So @catches_stars on Twitter is pretty hilarious. She’s also got an OkCupid account, and regularly posts snippets of her conversations with some of the more problematic dudes who contact her, some on her main Twitter account and some on @okcupid_TXT. With her permission, and because I’m too lazy to actually write a post today, I’m passing along a few of my favorites.
This overeager fellow has a rather sudden change of heart when his stated plan runs into an obstacle, that obstacle being that @catches_stars finds him completely repulsive.
This guy is either totally high or trying some weird and misguided PUA wizardry on her. (It does not succeed.)
This foot-obsessed fellow spammed her with the same message from several different accounts.
This guy, who seems to be shirtless in his profile pic, gets what I assume is, to him, a very disappointing answer.
As does this fellow.
Romance is hard.
I would probably just correct the spelling and other errors in the gentleman’s rant and then laugh at his sputtering at my gall to tell him he is wrong.
Damn, creative writing student, you stole my kitten move!
@clairedammit && @HellKell:
I was being deliberately facetious (I couldn’t help myself as an IT student, I’m deeply, deeply sorry but really couldn’t control myself). What you’re saying is correct; it’s not right to judge someone on their phone and it’s also not right to make insults based on gender or sex.
I could give a very long-winded technical discussion on the technical reasons as to why iOS is inferior to Android but I think it’s enough to say I was making a bad nerd joke 🙂
@Kitteh:
You didn’t tell I was being deliberately facetious? Shame on you!
It’s pretty telling when people get all emotional over product choices and I TBH don’t really care what people choose to buy or even whether they’re informed about their purchasing decisions or not, not really any of my business.
It’s just a tactic to feel superior.And they have TRUFAX about it. I find my polite disinterest sadly is often mistaken as tacit approval. While my eyes burn with effort of staying open, in my head, I am often planning dinner during one of these verbal dissertation monologues.
Ashley: Yeah, you win. 😀
@Baroncognito:
What’s it called? Also, have you ever heard of beautifulpeople.com?
I’m tempted to run a free service to GIMP/Photoshop peoples photos who have had their applications rejected, to get them on to the site, to teach shallow-minded people a lesson >_>
This actually happened to me and a friend on the street in Oakland. Although the actual phrase was “Hi. Do you want to see something cute?” [reaches under his overcoat while we frantically look for escape routes, then pulls out an adorable kitten]
There’s a problem, Martyn in that you are not well known enough around here for people to recognise if you are facetious. After your misguided comments on lesbian sexuality and the age of consent, you will have to choose your words with the utmost clarity.
I recommend the /sarcasm tag in future.
Oh fuck off. Seriously. What “lesson” are you hoping to teach them? That if they have people they are and are not attracted to they are “shallow” and deserve to have their preferences ignored? That they have a duty to date people they’re not attracted to, because those people are really nice guys?
Martyn – you’re a newcomer here. You came in defending these “reasonable” MRAs you claim to know, in the face of all the evidence that the MRM is nothing but a hate movement. You persistently push the line that the MRM and feminism are somehow equivalent. You’ve tried to claim erasure = privilege. Now you’re talking about how wonderful PUA is and delivering a eulogy which totally overlooks its complete hostility to women. And you think anyone’s going to read your blather about iphones and god knows what with a favourable eye, and take it as a joke? You think everyone here is going to say “Oh, geek humour”?
Stop and think about the impression you’re making on strangers. So far, it hasn’t been good.
It would be nice if a girl would send a message to me ever.
@cloudiah
The premise of the site is exclusionary. Members get to vote to include and exclude people from joining the site based on looks alone; it’s not about a duty to date anyone, if someone sees someone they think is ugly, they can just choose not to message them. Check it out, if it’s the same as when I last checked it out, you’ll realise what I mean =]
Oh, and I can do my own photoshopping, thank you very much. And with a much simpler program than GIMP, too.
Picard says it well.
Oh, and after signing up for Beautiful people, should I sign up to Christian Mingle too, teach those close minded Christians that maybe they can find love outside of their faith? (says the man who has an account at JDate)
LOL!
@Kitteh:
I just explained the theory in as shorter form as I could, nothing more. I did not comment on PUAs themselves or the PUA lifestyle. Why is my explanation of the theory of it considered a eulogy at all, when did I praise it?
I never cast a judgement on it, I just gave an explanation since no-one had already done so and I’d already done all the pre-requisite reading from many common source materials. Also, “good game” was put in quotes for a reason, to hint at the bias in that I don’t think it’s so good.
@Baroncognito:
So do Christians on Christian dating sites community reject/approve people based on freehand qualitative questioning surrounding the Bible? Somehow, I don’t think so.
@Cloudiah
http://notalwaysright.com/factual-innuendos/2558
I’m rather amazed that there’s more than one member of the general public who does this…
@CWS, Amazingly, he wasn’t even trying to pick us up.
Martyn, “Members get to vote to include and exclude people from joining the site based on looks alone” — and why shouldn’t they? And why is it okay for you to trick them into including people they don’t want to? What makes you the judge of which preferences are okay and which aren’t. Just fucking respect peoples’ wishes, even when you don’t agree with them.
Bullshit.
You don’t grasp the idea of implications, do you? Your wording implicitly praises the idea, and the description is, as hellkell said, delusional. Have you actually read Roissy or Roosh V or any of those self-proclaimed PUA gurus? If they’re telling the truth about their exploits they’re rapists. Their hatred of women comes out in everything they write.
I don’t give a flying fuck what you think the theory of Game is. It’s what men do to women in the real world that matters here, and Game is about coercing reluctant women into sex – and making them feel bad about it. You know Roosh (I think it was him and not Roissy) wrote once about how he doesn’t mind being unable to orgasm, because it gives him another chance to try laying a guilt trip on his unfortunate partner?
Stop trying to paint the MRM and PUA as benign. They’re not, and you’ve chosen the wrong site to push that line.
CWS – that link is like the Live Parrot Sketch. Can’t you just imagine Cleese with the parrot in his coat?
I wouldn’t know. I have never attempted to sign up for one. I also don’t know what it takes to get onto beautiful people because I’ve never felt tempted to check it out.
@Martyn
We are already familiar with many “theories” of Game. No one was asking for help, we have heard it all before. What howardbann1ster wanted was for known trolls to come and play. It was pretty inevitable that anyone answering the “question” seriously (let alone by unquestioningly reiterating a spin put on Game by adherents) would get pushback.
I think that you should try to do a bit more listening and asking questions and a little less attempting to joke around with people who barely know you.
I think my cat has been negging me 🙁
@SaltPickles
Probably.
@SaltPickles, I’ve started negging my cats. It doesn’t seem to have any effect on them whatsoever — especially “Nice claws. Are they press-ons?”