Dating spam: why do suitors act like spammers?

Image by the brilliant Stuart F Taylor

Recently I had a chat with a mate of mine who is signed up to a couple of dating sites. Tinder, OKCupid, whatever it is the kids these days are using to hook up with people. She explained to me that her greatest bugbear is guys who – after she’s ignored their first message (or more likely first deluge of messages) – say ‘hey, you could at least tell me no rather than just ignoring me. It’s polite to say something, after all.’


Hear this: I can totally see why your average dude might be confused by that. That unequivocal ‘no’ looks a bit harsh, doesn’t it? If you’re someone who sends a lot of dating messages only to be met with tumbleweed, you might think ‘hey, GOTN, that’s not very nice. I’d reply to everyone, so why shouldn’t they reply to me?’

*cracks knuckles*

We all receive a lot of emails, don’t we? It’s the 21st century, after all, so anyone with an email account will get not only a bunch of messages from friends/colleagues/your Mum, but other messages too: viagra sales, LinkedIn recruiters, foreign diplomats offering you a briefcase full of dollars, etc.

Being a woman on a dating site who is open to messages from men means you’ll get a hell of a lot of dating spam. Not as many messages as you get from LinkedIn, obviously, because LinkedIn is the biggest spam farm known to man, but still a fair amount. So instead of wondering why people don’t reply to what you send them, consider instead why you choose not to reply to certain things. Instead of deleting stuff or sending it to your spam folder, what would happen if you replied every time? Let’s have a look.

You’d waste ALL of your time

And I don’t just mean that it takes a long time to type a quick ‘sorry, no.’ That stark ‘no’ that I wrote at the beginning sounded pretty harsh to those of you it affected, didn’t it? Imagine how much worse a ‘no’ sounds in response to the question ‘do you like me?’ On a dating site your first message might say something charming:

  • ‘Do you fancy a date?’
  • ‘Awesome profile!’
  • ‘Ur tits r gr8 lol wanna suck me’

Ultimately, though, they’re all variations on the same question: do you like me?

A stark ‘no’ in response to that is a pretty bold move. It’s a loudly slammed door, and understandably people don’t often want to use it. Problem is that an obligation to be polite often bleeds into an obligation to be just the right kind of polite. Hence, people who tell you that you should be polite to unsolicited messages usually also think you should send something more than just ‘no’:

“Thanks RandomGuy64, I’m delighted you like my tits. While I’d love to suck you, I’m afraid you mentioned in your profile that you love dogs, and I’m allergic. Please accept my most heartfelt apologies, and have a lovely, fellatio-filled life.”

It took me a couple of minutes to type that, and that was just a guy I made up. Can you imagine the time it’d take if I had to compose a personalised, polite rejection to three or four real guys every single day? Sure, it’s not writing War and Peace, but it’s still more time than you’d want to take out of your day to perform a task that isn’t really necessary. It’s polite to hold a door open for someone who’s just about to come through – you probably wouldn’t slam it in their face. But no one’s obliged to stand there all day holding the door open for everyone who wants to stroll on through.

Replying takes up a hell of a lot of time. Don’t believe me? Pop into your inbox right now and go reply to all the emails that ask you a question. Say:

“Thank you for your kind offer of Viagra, but I’m good for that right now.”

“I’d love to apply for this fantastic job, but I have a feeling I might be drastically overqualified.”

“I’ve always hated money, so I’m afraid I can’t join you on your business venture, kind diplomat.”

What’s more, go and do that to four emails every day for a week. Consider what either of you have gained from this exchange. Which brings me neatly onto my next point.

You become a ‘mark’

If we’re talking about politeness, then we need to acknowledge that a polite ‘no’ is not always taken for an answer. Just as our elusive email scammer won’t take your name off the list if you ask them to, so not all dudes on dating sites will stop messaging because you’ve said you’re not interested. Far from being – as it should be – the end of a particular conversation, often a ‘no thanks I’m not interested’ is seen as the opposite – an opening. A counter-offer, to be haggled into an ‘alright then’ via persuasion, nagging, and occasional threats.

Don’t believe me? Check out the site ‘bye, Felipe‘, in which women say ‘no’ to guys on dating sites and are subsequently called a whole bunch of appalling shit because they’ve dared to send that polite response in the first place.

