Theory: Average looking people have the hardest time dating.

[FitChick]

Average people have an easier time dating since there are more of them. Very good looking or very ugly people don't. Many are intimidated by the very good looking ones and repulsed by the ugly ones.

[Weezy1973]

If the end goal of dating, is getting into a long term committed relationship, then most people do not struggle with dating. Most adults are in relationships.

 

Physical attractiveness has absolutely nothing to do with one's success or failure in dating (except maybe for people at the extreme low-end with physical deformities etc.). Failure in dating (again keeping in mind that the vast majority of people are successful) has more to do with other issues, such as insecure attachment styles, anxiety disorders, abandonment issues and so on.

[Haydn]

Once again what the .... is average. what i like, you maybe dont. What you find outstanding maybe i will not. Why do people join dating sites? What happened to the old fashioned ``pull in a bar` routine? Still works for me and i will go for it if someone girl (Possibly average), does it for me.

 

`Your the bee`s knees, but so am i.`

 

 

 

Average people have an easier time dating since there are more of them. Very good looking or very ugly people don't. Many are intimidated by the very good looking ones and repulsed by the ugly ones.

[Onethirtyeight]

Once again what the .... is average. what i like, you maybe dont. What you find outstanding maybe i will not. Why do people join dating sites? What happened to the old fashioned ``pull in a bar` routine? Still works for me and i will go for it if someone girl (Possibly average), does it for me.

 

`Your the bee`s knees, but so am i.`

 

Looks are subjective. That said I think most people have a pretty good idea what a normal healthy person looks like. You know the girl next door look.

[Haydn]

The girl who lived next door to was......(Well, cold sweats)......

 

 

`Can i borrow a cup of sugar` was her frequent routine......

 

 

Looks are subjective. That said I think most people have a pretty good idea what a normal healthy person looks like. You know the girl next door look.

[Mrlonelyone]

Timing is an interesting point. Those that are "relationship ready" at an earlier age probably have an easier time, and are less likely to have the BBD outlook. Too much time in the dating scene seems to turn finding a partner into a challenge to achieve rather than a journey to discover. Or maybe that is correlation, with achievers also being slower to be relationship ready.

 

 

I am thinking more about two people being on the same page in life. You know.

 

 

I am not the only one in that kind of situation. XXOO you've read my threads for a while. S, E, and M, the ex's about which I have written the most, all were almost the right person but it was never the right time or something else was wrong. It was like I was forbidden (especially in S's case. M was just too young.)

[ponchsox]

Ugly men with money can move way up.

 

Hot women who are bat***** crazy can move way down.

[Mrlonelyone]

Ugly men with money can move way up.

 

Hot women who are bat***** crazy can move way down.

[xxoo]

I am thinking more about two people being on the same page in life. You know.

 

 

I am not the only one in that kind of situation. XXOO you've read my threads for a while. S, E, and M, the ex's about which I have written the most, all were almost the right person but it was never the right time or something else was wrong. It was like I was forbidden (especially in S's case. M was just too young.)

 

That's what I'm describing as not relationship ready. M, in particular, was dating another guy while sleeping with you. This is a strong sign that you are investing someone who is NOT ready for a serious relationship. If you want to find a relationship, it's important to know how to recognize a good potential mate--someone ready for the same.

 

Take two couples, both in mid twenties, both working on finishing school and starting careers. One couple might split up because the timing is "wrong", and put career first. The other couple might stay together, making compromises in career to stay in the same city. It's less about timing and more about priorities, and neither is right or wrong. But the people who put relationships first will be more likely to be partnered at 30.

[Onethirtyeight]

A hot enough guy is way on top and an ugly girl is below average guy. on average.

 

I agree with ugly girl being on the bottom but super hot guy probably doesn't trump super hot girl in ease of dating. Super hot girl doesn't have to actually do anything.

 

I'd think it would go something more like this

1. Attractive women

2. Attractive men

3. Average men and women

4. Ugly men

5. Ugly women

6. Fat obnoxious women that complain about not finding "real" Men

6. "Nice" guys that are really *******s and constantly complain about the friendzone Tied with fat obnoxious women.

[fabulous]

well first off your maths is way off.

 

there is 5 points either side of the mean (and 3 standard deviations)on a ten point scale.

therefore 1 standard deviation = 5/3 =1.6667

 

http://0.tqn.com/d/statistics/1/0/9/-/-/-/zscore.GIF

 

an 8 would be:

 

8-5/1.6667 = 1.7996 or roughly the 97th percentile (excuse the rough maths)

 

a 7 would be 7-5/1.6667 = 1.19997 or the 88% percentile, top 12 % of men

 

 

 

A 6 would be roughly the 70th percentile

 

 

Now either the 8 male or the 7 male would be in high demand and have his pick of women, even a top 30% male (the 6) would do ok.

