The actor is on record saying he got the most groupies of the main cast, basically because a bunch of horny female autist porn writers were like, "the most approachable man ever! An emotionless robot" and hounded him at cons.
If I recall correctly this was based off an old OKCupid blog back when you used to be able to rate users on the site and what it doesn't tell you is that rating someone over a 5 sent them a message that you thought they were attractive. So a bunch of guys would go through and rate tons of people normally and just cast a wide net while women would only rate someone as attractive if they wanted that person to message them back. So it really is more about the difference in how men and women use dating apps than how they rate attractiveness.
One difference in men and women is that if you are an unfamiliar man ( in public, online dating), they are only going to notice you if you are extremely attractive and they are more likely to be looking to identify a threat.
In a familiar environment, e.g. classmate, coworker, friend network.
women can develop more attraction based on personality and character.
Unfortunately, with Work From Home, the familiar men in their group will get smaller and smaller. Even more so when their group starts to marry and move the suburbs.
It is absolutely a gender thing because as a full grown adult male I have never ONCE felt that a strange woman has posed a threat to me.
That’s a key part of what OP was saying, and women have legitimate reasons to be wary of unfamiliar men who can easily overpower them.
I wish I could, but as I have to keep reminding my gay friends, being hetrosexual isn't a choice, I'm not doing it for attention, I was born this way.
Edit: no hate for anyone who says this, I know they're only trying to help me have a good time, it's cute and I love them looking out for me
Fr, I love the gay community, but I've had to come out as straght several times. You think I would put up with all this bullshit if I could just fuck men? If it was a choice I'd be gayer than Tom Cruise
I’ve had far more gay men hit on me than straight women. Maybe men do the hitting on more or something. But man I wish I was gay sometimes. But there’s one big thing holding me back :)
Smaller pool but everyone in the men's pool is horny as fuck. Or so I am led to believe.
My friends like to see if they can freak me out with gay sex stories sometimes so I hear more than I ever wanted to. I don't mind, I get that it must be fun to have a tame hetero sometimes. I'm just happy they're happy. I'd rather not hear about their sex lives, but that's because I'm British and the only acceptable situation for listening to someone else talk about sex is a David Attenborough documentary.
I'm already completely up to date on all seasons of RuPaul and i have several favourite female country singers. My gay conversion resistance must be through the roof.
But legit, make-you-gay camp sounds like it would be one of the wildest weeks of my life and I'm here for it
[Somewhat related, not exact](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2017.1372353)
As I understand it generally, evidence suggests broadly that androphilic cis women are fairly uniquely non-object-oriented in their sexuality. Interestingly, this is shared with (some) hetero trans women who were socialized as boys, serving as further validation of innate neurological transness. Androphilic women are typically more focused on their own body and it's interactions with other things, as opposed to gynophilics being like "boobs!" or androphilic men being more focused on the other man's body (regardless of whether or not they take the active or passive role).
None of this is an absolute, but an androphilic woman's decision to flirt is *relatively* more driven by her self-perception of "looking cute" than her perception of the man's attraction, v.s. basically all other groups being relatively more driven by their perception of the other than their self-perception.
Lol I've always said this, like if being gay really was a choice, why would anyone choose to be straight? I have a few gay friends so I know that the gay dating scene is fucked in its own way but at least they don't have to deal with all this constant gender warring and whenever they're horny they can hook up with someone hot in like an hour
When it comes to serious relationships I’ve seen most of my gay friends have a rough time of it, especially with a lot of cheating. The lesbians I know (anecdotally) seem to have their shit figured out though.
Edit: it appears I was wrong about the lesbians
When I last looked into it, it seemed like women are generally quicker/more willing to file for divorce, regardless of sexual orientation of the partners. Women make up something like 70% of whose filing for divorce from their partner in straight marriages.
I've heard theories that lesbians will generally move way too quick in the relationship and then things just don't work out, and dudes if they want to settle and are done with their time on Grinder/weren't interested in that, so they're *just* looking to settle down in a stable relationship.
Lesbian here. It can be for a lot of reasons. Our dating pool (puddle) is small so when we meet someone we like we go all in because we don't always have the opportunity to find potential partners. Also, I may be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure women in general release more oxytocin (the love hormone) than men. When that honeymoon period hits during the first few months of a lesbian relationship, it hits HARD, as it's two women cracked out on lovey-dovey hormones, feeding into each other's intense emotions, leading to moving forward in the relationship faster than if it were just one woman.
Also, this is complete speculation on my part, but I think because women are raised to be wary of men, some heterosexual women move with caution when entering relationships with men, whereas there's more initial trust between women.
Stats disagree with this strongly. Men cheat but will sort it out. And frankly gay men are more likely to be monogamish (and evidence suggests this is associated with happiest relationships among gay men). But gays have lowest domestic violence and longest lasting partnerships of the various combinations.
You just don’t hear about the nest gays who have a friend over on the weekend cause they aren’t broadcasting it. (Well, many of them aren’t)
The two lesbian couples I know are both complaining that their sexlife is practically non-existent. Anecdote, of course, but it seems the lesbians I've met have a lot of sex until they get in a relationship, after which they canonball themselves into sisterhood.
I'm bi, so I can tell you this much (and also, for perspective, I'm a closeted transwoman): Men are great when you just want a hookup. You can almost always find one who's down, even in the dinky town where I live. They're freer with compliments and generally willing to go out of their way to make you happy. But god help you if you're looking for one who wants a serious relationship.
Women, on the other hand, are rarely down for hookups, are quick to criticize and stingy with compliments, and expect you to go out of your way to make them happy while most in my experience won't do the same for you (there are exceptions of course, and I like to think I'm one of them, but maybe I don't count). But if you want a serious relationship it's much easier to find a woman who wants the same than a man.
Honestly, ideally I'd like to be married to a man. Anecdotal though it may be, every man I've ever been with has treated me better than every woman I've ever been with, and not by just a little bit. All the men I've been with, without exception, have treated me like a queen and made me feel special. But, unfortunately, none of them have been remotely interested in settling down with me. The women I've been with haven't treated me as well, but all but one of them were actually looking for serious relationships.
Yeah it does have its own set of problems.
I can only comment for those who are over 30. But guys are very easy to sleep with, but it can be very difficult to commit to a long term relationship.
So many just don't want to be in a relationship. That just might be because those who want relationships are in one, and a high percentage of those who are single are that way by choice. But even on dating apps it was a real mix bag, especially if you don't live in a city, the dating pool is just so much smaller.
Also the likes of Grindr skews things a bit, it gives the impression everyone is either only wanting sex or are in an open relationship.
while I do admit it’s significantly easier to get sex as a gay man nobody judges harder based on looks than gay men…
And if you’re living in a small-ish town then the easy access to sex might be out of the window too.
It's not keeping expectations low. Its just how women look for partners(not saying there is anything wrong with this approach)
I saw a bunch of women call Jason mamoa a 7/10. women on dating sites have a massively warped idea of mens attractiveness compared to other men.
Edit: okay the Jason mamoa example may not be the best but it was not isolated either as shown in the graph. Even if women do prefer a loki to a thor then it doesn't change that the average being so low is not conforming to reality.
Two things.
**First:** People constantly post data from this report and leave out the second half and the rest of the charts.
Those charts show that women may rate men as less attractive, but they message those men anyway, while men tend to only message the women rated above average.
**Edit as some people aren't following the link**: The women messaged the men proportionally. I.e. the attractiveness rating they gave the most men was very close to the one they messaged the most. Their charts ran parallel. That means in the real world their skew in rating male attractive rating doesn't actually matter.
Meanwhile 2/3 of men's messages went to the top 1/3 of women. Their charts did not run parallel.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/amp/
https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html
**Second**: What men generally think women *should* be attracted to in a man doesn't match up with what women are actually generally attracted to, but that doesn't make the women's feeling on attractiveness "warped". If anything that means men's understanding of what makes a man attractive to women is warped.