I know, I know, not ALL men are cast-iron dickstrings, but nevertheless one ‘no I’m not interested’ is rarely enough. I’ve had guys before who have said ‘not interested? At least come on a date with me before you say that, you owe me that at least!’ Which, when you think about it, is like an email scammer doubling down on my ‘no thank you I would not like to discuss your business opportunity’ by asking me to just transfer $100.

Replying to a dating site message proves that you exist, and it also proves that you feel the need to be polite. And once that’s established, there’s surely ‘no harm’ in our persistent suitor seeing if that politeness can be used to press you that one step closer.

You validate lazy and shit behaviour

Like spammers, many people on dating sites have a ‘throw enough shit’ policy. Instead of reading people’s profiles, looking at their pictures, and considering who might be the best person for them to go on a date with, they simply message everyone and then see who takes the bait.

I feel like a grumpy old person complaining that the kids these days don’t do things well enough, but they don’t. Back in the Olden Days (about four years ago) when I was doing a lot of OKCupid dating, only about 20% of the messages I received fell into the ‘dating spam’ category. I replied to almost everyone who sent a nice message – and I had a really low baseline for ‘nice.’ By ‘nice message’ what I actually meant was dudes who’d demonstrated that they’d read even half of my profile. The spammers – the ones I didn’t reply to – were usually guys saying ‘hi lol’ or ‘u r fit’ or ‘can you send me a pic of your whole body’ or ‘Why, madam, I find your profile eminently intriguing – please do me the courtesy of telling me more.’

Let’s go back to our spam example. As a sex blogger, I get shitloads of email spam from PR companies, marketing companies and – my personal favourite – SEO ‘experts.’ The SEO experts usually want me to publish an article about herbal remedies, gambling, or some other bullshit. While I’m always tempted to find out how much dirty cash they’d fork out if I actually posted their shitwaffle, I always hit ‘delete’. It’s something I’m blatantly not going to do.

When I started blogging, I replied. I sent ‘no thanks’ to a hell of a lot of SEO people. And then more came, and more, and eventually I got to the point where I could guarantee at least a couple of SEO experts a day, plus the other stuff that comes (PR things, marketing stuff, requests that I ‘try out’ someone’s new sex website and then give them free consultancy on how they could improve it, etc). Do I reply to them all now? Fuck no. Because if you reply they know that you’re the sort of person who’ll reply. If your reply is a no, you’ll get ‘I understand your reluctance but let me reassure you…’ or ‘how about we test it this one time and if it doesn’t work for you then no problem.’ I have never once replied to an SEO or marketing email with a ‘no sorry that’s not for me’ and had them say ‘OK.’

Even if you think it’s polite to say’no’, I don’t think you owe it to people who are determined to take your ‘no’ and farm it into a ‘yes.’ I’ve wasted their time and mine by getting them to kick in with a conversation, and I’ve validated the laziness that comes from them not bothering to read my contact page to find out that I don’t do that kind of paid-scammy-SEO-bullshit anyway.


There’ll be a bunch of people reading this and thinking it’s unfair to compare men to spambots. Let me make it crystal clear: not ALL men are spambots. Some of the guys who send you a ‘hi’ message then get hurt when you don’t respond may well be genuinely lovely – they might have taken the time to read your profile, and struggled before getting up the courage to type that message then hit send. But similarly, there may well be genuine foreign diplomats offering you millions of dollars.

When it comes to dating sites, as with emails, there are a whole bunch of rules that dictate whether it’s worth replying to someone or not. I don’t think ‘writing a message that proves he’s read my profile’ is a particularly tricky hurdle to jump over, to be honest.

Most importantly, when you ask someone to say no out of politeness, consider why you actually need it: why is it polite? Is it because you’re sitting at your computer desperate to know? Is your life on hold until they reply? If the answer to either of these is ‘yes’ then I’d suggest you need a rule or two of your own, for your own peace of mind: if someone hasn’t responded within a day/a few days/a week (depending on how patient you are) then you can let it go. If, as is more than possible, the reason you want them to reply is that you think you’re owed something – a moment of their time, the opening of a conversation in which you can nag them to change their mind – then no matter how polite they are I don’t think they owe you anything.

As I say, check out your inbox and see how many messages you reply to just to turn them down. Then keep that in mind next time you send off a first-touch message, before you get angry with women who don’t respond. Don’t say ‘you should at least reply to say no’ – instead consider: do you?