 

An 8 could be a male model, or some famous actor. The 7 would be the typical "hottest guy in the room" or at least one of the most attractive.

 

As to your main thesis, well since most people are average, and since people of similar socioeconomic and physical attractiveness are attracted to each other, I don't see how that is possible. The people who would struggle the most would be the least desirable men and women. For example 80% of male messages in OLD go to an "elite" 20% of women.

 

http://0.tqn.com/d/statistics/1/0/9/-/-/-/zscore.GIF

 

 

i also think the most desirable women and men would struggle to find partners of equal status, given they are so rare. they might have to date down with less attractive partners than themselves, is this "struggling" not really.

Edited December 23, 2013 by fabulous

[Onethirtyeight]

I also think the most desirable women and men would struggle to find partners of equal status, given they are so rare. they might have to date down with less attractive partners than themselves, is this "struggling" not really.

 

I agree with this completely. I'm obviously biased about myself but I'd say it is hard for me to find a single chick "good enough" for me to make moves on.

[runningfar]

well first off your maths is way off.

 

there is 5 points either side of the mean (and 3 standard deviations)on a ten point scale.

therefore 1 standard deviation = 5/3 =1.6667

 

http://0.tqn.com/d/statistics/1/0/9/-/-/-/zscore.GIF

 

an 8 would be:

 

8-5/1.6667 = 1.7996 or roughly the 97th percentile (excuse the rough maths)

 

a 7 would be 7-5/1.6667 = 1.19997 or the 88% percentile, top 12 % of men

 

 

 

A 6 would be roughly the 70th percentile

 

 

Now either the 8 male or the 7 male would be in high demand and have his pick of women, even a top 30% male (the 6) would do ok.

 

An 8 could be a male model, or some famous actor. The 7 would be the typical "hottest guy in the room" or at least one of the most attractive.

 

As to your main thesis, well since most people are average, and since people of similar socioeconomic and physical attractiveness are attracted to each other, I don't see how that is possible. The people who would struggle the most would be the least desirable men and women. For example 80% of male messages in OLD go to an "elite" 20% of women.

 

http://0.tqn.com/d/statistics/1/0/9/-/-/-/zscore.GIF

 

 

i also think the most desirable women and men would struggle to find partners of equal status, given they are so rare. they might have to date down with less attractive partners than themselves, is this "struggling" not really.

 

Post

Love.

[MissBee]

It occurs to me that it is the average or slightly above average looking people that have the hardest time dating.

 

On here for a while I notice the people who post eh Am I Ugly type of thread or dating profile reviews are never 9's or 10's they are also never 4's or 5's. They are 7's 8's 6's they are above the average but not super hot by any means. (I'd put myself there easily a 7).

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg/350px-Standard_deviation_diagram.svg.png

 

On this figure a 7.5 wold be about one standard deviation from the mean value, 5.

 

I see people who are in that small group and the high end mated up all the time. I see people who are in the lower end mated up, happily all the time. Those of us in that fat part in the middle or above the top.

 

That's the data.

 

 

The hypothesis is this.

 

People who are above 6.5 up to about 8.5... people who are a high-average looking, maybe semi-hot, have the hardest time finding someone who will commit.

 

The reasons for this would be that they aren't hot enough to get and keep the really hot. They are also just hot enough to look unattainable or unkeeptable to the much less hot. Yet at the same time, they feel they have a legit shot at someone a bit hotter.

 

I know this whole discussion of numbers and hotness sounds so banal. It's supposed to be about personality, compatibility, etc ... looks matter. lets talk about how looks effect things without judging it.

 

Please discuss. Does that sound like what has happened to people around you, the reader?

 

No.

 

Because a lot more goes into dating that "hotness."

 

The people I know date people they're attracted to but they don't chase after hotness.

 

My friends, and me included, have had boyfriends before, currently have them, have dated...what my girlfriends complain about is that some dudes are intimidated by their accomplishments and its hard to find a man on par with them in terms of education and career versus discussions of hotness. That's the major complaint I hear from women around me and not discussions of looks as any kind of deterrent.

 

Also these looks scales are not scientific in any shape or form. Looks are completely based on who is looking and attraction is even more complicated. I am not attracted to every man that looks good. I'm just not. I have felt absolutely zero attraction to men who I guess would be model-looking. I could acknowledge that they were good looking but for me that isn't the only thing which determines attraction. Then I've been absolutely smitten, butterflies, wet at men who to me are VERY attractive and good looking but who may not fit a model definition. So these number comparisons are arbitrary and meaningless as the scale is absolutely subjective. All my friends date people they're attracted to. I happen to think most of my friends' boyfriends are attractive guys but even if I thought they weren't my friends do and they're the ones dating them, so that's what matters.

Edited December 23, 2013 by MissBee

[fabulous]

No.

 

Because a lot more goes into dating that "hotness."

 

The people I know date people they're attracted to but they don't chase after hotness.

 

My friends, and me included, have had boyfriends before, currently have them, have dated...what my girlfriends complain about is that some dudes are intimidated by their accomplishments and its hard to find a man on par with them in terms of education and career versus discussions of hotness. That's the major complaint I hear from women around me and not discussions of looks as any kind of deterrent.

 

i think there is a disconnect between what women think men want and vice versa. I can say as a young guy that I do care very little for traits apart from looks and a few personality variables that relate to an agreeable disposition ( i don't want an ice queen). this is coming from an educated guy who is reasonably smart.

 

A women with a PhD has no more value than a women with a bachelors degree to most men. Men are very looks oriented. Real world observations prove this, only on the internet do men prioritize personality over looks. 95% of men would choose the vacuous supermodel over the homely nice girl. in OLD a vast majority of messages men send go to the prettiest women, physically unattractive women get very little messages, relatively speaking.

 

also the degree which you consider looks/social status and other "shallow" factors important has allot to do with your own looks/status etc. Miranda Kerr is not going to date Mr Average Joe.

 

average people do hook up, but they almost never do so with their preferred partners, we have to settle as we don't have the necessary attractiveness to get the partner we want. I'd personally rather be dating Irina Shayk or Kate Upton than the girls I meet down at the pub, most guys would. I'm sure in an ideal world, most women would want a tall, handsome rich guy to date. IF they could date such a man they would, proven by the fact when a women is beautiful enough she almost exclusively dates famous movie stars/actors/professional sports stars etc.

 

Not that I'm bitter mind you. The girl I date are attractive to me. I guess the brain learns to settle with what we can get, for our own happiness and practicality.

[Onethirtyeight]

An attractive man is rarer than an attractive woman which is why I have them on top. men way on top have so many choices its unreal. women of all types dream of them. If you've tried online dating you will see why average women have it easier than average men. as for the nice guys complaining about the friendzone' date=' lets be honest. nice guy or not nice guy, if a guy goes say five or more years without so much as a coffee date, he's going to complain and be mad and bitter and passive aggressive. its human nature. unfortunately I'd put that group as 7.[/quote']

 

I messed with OLD a bit, came to the conclusion its a joke for men, but that has more to do wit the nature of that game and how the sites are set up IMO. I was talking about in real life.

 

Assuming we're talking about similarly rare men and women I'd say women have the upper hand in that they can have pretty much any man they want, specifically in western culture. They just have to introduce themselves and they can have a decent looking rich guy that is an authentically nice guy.

 

Yeah a guy who hasn't been on dates in years is going to be in a bad mood. I was referring the guys that get "friendzoned" because they're goofy and passive aggressive to start and spend a ton of time being "nice" to a chick hoping she'll sleep with him because he's so "nice". They can be 7 if you want.

[fabulous]

 

Also these looks scales are not scientific in any shape or form. Looks are completely based on who is looking and attraction is even more complicated. I am not attracted to every man that looks good. I'm just not. I have felt absolutely zero attraction to men who I guess would be model-looking. I could acknowledge that they were good looking but for me that isn't the only thing which determines attraction. Then I've been absolutely smitten, butterflies, wet at men who to me are VERY attractive and good looking but who may not fit a model definition. So these number comparisons are arbitrary and meaningless as the scale is absolutely subjective. All my friends date people they're attracted to. I happen to think most of my friends' boyfriends are attractive guys but even if I thought they weren't my friends do and they're the ones dating them, so that's what matters.

 

actually while you are right and looks are subjective (to a degree), when you ask men to rate the attractiveness of large groups of women, you will find the ratings follow a bell curve.

That is there is a very strong agreement between men about who is attractive and who is not attractive. Only a small minority of women are rated as beautiful, a small minority are rated as ugly, and the vast majority of women are rated as average. if looks were subjective then there should be no pattern at all. one man's beautiful should be another man's ugly. the appraisal of women's looks should be a horizontal line, with no women rated esp attractive or ugly.

 

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/your_looks_and_inbox/Male-Attractiveness-Ratings.png

 

 

 

This is not what we see.