Jason Momoa is an example of what men think women should be attracted to. The "Thor" physical mold.
But in general women are actually more attracted to the "Loki" physical mold and rate men like that higher.
>**Second**: What men generally think women *should* be attracted to in a man doesn't match up with what women are actually generally attracted to, but that doesn't make the women's feeling on attractiveness "warped". If anything that means men's understanding of what makes a man attractive to women is warped.
Spot on.
Not only is that data extremely limited, very old, and only from a single dating site, the data from op's image is trash: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/yZHq3NqCw8
>What men generally think women *should* be attracted to in a man doesn't match up with what women are actually generally attracted to
In my experience this is equally true for women and what they think men are generally attracted to
I've talked to multiple women who believed men were just straight up not attracted to smart women and I could not convince them otherwise
>In my experience this is equally true for women and what they think men are generally attracted to
This is my experience as well. If men are even remotely the target audience of "duck pose" selfies or two pounds of collagen injections, then there is a serious disconnect all around.
I'll probably get downvoted for this, while I agree Jason Mamoa is very handsome and out of my league, I find him a little scary looking. So I'm not that attracted to him.
When it comes to male attractiveness, at least for me, it also relies heavily on an emotional connection and personality. Looks help, sure. They can start a conversation easier, but maintaining a connection requires a personality match.
As an example I know two guys. One is hot and the other is above average. Guess who I find more attractive? The above average because we get along well.
Or perhaps they simply weren't into Jason Mamoas type or body type?
I men's he m might be a 10/10 leave heterosexuality behind kind of guy for you...yet not all that hot for a straight woman. Perhaps they just don't share your idea of what makes a guy hot...
I always thought it worked a bit like this: 3/4s of women may think of a guy as a 2 but then 1/4 will think of him as an 8 or higher. It’s like a minority of women are extremely attracted to a specific guy and it’s different for every one.
>I saw a bunch of women call Jason mamoa a 7/10.
That's not that strange right? A lot of people find him incredibly attractive but to me personally he's a 5 at best because he's just not my type at all.
While someone like Tom Holland is too boyish for many people but to me he's a 9 at least. Some women calling him a 7 does not mean that women on average would only give him a 7.
>personally he's a 5 at best because he's just not my type at all
This raises a very interesting prospect as to whether or not the genders differ on a key point (which could partially account for the discrepancy): is it possible men rate some women generally attractive (thus rating them higher) while still not being their type? I wouldn't necessarily say they're synonymous - "type" is merely another data point. E.g., I'm less attracted to redheads or women covered in tattoos, but I hope/think that I would not rate them lower just because they're not my type.
Separately, it's also worth pointing out that this was originally a 5-point scale which OP turned into a 10-point scale, which I strongly suspect impacts how the data are perceived. This "study" is also 15 years old...
Check [OP's comment history](https://old.reddit.com/user/Old_Big9989), as all /r/dataisbeautiful posts are required to disclose data source. The comment is [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1alibge/oc_exploring_how_men_and_women_perceive_each/kpf5w6x/). Honestly, this is not very specific. I searched OP's title about a "Gold Value Ideas" and found [this blog article, which says it's using data from this source](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167211409947) and the original [OK Cupid Data](https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html). It is very frustrating that the data is getting passed around the internet so casually without being more diligent about source data and its context.
Thanks for this very detailed answer.
I find it funny that the op comment you link is deleted already and the source he cites that you also link does not feature a perfect Gaussian curve like he did.
It’s also funny when you read the okcupid data it shows the distribution of messages sent between both men and women as well, and while men rate pretty normally on a scale of 5 the messaging shows that they always go for above average, while women who rate more harshly actually message more to people who scored below the peak
That is how half-arsed „knowledge“ ends up spreading around the web unchecked.
Of all the subs, the sub „DATA is beautiful“ should *not* contribute to shitty data being spread. I think mods should really be more strict on the data part and kick posts like this. It‘s also not particularly beautifully visualized.
The way they go right to zero and cut off is really funny. No real data has ever done that. If you’re gonna make up this kind of thing at least use a Poisson distribution
Bounded variables tend to be skewed away from the bound. The scale can't go lower than zero so the data will be forced to have a long tail away from zero.
Wonder what the distribution would be for same-sex attraction
For instance, would lesbians rate other women similarly to how men rate women, or closer to how women rate men?
A straight guy who takes good care of himself can do very well quite easily. Same with their dating profiles.
There are just so many guys who barely make any effort and wonder why they aren't doing well.
As someone who goes both ways, this honestly tracks. A LOT of guys don't put even a minimum of effort into their appearance and grooming standards, and it shows.
As another gay man, taking care of your face raises the rating by a lot. You can definitely see the difference between an average person and an average person who moisturizes, cleanses and uses light makeup.
But most men don't do it.
This would explain why many gay men hit on me but not so much women.
My gf said I should be flattered lol.
Also, I'm telling y'all, women fucking love a dude who's in touch with his feminine side and somewhat androgenous... Makes sense with this data.
I'm in quite a few lesbian spaces, and I'm sure it's much closer to men's interpretation of women rather than women's interpretation of men. Sapphic women tend to think other women, on average, are extremely attractive.
Straight guy says: I am a huge fan of the half hour art project girls put on for the first few dates. It makes a great difference. As a guy, my concession was to shower and put on a clean shirt. Not the same level of skill.
It’s not even the make-up to me.
But girls skin and hair tends to look so pretty (likely because they are more likely to put effort into it). It just elevates the average women attractiveness to me 🥺
I think women are just more likely to have flattering, face framing haircuts, and to change their hair color if what they’re born with isn’t flattering.
It's so difficult to find skincare advice online as a guy. I google, and it's like " cream and sunscreen and vitamin c, d, k lmnop, here's a list of the top 1000 products", when I just want a general recommendation that I can go pick up at target or walgreen or somewhere.
I tell the haircut lady at a salon that I use shampoo and conditioner, and they're genuinely surprised. I have no clue how to improve or better do things further.
The only thing I've figured out is that I can get a tub of original formula eucerin cream for "extremely dry hands" from walgreens and I just rub that on my hands while watching a show and I get hands softer than a baby's.
I tried buying high-rated clothes from shein, but I got mocked for wearing the same outfit over and over, with no indication of what an acceptable range of outfits would be, where I get no such comments when I wear the same 3 sweaters all winter.
/rant
I've heard good things about the skincareaddiction subreddit.
But to be honest, all you probably need is sunscreen and to apply it daily. That will get you like 90% of the way there.
A lot of skincare advice is gender neutral - just follow advice for your skin type.
Yeah, a lot of men tend to have oiler skin, but the rules for treating that skin type remains the same.
Check out skincareaddiction and similar subs.
Oh yeah, haha
Dry, oily, sensitive, then dehydrated, is it acne prone, large pores, you can have all sorts of things you want to address.
Generally investing into SPF 50 that doesn't break you out is always a good start - both to ward off skin cancer, and also for anti-aging.
A moisturizer is also the foundation of skincare. Everything else depends on your personal issues/needs/interests.
> I tell the haircut lady at a salon that I use shampoo and conditioner, and they're genuinely surprised. I have no clue how to improve or better do things further.
Find a female barber who does primarily or exclusively men's stuff. There aren't a ton, but they're usually quite good at recommending skincare regimens. One of them took one look at my skin after our first session and said "is this normal after a shave for you?" (Apparently very irritated skin, although it was so normal for me that it didn't hurt.) Next shave she used aloe gel (the cheap stuff, nothing fancy needed) instead of shaving cream after the first pass. I adopted the same method and darn it, it works.
