Many Women Have It Worse Than Men (Attraction)

[Hello from Russia]

Unpopular opinion here:

Looks are super easy to tune in. Way easier than humor, confidence, etc. You just go to the gym and educate yourself about health. 2-3 years - you're a Queen. 

However, if you disregarded your health and fitness for like 20 years of your life and also used a bunch of toxic cheap cosmetics that ruined your skin and other faculties - yeah, you might have an irreversible damage. Health = Beuty. Other than that - everything is reversible, unless you have some unique genetic condition (which was likely achieved likely by parents not giving a fuck about health)

[TheSpiritualBunny]

2 hours ago, Hello from Russia said:

Unpopular opinion here:

Looks are super easy to tune in. Way easier than humor, confidence, etc. You just go to the gym and educate yourself about health. 2-3 years - you're a Queen. 

However, if you disregarded your health and fitness for like 20 years of your life and also used a bunch of toxic cheap cosmetics that ruined your skin and other faculties - yeah, you might have an irreversible damage. Health = Beuty. Other than that - everything is reversible, unless you have some unique genetic condition (which was likely achieved likely by parents not giving a fuck about health)

I don't think so, a lot of your looks like your facial structure is genetic, some people are just really unlucky. And a lot of it is also depends on your childhood, like if you have been breathing through your mouth a lot when growing up and didn't use your jaw a lot for chewing (which is a problem almost everyone in the west has due to modern food) your jaw doesn't develope properly and you get a receeding jaw and croocked teeth, which you can't really change much anymore once you're an adult. Gym can also only increase your looks to a certain level, your genetics and childhood developement put a cap on how attractive you can get. Personality is also very hard to change, it developes during childhood and when you're an adult you can't really change a lot about it anymore.

Also, a genetic condition isn't caused by "your parents not giving a fuck", it's literally in the name, it's GENETIC. If your child has a genetic condition like downs syndrome, which is caused 3 of the 21st chromosome instead of 2.

[The0Self]

9 hours ago, ertopolice said:

Even i support the lifestyle without being obsessed about it, sometimes is not about looks..but in women those lifestyle changes use to boost their self esteem and quickens their personal goals as a result..

Physically let's say i've considered myself a 6-7 when in the eyes of other it's been at least a 8. Issue here. I  did not make the best of it because my inner low self esteem or something+shyness+not feeling the need to this survival thing of attraction.

Some ppl said with my physique+intelectual level i'd get almost any guy i liked but further for the truth...i really struggle to find mentally attractive males for me..

what a dilemma

 

 

Same, but as a guy. Considered myself a 6-7 for most of my prospectively sexually active life, but supposedly it's more accurately 8-9+ -- was called "gorgeous" one too many times, before finally realizing just how good I had it.

Started dating "older" women (as in 29-39yo). Seems to be far more fruitful than dating women around my age (mid 20's) or younger.

Edited March 20, 2021 by The0Self

[Hello from Russia]

1 hour ago, TheSpiritualBunny said:

I don't think so, a lot of your looks like your facial structure is genetic, some people are just really unlucky. And a lot of it is also depends on your childhood, like if you have been breathing through your mouth a lot when growing up and didn't use your jaw a lot for chewing (which is a problem almost everyone in the west has due to modern food) your jaw doesn't develope properly and you get a receeding jaw and croocked teeth, which you can't really change much anymore once you're an adult. Gym can also only increase your looks to a certain level, your genetics and childhood developement put a cap on how attractive you can get. Personality is also very hard to change, it developes during childhood and when you're an adult you can't really change a lot about it anymore.

Also, a genetic condition isn't caused by "your parents not giving a fuck", it's literally in the name, it's GENETIC. If your child has a genetic condition like downs syndrome, which is caused 3 of the 21st chromosome instead of 2.

Your health and lifestyle choices directly influence your DNA and the genetics of your children. The info that you have is just plain wrong, there is just too much to unwrap. Consider going for more quality sources of information

[Lyubov]

After pondering this for a bit... I disagree. Just about everyone has it hard. Guy, girl, LGBTQ, asexual, etc. Some have it noticeably worse due to some sort of extreme circumstances but this is classic survival. People who have it better will just be playing a more advanced survival game. There are other challenges that arise beyond just getting a date. I really don't care about how hard other people have it. It's hard enough as it is for me. All I can do is try to better my situation and do so consciously without falling into "all is fair in love and war." That in and of itself is a challenge and most people have yet to even fulfill this. 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Lyubov

[Raptorsin7]

@RendHeaven I have the same reaction to the injustice of the dating world. I genuinely believe that I can attract any woman I truly desired, or develop my self to the point where the attraction would be undeniable.

But 90% of woman are invisible to me in terms of a real relationship, and I'm almost certain theres nothing the bottom 90% could do to make me interested.

Theres an entire intersection of here with race too that can get very uncomfortable to discuss 

[Random witch]

It's hard to touch or be romantic with someone who you're not attracted to. It's a simple fact for all human race.