I bet you don’t.


  • I used to send a polite thanks but no thanks when I wasn’t interested but all it ever got me was either a torrent of abuse or a negotiation telling why I was wrong. I now just don’t reply.

  • N. Likes says:


    And/But…. another scenario….

    There are a gazillion women (and men I’m sure) I dating sites who just fuck off well into an interaction. Ten, twelve messages in, making concrete plans, and they’re gone. They’ve collected the attention they evidently wanted, and now, they’re done.

    I don’t disagree, GoTN, on your point. But I am repeatedly stung by the alacrity with which people simply disappear. Which seems to me bad form.


    • Girl on the net says:

      Woah, blimey. I was kind of with you up until “They’ve collected the attention they evidently wanted.” Here’s the thing: I get why that’s frustrating, and I would hope that if I were dating I wouldn’t abandon a conversation part way through. I’m sure I *have* done that in the past though, and there are probably any number of reasons: I found someone, I got inundated, I was super-busy and when I logged back on a week or two later the person had disappeared or not logged back on so I thought there was no point, etc etc. Yeah, I’d aim not to, but no one’s perfect. It may happen a fair amount, and you may well be right that women do it more often (I’ve had dudes do it to me once or twice though). However, I think your conclusion that it’s just people looking for attention is based on some fairly massive assumptions, and fails to recognise what being a straight girl on a dating site actually entails – i.e. a fuck of a lot of admin. Like, really, being on a dating site means you essentially double your ‘life admin’ – you have a hell of a lot more messages to reply to, and you feel an obligation to have certain conversations, etc. My rule when I was dating was that I would ditch any conversation that lasted more than four messages (two each) with no commitment to meet up for a drink – I just wasn’t interested in messaging back and forth, because it took up so much time. If someone’s fun enough that I like their messages, then I want to go for a drink with them and not have this endless dance of online chat. Hmm. I’m not sure what else to say here to be honest, but really honestly and truly, I cannot believe there are that many women for whom having online chats with a bunch of guys is fun, and that it’s worth getting that kind of attention. I think assuming that women do this for attention belies a lack of empathy about what it’s really like being at the receiving end of that attention. It can be quite exhausting, and yeah people fuck up and forget to reply to messages sometimes – it’s probably because they get a lot of messages, and are therefore less invested in each individual person. Which sucks if you’re the individual they’re not invested in, but I don’t think it’s a moral failing on their part.

      • N. Likes says:

        With respect… I think I’m pretty empathetic. I get what you’re saying. I’m saying something different. Women who make plans – concrete plans, or are on their way to concrete plans, and then disappear. Or who disappear in the middle of what by all objective lights would appear to be a substantive conversation.

        I don’t feel entitled to much in interactions with strangers, and I’m STILL struck by how often people do the equivalent of turning around and walking away mid-conversation.

        What I’m talking about is unlikely to be born of overwhelm, as it’s generally quite active.


        • ZG says:

          This is an old comment, but I’ve only just come across this post, and I know I’m guilty of this, so I want to reply.

          I’d say that of the first messages I respond to (maybe two, three a week) I abandon half the conversations ten, twenty or more messages in. Usually, it’s either because the person is turning out to be either a terrible conversationalist or incredibly self-absorbed… which often feed into each other, now that I think of it. (Probably like a third of the men I do this two have this weird “God’s gift to feminists” thing going on which combines both terrible conversation and self-absorption.) Occasionally, it’s because the person has started trying to make it sexual; asking for my number to text me pics, suggesting I come over in the middle of the night, and pressuring when I say I’m not into that. I don’t *think* I’ve ever ghosted on anyone who I’d made concrete plans with, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it actually has happened.

          The reason I just abandon those conversations is that the reactions when I say “no” at that point are even worse than when I say “no” to the first message. A lot of people get pretty upset that you’ve gotten to know them a little and THEN decided you’re not interested, as opposed to just rejecting on first impression, which I guess I can understand. It also gives the person a lot more ammo to try to wheedle with “Well hey, we’ve been having a nice chat, maybe internet just isn’t the thing, let’s just have one coffee and see how it goes”. And, I don’t want to answer the almost-inevitable “Why not?”