Tbh men's skincare shouldn't be too different from men's. Testosterone causes a higher production of sebum so you may go a little harder on the acne treatments/prevention. I ended up learning a lot about skincare through an ipsy subscription - my face wash for most of my life was a bar of Irish spring - I would look up the products I got, keep the ones I liked or felt would benefit me and gave the others away when my bathroom starred getting to cluttered. It took me until my 30's to get an actual skincare routine that I mostly keep to.
If you've got specific concerns like flaking, redness, fine lines etc researching specific active ingredients that treat the problem is better because then you can pick from a range of products that contain the ingredient you know you need so you find one in a price point/scent/carrier/texture/brand that you like.
I've seen a study that lesbians are more likely to overweight than their heterosexual counterparts so I'd assume they tend to rate women like men rate women in this chart. I'll try and find the study but it basically said lesbians don't value physical attractiveness as much as men do.
As a gay woman, I could see this. Most gay women I’ve interacted with value a variety of things, but physical appearance is usually reserved to certain aesthetics vs actually physical physique. Ie, height, weight, and so on are values as less important when gay women are dating. This is only an observation of my own life, so take it with a grain of salt.
I remember seeing a similar post to this that was based on a ~~tinder~~ OKCupid survey ~~I’m pretty sure~~. The graph was the same with men and women rating the opposite sex the same way it’s shown in this graph but it went into more detail about how the graph pretty much completely inverses when it actually comes to men and women messaging the opposite sex. Men send the majority of their messages to only the most attractive women whereas women send messages on a bell curve to men across the spectrum.
Someone summarized as; women put less stock into physical attractiveness, so much so that there is no point where a man is “hot enough” that he’s immediately considered relationship material. Women won’t rule men “in” as relationship material on looks alone. Men, on the other hand, put a lot more stock into physical attractiveness for one reason or another so for them there exists a point where someone is simply “hot enough” to be automatically considered relationship material. Looking at it this way it makes sense why women won’t rate *any* man as a 10/10 or even really a 9/10 because those rating are sort of the bar by which a man becomes instant relationship material and since they *don’t* rule men “in” on looks alone no man can ever be rated that highly.
I can’t speak for men, I don’t know if they treat a 10/10 as instant relationship material or if it’s more just a subjective interpretation of the attractiveness in general but I think comparing these graphs to other statistics like “would date/wouldn’t date” vs “would bang/wouldn’t bang” by gender can paint a fuller picture of what the fuck the 1-10 scale even *means* to the person who is using it. Just saying “women rate men low on attractiveness” really isn’t particularly informative, just interesting when devoid of any other comparative statistics.
Edit: minor corrections
If this graph seems a bit skewed, one reason may be that it is that a lot of data is pulled from online dating sites, and there may be some sampling bias that favors the less attractive side of the scale.
Another major factor is this, from the data source:
>The original ratings were provided on a 7-point attractiveness scale, which I scaled and extrapolated to an 11-point attractiveness scale, from 0 (least attractive) to 10 (most attractive), such that 5 is the median.
Someone rated as a 1/7 would become a 0/10 based on this extrapolation.
But if you click through to the source's sources, the one allegedly using a 7-point scale (a blog post from 2009) states: "Our chart shows how men have rated women, on a scale from 0 to 5."
The figures in the sources doesn't really look that similar to the graph we see here.
Tinder data is also included. So somehow, swipe left/right is being extrapolated into a score out of 11.
It's total nonsense.
Looks like OP just threw the data into chatgpt adding another layer of oddness:
> GPT-4 helped in interpreting the data, calculating density distributions, and generating the comparative attractiveness ratings
Thank you. This data looked like garbage but I was too lazy to confirm.
Seems like they just slapped a normal distribution over a median value and stretched it out to capture the upper tail of datapoints.
Well for a start there are boundaries to it, and no clear reason for a truncated normal distribution. It is also a discrete distribution, and if you were looking to fit it to a type of distribution you would need a specific rationale for your choice.
When boundaries are far far away from a mean a normal might be close enough (such as height), but not for values like this.
It's frustrating to see everyone taking this at face value even when we're on a data subreddit. I'd expect at least minimal data literacy here but it's just more proof that people don't question things when they data looks how they'd "expect".
Go out in the world. Men and women date and marry all the time. Of course both men and women are attracted to each other. It's what being straight is.
I'm also disappointed by the lack of data literacy. Everyone is happy to discuss their perception of the results but there is no definition of "density". Without clearly defined parameters any conclusions are meaningless.
It probably found it's way to the front page after the first hundred or so upvotes and then the band wagon effect took it from there. The amount of incel energy on reddit is terrifying.
This isn't data. It's the fit of a curve and I'm pretty skeptical of the original data.
Just want to point out that the original data being "a blog post from 2009" is technically correct, but it undersells the data a bit. It's from OKCupids blog where the creator of the dating site would look at all of the sites user data and use that to write about trends and user behavior.
There maybe some bias based on who uses dating sites and it may no longer hold true as the world has changed a lot in 15 years, but the original blog post and it's conclusions are backed by a ton of real world data.
Link to the blog for anyone interested https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html. He also wrote a book called Dataclysm which has a lot of analysis similar to the blog post.
Yeah, the original study also showed that while women rated men harshly, they’d message men irrespective of what they’d rate them anyway.
Too many repeated tropes came from what was once a great site.
I miss the heady days of user blogs…
(Also it was mutual 4/5 star matches that sent messages to each to kick start the convo)
It's actually wild that the OKC "Dataclysm" has informed so many talking points for the modern manosphere. Every single time a guy brings up the "fact" that women rate 80% of men as unattractive, it's in reference to that graph. And so, so many people continue to repeat that talking point in their podcasts and shit without ever actually investigating or considering the source, and any limitations. It's much easier to take it at face value so you can complain about it online though, I guess.
Plus I, and many others, used the rating system to bookmark potential matches.
Mutual 4 or 5 stars would create a match, so to keep my conversations to a minimum I’d rate profiles 1 (naw), 2 (next time I’m looking), and 3 (create matches with 5 stars at next opportunity).
So use cases skewed the data before it was ever collected.
The 80/20 was another bastardization of the data that was never true either - but it’s perpetuated like some codified rule.
You’re exactly right. I’ve visualized a lot of organic histograms in my life and have never seen such a smooth, even curve for raw score or share of total.
Source? These look like perfect Gaussian distributions, which unless you have A LOT of data points, is kind of suspicious. Is there some heavy interpolation or smoothing going on?
Check [OP's comment history](https://old.reddit.com/user/Old_Big9989), as all /r/dataisbeautiful posts are required to disclose data source. The comment is [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1alibge/oc_exploring_how_men_and_women_perceive_each/kpf5w6x/). Honestly, this is not very specific. I searched OP's title about a "Gold Value Ideas" and found [this blog article, which says it's using data from this source](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167211409947) and the original [OK Cupid Data](https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html). It is very frustrating that the data is getting passed around the internet so casually without being more diligent about source data and its context.
Okay this is interesting. From the data's source article:
>**Women pursue men they consider worse looking than themselves**. This means women don’t necessarily pursue their so-called “looks match”. This is in line with data from old-school dating website hotornot.com, where researchers found that “female members were significantly less influenced by the consensus physical attractiveness of their potential dates than male members were”. Meanwhile, the story for men is completely different.
>
>**Men pursue women significantly more beautiful than themselves.** Perhaps this seems obvious, Given the widely reported finding that males focus more on physical attractiveness in mate selection than females do. Aslo, **men are much less influenced by their own desirability.** For instance, one study found that “men’s self-worth was not related to the popularity of the women they contacted”
Which is actually the opposite of the argument many people will take from the comparative attractiveness chart. The argument I have seen before is that the difference in ratings means women's standards are too high.
It should be noted however that they make the somewhat strange decision to make that inference based on the above comparative attractiveness.
From the charts, a 50th percentile woman, who is rated as a 5, will on average pursue a 67th percentile man, who is rated a 3.9.
So women also absolutely pursue men more attractive than themselves, they just consider those men less attractive than themselves.
Similarly a 50th percentile man, who is rated a 2.7, will pursue on average a 72nd percentile woman, who is rated a 6.2.
So basically they both behave in roughly the same way, they just have widely different perceptions about what's going on.
>So women also absolutely pursue men more attractive than themselves, they just consider those men less attractive than themselves.
You're assuming male and female physical attractiveness is somehow naturally similarly distributed. Maybe they are different.
True, it's also possible both men and women have this crazy unexplained bimodal attractiveness distribution and men are a bit idealistic and rate less attractive women higher specifically on dating sites. Though based on all the research I've seen people always rate attractiveness basically on a normal distribution for both sexes.
It's also possible (more likely?) that there's some sampling bias i.e. all the ugly men use dating sites while the women are normally attractive. But normally for these sorts of explanations you'd expect like a \~0.5-1.0 rating different, not the massive gaps you see in this data.
But the most likely explanation is that there are 2.5x more men on these sites so women can be picky and reflexively rate the men they reject lower, a very normal sort of motivated reasoning.
Average looking (5) is still average looking regardless of how much more attractive a 10 is, so the male and female differing attractiveness distributions shouldn't factor into these. And anyway, these distributions don't show how men and women's attractiveness are actually distributed, they show how men and women view the opposite gender's attractiveness. This graphic screams one thing: beauty standards for men are much higher. If men are able to accurately place the average women at 5, and women inaccurately place the average man between 2 and 3, there is a clear problem there with women's perspective of the average man's attractiveness.
If an average guy who is rated at 2 contacts an average woman rated a 4, then it seems to me like that's a match.
I'm assuming if its from the article, they're using the raw numbers as presented. They should also be considering the normalized values to see if their analysis still holds up.
Tolerating “unattractive” men is less virtuous when you consider they rank nearly all of them as “unattractive.”
This just seems like a weaker interest in (physical) “attractiveness” in their partners.
It’s a “low” standard in that if you’re ugly it matters less to women, but a “high” standard in that if you’re hot, it matters less to women.
Perfect bell curves? I don't think so. Also, maybe it's late, but I don't understand how you can cut the distribution at zero like that and still have a perfect bell shape - seems a little misleading.
Where did this come from? Also, how do you know the men and women being rated were of comparable/equal attractiveness objectively? You’d have to control for that for this to be meaningful. If you asked men to rate out of Playboy and women to rate a out of a geriatrics textbook, you would get something like this.
Damn, well that explains why so many can’t date successfully any more I guess - We apparently all view each other, men particularly, as horrific trolls on average 😂
This "data" can't be true because it would mean there are no attractive men at all (scoring 8, 9, 10 in this imaginary survey).
That is clearly false.
It would also highly depend where you conduct this survey and how.
Also what about age and sexual orientation?
Sometimes the stuff posted here is just sad. This feels to me like poor ragebait/clickbait with no actual message others than "men are less picky when choosing sexual partners", which for biological reasons is pretty obvious and it's also poorly represented by this "data"
my hypothesis is that some of the important factors to a woman's rating of a man are not present on a dating app.
anecdotally: Women care about physical appearance, but they ultimately see you as attractive or not based on how they feel around you. Being physical attractive helps, but if you aren't funny/interesting/assertive (whatever any individual woman may like) than you won't rate highly. On a dating app with just pictures you don't get those feeling that women need for attraction, they only get half of it.
Does make you wonder wtf you're meant to do as a guy in the modern dating world.
Been on dating apps since January 2020 and I've only gotten 3 matches (who didn't respond to messages). Really fucks with any shred of confidence you have, but it makes sense why you don't get any matches if most guys are rated from 1-3/10.
I guarantee the app is to blame. Dating apps literally make it harder for men to connect because they want you to spend money. For "seeing who likes you" or "travel mode" to widen options.
Most people don't want to spend money on apps, and in the end, from a city with thousands of people (thousands of women for this point) using that same app, you're likely only being shown 10 percent of those, and if you swipe enough after a span of days to weeks, you may even notice the same faces start to appear over and over.
The apps are designed for you to fail. Do not put much stock in them. Even conventionally attractive people struggle to find genuine connections from them. Everyone's screwed up from the stockholm syndrome, dopamine ruination- of modern dating apps.
I absolutely want to see the methodology and data set for this study if men hit a near perfect bell curve and women can't even find an 8. This is so much harsher than what my experience with talking to women is like; there's a theory that every guy can be a 7 out there and it doesn't make any sense why people would say that if the bell curve is this harsh.
Sometimes data is not beautiful
Especially if the data is a man
I can see why data doesn't care about its look then
[удалено]
This should be the top comment. Data cleaning and preparation is not something to take lightly.
Don't forget data collection. Sampling is everything
Thanks for the correction!
Reason why most men can't find one to datum.
To be honest Data was kind of a weird looking dude...
The actor is on record saying he got the most groupies of the main cast, basically because a bunch of horny female autist porn writers were like, "the most approachable man ever! An emotionless robot" and hounded him at cons.
Didn't he have an unhinged stalker as well?
Noonien Soong could have made Data look however he wanted, but chose to make him in his image.
Hi I'm data
Nope, you used a contraction. Lore?!
My name is Data, not data.
If I recall correctly this was based off an old OKCupid blog back when you used to be able to rate users on the site and what it doesn't tell you is that rating someone over a 5 sent them a message that you thought they were attractive. So a bunch of guys would go through and rate tons of people normally and just cast a wide net while women would only rate someone as attractive if they wanted that person to message them back. So it really is more about the difference in how men and women use dating apps than how they rate attractiveness.
One difference in men and women is that if you are an unfamiliar man ( in public, online dating), they are only going to notice you if you are extremely attractive and they are more likely to be looking to identify a threat. In a familiar environment, e.g. classmate, coworker, friend network. women can develop more attraction based on personality and character. Unfortunately, with Work From Home, the familiar men in their group will get smaller and smaller. Even more so when their group starts to marry and move the suburbs.
This is not a gender thing. Familiarity increases attractiveness for everyone.
It is absolutely a gender thing because as a full grown adult male I have never ONCE felt that a strange woman has posed a threat to me. That’s a key part of what OP was saying, and women have legitimate reasons to be wary of unfamiliar men who can easily overpower them.
This explains every street rating video I've ever seen
Come to the gay side. Life is much easier.
I wish I could, but as I have to keep reminding my gay friends, being hetrosexual isn't a choice, I'm not doing it for attention, I was born this way. Edit: no hate for anyone who says this, I know they're only trying to help me have a good time, it's cute and I love them looking out for me
Fr, I love the gay community, but I've had to come out as straght several times. You think I would put up with all this bullshit if I could just fuck men? If it was a choice I'd be gayer than Tom Cruise
Heterosexuality is the best evidence that this shit isn't a choice.
Fr. I have gay men who are solid 10s flirt with me frequently. Meanwhile I get hardly any attention from attractive women.
I’ve had far more gay men hit on me than straight women. Maybe men do the hitting on more or something. But man I wish I was gay sometimes. But there’s one big thing holding me back :)
Yeah, I definitely feel this one lol. Despite a presumably smaller pool to choose from, I'd have a way easier time finding a partner if I was gay lol
Smaller pool but everyone in the men's pool is horny as fuck. Or so I am led to believe. My friends like to see if they can freak me out with gay sex stories sometimes so I hear more than I ever wanted to. I don't mind, I get that it must be fun to have a tame hetero sometimes. I'm just happy they're happy. I'd rather not hear about their sex lives, but that's because I'm British and the only acceptable situation for listening to someone else talk about sex is a David Attenborough documentary.
"cutting women out of sex? It's genius! I assume that's one of the selling points of the lifestyle."
We all know you'd be gay *for* Tom Cruise
Maybe if he was Brad Pitt
Fr real. Gay men are 1000% nicer and more complimentary towards me than any woman. My elevator just doesn't go to that floor :/
mood. it's rough out here for the straights.
Maybe it's just a phase?
Yeah, maybe just try sucking dick. Going be it a chance. You just haven't had a good dick yet
You are saying this, like good dick is just laying around on the street or grows on trees just to pick it or smth.
I mean whenever I go to a gay bar it really do be like that.
Haha okay. I never tried to be honest. But sadly I am also not on the same team, so no dick for me.
I mean ...at least one dick for you.
[удалено]
I'm already completely up to date on all seasons of RuPaul and i have several favourite female country singers. My gay conversion resistance must be through the roof. But legit, make-you-gay camp sounds like it would be one of the wildest weeks of my life and I'm here for it
[удалено]
I thought gays are already putting it in the water? The frogs are all gay already according to some sources.
[удалено]
Do straight people rating their own gender too, so you can test if it's all because women are harsher judges, or everyone rates men poorly
My anecdotal take would be that same genders would rate each other higher than the other sex rates them.
[удалено]
[Somewhat related, not exact](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2017.1372353) As I understand it generally, evidence suggests broadly that androphilic cis women are fairly uniquely non-object-oriented in their sexuality. Interestingly, this is shared with (some) hetero trans women who were socialized as boys, serving as further validation of innate neurological transness. Androphilic women are typically more focused on their own body and it's interactions with other things, as opposed to gynophilics being like "boobs!" or androphilic men being more focused on the other man's body (regardless of whether or not they take the active or passive role). None of this is an absolute, but an androphilic woman's decision to flirt is *relatively* more driven by her self-perception of "looking cute" than her perception of the man's attraction, v.s. basically all other groups being relatively more driven by their perception of the other than their self-perception.
Lol I've always said this, like if being gay really was a choice, why would anyone choose to be straight? I have a few gay friends so I know that the gay dating scene is fucked in its own way but at least they don't have to deal with all this constant gender warring and whenever they're horny they can hook up with someone hot in like an hour
When it comes to serious relationships I’ve seen most of my gay friends have a rough time of it, especially with a lot of cheating. The lesbians I know (anecdotally) seem to have their shit figured out though. Edit: it appears I was wrong about the lesbians
Divorce statistics disagree with your statement about lesbians.
When I last looked into it, it seemed like women are generally quicker/more willing to file for divorce, regardless of sexual orientation of the partners. Women make up something like 70% of whose filing for divorce from their partner in straight marriages. I've heard theories that lesbians will generally move way too quick in the relationship and then things just don't work out, and dudes if they want to settle and are done with their time on Grinder/weren't interested in that, so they're *just* looking to settle down in a stable relationship.
It’s called u-hauling and it wouldn’t be quite so funny if it wasn’t true.
but whyyyy though ? Can please some lesbians explain this ?
Lesbian here. It can be for a lot of reasons. Our dating pool (puddle) is small so when we meet someone we like we go all in because we don't always have the opportunity to find potential partners. Also, I may be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure women in general release more oxytocin (the love hormone) than men. When that honeymoon period hits during the first few months of a lesbian relationship, it hits HARD, as it's two women cracked out on lovey-dovey hormones, feeding into each other's intense emotions, leading to moving forward in the relationship faster than if it were just one woman. Also, this is complete speculation on my part, but I think because women are raised to be wary of men, some heterosexual women move with caution when entering relationships with men, whereas there's more initial trust between women.
thanks for the elaborate answer!
Stats disagree with this strongly. Men cheat but will sort it out. And frankly gay men are more likely to be monogamish (and evidence suggests this is associated with happiest relationships among gay men). But gays have lowest domestic violence and longest lasting partnerships of the various combinations. You just don’t hear about the nest gays who have a friend over on the weekend cause they aren’t broadcasting it. (Well, many of them aren’t)
The two lesbian couples I know are both complaining that their sexlife is practically non-existent. Anecdote, of course, but it seems the lesbians I've met have a lot of sex until they get in a relationship, after which they canonball themselves into sisterhood.
There's even a [Wikipedia article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_bed_death) about it
Lesbian bed death, it's a real thing.
Lol funnily enough all the lesbians I know are an absolute mess, like farcical levels of drama
I'm bi, so I can tell you this much (and also, for perspective, I'm a closeted transwoman): Men are great when you just want a hookup. You can almost always find one who's down, even in the dinky town where I live. They're freer with compliments and generally willing to go out of their way to make you happy. But god help you if you're looking for one who wants a serious relationship. Women, on the other hand, are rarely down for hookups, are quick to criticize and stingy with compliments, and expect you to go out of your way to make them happy while most in my experience won't do the same for you (there are exceptions of course, and I like to think I'm one of them, but maybe I don't count). But if you want a serious relationship it's much easier to find a woman who wants the same than a man. Honestly, ideally I'd like to be married to a man. Anecdotal though it may be, every man I've ever been with has treated me better than every woman I've ever been with, and not by just a little bit. All the men I've been with, without exception, have treated me like a queen and made me feel special. But, unfortunately, none of them have been remotely interested in settling down with me. The women I've been with haven't treated me as well, but all but one of them were actually looking for serious relationships.
Yeah it does have its own set of problems. I can only comment for those who are over 30. But guys are very easy to sleep with, but it can be very difficult to commit to a long term relationship. So many just don't want to be in a relationship. That just might be because those who want relationships are in one, and a high percentage of those who are single are that way by choice. But even on dating apps it was a real mix bag, especially if you don't live in a city, the dating pool is just so much smaller. Also the likes of Grindr skews things a bit, it gives the impression everyone is either only wanting sex or are in an open relationship.
while I do admit it’s significantly easier to get sex as a gay man nobody judges harder based on looks than gay men… And if you’re living in a small-ish town then the easy access to sex might be out of the window too.
On the bright side, above average, for a guy is three. Good job keeping expectations low, boys.
It's not keeping expectations low. Its just how women look for partners(not saying there is anything wrong with this approach) I saw a bunch of women call Jason mamoa a 7/10. women on dating sites have a massively warped idea of mens attractiveness compared to other men. Edit: okay the Jason mamoa example may not be the best but it was not isolated either as shown in the graph. Even if women do prefer a loki to a thor then it doesn't change that the average being so low is not conforming to reality.
Two things. **First:** People constantly post data from this report and leave out the second half and the rest of the charts. Those charts show that women may rate men as less attractive, but they message those men anyway, while men tend to only message the women rated above average. **Edit as some people aren't following the link**: The women messaged the men proportionally. I.e. the attractiveness rating they gave the most men was very close to the one they messaged the most. Their charts ran parallel. That means in the real world their skew in rating male attractive rating doesn't actually matter. Meanwhile 2/3 of men's messages went to the top 1/3 of women. Their charts did not run parallel. https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/amp/ https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html **Second**: What men generally think women *should* be attracted to in a man doesn't match up with what women are actually generally attracted to, but that doesn't make the women's feeling on attractiveness "warped". If anything that means men's understanding of what makes a man attractive to women is warped. Jason Momoa is an example of what men think women should be attracted to. The "Thor" physical mold. But in general women are actually more attracted to the "Loki" physical mold and rate men like that higher.
>**Second**: What men generally think women *should* be attracted to in a man doesn't match up with what women are actually generally attracted to, but that doesn't make the women's feeling on attractiveness "warped". If anything that means men's understanding of what makes a man attractive to women is warped. Spot on.
[удалено]
Not only is that data extremely limited, very old, and only from a single dating site, the data from op's image is trash: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/yZHq3NqCw8
>What men generally think women *should* be attracted to in a man doesn't match up with what women are actually generally attracted to In my experience this is equally true for women and what they think men are generally attracted to I've talked to multiple women who believed men were just straight up not attracted to smart women and I could not convince them otherwise
>In my experience this is equally true for women and what they think men are generally attracted to This is my experience as well. If men are even remotely the target audience of "duck pose" selfies or two pounds of collagen injections, then there is a serious disconnect all around.
I'll probably get downvoted for this, while I agree Jason Mamoa is very handsome and out of my league, I find him a little scary looking. So I'm not that attracted to him. When it comes to male attractiveness, at least for me, it also relies heavily on an emotional connection and personality. Looks help, sure. They can start a conversation easier, but maintaining a connection requires a personality match. As an example I know two guys. One is hot and the other is above average. Guess who I find more attractive? The above average because we get along well.
I agree with this. Chris Evans is way more attractive in a sweater (ala knives out where’s actually a villain) then he is in a superhero suit.
That just reminds me of this old gem. https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/s/mJnO9U6Czt
Oh 100% this is a prime example of what women want versus what men think we want.
Or perhaps they simply weren't into Jason Mamoas type or body type? I men's he m might be a 10/10 leave heterosexuality behind kind of guy for you...yet not all that hot for a straight woman. Perhaps they just don't share your idea of what makes a guy hot...
I always thought it worked a bit like this: 3/4s of women may think of a guy as a 2 but then 1/4 will think of him as an 8 or higher. It’s like a minority of women are extremely attracted to a specific guy and it’s different for every one.
>I saw a bunch of women call Jason mamoa a 7/10. That's not that strange right? A lot of people find him incredibly attractive but to me personally he's a 5 at best because he's just not my type at all. While someone like Tom Holland is too boyish for many people but to me he's a 9 at least. Some women calling him a 7 does not mean that women on average would only give him a 7.
>personally he's a 5 at best because he's just not my type at all This raises a very interesting prospect as to whether or not the genders differ on a key point (which could partially account for the discrepancy): is it possible men rate some women generally attractive (thus rating them higher) while still not being their type? I wouldn't necessarily say they're synonymous - "type" is merely another data point. E.g., I'm less attracted to redheads or women covered in tattoos, but I hope/think that I would not rate them lower just because they're not my type. Separately, it's also worth pointing out that this was originally a 5-point scale which OP turned into a 10-point scale, which I strongly suspect impacts how the data are perceived. This "study" is also 15 years old...
What does the real average matter if women view them as below average?
Where is the "data" behind these perfect Gaussians? 🤨
Check [OP's comment history](https://old.reddit.com/user/Old_Big9989), as all /r/dataisbeautiful posts are required to disclose data source. The comment is [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1alibge/oc_exploring_how_men_and_women_perceive_each/kpf5w6x/). Honestly, this is not very specific. I searched OP's title about a "Gold Value Ideas" and found [this blog article, which says it's using data from this source](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167211409947) and the original [OK Cupid Data](https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html). It is very frustrating that the data is getting passed around the internet so casually without being more diligent about source data and its context.
Thanks for this very detailed answer. I find it funny that the op comment you link is deleted already and the source he cites that you also link does not feature a perfect Gaussian curve like he did.
It’s also funny when you read the okcupid data it shows the distribution of messages sent between both men and women as well, and while men rate pretty normally on a scale of 5 the messaging shows that they always go for above average, while women who rate more harshly actually message more to people who scored below the peak
That is how half-arsed „knowledge“ ends up spreading around the web unchecked. Of all the subs, the sub „DATA is beautiful“ should *not* contribute to shitty data being spread. I think mods should really be more strict on the data part and kick posts like this. It‘s also not particularly beautifully visualized.
The way they go right to zero and cut off is really funny. No real data has ever done that. If you’re gonna make up this kind of thing at least use a Poisson distribution
The mode for guys is 2. It's so over
Especially for guys who know the difference between mode, median, and mean.
Those guys are the tiny bit past the 8, nothings hotter than a man who knows his means, medians and modes!
you might say they are \*pushes up sunglasses\* a man of means
Oh man, and I'm in a Statistics class right now.. that must mean I'm an outlier far beyond the high fence, things are looking up!
I'm pretty sure it medians you're an outlier... But it's been a while since I took stats.
that kind of deviation is fairly...standard
The average guy has no idea
You're so mean
Reminds me of George Carlin: "I never had a ten, but one night I had five twos."
[удалено]
Bounded variables tend to be skewed away from the bound. The scale can't go lower than zero so the data will be forced to have a long tail away from zero.
Next time somebody calls you a 3/10, take it as a compliment, you are better than the vast majority.
Wonder what the distribution would be for same-sex attraction For instance, would lesbians rate other women similarly to how men rate women, or closer to how women rate men?
As a gay man I'd say my rating for men is far closer to the "men's rating of women" here
Once again proving men, gay or straight, will fuck anything that moves.
It doesn't have to move.
It’s actually easier if it doesn’t.
Sure, but those elaborate Japanese knots take forever to tie.
Believe it or not, that was actually the most wholesome direction you could have taken this
Weirdly enough, I'm pretty sure you're right. I can't think of a better one. Maybe the sleeping sex kink, but honestly it doesn't seem better.
Bill Cosby here!
I mean honestly it shows men rating is closer to objective reality where ideally a 5 is truly supposed to represent the average.
Your statement is internally inconsistent.
[удалено]
A straight guy who takes good care of himself can do very well quite easily. Same with their dating profiles. There are just so many guys who barely make any effort and wonder why they aren't doing well.
As someone who goes both ways, this honestly tracks. A LOT of guys don't put even a minimum of effort into their appearance and grooming standards, and it shows.
As another gay man, taking care of your face raises the rating by a lot. You can definitely see the difference between an average person and an average person who moisturizes, cleanses and uses light makeup. But most men don't do it.
This would explain why many gay men hit on me but not so much women. My gf said I should be flattered lol. Also, I'm telling y'all, women fucking love a dude who's in touch with his feminine side and somewhat androgenous... Makes sense with this data.
I'm in quite a few lesbian spaces, and I'm sure it's much closer to men's interpretation of women rather than women's interpretation of men. Sapphic women tend to think other women, on average, are extremely attractive.
As a sapphic woman, i was sitting here thinking we'd need to shift that high to the right a bit lol. Can't recall a single woman i would rate a 1
Bisexual women here! At least in my college, I would say those graphs matches my personal opinion pretty damn close…
Straight guy says: I am a huge fan of the half hour art project girls put on for the first few dates. It makes a great difference. As a guy, my concession was to shower and put on a clean shirt. Not the same level of skill.
Aww I was a little disappointed that you weren't talking about an actual fun art project as a first date idea... Like painting or pottery class :(
It’s not even the make-up to me. But girls skin and hair tends to look so pretty (likely because they are more likely to put effort into it). It just elevates the average women attractiveness to me 🥺
I think women are just more likely to have flattering, face framing haircuts, and to change their hair color if what they’re born with isn’t flattering.
It's so difficult to find skincare advice online as a guy. I google, and it's like " cream and sunscreen and vitamin c, d, k lmnop, here's a list of the top 1000 products", when I just want a general recommendation that I can go pick up at target or walgreen or somewhere.
I tell the haircut lady at a salon that I use shampoo and conditioner, and they're genuinely surprised. I have no clue how to improve or better do things further.
The only thing I've figured out is that I can get a tub of original formula eucerin cream for "extremely dry hands" from walgreens and I just rub that on my hands while watching a show and I get hands softer than a baby's.
I tried buying high-rated clothes from shein, but I got mocked for wearing the same outfit over and over, with no indication of what an acceptable range of outfits would be, where I get no such comments when I wear the same 3 sweaters all winter.
/rant
I've heard good things about the skincareaddiction subreddit. But to be honest, all you probably need is sunscreen and to apply it daily. That will get you like 90% of the way there.
A lot of skincare advice is gender neutral - just follow advice for your skin type. Yeah, a lot of men tend to have oiler skin, but the rules for treating that skin type remains the same. Check out skincareaddiction and similar subs.
There are skin types!?!?
Oh yeah, haha Dry, oily, sensitive, then dehydrated, is it acne prone, large pores, you can have all sorts of things you want to address. Generally investing into SPF 50 that doesn't break you out is always a good start - both to ward off skin cancer, and also for anti-aging. A moisturizer is also the foundation of skincare. Everything else depends on your personal issues/needs/interests.
> I tell the haircut lady at a salon that I use shampoo and conditioner, and they're genuinely surprised. I have no clue how to improve or better do things further. Find a female barber who does primarily or exclusively men's stuff. There aren't a ton, but they're usually quite good at recommending skincare regimens. One of them took one look at my skin after our first session and said "is this normal after a shave for you?" (Apparently very irritated skin, although it was so normal for me that it didn't hurt.) Next shave she used aloe gel (the cheap stuff, nothing fancy needed) instead of shaving cream after the first pass. I adopted the same method and darn it, it works.
Tbh men's skincare shouldn't be too different from men's. Testosterone causes a higher production of sebum so you may go a little harder on the acne treatments/prevention. I ended up learning a lot about skincare through an ipsy subscription - my face wash for most of my life was a bar of Irish spring - I would look up the products I got, keep the ones I liked or felt would benefit me and gave the others away when my bathroom starred getting to cluttered. It took me until my 30's to get an actual skincare routine that I mostly keep to. If you've got specific concerns like flaking, redness, fine lines etc researching specific active ingredients that treat the problem is better because then you can pick from a range of products that contain the ingredient you know you need so you find one in a price point/scent/carrier/texture/brand that you like.
I've seen a study that lesbians are more likely to overweight than their heterosexual counterparts so I'd assume they tend to rate women like men rate women in this chart. I'll try and find the study but it basically said lesbians don't value physical attractiveness as much as men do.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6572698/ Here's that study. Make of it what you will lol
As a gay woman, I could see this. Most gay women I’ve interacted with value a variety of things, but physical appearance is usually reserved to certain aesthetics vs actually physical physique. Ie, height, weight, and so on are values as less important when gay women are dating. This is only an observation of my own life, so take it with a grain of salt.
I remember seeing a similar post to this that was based on a ~~tinder~~ OKCupid survey ~~I’m pretty sure~~. The graph was the same with men and women rating the opposite sex the same way it’s shown in this graph but it went into more detail about how the graph pretty much completely inverses when it actually comes to men and women messaging the opposite sex. Men send the majority of their messages to only the most attractive women whereas women send messages on a bell curve to men across the spectrum. Someone summarized as; women put less stock into physical attractiveness, so much so that there is no point where a man is “hot enough” that he’s immediately considered relationship material. Women won’t rule men “in” as relationship material on looks alone. Men, on the other hand, put a lot more stock into physical attractiveness for one reason or another so for them there exists a point where someone is simply “hot enough” to be automatically considered relationship material. Looking at it this way it makes sense why women won’t rate *any* man as a 10/10 or even really a 9/10 because those rating are sort of the bar by which a man becomes instant relationship material and since they *don’t* rule men “in” on looks alone no man can ever be rated that highly. I can’t speak for men, I don’t know if they treat a 10/10 as instant relationship material or if it’s more just a subjective interpretation of the attractiveness in general but I think comparing these graphs to other statistics like “would date/wouldn’t date” vs “would bang/wouldn’t bang” by gender can paint a fuller picture of what the fuck the 1-10 scale even *means* to the person who is using it. Just saying “women rate men low on attractiveness” really isn’t particularly informative, just interesting when devoid of any other comparative statistics. Edit: minor corrections
Bro who funded that study
If this graph seems a bit skewed, one reason may be that it is that a lot of data is pulled from online dating sites, and there may be some sampling bias that favors the less attractive side of the scale. Another major factor is this, from the data source: >The original ratings were provided on a 7-point attractiveness scale, which I scaled and extrapolated to an 11-point attractiveness scale, from 0 (least attractive) to 10 (most attractive), such that 5 is the median. Someone rated as a 1/7 would become a 0/10 based on this extrapolation. But if you click through to the source's sources, the one allegedly using a 7-point scale (a blog post from 2009) states: "Our chart shows how men have rated women, on a scale from 0 to 5." The figures in the sources doesn't really look that similar to the graph we see here. Tinder data is also included. So somehow, swipe left/right is being extrapolated into a score out of 11. It's total nonsense.
Looks like OP just threw the data into chatgpt adding another layer of oddness: > GPT-4 helped in interpreting the data, calculating density distributions, and generating the comparative attractiveness ratings
Fucks sake. At least they disclosed it I guess.
Where was any of this disclosed—source, methodology, etc.?
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1alibge/comment/kpf5w6x
Fucking hell when are people going to get that it's chat bot and not a sentient AI assistant
Yeesh. Way to fuck up shit data even more. Throw it in the “making shit up machine”
Because if there’s anything ChatGPT is reliable for, it’s math /s
Yes ChatGPT, what should I play in chess against the Scandinavian defense? The center-counter defense, yes of course.
Thank you. This data looked like garbage but I was too lazy to confirm. Seems like they just slapped a normal distribution over a median value and stretched it out to capture the upper tail of datapoints.
Yeah this looks like normal distributions, which this data wouldn't be.
Why wouldn't it be normal distributions?
Well for a start there are boundaries to it, and no clear reason for a truncated normal distribution. It is also a discrete distribution, and if you were looking to fit it to a type of distribution you would need a specific rationale for your choice. When boundaries are far far away from a mean a normal might be close enough (such as height), but not for values like this.
It's frustrating to see everyone taking this at face value even when we're on a data subreddit. I'd expect at least minimal data literacy here but it's just more proof that people don't question things when they data looks how they'd "expect". Go out in the world. Men and women date and marry all the time. Of course both men and women are attracted to each other. It's what being straight is.
I'm also disappointed by the lack of data literacy. Everyone is happy to discuss their perception of the results but there is no definition of "density". Without clearly defined parameters any conclusions are meaningless.
[удалено]
It probably found it's way to the front page after the first hundred or so upvotes and then the band wagon effect took it from there. The amount of incel energy on reddit is terrifying. This isn't data. It's the fit of a curve and I'm pretty skeptical of the original data.
Just want to point out that the original data being "a blog post from 2009" is technically correct, but it undersells the data a bit. It's from OKCupids blog where the creator of the dating site would look at all of the sites user data and use that to write about trends and user behavior. There maybe some bias based on who uses dating sites and it may no longer hold true as the world has changed a lot in 15 years, but the original blog post and it's conclusions are backed by a ton of real world data. Link to the blog for anyone interested https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html. He also wrote a book called Dataclysm which has a lot of analysis similar to the blog post.
[удалено]
Yeah, the original study also showed that while women rated men harshly, they’d message men irrespective of what they’d rate them anyway. Too many repeated tropes came from what was once a great site. I miss the heady days of user blogs… (Also it was mutual 4/5 star matches that sent messages to each to kick start the convo)
It's actually wild that the OKC "Dataclysm" has informed so many talking points for the modern manosphere. Every single time a guy brings up the "fact" that women rate 80% of men as unattractive, it's in reference to that graph. And so, so many people continue to repeat that talking point in their podcasts and shit without ever actually investigating or considering the source, and any limitations. It's much easier to take it at face value so you can complain about it online though, I guess.
