And there’s no sense in ruling someone out for reasons that may become insignificant once you’ve met in real life.
‘Only show me people without children’ ‘Only show me men over 6ft 1in’ ‘Only show me vegetarians’ ‘Only show me people who don’t want kids’ The tick-boxes on many dating sites are a common part of the structure of the sites – and people often fill them in and make their choices quickly, based on in-the-moment gut feeling, prejudice or a past bad experience.
A one step Facebook log-in process leads on to a few simple questions (the most obvious – height, kids, whether you drink or smoke), a description and a photo – then you are in. To use the site fully – sending unlimited messages to other members – payment is required.
You can browse a selection of pictures and ages before logging in, anything more specific requires you to become a member. As with many free or low-cost sites, ads can be frequent and feel spammy.
Pitches itself as the site to go to for ‘serious, lasting relationships’ and marriage – which may well be refreshing to some in the current dating climate.
As a 5ft 9in glamorous cocktail type who says she hates bankers, she freely admits she’d have swiped right past him on Tinder or blocked him on Match – and he may well have done the same.
Cons: The lengthy survey you must complete before you sign up.
It is 100s of questions long and asks many probing questions about religion and moral views.
It seems unavoidable that if we have filters and tick-boxes for features and likes or dislikes, we could be cutting off literally thousands of potential suitors because of something we might have thought minor or irrelevant if we met in the flesh.
And, by the way, the tick-box that chooses whether you’re shown people with children or not can have an even more dramatic result, with 90% of the people I asked (a straw poll of 10 in the office) saying they’d chosen not to be shown people with children.