Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree with Supine as well about Jada. She is nowhere near the type I instinctively prefer - she is too thin and not physically large enough - but I still think she is a very attractive woman. I don't know her very well, though I had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with her long years ago. I don't think that you'd find many men, Black or otherwise, who would not find Jada Pinkett Smith attractive.
You can disagree all you like. Will Smith has the ability to attract any of the best looking black women on earth. Jada would in no way rank among those. Jada in fact has the female equivalent of a "great attitude" in Black-America. In other words her attitude and so-called "vibe" exudes something that men like Will Smith finds sexy (unless, Will is actually into thin women, but I'm going to hazard a guess he is not).
But if you've dated so many men throughout your life, let alone alpha males on a college football teams (big difference from playing on a high school football team) then how do arrive at the conclusion you have an unusually difficult time attracting men?
I'm curious because numerically I've dated (just dated) a total of 0 (zero) females in my life. I went on a few dates in the past but I've never had a girlfriend. I had assumed from some of your previous posts in varying threads that you were more along the lines of me in that way.
hmm, I think you made a HUGE mistake. First of all, I have zero problems attracting men. I think you've mistaken me for somebody else. Secondly, I was a college waterpolo player who dated MANY pro athletes.
Thirdly, I am NOW in a relationship with a super hunk 6'1" white dude (not like his race is a big factor)
I don't have massive acne like you did, my brother is a proud recon Marine and former fitness model unlike you. I am 5'7" unlike you, I am NOTHING like you.
Where did you get the ideas that I have unusually difficult time attracting men? Are you out of your mind?
I've modeled two years in Japan and I've never started one thread indicating I had troubles attracting men. You need a quick reality check. All your stupid thread posts are about race, you hate American and you hate American women. You've called me Nazi simply because I am Republican. Don't blame me for your lack of success.
Like I said, if you don't like American women, don't date one. If you don't like America, relocate. It is that simple! Keep on dreaming, You are NOTHING like me.
I've checked that link and statistics and I think that the author(s) generally didn't include the possibility that some of the replies were "brushing off" the other party, or making another reply (second message by the person who initiated the conversation) and not getting an answer. That's at least how I see it, but it might be that I've interpreted the article in a wrong way.
On the other hand, your point is rather silly, of course that main number of women will get more messages. In fact, authors obviously excluded SPAMMING, i.e. sending tons of same/similar messages from a single user to multiple women. Otherwise the proportion would be much bigger.
The main point of the article is in fact the disproportion of thinking that 80% of guys are "below average". This implies that the "average bar" is set somewhere high.
But that's nothing new. I think that there were many thread back there where people, including you (and a number of women on this forum), I think, implied that you don't want a guy who's wealthy, but an average guy. But when the discussion went, a general conclusion made by women was that a guy should have his own house and a car. Many of forum members were convinced that an average american has a total of 200,000$ net worth. And probably at not such an old age either.
Then people pointed out the following: A Look at Household Net Worth and Household Income By Age Group from the 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances
That was such a shocker for lots of women who THOUGHT that an average guy in his 20s or early 30s should have a lot more as an "average person". In fact, those that do have it are rather having a 30-year mortgage and they bought a car on a leasing, and they are still somehow above "average", and heavily indebted.
To make it short, what the link showed was that men have about 9,000$ net worth on median at approximately 30-year mark. An average household's median net worth is about 77,000$ - and this includes even the old folks. The older people get, the more net worth they have.
Another thing is what shocked me peronally and it's regarding the median household's income. Apparently 205,000$ BEFORE TAXES would place your household into 5% of households with top income. I thought that the number would be a lot higher but it wasn't. This means that expectations of "average guy" for many women who commented on that thread.... actually meant someone who's probably in top 10% of households.
To be fair, "average" can mean different things; it may mean "normal" to some, and "normal" is what is typical of their socio-economic class, not what the statistical average is. To me, a person from lower middle class/working class, $200k is positively RICH, at any age.
But I'm more interested in addressing what "average" tends to mean for physical looks. Average does not mean what is statistically most frequent or in the center if you were to line men up according to looks. In this context, it tends to mean the mid-range of aesthetic appeal - someone who is neither gorgeous nor ugly. So what is being said here is most men are closer to ugly than gorgeous - most are "below average".
