Technology

User name checks out.

Gay dating apps are bad too. It’s no better with only men involved. On sniffies, for example, you get on and start texting with a cock pic. Want to have a conversation, get to know them, figure out if they are worth your time, hell, even if they are safe to be around and it’s treated as heretical. It’s just perverted goons.

Guys on these apps lobotomize themselves. They shouldn’t be breeding.

My last runthrough with the apps, I'd carefully read everyone's profile and craft an interesting introductory message. It took quite a bit of time and was rarely rewarded with a reply, much less a conversation, much less a first date. My messages got shorter and shorter until eventually I was just mass swiping. And, just as far as a use of time goes, if all that matters is a woman likes your profile, it's more efficient to roboswipe and filter the women who match back.

Also, the emotional toll of serially declaring "I like you" and asking "do you like me?" only to be greeted by rejection after rejection is pretty devastating.

Anyway, very happy with my current girlfriend whom I randomly ran into at a store while looking for an accordion.

it could be worse. she could have gone on a date with one and they say something really sad like "all the women on there just want sex. I want something meaningful"

oh honey....you have been hitting up all the bots.

there is a point where most people go "this might be a scam" but there is a special few that go so far to give it a whole backstory.

Oh, men are definitely the customers. There was a website with a pornstar backer... Madison something or other. It was billed as a place to meet horny married women looking to have an affair--just sex, no attachment. It got hacked and, surprise surprise, it was entirely men talking to bots.

Edit:

Annalee Newitz, editor-in-chief of Gizmodo, analyzed the leaked data.[46] They initially found that only roughly 12,000 (0.22%) of the 5.5 million registered female accounts were used regularly.[47][48] The vast majority of accounts had been used only once — the day they were registered. Newitz also found that many women's accounts were created from the same IP address, suggesting there were many fake accounts. They found that women checked email messages very infrequently: every one time a woman checked her email, 13,585 men checked theirs. Only 9,700 of the 5.5 million female accounts had ever replied to a message, compared to the 5.9 million men who would do the same. They concluded, "The women's accounts show so little activity that they might as well not be there."[47] In a subsequent article the following week Newitz acknowledged that they had "misunderstood the evidence" in their previous article and that their conclusion that there were few females active on the site had been based on data recording "bot" activities in contacting members. Newitz confirmed that Ashley Madison had created more than 70,000 female bots to send millions of fake messages to male users. Still, they note that "we have absolutely no data recording human activity at all in the Ashley Madison database dump from Impact Team. All we can see is when fake humans contacted real ones." They noted that the site seemed to keep track of human-to-human contact but that the Impact Team had not released this data.[49]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach