What percent of girls/guys do you people find too unattractive to date?

[CryForNoOne]

When I was on Tinder, the percentage I'd swipe right on was really, really low. Maybe 1 out of every 30 guys.

 

I noticed a sad trend with all the Californians who responded to this thread - extremely low percentages. "1 in 30". "5%", "2%", "(it takes) a lot"...

 

When I was on Tinder I swiped yes to very few (about 2%) and would go days without a match. Then I just stopped looking at profiles entirely and resorted to speed swiping yes to about 25% and started getting several matches a day. Not surprisingly this resulted in a bunch of dates that I had zero interest in seeing a second time. Tinder is not a good site for men if you are picky...

[stemgeek]

Geez if I found 90% of women attractive, I probably would have died of a VD by now...

 

This thread is fascinating. I used to think I was somehow wired completely different than other guys. Some guys will sleep with any woman with a pulse. I thought it was just that they have no self restraint. I didn't realize it was because they actually find them all attractive. There are so few women that I find attractive, that when I do find one, I'm willing to tolerate a lot of BS just to bed them. So it kinda suggests my sex drive is no different, I just find far fewer women attractive.

 

My big problem is that there are many more women that I would date than actually sleep with. For every potential date I would sleep with, there are five I think to myself "dammit I wish she was just a little bit more attractive..."

 

I mean like most women are "average" to me. Neither "attractive" nor "ugly". And I'm more than willing to date an average woman, provided that we're compatible in other ways. So I guess something like 10% ugly, 70% average, 20% attractive

[amaysngrace]

I'd say about half.

[Gr8fuln2020]

Being very athletic and fit, I look for the same. In my age range, late-30s to late-40s, I figure about 10% or less. Once I ID that they are physique-wise to my interest, then facial features...so probably 5% or so.

[TheTraveler]

If we are just using appearance and nothing else, the percentage of unattractive women is higher than normal. The current area I live in there's a lot of obese, overweight, and chubby women. Southern fried chicken is the devil!

[CaliforniaGirl]

I noticed a sad trend with all the Californians who responded to this thread - extremely low percentages. "1 in 30". "5%", "2%", "(it takes) a lot"...

 

When I was on Tinder I swiped yes to very few (about 2%) and would go days without a match. Then I just stopped looking at profiles entirely and resorted to speed swiping yes to about 25% and started getting several matches a day. Not surprisingly this resulted in a bunch of dates that I had zero interest in seeing a second time. Tinder is not a good site for men if you are picky...

 

How interesting...I am actually one of those Californians you mention, except I was not a Californian until after I was already married.

 

I only ever dated in my life in the northeast. Nowhere else.

 

We moved here to California when I was 38.

[CaliforniaGirl]

I mean like most women are "average" to me. Neither "attractive" nor "ugly". And I'm more than willing to date an average woman, provided that we're compatible in other ways. So I guess something like 10% ugly, 70% average, 20% attractive

 

Most men are physically average to me too (after all, this is the very definition of average, at least in practical terms) but I was willing to date them.

[CaliforniaGirl]

If we are just using appearance and nothing else, the percentage of unattractive women is higher than normal. The current area I live in there's a lot of obese, overweight, and chubby women. Southern fried chicken is the devil!

 

I wonder if this is regional, since the number of overweight males in the U.S. is slightly above the number of overweight females?

 

Either way we are at about 75%, I think, which means we are all much less likely to come across a fit than an unfit adult. Male or female.

[ltjg45]

Where I am at, I would reject 60% of the local women on looks alone since most have tattoos and that is a total turn off for me. Add in obesity and the number is where it is at.

 

But if I had to add personality to my rejection number (because it matters), that will go up to 90% of all local women rejected. An attractive woman would quickly be ugly to me after a few minutes talking to her.

[Silverstring]

I wonder if this is regional, since the number of overweight males in the U.S. is slightly above the number of overweight females?

 

Either way we are at about 75%, I think, which means we are all much less likely to come across a fit than an unfit adult. Male or female.

 

Actually about 2/3rds of Americans are overweight (slightly more for men, slightly less for women). But it also is VERY regional. Cities tend to have fewer overweight people than small towns and suburbs. And some cities are more health conscious than others. I happen to live in a very health conscious city, so seeing someone overweight is not as common, and seeing someone obese is quite rare.

 

There is also a psychological phenomenon called the "Matching Phenomenon" which shows that couples tend to match up when it comes to looks. This suggest that the better looking someone is, the smaller the percentage of people from the opposite sex that they will find attractive based on looks and the less attractive someone is, the greater the percentage of people they'll find attractive from the opposite sex.

 

Anecdotally, I'm an average looking guy, and the majority of women that were clearly interested in me were not very good looking. They had obvious crushes. And that being said, I don't even show up on the radar of women that are really good looking...

[JuneJulySeptember]

 

There is also a psychological phenomenon called the "Matching Phenomenon" which shows that couples tend to match up when it comes to looks. This suggest that the better looking someone is, the smaller the percentage of people from the opposite sex that they will find attractive based on looks and the less attractive someone is, the greater the percentage of people they'll find attractive from the opposite sex.

 

 

A lot of that is just all in your mind though.

 

I don't know if you're a student or if you work, but the next place you end up where you know the people, do this...

 

Try and sort the people out by their looks and rank them, and rank how far apart they are.

 

I don't know about you, but I can tell you that where I work, there's just a bunch of people. There was one young woman who used to work there who was really cute, but the rest are just kind of all cute/OK. There's not a large separation in my mind.

 

Also, I can tell you that 'hot women' are mostly the product of hitting the gym, wearing revealing clothes and a lot of makeup and that is the reason they are so picky. I mean, yes, there are a few people who are born very naturally good looking, but beyond that, it's a very roughly defined scale that we all impose on ourselves as much as we want.

[Silverstring]

A lot of that is just all in your mind though.

 

There's actually been a lot of research on the Matching Phenomenon; just Google it. The research is quite sound and the same findings have been replicated many times, so it's pretty valid. And makes sense as well, just look at couples when you're out and about. Rarely do you see a couple where they seem grossly mismatched in terms of looks.

[JuneJulySeptember]

There's actually been a lot of research on the Matching Phenomenon; just Google it. The research is quite sound and the same findings have been replicated many times, so it's pretty valid. And makes sense as well, just look at couples when you're out and about. Rarely do you see a couple where they seem grossly mismatched in terms of looks.

 

My point is that GROSSLY mismatched is mostly in people's heads and/or a machination of society.

 

They won't allow me to post links here, but one couple that I remember as a kid was Lyle Lovett/Julia Roberts. I distinctly remember being at the supermarket (where I worked) and they were on the cover of a magazine at checkout and this teenage girl said to her mother "Eww. He's so ugly, why is she dating him?"

 

He's a perfectly OK looking dude. Nothing is wrong with him. My point is that the disparity is a matter of opinion.

 

Also, even if it were true and you lived in a world where everybody was a robot and confined to dating somebody that was in their same 'attractiveness' level, would you willingly abide by those rules?

[SevenCity]

Gosh it is funny how different we are.

 

While I find many men physically attractive, enough that I would probably enjoy sex with them - putting up with BS? Hell no. Total libido killer for me.

 

I have a higher threshold for dating than I do for sex / physical attraction.

 

I have been amazed by how much crap some men will put up with just because she is "hot".

Why would you consider dating someone that you wouldn't want to have sex with?

 

The reason for this is that women don't have to work for sex. You can get it anytime you want.

 

Guys, on the other hand, are not guaranteed sex and will often put up with a lot of crap in order to get it.

 

It's hard to understand if you are not a man.

[CryForNoOne]

My point is that GROSSLY mismatched is mostly in people's heads and/or a machination of society.

 

They won't allow me to post links here, but one couple that I remember as a kid was Lyle Lovett/Julia Roberts. I distinctly remember being at the supermarket (where I worked) and they were on the cover of a magazine at checkout and this teenage girl said to her mother "Eww. He's so ugly, why is she dating him?"

 

Because they are not grossly mismatched. Lyle Lovett is a very talented musician and actor. Women find confident, successful men VERY attractive. Mick Jagger is actually butt ugly but his swagger makes him very sexy to many women. Unless men who base attraction 90% on looks, women look for the total package...

