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 think that's all physically attractive too. Some women don't seem to put as much emphasis on physical attractiveness. I think they see it as a bonus, but not a must (or the top thing on their list). If you look at that same OKC survey (which is about your attractiveness and how many messages you get), while women said they didn't find most men to be physically attractive, they were still messaging those men and trying to get dates anyway. So while physically they weren't so attracted, there were other qualities that those women were interested in. The men on that same survey were more reasonable on who was attractive and who wasn't, but the flip side is they turned around and 2/3 of them only contacted who they rated 7s or above.
The lesson with OLD: Women can be unreasonable when it comes to who is attractive and too isn't. They (overall) are too harsh.
Men are unreasonable when it comes to dating out of their league. They try for the hottest of the hot and then wonder why no one gets back to them when they ignore 2/3 of the women online.
And then they come on here and complain that women who are average looking only want above average looking men when they're guilty of the same thing.
Yes, I could see how this may well be true. But the question in my mind is, Are looks more important to men in consideration of women, than they are to women in consideration of men?
I think so.
I vaguely recall an episode of Mythbusters where they did certain tests on male and female sexual/mating/dating preferences. I believe it was this study or another similar run of testing that showed, that when women are shown photos of men's faces, and those photos are accompanied by some information (occupation, salary, hobbies perhaps) they rated the more successful men as "better looking." Which tells that women do consider other factors besides just appearance.
I think that good looks in a partner are more important to straight men than they are to straight women. We might see an average man in a more favorable light if, say, we find out that he's the front man in a band (even a local one, because musicians are hot)...or he makes a lot of money...or is very funny and/or highly intelligent, or a social leader. That sort of stuff.
We use the long form.
And I wonder if this doesn't go at least a little ways towards evening out the game...just a bit?
I tell a female friend about a guy I'm seeing and she will ask, "What's he like?" or "What does he do for a living?" A man tells a male friend about a new woman he's seeing, odds are the first question will be, "Is she hot?" We are often categorized by body shape, hair color, and ethnicity. Looks seem to be the most important thing. Only the fact that different men have different ideas of what constitutes a "10" seem to mitigate this, near as I can tell.
Oh, there is no doubt thats the case. The thing about OLD, is that men who are better looking have a massive advantage, because women have no way of judging a guy by any other means (perhaps a bit based on what he has in his profile etc etc) but the looks trump all. So guys who are average (real average not womans average) and below average looking, have no opportunity to showcase their attractive traits like confidence, assertivness, etc etc/ other than a slim window in communicating this via their profile. Even then, because there are so mnay more guys on OLD, the guys who arent above average lloking, never even have their profiles read, theyre simply disqualified.
And then they come on here and complain that women who are average looking only want above average looking men when they're guilty of the same thing.
I am with you. Guys who don't put the effort to be in good shape and look good but want to date a hot girl or girls who can't even pay for a cup of coffee but want to date guys who pay for their expenses. Some guys/girls seem to want everything they can't offer.
I am with you. Guys who don't put the effort to be in good shape and look good but want to date a hot girl or girls who can't even pay for a cup of coffee but want to date guys who pay for their expenses. Some guys/girls seem to want everything they can't offer.
Pretty much. I think that's what separates those of us who are lucky in dating (or at least in being able to get dates) and those who aren't. It isn't games, rules, or whatever... it's more like "realistic expectations."
Although I am still not sure how I ended up with the person I am dating now. I just feel so damn lucky (and the feeling is reciprocated). This person isn't perfect by any stretch (and neither am I!), but I've got someone good looking, smart, worldly, active like me, same nerdy interests as me, same values as I have, and a libdo to match mine it would seem.
Oh, there is no doubt thats the case. The thing about OLD, is that men who are better looking have a massive advantage, because women have no way of judging a guy by any other means (perhaps a bit based on what he has in his profile etc etc) but the looks trump all. So guys who are average (real average not womans average) and below average looking, have no opportunity to showcase their attractive traits like confidence, assertivness, etc etc/ other than a slim window in communicating this via their profile. Even then, because there are so mnay more guys on OLD, the guys who arent above average lloking, never even have their profiles read, theyre simply disqualified.
Actually, I don't agree entirely. See, in my first forays into this one site (which is only sort of a dating site...it's a lot of other things, too) I spotted this GORGEOUS man. I mean...just...jaw dropping. I messaged him and I was considering going to this one event just to meet him. And then I chickened out...I had an excuse in the form of a friend with a crisis, but in all fairness if I'd REALLY wanted to go, I could have. But honestly, his sheer good looks intimidated the heck out of me. I was scared I was going to make a fool of myself.
I'm still scared, actually. I have since been told that he is super sweet, kind of nerdy, I know he's a massage therapist and his name and some other details are just as hot as the pictures are. And unless his plans change, it looks like I'll be meeting him next week. But on a basis of friendship, since he now has someone. And I can self-mock for how I behaved a couple months ago when I went out of my way to tell him how beautiful he was, put my tongue back in my mouth and laugh at myself, maybe I can be comfortable.