      • Gwizz says:

        “I would ditch any conversation that lasted more than four messages (two each) with no commitment to meet up for a drink”

        Two each? Seems kind of low. Two each is hello to me. Each to their own I guess, but I like getting a feel for them before I ask them out. Say 10 each, but that’s just my level of comfort. That may change in the future, as I can see how two each would be an effective time saving tool for women in particular.

  • J says:

    N – that happens to me too, on dating sites, and I’m mostly a woman corresponding with men. But honestly, it’s okay for people to do that; sometimes life gets in the way of speculative new things; maybe his gran died, maybe he just got a new job, maybe he lost his phone, maybe his ex is back in town, or maybe he just lost interest. All of those things are fine! Strangers on the internet – which is what we are, really, until we’ve met – don’t owe me making me a priority over Other Stuff in their life. I’ll shrug, be a bit disappointed if they seemed great, and move on.

  • Aj says:

    It’s a case where both sides act in ways that make the situation worse for everyone, I think. Spending the time to properly read a profile and craft an introduction and not get a reply once hurts a little. It feels like a complete waste of time. Do that several times over, and it’s easy to see how becoming a spammer that just sends “how r y?” to every profile in existence becomes preferable. There’s no investment, and thus no disappointment from being ignored, and the reply rate is probably about the same.

    One would think living in a smaller town, as I do, would change the dynamics. There aren’t endless people looking, so there’s literally less than 10 people who are in the right age range and have enough interest overlap to actually seem worthwhile to introduce yourself to. It doesn’t seem to, unfortunately.

  • Nic says:

    The thing I wonder about all the ones who feel entitled to a response: if they believe failure to respond makes a woman such an asshole, why do they keep demanding the same woman’s attention? “You have demonstrated a quality I find appalling! Give me a chance!” Um…why?

  • Ian says:

    Individual humans really don’t scale well, and it seems from the antics of some who clearly have their genitals in the driving seat at the time of typing they don’t consider how different to in-person encounters those via online dating sites are.

    I suspect it’d interfere with their business model, but considering the problem you’ve outlined (I’ll deal with a technical solution first and consider the human implications second) why not limit comunication to a single message between 2 users until some reciprocation is forthcoming and provide an automated mechanism for the sender to know if their message has been read. As long as everyone is made aware that this process exists, that would mean nobody gets abusive messages for not replying and senders aren’t in the dark about if their message has been read and they can draw whatever conclusions about that they wish. Incidentally, if appears I’ll take my usual 10% thanks!

    But it’s the human aspect which I find most worrying, particuarly the vitrol as highlighted by ‘bye, Felipe‘. Everyone, bar that one person with no self-awareness and a limitless reservoir of confidence, spends some emotional capital when putting themselves “out there”. The idea that, effectively anonymous, rejections should cause such poisonous responses I can only imagine means the mind behind it is in need of some help because that can’t be healthy. There does seem to be an issue for some younger males dealing with sexual frustration, which I think is a component of the problem. It’s a great shame that more mature males aren’t able to provide better role models in this respect, not that they’re exempt from the problem I hasten to add.

    Perhaps there are some things we just shouldn’t be doing via the impersonal proxy of the soul-less machine, until as a species we are all truly ready? …if that day ever comes.

  • Jo says:

    I wonder if there’s a dating site response equivalent of the face Jenna Marbles makes in her “How to avoid people you don’t want to talk to” video…

  • Chris says:

    The initial question was why would-be suitors act like spammers, which you answered well. Paraphrasing, because they think it’s going to get them what they want (whatever that is), which doesn’t rule out them being clueless jerks. As to an obligation to say ‘no’ in reply, dead-on, nobody owes anyone even a moment of his or her time. We should either keep or renegotiate the commitments we’ve made, but we get to decide what we commit to. Creating a profile on a dating site conveys no commitment, other than perhaps to be civil, certainly not to interact with anyone in paticular or everyone in general.

    As to general behavior by most on dating sites, let’s just call such meeting places wastelands, mostly wastes of time. Moreover, there’s no monopoly on bad behavior.

  • Azkyroth says:

    When it comes to dating sites, as with emails, there are a whole bunch of rules that dictate whether it’s worth replying to someone or not. I don’t think ‘writing a message that proves he’s read my profile’ is a particularly tricky hurdle to jump over, to be honest.

