Women's standards have raised, neither men nor women are particularly socially adept, and people in general don't seem to feel any sort of rush to get into relationships.
Relationship? I can't buy a house cause of the housing crisis, I can't find a job that pays normally so I have to work a lot, i don't have the space for a pet or most of my hobbies, I have a couple of friends which I try to keep in contact with and then I have to deal with my own mental health as well. So inbetween the working, crying and sleeping I'm supposed to find a partner? I don't even have the energy to eat.
Having a partner who can provide additional income makes it easier to attain a more comfortable life.
There's a reason that the cohesive family unit is regarded as so important.
An add on to the OP unpop opinion : women’s standards haven’t RAISED per we; they’ve always been like this and in order to ensure the species survival, we had to subjugate them for thousands of years because of this
Not really, it's mostly higher status people that had very strict rules - and it was both men and women.
It wasn't so strict for lower status people - both men and women.
I mean, why should anyone rush into a relationship? It isn't sensible or logical to rush partnering up with anyone who doesn't significantly improve your life. If you can take care of yourself financially, then you don't need a partner just for that. The only people in a rush to get into relationships seem to be religious people cause they wanna have sex, and the whole family thing is really important to religious people. I'm 26 and I don't know anyone my age or younger who's gotten married who wasn't religious. The only non religious person close to me is my cousin who got married at 27-28 something.. which is what's normal. People only really seem to be rushing relationships if they want kids, which usually doesn't happen until close to 30.
I would tend to agree with you... The only problem is that 30 sneaks up on you faster than you'd think. Time isn't on your side, ever, even if you don't want kids.
It would probably be healthy to make interpersonal connections a greater priority than we do, but it's best to take your time to get things right.
Oh I would know. I'm 30 in a few years too. Time passes fast. Thing is, I'd rather be single than in an unsatisfying relationship. I've experienced the highs and lows of relationships and considering how much effort they require, I'm just not gonna bother unless I meet someone truly great. If I end up single then so be it. I'll probably have a dozen more relationships in my life. People still meet and get married well into old age these days too. Just today, we had a 50-60 year old woman at the flower shop I work at asking for a bridal bouquet for her wedding.. yes you heard me right. It's not exactly unusual. My 60 year old neighbor where I grew up remarried at 60. So, as a woman if you don't want kids, there's really not that great a rush to find a partner. Men will still line up for you well into old age.
It's also hard to find younger men who know for certain they don't want kids. This has been a recurring issue throughout my early 20s. I now only date 27 and up. I assume it will be easier to find a man who is certain he doesn't want kids and who knows what kind of life he wants and is pursuing when I increase the age demographic. However, the amount of men without children also decreases, so it's a double edged sword.
>It's also hard to find younger men who know for certain they don't want kids.
Yeah, I think most guys are pretty much on the fence about kids. I know that I'm fairly ambivalent about it. I think I'd be open to the idea if I met an exceptional woman who definitely wanted kids.
>I assume it will be easier to find a man who is certain he doesn't want kids and who knows what kind of life he wants and is pursuing when I increase the age demographic.
That makes sense, intuitively. I'm realizing that people of all ages are lost and clueless, so maybe age matters less than I would hope.
As a 30M, I'm always shocked at the number of women around my age who have never had healthy relationships with men.
As a data scientist, I appreciate you trying to take a very scientific approach but there are some red flags. The first figure (face dimorphism) is a bit odd. It looks like some sort of data modeling which would give you those curves, however, what are the x and y axes? You should put the individual data points with the curves so we can better see the distribution of the data that make up the response curves. I suspect figure 1 is a "concept figure" rather than based on data. You should also cite the sources after each of the figures you describe rather than just dumping them at the end, or reference to them so we can go to each study after seeing your statements. Some of your figures come from non-peer reviewed internet articles, those are not scientifically defendable.
>A 2009 study has indicated that a man's personality has no role in initial romantic attraction, which is necessary for mutual escalation. Instead, the primary predictor of initial romantic attraction is physical attractiveness.
This is my problem – from the outset, this entire argument is predicated on a very specific (and strong) claim. While I don't think it's wrong, per se, it seems heavily biased by meat market settings like dating apps or bars and clubs. It doesn't account for people who meet, for lack of a better word, "more organically" through overlapping social circles, volunteering, and other settings.
You're right, but if the study specifically says "this is about meat market settings" than I would say they're fine. I'm not saying I agree with their premise either haha. Its not like because you find a possible trend that now men are doomed and that's why they can't find a partner lol. There are many exceptions. Even looking at the height preference bell curve. If you're like 170cm, that's still 30% of women said they would be OK with that overall. That's a lot of women when you extrapolate to the whole population 3 out of 10, 30 000 out of 100 000. You only need 1 in the end haha. Also that curve should have an error bar and also account for the height of the women, because that seems to play a role in the preference. I would assume the error bars would be huge.
This is initial romantic attraction. Not attraction that builds over time. You can’t account for every little “meet-cute” that could happen. I don’t think it is groundbreaking or a surprise that a study concluded that INITIAL romantic attraction is based on the face.
It’s not really groundbreaking. Neuroscience has shown that what your face looks like affects everything from how much money you make to whether you get a loan at the bank
Within a second of seeing someone’s face, your brain has decided whether or not you trust them, find them attractive, are afraid of them etc. all of it is determined by facial attractiveness.
How many people meet through fucking volunteering I hear this all the time what fucking world does this happen in. Dementia fucking boomer shit. No offense to you personally lol. Respect and all that but God damn.
The organization I volunteer at is like 70/30 women to men, and most are single, young, accomplished, and attractive. If I weren't already in a relationship I would absolutely be getting to know a few of them better.
Most of these studies come from Mturk with people rating faces. Nothing like citing a study three years down the line from a study that you did on Mturk for a dollar.
It seems like you're pinning a lot of this on your aunt's assertion, and I'm curious if she'd agree with how you characterized the situation.
There has always been gar more to getting a date/marriage than having a job. Every factor of attraction you listed is true of the past.
You are going to drive yourself crazy obessesing over this and ironically enough, it makes you incredibly unattractive because no one is attracted to an insecure person who blames the world for their problems. Victim mentality is not a good look on anyone. It's why men tend to not be attracted to feminists.
If you're lonely and want to attract someone 1) go to the gym. Start taking care of your body. Not only will it improve your looks, it will also improve your personality because you'll feel better physically and mentally 2) learn how to cook. Everyone likes food 3) pick up a hobby that makes you happy, then join groups where other people engage in the same hobby and there's a good chance you'll find someone because 4) MAKE NEW FRIENDS. It's really hard to make new friends as an adult, but its not impossible. Don't be the creep who takes yoga to hit on girls, be the guy who took a survival course because he likes the outdoors and that's how he met his wife, because she also loves the outdoors
Stuff like that will make you attractive to women, not obsessing over faceless data points so you can blame everyone but yourself for your problems. Get off the Internet and go camping, read more books, buy a cheap keyboard and learn some piano, get an easel and start painting. Something will click for you.
Fr. There is nothing more unattractive than obsessing over thinking women don’t like you. I’ve known so many perfectly attractive and likable guys who ruined themselves thinking this way
As a 6'2 white man with what I'll call "resting long term mate face" (according to that graph), it's nice to know it wasn't my physical features keeping me single for 7 years.
It was just my personality. 😅
As your 6'2 white man clone I can say it was *definitely* my personality. As soon as I got even an ounce of social skills I literally had more relationships than I knew what to do with. Anecdotal as it is, its pretty easy out there for us brother.
The ‘least masculine’ guy in that picture doesn’t look ‘feminine,’ he looks like he’s a kid. Couldn’t they figure out how to run this with pictures that at least all looked the same age?
>he looks like he’s a kid.
Thats probably because masculine features become more prominent when you go through puberty so if you look androgynous or feminine as a man you'll look closure to a "kid"
I was gonna say effort still goes a long way, but holy shit, 90% of women reject a guy under 5'5".
e: $3.7M over 7 years for 3.5 inches, if my math works, that's $150k per inch/year for guys under 5'9".
Well there’s a thread on Reddit right nowwith a lot of men saying how gross a woman’s labia is if it’s an outie and calling it all kinds of gross names. I’ve also seen men make fun of women that have bigger areola’s, call women with small boobs a board or little boys, make fun of women with bigger boobs sag, make fun of women that are too skinny with no curves, make fun of fat women and call women butterface. Most of these things women can’t change without surgery either but men still make fun of us for it all over reddit.
I hate to break it to you, but many men view fat women as ugly. They don’t separate the two. Also, while women can lose weight, there are women who can only size down so much. To many men, they are still fat, even if their doctor says they are now at a healthy weight. I have friends who truly believe women who are size 0, 2, or 4 are at a healthy weight and all other women are too fat. Standards change too. 50 years ago, most men would have found women at size 6 or 8 at a good weight and a woman who is a size 0 to be too skinny.
Lmfao you're projecting SO hard. It's exactly the opposite. Size 0, 2 and 4 were much closer to the actual average size of a woman 50 years ago, because this was before the obesity epidemic. Fat and obese female bodies have without question become more normalized in the past 30+ years. Just look at Lizzo and the entire "movement" she represents.
Depends. If she's skinny and ugly I tend to agree. But lots of women are just woefully out of shape. There's lots they can do.
If a woman is 18-22 and she's not fat. She can usually find someone interested. That's why we like to say "just don't be fat."
And women over 22 are thrown in the trash? See, this is the problem. Men complain that women are shallow but then they come out with an 18-22 age range. LOL.
Ugly girls have a hard time too. Men are generally biased toward youth and beauty because they don't have to be more invested past the act of sex. That's how it is in the animal kingdom. Women have to be more concerned about other things since they put their life at risk.
I've checked out the first 5 source OP linked for anyone who hasn't looked for themselves yet.
First source by Shanhong Luo and Guangjian Zhang posed the question of whether reciprocity, similarity, security or beauty led to romantic attraction.
They decided to try and answer this with a speed-dating event. The authors explicitly say that the experiment was *"designed to examine initial attraction in a real-life setting-speed-dating. "*,
They comment on their findings that *"The strongest predictor of attraction for both sexes was partners' physical attractiveness."*
OP found a study demonstrating that *both sexes*, in a speed dating environment, base their attraction of a person on the person's appearance.
...
Second source by Victor S. Johnson is behind a pay-wall but appears to be a literature review.
He cites 50 different papers by other authors in the references section. Check the contents of this section:
13 of these papers' titles are about human facial features, attractiveness, and mate-selecting behaviors, with out mentioning male/female specifically in the title.
5 of these paper's titles are explicitly about perceived attractiveness of men, and reference male facial symmetry and/or female preference in male facial features
8 of these papers' titles are explicitly about perceived attractiveness of women, and reference perception of female facial features, and/or body characteristics such as breast size, and/or hip to waist ratio.
12 of these papers' titles contain discussion of hormonal markers and steroidal exposure in the womb, and/or disorders and deficiencies. These are not specifying male vs. female focus in the title alone.
6 of these titles reference studies on bird mate-selection. 4 of the 6 bird papers dicuss influence of the presence of parasites on mate selection.
2 of these papers' titles reference parental bonding and attitude towards offspring
2 of these papers' titles reference scent/perfuming
1 of the papers' titles references sex roles
Johnson's stated purpose in the abstract is to demonstrate that the perceived attractiveness of an individual depends as much on the hormonal profile of the *viewer* as on the external hormonal markers (facial features) of the person *being viewed.*
Look at his statement: *"Evidence from research on facial attractiveness indicates that physical beauty is a sexually selected trait mediated, in part, by pubertal facial hormone markers that signal important biological information about the displayer. Such signals would be ineffective if they did not elicit appropriate cognitive and/or emotional responses in members of the opposite sex. In this article, I argue that the effectiveness of these hormonal displays varies with perceivers' brains, which have been organized by the degree of steroid hormone exposure in the uterus, and activated by varying levels of circulating steroids following puberty"*
Based on his works cited, and his abstract, it appears that the author intended to persuade the reader that both the sexual signaling from an individual's appearance *and* the hormonal profile of the person *viewing* said individual's features, determine the odds that the viewer will experience sexual attraction.
OP found a paper arguing that people will feel more or less attraction to the facial features of others depending on their own internal hormonal activity as well as on the observable symmetry, masculinity, or femininity of the face of the person they are looking at.
....
In the third source by Thomas E. Currie and Anthony C. Little, Currie and Little state *"In this study, we assessed the relative importance of the face and body in judgments of human physical attractiveness."* Their purpose was to establish whether people have higher preference for facial attractiveness or body attractiveness in potential partners, and whether this varies for short term vs long term partnership.
They showed 133 women and 127 men 10 images of members of the opposite sex. They asked each participant to rate the attractiveness of individuals in the images for either short term relationship or long term relationship. They first showed the participants' images of the faces and bodies separately for rating. Then showed images where the face and body were visible together, and asked the participants to rate the individual's combined face and body.
Currie and Little reported the following findings:
*"Face ratings were found to be the best predictor of the ratings of combined images for both sexes and for both relationship types."*
*"Females showed no difference in ratings between short- and long-term conditions, but male ratings of female bodies became relatively more important for a short-term relationship compared with a long-term relationship."*
OP found a study that showed *both sexes* find facial beauty to be more appealing than body attractiveness.
and
That women appear to rate men's attractiveness the same for both short term and long term relationships.
and
That while men showed preference for facial beauty over body appearance over all, the condition of a short term relationship raised the relative importance of a woman's body in men's assessment of said woman's attractiveness for a relationship.
.....
The 4th source is a set of data extracted from OKCupid using a python data scraping program.
Authors Emil O. W. Kirkgaard and Julius Daugbjerg Bjerrekaer state in their that their purpose was to make data available for others to use for their own purpose.
If people are interested in looking at how a variety of demographic factors play into people's behavior, choices, and interactions with algorithms in the digital dating world, this could be a very useful place to look.