[Silverstring]

Because they are not grossly mismatched. Lyle Lovett is a very talented musician and actor. Women find confident, successful men VERY attractive. Mick Jagger is actually butt ugly but his swagger makes him very sexy to many women. Unless men who base attraction 90% on looks, women look for the total package...

 

True, there are definitely exceptions like the ones noted. Also Donald Trump / Melania...Larry King / whatever current much younger wife he has etc...

 

But Lyle Lovett and Julia Roberts marriage I think lasted about one month.

 

But yes there are always exceptions - I never meant to imply that people ALWAYS match up in terms of looks, but it is definitely a strong trend.

 

Which, back to the OP implies that better looking people find less people of the opposite sex attractive, which might account for some of the discrepancy in numbers in this thread...

[GemmaUK]

For me, I would say about 5-10% of girls who I would reject on the basis of looks. I'm curious about what are your guys thoughts on it?

 

I'm gonna go by who I find attractive at work as it's easier to percentage.

 

I'd say I find about 10-12% attractive but not all of that percentage is based upon looks at all.

As in their looks are 'ok' but I would consider dating them as I like and respect them as people and they're good fun to be around.

If we're talking looks only - 'at first sight' type looks then maybe 5-8%.

 

Taking it outside of work the vast majority of men my age in my area are either overweight or obese.

Slightly overweight and if I discover he has a great personality then I might give it a shot but if from OLD and his pic does not depict his current size then sorry, I won't be interested. I have been there and tried my best but I am pretty tiny (5ft, 8st) and to be honest I wouldn't ever want to try going to bed again with a guy twice my weight.

[WaitingForBardot]

The root of my attraction is a very specific combination of body language and personality. Not rare, probably >15-20+% have it, but it is an absolute necessity for me to feel any attraction.

 

As far as looks go it's a step function; either they're over the threshold or they're not. I need at least one desirable aesthetic feature I can focus on; like pretty eyes, or a nice smile, or a sexy figure, and that's enough for me. Obviously more can be better, but not at the expense of the above. I'd guesstimate 65-75% of women in my area would meet this threshold.

 

So that works out to ~15% of women overall I'd find desirable enough to go for the LTR, which is the only reason I'd date someone. It's not that the others are too unattractive, they simply lack the overall combination of traits I'm looking for.

[RecentChange]

The reason for this is that women don't have to work for sex. You can get it anytime you want.

 

Guys, on the other hand, are not guaranteed sex and will often put up with a lot of crap in order to get it.

 

It's hard to understand if you are not a man.

 

But I think would prefer date someone that was less physically attractive who doesn't cause a lot of drama.

 

Just like some very good looking women can get away with being "high maintenance" or "drama" some very good looking guys have similar flaws.

 

Once upon a time I had this F buddy that was just gorgeous. Tall, dark, handsome, built and hung - total physical package. And yes, having sex with his was fun, I would think - Jesus look at this Adonis.

 

But he was also kinda a pain in the a$$. He was good for a lay, but I wouldn't want to have a relationship (date) him.

 

"Lucky" for me I guess, I am attracted to a wide range of men physically, so it was easier for me to find someone who may not be Adonis, but he is good looking, and even more important has a great personality and is easy to get along with.

 

Seems like some guys MUST have that "hot" girl even if she is a pain, rather than the average girl who may be more compatible / easier to have an agreeable relationship with.

[curiouslysearching]

But I think would prefer date someone that was less physically attractive who doesn't cause a lot of drama.

 

Just like some very good looking women can get away with being "high maintenance" or "drama" some very good looking guys have similar flaws.

 

Once upon a time I had this F buddy that was just gorgeous. Tall, dark, handsome, built and hung - total physical package. And yes, having sex with his was fun, I would think - Jesus look at this Adonis.

 

But he was also kinda a pain in the a$$. He was good for a lay, but I wouldn't want to have a relationship (date) him.

 

"Lucky" for me I guess, I am attracted to a wide range of men physically, so it was easier for me to find someone who may not be Adonis, but he is good looking, and even more important has a great personality and is easy to get along with.

