3441

Well at the very least, it looks like we match on reluctance to post profiles and pictures with sisters in them.

Internet high fives.

3442

But Guap has already slept with every woman who goes out in public in DC. He needs to (ahem) tap other sources.

3443

And we’d even be friends!

3444

Keep the Leonard Cohen lyric, though, eh?

3445

It’s interesting, and I know that the few people who comment on it are actually paying attention to what I write. Definitely keeping the Leonard Cohen lyric.

3446

Done. Except, I’ve published my profile as a woman so that I can use the okcupid profiler to find out scientifically how many of the guys here are secretly gay for me.

http://www.okcupid.com/profile/lunchofkong

I’m sorry, Siren, but unless you click ‘interested in women’ I think our compatibility profiles are going to start off poorly.

3447

Claycw hates me with 21% Enemy. :(

Gourmand (91% Match, 75% Friend, 5% Enemy). I think we could go out for a beer.

Beecubed, (91% Match, 90% Friend, 5% Enemy) I like what you’ve got going on here, but the 5% enemy tells me that you’re just not fully committed to our relationship.

Jeffd (89% Match, 90% Friend, 7% Enemy) I really thought we’d be more of a match than this. I’m really disappointed.

Nixon (85% Match, 76% Friend, 10% Enemy). You’re not a complete crook. I think we could at least become Steam friends.

3448

Hmmmm, it shows you at 80% friend and 16% enemy.

3449

Here although obviously if you wanted to look you would have found it pretty easily:) I no longer wear my hair that way (it’s natural now) and I don’t normally have bags under my eyes but otherwise it’s pretty accurate. It’s not very effective because I don’t have enough pics, something I’ll remedy one day.

3450

I got depressed by those results so went back and answered more questions. :)

3451

Well at least OK Cupid thinks we’d all be friends.

3452

It’s a bit out of date (Last real update was changing my status to “married” and “Looking for” to “new friends”), but here’s mine.

Some results (name: match% / friend% / enemy%):
beecubed: 87/86/13
jeffd: 83/80/17
claycw: 83/91/13
siren: 82/86/18
gourmand: 88/73/11
nixon66: 88/90/10
lunch of kong: 79/78/19
lorini: 72/73/28

Interesting. Apparently I’d be gayest for gourmand and nixon66, claycw and nixon66 would be my buddies, and lorini would be my enemy.

Oh, and my wife, who I met on okcupid, is 78/94/14 to me.

3453

I should be revealed to anyone whose OKC profile I’ve checked out, since I imagine most straight guys don’t get a whole lot of gay Canadians viewing theirs. Or maybe they do, for all I know. I’ll have to look over mine before I’d publicly link it, though. And I still hate the name. It was suggested by a friend when I was a dating site noob and I’ve come to regret it because it pigeonholes me somewhat. But I’m also too lazy to start over on OKC and answer a billion questions again to build up a new profile.

3454

Aaaaaah is that Bill Dungsroman?

3455

I’m taking a hiatus from internet dating but still following this awesome thread. I just wanted to say probably at least a 1/3 of the women I met their pictures weren’t too accurate. Either years younger in them(thus hotter) or a one in a million photo that made them look a lot better. That said, I did end up dating one of them a really long time since she was still hot but the photo I saw of her online was 2 years old and probably 20-30lbs less. Dating sites should require people date their photos.

3456

If you decide to remake, OkCupid will reward you by plastering your profile all over the site. So, there’s that.

I’m thinking about nuking all my match questions, too. There are few topics like “How sympathetic are you to drug users?” that I don’t care about, but that I seem to get judged on quite a bit. I’m not a druggy, I just don’t particularly care to judge other adults.

There are a few similar topics I’d rather leave out of the percentages, because I think they are better serviced by face to face discussion anyways.

3457

I’ve answered like 1200+ questions, there’s no way I’d go through all that crap again.

3458

Same here. I hate my handle on there.

3459

Creepy: two of the last three people to view my profile on POF are 19 years old. These are people born in the 90s, for Pete’s sake.

Flamenco guy and I are tentatively penciled in for sushi on Tuesday (date #2) and I had a pleasant date today with another guy who I haven’t thought of a clever name for yet. Before we parted ways he asked if he could cook lunch for me at his place and then we’d watch a movie or something, so I guess he felt something clicked. Or he just likes to cook. Like every other Vancouverite I’ve dated (or simply met), he is not originally from Vancouver.

3460

Well, after the last few attempts at contact seeming to die on the vine, I thought I’d give OKCupid’s “Quiver” feature the benefit of the doubt and look at the three options it gave me for people that some computeriffic algorithm thingy says I might have some deep spiritual connection with.

Option One: MySpace photo, strike one… and it’s her only photo… first thing that pops up in her profile: “I am not a fan of facial hair or playing video games”.

My internal response: Lady, you do NOT have enough of a bargaining posture to be that picky. - REJECTED

Option Two: Stunningly attractive! Here we go, off to a great start. Likes live music, getting to know her way around the city - great great great… why’s this sounding too good to be… “am currently in a polyamorous marriage and looking for a fourth”

My internal response: a FOURTH? I can’t even get a one-th and you’re looking for a fourth? Some people need to quit hogging! - REJECTED

Option Three: Aha, cute enough, I think I’ve seen this profile before on my occasional random searches… yes, I did. And I even rated her as three stars, let’s reassess this one. Very cute, likes her iPhone and other gadgets… hey, new homeowner. Ooh, redhead. How did I not notice that before?

Internal Voice: REDHEADS WILL DESTROY YOU.

Shut up, Internal Voice.

Seriously, dude. That’s like Superman dating a Kryptonite golem. It will not end well.

Just to prove you wrong, Internal Voice, I will hit the Accept button and write a charming introductory email! - ACCEPTED

Yup, you’re totally d0med. I’ll be over here with the shreds of your self-confidence losing a cage match with dignity.

So I think since my Internal Voice is not being very helpful, I need to set up my own little rubric here. If I take it as a given that the average woman on this site for my area gets at least one ping a day (the only ones who have the “hasn’t been contacted in a week” are either ones who haven’t logged in for months, or who look like a villain from the old 70s Doctor Who serials) there is a good chance I’ll get lost in the ether. Thusly, IF no response AND the gal has been online at least once in the intervening week, try sending a follow-up email. If no response a week after that and she’s been online in THAT intervening week - no use throwing good time after likely bad rubbish–

Have you ever heard the phrase “sour grapes”?

Shut up, Internal Voice! You’re no help!

Ah well. This grand experiment continues.