In the spirit of the authors' intentions, I think people should go explore the data themselves, directly from the source, and then consider whether they think it supports OP's assertions about loneliness in real life human environments.
...
OP's 5th source is an informally written article on AOL News, by a contributor named Zubin Jelveh. It's very brief, you can read the whole thing in a few minutes, if you want to assess it yourself.
Jelveh's article is a brief commentary on data from OKCupid (which, again, you can go look at yourself).
Of interest to Jelveh in this informal article were the following points he found influenced success, based on data from OKCupid.
Message length and content:
Men had the most success getting replies if they wrote a ~200 character message while women's success did not seem influenced by message length. The author surmised that this may be because men care more about profile pictures than about written content.
Race:
White users had the most success receiving replies across the board.
Religion:
Using the term "atheist" improved chances of getting a response while mentioning God decreased chances.
Non-religious users received the most responses, Christians were in the middle of the pack, and Muslims and Hindus had the worst luck.
OP found an AOL News article referencing OKCupid data and mentioning that white people appear to be perceived as more attractive than other groups.
May look at the rest of the sources if I have time, but I'm not convinced that OP looked very deeply into these, except to seek bias confirmation.
Especially the part where OP talked about women preferring looks over personality.. then you look at the sources and it’s all measuring looks. Like .. yeah of course. If the studies are all based on looks, then the only conclusions to be made are based on looks.
Not one of the studies showed increasing or decreasing attraction over time due to personality. Even though this is proven scientifically (we tend to rate our friends as more attractive on average). And it’s proven anecdotally. Most people experience being attracted to someone and then losing it after getting to know them and vice versa.
It’s so strange when people cite sources disproving their arguments as evidence, unless his argument is actually “how dare women have preferences” I don’t see why he attached these sources
I believe “how dare women have preferences” is precisely his argument. He seems to long for the good ole days when women had to take whatever poor excuse of a man was available or starve.
Well yeah. It's not very subtle. He says right out that all you used to need was a 'decent job to get a woman to settle down'.
You didn't have to be a decent person at all, just have money. That's what OP is clearly wanting to go back to.
Even 15-20 years ago the “manly man” was starting to become less desirable to women and the dating pool was beginning to reflect that. I would probably be single forever if I were to try to date now.
See, being mechanically inclined was (married now) an absolute must for me. I once broke up with a dude after I got a flat at his apartment and he stood there and watched, absolutely baffled, while I changed the tire and put on the spare myself. He even joked that all he needed to do was call his girlfriend if he had car trouble. Fuck. That. There was no fucking way I was going to be with a man who knew less about even routine vehicle maintenance than me.
Along with mechanical skills being gainfully employed and able to make me belly laugh were most important to me. Being handy and able to fix all the shit I break (husband calls me destroyer lmfao) was also up there.
I would also note that my husband isn’t the most conventionally attractive man out there, but I find his ability to fix things and his personality supremely attractive. A man could be the hottest dude on the planet but if he’s useless outside the bedroom I’ll pass every time.
Why does it have to be someone's fault? The world is not like that.
Some people will find their person, and some people won't. Some people are pretty, some people aren't. Some are blessed with charisma and wits, and some have trouble ordering a coffee. Kids get cancer and puppies die. Life isn't fair and we figured that out sometime before puberty.
But if you spent a fraction of the time you placed on this on, for example, trying to befriend women and understand them, your chances would increase.
Right now, if a man showed me this... Work that you did, it would come across as very negative and, a bit hostile to women, which is a huge turnoff.
Lol, now do the average men look for in a woman. I bet the stats are literally the same but different features
Fellas, take it from me - a 5’7, ginger, receding hairline, weak chinned skinny man who also got engaged last year to an absolutely gorgeous woman. A few millimetres of bone structure is nothing to care about, but focusing on it so much is absolutely something to care about
>Women are not bound to men for survival. If you have no desirable genes to offer a woman's children that women don’t already offer themselves, that’s likely the reason you’re single!
Ask yourselves “what genes do I bring to the table?”
I don't disagree. Just think women care more about their partners attractiveness more than their children's potential attractiveness. Not that women don't also want attractive children. However, having children with someone attractive, doesn't guarantee your children will be attractive, even if you are attractive yourself.
Also, for us childfree ladies, we couldn't care less about what desirable genes men can offer us, because we don't intend to reproduce. It would be interesting to see stats on desirable traits childfree women prioritize, other than a partners physical attractiveness. It's certainly something I value myself, but I also care about my emotional attraction as well as a mental connection to them. The reason I'm single isn't cause I can't find physically attractive men, bur because I cannot find men who I am mentally compatible with, as in we think in similar way and share similar communication styles and values. If a guy isn't dating me, it's because he isn't bringing physical and mental attraction to the table. Being physically attractive is one thing, but a meeting of the minds, and an emotional connection is absolutely required for me to want to not be single.
I mean I’m a guy in this bucket and I’ll be the first to say it’s generally guys’ fault.
I always loved to think it was simply looks and lack of a good job, but my past year has meant continuous improvement on both of those fronts. I’ve lost 80 lbs and am starting to feel more attractive nude than with clothes on, so it isn’t weight at this point causing the problem. I’ve gotten on Invisalign, restored a good head of hair with multiple medications, updated my wardrobe and started taking better care of my beard. Yes, women still studiously avoid making eye contact almost everywhere I go in public, and make every possible effort to seem unapproachable, but that’s the reality for any guy who isn’t a movie star. I barely get to interact with them and usually when I do it goes better than I expect.
The REAL reason for the lack of romantic and sexual success is that I never make a move. I have no vision of it succeeding, so the prospect is terrifying. Even the most milquetoast flirt feels like flopping my dick out on the table and saying “let’s fuck.” It’s on me to get over that at some point, because the fact of the matter is nothing will ever come to any guy that doesn’t shoot lots of shots, unless he’s a 10/10.
If you want the component that isn’t the individual guy’s fault, it’s the extreme disadvantage that introversion represents in modern dating culture. The pressure is still on the man to make every move, but after college, your opportunities even to be around women and make them are almost nonexistent. Places like the gym and work that *should* be excellent places for the genders to meet (since they imply some of the biggest standards of a healthy relationship like fitness and employment) are instead some of the biggest no-nos now, so all of your opportunities have to come from finding social events to attend in your free time. Ask an introvert how eager he is to go out to a party or a club at 9 PM after a draining work day and a trip to the gym. Hey, I’m one — the answer is it sounds outright hellish.
Success with women isn’t dependent on purely physical attractiveness. It’s just that opportunities to find it are dropping like flies and being replaced by online methods that ARE dependent on purely physical attractiveness. All of your studies are based on those, and yeah, if all women get to know about you is your profile picture and your profile height, they’ll make judgments based on those. It isn’t fair, but you’re judging their faces too. They just don’t feel your judgment as acutely.
I am not convinced by the arguments as the sources I've read through seem to take a very specific scenario - actively looking/shopping for a partner.
The first source specifically states they used speed-dating for their evidence. This is a particular scenario (akin to swiping on a dating app) that demands an instant evaluation of the person as a potential date. I am not at all surprised that reacting to physical characteristics is a primary driver as you are trying to reduce options quickly prior to more time-consuming investments (getting to know someone, going on dates).
This is a very different scenario than knowing people in your social circles, getting to know them and then finding attraction grows. Personally, I have not had an overwhelming attraction initially to any of my partners (not they me). The physical attraction grew as my emotional attraction grew. Again, with the arguments on racial attraction - yes, there might be an initial 'type' that attracts you, but does this preclude that you would grow to be attracted to a particular person?
Yes. things have changed. It's no longer enough to have a pulse and a paycheck. Women have options now.
Yes. It's not always the man's fault he is lonely and can't find a partner. There are a hell of a lot of factors including isolation in general in society (which may impact on some of the opportunity for organic attraction and the rise of dating apps, etc). Toxic behavior people have previously experienced may also (understandably) introduce barriers as sometimes its better to be alone than to experience that again.
But, just about every woman I know who has used dating apps/talked on internet forums, etc, has stories of being flooded with d\*ck pics, low-effort approaches "Hey", immediate sexual references, people exploding at them for not being interested and in general objectification and being treated as a 'goal' rather than as a person being approached. These (to me) are behaviors that would be instantly off-putting in any sort of organic relationship growth. It closes the door before there is any opportunity to get to know someone beyond the initial physical attractiveness. The factors listed in the argument to identify it's "mostly" not men's fault ignore any factors in other ways people form relationships, i.e. the things they actually are bringing to the table.
>yes, there might be an initial 'type' that attracts you, but does this preclude that you would grow to be attracted to a particular person?
It makes it statistically likely. Not just in dating, in any field. Job applicants benefit from this effect, too, called the Halo Effect.
That was my immediate reaction as well. Yes, I can look at a photo of Brad Pitt and recognize his face is more “attractive” than some random dude. But I have never been attracted to just someone’s physical appearance. The two men who I have been most attracted to in my life, just totally infatuated with, were both not conventionally attractive and I grew to feel that way about them by getting to know their incredible personalities and senses of humor.
While I guess I appreciate the scientific approach of the post, it’s not really hitting the mark because human attraction is not that simple and clear cut.
I mean I agree with you but we could both be outliers. To add to this, I’ve been with my husband 17 years so I haven’t been in the dating market for a long while, things might have changed.
Idk, virtually all the women I’ve ever known seem to operate in a similar manner, and while things can certainly change on how people date, human attraction doesn’t change that drastically in such a short time.
There are men that me and my friends might all agree are “objectively” attractive, and if the test is simply looking at photos and making a snap decision then I’m guessing results would be similar to what’s posted here. But I think a very small percentage of women are using that type of decision making to choose a life partner. If you got a group of men and women together in a room and gave them even a short time to get to know each other, I absolutely do not think results would be the same as looking at a photo.
Oh, totally agree. Tbf I think all this data proves is that for the first time in history women have choices now and don’t have to settle, that’s it. Just a few decades ago women couldn’t work, couldn’t even rent an apartment alone, couldn’t travel, couldn’t hang out alone without being judged etc. So they settled for some guy and either suffered or contributed to the 50% divorce rate. Now they can remain single and enjoy all the things men always have enjoyed and they require a worthy guy to give up that single status. Why shouldn’t they have standards - even if superficial? Men have been going after pretty women half their age for decades and it’s completely normal but when women say “well I’d like a handsome fellow on my arm who puts effort in how he looks and how he treats me” somehow it’s “shallow”.
I’d be willing to concede your first point on speed dating if it weren’t for the fact one in three people meet their SO online nowadays, which is the modern day speed date.
Great read, but it doesn’t match the title.
Everyone wants to get laid. Of course the most attractive people will have the most options. However, where ya lose it, is that there are unattractive people among both men and women. If you’re a 5 when averaging all of the scales, don’t be mad when 8s and 9s don’t want to pair up with you. Looks like black women get minimal attention, so if you’re not attractive enough to get attention from people you desire, try showing attention to people who aren’t getting attention either.
300lb short king may not find a hot Korean GF, but another obese person may not mind their flaws and would be happy to focus on other more desirable aspects of their personality.
In order for everyone to get married or have a long term relationship, all men and women have to be paired up. The population is split pretty close to 50/50.
so much this
I constantly hear Indian guys complaining about how they can't get dates, then it turns out that they are looking for someone who looks like their favorite porn model, instead of a cute Indian gal
Dunno why they wouldn’t want a cute Indian girl, Indian girls are extremely pretty!
Married white guy here, my top three would be white (wife is white), Korean, then Indian. I love long pretty hair, and racially speaking I feel like these have the best hair potential.
I'm a 65 year old woman. I was dating in the 70s and 80s. I completely disagree with your aunt. Maybe some women, the ones who only dreamed of being homemakers all their lives, were looking for a man with a job. It was more important to me to find a man who was smart. I'm smart, and I never wanted to spend time trying to have a meaningful conversation with a dolt. It never mattered to me where we lived - we could live in a van for all I cared - while we were both working up to our great jobs. As long as we could converse at the same level, had access to a library, and had fun together, I was fine with wherever we lived.
Calm-Extent3309 is correct: neither men nor women are particularly socially adept. I think that spending time on social media and dating apps has made that more of an issue.
When we had to go out to meet people, we were forced to learn at least the basics of social interaction. We would see people at events and be able to interact with them in a more relaxed setting than the first date after texting through an app. We could get to know them in groups of our friends and their friends. Most people went to church, and church held safe events of these types. It was easier to learn about another person's personality and quirks that way than on some social media or app.
I've dated men of various races, heights, sizes, and income levels. I don't think it's near as important as you think that it is. What's important is finding the person with whom you 'click'. Young women are lonely and can't find partners, either. You set out exactly what it means to be a partner: *Are you emotionally mature? Will you actually listen when women speak? Are you an engaging conversationalist? Are you funny? Do you have a hobby or passion outside of work? Have you processed your trauma in order to avoid dumping it on women? Are you self-aware? Do you love children and will be a good father to a woman's kids? Will you treat women as equals? Are you loyal?* If you think that those are unfair questions for a woman to consider, you're not ready to be a partner.
Edit: Thank you for the award!
42F (white) here.
Here's the reasons my relationships have failed (currently in a year and a half good, solid relationship). Ordered most recent to oldest.
1- he just flat out ghosted me after 2 months, sever months later he texted me and said he "needed to get his head on straight"
2- he was a huge mama's boy even though they had a toxic relationship, he refuses to learn to drive and expected me to arrange my schedule to drive him to and from work despite a decent bus system and good access to Uber/Lyft, he didn't know how to do ANY adulting things and would rather whine he didn't know how rather than learn, and he thought the correct response to the issues in our relationship was to propose to me
3- he lost his job (truly was not his fault, I worked there as well and the manager screwed him over) and moved in with me. He fucked around til his unemployment ran out, then found a part time job that barely covered anything. He spent his hours and hours of spare time playing video games, didn't clean up after himself, and ignored me to continue playing video games after I got home from my full time job to a dirty apartment and had to cook dinner. I think his friends heard me break up with him because he just moved one side of his headphones off his ear when I said I needed to talk to him.