How much money would you agree to take in order to kiss that unattractive girl some long juicy kiss? Do you have any sum? 

20$?

50$?

100$?

500$?

1000$?

Hard to decide?

That's why being a prostitute is a hard job. Very unappreciated. 

Being a prostitute means fuck unattractive people on daily basis.

The mental strength of those women, no wonder most of them are drug addicts, WOW, I admire prostitutes. Fucking old, ugly, disabled, smelly men on daily basis? SHIT, SHIT, SHIT. 

 

For me personally 90% of men are not attractive just because of their personality, hot, mediocre, ugly, it doesn't matter, it's hard to find men with attractive and healthy personalities.

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Random witch

[Jacob Morres]

12 minutes ago, Random witch said:

it's hard to find men with attractive and healthy personalities.

 

you attract what you are 

?

LMAO god i gotta stop  

[Karmadhi]

1 hour ago, Random witch said:

For me personally 90% of men are not attractive just because of their personality,

Stop being so picky for God's sake. You re all like spoiled Gordon Ramsays that need triple A food or you spit it on the ground. You think most guys would not want to fuck a supermodel girl but settle for something less because it is better than nothing?

 

[Raze]

On 3/17/2021 at 9:56 AM, RendHeaven said:

I just recently had an experience where I was talking to this very smart and sweet (but physically unattractive) girl for hours, getting to know her as friends and just really opening up.

At the end of it all, she awkwardly blurts out that she likes me and that she wants to kiss. I immediately decline because she's simply not good looking.

It's been a few days but I've been thinking nonstop about how ruthless yet authentic my reaction was. There was no way in hell that I would consider her in a romantic/sexual light.

But why not?

It strikes me that her personality was perfectly fine. Nothing outstanding, but we shared many interests and she revealed herself to be a deep thinker (which I like in partners). So why was there no doubt in my mind that she's not a romantic/sexual option? 

Well, simply said, looks. They just weren't there. And hence, to the chopping block she goes. In fact, if you took that exact same soul and put it in a sexy face/body, I would of easily said yes.

That's so crazy to me. It's totally cutthroat and yet perfectly honest. In fact, if you asked me (or forced me) to change my preferences to accept this girl as a sexual prospect, THAT would actually be the inauthentic thing to do. If you critiqued me for being shallow or selfish, you'd be critiquing the most congruent aspect of me.

Well, given all this, what the hell was she supposed to do?

It fucks with me even more when I try to put myself in her shoes. She had absolutely no chance. It's actually unfair.

I'm sharing this experience because there seems to be this common misconception that women by virtue of being pretty and having boobies don't even think twice about attracting a guy.

This creates a false dichotomy of "men are the ones that care about attraction, women care more about the non-attraction aspects of dating like depth of connection."

In fact, many men here seem to think that MEN are the ones that have it worse in terms of attraction. 

Really?

It strikes me that as a man, you can always develop your humor, confidence, etc. and make a woman sexually fall for you. Looks matter somewhat, but they are never primary.

As a woman, if you don't got the looks, it's all out of your control. Maybe some guy will sexually settle for you, but you don't get to be a chooser when that guy you really like is hanging out with you. Damn.

At least, this is my current impression based on this recent experience.

Also, I admit that I am assuming that other guys operate the way I do (which may or may not be the case).

I'm really interested in hearing your thoughts.

To put it simply they don’t.

first off, men are actually a lot more fair when judging women’s looks.

https://i.imgur.com/L9Vu4Zo.png

in addition some data shows if some men find a woman ugly, some other men will find her more attractive, it’s actually better to be judged like that than as average by everyone.

 

[RendHeaven]

15 hours ago, Random witch said:

It's hard to touch or be romantic with someone who you're not attracted to. It's a simple fact for all human race.

How much money would you agree to take in order to kiss that unattractive girl some long juicy kiss? Do you have any sum? 

20$?

50$?

100$?

500$?

1000$?

Hard to decide?

That's why being a prostitute is a hard job. Very unappreciated. 

Being a prostitute means fuck unattractive people on daily basis.

The mental strength of those women, no wonder most of them are drug addicts, WOW, I admire prostitutes. Fucking old, ugly, disabled, smelly men on daily basis? SHIT, SHIT, SHIT. 

 

For me personally 90% of men are not attractive just because of their personality, hot, mediocre, ugly, it doesn't matter, it's hard to find men with attractive and healthy personalities.

Unironically based.

Nailed it

9 hours ago, Raze said:

To put it simply they don’t.

first off, men are actually a lot more fair when judging women’s looks.

https://i.imgur.com/L9Vu4Zo.png

in addition some data shows if some men find a woman ugly, some other men will find her more attractive, it’s actually better to be judged like that than as average by everyone.

bro you pulled out a fucking graph ???

[Raze]

18 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

 

bro you pulled out a fucking graph ???

