Interesting Reddit post exposes a big problem modern dating

[Anonymous]

Not just in dating, but women are routinely rated as more attractive than men by both men and women. Teachers rate their girl students as being more attractive than boy students on average. So...it's not a problem of women rating men. It's a problem of all people thinking that men are fug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Attractiveness matters less to women than to men though, resources matter much more. You really think Elon musk is good looking? Men care about looks (because she’s more likely to be fertile and produce healthy offspring) women care about mens resources (because bearing and caring for children is a high resource vulnerability). This is evolutionary biology 101.

Elon Musk isn’t Adonis, but he is much better looking than a lot of men. He’s tall, has all of his hair and has an intelligent face. I’m not sure why you chose him as an example when there are Bezos and Gates.

He's 5'8", had a hair transplant, and has a face like a half-melted plastic Putin action figure. He's genuinely unnerving to look at. "Intelligent face", seriously?

Yeah, I’m an attractive woman and I think he looks fine. I give him a 7-8. And hate to break it to you, but he’s 6’2”.

Google ‘ Elon Musk shirtless’ - ouch

[Anonymous]

How much might the generational decline in male testosterone levels be impacting this?

[Anonymous]

Women don't see many super-hot men, according to this.

I do think there are more super hot women. When we are young many women look very, very attractive. As long as there is no significant flaw, you look good. Nature designs us to be eye candy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, so there are repercussions for oppressing women for hundreds of years and now they get enhanced choice in who they procreate with? Boo hoo to you.

I don’t think you understand what this chart results in. You end up with a very small number of men that have enhanced choice. Many men that have no partners at all. And women who are pressured to have sex rather than relationships in the forlorn hope that the former will turn in to the latter.

I mean, all men have to do to be in the top 1/3 of men is to be about a 4. How is that not good news for men?

I feel like all gay men are able to achieve this. You can do this, OP.

Lollololololololo.

So all men need to do is be above average in order to score below average for a typical Gaussian distribution. Lolololololololololol.

Why are you so bothered by this? Women can be shallow if they want. How does it affect you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not just in dating, but women are routinely rated as more attractive than men by both men and women. Teachers rate their girl students as being more attractive than boy students on average. So...it's not a problem of women rating men. It's a problem of all people thinking that men are fug.

Again, missing the point. Men are literally rating women fairly. It's literally a bell curve almost centered around 5/10.

You and many of the other players are stuck on the fact that women are more attractive than men....that's completely missing the point. That is probably true, but that means the baseline for male looks simply have a different threshold for average. If women were rating male looks and attractiveness fairly, you too would expect a gaussian distribution around 5/10...which would be the expected mean. But the mean for men is skewed to about a 1 or 2, which clearly shows women have insane expectations for how to rate male attractiveness. Comparing male vs female attractiveness completely misses the point. The main point is how the opposite sexes rate each other. Men seem to be much more fair and give ratings that should be completely expected by a normal distribution of data from a population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women don't see many super-hot men, according to this.

I do think there are more super hot women. When we are young many women look very, very attractive. As long as there is no significant flaw, you look good. Nature designs us to be eye candy.

Since when is average 'super hot'?

The skew in averages is what we are looking at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, take a look at the beauty forum on this website. Women spend A LOT of time on looking good. Of course they are more attractive.

I have three boys and one girl. My daughter is 12 now and starting to have to do all of this stuff that her brothers don’t just to fit in (hair, jewelry, eyebrows, shaving). She’s pretty resentful of it, so I notice it more.

I bet if you spent $50/wk and one hour a day trying to make yourself more attractive (in addition to working out), you would find that women notice you more.

You're missing the point.

The data clearly show that men rate women's looks fairly. It is a bell curve distribution nearly centered around 5/10. You'd expect the average looking girl to be rated 5/10 by men, which is exactly how men ARE rating women.

The same should be true for me , yet women appear to have an insane perception of how an average male should look like with the mean skewed towards a 1 or 2 out of 10. It says a lot about the unrealistic expectations women have for looks.

I guess that I think of men as people and on the same curve that women are. They just rate lower.

[Anonymous]

This chart is total BS. It doesn't expose anything but male entitlement and insecurity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just in dating, but women are routinely rated as more attractive than men by both men and women. Teachers rate their girl students as being more attractive than boy students on average. So...it's not a problem of women rating men. It's a problem of all people thinking that men are fug.

Again, missing the point. Men are literally rating women fairly. It's literally a bell curve almost centered around 5/10.

You and many of the other players are stuck on the fact that women are more attractive than men....that's completely missing the point. That is probably true, but that means the baseline for male looks simply have a different threshold for average. If women were rating male looks and attractiveness fairly, you too would expect a gaussian distribution around 5/10...which would be the expected mean. But the mean for men is skewed to about a 1 or 2, which clearly shows women have insane expectations for how to rate male attractiveness. Comparing male vs female attractiveness completely misses the point. The main point is how the opposite sexes rate each other. Men seem to be much more fair and give ratings that should be completely expected by a normal distribution of data from a population.

No, because the data was extracted from 5 point scales, 7 point scales, 5 point scales incorrectly assumed to be 7-point scales, binary right/left swipes, all combined and plotted through sheer determination and disregard for anything approaching reproducibility onto an 11 (??) point scale and then back down to 10 points for a chart.

