It seems so. Interesting read and oppinion. What is your take on this?
Some of the replies: 1) 2)
3) So are women the more superficial of the 2 sexes but our media mask this by saying they care about personality?
Is a good personality to a woman tied to how a man looks in your oppinion?
Do you agree with these findings or think they are skewed view of the world?
Updates
+1 y
"Just to illustrate that women are operating on a very different scale, here are just a few of the many, many guys we here in the office think are totally decent-looking, but that women have rated, in their occult way, as significantly less attractive than so-called “medium”
"Females of OkCupid, we site founders say to you: ouch! Paradoxically, it seems it’s women, not men, who have unrealistic standards for the “average” member of the opposite sex."
Looks matter to everyone everywhere to some extent, except for like blind people. How MUCH they matter depends on the person, and gender has nothing to do with that. Some people care a lot, some people care somewhat, and some people barely care at all. This applies to both men and women, since both men and women want someone they're attracted to physically. You can't say one gender cares more than the other gender, since within both genders there are varying opinions on how much looks matter. I know for sure that I wouldn't be able to spend my life with someone who has the personality of a brick. Looks fade. When we're both butt ugly in our 70s and up, I will want to be with someone whom I can actually hold a significant conversation with. Someone I actually enjoy talking to. Someone I actually click with. If I can't see myself enjoying a guy's company when we're both in our 70s because his personality sucks ass, then there's no point in me even trying to date him. Saying all girls/guys are shallow just because x amount of people of said genders show that they care significantly more about looks than personality is stupid as fuck. There will always be people of both genders that don't care as much, that still value personality, that still want to know you for YOU and not for your face/body, that still prioritize personality in the long run. Trying to generalize and say that "women are more superficial than men" or that "men are more superficial than women" won't get you anywhere. You're not going to prove anything. You're not going to win anything. You're not going to achieve anything. You're merely putting people into different boxes where a lot of them don't even belong or deserve to be. That's something simple-minded people do, when they don't understand the complexity of humans. We're more than just our gender, we're individual people with out own beliefs.
It goes both ways. Both genders want a attractive partner that they feel chemistry towards. Just cause someone turns you down doesn't imply you're not attractive either. It could be mean many things. This whole thingy is written from his perspective. He seems to jump to the conclusion that it MUST be his his appearance heaven forbid it cannot be something else. He cannot have ANY other flaw inside of him. Maybe she just didn't feel compatibility towards him? Maybe there were minor differences in personalities? Maybe she just wasn't feeling it? Everybody cannot be attracted to everybody else. I don't know why people cannot accept this. I've been rejected too over probably my appearance and lack of chemistry as well cause I cannot be attractive in everybody's eyes and that's fine.. That is life. I don't bitch about it or let it make me a sad person who hates the opposite gender. I hate how people want to make out that one gender is somehow worse or better than the other. You cannot just judge a entire gender by a few examples. That's no more irrational than me saying all guys are assholes just because I happen to have gotten a lot of them in my life... or all guys just want sex because a lot of guys tried to use me before. It's no different. You cannot just assume things either and jump to conclusions.
There is far more to love than looks and personality. There's also aspects of natural chemistry and compatibility that comes into play.
Looks are important to everyone but everyone has different taste in who they want. Ever hear the expression "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? If you get to know someone it can make them better looking or uglier. I've dated guys that I found attractive but no one else I know agreed with me. That has to do with personality making them look better. I was really attracted to this one guy and he was definitely attractive by many people's standards but he was full of him self. I hated being around him a lot of the time. I tried to look past it because he was fun and really nice to look at but I couldn't. So I ditched him. That guy rating girls a 4/10 to someone guys out there they are a 10/10, so he sounds like an ass to me. The fact they put up with him when he was an ass was because they might have low self respect. When the date was just sort of boring, they were willing to give it another chance. Because first dates can be nerve racking and a lot of them fall flat. The "prettier" girls probably think they can find better or they wanted him to work for it. They were putting in a bit of a chase.
There is no such thing as eye of the beholder because if it is why do a lot agree that one person is goodlooking or hot most of the time eye of the beholder bullshit.
Women way more superficial than men: Personality doesn't matter only looks? Depends on the gal.
So are women the more superficial of the 2 sexes but our media mask this by saying they care about personality? No the media saying gals care about personality doesn't make gals more superficial than guys. Gals would be more superficial of the sexes by caring more about looks than guys do. The studies I've seen thus far show/suggest guys are the more superficial sex.
Is a good personality to a woman tied to how a man looks in your oppinion? Depends on the gal.