 

Seems like some guys MUST have that "hot" girl even if she is a pain, rather than the average girl who may be more compatible / easier to have an agreeable relationship with.

 

I think often times people shy away from very fit or very attractive people because they FEAR (preconceived notion) that are inherently HIGH maintenance which obviously is not always true. It truly does come down to the individual and what they are like and all about.

[telemakus]

But I think would prefer date someone that was less physically attractive who doesn't cause a lot of drama.

 

Just like some very good looking women can get away with being "high maintenance" or "drama" some very good looking guys have similar flaws.

 

Once upon a time I had this F buddy that was just gorgeous. Tall, dark, handsome, built and hung - total physical package. And yes, having sex with his was fun, I would think - Jesus look at this Adonis.

 

But he was also kinda a pain in the a$$. He was good for a lay, but I wouldn't want to have a relationship (date) him.

 

"Lucky" for me I guess, I am attracted to a wide range of men physically, so it was easier for me to find someone who may not be Adonis, but he is good looking, and even more important has a great personality and is easy to get along with.

 

Seems like some guys MUST have that "hot" girl even if she is a pain, rather than the average girl who may be more compatible / easier to have an agreeable relationship with.

 

But here you're just highlighting the point. The female equivalent of your Greek God isn't going to be some FWB for any guy who isn't rich or an Adonis so to sleep with her a guy will obviously date her.

[RecentChange]

But here you're just highlighting the point. The female equivalent of your Greek God isn't going to be some FWB for any guy who isn't rich or an Adonis so to sleep with her a guy will obviously date her.

 

And my point is, lower your physical standard to someone who would be a pleasure to date. If she has to be in the Greek god catagory in order for you to get it up, you're skrewed.

 

These people that are only attracted to the top 5% of the most physically beautiful must be in quite a pickle - the odds of finding a "match" in such a small percentile are slim.

 

I am curious, how many who stated that they have very high physical standards are still single.

 

While finding all of the amazing qualities and compatibilities my husband has , plus an Adonis body seems like quite a unicorn. My Mr is no slouch physically, but certainly isn't a two percenter (neither am I!). I don't NEED an Adonis to be sexually attracted. It seems like some on this thread do.

[anduina]

Attractive to me would be less than 1% and not because of their looks.

Physically attractive males would be ~30 - 40%.

[Silverstring]

My Mr is no slouch physically, but certainly isn't a two percenter (neither am I!). I don't NEED an Adonis to be sexually attracted. It seems like some on this thread do.

 

The people that need the top 2% are likely in the top 2% themselves. So the better looking one is, the fewer good matches there are (given that most people match up with people of the same quality of looks).

 

Also the point is a good one that good looking men will very often have NSA sex with women less attractive as long as there's no investment. But you can guarantee that when it comes time to commit / marry, they will be seeking a woman that is equally good looking.

 

When good looking women want NSA sex, they want to have it with EXTREMELY good looking men. Women make no bones about looks being pretty much the only factor they care about when it comes to NSA sex.

 

All this also to say that it's likely that someone that is only average looking, who is only attracted to the top 2%, will only definitely struggle. If it's a woman, she can still probably get sex, but not a relationship, and if it's a man...well he can become a monk I guess...

[CryForNoOne]

And my point is, lower your physical standard to someone who would be a pleasure to date. If she has to be in the Greek god catagory in order for you to get it up, you're skrewed.

 

These people that are only attracted to the top 5% of the most physically beautiful must be in quite a pickle - the odds of finding a "match" in such a small percentile are slim.

 

I am curious, how many who stated that they have very high physical standards are still single.

 

While finding all of the amazing qualities and compatibilities my husband has , plus an Adonis body seems like quite a unicorn. My Mr is no slouch physically, but certainly isn't a two percenter (neither am I!). I don't NEED an Adonis to be sexually attracted. It seems like some on this thread do.

 

Sadly I've tried lowering my standards but then my libido plummets to nothing within a few weeks of dating and we end up more like roommates than lovers. So yes it is frustrating. My last LTR was with a woman who was everything I wanted physically and my libido never dropped in 3 years...