[ksplicer]

> Would you also tell the chronically unemployed person that you being flooded with job offers all day means you're dying just like him, but in water instead of sand?

The analogy would be one person not getting any job offers while the other is only getting job offers with compenation that are too low to support their family.

[megadal]

The thing is, in the scenario you described, I am pretty sure the person getting no job offers would trade places with the person getting offers, but the reverse is obviously not true.

[godelski]

Which would you rather die of dehydration in? Desert or ocean?

I'm not sure why these are being treated as equally bad. To be one is clearly worse than the other, though both tremendously suck. You'd at least survive longer in the ocean, even if we ignored the higher availability of food.

[megadal]

Because the analogy you provided implies that the outcome in either end is inevitably death, and that there are no other options.

That doesn't accurately reflect the reality though. You can adjust your standards to find a mate if you have options, if you have no options, there is literally nothing you can do. I would think "death" or "game over" is having zero moves left. Not having few favorable moves and a high chance of making an unfavorable one.

It also implies women exclusively suffer from quality issues when dating.

There are for sure just as many bad actors on the female side of dating apps as there are on the male side.

[godelski]

You're reading way too much into an analogy. I'm not sure how to tell you this, but analogies aren't... The full story. I don't know what you want, a book? And I hate to break it to you, the tortoise and the hare never actually raced. Nor can they talk.

If you're going to focus in on details and the generalizations that are clearly for convenience and not actual, make sure you don't do this too. Because we both know that the type and number of bad actors that men and women face aren't the same. But I'm not going to hound you for it because that'd be in bad faith. It'd be a willful misinterpreting of what you meant.

[megadal]

I'm actually focusing on the context of the thread.

Your entire presence here is in response to the statement "Women are the big winners of dating apps"

You disagree with this and your analogy was your way of explaining your disagreement.

You could have used another analogy and I would still disagree if your conclusion was different from the person you were responding to.

> Because we both know that the type and number of bad actors that men and women face aren't the same. But I'm not going to hound you for it because that'd be in bad faith. It'd be a willful misinterpreting of what you meant.

We don't both know that (in regards to number). Bad actors is a very broad term. I have pretty explicitly stated multiple times in this thread (in response to you, IIRC), that I believe the quality of interactions men and women face on dating apps is roughly the same. (To clarify this, I mean the ratio of good vs bad interactions on the app in a binary ranking system is roughly the same for men vs. women)

Yes, that includes all of the bad things you are thinking of, and including some I'm sure you have never thought of if you have never lived in a rough place.

> You're reading way too much into an analogy

You do realize that analogy was pretty much your entire original comment, right? I am directly responding to your entire point, not harping on semantics or nuance.

> I'm not sure why these are being treated as equally bad.

I'm supposed to respond to that without mentioning your analogy..? Because the analogy is why these things are being treated as equally bad. It's literally the entire point of your analogy.