Do you agree with these findings or think they are skewed view of the world? I think it's skewed to apply a singular experience to the general population.
There was an OKcupid study asking women to rate the looks and personality of men they talked to. They plotted the results on a personality-looks graph and it was very, very linear ! In other words, your looks are your personality.
You are aware that study supported that guys are the more superficial ones since "2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women" while gals message guys of varying looks?
Or did you emotionally react to how gals rate most guys unattractive and equate that to being more superficial? If so I don't think you know what superficial means.
"Our chart shows how men have rated women, on a scale from 0 to 5. The curve is symmetric and surprisingly charitable: a woman is as likely to be considered extremely ugly as extremely beautiful, and the majority of women have been rated about “medium.” The chart looks normalized, even though it’s just the unfiltered opinions of our male users.
Given the popular wisdom that Hollywood, the Internet, and Photoshop have created unrealistic expectations of how a woman should look, I found the fairness and, well, realism, of this gray arc kind of heartening."
"As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable.
"But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway."
So in short. Your emotions got the better of you and you didn't bother to read the article. The vast majority of women still think themselves to be better than the men they are messaging back. Also when looking at the replies the study is vague on whether it is an actually something of worth or 1 word response acknowledging that you've received their message. Such as the typical "hi" back to someone.
You basically quoted what I summarized: - gals are 'harsher' in rating guys looks but in the end it's guys who have unrealistic expectations when pursuing.
"You basically quoted what I summarized: - gals are 'harsher' in rating guys looks but in the end it's guys who have unrealistic expectations when pursuing."
Except this summary of yours isn't totally accurate. In coming to your conclusion, you left out the little part where many women messaged back to men they thought were beneath them. This in turn gives indication that many of these replies may not even be worthwhile responses but merely acknowledgement of recieving the guys message.
Also your logic is flawed. Judging someone more harshly based on looks is superficial. Replying back to wider range of people doesn't really show your any less superficial.
Also again. This whole entire discussion is for Naut because this is not the study i'm referring to. I
No your summary isn't totally accurate. You are aware the study is about message sending by both genders right? It's not set up as guys message and gals message back.
I didn't leave out that many gals message, not message back, guys they find unattractive... that was the basis of the statement that gals message guys of varying looks while guys message only the most attractive.
No your logic is flawed: 1. judging someone more harshly based on looks isn't superficial. Superficial isn't how attractive you think someone is but how important looks are when you pursue/choose a partner.
2. The study wasn't guys message rates vs gals message back rates. It was guys/gals messaging rates so the notion that gals are replying back is your lacking reading comprehension.
If so you are aware it doesn't support gals are the more superficial ones since it stated gals were on par with guys in judging good looks as indicative of a good personality. So I'm unsure why you'd bring it up as it does no credence to your claim.
So thus far: - I've supplied 2 studies showing gals aren't more superficial. (1st- Gals seek guys of varying looks while guys seek the most attractive gals) blog.okcupid.com/.../
- You've made claim about a study you didn't cite. A claim that doesn't state that guys did not have better results thus supporting gals are more superficial. Your claim if true would only support gals are superficial. Proving gals are superficial does not prove they are more superficial than guys.
The summary is about both message sending and looks of people. It correlated how people of different levels of attractiveness received/sent messages and how each gender looked at each other. Try reading the whole article instead of pictures.
Your assume because gals message back guys of varying looks that it makes them less superficial. If anything one of the major flaws of this study is it doesn't show how many messages women send to men based on attractiveness. Also these reply back may not even be conversation of interest but a word response or a reply stating they aren't interested.
Going back by this graph we see: cdn.okcimg.com/.../Message-Multiple.png The most attractive males receives about the same amount of messages as your average female. While most attractive female receives almost 3x the amount of messages.
Your logic runs on the assumption that the reply backs women are giving to men are actually worthwhile conversation or them in giving them a chance to date them. However looking at the graph i posted above we see the message males recieve is almost non-existant compared to females and even the most unattractive female dwarfs by several times the attracive male when it come to reply. Judging someone attractiveness more harshly is in fact superficial yes. Sending a reply back to a person doesn't make you less superficial. Especially when we have no idea what these messages contain. cdn.okcimg.com/.../Attractiveness-Reply-Rate.png Looking at this graph we see that both males and females follow a linear relationship when it comes to replying back to messages based on attraction. With females having a higher percentage (superficiality) when it comes to replying back to males based on their attractiveness.
Also I never claimed that this study showed women to be more superficial than men. What I did say was exactly that "women correlate personality with looks", which goes against the media belief of women actually valuing a man's personality over his looks that we are lead to believe and shoved down our throats.
I know what the summary is about as I stated it. Both genders are messaging as in both send/receive messages. You try reading the whole article instead of the pictures as you seem to portray this a guys send and gals message back.
You're assuming that the gals are only messaging back unattractive guys who message them... even when the study states the gals are messaging the guys.
Hmm now I can see why you have trouble comprehending the words as you appear not to be able to grasp pictures. The most attractive guy receiving the same amount of replies as the average gal does not support gals are more superficial. It actually supports gals are less superficial since if they cared so much about looks the most attractive guys would be bombarded with messages.
No my logic runs on the statements provided in the study.
Your logic runs on the assumption that the study is set up as guys message/gals message back and gals are simply messaging back unattractive guys who message them... again even when the study states the gals are messaging the guys.
Do you not see how skewed your perception is? You talk about the graph on the message males receive yet still act as if the gals are replying back.
The message guys receive is almost non-existent compared to females because generally guys initiate. Gals not initiating on the same or similar scale as guys is not being more superficial.
Telling how you focus on how your basis that gals are more superficial is that an unattractive/average gals gets more messages than a hot guy gets... completely overlooking the genders messaging and that gals seek guys of varying looks and guys seek the most attractive.
"Judging someone attractiveness more harshly is in fact superficial yes." Superficial is not how attractive someone is to you. Superficial is how important attractiveness is to you.
Superficial is concerned with or comprehending only what is on the surface or obvious. How attractive you think someone is isn't superificial.
"Sending a reply back to a person doesn't make you less superficial. " Yet that's not the case in the study I linked. That study showed most gals messaged guys of varying looks while most guys messaged the top most attractive gals.
So you are talking about the second study I linked to. Again it doesn't support gals are the more superficial ones since it stated gals were on par with guys in judging good looks as indicative of a good personality. So I'm unsure why you'd bring it up as it does no credence to your claim.
Again you really don't know what the summary is about as you just quoted the text and primarily focused on the 2/3 of men messaging 1/3 of women as the main point of the article.
So looking here we see that most women send message to men who are slightly below average. While the most attractive male recieve almost no messages.
Yet funny, enough in this article we see from the graph shown below that most attractive male receives almost 2x the amount of messages than the average male. Which your entire thesis banks upon.
Yet, when the author scaled the 2 graphs into 1 and correlated attractiveness based on gender. We still saw that most attractive males recieves 2x the amount of messages as your average male. Funny isn't it.
Again looking at this again we see that women message back more often men who are attractive than men who are unattractive. Both genders do as the graph is linear.
So it's still thus far. - I've supplied 2 studies showing gals aren't more superficial. (1st- Gals seek guys of varying looks while guys seek the most attractive gals) blog.okcupid.com/.../
(2nd- Gals on par with guys about judging looks as personality) blog.okcupid.com/.../
- You've made claim and your only support thus far is showing gals are superficial. Proving gals are superficial does not prove they are more superficial than guys.
I know the summary as unlike you I don't portray it as guys message/gals message back. Good on you for now getting the point.
I stated gals message guys of varying looks which is supported by how gals send messages to guys who are slightly below average. I stated gals are shown to be less superficial which is supported by how most attractive male receive almost no messages.
It's not funnily enough as the first graph is gals sending messages and the second graph is gals replying back. Let me break it down for you- gals seek guys of varying looks and respond more to attractive guys. That's being superficial however that's not being more superficial than guys. Guys seek the most attractive gals and respond more to attractive gals.
No we saw that the most attractive guys twice as many replies to their messages than average guys. Again still not showing gals are more superficial since guys show a wider disparity in how they reply back to attractive gals vs average gals.
You haven't proven your point if your point is 'Women way more superficial than men'. Proving gals are superficial does not prove they are more superficial than guys.
No you haven't proven that media outlet that women are less superficial than men is BS. Gals being superficial doesn't mean they aren't less superficial than guys. You haven't disproven that.
"No you haven't proven that media outlet that women are less superficial than men is BS. Gals being superficial doesn't mean they aren't less superficial than guys. You haven't disproven that."
I can see a this point no amount of evidence will convince you despite the fact I brought up 2 points on this that showed otherwise.
So in summary in your mind. Men are shallow pigs. Women care more about personality has already been made up.
The above title in my question is just that. A question brought about by this guys dating experience with members on the opposite sex and posted to gag for discussion. My question address to you was about how women correlate personality with looks which is supported both in their response pattern to men based on attractiveness, reply back recieved, and the other okcupid study where personality/look had an almost 1:1 ratio.
Nice try though OF TRYING to shift my stance in the argument.
The only evidence you've shown is: 1. gals are superficial because they respond more to attractive guys guys also respond more to attractive gals AND the seek attractive gals more
2. gals are superficial because they judge looks as personality guys also judge looks as personality
Again showing gals are superficial does not prove gals are more superficial than guys or that gals aren't less superficial than guys.
No in summary in my mind studies show that guys are more superficial than gals. It seems you are quite emotional about this topic and projecting a victim complex.
Your question was 'Women way more superficial than men: Personality doesn't matter only looks?'
It was disproven that gals are more superficial than guys as gals seek guys of varying looks while guys seek most attractive gals.
It was disproven that personality doesn't matter only looks as gals sought out unattractive/average guys more.
Nice try though of trying to change your argument when it was defeated.
"It was disproven that gals are more superficial than guys as gals seek guys of varying looks while guys seek most attractive gals."
Except it really wasn't when both studies show that looks and personality correlated 1:1.
"It was disproven that personality doesn't matter only looks as gals sought out unattractive/average guys more."
Except it really wasn't when even in the second okcupid article it showed people stop conversing when they saw the perosn's looks and the drop in traffic in okcupid during the time no pictures were shown.
Again question was? Which was based on this guy's experience for discussion. My point to you was correlation between personality and looks. NOT "WOMEN ARE MORE SUPERFICIAL THAN MEN".
Nice try though at and I'm sure your going to come with a witty reply of saying you won.
You: 'I can see a this point no amount of evidence will convince you despite the fact I brought up 2 points on this that showed otherwise.' Me: 'The only evidence you've shown is: 1. gals are superficial because they respond more to attractive guys guys also respond more to attractive gals AND the seek attractive gals more
2. gals are superficial because they judge looks as personality guys also judge looks as personality
Again showing gals are superficial does not prove gals are more superficial than guys or that gals aren't less superficial than guys.'
You: 'So in summary in your mind. Men are shallow pigs. Women care more about personality has already been made up.' Me: 'No in summary in my mind studies show that guys are more superficial than gals. It seems you are quite emotional about this topic and projecting a victim complex.'
You: 'The above title in my question is just that' 'My question address to you was about how women correlate personality with looks which is supported both in their response pattern to men based on attractiveness, reply back recieved, and the other okcupid study where personality/look had an almost 1:1 ratio. ' Me: 'Your question was' 'It was disproven' 'Nice try though of trying to change your argument when it was defeated.'
So again still far: - I've supplied 2 studies showing gals aren't more superficial. (1st- Gals seek guys of varying looks while guys seek the most attractive gals) blog.okcupid.com/.../
(2nd- Gals on par with guys about judging looks as personality) blog.okcupid.com/.../
- You've shown gals are superficial because they respond more to attractive guys and they judge good looks as good personality.
It seems this convo is over since it seems you have no evidence proving your initial claims that gals are way more superficial than guys or that personality doesn't matter only looks.
Those guys kinda have a point, I mean, no one creates this kind of opinion about people just because, they have to have previous experiences, just like so many women think that guys just want sex, and we're all assholes. The problem with these guys is that they most likely have only interacted with this type of women, the ones that only care about looks, so in their mind, every girl is like this.
We're all superficial in one way or another. If you're just looking to fuck, of course you're gonna be superficial, why do you want a good personality if you're just fucking? But when it's time to get into a relationship, or get married, looks are still important, but not the most important thing, that goes for personality. Judging people from Tinder is not the best thing you can do. I've used Tinder, and me, and all people there (90% at least) are just looking to fuck. If you're a douche and just live by your looks you're gonna be successful, we can't deny that, because there's always gonna be girls that only care about that, but if one day you wanna settle down, you're gonna have it tough, 'cause girls that wanna settle down one day, don't go for douchey guys that live from their body.
frankly, i think that it is more advantageous to be an ugly guy than it is to be an ugly girl. And ugly guy can still get dates... as long as the ugly guy isn't a GaGer... because if he's a GaGer, the likelihood of him being both really ugly and retarded increases exponentially. Girls aren't wired the same way we are. They're often a little more forgiving about the way you look naturally as long as you capitalize on stylistic points that make you look presentable. If you're an ugly girl though, I genuinely feel for you.
Nobody of the two genders enjoy interacting with ugly people. That's where all the "ugly and creepy" and shit comes from. Guys are no different too.
