Online da[color=black]ting[/color] question: profile pictures vs. reality

[greencat]

I flat-out refuse to even talk to men who don't have at least two clear photos of their face and (clothed) upper torso.  If you can't show your face on a dating site, you shouldn't be on it.  I am extremely hesitant to give out off-site forms of contact for guys to "send photos" as either they're scammers trying to collect valid e-mail addresses for mailing lists, or they're going to send me photographs of an extremely private and unwanted nature.  I also consider my physical attraction to a potential partner to be a big factor - and no picture means no chance for me to evaluate that.

[whiterose]

My boyfriend was hesitant to put pictures at first- sending them only upon request.

I told him later that lack of pictures (especially on a free site, on eHarmony or Match not so much) is often a sign that the man may be married.

That, and I would not have even considered somebody without profile pictures either, since I do need the person to be at least someone that I find attractive upon first sight, even though I may not necessarily feel an instant flutter kick.

But I did upon seeing his pics upon first seeing his profile. The rest is history 

[Twik]

Part of the problem is that I think most people do not have a really accurate idea in their own minds of what they look like. So, they may not understand that their pictures aren't giving others a good idea what they look like *now*. The picture was good five years ago, so why wouldn't it be good today?

[greencat]

Even if the photos aren't that old - if the person has made major changes to either their personal style or has gained a lot of weight in a short time, the photo may still not reflect what they look like now.  When my ex and I started seeing other people, he would sometimes get to the first date point with women, who would then end the date as soon as possible, and at least one of him did him the courtesy of telling him he didn't look like his photos and that his profile wasn't accurate.  He asked me and a male friend what he was doing wrong with his photos and profile.

1) His most recent photo was a headshot taken from a "Myspace angle."  One you'd only see people from if you were standing up while they were sitting on the floor.  That kind of photo usually sends up red flags to people on dating sites. 
2) His next most recent photo, which was a full body shot, had been taken six or seven months ago (by me, actually.)  It was, arguably, a good photo of him - well lit, at a proper angle, etc.  However, he'd gained probably 40 pounds since then.  He really didn't look the same anymore - besides the obvious changes in his body, the weight had changed the shape of his face pretty significantly.
3) He described his body type as "average" when he was close to 150 lbs over the ideal weight for his height (and the average weight for a man his age, for that matter - they happen to be almost the same number.)  Both myself and the male friend thought that was very misleading.
4) He had his height listed at 5'11.  He had always given his height at 5'10, and I'm pretty sure he was actually only 5'9 - or else every single pair of my high heels was taller than they said they were.  Two vanity inches are unfortunately fairly common for men on the site, but when you combine that with the other misrepresentations, it was the proverbial back-breaking straw.

My profile has I think eight photos up, all taken within the last year and three months, all with different hair colors from white-blond to reds to dark browns - I change my hair color frequently.  I usually have a warning on my profile somewhere that it changes frequently.  I tell guys what color it is on the day of our first date so they know what to look for.

[nonesuch4]

I'm just finishing up a six month stint on a dating site.  On this site, people are allowed to categorize their own looks (average, good looking, very good looking) and their body types.  The Dunning Kruger effect is evident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Just met a man whose picture was ten years and 50 pounds out of date.  This made him 17 years older than I.  He knew how old I was, too, but glossed over the difference by saying  something like "older by the calender but not anything else." 

Hmm, 72 years old with COPD might be something you want to mention, if you're honest at all.

[Shea]

I do think that it's both rude and dishonest to post pictures that look nothing like you anymore (as PPs have said, a noticeable weight gain or loss, or a picture that's years out of date). Like other people mentioned, if I met someone whose photo showed him to be of average weight and in their mid-twenties, and he turned out to be 100 lbs overweight and in his mid-thirties, I'd wonder what else he was lying about. I suppose it's possible that he just didn't realize how much he'd changed, but with something that major it seems unlikely. I'd assume they were trading on the assumption that "Well, I may be very overweight and 10 years older than my picture, but if I can just get to the first date, she'll see how awesome my personality is and not mind!" Actually, while the weight/age might not turn me off if he was honest about it and seemed like a great guy in other respects, the fact that he actively disguised it would bother me far more than the extra pounds.

However, having a picture that looks a bit different from the way you really do (something about camera angles, maybe), or you're wearing glasses when you normally wear contacts, or a guy has a beard that he recently shaved off, I think that's all right. It might be good to give a head's up before you meet ("Oh, and I've grown a goatee/cut my hair short since that picture was taken), but it's not as big a deal as a really out-of-date picture. And I do think full-body shots are good, as well as having more that one picture, just to get a good idea of what they really look like. I had a basic head-and-shoulders picture, as well as a few others (me dressed up like Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly for Halloween, a cool action shot of me on horseback at full gallop, I think maybe another one I don't remember).

I met my BF online, and his picture, while a nice one, just doesn't look all that much like him. I think it's the angle it's taken at; there's nothing I can point to exactly that's off, but it doesn't look quite right. Honestly, when we first met, I recognized him from his smile, which is wonderful and does show up in the picture .