 

We know for instance that 80% of the messages men send out in OLD go to roughly 20% of women, there is a female mafia hogging all the male attention, leaving scraps for the rest of the women.

 

Men basically all like the same women.

 

That's why all the movie stars, porn stars etc all share similar features (high cheekbones/ wide hips, lean , symmetry etc)

[fabulous]

I messed with OLD a bit, came to the conclusion its a joke for men, but that has more to do wit the nature of that game and how the sites are set up IMO. I was talking about in real life.

 

Assuming we're talking about similarly rare men and women I'd say women have the upper hand in that they can have pretty much any man they want, specifically in western culture. They just have to introduce themselves and they can have a decent looking rich guy that is an authentically nice guy.

 

Yeah a guy who hasn't been on dates in years is going to be in a bad mood. I was referring the guys that get "friendzoned" because they're goofy and passive aggressive to start and spend a ton of time being "nice" to a chick hoping she'll sleep with him because he's so "nice". They can be 7 if you want.

 

 

the problem for men who using OLD is simply supply/demand related. there is too many men using the service and not enough women. OLD also attracts men who are too socially inept to meet women in RL, so they spam women with countless messages in desperation, making it harder for "normal" men to be noticed.

[xxoo]

People hyper-focused on looks will have a harder time dating. I'm not saying looks don't matter, but the most successful people in relationships probably aren't the ones primarily seeking hotness.

 

If you're actually doing the math and assigning rank on a scale, you're missing forest for the trees.

[fabulous]

People hyper-focused on looks will have a harder time dating. I'm not saying looks don't matter, but the most successful people in relationships probably aren't the ones primarily seeking hotness.

 

If you're actually doing the math and assigning rank on a scale, you're missing forest for the trees.

 

it could be an age thing. people when they are young tend to ascribe more importance to looks than compatibility or personality. both genders do this. why do you think the divorce rate is so high?

 

I don't see anything wrong with this. We should be allowed to have our fun, to date who we want , and seek whatever priorities we want in a partner. Dating is a personal experience, and no everyone finds the same things endearing. If I find looks to be the primary factor I use to identify potential partners, then i don't think I should be shamed for doing so, it's my prerogative . vice versa, if you have your own preferences and they have served you well in past relationships, good luck to you. i'll keep chasing the bimbo blonde.

 

I plan on settling for a more compatible partner when i reach my thirties. women do the same , chasing bad boys and whatnot. it's just women get more flak for it as aggrieved men who "miss out" tend to vocalize their anger while women are more docile about it.

[KatZee]

 

A lot of really beautiful women rarely get asked out because it's assumed they are either taken, or in a "different league" than the people who want to ask her out.

 

That's how I've always seen it

 

Correct. I wouldn't claim to be a 10 or anything, but I think I'm above average. One of my best friends is also very attractive. We will go out on weekends and NO ONE, not one person will ever approach us.

 

A few weekends ago one guy did approach, but he was from out of state so he was a different breed of guy than these NYC boys, but either way, he flat out said we look intimidating and that guys with no confidence would just never approach us because we appear out of people's leagues.

 

It sucks because everyone thinks hot people have it so easy. No. Not even remotely true. Either:

 

A) guys do not approach due to low self esteem or

B) we get the idiots who are so arrogant and just looking to hook up

[xxoo]

it could be an age thing. people when they are young tend to ascribe more importance to looks than compatibility or personality. both genders do this. why do you think the divorce rate is so high?

 

I don't see anything wrong with this. We should be allowed to have our fun, to date who we want , and seek whatever priorities we want in a partner. Dating is a personal experience, and no everyone finds the same things endearing. If I find looks to be the primary factor I use to identify potential partners, then i don't think I should be shamed for doing so, it's my prerogative . vice versa, if you have your own preferences and they have served you well in past relationships, good luck to you. i'll keep chasing the bimbo blonde.

 

I plan on settling for a more compatible partner when i reach my thirties. women do the same , chasing bad boys and whatnot. it's just women get more flak for it as aggrieved men who "miss out" tend to vocalize their anger while women are more docile about it.

 

I'm not judging. Different people have different priorities.

 

But priorities lead to realities, so it is prudent to align one's priorities with the realities one would like to create. This is true for both genders, and all sorts of priorities.

[MissBee]

i think there is a disconnect between what women think men want and vice versa. I can say as a young guy that I do care very little for traits apart from looks and a few personality variables that relate to an agreeable disposition ( i don't want an ice queen). this is coming from an educated guy who is reasonably smart.

