How To Get The BEST Guys Online To Go Out With You

26 Shares

Sick of swiping right and texting? Want to meet quality men who are invested in you instead of putting up with flakes? Listen to this Love U Podcast to learn what you can do to ensure that the relationship-oriented guys take you on proper dates, just the way you like it.

Are you using dating apps and dating sites? Are you frustrated with how many guys swipe right and text but don’t follow through? Did you know there’s a completely different way of screening men that will result in you having a fun online dating experience and meeting only highly motivated guys? Stick around and I’ll show you how.

I’m Evan Marc Katz, Dating Coach for smart, strong, successful women and your personal trainer for love. Welcome to the Love U podcast. Stay to the end of this video to discover a better way to date online. When we’re done, I’ll let you know how you can apply to Love U to create a passionate relationship that makes you feel safe, heard, and understood.

So today I’m going to give you a sneak peek inside of Love U, metaphorically speaking. I got to tell you some terminology that we use inside the course that I think is very useful. I always talk about something called the funnel. If you go into the Love U Facebook group, there are hundreds of women and they talk about the funnel and the funnel basically said there are a billion guys online. And our job is to narrow them down.

Now, the reason I’m doing this podcast and video for you is that the way people funnel the way people narrow people down, I think is highly misguided and counterproductive to your goal. Now, I get into this in great detail in Week Seven of Love U. Love U is my signature course. There are 26 weeks and week seven is online dating, and I offer 90 minutes of my best online dating advice, including the 222 rule, opinion openers, and a checklist tree to print out to help you develop healthy daily dating practice. And dating is a daily practice. Regardless of that, one thing that I realized is that good advice doesn’t matter much if you don’t know how to search for a guy online. So you can think you’ve got a great profile and you’ve got a great texting emoji game when you’ve got cute pictures. But if you don’t know how to search for a guy and finding the guy is the issue, you’re going to end up in the same place you were before. It’s hard to complain that men are shallow and flaky. If the only way you’re interacting with them is swiping right on cute photos and texting. The medium itself is the problem with dating apps.

The medium itself is the problem with dating apps.

So I’m going to say let’s say you’re on a mainstream dating site on Match.com, Plenty Of Fish, and OK Cupid, big mainstream brands like and they’re all owned by Match. So what do most women do when they get to one of these sites? Makes perfect sense. I know who I am. I know what I like. I know what I’m attracted to. Here’s what I’m worth. And I’m going to narrow down my choices. And as a result, what you end up doing is screaming out. You’re looking for a perfect guy based on what you like.

He’s six feet tall. He makes six figures or he makes more than I do. He has these hobbies. He is within a couple of years of my age range or younger. We would go on and on. And the more things we select for, the narrower the dating pool does.

I thought of doing infographics of this, really showing how the dating pool narrows because 86 percent of men are less than six feet tall and 90 percent of men make less than one hundred thousand dollars. And ninety-five percent of men don’t have master’s degrees. And these are ballpark numbers. But you get the idea the more you narrow it down. One point seven percent of men are Jewish. So the more you narrow down, the more your pool shrinks, restructuring shrinks. And then what happens? You set your narrow filters like “OK, these are my guys.” And now if a cute guy writes to you, he’s pretty much guaranteed. If he reaches out to you and you find him attractive, he’s pretty much guaranteed of a date. You’re going to go on a date with a guy because you set your criteria so narrow and so high that finding anybody you like is kind of rare. That’s what happens when you’re singularly focused. And to you this makes sense. But here’s the problem with that methodology of screening. There are very few guys who qualify. Really, very few guys qualify. And you end up getting false positives or something like that. You end up disqualifying men who are actually qualified because these men are not screened and not screened for quality. They’re screened based on these arbitrary search criteria, which doesn’t encompass everything.