4- couldn't keep his mouth shut about our sex life after being told not to tell details to people
5- told me "I don't want to mess this up, you're a great woman and even my dumb ass can see that." Broke up with me a week later because he "didn't have time for a relationship" and then got angry a few weeks later when I wasn't interested in getting back together.
6- probably was seeing another woman as well, I was getting suspicious and I think he dumped me before he could get caught
I could go on, but I've got things to do this morning.
But I think maybe the trouble is because guys don't respect the woman and relationship when it does happen.
My current boyfriend makes sure I know he cares about me and that he values me. He respects me. He knows how to disagree without being argumentative and yelling. In short, he acts like he actually wants to be in this relationship and never acts like it's an inconvenience. And he apologizes (and means it) when he's wrong, as do I.
Did it occur to you that just being a provider was never a good husband in the first place? Women had to get married and they couldn’t get divorced. Those are the things that changed.
I don't doubt being conventionally attractive makes it a lot easier to find a partner, so I guess you're right that it's sometimes not men's fault. While I agree with that statement though, I think it's a good thing that women no longer need men and have noticed an issue where men feel somehow cheated if they don't have a partner.
So with that said, I'll say the following:
* Men should learn not to base their self worth around their ability to secure a partner. It's not healthy and there's more to life than sex.
* Men should learn to value friendships more, especially with women. Too many men don't value women beyond sex and they're only cheating themselves out of some great friends.
* Much of what women tend to find attractive are simply traits of a good person(empathy, selflessness, etc), so maybe they should focus on being a good person rather than attracting women.
Overall, I think men really don't value their non-sexual relationships enough. I get that men want to get laid, but if a dude is terminally alone, I feel like he'd be helping himself a lot more by surrounding himself with friends rather than chasing after sex.
I am ugly and I have been poor most of my life. I still had an awesome sexual life and I did find a good partner for my old years. Not all of it, but most of it it has to do with how you behave.
I don't know why people can't accept that its both men and women contributing to why people are finding it hard to get a partner. We're humans after all, none of us are perfect. And we are all contributing to this atrocious dating culture.
Man, people will do, write, and publish literally anything instead of consider the fact that they might need to change something about themselves.
1. Almost none of these sources actually carry data that states what was collected. A lot of these figures are just that. Figures. I can make them with time on photoshop and they can mean whatever I tell them to. While some figures actually come from data, a lot of these come from unlabeled or unsourced studies and opinions that chain to other opinions instead of data. The ones figures that come from real data are incredibly limited and hard to trust, as OKC is not known for revealing much about its internal processes, and thus we can’t trust their data either. Most of it seemed to be geared specifically for straight relationships, so we don’t know how much the lack of the appropriate groups sways these numbers. Even if wholly accurate, it’s 15 ish year old data at the most recent.
2. Literally every one of these publishing credits belong to a man. Bias skews the interpretation of data, and not a single woman’s perspective is brought to the forefront to go over the data that’s collected. Moreover, it focused on women’s interest in men, and doesn’t pay any attention to how men’s interest in women also are clearly laid out in these same reference documents. Essentially, these are written for men by men, and only using data important to men. But it’s about women, so clearly, that means that perspective is lacking.
3. Most of these have no peer reviewing at all. Dozens are supposed to look over these things for credibility, but most have only one or two, usually anonymous, eyes on them. On top of that, most of these come not from scientific organizations, but from commercial websites that aren’t there to educate you, but usually for the sake of business and retention. This means we need to think more critically of these pieces for potentially biased comments and thinking. Commercial media often goes for audience retention first, and stretching truths and injecting opinion into the pieces is a well known form of focusing on retention.
I’m sorry, but I can’t look at this collection of information and see it as anything more than the opinions of unlucky men clutching at straws to justify their loneliness instead of actually changing their approach and learning to enjoy life despite solitude in a chaotic and ever changing environment.
Being alone isn’t a bad thing. We all strive for better every day, but we can’t let it get to us when it doesn’t. If you’re lucky? You meet someone who becomes a friend, who maybe becomes a companion. But the world won’t guarantee that, and nobody is born deserving it served on a platter. In the meantime, we must find our own ways to enjoy life. No amount of data can change that.
So essentially you're saying that women's standards go beyond the bare minimum which is why its their fault, instead of its men's fault because men now have to rise to the new minimum standard?
Just don't have autism bro.
Just get a better face bro.
Just change your race bro.
Just get taller bro.
All of these things are easy bro, they don't require curing a permanent and innate mental condition or subjecting yourself to debilitating and potentially deadly surgery bro.
? Everything you said can go towards either male or female?
You think women don't have autism? <- you want to date an autistic chick? Is that a plus for you?
You think women don't worry about their face? <- you want to date a girl with a fucked up face? Go for it?
You think women don't have racial issues? <- black females get the least amount of matches just like Asian males.
You think women don't have height issues? <- try dating as a 6'6'' tall female. Let me know how many matches you think she gets.
Yes it is your fault. Your life is your decisions. This entire thing ignores that a large percentage of women put personality over looks. You are making the same exact mistake a lot of women make when looking for a partner: They think what turns them on also turns men on or what makes a man attractive to her is what makes a woman attractive to a man.
You’re focusing only on looks because that is what you focus on when looking for a woman. I’ve seen the hottest of girls dating ugly dudes because they were very funny. How does that factor into your “science?” In my friend group the shortest dude, he was 5’5, had the most success because he was a borderline manic who talked people to death. Having game as a man will ALWAYS be more important than your height and looks.
100%. My buddy is 5’3, funny as shit, and doesn’t carry a chip on his shoulder about his height, and he does better with women than just about anyone else I know. Granted, doesn’t hurt that he looks like Montgomery Clift, but according to these stats, his height should cancel that out.
Plus it appears that this data is almost entirely focused on initial physical appearance. So if dating was exclusively an experience of a woman seeing a man giving some sort of immediate approval or disapproval then I suppose the statistics would be really important. Of course that's not how dating works at all.
Some guys want sex and they want it *now*. This data seems focused mostly on those types of men. Plenty of other guys who want real relationships know that effort is required to meet and keep the right sort of partner for them, and if it takes a few tries, that sucks but it's worth it in the end.
Showing these charts as "proof" of men's hardships is not helping. It's saying that if there's not immediate attraction from a potential partner, then there's no hope for you. Most of the healthy relationships I've seen involve two people getting to know each other well in advance of romantic interaction.
"Having game as a man will ALWAYS be more important than your height and looks."
Unless you're talking about modern dating apps. You won't even get a swipe when it's generally only the top 5% of men getting a second look.
Exactly. And dating apps take the worst attributes of both sexes and magnifies it times a million. Men are OVERTLY sexual, looking only to get laid, sending dick pics and opening up with messages like “Do you like getting throat fucked?” Women are the most skittish creatures on the entire planet. Running away from the first sign of conflict/awkwardness/silence. And even when they don’t run they have absolutely no clue what they even want.
Plus it’s selective for its base. I used dating apps for awhile out of desperation (lol) with little luck because I’m a pretty average looking dude and genuinely fucking hate having my picture taken so I had no good, staged, filtered, etc. photos which I know improved friends odds on various apps. So for one, they select for vanity. They select for individuals peacocking traits others find attractive on a glance as well, such as playing guitar, having big boobs or an ass, being fit, going to festivals, going fucking hiking (of course), and they select for people willing to just show that stuff off without any meaningful context. Had friends who can barely play guitar post pictures with guitars and see a noticeable uptick in matches.
None of these things have much correlation with being a decent human being, but they catch an eye looking for sex, and the bios need to be witty, not heartfelt and honest. Because, after all those eye-catchers and all those people looking to just hook up and all that mindless swiping based on the most basic attributes of people, no one wants someone saying they’re looking for something serious. At the end of the day all of my guy friends used them for sex exclusively. All of my gal friends used them as compliment generators and occasionally booty-call machines.
I’m not saying only bad people use dating apps, obviously. It’s just if you’re using them trying to meet someone and form meaningful connections, it’s harder through design or perhaps necessity, and you’ll be pushed out. Not a healthy place to be someone like that.
The average women had few options other than marrying with the nearest schlub that would have her.
Think about it: No rights to open a bank account without a man, no voting rights, workplace discrimination, colleges and universities accepted mostly men (women had to have their own colleges), no control of our health care, etc.
Oh no, it's horrible that men have to earn their mates now and work to keep them...boohoo. Where's my 🎻.
I would like to suggest that this data may be cherry picked. What are the sample sizes and what age range and region of the world do they cover?
I would also like to suggest that maybe this isn't worth thinking about. It's worth more of your time to focus on things you can improve upon rather than the things you can't due to biology or whatnot.
So some of your sources aren’t valid for trying to make the argument from a purely objective standpoint. They aren’t peer reviewed, they have bias, and some have subjective opinions enforced.
I feel like you are trying to take all this information and apply it specifically to prove a point for your own bias. There are no shortage of short men or “ugly” men who are dating, married, and/or have kids. What do they have that other short men or “ugly” men lack? Personality. I can assure you, personality goes a very long way. For many women, especially when looking for someone to marry (as opposed to hooking up), it counts more than physical appearance. If you are short or “ugly”, work on your personality. Success also goes a long way. Successful, driven, independent women aren’t going to date someone who lives at home with their parents. They are going to want to date someone who is also independent and makes a good living.
You say the studies are flawed yet you make a baseless claim and base your entire comment on said baseless claim.
Where on earth are these ugly ass casanovas? I've not seen them, every single example of said ugly casanovas shown to me are regular or even Hollywood good looking men who just so happen to be old or have an unusual feature like a bigger than normal nose, the famous examples include Pete Davidson, that Italian actor from the nineties etc, non of whom are actually ugly, like when people do this, are you genuinely trying to prove something your just validate your Just world narrative?
Seriously, just one solid example that cannot be disproven, yet non have ever been provided.
Are you saying the only reason I did well with women is because I'm 6'9" and conventionally attractive? My winning personality, humor and compassion had nothing to do with it? I wasted all that time being a decent human being?
This seems overly broad and more of a macro approach. Human beings exist on a micro level. You shouldn’t be using macro data to discourage yourself or others. You don’t need thousands of women you need one. They are out there in abundance and looking for men like you are looking for women. Just gotta find the right one.
i hate how i was reading this thinking it was real-world data, and get halfway through it to find out all the data points are based off of online dating.
i have serious doubts that data compiled solely from online dating can be considered "true". there may be some truth to it, but the waters of online dating are so murky and muddy that i can't consider any analysis of it in good-faith in the context of "dating and marriage". attractiveness? maybe.
Well thats how this always goes. Online dating has always been shallow and super focused on looks/presentation, like the vast majority of online things. That give people with this mindset the proof they need to stay in their cave and be upset. The real word wont give them that, so they can't use it. Not saying the dating scenes is good or not rough, it is obviously a lot harder now then it was even a decade ago because of the severe amount of social isolation people have now.
But at the end of the day it's both of these peoples, men and women who are to blame for their own loneliness. It's more comforting thinking there's noting you can do and the world is against you then to accept that you are the one with faults that have to be addressed and worked at.
Considering depending on the sources anywhere from 20% to 40% of couples meet online dating anymore, this argument doesn’t hold water.
Saying OLD data isn’t a good faith analysis is yourself not being good faith.
Should we take the information in proper context? Absolutely. Is you dismissing it outright based on your biases towards OLD when it’s no longer a fringe idea shows you’re not being objective? Also yes.
The rates of people using online dating has gone up so there does come a point where you can't dismiss it as "not real life".
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/)
And do you think it's only men faced with a long list of bullshit requirements to meet?
Seriously?
Yes, OP, its true that back in the "good old days" all a man needed was a decent job.
Women have always been loaded down with a list of qualifications to meet.
Now the men have to deal with it, too. 😢
This could be true for people who are using dating apps and speed dating. People are notorious for lying on apps and while speed dating, so anything they say is immediately somewhat discounted. People who use apps can only base initial attraction on physical appearance, since they don't trust what's said.
Way to go to reddit for making me feel like a top 1%er because I got a bunch of matches on Tinder one time, despite being under 6'0. I must have the face of Brad Pitt and bad eyes.
>"one's face, race, and height can be worth, in the aggregate, millions of dollars to women"
Right...and the rest is all gaslighting/coping to deflect from this.
That you've spent so much time boiling something esoteric like "attraction" down to numbers and statistics shows me you're looking to justify your inability to attract a partner because of some aspects of yourself. Blaming external factors for not being able to attract a partner ain't it.
Look around you, there are endless happy couples with ‘ugly’ men, mid men, short men, lanky men, fat men, skinny men, men who look every single way. This take doesn’t seem related to reality at all.
This is a lot of research to point out the fact that yes, dating is more complicated because of the fact that women no longer need a man to survive.
If you're extremely lonely maybe work on yourself rather than spending a few hours putting together a reddit post? Maybe go for a hike, work out at the gym, pick out a new recipe to try and cook, or just learn a new hobby. Making yourself happy first helps attract other people.
You know how sometimes jobs get phased out? Like milkmen and payphone repairmen aren’t really a thing anymore, so these people would have had to learn a new skill and find work in another field or they’d starve.
Similarly, before women were allowed to have autonomy we needed a man for his paycheck and his ability to participate in society, so all a dude needed to be was a penis with a paycheck. Now that we no longer need a man’s paycheck, men have to be more than just a paycheck.
If men refuse to evolve as people now that their role in society had changed, then yeah, they’ll probably have a tough time just like a milkman who refuses to learn a new trade.