On the other hand, the one I'm calling the Introvert, who had every kind of success a man could want in OLD with me...anything he wants, anytime he wants it, because I'm wrapped around his finger...his profile pic is not only NOT attractive, it's completely absurdly not attractive. You really have to look deeper, and what sold me was the text. The way he spoke, some of his jokes. Very endearing. He's a smooth communicator.
But if the pretty guy had idiot gibberish with no punctuation, or "420 rulz i moved here for WEED!" or basically indicators of a very serious personality conflict, they'd get a solid "nope!"
The one area where photos are the main thing is in the "Quickmatch" feature of OKC on a phone, you get a photo, age, and general geographical area. I check all three before I "like" anyone. I prefer more info than that though. But hey, I'm certainly not representative of all women. I'm just me. *shrug*
More and more women are dating down. It's sort of a trend. Because more men are having trouble staying employed, or staying in college to get a marketable degree. I know a number of women in the professions who are married to guys in construction.
Women don't have a choice in dating down. It's either that or stay single. There are only so many men who make equal or more than women.
I think that's why the average age of marriage is trending upwards. Women are playing the field longer to find an equal partner if not better one. People who say money does not matter in the world of relationships are clueless in how the world works. While very few care about money, the majority do.
Women don't have a choice in dating down. It's either that or stay single. There are only so many men who make equal or more than women.
I think that's why the average age of marriage is trending upwards. Women are playing the field longer to find an equal partner if not better one. People who say money does not matter in the world of relationships are clueless in how the world works. While very few care about money, the majority do.
Actually most women I talk to have the same opinion I do. Which is that they want a man who has his financial house in order, but he doesn't have to be rich. Of course if we get a chance with a wealthy man, we might get excited about that, but it is by no means any sort of an expectation or a hope for most of us. We just don't want bums who come with massive debt and can't hold a job or take care of themselves, because that's a one way ticket to being taken advantage of, more often than not. We are looking for a partner, not a dependant.
My impression is that material wherewithal is substantially LESS important in the present, than in the past. What matters overwhelmingly now is poise, communication-skills and emotional consonance. Marrying-up or marrying-down in the material sense really only matters regarding what happens in potential divorce. But that's a different subject. If here we're talking about attraction and the establishment of relationships, then I'd opine – and indeed, bemoan – that money matters very little.
In a closed system, with an equal number of women as men, and strictly monogamous pairings, we have two possible scenarios: either everyone gets their optimal partner, or some people "settle" while others are rewarded with a "superior" partner. That's in a closed system. But our system isn't closed – not because men or women pop into and out of existence (to my knowledge, this doesn’t happen), but because some percentage of women, and some percentage of men, have voluntarily taken themselves out of the market. My impression is the this number of non-participants is greater amongst women then amongst men. The implication is that those women who are unimpressed with their choices are simply absenting themselves from the dating pool, while their male counterparts are "settling" for what's available, or even worse, are going about with hangdog mien of unfulfilled desire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
You do realize that 1% more men than women is insignificant, don't you? It doesn't affect the dating pool. ...
1% imbalance is actually quite significant, because the "market" is "inelastic". Consider for example the price of a barrel of oil. The balance between worldwide daily pumping of oil, and worldwide daily usage, as very close… closer than 1%. If demand rises ever so slightly above supply, price of oil per barrel skyrockets. If demand declines slightly below supply, the price collapses. Look at what happened to the price of oil last week… it feel about 10%, whereas the demand-supply balance probably moved around 0.1%. The oil-market is inelastic, meaning that people still need to drive their cars, even if gas is expensive. Gas needs to become enormously more expensive before people start curtailing their driving, dropping demand back in accord with supply. Similarly with dating… couples aren't going to break up, and most people are coupled. Of the remaining singles, most presumably want a partner… and in most circumstances, one woman partners with one man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
Y... If you are desperate, negative, bitter, depressed, no woman goes into the world thinking, "You know what? I want to find a guy with a terrible outlook on life. Someone to really just ruin my day with his misery. That's what I'm looking for!"...
Indeed - and especially in America, which is the land of spunky happy-go-lucky effusive joyfulness (or else). Personality and poise matter far more, I think, than raw physical handsomeness. A handsome rich man, who's a suicidal nihilist, isn't going to garner much female attention - even from gold diggers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanAdventurer
FWIW, an ugly guy with money will do better with the 30+ aged women...better than the broke but charming handsome guy in many cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akonyo
If a guy is ugly with money, he definitely does worse than a broke good-looking guy.
Speaking for the 40+ set, I've not noticed this. Women tend to prefer those men with whom they form emotional rapport - whether that man is handsome or homely, affluent or destitute. This is because single women in their 40s are independent. Those women who were looking for a provider-husband have already gotten married (or remarried).
Already, yes, probably. However, an ugly guy with a charming personality (an unlikely combination among younger people, I suspect) has little chance of a lasting relationship with a nice-looking women.
Also - I don't know why it took me years to realize this - but I think things have gotten worse in part because in the prime age range women's looks have deteriorated more than men's have. Obesity has increased more among women, while almost no men raised in the first world are stunted (so they reach their full height and perhaps other things). Reasonably-attractive women used to basically have to settle for men who probably on average were less attractive than them. It seems like today - due to the media, right? - women are prone to exaggerating their long-term desirability to men and the prevalence of high-quality men.
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.
