Fair enough, but what exactly is the problem - that one can't touch the other person by computer? Maybe in future if someone develops some interesting tactile virtual reality gloves (or other organs!). Also, what kinds of imaginative solutions do you have in mind? Of course the initial experience (and often the whole experience) is less than satisfying, but is it worse than meeting in a noisy bar or even in an office?

Really interesting article and I wish I'd written it myself.

I'm all for on-line dating. Many people (singles) live for work or live alone and the world, it appears, is made for those who have 'coupled up'.

Loneliness isn't talk about much but I suggest many people peruse on-line dating services simply to look at the photos. It's voyerustic and natural.

Unfortunately many on-line dating services simply give the vital physical statistics, whether they drink and/or smoke and their star sign. Gee, knowing those star signs are handy, especially if you're living in the middle ages.

It's a completely flat or one dimensional profile but that's about as good as it gets.

The cybersex advocates have pretty much left the bounds of gravity, friction (and commonsense) behind. Cyber dating says more about the state of our real communities and our daily lives than it does about the medium itself

Oh, I dunno. Those who are looking for a marriage of true minds usually join groups or blogs of like-minded people. Its not at all unusual to hear of people who have met with their minds and thoughts first and then paired up for real.

But on-line dating services seem to fulfill the needs of thousands (millions?) of people world-wide. People who are looking for compatible star signs, and chiselled chins or who are concerned about things like weight and age etc. enjoy the whole process of window-shopping and trial periods. I know many people who are turned on by the excitement of the whole process and are perfectly content with it.

Those of us, like the writer apparently, who think there's something missing are not only the minority, but don't access such sites anyway.

So what they hell, why not just leave on-line dating to the millions of satisfied customers:-there's a plethora of other ways to make the world a more meaningful place.

And Cheryl, I don't believe that lonliness is a feeling other people can cancel out for one, nor does being part of a couple necessarily assuage it. As the old cliche would have it: if you're not happy with your own company how can you expect anyone else to be happy with it either?

We run a number of niche online dating sites. I was fascinated to read your article. I found that your article raised a lot of issues, but did not really suggest ways to reshape the industry in a practical way so as to be viable from a business perspective.

To remove "physical appearance" as an initial attractor, the industry could I guess not show photos until after a certain point in the communication cycle (I know of one major European dating site that does this). But for an existing site with thousands of members who have existing expectations of seeing who they are communicating with...will it work? What about for a fresh site...would anyone want to date with a blind fold on? Would anyone pay to NOT see who they are communicating with?

Who has deep enough pockets to test whether the online dating public in Australia or USA will vote for the concept with their wallets (if a paid site) or web browsers (if an advertising based site)?

Will users stay or go running back to all the other online dating and social networking sites which offer photos and videos (which of course show off member's physical appearance)?

I would be interested to hear your thoughts and suggestions for a PRACTICAL way to help shape the industry for the benefit of online dating users (by increasing possible matches by removing factors that currently disqualify them because of things like physical appearance)

Whilst I think to many of us place too much importance on physical appearance it is a reality that for most it's a factor in what makes others attractive to us.

Removing photo's would seem to me to be a recipe for increasing the heartache and rejection experienced by people using these services. The rejection based on physical appearance might well be much more deeply felt if it came after some kind of emotional connection was already established.

I've used online dating services in the past (RSVP and Yahoo) and have mixed feelings about them. I've recently experienced the end of a relationship with a lovely woman I met through RSVP and am pondering my options for a return to dating in the future.

I really don't enjoy the pub/club scene or the traditional RSVP singles parties and don't feel that I function well in those environment anyway. My age combined with parenting responsibilities mean that other opportunities to get to know single women in social settings are limited. I've been in clubs at times as well as taken part in adult education classes and the like and done so because I liked the activities the clubs and classes were about. They have not been good places for meeting single women.

On line dating does provide some opportunities to express interest in someone without committing a social fopah if the interest is not mutual, there are not many other environments where that is the case.

I don't really like online dating and have not decided if I want to reactivate my profiles (free to have a profile but costs to communicate with others), I'm thinking about my options and looking for alternatives.

R0bert

Cheryl and Robert

- recently a poster on OLO accused me of being both self-righteous and sanctimonious. I was horrified at these comments and spent a lot of time going through past postings to discover how I managed to give that impression.

It has struck me though, that it is perhaps posts such as the one above which give this impression.

Guys, I guess I was being flippant - my only excuse being that the motives of the dozens of people I've encountered who do subscribe to these services are, without exception, either shallow, self-serving or promiscuous. I really did feel that this was a sort of non-issue.

While I stand firm behind the belief that lonliness is not linked to being partnerless I had not adequately considered that for those who think it is, my thoughts may have sounded judgemental. And, although knowing of many people who have partnered up this way, until I read RObert's post, had not adequately given thought to the sincerity of the participants. Those whom I had encountered who had paired up this way were well and truly suited to each other - but weren't what one would describe literally as a "good" couple.

It has been nagging at my conscious that I may have sounded patronising to you good people and, if so, I do sincerely apologise.

Chalk it up to thoughtlessness - but not to self-righteousness or santimoniousness,(is that actually a word?) please!