Anonymous wrote:It’s more about success and wealth for men. Look at Prince William.

What has he done that made him successful and wealthy? With him it's not even about being attracted to the guy who had the motivation and ambition and drive to pull it off. It's about the money.

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.

This. Women have choice now thanks to technology. It’s our time now.

This isn’t really new.

“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 and cover it up with a backwards cap and like, we’re expected to swoon? I don’t think so.” — Cher (Clueless 1995)

Cher was HOT. Different rules applied to her.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

0 to 10 is an 11 point scale.

This isn't just a nit-pick. Amazon uses 5 point rating scale 1-5 to artificially boost the subjective impression of the ratings.

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.

0 to 10 is an 11 point scale.

Men have a higher sex drive due to hormonal differences so they will put up with more s*** to get laid and also will have sex with a less attractive woman just to scratch the itch if it’s been a while.

Women have lower sex drives on average, so it takes someone they actually like to get them to agree to sex.

A man will happily mate with 10 “lower quality” women if given the chance. A woman will prefer to ignore 10 “lower quality” men to hold out for a higher quality man.

It’s just biology. Men care more about quantity, women care more about quality.

Thousands of years ago you would have a small number of wealthy or otherwise top tier men hoarding all the women because of this dynamic. For a while it was suppressed due to monogamy being the norm, but now with the decline of marriage and the rise of anonymous hookup apps you’re seeing a resurgence of polygamous behavior.

Women are given unlimited options, they will naturally choose a more attractive man when shown next to an average looking man on the apps. The hot men are more than willing to bed hundreds of different women per year, so women do not really need to compete with each other for casual sex because the supply of casual sex with top tier men adjusts in an elastic relationship with the demand from women.

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.

This. Women have choice now thanks to technology. It’s our time now.

This isn’t really new.

“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 and cover it up with a backwards cap and like, we’re expected to swoon? I don’t think so.” — Cher (Clueless 1995)

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.

Ha!
Way to win the thread. I was just thinking that men probably had a lot more practice rating women on a 10 point scale and were probably a lot better at it. (Frankly, I think everyone has more practice with rating women’s attractiveness than men’s.).

But it sounds like this “study” is just ridiculous and made by someone with an axe to grind.

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.

This. Women have choice now thanks to technology. It’s our time now.

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.

I love this comment!
What do you do for a living, pp?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men ….. trim your nose and ear hair, open the door for me, be emotionally available to listen and you are at about a 6 or 7 in my book. Keep up with my wit and sense of humor and you will be a solid 8. Add a beard and bam you are a 9.5.

Preach!

Ugh, do not tell them to grow beards! Those things are gross germ colonies. Keep it clean men! Major points for no tattoos, on my end, but I’m sure PP above loves them. Tastes vary! Be yourself!!!

Anonymous wrote:Men ….. trim your nose and ear hair, open the door for me, be emotionally available to listen and you are at about a 6 or 7 in my book. Keep up with my wit and sense of humor and you will be a solid 8. Add a beard and bam you are a 9.5.

Preach!

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.

The same applies to young men. I think many women and men think they look better than they do. I see an equal number of attractive men and women. I also see an equal number of men and women who are completely delusional about how good looking they and their friends are.

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.

As a mother to both girls and boys, I can assure you that this is not all nature. Any girl who doesn’t want to be a social misfit has to do a lot with her appearance.

Anonymous wrote:This was so interesting:



So apparently women think all men are ugly. A thoroughly mid looking woman who rates only a 4-5 is probably looking for a man who is 6-7, which is basically an entire standard deviation or more away from the mean for how women are rating looks for men.

It seems like men evaluate the looks of women much more fairly given that the mean is about a 4/10, which should be expected (5/10). Women seem to have insane expectations for how their partners should look. I guess if you aren't Henry Cavill you're an instant 1 or 2. Modern dating cultures and apps have ruined all expectations, no doubt.

This isn’t true.
I’m sure they exist, but I have never met a woman who wants to be the less attractive partner in a relationship.
Usually, both people are happier when the woman is slightly more attractive than the man.

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.

This.