I always use my wife and me as a perfect example. We’re both on Match.com at the same time. My age range wasn’t broad enough to accommodate her when she was three years older than my pop age. My wife, I can guarantee, was not looking for a Jewish guy, much less a Jewish atheist when she was dating online. She was probably looking for a sort of generic Christian guy because she’s Catholic. This is the problem. Our search criteria unnecessarily narrow things arbitrarily. And then because we think we did a good job with our search any guy who gets through the screen sails through quickly and now he gets a free pass. But these guys haven’t put in any time. You haven’t differentiated yourself from the other people he’s talking to. And because he’s your type, and it’s hard to find, you end up where you are now, having a lot of texting relationships, going out on lame blind coffee dates, hooking up with a guy that you barely know because he was cute, but he didn’t put in an effort to earn that date with you. All he had to do was pass your criteria. And that leads to lots of bad dates and lots of bad feelings around dating, online dating, and men.

So the Love U way flips that whole thing around instead of putting on this high screaming filter at the beginning and making it essentially impossible for most guys to get to you. We want you to have access to the whole phone book. We want you to see everybody. We want you to keep your screening open, your funnel wide at the beginning and then narrow it based on his efforts to determine whether he’s worthy of meeting you. This means instead of putting a narrowed search criteria, you’d go on there, you put in an age range, five years younger to 10 years older, within 20 miles of your house. And you just start browsing guys on Match.com. I recommend using the reverse match function, which shows you men who are looking for women your own age. So broad age criteria. Five years younger to 10 years older. Ballpark. And now just look through, guys. And now we’ve got 10 times more men than you were looking at before. And you might discover there are some cute guys with good profiles and senses of humor who might have filled out your original thing wrong because you said you were looking for X, but he’s Y. And like, these things are malleable. We treat them as if they’re not. But they are.

The more people who you see, the more people see you, the more options you have, the more men you have in your funnel. And now we’ve got seven to 10 guys at a given time who are of quality that you can screen based on efforts to take him from the dating site to your email to a phone call over the course of time and watch as these men either hang themselves because they are lazy, perverted, negative, impatient, incurious, stupid. You discovered that with a couple of emails on the dating site and a couple of emails on Gmail and phone calls, you get to discover what kind of guy you have in your hand instead of giving them a free pass.

This is the alternative. Generally, women grant that free pass. He’s cute. You give him your phone number and now you’re stuck. You’re either texting or you’re going out with someone who hasn’t put in any effort. He’s got nothing invested in you.

So my way is literally the opposite of the way you’ve been doing it. But that’s why it works because the thing you’ve been doing hasn’t been working. That’s why you’re here because your way hasn’t gotten you what you want.

If you want, I know how to do this even more specifically, week seven of Love U, I go into great depth on what I call the 222 rule, how to screen guys, how to keep a full online dating funnel so that you’re only going out with men that you want. And you could put in about a half-hour a day to online dating and pretty much guaranteed that you go on one quality, prescreened to date with a highly motivated man each and every week instead of getting stuck in texting hell.

My name is Evan Marc Katz.

Thank you for turning tuning into the Love U podcast.

For more episodes like this on YouTube click on the subscribe button and ring the bell. Choose all to ensure that you get notified when new content comes out.

If you’re listening to the audio podcast, please scroll down below to leave an honest review on Apple. More reviews equal more awareness of the Love U podcast equals more love in the world.

And if you’re interested in being a part of Love U and getting coaching, click on the link below to apply.

Thank you so much.

I will talk to you soon.

  1. Download my free special report, The 8 Massive Mistakes You’re Making in Relationships
  2. Get the man of your dreams fast by applying to enroll in Love U.

Join our conversation (12 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.

Comments:

  1. 1
    Jess

    Evan, are you suggesting someone with a PhD degree should date someone who didn’t graduate college? My friends and I have dated men who made less and didn’t have as high of an education level. While that wasn’t an issue for me, the problem is most of these men start to feel insecure and became very ego-centric in the relationship.

    As for the age criteria for online dating, didn’t you mention before that men are likely to prefer dating younger vs older? I think some women are “picky” because they learned from experience, and they are just trying to find the type of men with whom they have the best chance at dating.