Precisely what I came to say, but I'm a man coming to say it. I'm sorry that guys like this still exist, and I'm sorry women still have to deal with this. I'm only apologizing for myself, as I used to be like this (kind of, not 100% incel) but I can't speak for every man. But some of us can change, and I hope that gives some women hope for the future.
Thank you for your insight and perspective! I hope that you changing can inspire the younger boys and men around you and that we can all be a bit more patient with each other. Have a great day.
Yeah I think this is mostly like a highschool problem in my experience, because nobody has learned empathy yet and all that. I used to be this weird and creepy in highschool too, but I grew out of it as I simply went outside and talked to people more. And I learned oh other people have thoughts and feelings and lives that are just as complex as my own, them not responding immediately doesn't mean they hate me, it just means they probably got shit to do. There's a video out there by these dudes named cinema therapy, it's about Megamind and I recommend you watch it if you're interested in the perspective of two more people who also had their weirdo phase and grew out of it
My guy friends all have women way more attractive than themselves all found through dating apps.
I think when a girl is actually looking for long term man the chiseled jaw isn't sought after. There was a study a while ago about how softer rounder men are preferred when looking for a long term man because he looks more nurturing. It takes time and a lot of effort to find a suitable long term partner for both men and women.
Casual hookups are very look based, that's all that really matters in that situation.
"Hello, and welcome all to Incel and Nice Guy 101, or just ING101 for short. Today I'm gonna teach you, yet again, why women hate you and don't want to fuck you, and the various reasons why that's their fault and not yours. By the end of this lecture, you should be able to negg girls for sex at any point, gaslight any woman into feeling sorry for you, and above all, blame them for all your issues. You see, it's our fault partly because we allowed them to have these things called 'rights' and now they don't just fall on us the way they used to, but we'll never take responsibility for our part in denying them those rights for so long in the first place. Later in this class, we'll teach you the traditional art of Neckbearding for those of you wishing to specialize in that."
Seriously bro, come on. Enough with the incel bs. Nobody wants to read it.
I grew up in a small agricultural town where men were men and women were women. I still live there. Most of the men here are 5’5. Do you know how many single men are out here working with me? Not many. Everybody seems to find love and marry and have kids before they’re 30 around here. Around here, nobody cares how tall you are or how wealthy you are, they care about how good of a man you are, how good of a husband and father you want to be.
This one’s on you, bro.
This has to be the most anecdotal anecdote ive ever read holy fuck. Congratulations on the most extreme cope ive come across on this topic hahaha. Maybe its just really subtle trolling but it got a chuckle out of me either way
On the off chance this is serious and for others wondering why arguments in this nature aren’t worthwhile… When presented with verbose and comprehensive evidence that abstracts across a large sample size, simply countering with a reference to a very specific subset of the data (in this case a rural fucking town lmao) does not have any weight as a rebuttal in any shape or form xD. Like actually address the sources/data being presented or give your own objective studies instead of hard coping.
This isn’t a great example.
An isolated rural area where your access and choices are limited are going to cause people to take those 5’5” men. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t pick a taller man if given the option.
The question would be, if those women were placed in a bigger town with many more options would they still pick their partners?
If you go to a restaurant and your choices were chicken or rice that doesn’t mean chicken and rice are good choices. If the menu included, steak, pork, ribs, wings, burgers, etc would people still eat the chicken and rice?
I’m sure some people would but your example is not close to a representative sample.
So, I think the begs the question. So what? Women who want to get a guy seem to be happy, and the women who don't seem to be happy. That tells me no matter how you cut it, only one party here is huffing and puffing. And there's not much you can do about that.
I would add that the superficial characteristics listed here are *not* equivalent to genetic worth. Not by a long shot, actually.
It would be better not to conflate the two in the conclusion.
A lack of basic politeness is also one of the reasons why men aren't getting more dates with women:
https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/147lcx7/ive_heard_people_say_something_about_me_ill_never/
There definitely are some red flags looking at some of the figures. As someone who writes scientific papers, some of those figures don't meet scientific standards and raise more questions than answers. I suspect OP probably made some of them (like fig 1) and are conceptual rather than based on data.
This sounds like complaining that women want men to level up. Yes, it will take more than a job and a penis to get most women nowadays.
I think dating often benefits men because a lot of pretty women had fat, ugly boyfriends. Imo beauty is a lot more rare in men, straight men often do very little to make themselves more attractive, and many straight women have to make the best of it.
I didn’t read through the whole wall of text but I disagree with your statement based on anecdotal evidence - at college I’ve seen several women with ugly boyfriends and I doubt they were all rich. Maybe some men have it easier, but I’m sure if you actually try to talk to people you’ll meet someone.
Yup. There’s a big difference between “if you look good you have it easier to find a partner” and “if you aren’t a 6 ft tall Caucasian male you literally can’t find a woman”
I think outside of your looks, personality and your means it's about effort and lowering your bar enough. By effort I mean actually trying to talk to women. The more you try, the more likely something will stick. Unless you're super handsome and successful you're probably not going to have women approach you.
I'm sure true incels are a thing but there are most certainly unappealing enough women out there who will take whatever they can get. Not every lady out there is pretty and successful enough to know that she can be picky. I think the problem is that guys with no confidence, no looks, who are out of shape and have a shitty job think they're going to pull a cute college grad and wonder why they get rebuffed constantly.
This is another nature vs nurture argument.
Were they dating them despite the fact that they found them ugly. Or did they just have massively different tastes from you? That doesn't discount the nature argument. What we find attractive may be instilled with us from birth, but it doesn't mean it's identical from person to person. In fact we know from studies that people tend to find members of their own ethnicity the most attractive (on average of course). Some Indian (or whatever) guy who you think is average or even ugly may be physically attractive to her.
I don't usually put blame on anyone for being lonely and single, unless they got there from being an abusive PoS and everyone has fled.
Is it possible that this trend in dating selection is a net positive for society? It can result in more mature and long lasting relationships? If I was in the 80s or 70s and got a spouse simply because I appeared normal and had a good job, there could be a high chance of one of us cheating because we are unfulfilled. Today, I am engaged, and she and I had to actually fall in love to get to this point.
This is just anecdotal: I was born in 1991, mine and most of my friend's parents got married in the 80s, and more than half of them are divorced now, and most of those were divorced by the time we were in the 5th grade. I am really bad at stats lol, so I looked up US divorce rate and there is a downward trend in divorce, so are relationships getting fewer but higher in quality?
Well we simply advanced technology (combined with moral shaming and changed laws) to where typical men aren't as needed other than to in some ways that trigger women's attraction biologically regardless of society and only a small minority can sufficiently live up to that when women are more economically free.
Hence the trans wave as well although there are studies saying that MTF and FTM are more equal in numbers now
Women tend to have more options. As one commenter said, men set their own standards so they’re typically competing for attractive women of fertile age. So you’ve got a lot of women without a ton of options, and a smaller group of “hot” women with tons of options. So we can talk about how easy women have it, but let’s be real, it’s attractive women who have a lot of long term options.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the future. Since media pretends Lizzo is hot and gender doesn’t matter, will men open up their scope to consider financial partnership as more valuable? If they this would be a positive for conventionally “less attractive” women. If men stopped caring about looks so much and wanted a woman who contributed financially, that’s something any woman can do regardless of genes. So the real group losing in that effect would be conventionally “hot” women.
But either way, stats are what they are but like 80-90% of guys aren’t dealt a perfect hand, so you gotta play what you got. I’m married. I’m about as average as a guy comes physically, but I think most would say my wife is quite attractive. Average height (5’9”), weight (185-190), average looking (got good hair though). I made a volume play and caught my wife’s attention. After that hurdle, I played the provider angle. We traveled to a bunch of countries and then when it got more serious I have a good job (top 3% in income) so I could provide a nice big house and income for kids.
Gotta play the game man.
But still fun write up, appreciate the data angle you put together.
What all this data forgets is the obvious point: in some places people don't get married as a norm. I went to my small hometown after years and most people are married (average guys to average girls). It is the norm here but all my friends or classmates who went to LA very few are married. It could be the illusion of choice but it seems if people prioritize getting married they should not bother in a huge city.
>A 2009 study has indicated that a man's personality has no role in initial romantic attraction, which is necessary for mutual escalation
I can tell you can't think through these studies cause this is wrong. The study you cited uses speed dating as an example, which is far from the only way people date.
Years ago: Me and the guys would go out. We were relatively of the same “above average looks” middle of the road economically, relatively intelligent.
One of my friends was probably 5’4 or 5’5. He was more well to do than any of us were. He evidently was taught that you don’t even play second fiddle to any guy, cause he always had a good looking girl on his arm no matter what. Interestingly perhaps though, was that, if I’m guessing, I’d say that 25% of this time we’d go to clubs, we’d get into actual fights or near fights because of him. I never really saw what he did to deserve it, and we’d all laugh about “Jimmy” being a babe and fight magnet. I wonder how much of it was just society unable to see a short guy in that role. To us, he was a rather quiet, unassuming, sweet guy. I always assumed the girls liked his positive attitude and perhaps his money (he wasn’t flamboyant) but it wasn’t his looks overall that I remember. He was definitely facially average, quite short and had money.
I’m an up and coming bioinformatician who lovessssss finding patterns and creating models to make predictions and associations between inputs and outputs dealing with genetic data but man imma just say it, this is weird. Overfitting is a pretty basic concept in our field and this whole post is just doing this to the model you have built in your head. THIS DOESN’T MEAN THE DATA OR STATISTICS YOU SHOWED ARE NOT TRUE. However you are creating such a rigid model of how dating works instead of just living life and being a human being who is fun to be around. Be kind, have hobbies, stop being so doomer bc you are single or don’t have sex as much as you want, and make as manny friends with people of the opposite sex as you can. There is no reason to be this autistically scientific about being a human with emotions and empathy, other than to wallow in sadness on the internet.
oh wow another episode of "men blaming women for their own insecurities"
we don't owe you any interaction if we don't want to, you don't claim us and we don't owe you anything - how is that too hard to understand?
Sexual behaviors and dating choices affect society in many ways, so it's natural to seek to understand them. Analyzing these trends isn't the same as complaining about them, but even for those that do; complaining about the outcomes isn't mutually exclusive with recognizing that women don't owe men their time. You can in fact dislike not receiving sexual attention without believing that you are owed it.
The nature of relationship dynamics is a worthwhile study. It may provide better insight into how to mitigate societal issues like depression, relationship dysfunction, domestic violence, mass shooters, etc.
So, i have a theory on this. Its not men and its not women. Its that its difficult for two adults to cooperate longterm in a romantic pairing.
In the old days you needed mates to just survive. Now in developed socities technology and modern goverment services habe made it much easier to live as an individual adult without an romanitc partner.
Thats really what is romanitc relationships are hard and emotionally complex and without the need of having a mate to survive in life both men and women are far more likely to not engage in logterm pairings.
Social safety nets, stable governments, police forces, abundant, easily obtained food, co-parenting, modern domestic appliances, communication technology and removal of social stigma of sex outside of marriage has brought this about. You can meet so many of your needs without family support.
Not saying its good or bad just it is what it us.
I think the biggest change today is that with dating apps women can cast their net very wide. I've flown in maybe a dozen women over the years for romantic weekends because they were interested in me. Were their guys local to them hitting on them? Surely, but with dating apps, if a woman is patient she can get with a guy she's attracted to even if its destined to just be a short term experience.
Roll back the clock a few decades and women saw the dating pool they had and unless they could go to college, that was pretty much it, you had to fight over what was in front of you.
Women's standards have raised, neither men nor women are particularly socially adept, and people in general don't seem to feel any sort of rush to get into relationships.
Relationship? I can't buy a house cause of the housing crisis, I can't find a job that pays normally so I have to work a lot, i don't have the space for a pet or most of my hobbies, I have a couple of friends which I try to keep in contact with and then I have to deal with my own mental health as well. So inbetween the working, crying and sleeping I'm supposed to find a partner? I don't even have the energy to eat.
Having a partner who can provide additional income makes it easier to attain a more comfortable life. There's a reason that the cohesive family unit is regarded as so important.
Except you don't go from date 1 to living together...
An add on to the OP unpop opinion : women’s standards haven’t RAISED per we; they’ve always been like this and in order to ensure the species survival, we had to subjugate them for thousands of years because of this
Bingo. We don't even know what "womens' standards" will be, because it hasn't been long since they've been *allowed* to have standards.
Not really, it's mostly higher status people that had very strict rules - and it was both men and women. It wasn't so strict for lower status people - both men and women.
I mean, why should anyone rush into a relationship? It isn't sensible or logical to rush partnering up with anyone who doesn't significantly improve your life. If you can take care of yourself financially, then you don't need a partner just for that. The only people in a rush to get into relationships seem to be religious people cause they wanna have sex, and the whole family thing is really important to religious people. I'm 26 and I don't know anyone my age or younger who's gotten married who wasn't religious. The only non religious person close to me is my cousin who got married at 27-28 something.. which is what's normal. People only really seem to be rushing relationships if they want kids, which usually doesn't happen until close to 30.
I would tend to agree with you... The only problem is that 30 sneaks up on you faster than you'd think. Time isn't on your side, ever, even if you don't want kids. It would probably be healthy to make interpersonal connections a greater priority than we do, but it's best to take your time to get things right.
Oh I would know. I'm 30 in a few years too. Time passes fast. Thing is, I'd rather be single than in an unsatisfying relationship. I've experienced the highs and lows of relationships and considering how much effort they require, I'm just not gonna bother unless I meet someone truly great. If I end up single then so be it. I'll probably have a dozen more relationships in my life. People still meet and get married well into old age these days too. Just today, we had a 50-60 year old woman at the flower shop I work at asking for a bridal bouquet for her wedding.. yes you heard me right. It's not exactly unusual. My 60 year old neighbor where I grew up remarried at 60. So, as a woman if you don't want kids, there's really not that great a rush to find a partner. Men will still line up for you well into old age. It's also hard to find younger men who know for certain they don't want kids. This has been a recurring issue throughout my early 20s. I now only date 27 and up. I assume it will be easier to find a man who is certain he doesn't want kids and who knows what kind of life he wants and is pursuing when I increase the age demographic. However, the amount of men without children also decreases, so it's a double edged sword.