Since men love numbers, another way to see this is most men are at or below 5. Let's say you have 10 men. They will not each represent a number on the 1-10 fictitious objective hotness scale. Instead, they will likely be more like this: 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 7, 9. The extremes often are not even present, and most fall just below average. Many of those 4s & 5s could improve though, which I'll go into below. But nonetheless, OKC is trying to say that 4 is average because it's most common &/or lands in the middle statistically. While 4 is close to average, women will be rating it below as it is below, and some may rate the 5s as below (due to subjective tastes), so there you have 80% or so as below average. That's not taking into account that good-looking men likely don't frequent dating sites as much as women will (a tangent I won't go off on).
To illustrate another way: the average person is overweight, yet people might say an overweight person is below average in body appeal. Technically, they may represent the statistical average, but people do no consider them "mid-range" in terms of aesthetic appeal. The average body may be seen as someone not fat, not muscular, not thin, but sort of in-between; not very flawed but not extremely appealing, basically. This means MOST people may be seen as "below average". Of course weight is not everything when it comes to attraction & some even like plumper bodies, but that's just an illustration to make a point.
But why are most men ranking as below average?
I think this partly has to do with men not grooming well. The reason why women tend to be rated more appropriately is because our grooming standards are higher since from a young age our looks are given more emphasis. We KNOW we have to make effort. Many men do not realize they groom poorly, do not know how to groom well, or do not see the value in it.
I have anecdotes of below-average men morphing into average men because they got some nice, well-fit clothing, better hairstyles, better glasses, better posture, and then within 6 months had cute gfs who were also average. If they lost some weight & got better social skills, they'd probably do even better.
So many of the OKC guys have ugly & ill-fitting clothes, hideous facial hair, bad haircuts, unflattering glasses, poor posture & creepy facial expressions, and to top it off, may be very out of shape or not have good attitudes. They don't package themselves well. Whereas many women who are average will still make effort to wear attractive clothes, some makeup, fix their hair, etc. It's not unreasonable for them to want someone who puts some effort into their appearance also.
This is completely bogus. If you read that article that someone else posted, men rate women on a realistic scale where 1/2 are considered above average. As for weight, I have not witnessed a tendency of men to have unrealistic standards. I'm not sure where this myth was propagated. Plus, weight is in a woman's control, so if you're unattractive by virtue of being fat, that's a choice you've made. Take a look at a yearbook from the 1950's. There were far more attractive women back then, because no one was fat. Lots of women walking around today would be attractive if only they'd lose weight. I remember one time when I was going out to eat with coworkers and when one of the heavy female coworkers pulled out her wallet I saw her driver license photo and in it she looked very cute because it was taken back when she was thin.
I absolutely have. I've heard plenty of men say women like Scarlet Johansen and Kate Upton are '5s at best'.
Although I will agree with you about being fat. Although, there are more overweight/obese men in the US than women but it's okay to be a fat guy.
I'm no longer considered 'fat' since I've lost some weight but I won't go near a guy who makes fun of or shames fat women. Period.
...the quality of the message itself matters - the linked article lumps good and bad writers who share the same level of attractiveness together. that could cause different response rates too
I agree. But speaking personally, for all of my flaws and detriments, I entertain the notion that my writing skills are reasonably decent. It's not for want of scrivener's elan that my attempts are brusquely shunted.
As others have said, the online dating message-response statistics have not been filtered by age group. It's possible that younger people are more responsive, and older ones more reticent, or only interested in responding if they feel the author to be a definite prospect. But at the same time, one often hears that as people age, the male/female ratio begins to shift in favor of men. Competing trends? It's all inscrutably murky. All that one knows is the jilted feeling of being ignored. At least in "real life" one has the dignity of being rejected to one's face. Online, the silent dismissal is far more irksome.
Last edited by ohio_peasant; 07-10-2013 at 06:32 PM..
You can disagree all you like. Will Smith has the ability to attract any of the best looking black women on earth. Jada would in no way rank among those. Jada in fact has the female equivalent of a "great attitude" in Black-America. In other words her attitude and so-called "vibe" exudes something that men like Will Smith finds sexy (unless, Will is actually into thin women, but I'm going to hazard a guess he is not).
What I'd really like to know is how you became such an expert on black male/female relationships? Usually someone who is an expert has had experience in these matters. From your own posts, you do not. So, what is the deal here?
Actually I don't see this out in the real world. a fat woman is more likely to have a partner than a fat man. Sure maybe on T.V. land it's okay to be a fat guy but real life isn't T.V.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