    1. 1.1
      Evan Marc Katz

      You put words in my mouth. I didn’t say to date someone who couldn’t spell or makes $14,000/year. I said that if you’re searching for other PhDs, that’s a small and limiting population of 2%. Perhaps there are people as smart as you who did not get advanced degrees. I know one writing this comment right now… 😉

      1. 1.1.1
        Evan Marc Katz

        Oh, and if your way of searching is working, keep it up. I offer suggestions for those who struggle to meet great guys.

  2. 2
    Jess

    Actually, having an advanced degree has NOT been in my search criteria. And I did not imply people who don’t have advanced degrees are not smart. 🙂 My point was about dealing with someone who felt very insecure and it had a negative impact on the relationship.

    1. 2.1
      Evan Marc Katz

      Okay, then meet people and judge them on how secure they are instead of assuming everyone is intimidated by your PhD. Seems pretty obvious from here.

  3. 3
    jo

    This is an interesting post. On the one hand, I completely agree with Evan’s approach to making the funnel much broader in the beginning, to include good men that might not otherwise have made women’s first cut. On the other hand, I can’t help wondering if women make their first funnels much narrower because they are not just thinking about GETTING a man, they are thinking about long-term living with that man. Are the filters they put in place intuitively because they fear they would not last long-term with someone who doesn’t fit that criterion?

    To use Jess’s example: although I know you didn’t say this, Evan, maybe there is a reason women put a filter about a certain education level they want in a man, based on their own educational level – because they think long-term compatibility would suffer if she has a PhD and he didn’t graduate college. It doesn’t really matter if it’s irrational, if it doesn’t work for her (or him) long-term. Then better to have never gone down that path with him in the first place, to save both of them time.

    We just can’t know, because women have more opportunities than ever now, and we don’t have much data yet about how happy LTRs and marriages are if women are much more educated, earning more, more successful, etc. than their men. We’ve had centuries of men being more educated because women weren’t allowed to be educated in most parts of the world, so today, it’s fine for a man to be more educated than his partner. It’s baked into the social norm. But the reverse? There’s a reason some people here keep talking about women being hypergamous, and it is not irrational. It is based on social norms, which whether we like it or not, do play a role in the stability of relationships because of expectations. Do I wish this weren’t the case? Sure. But it is the reality.

    Long story short: I wonder if the narrower criteria women specify in the beginning are based on what they know, or feel pretty confident about, what would work in the long term, not just the short term (more of a man’s approach in dating, I think). Then it is rational that they would not want to waste their time or another person’s time.

    1. 3.1
      Evan Marc Katz

      If what “they know” was working, I wouldn’t have a job.

  4. 4
    Jeanne

    Most men (women too) date based on chemistry, rather than over all compatibility IMO. I am 61, was married, divorced, engaged, had a few LTRS, would have no problem getting a DATE online because (sounds conceited) I am pretty & look young for my age. The problem is, I can’t seem to meet someone who is even average in looks, income & intellect. If they look nice, they are broke & a d-bag. If they are smart, they are butt ugly. If they have income, they are generally nasty & ugly! I don’t have high standards, but I have some minimal standards, like good character, good hygiene & grooming, plus they must make an effort/show some level of interest. I was in a site at the pre/beginning of the pandemic. It was geared to older people.(not naming it) I got hundreds of emails, winks, likes, etc. The ones who were close enough & within 10+/- years of my age either wanted to just chat endlessly, 1 wanted to meet in a PARKING LOT & his emails verged on abusive (ended up blocking him) I think you have great advice, but it seems like you are telling women to “settle” for what the man wants, rather than telling the men maybe they have unrealistic, narcissistic expectations…

  5. 5
    Bbq

    Jeanne

    I think what a lot of the women here don’t seem to understand is most men in happy relationships would be “settling” by their definition, but the things that would bug the women and drive them to dissatisfaction are total non issues for the men. Of course, a lot of women irl are like this too, they “settle” in some way, they’re just not as distressed by the thought as some commenters seem to be.