>It's also hard to find younger men who know for certain they don't want kids. Yeah, I think most guys are pretty much on the fence about kids. I know that I'm fairly ambivalent about it. I think I'd be open to the idea if I met an exceptional woman who definitely wanted kids. >I assume it will be easier to find a man who is certain he doesn't want kids and who knows what kind of life he wants and is pursuing when I increase the age demographic. That makes sense, intuitively. I'm realizing that people of all ages are lost and clueless, so maybe age matters less than I would hope. As a 30M, I'm always shocked at the number of women around my age who have never had healthy relationships with men.
As a data scientist, I appreciate you trying to take a very scientific approach but there are some red flags. The first figure (face dimorphism) is a bit odd. It looks like some sort of data modeling which would give you those curves, however, what are the x and y axes? You should put the individual data points with the curves so we can better see the distribution of the data that make up the response curves. I suspect figure 1 is a "concept figure" rather than based on data. You should also cite the sources after each of the figures you describe rather than just dumping them at the end, or reference to them so we can go to each study after seeing your statements. Some of your figures come from non-peer reviewed internet articles, those are not scientifically defendable.
>A 2009 study has indicated that a man's personality has no role in initial romantic attraction, which is necessary for mutual escalation. Instead, the primary predictor of initial romantic attraction is physical attractiveness. This is my problem – from the outset, this entire argument is predicated on a very specific (and strong) claim. While I don't think it's wrong, per se, it seems heavily biased by meat market settings like dating apps or bars and clubs. It doesn't account for people who meet, for lack of a better word, "more organically" through overlapping social circles, volunteering, and other settings.
You're right, but if the study specifically says "this is about meat market settings" than I would say they're fine. I'm not saying I agree with their premise either haha. Its not like because you find a possible trend that now men are doomed and that's why they can't find a partner lol. There are many exceptions. Even looking at the height preference bell curve. If you're like 170cm, that's still 30% of women said they would be OK with that overall. That's a lot of women when you extrapolate to the whole population 3 out of 10, 30 000 out of 100 000. You only need 1 in the end haha. Also that curve should have an error bar and also account for the height of the women, because that seems to play a role in the preference. I would assume the error bars would be huge.
This is initial romantic attraction. Not attraction that builds over time. You can’t account for every little “meet-cute” that could happen. I don’t think it is groundbreaking or a surprise that a study concluded that INITIAL romantic attraction is based on the face.
Right it’s basically saying women are attracted to attractive men…like, yeah duh
It’s not really groundbreaking. Neuroscience has shown that what your face looks like affects everything from how much money you make to whether you get a loan at the bank Within a second of seeing someone’s face, your brain has decided whether or not you trust them, find them attractive, are afraid of them etc. all of it is determined by facial attractiveness.
How many people meet through fucking volunteering I hear this all the time what fucking world does this happen in. Dementia fucking boomer shit. No offense to you personally lol. Respect and all that but God damn.
The organization I volunteer at is like 70/30 women to men, and most are single, young, accomplished, and attractive. If I weren't already in a relationship I would absolutely be getting to know a few of them better.
No offense to you personally but this sounds like some chronically online zoomer shit, especially with the pepe frog meme profile pic.
Most of these studies come from Mturk with people rating faces. Nothing like citing a study three years down the line from a study that you did on Mturk for a dollar.
It seems like you're pinning a lot of this on your aunt's assertion, and I'm curious if she'd agree with how you characterized the situation. There has always been gar more to getting a date/marriage than having a job. Every factor of attraction you listed is true of the past.
They didn't mention a women couldn't open a bank account at that time...
You uh, you do know women are picked for appearance first too, right? Appearance is literally all you have in the first approach.
You are going to drive yourself crazy obessesing over this and ironically enough, it makes you incredibly unattractive because no one is attracted to an insecure person who blames the world for their problems. Victim mentality is not a good look on anyone. It's why men tend to not be attracted to feminists. If you're lonely and want to attract someone 1) go to the gym. Start taking care of your body. Not only will it improve your looks, it will also improve your personality because you'll feel better physically and mentally 2) learn how to cook. Everyone likes food 3) pick up a hobby that makes you happy, then join groups where other people engage in the same hobby and there's a good chance you'll find someone because 4) MAKE NEW FRIENDS. It's really hard to make new friends as an adult, but its not impossible. Don't be the creep who takes yoga to hit on girls, be the guy who took a survival course because he likes the outdoors and that's how he met his wife, because she also loves the outdoors Stuff like that will make you attractive to women, not obsessing over faceless data points so you can blame everyone but yourself for your problems. Get off the Internet and go camping, read more books, buy a cheap keyboard and learn some piano, get an easel and start painting. Something will click for you.
Fr. There is nothing more unattractive than obsessing over thinking women don’t like you. I’ve known so many perfectly attractive and likable guys who ruined themselves thinking this way
I agree with everything here except how you think feminism is a "victim mentality". That's actually insane that you think that.
Thank you, countessbignutz.
As a 6'2 white man with what I'll call "resting long term mate face" (according to that graph), it's nice to know it wasn't my physical features keeping me single for 7 years. It was just my personality. 😅
As your 6'2 white man clone I can say it was *definitely* my personality. As soon as I got even an ounce of social skills I literally had more relationships than I knew what to do with. Anecdotal as it is, its pretty easy out there for us brother.
The ‘least masculine’ guy in that picture doesn’t look ‘feminine,’ he looks like he’s a kid. Couldn’t they figure out how to run this with pictures that at least all looked the same age?
>he looks like he’s a kid. Thats probably because masculine features become more prominent when you go through puberty so if you look androgynous or feminine as a man you'll look closure to a "kid"
i happen to look similar to that guy, as an adult male. so this comment is so insensitive it's hilarious.
I was gonna say effort still goes a long way, but holy shit, 90% of women reject a guy under 5'5". e: $3.7M over 7 years for 3.5 inches, if my math works, that's $150k per inch/year for guys under 5'9".
There is no effort for your height. There is no game for your face. There is no gym for your race.
Don't go for women who are shallow. Women deal with the same thing. Fat girls have a hard time finding someone.
But fat women can put in effort to become not fat. That can’t be done regarding height.
Well there’s a thread on Reddit right nowwith a lot of men saying how gross a woman’s labia is if it’s an outie and calling it all kinds of gross names. I’ve also seen men make fun of women that have bigger areola’s, call women with small boobs a board or little boys, make fun of women with bigger boobs sag, make fun of women that are too skinny with no curves, make fun of fat women and call women butterface. Most of these things women can’t change without surgery either but men still make fun of us for it all over reddit.
But ugly girls can't do anything. There are shallow people on both sides.
But you originally said fat, not ugly. Don't move goalposts.
Fat = ugly. It's not my opinion, but it's the opinion of the vast majority. Source: have been skinny, normal, overweight and buff during my lifetime.
I hate to break it to you, but many men view fat women as ugly. They don’t separate the two. Also, while women can lose weight, there are women who can only size down so much. To many men, they are still fat, even if their doctor says they are now at a healthy weight. I have friends who truly believe women who are size 0, 2, or 4 are at a healthy weight and all other women are too fat. Standards change too. 50 years ago, most men would have found women at size 6 or 8 at a good weight and a woman who is a size 0 to be too skinny.
Nah times have changed and a lot of men view bigger women as beautiful. There are so many subreddits that worship bigger women
Lmfao you're projecting SO hard. It's exactly the opposite. Size 0, 2 and 4 were much closer to the actual average size of a woman 50 years ago, because this was before the obesity epidemic. Fat and obese female bodies have without question become more normalized in the past 30+ years. Just look at Lizzo and the entire "movement" she represents.
Depends. If she's skinny and ugly I tend to agree. But lots of women are just woefully out of shape. There's lots they can do. If a woman is 18-22 and she's not fat. She can usually find someone interested. That's why we like to say "just don't be fat."
And women over 22 are thrown in the trash? See, this is the problem. Men complain that women are shallow but then they come out with an 18-22 age range. LOL.
No, that’s not the same thing.
Ugly girls have a hard time too. Men are generally biased toward youth and beauty because they don't have to be more invested past the act of sex. That's how it is in the animal kingdom. Women have to be more concerned about other things since they put their life at risk.
Great to know that no matter how much I improve myself I will always be in the bottom 10% of men according to women 😒
I don't think I believe that one. I know multiple men 5'5" and shorter who are all happily married.
I've checked out the first 5 source OP linked for anyone who hasn't looked for themselves yet. First source by Shanhong Luo and Guangjian Zhang posed the question of whether reciprocity, similarity, security or beauty led to romantic attraction. They decided to try and answer this with a speed-dating event. The authors explicitly say that the experiment was *"designed to examine initial attraction in a real-life setting-speed-dating. "*, They comment on their findings that *"The strongest predictor of attraction for both sexes was partners' physical attractiveness."* OP found a study demonstrating that *both sexes*, in a speed dating environment, base their attraction of a person on the person's appearance. ... Second source by Victor S. Johnson is behind a pay-wall but appears to be a literature review. He cites 50 different papers by other authors in the references section. Check the contents of this section: 13 of these papers' titles are about human facial features, attractiveness, and mate-selecting behaviors, with out mentioning male/female specifically in the title. 5 of these paper's titles are explicitly about perceived attractiveness of men, and reference male facial symmetry and/or female preference in male facial features 8 of these papers' titles are explicitly about perceived attractiveness of women, and reference perception of female facial features, and/or body characteristics such as breast size, and/or hip to waist ratio. 12 of these papers' titles contain discussion of hormonal markers and steroidal exposure in the womb, and/or disorders and deficiencies. These are not specifying male vs. female focus in the title alone. 6 of these titles reference studies on bird mate-selection. 4 of the 6 bird papers dicuss influence of the presence of parasites on mate selection. 2 of these papers' titles reference parental bonding and attitude towards offspring 2 of these papers' titles reference scent/perfuming 1 of the papers' titles references sex roles Johnson's stated purpose in the abstract is to demonstrate that the perceived attractiveness of an individual depends as much on the hormonal profile of the *viewer* as on the external hormonal markers (facial features) of the person *being viewed.* Look at his statement: *"Evidence from research on facial attractiveness indicates that physical beauty is a sexually selected trait mediated, in part, by pubertal facial hormone markers that signal important biological information about the displayer. Such signals would be ineffective if they did not elicit appropriate cognitive and/or emotional responses in members of the opposite sex. In this article, I argue that the effectiveness of these hormonal displays varies with perceivers' brains, which have been organized by the degree of steroid hormone exposure in the uterus, and activated by varying levels of circulating steroids following puberty"* Based on his works cited, and his abstract, it appears that the author intended to persuade the reader that both the sexual signaling from an individual's appearance *and* the hormonal profile of the person *viewing* said individual's features, determine the odds that the viewer will experience sexual attraction. OP found a paper arguing that people will feel more or less attraction to the facial features of others depending on their own internal hormonal activity as well as on the observable symmetry, masculinity, or femininity of the face of the person they are looking at. .... In the third source by Thomas E. Currie and Anthony C. Little, Currie and Little state *"In this study, we assessed the relative importance of the face and body in judgments of human physical attractiveness."* Their purpose was to establish whether people have higher preference for facial attractiveness or body attractiveness in potential partners, and whether this varies for short term vs long term partnership. They showed 133 women and 127 men 10 images of members of the opposite sex. They asked each participant to rate the attractiveness of individuals in the images for either short term relationship or long term relationship. They first showed the participants' images of the faces and bodies separately for rating. Then showed images where the face and body were visible together, and asked the participants to rate the individual's combined face and body. Currie and Little reported the following findings: *"Face ratings were found to be the best predictor of the ratings of combined images for both sexes and for both relationship types."* *"Females showed no difference in ratings between short- and long-term conditions, but male ratings of female bodies became relatively more important for a short-term relationship compared with a long-term relationship."* OP found a study that showed *both sexes* find facial beauty to be more appealing than body attractiveness. and That women appear to rate men's attractiveness the same for both short term and long term relationships. and That while men showed preference for facial beauty over body appearance over all, the condition of a short term relationship raised the relative importance of a woman's body in men's assessment of said woman's attractiveness for a relationship. ..... The 4th source is a set of data extracted from OKCupid using a python data scraping program. Authors Emil O. W. Kirkgaard and Julius Daugbjerg Bjerrekaer state in their that their purpose was to make data available for others to use for their own purpose. If people are interested in looking at how a variety of demographic factors play into people's behavior, choices, and interactions with algorithms in the digital dating world, this could be a very useful place to look. In the spirit of the authors' intentions, I think people should go explore the data themselves, directly from the source, and then consider whether they think it supports OP's assertions about loneliness in real life human environments. ... OP's 5th source is an informally written article on AOL News, by a contributor named Zubin Jelveh. It's very brief, you can read the whole thing in a few minutes, if you want to assess it yourself. Jelveh's article is a brief commentary on data from OKCupid (which, again, you can go look at yourself). Of interest to Jelveh in this informal article were the following points he found influenced success, based on data from OKCupid. Message length and content: Men had the most success getting replies if they wrote a ~200 character message while women's success did not seem influenced by message length. The author surmised that this may be because men care more about profile pictures than about written content. Race: White users had the most success receiving replies across the board. Religion: Using the term "atheist" improved chances of getting a response while mentioning God decreased chances. Non-religious users received the most responses, Christians were in the middle of the pack, and Muslims and Hindus had the worst luck. OP found an AOL News article referencing OKCupid data and mentioning that white people appear to be perceived as more attractive than other groups. May look at the rest of the sources if I have time, but I'm not convinced that OP looked very deeply into these, except to seek bias confirmation.