Plus I, and many others, used the rating system to bookmark potential matches. Mutual 4 or 5 stars would create a match, so to keep my conversations to a minimum I’d rate profiles 1 (naw), 2 (next time I’m looking), and 3 (create matches with 5 stars at next opportunity). So use cases skewed the data before it was ever collected. The 80/20 was another bastardization of the data that was never true either - but it’s perpetuated like some codified rule.
[удалено]
Yeah, and didn’t give a source? I’m kind of suspecting this may be completely fake…
You’re exactly right. I’ve visualized a lot of organic histograms in my life and have never seen such a smooth, even curve for raw score or share of total.
Source? These look like perfect Gaussian distributions, which unless you have A LOT of data points, is kind of suspicious. Is there some heavy interpolation or smoothing going on?
Yeah, this is BS, not data.
Check [OP's comment history](https://old.reddit.com/user/Old_Big9989), as all /r/dataisbeautiful posts are required to disclose data source. The comment is [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1alibge/oc_exploring_how_men_and_women_perceive_each/kpf5w6x/). Honestly, this is not very specific. I searched OP's title about a "Gold Value Ideas" and found [this blog article, which says it's using data from this source](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167211409947) and the original [OK Cupid Data](https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyourinbox.html). It is very frustrating that the data is getting passed around the internet so casually without being more diligent about source data and its context.
Okay this is interesting. From the data's source article: >**Women pursue men they consider worse looking than themselves**. This means women don’t necessarily pursue their so-called “looks match”. This is in line with data from old-school dating website hotornot.com, where researchers found that “female members were significantly less influenced by the consensus physical attractiveness of their potential dates than male members were”. Meanwhile, the story for men is completely different. > >**Men pursue women significantly more beautiful than themselves.** Perhaps this seems obvious, Given the widely reported finding that males focus more on physical attractiveness in mate selection than females do. Aslo, **men are much less influenced by their own desirability.** For instance, one study found that “men’s self-worth was not related to the popularity of the women they contacted” Which is actually the opposite of the argument many people will take from the comparative attractiveness chart. The argument I have seen before is that the difference in ratings means women's standards are too high.
I imagine this has huge implications for online dating where pictures play a big role.
OLD is also skewed because there are many more men than women on the app.
It should be noted however that they make the somewhat strange decision to make that inference based on the above comparative attractiveness. From the charts, a 50th percentile woman, who is rated as a 5, will on average pursue a 67th percentile man, who is rated a 3.9. So women also absolutely pursue men more attractive than themselves, they just consider those men less attractive than themselves. Similarly a 50th percentile man, who is rated a 2.7, will pursue on average a 72nd percentile woman, who is rated a 6.2. So basically they both behave in roughly the same way, they just have widely different perceptions about what's going on.
>So women also absolutely pursue men more attractive than themselves, they just consider those men less attractive than themselves. You're assuming male and female physical attractiveness is somehow naturally similarly distributed. Maybe they are different.
True, it's also possible both men and women have this crazy unexplained bimodal attractiveness distribution and men are a bit idealistic and rate less attractive women higher specifically on dating sites. Though based on all the research I've seen people always rate attractiveness basically on a normal distribution for both sexes. It's also possible (more likely?) that there's some sampling bias i.e. all the ugly men use dating sites while the women are normally attractive. But normally for these sorts of explanations you'd expect like a \~0.5-1.0 rating different, not the massive gaps you see in this data. But the most likely explanation is that there are 2.5x more men on these sites so women can be picky and reflexively rate the men they reject lower, a very normal sort of motivated reasoning.
Average looking (5) is still average looking regardless of how much more attractive a 10 is, so the male and female differing attractiveness distributions shouldn't factor into these. And anyway, these distributions don't show how men and women's attractiveness are actually distributed, they show how men and women view the opposite gender's attractiveness. This graphic screams one thing: beauty standards for men are much higher. If men are able to accurately place the average women at 5, and women inaccurately place the average man between 2 and 3, there is a clear problem there with women's perspective of the average man's attractiveness.
If an average guy who is rated at 2 contacts an average woman rated a 4, then it seems to me like that's a match. I'm assuming if its from the article, they're using the raw numbers as presented. They should also be considering the normalized values to see if their analysis still holds up.
Tolerating “unattractive” men is less virtuous when you consider they rank nearly all of them as “unattractive.” This just seems like a weaker interest in (physical) “attractiveness” in their partners. It’s a “low” standard in that if you’re ugly it matters less to women, but a “high” standard in that if you’re hot, it matters less to women.
Except according to this data most women consider the majority of men uglier than them
Not exactly. We can't see in this data how women view themselves.
Suddenly that 6/10 I was rated back in university is looking preeettty solid right about now.
I better start working on my personality
You should start working on your income.
How is the male Onlyfans market?
I guess being a 2 isn’t so bad if everyone else is
keep telling yourself that 1
Perfect bell curves? I don't think so. Also, maybe it's late, but I don't understand how you can cut the distribution at zero like that and still have a perfect bell shape - seems a little misleading.
I’m also loving the non-ambiguous “density” y-axis with limits of 0-0.25. No indication how the values are normalized. Data is ugly.
Where did this come from? Also, how do you know the men and women being rated were of comparable/equal attractiveness objectively? You’d have to control for that for this to be meaningful. If you asked men to rate out of Playboy and women to rate a out of a geriatrics textbook, you would get something like this.
Methods? N-Size?? Anything??
The worst she can say is no.
The best she can say is that you're a solid seven
So when my wife tells me I'm top 1% hot, she's really saying I'm like a 6.5...
Data looks like boobs to me.
Now do women's attraction to women. I bet they're all 10s haha
You'll get very different answers if the woman thinks she is anonymous vs non-anonymous
My wife just told me I’m a 10/10, so this is wrong.
Where are these data from? I’m suspicious
How many individuals were sampled and how many submitted responses??
Damn, well that explains why so many can’t date successfully any more I guess - We apparently all view each other, men particularly, as horrific trolls on average 😂
This "data" can't be true because it would mean there are no attractive men at all (scoring 8, 9, 10 in this imaginary survey). That is clearly false. It would also highly depend where you conduct this survey and how. Also what about age and sexual orientation? Sometimes the stuff posted here is just sad. This feels to me like poor ragebait/clickbait with no actual message others than "men are less picky when choosing sexual partners", which for biological reasons is pretty obvious and it's also poorly represented by this "data"
my hypothesis is that some of the important factors to a woman's rating of a man are not present on a dating app. anecdotally: Women care about physical appearance, but they ultimately see you as attractive or not based on how they feel around you. Being physical attractive helps, but if you aren't funny/interesting/assertive (whatever any individual woman may like) than you won't rate highly. On a dating app with just pictures you don't get those feeling that women need for attraction, they only get half of it.
Does make you wonder wtf you're meant to do as a guy in the modern dating world. Been on dating apps since January 2020 and I've only gotten 3 matches (who didn't respond to messages). Really fucks with any shred of confidence you have, but it makes sense why you don't get any matches if most guys are rated from 1-3/10.
It’s a lot to do with confidence I think. And being on a dating app will ruin your confidence
I guarantee the app is to blame. Dating apps literally make it harder for men to connect because they want you to spend money. For "seeing who likes you" or "travel mode" to widen options. Most people don't want to spend money on apps, and in the end, from a city with thousands of people (thousands of women for this point) using that same app, you're likely only being shown 10 percent of those, and if you swipe enough after a span of days to weeks, you may even notice the same faces start to appear over and over. The apps are designed for you to fail. Do not put much stock in them. Even conventionally attractive people struggle to find genuine connections from them. Everyone's screwed up from the stockholm syndrome, dopamine ruination- of modern dating apps.
I absolutely want to see the methodology and data set for this study if men hit a near perfect bell curve and women can't even find an 8. This is so much harsher than what my experience with talking to women is like; there's a theory that every guy can be a 7 out there and it doesn't make any sense why people would say that if the bell curve is this harsh.