  6. 6
    Bbq

    Jo

    You may be right, the succesful women may not be able to have successful relationships with much less successful men (in their eyes). However that’s gonna leave em with slim pickens. If they’re fine with that and a fair chance of not “ending up” with someone for the long haul, then that’s fine. If not, then unless they’re very lucky they’re probably gonna be dissatisfied either way, so I guess it’s better to be dissatisfied alone and not drag someone else down with them.

    I don’t foresee a time when women are more prestigiously accomplished than men and “keeping” men as husbands with pleasure and men or women are happy with that tho lol. Sounds more like a plot from the original Star Trek.

  7. 7
    jo

    Bbq, wow, we agree with each other 🙂 not just in content but in attitude here. Yes, ‘If they’re fine with that’ is the crux of it. If a woman (or man) is fine with being picky about whom she dates, that’s no problem, as long as she isn’t terribly upset by it and making life harder for others. And if she’s more open-minded and thus has an easier time finding compatible men, that’s also fine. It will be an interesting social experiment to see how women rising in career prestige will affect overall dating, LTR, and marriage trends in this generation and the next.

    But I don’t think prestigious or high-flying women will marry to have ‘kept’ men, any more than most men (except the highest wealth) have had ‘kept’ women. For most couples, it is a partnership. The question is whether men would be fine with doing what women have traditionally done in the past, and vice versa – whether that’s caring for the children, managing the household, managing the budget, having the job that moves the whole family, being the breadwinner, etc. In other words, making all roles open to all genders, and seeing if it can work out according to common sense, or if people are going to cling to old gendered roles and make it harder to adapt.

  8. 8
    Bbq

    Jo

    I suspect men won’t prove to be particular inclined to it on the whole. I’m not defending that, but it is what it is. There’s a bit from game of thrones where a character is described as “willing to burn down the land if he could be king of the ashes”, I really think men will somehow try to screw that up EVEN IF there’s a chance it could happen in a fair way for them.

    But I don’t know that it could happen in a fair way for men tho. If you look at divorce initiation ratios, women are miles ahead of men. But even more than that, it was women who really made the push for no fault and no fault nor being the partner who wants the break to be taken into account during custody of children too. If that stays the same (and women seem to think it’s fair despite the lopsided divorce initiation ratio) then there would be little motivation for men to take up that female role when, unlike the system they had set up for women whereby women were in a sense trapped, but also their (women’s) family relationships and roles within said family life were ensured to remain in place barring massive wrong doing by either party. That is to say they could count on staying married most of the time, they could count on raising their own children and not sharing them with a step parent. They didn’t have these things dangling over their heads as possibilities at all times. Possibilities that their husbands wanted and pushed for in law and were far more likely to happen at their husbands action and not their own and could happen through no fault of their own. Unlike say, the way it is for men now that women think reasonable. If men do Have any mass inclination to fill the traditional female roles, I doubt it’s under those circumstances.

    If only it had been as easy as making all roles open to all genders. Then maybe equality would have some chance. But the truth is as women have entered male roles they’ve often wanted to change them or the system in some way to be more to their liking and likewise have wanted to change family roles and expectations with increased influence. That’s fair enough, but it’s also fair enough that if men find those new roles and systems undesirable, they too will either seek to change them, or start anew without the female influence if they find compromise impossible.

    Men and women may both be able to agree that equality would be nice, but if men and women’s visions of equality differ greatly from each other and comprise can’t be reached but instead the gulf in agreement widens (as it seems to be) then that’s going to end in failure. I guess many feminists would argue that men’s different desired equality is a result of their upbringings, toxicity etc. and if women can just get control or push hard enough that will all change (to their correct ideas). But that’s arrogant bs and won’t work.
    Whatever happens, I reckon it’s gonna be a wild and crazy ride in regards to gender in the next century lol.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *