zipties wrote:
As one of the almost all naked profiles... I am curious why an empty profile brings about negative assumptions about someone you have not interacted with? Is it not the actual interaction that we should base are assumptions on?
Take a chance. Have a conversation. Then decide if that naked profile is a bad apple or a hidden gem or something in-between.
As i see it, interaction is a choice we make as a result of something we 'see.' If there is nothing there to 'see,' the imptetus to interact is all on the responder.
i see a difference between a "almost all naked profile" and a "blank profile." To me, if one has an "almost all naked" profile, they're gonna spark interest on a BDSM site.
To me, "naked" means there is someone there, not covered, really opposite of "blank". "Almost all naked" (again, to me) means there is something left to see. "Blank" means there is nothing there to respond to, nothing that would elicit taking "a chance" to have a "conversation."
Prior to the online world, why would people interact, have a conversation? Isn't the start of a conversation a response to someone being there? And seeing or hearing something about that person stimulates a response. Taking it to the extreme, imagine a site where there was nothing but "blank" profiles? i can't imagine many people would go there? Sort of a "move along, nothing to see here" scenario.
i'm notorious for often going the opposite direction, writing (probably) too much. i have a profile on one gay dating site (there is only one lol) that ebbs and flows more than the Pacific Ocean. One day it's a paragraph, the next it's an epic production. Ones a snap shot, the other a full length feature film... or more likely looks like a docudrama that probably only a handful of the nerdiest people on earth would ever read.
To me, the profile challenge is one of balance. Where is Goldilocks when we need her?