve had clients who placed ads with photos ever-so-slightly *less* ravishing than they really were—so that when they met a man In Real Life, he was blown away by her in-person beauty. The words the in-person meeting should optimally elicit are these: “Wow, you are so much prettier in person.”

March 31, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Hi, Monica,

Your comment reminded me just how far Internet dating has come since its inception as something most people supposed only Losers would do (insert image of scarlet “L” on forehead here). It’s now an exciting and accepted way to expand the Pool, as long as it’s done carefully to avoid Stalkers/Slashers/The Already-Married/Those Who Smell Wrong.

Please excuse me for using your comment as a jumping-off place to answer a question nobody has yet asked, but here goes:

Why, Duana, do you recommend paying for memberships at Match or Chemistry or eHarmony,  when free sites from Craigslist to OKCupid to HotorNot abound?

Well, Monica, since you didn’t ask, I’ll tell you: It’s because most women are seeking a Relationship rather than a fling (for those women who *are* seeking a casual fling, Adult Friend Finder has a ridiculously high number of men ready to oblige; they often post pictures of, um, Members Only). And these women, like others around the world in every dating context, are not seeking a Relationship with just anybody; they want a man who has resources such as education and income, and who is looking for the right woman upon whom to lavish said resources (plus their fine Selves and hearts, of course).

Which —and I’m making an intellectual leap here— leaves out most of the men on free sites.

When nothing is invested economically, there are reasons to suspect that a) the Phish are poor; b) the Phish are commitment-avoidant; and/or c) the Phish are looking to mate ever-so-briefly, and then swim merrily away.

March 31, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Dear Vincent, Haven’t heard from you in a while; nice to have you back. Your comment that “the predators are actually the prey” is one that crossed my mind, albeit in less elegant wording, as I wrote the article. An old-fashioned phrase from earlier generations comes to mind as well: “He chased her until she caught him.”

March 31, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Hi, Joan, Leave it to you to ask the probing questions. I love it. Here you go:

1. How does having minor-age children affect a woman’s chances to remarry?
—Unfortunately, they lessen remarriage odds substantially for women, but not nearly so much for men. Plainly put, kids = costs in the evolved male brain, with notable exceptions here and there. One need only look at rates of child abuse and child murder (SIXTY times greater for kids living with *any* non-bioligically related male) to see that Other Men’s Children are not —not—valued or loved the same way that biological children of Parents Together usually are. This is worldwide.

Basically, men assume that women are nurturant; it’s a given. And when a trait is a given in nearly the entire population, it ceases to be informative, and is no longer a basis for choosing a mate. Men sometimes are and sometimes aren’t nurturant towards children, so we should expect that a man who seems to love his children (or someone else’s) will be akin to Catnip For Women.

Moreover, men are looking to invest their resources in the youth and beauty of a woman who can bear their (not a competitor’s/former lover’s) children. This is largely unconscious, of course; men continue to seek youth and beauty even when they have no intention of having any children, for instance. But the data show that it is usually so, and that most men prefer a woman without children to one with.

So, for instance, studies show that women give the big thumbs-up to men shown interacting with a baby, compared to men who are pictured ignoring a baby. But women’s attentiveness or inattentiveness to babies makes no difference in attractiveness ratings from men, and in fact, women are seen as more desirable when *no* children are pictured.

We can file this under the “Life Is Not Fair” category.

March 31, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

2. When and how should the children be mentioned?

—I am unaware of any data that specifically address when and how to tell an online prospect about one’s kids. And it’s a tricky issue, because data about lots of other awkward things (such as being obstreperous, dishonest, or a spendthrift) show that It Matters *when* sensitive information is presented. Present it too soon, and you’re eliminating candidates who are worthwhile; present it too late, and they’re eliminating you.

So, on the one hand, you don’t want to wait so long that it seems like a lie of omission, say, until the dessert course of the third date. On the other hand, you don’t want to blurt out, in writing, that you’re seeking a new daddy for your babies because their biological father is an addict.

As we can see, though, there’s a tremendous amount of middle ground to work with. Basically, research suggests that if you present a lot of desirable things before one or two potential undesirables (and again, a woman’s kids sadly fit into this category from most men’s standpoint), then the plusses are viewed as outweighing the minuses, and things can move forward.

My clients have dealt with this by posting a fun, alluring profile that does not mention their child(ren) at all (or mentions them only in a really funny way, as with the first ad from the article this Q&A is based on).

Then, when the letters start pouring in, they treat the letters and ensuing phone calls like interviews, but with flirting thrown in.
“So, it turns out I have progeny. How do you feel about Other Men’s Kids? Could you ever see yourself raising one?” Done in the right way, the interview gets at the serious stuff without making the poor guy feel he’s being handed a Life Sentence.

So far—it’s worked out well for them. It would be interesting to see, though, if there are studies about this.

March 31, 2010 | Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.

Comments

[Candi]

As usual, I am simply tickled to read all the information your article has to offer. Even though I'm not dating or trying to find a relationship, I have found your words to be spot on in my own experience as a woman. Simply put, it's okay to be appealing to the opposite sex, even if you're not trying to find a relationship. In fact, it can be very encouraging and a real ego boost to find you're still attractive even though you're taken. Afterall, being married doesn't mean you're dead! Great article and always well written.

[Duana C. Welch, Ph.D.]

Thank you, Candi. Can't tell you how much I appreciate you and all my readers who enthusiastically apply Love Science to their own lives every week, and pass the info along to others. Thanks for letting me know Love Science is working for you.