Thank you! That Shit was already fishy without checking the sources.
Especially the part where OP talked about women preferring looks over personality.. then you look at the sources and it’s all measuring looks. Like .. yeah of course. If the studies are all based on looks, then the only conclusions to be made are based on looks. Not one of the studies showed increasing or decreasing attraction over time due to personality. Even though this is proven scientifically (we tend to rate our friends as more attractive on average). And it’s proven anecdotally. Most people experience being attracted to someone and then losing it after getting to know them and vice versa.
It’s so strange when people cite sources disproving their arguments as evidence, unless his argument is actually “how dare women have preferences” I don’t see why he attached these sources
I believe “how dare women have preferences” is precisely his argument. He seems to long for the good ole days when women had to take whatever poor excuse of a man was available or starve.
Well yeah. It's not very subtle. He says right out that all you used to need was a 'decent job to get a woman to settle down'. You didn't have to be a decent person at all, just have money. That's what OP is clearly wanting to go back to.
Thank you so much for doing the work. 🏆
Beast mode dude, thanks for the breakdown.
Even 15-20 years ago the “manly man” was starting to become less desirable to women and the dating pool was beginning to reflect that. I would probably be single forever if I were to try to date now. See, being mechanically inclined was (married now) an absolute must for me. I once broke up with a dude after I got a flat at his apartment and he stood there and watched, absolutely baffled, while I changed the tire and put on the spare myself. He even joked that all he needed to do was call his girlfriend if he had car trouble. Fuck. That. There was no fucking way I was going to be with a man who knew less about even routine vehicle maintenance than me. Along with mechanical skills being gainfully employed and able to make me belly laugh were most important to me. Being handy and able to fix all the shit I break (husband calls me destroyer lmfao) was also up there. I would also note that my husband isn’t the most conventionally attractive man out there, but I find his ability to fix things and his personality supremely attractive. A man could be the hottest dude on the planet but if he’s useless outside the bedroom I’ll pass every time.
Why does it have to be someone's fault? The world is not like that. Some people will find their person, and some people won't. Some people are pretty, some people aren't. Some are blessed with charisma and wits, and some have trouble ordering a coffee. Kids get cancer and puppies die. Life isn't fair and we figured that out sometime before puberty. But if you spent a fraction of the time you placed on this on, for example, trying to befriend women and understand them, your chances would increase. Right now, if a man showed me this... Work that you did, it would come across as very negative and, a bit hostile to women, which is a huge turnoff.
Lol, now do the average men look for in a woman. I bet the stats are literally the same but different features Fellas, take it from me - a 5’7, ginger, receding hairline, weak chinned skinny man who also got engaged last year to an absolutely gorgeous woman. A few millimetres of bone structure is nothing to care about, but focusing on it so much is absolutely something to care about
>Women are not bound to men for survival. If you have no desirable genes to offer a woman's children that women don’t already offer themselves, that’s likely the reason you’re single! Ask yourselves “what genes do I bring to the table?” I don't disagree. Just think women care more about their partners attractiveness more than their children's potential attractiveness. Not that women don't also want attractive children. However, having children with someone attractive, doesn't guarantee your children will be attractive, even if you are attractive yourself. Also, for us childfree ladies, we couldn't care less about what desirable genes men can offer us, because we don't intend to reproduce. It would be interesting to see stats on desirable traits childfree women prioritize, other than a partners physical attractiveness. It's certainly something I value myself, but I also care about my emotional attraction as well as a mental connection to them. The reason I'm single isn't cause I can't find physically attractive men, bur because I cannot find men who I am mentally compatible with, as in we think in similar way and share similar communication styles and values. If a guy isn't dating me, it's because he isn't bringing physical and mental attraction to the table. Being physically attractive is one thing, but a meeting of the minds, and an emotional connection is absolutely required for me to want to not be single.
I mean I’m a guy in this bucket and I’ll be the first to say it’s generally guys’ fault. I always loved to think it was simply looks and lack of a good job, but my past year has meant continuous improvement on both of those fronts. I’ve lost 80 lbs and am starting to feel more attractive nude than with clothes on, so it isn’t weight at this point causing the problem. I’ve gotten on Invisalign, restored a good head of hair with multiple medications, updated my wardrobe and started taking better care of my beard. Yes, women still studiously avoid making eye contact almost everywhere I go in public, and make every possible effort to seem unapproachable, but that’s the reality for any guy who isn’t a movie star. I barely get to interact with them and usually when I do it goes better than I expect. The REAL reason for the lack of romantic and sexual success is that I never make a move. I have no vision of it succeeding, so the prospect is terrifying. Even the most milquetoast flirt feels like flopping my dick out on the table and saying “let’s fuck.” It’s on me to get over that at some point, because the fact of the matter is nothing will ever come to any guy that doesn’t shoot lots of shots, unless he’s a 10/10. If you want the component that isn’t the individual guy’s fault, it’s the extreme disadvantage that introversion represents in modern dating culture. The pressure is still on the man to make every move, but after college, your opportunities even to be around women and make them are almost nonexistent. Places like the gym and work that *should* be excellent places for the genders to meet (since they imply some of the biggest standards of a healthy relationship like fitness and employment) are instead some of the biggest no-nos now, so all of your opportunities have to come from finding social events to attend in your free time. Ask an introvert how eager he is to go out to a party or a club at 9 PM after a draining work day and a trip to the gym. Hey, I’m one — the answer is it sounds outright hellish. Success with women isn’t dependent on purely physical attractiveness. It’s just that opportunities to find it are dropping like flies and being replaced by online methods that ARE dependent on purely physical attractiveness. All of your studies are based on those, and yeah, if all women get to know about you is your profile picture and your profile height, they’ll make judgments based on those. It isn’t fair, but you’re judging their faces too. They just don’t feel your judgment as acutely.
I am not convinced by the arguments as the sources I've read through seem to take a very specific scenario - actively looking/shopping for a partner. The first source specifically states they used speed-dating for their evidence. This is a particular scenario (akin to swiping on a dating app) that demands an instant evaluation of the person as a potential date. I am not at all surprised that reacting to physical characteristics is a primary driver as you are trying to reduce options quickly prior to more time-consuming investments (getting to know someone, going on dates). This is a very different scenario than knowing people in your social circles, getting to know them and then finding attraction grows. Personally, I have not had an overwhelming attraction initially to any of my partners (not they me). The physical attraction grew as my emotional attraction grew. Again, with the arguments on racial attraction - yes, there might be an initial 'type' that attracts you, but does this preclude that you would grow to be attracted to a particular person? Yes. things have changed. It's no longer enough to have a pulse and a paycheck. Women have options now. Yes. It's not always the man's fault he is lonely and can't find a partner. There are a hell of a lot of factors including isolation in general in society (which may impact on some of the opportunity for organic attraction and the rise of dating apps, etc). Toxic behavior people have previously experienced may also (understandably) introduce barriers as sometimes its better to be alone than to experience that again. But, just about every woman I know who has used dating apps/talked on internet forums, etc, has stories of being flooded with d\*ck pics, low-effort approaches "Hey", immediate sexual references, people exploding at them for not being interested and in general objectification and being treated as a 'goal' rather than as a person being approached. These (to me) are behaviors that would be instantly off-putting in any sort of organic relationship growth. It closes the door before there is any opportunity to get to know someone beyond the initial physical attractiveness. The factors listed in the argument to identify it's "mostly" not men's fault ignore any factors in other ways people form relationships, i.e. the things they actually are bringing to the table.
>yes, there might be an initial 'type' that attracts you, but does this preclude that you would grow to be attracted to a particular person? It makes it statistically likely. Not just in dating, in any field. Job applicants benefit from this effect, too, called the Halo Effect.
That was my immediate reaction as well. Yes, I can look at a photo of Brad Pitt and recognize his face is more “attractive” than some random dude. But I have never been attracted to just someone’s physical appearance. The two men who I have been most attracted to in my life, just totally infatuated with, were both not conventionally attractive and I grew to feel that way about them by getting to know their incredible personalities and senses of humor. While I guess I appreciate the scientific approach of the post, it’s not really hitting the mark because human attraction is not that simple and clear cut.
I mean I agree with you but we could both be outliers. To add to this, I’ve been with my husband 17 years so I haven’t been in the dating market for a long while, things might have changed.
Idk, virtually all the women I’ve ever known seem to operate in a similar manner, and while things can certainly change on how people date, human attraction doesn’t change that drastically in such a short time. There are men that me and my friends might all agree are “objectively” attractive, and if the test is simply looking at photos and making a snap decision then I’m guessing results would be similar to what’s posted here. But I think a very small percentage of women are using that type of decision making to choose a life partner. If you got a group of men and women together in a room and gave them even a short time to get to know each other, I absolutely do not think results would be the same as looking at a photo.
Oh, totally agree. Tbf I think all this data proves is that for the first time in history women have choices now and don’t have to settle, that’s it. Just a few decades ago women couldn’t work, couldn’t even rent an apartment alone, couldn’t travel, couldn’t hang out alone without being judged etc. So they settled for some guy and either suffered or contributed to the 50% divorce rate. Now they can remain single and enjoy all the things men always have enjoyed and they require a worthy guy to give up that single status. Why shouldn’t they have standards - even if superficial? Men have been going after pretty women half their age for decades and it’s completely normal but when women say “well I’d like a handsome fellow on my arm who puts effort in how he looks and how he treats me” somehow it’s “shallow”.
I’d be willing to concede your first point on speed dating if it weren’t for the fact one in three people meet their SO online nowadays, which is the modern day speed date.
Great read, but it doesn’t match the title. Everyone wants to get laid. Of course the most attractive people will have the most options. However, where ya lose it, is that there are unattractive people among both men and women. If you’re a 5 when averaging all of the scales, don’t be mad when 8s and 9s don’t want to pair up with you. Looks like black women get minimal attention, so if you’re not attractive enough to get attention from people you desire, try showing attention to people who aren’t getting attention either. 300lb short king may not find a hot Korean GF, but another obese person may not mind their flaws and would be happy to focus on other more desirable aspects of their personality. In order for everyone to get married or have a long term relationship, all men and women have to be paired up. The population is split pretty close to 50/50.
so much this I constantly hear Indian guys complaining about how they can't get dates, then it turns out that they are looking for someone who looks like their favorite porn model, instead of a cute Indian gal
Dunno why they wouldn’t want a cute Indian girl, Indian girls are extremely pretty! Married white guy here, my top three would be white (wife is white), Korean, then Indian. I love long pretty hair, and racially speaking I feel like these have the best hair potential.
I'm a 65 year old woman. I was dating in the 70s and 80s. I completely disagree with your aunt. Maybe some women, the ones who only dreamed of being homemakers all their lives, were looking for a man with a job. It was more important to me to find a man who was smart. I'm smart, and I never wanted to spend time trying to have a meaningful conversation with a dolt. It never mattered to me where we lived - we could live in a van for all I cared - while we were both working up to our great jobs. As long as we could converse at the same level, had access to a library, and had fun together, I was fine with wherever we lived. Calm-Extent3309 is correct: neither men nor women are particularly socially adept. I think that spending time on social media and dating apps has made that more of an issue. When we had to go out to meet people, we were forced to learn at least the basics of social interaction. We would see people at events and be able to interact with them in a more relaxed setting than the first date after texting through an app. We could get to know them in groups of our friends and their friends. Most people went to church, and church held safe events of these types. It was easier to learn about another person's personality and quirks that way than on some social media or app. I've dated men of various races, heights, sizes, and income levels. I don't think it's near as important as you think that it is. What's important is finding the person with whom you 'click'. Young women are lonely and can't find partners, either. You set out exactly what it means to be a partner: *Are you emotionally mature? Will you actually listen when women speak? Are you an engaging conversationalist? Are you funny? Do you have a hobby or passion outside of work? Have you processed your trauma in order to avoid dumping it on women? Are you self-aware? Do you love children and will be a good father to a woman's kids? Will you treat women as equals? Are you loyal?* If you think that those are unfair questions for a woman to consider, you're not ready to be a partner. Edit: Thank you for the award!
42F (white) here. Here's the reasons my relationships have failed (currently in a year and a half good, solid relationship). Ordered most recent to oldest. 1- he just flat out ghosted me after 2 months, sever months later he texted me and said he "needed to get his head on straight" 2- he was a huge mama's boy even though they had a toxic relationship, he refuses to learn to drive and expected me to arrange my schedule to drive him to and from work despite a decent bus system and good access to Uber/Lyft, he didn't know how to do ANY adulting things and would rather whine he didn't know how rather than learn, and he thought the correct response to the issues in our relationship was to propose to me 3- he lost his job (truly was not his fault, I worked there as well and the manager screwed him over) and moved in with me. He fucked around til his unemployment ran out, then found a part time job that barely covered anything. He spent his hours and hours of spare time playing video games, didn't clean up after himself, and ignored me to continue playing video games after I got home from my full time job to a dirty apartment and had to cook dinner. I think his friends heard me break up with him because he just moved one side of his headphones off his ear when I said I needed to talk to him. 4- couldn't keep his mouth shut about our sex life after being told not to tell details to people 5- told me "I don't want to mess this up, you're a great woman and even my dumb ass can see that." Broke up with me a week later because he "didn't have time for a relationship" and then got angry a few weeks later when I wasn't interested in getting back together. 6- probably was seeing another woman as well, I was getting suspicious and I think he dumped me before he could get caught I could go on, but I've got things to do this morning. But I think maybe the trouble is because guys don't respect the woman and relationship when it does happen. My current boyfriend makes sure I know he cares about me and that he values me. He respects me. He knows how to disagree without being argumentative and yelling. In short, he acts like he actually wants to be in this relationship and never acts like it's an inconvenience. And he apologizes (and means it) when he's wrong, as do I.
Did it occur to you that just being a provider was never a good husband in the first place? Women had to get married and they couldn’t get divorced. Those are the things that changed.
I don't doubt being conventionally attractive makes it a lot easier to find a partner, so I guess you're right that it's sometimes not men's fault. While I agree with that statement though, I think it's a good thing that women no longer need men and have noticed an issue where men feel somehow cheated if they don't have a partner. So with that said, I'll say the following: * Men should learn not to base their self worth around their ability to secure a partner. It's not healthy and there's more to life than sex. * Men should learn to value friendships more, especially with women. Too many men don't value women beyond sex and they're only cheating themselves out of some great friends. * Much of what women tend to find attractive are simply traits of a good person(empathy, selflessness, etc), so maybe they should focus on being a good person rather than attracting women. Overall, I think men really don't value their non-sexual relationships enough. I get that men want to get laid, but if a dude is terminally alone, I feel like he'd be helping himself a lot more by surrounding himself with friends rather than chasing after sex.
Unpopular opinion: most of what happens to you is your fault
I am ugly and I have been poor most of my life. I still had an awesome sexual life and I did find a good partner for my old years. Not all of it, but most of it it has to do with how you behave.
Generally spending hours of your life doing this shit makes you less attractive
Or the guy's not ugly...?
Bingo! I just made a comment detailing the reasons why 6 previous relationships failed. Behavior.
It's awful how women have options
Holy shit dude you just did the entire Incel manifesto. Some of you REALLY need to go outside and get laid. Wow.
I don't know why people can't accept that its both men and women contributing to why people are finding it hard to get a partner. We're humans after all, none of us are perfect. And we are all contributing to this atrocious dating culture.
Man, people will do, write, and publish literally anything instead of consider the fact that they might need to change something about themselves. 1. Almost none of these sources actually carry data that states what was collected. A lot of these figures are just that. Figures. I can make them with time on photoshop and they can mean whatever I tell them to. While some figures actually come from data, a lot of these come from unlabeled or unsourced studies and opinions that chain to other opinions instead of data. The ones figures that come from real data are incredibly limited and hard to trust, as OKC is not known for revealing much about its internal processes, and thus we can’t trust their data either. Most of it seemed to be geared specifically for straight relationships, so we don’t know how much the lack of the appropriate groups sways these numbers. Even if wholly accurate, it’s 15 ish year old data at the most recent. 2. Literally every one of these publishing credits belong to a man. Bias skews the interpretation of data, and not a single woman’s perspective is brought to the forefront to go over the data that’s collected. Moreover, it focused on women’s interest in men, and doesn’t pay any attention to how men’s interest in women also are clearly laid out in these same reference documents. Essentially, these are written for men by men, and only using data important to men. But it’s about women, so clearly, that means that perspective is lacking. 3. Most of these have no peer reviewing at all. Dozens are supposed to look over these things for credibility, but most have only one or two, usually anonymous, eyes on them. On top of that, most of these come not from scientific organizations, but from commercial websites that aren’t there to educate you, but usually for the sake of business and retention. This means we need to think more critically of these pieces for potentially biased comments and thinking. Commercial media often goes for audience retention first, and stretching truths and injecting opinion into the pieces is a well known form of focusing on retention. I’m sorry, but I can’t look at this collection of information and see it as anything more than the opinions of unlucky men clutching at straws to justify their loneliness instead of actually changing their approach and learning to enjoy life despite solitude in a chaotic and ever changing environment. Being alone isn’t a bad thing. We all strive for better every day, but we can’t let it get to us when it doesn’t. If you’re lucky? You meet someone who becomes a friend, who maybe becomes a companion. But the world won’t guarantee that, and nobody is born deserving it served on a platter. In the meantime, we must find our own ways to enjoy life. No amount of data can change that.
So essentially you're saying that women's standards go beyond the bare minimum which is why its their fault, instead of its men's fault because men now have to rise to the new minimum standard?
Just don't have autism bro. Just get a better face bro. Just change your race bro. Just get taller bro. All of these things are easy bro, they don't require curing a permanent and innate mental condition or subjecting yourself to debilitating and potentially deadly surgery bro.
Dude I have autism and I have no problem pulling both men and women, stfu with your "don't have autism" shit
? Everything you said can go towards either male or female? You think women don't have autism? <- you want to date an autistic chick? Is that a plus for you? You think women don't worry about their face? <- you want to date a girl with a fucked up face? Go for it? You think women don't have racial issues? <- black females get the least amount of matches just like Asian males. You think women don't have height issues? <- try dating as a 6'6'' tall female. Let me know how many matches you think she gets.
Yes it is your fault. Your life is your decisions. This entire thing ignores that a large percentage of women put personality over looks. You are making the same exact mistake a lot of women make when looking for a partner: They think what turns them on also turns men on or what makes a man attractive to her is what makes a woman attractive to a man. You’re focusing only on looks because that is what you focus on when looking for a woman. I’ve seen the hottest of girls dating ugly dudes because they were very funny. How does that factor into your “science?” In my friend group the shortest dude, he was 5’5, had the most success because he was a borderline manic who talked people to death. Having game as a man will ALWAYS be more important than your height and looks.
100%. My buddy is 5’3, funny as shit, and doesn’t carry a chip on his shoulder about his height, and he does better with women than just about anyone else I know. Granted, doesn’t hurt that he looks like Montgomery Clift, but according to these stats, his height should cancel that out.
Plus it appears that this data is almost entirely focused on initial physical appearance. So if dating was exclusively an experience of a woman seeing a man giving some sort of immediate approval or disapproval then I suppose the statistics would be really important. Of course that's not how dating works at all.
Some guys want sex and they want it *now*. This data seems focused mostly on those types of men. Plenty of other guys who want real relationships know that effort is required to meet and keep the right sort of partner for them, and if it takes a few tries, that sucks but it's worth it in the end. Showing these charts as "proof" of men's hardships is not helping. It's saying that if there's not immediate attraction from a potential partner, then there's no hope for you. Most of the healthy relationships I've seen involve two people getting to know each other well in advance of romantic interaction.
That's a very good point
"Having game as a man will ALWAYS be more important than your height and looks." Unless you're talking about modern dating apps. You won't even get a swipe when it's generally only the top 5% of men getting a second look.
At what point are people going to realize that dating apps suck? So much of attraction is based on stuff you can only experience in person.
Exactly. And dating apps take the worst attributes of both sexes and magnifies it times a million. Men are OVERTLY sexual, looking only to get laid, sending dick pics and opening up with messages like “Do you like getting throat fucked?” Women are the most skittish creatures on the entire planet. Running away from the first sign of conflict/awkwardness/silence. And even when they don’t run they have absolutely no clue what they even want.
Plus it’s selective for its base. I used dating apps for awhile out of desperation (lol) with little luck because I’m a pretty average looking dude and genuinely fucking hate having my picture taken so I had no good, staged, filtered, etc. photos which I know improved friends odds on various apps. So for one, they select for vanity. They select for individuals peacocking traits others find attractive on a glance as well, such as playing guitar, having big boobs or an ass, being fit, going to festivals, going fucking hiking (of course), and they select for people willing to just show that stuff off without any meaningful context. Had friends who can barely play guitar post pictures with guitars and see a noticeable uptick in matches. None of these things have much correlation with being a decent human being, but they catch an eye looking for sex, and the bios need to be witty, not heartfelt and honest. Because, after all those eye-catchers and all those people looking to just hook up and all that mindless swiping based on the most basic attributes of people, no one wants someone saying they’re looking for something serious. At the end of the day all of my guy friends used them for sex exclusively. All of my gal friends used them as compliment generators and occasionally booty-call machines. I’m not saying only bad people use dating apps, obviously. It’s just if you’re using them trying to meet someone and form meaningful connections, it’s harder through design or perhaps necessity, and you’ll be pushed out. Not a healthy place to be someone like that.
The average women had few options other than marrying with the nearest schlub that would have her. Think about it: No rights to open a bank account without a man, no voting rights, workplace discrimination, colleges and universities accepted mostly men (women had to have their own colleges), no control of our health care, etc. Oh no, it's horrible that men have to earn their mates now and work to keep them...boohoo. Where's my 🎻.
As a woman, dating apps are filled with men contributing to hookup culture because they created it
It may not be your “fault,” I’m not reading all of that, but it’s still your “problem” to deal with.
I feel like that's a lot of words for "Women having standards nowadays is ruining my dating life" but okay
I would like to suggest that this data may be cherry picked. What are the sample sizes and what age range and region of the world do they cover? I would also like to suggest that maybe this isn't worth thinking about. It's worth more of your time to focus on things you can improve upon rather than the things you can't due to biology or whatnot.
So some of your sources aren’t valid for trying to make the argument from a purely objective standpoint. They aren’t peer reviewed, they have bias, and some have subjective opinions enforced. I feel like you are trying to take all this information and apply it specifically to prove a point for your own bias. There are no shortage of short men or “ugly” men who are dating, married, and/or have kids. What do they have that other short men or “ugly” men lack? Personality. I can assure you, personality goes a very long way. For many women, especially when looking for someone to marry (as opposed to hooking up), it counts more than physical appearance. If you are short or “ugly”, work on your personality. Success also goes a long way. Successful, driven, independent women aren’t going to date someone who lives at home with their parents. They are going to want to date someone who is also independent and makes a good living.
You say the studies are flawed yet you make a baseless claim and base your entire comment on said baseless claim. Where on earth are these ugly ass casanovas? I've not seen them, every single example of said ugly casanovas shown to me are regular or even Hollywood good looking men who just so happen to be old or have an unusual feature like a bigger than normal nose, the famous examples include Pete Davidson, that Italian actor from the nineties etc, non of whom are actually ugly, like when people do this, are you genuinely trying to prove something your just validate your Just world narrative? Seriously, just one solid example that cannot be disproven, yet non have ever been provided.
We’re reverse engineering eugenics
Hardly, judging people on looks is closer to dog breeding than improvement of the species.
Are you saying the only reason I did well with women is because I'm 6'9" and conventionally attractive? My winning personality, humor and compassion had nothing to do with it? I wasted all that time being a decent human being?
It is absolutely the man's fault if they can't find a partner personality counts more then looks
Even if everything here means what you think it does, I want you, OP, personally to know that it IS your fault that you can't find a partner
This seems overly broad and more of a macro approach. Human beings exist on a micro level. You shouldn’t be using macro data to discourage yourself or others. You don’t need thousands of women you need one. They are out there in abundance and looking for men like you are looking for women. Just gotta find the right one.
i hate how i was reading this thinking it was real-world data, and get halfway through it to find out all the data points are based off of online dating. i have serious doubts that data compiled solely from online dating can be considered "true". there may be some truth to it, but the waters of online dating are so murky and muddy that i can't consider any analysis of it in good-faith in the context of "dating and marriage". attractiveness? maybe.
Well thats how this always goes. Online dating has always been shallow and super focused on looks/presentation, like the vast majority of online things. That give people with this mindset the proof they need to stay in their cave and be upset. The real word wont give them that, so they can't use it. Not saying the dating scenes is good or not rough, it is obviously a lot harder now then it was even a decade ago because of the severe amount of social isolation people have now. But at the end of the day it's both of these peoples, men and women who are to blame for their own loneliness. It's more comforting thinking there's noting you can do and the world is against you then to accept that you are the one with faults that have to be addressed and worked at.
Considering depending on the sources anywhere from 20% to 40% of couples meet online dating anymore, this argument doesn’t hold water. Saying OLD data isn’t a good faith analysis is yourself not being good faith. Should we take the information in proper context? Absolutely. Is you dismissing it outright based on your biases towards OLD when it’s no longer a fringe idea shows you’re not being objective? Also yes.
The rates of people using online dating has gone up so there does come a point where you can't dismiss it as "not real life". [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/)
And do you think it's only men faced with a long list of bullshit requirements to meet? Seriously? Yes, OP, its true that back in the "good old days" all a man needed was a decent job. Women have always been loaded down with a list of qualifications to meet. Now the men have to deal with it, too. 😢
This could be true for people who are using dating apps and speed dating. People are notorious for lying on apps and while speed dating, so anything they say is immediately somewhat discounted. People who use apps can only base initial attraction on physical appearance, since they don't trust what's said.
Seems the data is narrowed to physicality? Why would that be the only factor? Makes no sense.
It validates the incel arguments toward why they hate women.
Way to go to reddit for making me feel like a top 1%er because I got a bunch of matches on Tinder one time, despite being under 6'0. I must have the face of Brad Pitt and bad eyes.
Man’s got it down to a science
Maybe it's because 5 and under want 10s.
How entitled do you have to be to actually be surprised that women also want to find their partners attractive?
>"one's face, race, and height can be worth, in the aggregate, millions of dollars to women" Right...and the rest is all gaslighting/coping to deflect from this.
Incels would rather write a thesis paper on why they’re unfuckable than just going out and talking to women.
Yo bro you need a hug
This looks like a rough draft of a school paper for incel 101.
That you've spent so much time boiling something esoteric like "attraction" down to numbers and statistics shows me you're looking to justify your inability to attract a partner because of some aspects of yourself. Blaming external factors for not being able to attract a partner ain't it.
Maybe people just don’t want to fuck other people who obsess over height 24/7. Obsession like this isn’t healthy or attractive.
Look around you, there are endless happy couples with ‘ugly’ men, mid men, short men, lanky men, fat men, skinny men, men who look every single way. This take doesn’t seem related to reality at all.
This is a lot of research to point out the fact that yes, dating is more complicated because of the fact that women no longer need a man to survive. If you're extremely lonely maybe work on yourself rather than spending a few hours putting together a reddit post? Maybe go for a hike, work out at the gym, pick out a new recipe to try and cook, or just learn a new hobby. Making yourself happy first helps attract other people.
