I laughed through your whole description, but particularly identified with the third paragraph. My part-Norwegian Forest Cat was bouncy and destructive until I figured out he might like walking on a leash. My apartment neighbors are divided in three equal parts: those who just stare, those who mention I have a beautiful cat, and those who wonder what species my puppy is.

Olga with a touch of Tatiana on the quiz. All Olga all the time from the description. Bookish and older sistery and cat-loving and prone to inappropriate crushes and sulking? Yeah, that's definitely me.

I think it depends, both on the person and the reason a chance or a second chance is needed. I'm more like you, and have never really gone from "nope, don't want to do sexy things with that person" to "wow, hot" (I have gone from noticing someone at all to finding them very attractive, though). There are people who don't have that instant response, though, or who find they frequently become attracted to people once they know them better.

Not every chance or second chance is related to attraction, either. Lots of rejections have more to do with personality, lifestyle, and values. In a lot of cases, people know what they want when it comes to those things too. In others, they may have some bias about people and might benefit from getting to know someone better. In still others, a perception may be off. A lot of second chances happen in situations where someone was dull or awkward on a first date, or made a non-malicious but thoughtless comment that came across badly. People who go on dates with otherwise nice, appealing people might decide to give it one more shot to see if their date is always awkward or if perhaps the person was just having a bad day.

Either way, it's something that should be completely up to the person giving the chance or the second chance.

Repeating trundlebear: It is like this EXACTLY.

This is why women generally don't give feedback about why they turn down approaches or end short relationship. It's also why there are fewer replies to online messages and accepted first dates and general willingness to give mediocre matches a chance to prove they're actually awesome. At some point, I think a lot of women have tried it and gotten a similar big bag of NOPE in return.

Oh, that's terrible! I hope you're able to get in touch with her.

I checked mine, and it actually did what I think it was supposed to do, screening out a couple of invitations to multi-level marketing parties and a series of messages from a guy who had a two-night stand with in 2007 and whose other profiles I blocked long ago. Even though it worked in my case, I don't know why Facebook is so committed to deciding what content I see rather than trying to make decisions on my behalf, or why it can't at least announce that it's screening content for me. (Well, okay, I probably do know, and suspect it's nefarious and advertising related...)

Makes sense! (And sorry about that downvote - it was meant to be an upvote!)

That's a really interesting study, and I agree it indicates that many people prefer partners who have romantic and sexual experience to virgins. Since you focused your previous comment on men, I am going to pull something that I found interesting and a bit surprising from the study:

"The finding that men were more discriminatory than women in sexually inexperienced partners requires further thought. Men’s disinterest in sexually inexperienced partners contradicts historical sexual scripts that stress feminine chastity and premarital virginity (Abbott, 2000). Women’s lack of discrimination is also curious, considering the influence of sexual scripts that reinforce hegemonic masculinity and, along with it, expectations for U.S. men’s heterosexuality, including the presupposition that sexually experienced men are more desirable (Kimmel, 2012). In this light, it is surprising that heterosexual women were not more critical of sexually inexperienced men as potential partners, and equally interesting that men were more critical of women who embodied notions of virginity. It is worth noting that neither gender roles, sexual scripts, nor evolutionary psychological models would have necessarily predicted the direction of these findings, indicating the utility of integrative developmental biopsychosocial frameworks for the study of contemporary romantic and sexual expression (Garcia, Reiber, Massey, & Merriwether, 2012; Tolman & Diamond, 2014)."

A third possible response would be to acknowledge that it's likely that virginity is seen as a negative trait by many people in the dating pool (even with conflicting studies, I suspect this is the case), but remembering that almost everyone has a few traits that would poll like that when asked about in isolation. I suspect studies would also find that people generally prefer to date partners who are highly physically attractive, employed, in perfect mental and physical health, and who have few family obligations. There are still all sorts of people in the dating pool who have mild depression or who care for their parents or who are unemployed who manage to find partners - not all traits that are turn offs are dealbreakers, and some aren't even turn offs to particular potential partners.

Just guessing, but maybe it's "pills"? EDIT: Nope.

I'm going to call trolling. Perhaps related to a recent other deleted account troll?