    You seem to be implying that people who don’t get responses have failed to “write messages that prove they’ve read the recipient’s profile,” and that actually doing so would make a response, if not guaranteed, at least likely.

    Wherever did you get this impression?

    • Azkyroth says:

      Err, “have necessarily failed to…”

    • Ben says:

      Not likely in general. Just more likely with her. Someone else’s criteria for being worth responding to might be “someone I fancy”. Or someone who likes football/opera/line-dancing. Hopefully their profile will give you a clue on that, but even if you meet every one of their criteria, they’re still entitled to have had a shit day and just not be in the mood.

      • Azkyroth says:


        I never said they were required to respond. The point I’m making is it feels like there’s some bait-and-switch going on with the argument as actually stated here.

    • Girl on the net says:

      Because that’s the kind of message I’m talking about in the post – the dating spam.

      • Girl on the net says:

        OK, sorry I just read the whole thread and I get what you’re saying now. No, decent messages are still not owed or guaranteed a response (and I know that’s not what you’re saying I just wanted to make it clear), but yeah, I do think a response is more likely with a message like that. Not guaranteed, and to be honest I couldn’t put a probability on it (because everyone’s different and people might have different rules to me) but it’s definitely *more* likely. See my comment above to NLikes though – often being on a dating site means you have a hell of a lot of admin and replies. It can be quite draining. Which, if you’re someone who has struggled getting replies to messages before, probably sounds a bit like ‘my diamond shoes are too tight’ but I’m not sure there’s a better way of putting it. My advice in any situation like this would be to try not to invest yourself so much in any given message that you’ll be gutted if there’s no response – there are a million and one reasons why there may be no response. Some are decent reasons, some are shitty reasons, some will hurt you and others might comfort you, but given that the person has no obligation to respond, then ultimately the reason doesn’t matter as much as your own peace of mind if you’re able to let it go.

  • Bo says:

    I’m not really sure how I feel about online dating.

    On the one hand I’ve met 1/2 nice women, which is great. On the other hand I’ve spent so much time, sent so many messages and had a handful of crap dates and ultimately feel a bit crap about myself after prolonged use.

    I think that the more data that becomes available about online dating the more sophisticated our insights about it will become. For example OKCupid released some data a while back which showed how skewed people’s preferences are on the basis of race. Plus, one can generally filter on these sites on a range of physical characteristics.

    I think that this leads to both men and women placing more importance on physical characteristics that they would otherwise. Some people need to realise that their chances of meeting someone online may be worse than in real life, weighed against the relative amount of effort invested in both. That might go for larger women and shorter men for example.

    People also need to take a hard look at how resilient they are. It’s easy to be rational about the reasons why x,y, or z haven’t responded to you, but maybe repeated rejection is getting to you. Perhaps take a break. Are you growing resentful? Then for goodness sake take a break!

    Online dating can be incredibly exciting because you feel like you could be dating any of these lovely looking people…but in reality only a small proportion of users will have that experience. For many of the others it’s just going to make them feel more insecure about themselves. Both men and women.

    • Bo says:

      Also, it’s worth bearing in mind that the sole raison d’être of these online dating companies is to maintain subscribers. They use all sorts of techniques to do so, like promoting your profile towards the end of your subscription. Does that mean that you are any more desirable and likely to meet someone? Probably not.

      They are not necessarily the best mechanism for people to find what they are looking for. For certain people, as mentioned previously, for example larger women/short men/people who don’t photograph well/people who don’t write well/people who are insecure, it might actually be a shit use of time. For attractive people it’s great. For lots of others, probably not.

      • Azkyroth says:

        You’re aware that at least some dating sites do things other than show you photos of prospective mates, right?

      • Azkyroth says:

        Also, I believe you mean “CONVENTIONALLY attractive.”

      • Girl on the net says:

        OK, so this is really interesting as it speaks to something that I find frustrating about dating sites. Often, when looking at stats and data coming out of things like OKCupid (which is fascinating, obviously) we leave with the vague impression that we’ve learned something that should be applied. People are more likely to message you if you have three photos, if you mention Breaking Bad in your profile, etc etc. But actually, I don’t think that’s the case at all. It’s the difference between quality and quantity.

