Anonymous wrote:So, the charts don't mean what people think they mean --

This was originally posted on Reddit. Here is the discussion: "Okay this is interesting. From the data's source article:


Women pursue men they consider worse looking than themselves. This means women don’t necessarily pursue their so-called “looks match”. This is in line with data from old-school dating website hotornot.com, where researchers found that “female members were significantly less influenced by the consensus physical attractiveness of their potential dates than male members were”. Meanwhile, the story for men is completely different.

Men pursue women significantly more beautiful than themselves. Perhaps this seems obvious, Given the widely reported finding that males focus more on physical attractiveness in mate selection than females do. Aslo, men are much less influenced by their own desirability. For instance, one study found that “men’s self-worth was not related to the popularity of the women they contacted”

Which is actually the opposite of the argument many people will take from the comparative attractiveness chart. The argument I have seen before is that the difference in ratings means women's standards are too high."

But the bolded is possible because there are more women who are significantly more attractive than men than vice versa. Women take better care of themselves and put more effort into their looks so men have many women who more attractive than the men are to pursue.

While women date men less attractive than themselves, that steep drop off in the curve is a little too much. Women would rather be single.

So, the charts don't mean what people think they mean --

This was originally posted on Reddit. Here is the discussion: "Okay this is interesting. From the data's source article:


Women pursue men they consider worse looking than themselves. This means women don’t necessarily pursue their so-called “looks match”. This is in line with data from old-school dating website hotornot.com, where researchers found that “female members were significantly less influenced by the consensus physical attractiveness of their potential dates than male members were”. Meanwhile, the story for men is completely different.

Men pursue women significantly more beautiful than themselves. Perhaps this seems obvious, Given the widely reported finding that males focus more on physical attractiveness in mate selection than females do. Aslo, men are much less influenced by their own desirability. For instance, one study found that “men’s self-worth was not related to the popularity of the women they contacted”

Which is actually the opposite of the argument many people will take from the comparative attractiveness chart. The argument I have seen before is that the difference in ratings means women's standards are too high."

Is there a source for this chart? How did they define attractiveness? Is it just looks or something more?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women are definitely more attractive than men. Men put in no effort it to their looks.

An ugly woman can dress nice, smell nice and charm you with her walk, speech etc. And ugly man...well is just ugly and shabby.

Can charm whom? Good looking, successful men are not interested in an ugly woman with good speech or a nice walk. Lol. Delusional.

Can charm ugly men. But ugly men cannot charm ugly women , because they don't try.

Not everyone is good-looking. But some people look better with effort. Most men don't bother. And for those who don't try and are not extremely successful, women would rather stay single than date them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t this always true? I remember talking with my college roommates in the ‘90’s about how there were fewer attractive men than attractive women.

Young men have only gotten less attractive since then. They’ve stopped caring about basic grooming and dressing appropriately. Young women are so floored by photos of young men in the 1970s-90s.

Yeah, I’m not sure the 70s are the grooming standards we should be seeking. You can smell some of those pictures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t this always true? I remember talking with my college roommates in the ‘90’s about how there were fewer attractive men than attractive women.

Young men have only gotten less attractive since then. They’ve stopped caring about basic grooming and dressing appropriately. Young women are so floored by photos of young men in the 1970s-90s.

I was a young man in the 90s. We weren't, as a rule, dressing well. Lots of backward hats, mostly.

Ha! This reminded me of that scene in ‘Clueless:’

“So OK, I don’t want to be a traitor to my generation and all but I don’t get how guys dress today. I mean, come on, it looks like they just fell out of bed and put on some baggy pants and take their greasy hair (eww!) and cover it up with a backwards cap and like, we’re expected to swoon? I don’t think so.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t this always true? I remember talking with my college roommates in the ‘90’s about how there were fewer attractive men than attractive women.

Young men have only gotten less attractive since then. They’ve stopped caring about basic grooming and dressing appropriately. Young women are so floored by photos of young men in the 1970s-90s.

I was a young man in the 90s. We weren't, as a rule, dressing well. Lots of backward hats, mostly.

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t this always true? I remember talking with my college roommates in the ‘90’s about how there were fewer attractive men than attractive women.

Young men have only gotten less attractive since then. They’ve stopped caring about basic grooming and dressing appropriately. Young women are so floored by photos of young men in the 1970s-90s.

Anonymous wrote:Women are definitely more attractive than men. Men put in no effort it to their looks.

An ugly woman can dress nice, smell nice and charm you with her walk, speech etc. And ugly man...well is just ugly and shabby.

Can charm whom? Good looking, successful men are not interested in an ugly woman with good speech or a nice walk. Lol. Delusional.

Men don’t try. I’m tired of it.

Some of us married in our 30s because we didn’t settle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today men want & need women more than women want & need men. Thus women are choosier.

Until they reach their mid 30s and start pressuring their boyfriends for marriage and kids. Women will not admit it. But many who waited until their mid 30s to have kids eventually ended up settling.

So? It was well worth the risk to settle in your mid 30s than to settle in your 20s.

Women are definitely more attractive than men. Men put in no effort it to their looks.

An ugly woman can dress nice, smell nice and charm you with her walk, speech etc. And ugly man...well is just ugly and shabby.

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t this always true? I remember talking with my college roommates in the ‘90’s about how there were fewer attractive men than attractive women.

Agree. I'm 56. Women pay attention to their physical appearance more than men do. It's a lot easier for women to look nice than a man, but on the flip side, men don't need to put as much effort into looking attractive compared to women.

Men just need to eat right, exercise, groom themselves. Women do all that and spend $$ on makeup and hair.

Anonymous wrote:An ugly guy can land a hot woman if he is rich - no problem. An unattractive, successful woman landing a hot guy is almost unheard of. That's the reality.

IME, the people who dated and married way out of their league are just really nice, good, genuine people with nice families. This goes for men and women. That’s reality.