Technology

37747 readers

224 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

371

Tinder Now Letting Rizzless Sad Sacks Pay $500/Month to Message People Without Even Matching (futurism.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

113 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If you get a message from someone you never matched with on Tinder, it's not a glitch — it's part of the app's expensive new subscription plan that it teased earlier this year, which allows "power users" to send unsolicited messages to non-matches for the small fee of $499 per month.

That landscape, in fact, is largely populated by apps owned by Tinder's parent company: as Bloomberg notes, Match Group Inc. not only owns the popular swiping app, but also Match.com, OKCupid, Hinge, and The League.

Match Group CEO Bernard Kim referred to Tinder's subscriptions as "low-hanging fruit" meant to compete with other, pricier services, though that was before this $6,000-per-year tier dropped.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Probably 3 times a month for in a western country. If you are in a long term relationship that is probably around the same amount of times you are getting laid.

The problem is that the people that would pay 500 to tinder are not the kind of people capable of a long term relationship. Even their fleshlights pray for manufacturing defects so they can get out of long term service.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Three times a month for a long term relationship seems really low to me. Over a decade married and ~3-5x a week.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/how-often-do-happiest-couples-have-sex-it-s-less-ncna828491

Once a week or so is the average. I'm at about the same amount of time in a relationship as you and we're about once a week. Personally I feel like sex is nice but it takes time and effort and I'm not always in the mood to spend time pleasing someone else (and I'm not going to initiate unless I'm willing to do that). I could see myself having sex a little bit more often if I had a better work-life balance where I felt less pressed for time. This gets me thinking that I should check in with my partner about this topic though!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

It isn't ideal but working 5 days a week on opposite schedules once a week is minimum and one week there is a natural occurence that makes one of us feel not super into sexy times.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is such a disgusting way to think about relationships, I don't wonder why people are lonely.