Yes because I go by data not personal biases 

[Jacob Morres]

@Raze there is a trap with stats where they dont account for the whole picture 

for ex: that graph doesnt account for the fact that dating apps have multiples more men than women on the app

hmm maybe confirmation bias? 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Jacob Morres

[Raze]

3 hours ago, Jacob Morres said:

@Raze there is a trap with stats where they dont account for the whole picture 

for ex: that graph doesnt account for the fact that dating apps have multiples more men than women on the app

hmm maybe confirmation bias? 

Why is that a problem? This is the average.

[something_else]

 

10 hours ago, Raze said:

Why is that a problem? This is the average.

I swear if I see another graph from dating sites being used to make redpill/incel arguments... 

Dating apps are not statistically indicative of dating in the general population for a number of reasons. There are four main statistical issues with making conclusions about the general population from dating app data:

1. There are 10x more men than women, huge statistical problem

2. Wanting to use a dating app in the first place already makes you an outlier from the general population, especially if you're a woman. Most women don't want to use a dating app

3. Selection bias – the members of each gender who stay on a dating app and end up in these graphs are the ones who get value from dating apps which are again not people who represent the general population

4. The quality of a person's profile (which is used for dating app data) varies drastically between each user and someone who is attractive in real life can be rated unattractive because they have an awful profile (most guys have an awful profile)

All of these factors mean that you are sampling low quality data from an incredibly biased and skewed population of males and females and then making conclusions about the real dating world from them

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by something_else

[Jacob Morres]

@Raze results r skewed bcuz of the uneven #s lol. If it was even # of ppl both sides the results I'd wager be equivalent 

[Raze]

4 hours ago, Jacob Morres said:

@Raze results r skewed bcuz of the uneven #s lol. If it was even # of ppl both sides the results I'd wager be equivalent 

that’s not how statistics work, a large enough sample size is representative, at least of the kind of women who use OKcupid.
 

 

7 hours ago, something_else said:

 

I swear if I see another graph from dating sites being used to make redpill/incel arguments... 

Dating apps are not statistically indicative of dating in the general population for a number of reasons. There are four main statistical issues with making conclusions about the general population from dating app data:

1. There are 10x more men than women, huge statistical problem

2. Wanting to use a dating app in the first place already makes you an outlier from the general population, especially if you're a woman. Most women don't want to use a dating app

3. Selection bias – the members of each gender who stay on a dating app and end up in these graphs are the ones who get value from dating apps which are again not people who represent the general population

4. The quality of a person's profile (which is used for dating app data) varies drastically between each user and someone who is attractive in real life can be rated unattractive because they have an awful profile (most guys have an awful profile)

All of these factors mean that you are sampling low quality data from an incredibly biased and skewed population of males and females and then making conclusions about the real dating world from them

 

1) False, 11 percent of men report using OkCupid, and 6 percent of women. There are about twice as many men. But that is not a “huge statistical problem” in this context, because it’s looking at averages. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1114040/share-of-us-internet-users-who-use-okcupid-by-gender/

2) False, meeting people online is actually now the most common way Americans meet their SO. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/new-insights-how-american-couples-meet-180973335/

3) Not necessarily, they never said the data was of long time users, plenty of men and women answering that survey could have been new adopters of OKCupid who ended up ditching it.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Raze

[Jacob Morres]

51 minutes ago, Raze said:

that’s not how statistics work, a large enough sample size is representative, at least of the kind of women who use OKcupid.

?? something something correlation =/= causation 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Jacob Morres

[something_else]

2 hours ago, Raze said:

1) False, 11 percent of men report using OkCupid, and 6 percent of women. There are about twice as many men. But that is not a “huge statistical problem” in this context

Fair enough for OkCupid, tinder is what I have used and in my country it's about 10x fewer women. I think the US is slightly more even, like 3-4 times fewer. Even 2x is a big enough disparity to cause problems though because it creates issues of supply and demand. Lots of men are fighting over few women, which causes the picky women to become even pickier, which causes extremely biased data

2 hours ago, Raze said:

False, meeting people online is actually now the most common way Americans meet their SO

Sort of, 25% of people meet online, 75% meet elsewhere. It's technically the most common but if you sum up all the other methods they still account for most relationships. In my country (the UK) it's something like 10% of people meet online. So using a dating app still makes you an outlier in most of the world

Less so in the US, the US has a very high rate of online dating that isn't really representative of the rest of the world

2 hours ago, Raze said:

Not necessarily, they never said the data was of long time users, plenty of men and women answering that survey could have been new adopters of OKCupid who ended up ditching it.

Most of the people using the app at a given time will be people who feel they get value from it though. Dating apps are a little bit weird because the people who 'succeed' tend to get relationships then leave. But the idea that your success on a dating app determines how long you stay holds true, and will create biased data

[Raze]

8 hours ago, Jacob Morres said:

?? something something correlation =/= causation 

That has nothing to do with what I’m saying