But if a woman has a choice between an AVERAGE (not ugly) guy with a good personality, and a hot guy with a pea brain and the personality of an asshole, she will pich the AVERAGE guy with with personality.
And when a hot asshole comes around and try to seduce her, she will still stay with the personality guy.
With guys, it's different.
If a guy has 2 choices, AVERAGE girl with personality, or hot girl with no personality, most of the time he'll pick the hot girl because his dick thinks she's more fun. And men usually don't mind the girl being a bit dumber than they are, because they like to take charge anyway. Whereas women would want a man who's her equal or even better than her, personality wise.
And should he by some chance pick the average girl with personality, when the chances to cheat arrive (a hot girl with no personality seduces him), he will go for it, thus destroying what he has with the average girl with personality.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Using the 4.5/10 woman that he went out with and had himself looking like he was so successful. Add that to hot and you have me thinking you're way out of my league. She could have possibly been intimidated and thought it would be too much pressure to be with him. Then he talks about Ivy League schooling. Now you add in that he is rich. He also looks to be bragging. I probably would have walked away too. That's a lot of pressure for many women, unless they are money hungry. The next night's date with the 4/10 woman doesn't necessarily have to be about looks, but I don't know. He went in for the kiss. Maybe she wanted to get laid and took her opportunity. Maybe she hadn't had a date in a while and didn't want to screw it up. Even if he was less than desirable in either looks or personality. Some people are willing to settle for whatever they can get. For this study to be more accurate, more guys should have been included. Each with differing personalities and looks.
Personally, I would avoid the hot guys. Hot and successful? I speed walk in the other direction. Hot, successful AND rich? Well, where are my running shoes? Lol. With that said, if I knew the guy and knew that he was a good person who didn't allow his looks, money and/or success to rule him, I wouldn't feel the need to steer clear of him. Humility and being a decent person is what I prefer. That tells me that he will treat me with respect, care, consideration, etc.
by the way, based solely on that guy's picture, I would not date him. He looks superficial. The facial expression and the fact that he is flexing and looking cocky is a turn-off for me. Of course, this is just an assumption based on looks. He may be a really decent guy for all I know.
Honestly, superficiality go both ways-- women just make it more noticeable. When a woman turns down a guy when she isn't interested, she is usually just blunt about it or merely ceases communication. Guys on the other hand, are generally the ones who make the first move when it comes to dating. GENERALLY. So, they would be the ones who would be turned down, since they're the ones who show interest to the girl in the first place. Most relationships start because of the person's initial attraction. I personally think that the physical attributes are usually what "catches" the person, but the personality is the "hook" and keeps the relations going.
Like I said, women seem to show it more. They don't necessarily look like a "bad person" when they turn down a guy rudely, because both parties are expected to move on. However, when a guy turns down a girl in a similar way, they would be seen as the "bad guy"-- making them obligated to hide that seemingly superficial aspect in life more than women.
I have actually no idea what he is complaining about?
So apparently he met one great girl that he had a great date with and one who clearly only wanted to hook up. He met them on tinder, which one of them used for dating and the other for hook ups
And everything else he said is just lacking understanding. Who said looks don't matter. No one. It's just that they're not all that matters. Females of every species are the pickier sex, which means we evolved to pick up on small things that weed out bad mates. Like it's proven that just the way you smell, not cologne, you natural smell, within in a fraction of a second puts you in the yes or no category. Theory being that smell indicates a good genetic match. Men don't do that, only women do
As for the guy saying what evolutionary value does personality have? Well that's lacking understanding as well, because the answer is a lot. We're a sociable species, we need to be validated by the group. We need other people to love you. As babies, if your mother doesn't love you, you'll die. As adults if the group didn't love you they would kick you out and you'd die. No matter how much people say you should be yourself, fitting in matters. That's why people who loners or don't participate in society a lot have trouble attracting mates. And you don't want children with someone who is being excommunicated because it would put them and yourself at a big risk. That's why character traits that are commonly rewarded and admired by society are attractive, such as kindness, modesty, humor or compassion.
Looks matter as well. Of course. But it's not that you have to look like a model there are a lot of small things women pick up on (and men much less so) that make or break the first impression. That plus a lot of other details we subconsciously pick up on. It's not it's only about looks, but first impressions matter and only if you make it past hurdle personality comes in. And yes personality matters as well
The physical qualities we call "superficial" are judged in a complex way by the viewer's brain. Many things are taken into account as someone judges another person's appearance. It isn't a lesser thing to be physically attracted with someone, except that sometimes people jump on that judgment prior to getting to know someone's personality. Hasty judgments can be made on only a person's personality, but this has traditionally happened less often, unless you've been talking to someone on the internet without meeting them in person.