        I’m sure this is in part influenced by how I’ve used dating sites in the past, and experiences I’ve had, but essentially what I want is to get a few messages, yet have each of these messages be from someone I’m actually likely to get on with. I’d rather one message from someone who matched at 95% than fifty messages from people at 30-40 (who I’m probably never going to meet up with). So, when you say ‘for attractive people it’s great’ (and I’m with Azkyroth – I think you mean ‘conventionally attractive’) what you actually mean is ‘great’ in terms of quantity. That’s not necessarily an excellent measure, unless you literally just want to collect other people’s ticks in your ‘would fuck me’ column. If what you want is to meet someone (or a few someones) who you really get on with? Then you’re better off tailoring your profile really specifically to the kind of person you like. No broad-brush ‘oh I like the usual, dinner and drinks and walks in the park’, but really specific somethings ‘I like going to talks about genetics and eating in vegan restaurants in Islington’ or whatever. Just my 2pence worth but I think that’s the way to have a decent time on a dating site, that and proactively sending tailored, decent messages.

        • Bo says:

          Yes, thanks for clarfiying, I did mean “conventionally” attractive.

          Also, yes, I have been on online dating sites which show more than photos. But I think online dating privileges appearance over other characteristics even àmong those. In real life and online the first thing we see is appearance, granted. But I think that with online, given the sheer volume of pictures that you see the easiest way to sort through them is by appearance. Whereas in real life you might initially feel indifferent towards someone on the basis of appearance and they grow on you over time.

          My point in relation to this is not that people “should” be acting differently. It’s not my place to say that. But as a warning to people who, like me, have felt a bit down from using online sites, that perhaps this is one reason and that online is not the best place for people like that, at least for a prolonged period of use.

          Also, GOTN, in response to your second paragraph, I hadn’t thought it through to that extent. But I agree with your point. I guess I am just looking for reasons why online dating has often bruised my self confidence and left me with a sense that I am doing something wrong. Perhaps one reason why I may feel like that is that as the initiator, which I almost exclusively am as a man in this environment, I get rejected more often than in real life. In real life you don’t always ask out a girl that you fancy because of many factors. Not least the fact that you’re scared of being turned down. Online, at a conscious level that fear is reduced, but I still think that the impact of the rejection/non-response/whatever you want to call it, can be detrimental, cumulatively over time. The fact is that only a small proportion of the population are likely to fancy any single person. One just confronts that reality more easily online and it can be difficult to deal with. If it were easier for people to say “I like you, can we talk with no expectations and we might become friends or something else” then it might be an easier environment for men and women. As it is, and I’ve been on both sides, people are scared to respond to an initial communication because of fear of abuse, of hurting the other person further down the line, and as you interestingly have mentioned the fact that the whole thing is very time consuming.

  • Jess says:

    I saw this elsewhere and thought I’d throw it in to the mix – the experience gets exponentially worse if you also happen to be a black woman. The spam gets racist.

    Generally, I think as a normal nice dude using a dating site, you should be mindful of the pile of shit that women have to put up with – and rather than be defensive about your own messages, just make sure yours aren’t adding to that shitpile.

    I personally have a filter on my OkC so that if it’s a message with 3 words or less, from a less than 70% match, I don’t have to see it. It goes into another folder which I can browse if I ever want to despair.

  • tracy says:

    I have heard about email spam, not about dating spam, something new
    ha ha ha

  • Dommy_nick says:

    The amount of dating sites I’ve tried is about 5 over the years. I’ve tried all varieties and they all have one thing in common; the terribly uninspired messages along the lines of :


    how r u

    dtf (which I had to look up)

    u lk great; want to fuk

    None of which inspire me to do anything more than hit the delete button or refer them to the amazing inventions of spelling, grammar and the spellchecker. I have heard of people who have met their partners on dating sites (2 to my knowledge) but so so many people who’ve had nothing but terribly bad messages from apparently homo sapiens who were human enough to be able to use a keyboard but not to write anything I’d actually want to read. And when rejected with “no”, or “no, thank you, I don’t think we’re compatible” usually lash out with something you hope they’d never say to their own mothers.

    It’s why I’ve given up on dating sites time and again. I may go back in the future because there is that infitesmal chance that there might be someone out there for me.

  • Chris Campbell says:

    In the last paragraph of my OKCupid profile I have the following: “in the first line of your message please quote… ”
    If that isn’t the first line, they haven’t read to the end of my profile, I ain’t even going to open their message.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.