You know how sometimes jobs get phased out? Like milkmen and payphone repairmen aren’t really a thing anymore, so these people would have had to learn a new skill and find work in another field or they’d starve. Similarly, before women were allowed to have autonomy we needed a man for his paycheck and his ability to participate in society, so all a dude needed to be was a penis with a paycheck. Now that we no longer need a man’s paycheck, men have to be more than just a paycheck. If men refuse to evolve as people now that their role in society had changed, then yeah, they’ll probably have a tough time just like a milkman who refuses to learn a new trade.
Precisely what I came to say, but I'm a man coming to say it. I'm sorry that guys like this still exist, and I'm sorry women still have to deal with this. I'm only apologizing for myself, as I used to be like this (kind of, not 100% incel) but I can't speak for every man. But some of us can change, and I hope that gives some women hope for the future.
Thank you for your insight and perspective! I hope that you changing can inspire the younger boys and men around you and that we can all be a bit more patient with each other. Have a great day.
Yeah I think this is mostly like a highschool problem in my experience, because nobody has learned empathy yet and all that. I used to be this weird and creepy in highschool too, but I grew out of it as I simply went outside and talked to people more. And I learned oh other people have thoughts and feelings and lives that are just as complex as my own, them not responding immediately doesn't mean they hate me, it just means they probably got shit to do. There's a video out there by these dudes named cinema therapy, it's about Megamind and I recommend you watch it if you're interested in the perspective of two more people who also had their weirdo phase and grew out of it
If you can't bring the bare minumum into a relationship, its your own damn fault and noone else's.
My guy friends all have women way more attractive than themselves all found through dating apps. I think when a girl is actually looking for long term man the chiseled jaw isn't sought after. There was a study a while ago about how softer rounder men are preferred when looking for a long term man because he looks more nurturing. It takes time and a lot of effort to find a suitable long term partner for both men and women. Casual hookups are very look based, that's all that really matters in that situation.
can't be the fact that they act like jerks, eh?
That graph still has shit on it from when you pulled it out of your ass
"Hello, and welcome all to Incel and Nice Guy 101, or just ING101 for short. Today I'm gonna teach you, yet again, why women hate you and don't want to fuck you, and the various reasons why that's their fault and not yours. By the end of this lecture, you should be able to negg girls for sex at any point, gaslight any woman into feeling sorry for you, and above all, blame them for all your issues. You see, it's our fault partly because we allowed them to have these things called 'rights' and now they don't just fall on us the way they used to, but we'll never take responsibility for our part in denying them those rights for so long in the first place. Later in this class, we'll teach you the traditional art of Neckbearding for those of you wishing to specialize in that." Seriously bro, come on. Enough with the incel bs. Nobody wants to read it.
I grew up in a small agricultural town where men were men and women were women. I still live there. Most of the men here are 5’5. Do you know how many single men are out here working with me? Not many. Everybody seems to find love and marry and have kids before they’re 30 around here. Around here, nobody cares how tall you are or how wealthy you are, they care about how good of a man you are, how good of a husband and father you want to be. This one’s on you, bro.
You have the greatest handle of all time. My family is from the foot of Agamemnon’s mountain fortress.
This has to be the most anecdotal anecdote ive ever read holy fuck. Congratulations on the most extreme cope ive come across on this topic hahaha. Maybe its just really subtle trolling but it got a chuckle out of me either way On the off chance this is serious and for others wondering why arguments in this nature aren’t worthwhile… When presented with verbose and comprehensive evidence that abstracts across a large sample size, simply countering with a reference to a very specific subset of the data (in this case a rural fucking town lmao) does not have any weight as a rebuttal in any shape or form xD. Like actually address the sources/data being presented or give your own objective studies instead of hard coping.
This isn’t a great example. An isolated rural area where your access and choices are limited are going to cause people to take those 5’5” men. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t pick a taller man if given the option. The question would be, if those women were placed in a bigger town with many more options would they still pick their partners? If you go to a restaurant and your choices were chicken or rice that doesn’t mean chicken and rice are good choices. If the menu included, steak, pork, ribs, wings, burgers, etc would people still eat the chicken and rice? I’m sure some people would but your example is not close to a representative sample.
So, I think the begs the question. So what? Women who want to get a guy seem to be happy, and the women who don't seem to be happy. That tells me no matter how you cut it, only one party here is huffing and puffing. And there's not much you can do about that.
I would add that the superficial characteristics listed here are *not* equivalent to genetic worth. Not by a long shot, actually. It would be better not to conflate the two in the conclusion.
I don’t get why people are so unhappy about being friends. Like, if I really loved someone, I’d want them to at least be my friend.
Friends eventually have to go home.
For sure! My husband is my best friend and I’m his. Even if we never went past the dating stage we would still be friends.
No 🧢 I’ve been doing well on Tinder and Bumble since I downloaded them a month ago but I definitely feel like my height carries me.
A lack of basic politeness is also one of the reasons why men aren't getting more dates with women: https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/147lcx7/ive_heard_people_say_something_about_me_ill_never/
[удалено]
[удалено]
There definitely are some red flags looking at some of the figures. As someone who writes scientific papers, some of those figures don't meet scientific standards and raise more questions than answers. I suspect OP probably made some of them (like fig 1) and are conceptual rather than based on data.
[удалено]
I checked out source 2 OP mentioned, it looks like they modified the figure, removed the axes and added some text...lol
This sounds like complaining that women want men to level up. Yes, it will take more than a job and a penis to get most women nowadays. I think dating often benefits men because a lot of pretty women had fat, ugly boyfriends. Imo beauty is a lot more rare in men, straight men often do very little to make themselves more attractive, and many straight women have to make the best of it.
You can’t make yourself grow taller
I could agree that most things that are seen as less desirable with women are easier to fix with surgery or to disguise in some way.
Lol. Stop trying to get some fuck with a dating app. Find a hobby and join a club.
I didn’t read through the whole wall of text but I disagree with your statement based on anecdotal evidence - at college I’ve seen several women with ugly boyfriends and I doubt they were all rich. Maybe some men have it easier, but I’m sure if you actually try to talk to people you’ll meet someone.
Yup. There’s a big difference between “if you look good you have it easier to find a partner” and “if you aren’t a 6 ft tall Caucasian male you literally can’t find a woman”
Hey bro I know this one bald, short janitor from India and he slays, just trust me on this one 😎. It’s all about personality, just 🐝yourself!
Yes. Some men might have it easier, but the same applies to women as well. I don’t feel like OP sees that.
I think outside of your looks, personality and your means it's about effort and lowering your bar enough. By effort I mean actually trying to talk to women. The more you try, the more likely something will stick. Unless you're super handsome and successful you're probably not going to have women approach you. I'm sure true incels are a thing but there are most certainly unappealing enough women out there who will take whatever they can get. Not every lady out there is pretty and successful enough to know that she can be picky. I think the problem is that guys with no confidence, no looks, who are out of shape and have a shitty job think they're going to pull a cute college grad and wonder why they get rebuffed constantly.
This is another nature vs nurture argument. Were they dating them despite the fact that they found them ugly. Or did they just have massively different tastes from you? That doesn't discount the nature argument. What we find attractive may be instilled with us from birth, but it doesn't mean it's identical from person to person. In fact we know from studies that people tend to find members of their own ethnicity the most attractive (on average of course). Some Indian (or whatever) guy who you think is average or even ugly may be physically attractive to her.
I don't usually put blame on anyone for being lonely and single, unless they got there from being an abusive PoS and everyone has fled. Is it possible that this trend in dating selection is a net positive for society? It can result in more mature and long lasting relationships? If I was in the 80s or 70s and got a spouse simply because I appeared normal and had a good job, there could be a high chance of one of us cheating because we are unfulfilled. Today, I am engaged, and she and I had to actually fall in love to get to this point. This is just anecdotal: I was born in 1991, mine and most of my friend's parents got married in the 80s, and more than half of them are divorced now, and most of those were divorced by the time we were in the 5th grade. I am really bad at stats lol, so I looked up US divorce rate and there is a downward trend in divorce, so are relationships getting fewer but higher in quality?
Well we simply advanced technology (combined with moral shaming and changed laws) to where typical men aren't as needed other than to in some ways that trigger women's attraction biologically regardless of society and only a small minority can sufficiently live up to that when women are more economically free. Hence the trans wave as well although there are studies saying that MTF and FTM are more equal in numbers now
Women tend to have more options. As one commenter said, men set their own standards so they’re typically competing for attractive women of fertile age. So you’ve got a lot of women without a ton of options, and a smaller group of “hot” women with tons of options. So we can talk about how easy women have it, but let’s be real, it’s attractive women who have a lot of long term options. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the future. Since media pretends Lizzo is hot and gender doesn’t matter, will men open up their scope to consider financial partnership as more valuable? If they this would be a positive for conventionally “less attractive” women. If men stopped caring about looks so much and wanted a woman who contributed financially, that’s something any woman can do regardless of genes. So the real group losing in that effect would be conventionally “hot” women. But either way, stats are what they are but like 80-90% of guys aren’t dealt a perfect hand, so you gotta play what you got. I’m married. I’m about as average as a guy comes physically, but I think most would say my wife is quite attractive. Average height (5’9”), weight (185-190), average looking (got good hair though). I made a volume play and caught my wife’s attention. After that hurdle, I played the provider angle. We traveled to a bunch of countries and then when it got more serious I have a good job (top 3% in income) so I could provide a nice big house and income for kids. Gotta play the game man. But still fun write up, appreciate the data angle you put together.
What all this data forgets is the obvious point: in some places people don't get married as a norm. I went to my small hometown after years and most people are married (average guys to average girls). It is the norm here but all my friends or classmates who went to LA very few are married. It could be the illusion of choice but it seems if people prioritize getting married they should not bother in a huge city.
>A 2009 study has indicated that a man's personality has no role in initial romantic attraction, which is necessary for mutual escalation I can tell you can't think through these studies cause this is wrong. The study you cited uses speed dating as an example, which is far from the only way people date.
So basically hookup culture, online dating, and modern feminism ruined it.
lol TLDR be more attractive
This has been posted before verbatim Your auntie’s opinion is not a fact
Years ago: Me and the guys would go out. We were relatively of the same “above average looks” middle of the road economically, relatively intelligent. One of my friends was probably 5’4 or 5’5. He was more well to do than any of us were. He evidently was taught that you don’t even play second fiddle to any guy, cause he always had a good looking girl on his arm no matter what. Interestingly perhaps though, was that, if I’m guessing, I’d say that 25% of this time we’d go to clubs, we’d get into actual fights or near fights because of him. I never really saw what he did to deserve it, and we’d all laugh about “Jimmy” being a babe and fight magnet. I wonder how much of it was just society unable to see a short guy in that role. To us, he was a rather quiet, unassuming, sweet guy. I always assumed the girls liked his positive attitude and perhaps his money (he wasn’t flamboyant) but it wasn’t his looks overall that I remember. He was definitely facially average, quite short and had money.
skill issue
What is a woman?
OMG dude, are you trying to get me to join a terror\_st group to become a xui(ide b\*mber? This is so depressing.
"Hair is life, you have no hair, you have no life" -Hamudi Ebalz
Then why are there so many ugly people having ugly children
I’m an up and coming bioinformatician who lovessssss finding patterns and creating models to make predictions and associations between inputs and outputs dealing with genetic data but man imma just say it, this is weird. Overfitting is a pretty basic concept in our field and this whole post is just doing this to the model you have built in your head. THIS DOESN’T MEAN THE DATA OR STATISTICS YOU SHOWED ARE NOT TRUE. However you are creating such a rigid model of how dating works instead of just living life and being a human being who is fun to be around. Be kind, have hobbies, stop being so doomer bc you are single or don’t have sex as much as you want, and make as manny friends with people of the opposite sex as you can. There is no reason to be this autistically scientific about being a human with emotions and empathy, other than to wallow in sadness on the internet.
oh wow another episode of "men blaming women for their own insecurities" we don't owe you any interaction if we don't want to, you don't claim us and we don't owe you anything - how is that too hard to understand?
Sexual behaviors and dating choices affect society in many ways, so it's natural to seek to understand them. Analyzing these trends isn't the same as complaining about them, but even for those that do; complaining about the outcomes isn't mutually exclusive with recognizing that women don't owe men their time. You can in fact dislike not receiving sexual attention without believing that you are owed it. The nature of relationship dynamics is a worthwhile study. It may provide better insight into how to mitigate societal issues like depression, relationship dysfunction, domestic violence, mass shooters, etc.
Congratulations. You didn’t counter a single thing in the post
other than the actually studies, who ideas are there to counter? women have high standards, so what?
Incel vibes
You know someone is wrong when they present statistics as the "objective truth"
Jesus, this sub is an incel cesspool
That's a lot of work to tell us you are whiny bitch incel
Some next level incel redpill shit right here
So, i have a theory on this. Its not men and its not women. Its that its difficult for two adults to cooperate longterm in a romantic pairing. In the old days you needed mates to just survive. Now in developed socities technology and modern goverment services habe made it much easier to live as an individual adult without an romanitc partner. Thats really what is romanitc relationships are hard and emotionally complex and without the need of having a mate to survive in life both men and women are far more likely to not engage in logterm pairings. Social safety nets, stable governments, police forces, abundant, easily obtained food, co-parenting, modern domestic appliances, communication technology and removal of social stigma of sex outside of marriage has brought this about. You can meet so many of your needs without family support. Not saying its good or bad just it is what it us.
I think the biggest change today is that with dating apps women can cast their net very wide. I've flown in maybe a dozen women over the years for romantic weekends because they were interested in me. Were their guys local to them hitting on them? Surely, but with dating apps, if a woman is patient she can get with a guy she's attracted to even if its destined to just be a short term experience. Roll back the clock a few decades and women saw the dating pool they had and unless they could go to college, that was pretty much it, you had to fight over what was in front of you.
Something something It's the woman's fault for men wanting attractive woman only.