So, for the first thing, the connotation of superficial attraction as a bad thing has to go.
For the second thing, that post is anecdotal evidence, and from an unreliable observer. He ranks women to a decimal point, for instance, which leads me to believe he isn't looking for more than superficial attraction. And much of this is just chance. How exactly did the conversations go? How certain is he that he actually came off as confident or awkward when he said he did? What kind of girls was he meeting? How much of this was coincidence and therefore not reliable data for the whole population?
For the third thing, data on OkCupid's blog is not perfectly reliable, because the people who go on OkCupid do not accurately reflect society outside. OkCupid's graphs have also shown that saying you're an atheist heightens your chances of getting a positive response when you message someone, even though that is obviously not true in quite a lot of places, especially the United States, where the data was taken.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
I don't think men being easier makes women shallow. They just are more selective. Guys in Western countries are expected to pursue the girl and the pool of healthy fit women is far lower than other countries because our diet sucks and it's easy to be a couch potato here. So women have their pick here. Ever seen a guy with a full mailbox on a dating site? Nope, but it happens all the time for decent looking women.
The problem is guys don't know this and don't realize that you have to be a sports fisherman if you think you're entitled to chicks swarming you. You need to cast a lot of nets and not waste too much time on any particular fish if they aren't going to bite. Also you need to realize that there are a ton of other better looking more confident and skilled fishermen out there.
My sexistist observations about men and women: 1) women love steroid users and big muscles. My friends who juice have to beat women off. 2) Intelligence isn't a turn on for women. Muscles, confidence, humor, and status are though. If you dress nice and drive a nice car you're in with a surprising large amount of women. 3) Men will always go to at least 3rd base with you round the other bases by the end of the night 4) Men will have sex with people they do not like or find ugly just to have sex. 5) women in foreign countries are more aggressive sexually and more open to initiating a relationship themselves. They also are less entitled. 6) women love to get free things from guys they don't like or respect. My girlfriends will mock guys who buy them drinks but then led him on the second he comes backs from the bar for another free drink.
Why does the guy jump to conclusions based on 2 dates? Pretty small sample size. And there are so many factors which he hasn't taken into consideration. Just because HE thinks he came across well, doesn't mean the girl liked him. Also the fact the guy rates them out of 10 as if that is what they are defined by is superficial is hell. Maybe other guys would find them to be 7/8 out of 10, but because he thinks they are 4/5, then that is how he labels them when telling the story.
And Tinder isn't exactly the place you are going to find non-superficial girls. What was he expecting? People generally use tinder for hook ups and primarily match people based on physical attraction. It's the nature of the app.
Even if that girl was superficial, I don't understand why you would jump to the conclusion that women as a gender are more superficial than men? Both sexes are superficial to some extent. You can't generalise a whole gender because some women will be more superficial than some men and vice versa.
I also thought the same about how he was labeling them in the looks department. Another point that I thought of is that he's trying to make himself look better by labeling them so low. Loke saying, "see, men will date ugly girls". We don't actually know what these girls look like. And, like you said, who's to say that they weren't 8s to many other men? This "study" is not much of a study.
Yeah I thought the exact same thing. To me, the guy just sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder because he got rejected by the girl. He also sounds like one of those guys who, after rejection, will go to his pals and be like 'she wasn't even that attractive anyway', which might explain his low rating?
What so many guys miss is that personality power is not110% for most women and its not the same for every woman. I'd bet nearly every woman you'd talk to will have a story about a guy who she was super attracted to at first sight, but lost total interest in after getting to know. Or a guy she thought was so so, but then had some personal chemistry with and she fell head over heels for him. It's a major reason fun and funny guys, for example, can usually pull more girls or prettier girls than their looks alone would attract. Which physical and personality traits interest which girls varies a lot, though. Studies show scent is another key component - women are sexually repelled by men with similar immune system makeup and attracted to those who are different.
Where many guys go wrong is assuming that extreme deficits in sexual and social attraction can be forcefully overcome.
They hear one girl say something that she goes for and try to force that quality on everyone. Some also confuse petty favors and general courtesies for personality.
As for the okcupid studies - a lot of men need tutorials on how to take better photos and that would help a lot. The webcam in a dark room wearing a hat shot is all too common and not flattering.
All that being said, the "halo effect" of really good looking people being thought of having admirable traits is real and goes both ways. But it's not all or nothing. There are degrees of influence here that posters like this totally miss. The pic and name alone shows subtlety isn't the fellow's strong point.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
I think it depends on the person, honestly. While I can see this being true in some cases, it's not 100% accurate. I don't really like generalizing and saying "ALL Men" "ALL WOMEN". It all depends on who he is trying to date, what the area is like, the woman's upbringing etc etc. Some women are shallow that will date a complete douche just because he is "hot", muscular and has money (or one of those at least). There are also some that actually want a good person, one that is funny, caring and trustworthy, that treats his lady right. He might not be the best looking, but if he keeps up with his hygiene and makes her laugh, some gals would probably stick with that guy. While the data for the OK Cupid site might be accurate for it's members, they didn't poll people who do not do online dating? I don't think, I didn't see it. I don't know. I'm an attractive, confident woman and if I meet a guy and we click, I will more than likely find him attractive. It's all about how he makes me feel.
I love how when a woman says stop strain at m breasts guys go "why I can't help it, it's biology. Scientists say men are attracted to people more by physical than women are". But when they can't get a date they blame women for caring only about looks. So which is it, biology or women? Women settle just as much as men do. Look at your parents, your married neighbors, your married friends, your married friends parens. Take not how all the men they married aren't super model gorgeous. Stunning I know, but thy aren't all perfect tens. They're just average looking guys. This goes to show you just how realistic women are. Because if women are as picky as men say the population would be so much lower
It's called settling. Women lower their standards for physical looks and look for a beta provider when they realize the hot guy isn't going to wife them up (i. e. only good for a booty call). Look at response 3) in post for some incite.
Everyone settles and I mean everyone. We all want someone whose a perfect 10 face wise, a 10 body wise, and a 10 personality wise. That's why the world is obsessed with models because we all want that. Men, women and children want perfect 10's. But we grow up and understand that life doesn't work that way. Even if we're an awesome person a perfect 10 is going to go for another perfect 10. But the rest of us get the rest of us. And settlings not bad, it's not bad at all. My parents settled, my married friends settled, my neighbor settled. They probably all settled and that completely fine. If prefer to wake up everyday and get a full body massage then go to school and magically ace all my classes, but I know the world doesn't work that way and I'm fine without my massages and non perfect grades. Because that's life
Sorry but not everyone chases after models. A lot guys aren't chasing after 10/10 perfect female and are content at an early age in their 20's with 5/10 girlfriends. In fact many guys would rather be a LTR with a 5/10 with a good personality than a 10/10 with a horrible/boring personality.
The difference here between genders is that. Guy's aren't making this maturity and shift when they become less desirable at 30. Many men are content with 5/10 girlfriend for LTR relationship at an early age and have no delusion of grandeur of actually being successful with a 10/10 like most girls have with men.
The problem here is simple. Easy access to sex. Females have easier time and can get sex from males who are couple points above them in attractiveness. This leads them to believe that they can get these men for relationship so they keep overreaching until they realize that they will never be able to lock these men down for long term relationship. Men on the other hand have a much harder time and are grateful and content with a girlfriend who he finds attractive and has a good personality.
Did you read my comment thoroughly. I said everyone wants a 10, not that everyone expects them. I want a 10 if I can get them, you too. And (as said previously said) a ten in all factors such as looks and personality. If your telling me you wouldn't prefer someone perfect your lying. And like said earlier guys settle early, well so do girls. And I know this because girls date average looking guys in highschool. By how could that possibly happen if she's not 30? Because girls are realistic. Look at every couple you've known per the past 5 years all pretty average pairing right? Yeah. Men say this is the case yet when thy look around most girls are in average relationships. I just don't see how that can statistically work if women are as picky as men say
He is explaining female hypergamy, women are far more picky and expect more, than they realize that they are only sex to the alphas' and settle for the betas' normally for resources and validation (pretty much politically correct prostitution) look up bateman's principle, we have a reproduction fitness variable of over 1000:1 , no matter how much contemporary life has influenced us, that has effect that makes dating life easier for women, thus much pickier, a women just needs to not be fat and/or hideous and most men will be attracted to her.
In my experience dating over 50 girls I would say this is somewhat true. I definitely notice that when I'm speaking with a girl who is less attractive or similar attractiveness to me its MUCH easier to be 'charming, funny etc' as they'll simply play along with whatever words come out of my mouth. And with an attractive girl, its much harder.
I think overall, looks are very important, but not as important as looks for a guy. For guy, attraction towards a female is almost 100% physical appearance. For a girl its a big chunk, but things like wealth and personality do matter.
