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!

Romany, your post was not taken that way. I read you expressing a viewpoint and not directly targetting others with insults, thats a fair thing in this place.

I'm stepping back almost two years for my past experience but I suspect that not a great deal has changed.

I've had mixed experiences with online dating. Those I've got as far as meeting with have so far been people who I have enjoyed meeting but I've taken some care to be selective and tried to be very honest up front which probably provides a level of filtering.

My worst experience has been dealing with "kisses" from people I find unattractive (not just looks either). The sense that you don't know where someone else is at makes the thanks but no thanks reply difficult. Sometimes I've spent the extra to reply with an email because the pick a reply options just don't cut it.

There are shallow people out there but also plenty of others who are trying to find ways of making contact with a broader range of people.

As for me, right now I'm still considering my options.

Cheers
R0bert

o.k., no worries, then.

p.s. I still think that joining on-line groups could be one good (and free) option. If you joined one called, for example, Life, the Universe and Everything, you'd know that the people on it are those who, for a start, understand and love the book/film from which the title comes. Or Potheads Forever, or Love, Peace and Happiness...or whatever one's personal bent may happen to be. And even if nothing develops, its a lot more fun logging in and joining in than trawling through pictures of strangers who will always remain strangers.

One development in RSVP's services which I think is a step in the right direction is the expansion of social activities beyond the mega-parties and speed dating type functions.

A browse of their Queensland events calender shows that at this point there are not many alternative activities scheduled but there are some http://www.rsvp.com.au/content/events/qld.jsp

It will be interesting to see how well those types of event go.

R0bert

RObert - I did have at look at the site - pretty heavily weighted on the "Baby Boomer" side it seemed to me: which is a rather interesting social comment in itself.

Reflections: Perhaps these agencies could organise more outings which did not categorise through age, but through shared interests. I would have thought it is more important to find people with whom one has shared interests rather than shared birthdates. For example - I have been to an Eighties Evening with friends who weren't over 20 and had a total blast. Equally, have taken a couple of friends in their sixties to a Trance and also had a fantastic night.

Anyone over the age of 17 who approaches a social gathering in the hopes of finding "The One" as the blurb coyly suggests is not only out of touch with reality, but bound to be disappointed. And if that's their sole impetus for going they will have had a lousy night.

But if someone goes somewhere to do something that really takes their fancy they are guaranteed an outing with people who share their enthusiasm so that, even if they dont meet The One they have the opportunity of making new friends.

A Laughter Yoga evening with vegetarian bbq afterwards and no age restrictions for example, would be guaranteed to attract a bunch of people who would be kindred spirits.....and maybe one of them would have a brother, sister, aunt, parent or offspring down the track that turns out to be the mythical One?

On the other hand, a night out with a bunch of people who may be ones own age but who are hell-bent on living in the past and imagining they are just as fascinating as they were back in the day could turn out to be the Night From Hell.

Looks like the Story Bridge outing could be one of those interesting ones: perhaps they are just trying out different ways of doing things just at the moment to see what works?

Romany, interest based outings and activities do seem like a much better approach than mega-parties and browsing online profiles.

I'll be interested to see what kind of range of activities they run over time. The Story Bridge one would be fun but I suspect that the cost will a show stopper for a lot of single parents. I've got a view out my office window that looks out over the Story Bridge and see groups on top from time to time.

The Noosa paddle would be more my speed (cost and interest wise).

I'm not sure how well all this fits with the article, the relevance may be in the diversification being taken by one on line dating group.

Having a look back at the article "“man still meets woman” according to explicit and implicit social criteria" - I'm not so sure how explicit those social criteria are anymore. My impression is that much about the dating process on and off line is still in a state of flux. I don't think that my generation has really worked through the issues resulting from changed roles when it comes to dating.

Also "but so far, any developments have been curbed primarily by the commercial interests of the online dating and to a lesser extent, technology industries" - I think that the developments have been curbed more by human behaviour. People bring to online dating all the expectations, self interest and hang ups that all to often form a part of romantic relationships in our society.

On or off line people are judged by perceptions of what they can bring to a relationship and the expectations and or level of desperation of the person doing the judging. I've not seen anything that leads me to believe that it's the technology or commercial factors that are holding things back, rather it's people being people.

The point made later in the article "love has become so fluid that it is “liquid”, devoid of real shape and meaning." does make a lot of sense.

Anyway enough rampling for tonight.

Cheers
R0bert