 

A women with a PhD has no more value than a women with a bachelors degree to most men. Men are very looks oriented. Real world observations prove this, only on the internet do men prioritize personality over looks. 95% of men would choose the vacuous supermodel over the homely nice girl. in OLD a vast majority of messages men send go to the prettiest women, physically unattractive women get very little messages, relatively speaking.

 

also the degree which you consider looks/social status and other "shallow" factors important has allot to do with your own looks/status etc. Miranda Kerr is not going to date Mr Average Joe.

 

average people do hook up, but they almost never do so with their preferred partners, we have to settle as we don't have the necessary attractiveness to get the partner we want. I'd personally rather be dating Irina Shayk or Kate Upton than the girls I meet down at the pub, most guys would. I'm sure in an ideal world, most women would want a tall, handsome rich guy to date. IF they could date such a man they would, proven by the fact when a women is beautiful enough she almost exclusively dates famous movie stars/actors/professional sports stars etc.

 

Not that I'm bitter mind you. The girl I date are attractive to me. I guess the brain learns to settle with what we can get, for our own happiness and practicality.

 

 

I think it depends on the type of man...as all men aren't cut from the same cloth and the men I tend to know are not very shallow. They date women they're attracted to but aren't simply chasing a$$ and tits as though they have never seen a good looking woman before and as though that is all there is in life.

 

The women you have named, I don't even think are that pretty, likewise not every man thinks that. Rich is rich, tall is tall, handsome is what someone thinks handsome is. That's the point. What someone thinks is handsome or pretty isn't automatically what every other person thinks.

 

I have sat with guy friends as they discuss women and there isn't always a consensus. There are women all of them think are hot and then women they disagree on where some guys like a particular look and some don't. Some are head over heels for a particular kind of look and some aren't. Some say they think a particular woman is pretty but they don't want to sleep with her as she isn't really sexy to them etc. I think Beyonce for example is hot, I had a boyfriend who thought she was alright. He said she was pretty but she didn't do it for him and I don't even remember the name of his celebrity crush woman whom he thought was soooo hot, because in my eyes Beyonce looks a million times better than her. But that was his taste and preference.

 

I have no clue if I am average or not, as this scale you all are using is your own personal scale, but I don't date men I don't want to date and am not attracted to.

 

This mentality is bizarre to me, that every person is supposed to be attracted to one kind of look and all people are trying to date this one kind of person but can't so settle. BS! People are attracted to all kinds of looks and even the people who you or anyone else names as sooo gorgeous there is at least one person who genuinely doesn't think so. And again, I have seen men who are physically goodlooking but I am NOT attracted to them. Likewise, I have had boyfriends, I have a brother and male friends and we have discussed women, looks etc and they are not some debased animals who all like one thing. Well the men I know anyway seem to be more complicated. Yes they all lust and may agree on some women but they all like different looks and also a woman you like on tv or in magazines isn't the same as the connection and attraction you feel with someone you know for real.

 

Attraction is not a one to one looks correlation. You can think someone is good looking and still not feel any attraction for them and they don't do "it" for you, while someone else less attractive might have you spinning in circles and in your eyes they are very hot. The idea that average people are all settling is insane and makes no sense...maybe some do, but most people are involved with people THEY find attractive and we have the capacity to find more than one kind of look as well as disposition and certain qualities appealing.

Edited December 23, 2013 by MissBee

[Onethirtyeight]

the problem for men who using OLD is simply supply/demand related. there is too many men using the service and not enough women. OLD also attracts men who are too socially inept to meet women in RL, so they spam women with countless messages in desperation, making it harder for "normal" men to be noticed.

 

This and I also concluded they are pickier or maybe my profile just sucks. My experience has been I get their attention and I can see they looked at my profile after sending them a message but they rarely send me a return message. I'm going for the same kinds of women I'd get in real life and I know other men experience the same problem so I'm sticking to the theory they're just being pickier than they would be in real life. Picky to the point they must not go on many dates.

[ChessPieceFace]

I disagree that 5 is the mean attractiveness score. Probably 6+.

 

Also, if you think about it, a lot of people who are 1-4 may have given up already OR they simply don't need to ask "am I ugly??" Because they know. So even if the sample set was truly centered at and symmetrical around 5, you'd lose some of the lower end.

 

Furthermore, some really hot people, 9-10's even doubt their attractiveness. So you wouldn't lose as many of the 7-10's, due to people's inherent nature to magnify their own flaws / doubt their attractiveness.

 

Thus, it makes perfect sense to me that people who are looking to date and who would ask others about their attractiveness, may center somewhere around 7. If there's any correlation between these people being 7's and having a hard time with dating, it's based in self-esteem.