The way I see personality, its more like a 'deal breaker' than a 'deal maker'. If a guy is hot but has a shit personality, this will turn the girl off. But if the guy is but ugly, short, poor etc. no amount of personality can make up for it.
3
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
I don't think women are more superficial, but they are just as bad as men. The big difference is that women are more dishonest about it. When guys figure out how shallow women actually are, it comes as such a shock that it seems like the woman is much more shallow than she actually is. There is nothing wrong with only dating people you are attracted to. The problem is that far too many women refuse to admit they care about looks more than personality.
Being funny, considerate, and listening to her problems for hours isn't going to make a girl wet. A six pack however just might get her wet. Women need to admit they are just as shallow as guys, so men will know what he is doing wrong so he can improve. You don't set a girls heart on fire, you set her loins on fire. That is the difference between the guy that gets to be a cocky jerk, and the guy so desperate he walks around kissing ass for approval.
This is funny because it was true for me. I liked older guys when I was younger, but the older I got, the younger I was attracted to. I think it was around age 30 when I started liking guys that were slightly (about 2 years) younger than I. Now, I am okay with up to 6 years younger.
I don't think it is superficial. The real superficialness is that many guys would have sex with any girl as long as they are willing to have sex. Guys around here seem to find every second person attractive. They don't really care about looks nor personality, they care about easy access.
Females are more likely to remember how to tell if they are ACTUALLY physically attracted to someone. It is a question of infatuation based on looks. When you look at someone and you feel tingly inside.
That is what girls are looking for. Looks are the first step, but personality is the second. Also, that "4/10" girl was probably desperate, too. More importantly, this guy didn't take any of these girls seriously - if that is not superficial, I don't see what is.
Im slightly superficial when it comes to looks. When a guy smells bad or is really fat, im usually not interested anymore. When it comes to checking out guys or having a one night stand, most women will be superficial as fuck. But for a serious relationship, we will look more at personality. Is he funny, intelligent, sweet, reliable, adventurous? Those matter far more than a pretty face. As long as he doesn't qualify as disgusting, it's the personality that matters. (And even if he is disgusting, deo or shampoo might fix that)
However, there are of course exceptions, both male and female. And superficial guys will probably attract superficial girls. Your example might be experiencing that.
What really annoys me in that guys post is the fact that he bases his whole take on womens behaviour off of the women he met on tinder and that chose to date him. Not all women go on blind dates not all women are on tinder! A certain kind of woman chooses to meet people off of tinder and a certain kind of woman chooses to go on blind dates, and those kinds of women no offence to the exeptions, are mostly superficial yes, but those women only make out like 10%/20% of all women! I know a lot of good, working, classy girls and women who are in it for the long run, who want a trustworthy and steady relationship with a faithfull, loving caring partner. So if those women are looking for a partner, you better fuckin' believe that personality matters more than looks!
Are women more superficial then men? Yes. Obviously. Is this masked by the media, again yes. I know most women say personality is more important, they don't want to come off as vain or as you say superficial. Men are allowed to be, but in a woman that's a bad quality. So why would any sane female admit that? A good personality isn't tied to appearances in my opinion. Yes i believe the "findings" or comments made by that one dude that you have shown above are skewed. This is a person who doesn't describe people as people but as numbers. As a rating with no descriptive features whatsoever. He is superficial, so therefore his view of the world will fall in line with his way of thinking. After all he's just giving his opinion, he could be lying. This is the internet.
It's just not simple. I have a type but recently I met a guy who is the exact opposite. In the first 2 days I was ambivalent as hell. Then I got to know him a bit better and suddenly I'm hot to trot. Can't even quantify it at. Is he funnier than any other guy? no. Is he nicer than any other guy? no. I have no idea what I'm dealing with here. When I told my friend I was into him, she raised her eyebrows sooooo far! Who knows, maybe pheromones? I also have one of the best looking guy friends you could ever wish to meet. So hot, if you take classic looks into consideration. But zip, nada, no fireworks. Nothing at all. It's like I have no say. My mental preferences are absolutely secondary to what happens when I'm with a guy. I wish I could crack the code but no luck so far.
He presents the whole story from his perspective. The truth is we don't know what the girls were thinking. I've gone on two amazing dates with a guy. It all went perfect and I could see it working. Because not only was he cute, he was also adorable. However I stopped everything. Because I could feel he was not sure and he was starting to act weird and I wanted to protect myself from getting hurt. He didn't understand my point of view and said I was giving up to easily. Two different points of view.
Most Helpful Opinions