You are furious over what appear to be the meanderings of a maniac with a point to prove. If the point was just to rile up guys like you, then I guess the time was well spent. But if it was to show anything useful about men, women, attractiveness, or correct use of data: not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just in dating, but women are routinely rated as more attractive than men by both men and women. Teachers rate their girl students as being more attractive than boy students on average. So...it's not a problem of women rating men. It's a problem of all people thinking that men are fug.

Again, missing the point. Men are literally rating women fairly. It's literally a bell curve almost centered around 5/10.

You and many of the other players are stuck on the fact that women are more attractive than men....that's completely missing the point. That is probably true, but that means the baseline for male looks simply have a different threshold for average. If women were rating male looks and attractiveness fairly, you too would expect a gaussian distribution around 5/10...which would be the expected mean. But the mean for men is skewed to about a 1 or 2, which clearly shows women have insane expectations for how to rate male attractiveness. Comparing male vs female attractiveness completely misses the point. The main point is how the opposite sexes rate each other. Men seem to be much more fair and give ratings that should be completely expected by a normal distribution of data from a population.

It's not comparing male and female attractiveness. You have missed the point.

Men rate other men in the same manner that women rate men. Women rate other women in the same manner that men rate women.

SOCIETY rates men as less attractive than women. It has nothing to do with dating. It probably has nothing to do with actual attractiveness. It's just a societal bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just in dating, but women are routinely rated as more attractive than men by both men and women. Teachers rate their girl students as being more attractive than boy students on average. So...it's not a problem of women rating men. It's a problem of all people thinking that men are fug.

Again, missing the point. Men are literally rating women fairly. It's literally a bell curve almost centered around 5/10.

You and many of the other players are stuck on the fact that women are more attractive than men....that's completely missing the point. That is probably true, but that means the baseline for male looks simply have a different threshold for average. If women were rating male looks and attractiveness fairly, you too would expect a gaussian distribution around 5/10...which would be the expected mean. But the mean for men is skewed to about a 1 or 2, which clearly shows women have insane expectations for how to rate male attractiveness. Comparing male vs female attractiveness completely misses the point. The main point is how the opposite sexes rate each other. Men seem to be much more fair and give ratings that should be completely expected by a normal distribution of data from a population.

Why does that miss the point? Were women asked to rate men only in relation to other men? Or are they rated in attractiveness as people?

Women don’t tend to place themselves in some kind of separate bucket. They just think of themselves and other women as people.

I think that most of my friends are more attractive than their husbands. I don’t rate my friends exclusively among other women and their husbands exclusively among other men. Why would I do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you could look at this another way, OP. Most straight men really aren’t trying that hard to be attractive. I mean, this chart wouldn’t have the same curve for gay men, right?
So, if you can do the kinds of things gay men do to be attractive and get yourself to a 6-7, then you will be in the top 2-3% of straight men!

This.

Most men just don’t really try that hard. Either because they dont actually care or they don’t realize the effort women put in.

Wear clothes that fit, trim the wayward hairs, moisturize. There’s lots that can be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just in dating, but women are routinely rated as more attractive than men by both men and women. Teachers rate their girl students as being more attractive than boy students on average. So...it's not a problem of women rating men. It's a problem of all people thinking that men are fug.

Again, missing the point. Men are literally rating women fairly. It's literally a bell curve almost centered around 5/10.

You and many of the other players are stuck on the fact that women are more attractive than men....that's completely missing the point. That is probably true, but that means the baseline for male looks simply have a different threshold for average. If women were rating male looks and attractiveness fairly, you too would expect a gaussian distribution around 5/10...which would be the expected mean. But the mean for men is skewed to about a 1 or 2, which clearly shows women have insane expectations for how to rate male attractiveness. Comparing male vs female attractiveness completely misses the point. The main point is how the opposite sexes rate each other. Men seem to be much more fair and give ratings that should be completely expected by a normal distribution of data from a population.

No, because the data was extracted from 5 point scales, 7 point scales, 5 point scales incorrectly assumed to be 7-point scales, binary right/left swipes, all combined and plotted through sheer determination and disregard for anything approaching reproducibility onto an 11 (??) point scale and then back down to 10 points for a chart.

You are furious over what appear to be the meanderings of a maniac with a point to prove. If the point was just to rile up guys like you, then I guess the time was well spent. But if it was to show anything useful about men, women, attractiveness, or correct use of data: not so much.

For real. This is what people should be furious about. What a trash conclusion to make from horrible data. As a society, we should demand more from people who make graphs.

[Anonymous]

Mathematically speaking, this graph makes no sense - WTF does "density" mean on the y-axis? Density of what? You can't have a density of people rating something. It also makes no sense even if you assume that the y-axis means percent of responders answering at a certain attractiveness rating.

Also, how was this data even collected? Were women shown pics only of men? Were ratings taken after meeting men in person? Were men shown pics only - of faces or whole bodies? Or did they meet the women. If people met and talked - what were the conversation topics - money? jobs?

This is a ridiculously low information graph upon which are projecting (without basis) many things.