[blarg314]

I figure that photos on a dating site should be recent (within the past year) and show   at least a full body shot, possibly with a head shot. That way you get a good idea of what a person looks like, and what their body type is.

However, I think that posting a flattering picture of yourself is fair game. I wouldn't expect someone to take the photo in a way that makes their physical flaws as clear as possible - a rear shot to emphasize butt size, an overhead light to make balding clear, maybe without a bra to make it evident that these aren't perky nineteen year old breasts anymore, a tight shirt to emphasize the beer belly, or a shot from below to show of a double chin.

It's the same for the written profile. People don't generally highlight personality quirks or annoying flaws - the fact that they grind their teeth at night, or are really grouchy in the morning, or are a picky eater, or take a really long time to get ready in the morning, or hate exercising and love junk food. These are things you learn as you get to know people. The profile is to give an accurate but flattering view of you, to get people to be interested.

[Raintree]

I flat-out refuse to even talk to men who don't have at least two clear photos of their face and (clothed) upper torso. If you can't show your face on a dating site, you shouldn't be on it. I am extremely hesitant to give out off-site forms of contact for guys to "send photos" as either they're scammers trying to collect valid e-mail addresses for mailing lists, or they're going to send me photographs of an extremely private and unwanted nature.  I also consider my physical attraction to a potential partner to be a big factor - and no picture means no chance for me to evaluate that.

Unfortunately, that rules out a lot of perfectly nice, attractive people who don't want to post their photo on a dating site for all the world to see for valid reasons, such as being a teacher or a prof and not wanting your students reading up on how much you like long walks on the beach, or are looking for someone active and adventurous, etc etc. I know a guy who is a prof, a really nice, active, and smart guy, who met his gf on POF in spite of not posting a picture at all (for the reasons I mentioned). And personally, I have not tried online dating myself, because although I know I am considered attractive (ie I am not trying to hide anything, I can still turn heads, and men might actually be pleasantly surprised if they went in blind) I just feel very, very uncomfortable with the idea that anyone I know (colleagues, clients, friends, aquaintances) could go on that site, recognize me, and read all about my likes and interests, what I want in a partner, etc. To me that is very personal information to be posting on the World Wide Web with your picture attached. So if I ever do go on a dating site, sorry, but they will have to email me for a picture (after I get a general idea of their likeability through a few emails of course, ie whether they can string a few interesting sentences together without mentioning scrabble).

[greencat]

Then Raintree, online dating is really not for you.  I understand that for some people, dating sites without a photo work, but generally, if you aren't comfortable with being on there, you should probably stick to other ways to meet people.  It's not like (most, sane) people go on them just to see who they know is on the site in order to mock and stalk them - in fact, usually, in order for the dating sites to show those friends/colleagues/clients/acquaintances would also need to be single and looking for a partner of your gender and age.  I talk about my dating site experiences with my friends, many of whom use the same dating site.  My past experience has been that men who expressed discomfort with being on the site (but still used it to meet women!) were also the ones that would both express discomfort with me being on the site (holy cognitive dissonance, Batman!) and flake out on dates because I was "just someone they'd met online."

I've actually seen several young professors from the nearby megagiantuniversity on the dating site I use.  I've also seen a few school teachers.  Minors are not supposed to be on the site anyway, so students below college-age actually shouldn't be able to see the profile in the first place, and students who are of college age understand that their professors have personal lives.

It's also a lot better to have that personal information up with a photo attached - but no links to my real name or other online profiles (as I use a unique user name for dating sites) than to have it up with an e-mail attached.

I also dislike giving men a way to contact me off the site until the day before a first date - you know that saying, give them an inch, and they'll take a mile?  Every single man that pressured me into giving a non-site form of contact (even by giving me his contact info and asking me to reply to him off-site) prior to the first date has abused the privilege and sent me endless texts/emails/calls, or gifted me with photographs of his scrabble tiles.

[Emmy]

I've been out of the online dating game for several years after meeting DH, but I remember those days.  I agree with Shea and blarg.  Major changes or way outdated photos are deceptive.  Minor changes, like a haircut or change in facial hair are ok, but should be mentioned if the people are to meet.  I also think it is a good idea to post several photos because people tend to look different depending on their expression, the lighting, and angle of the photo.  Blarg has a good point that even a recent photo can look a bit different than seeing the person in real life.  I had five photos on a dating site and somebody mentioned I looked like 5 different people.  All were relatively recent photos with no major weight change, hair style changes or anything else, but apparently at least one person thought I looked quite different in all of them.

I don't think it is outright desceptive, but it is questionable to post that might misrepresent your or interests.  For example, if you are a jeans, tee-shirt, and no make-up type of girl 99% of the time, having only dressed up and made up shots would be misrepresentative.  I agree that photos should be flattering, but realistic.  I think an old photo or out of the ordinary photo (such as glamour shots) is OK, but it should be labeled as such and certainly shouldn't be the only photo posted.