MrCastle Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Came across this on another forum. Sorry if this has been posted in the past Thoughts on this? Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends
motive2002 Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Just common sense and what most people experience being plotted on a graph. For just one week I'd love to be one of these top 2% of men. Those kinda guys that easily and continuously turn women's heads, just to see what it's like for a change. Put up a profile and get a zillion hits etc. Dating sites are worthless to the "average" guy. Sure the average guy gets responses, but only from women in the wolf-ugly dept. Or the I have 5 babies all with different baby daddies dept. Or I'm a pathological liar, bunny boiler, drug user dept. Just another article that says what we all know. Looks are #1, and if you don't have it, sucks to be you. 1
RedRobin Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 I've seen this before... I always loved how the women's responses lined up with the men's perceived attractiveness... On one hand, you could say that women knew better not to respond or initiate to someone out of their league... SMART. I can't really comment on why they rate men as less attractive. When I was on OkC, there were an amazing number of guys who were just clueless about pics. They'd have some grumpy face (trying to look sexy? Really?) or with their shirts off (eeww!). I realize that the women have their equivalent with the 'pout', and cleavage shots... Read somewhere that, as much as men gripe about women being overweight... More than 10% of men are more obese than women. Maybe that factored in...
motive2002 Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 I've seen this before... I always loved how the women's responses lined up with the men's perceived attractiveness... On one hand, you could say that women knew better not to respond or initiate to someone out of their league... SMART. I can't really comment on why they rate men as less attractive. When I was on OkC, there were an amazing number of guys who were just clueless about pics. They'd have some grumpy face (trying to look sexy? Really?) or with their shirts off (eeww!). I realize that the women have their equivalent with the 'pout', and cleavage shots... Read somewhere that, as much as men gripe about women being overweight... More than 10% of men are more obese than women. Maybe that factored in... Some of us "fluffy" guys have no problem dating women with a little extra, however those types of women probably get a skewed amount of responses based on what a guy might think he can bang right away. I dunno, I think everything is distorted to the nth degree with OLD. No matter what people put on their profile, or what they say their intentions are, or what their pic looks like, always seems to turn out a bit different, no? Catalog shopping for a mate sound nice on paper, but once put into practice can be more headache than just meeting people the old fashioned way.
Author MrCastle Posted July 3, 2012 Author Posted July 3, 2012 When 80% of men are deemed unattractive; there's a problem. I think this reinforces the belief that women are ridiculously picky? At least when it comes to OLD.
Algermas Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Hold on let me get this study on how water is wet, very interesting.
motive2002 Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 When 80% of men are deemed unattractive; there's a problem. I think this reinforces the belief that women are ridiculously picky? At least when it comes to OLD. I concur and can relate. I know I'm definitely in that 80% and I don't make any bones about it. So for the longest time Ive eschewed OLD, and from what I've read around here, it doesn't seem to be getting any better. Women love to "shop" whether it be literally, or for men on a site. Vehicles like OLD, and "Sex in the City" have told women it's ok to be promiscuous and horribly picky. They are entitled and should never accept anything less that "the perfect guy". Men were never, ever this bitter 20 years ago, not in such large numbers anyway.
Author MrCastle Posted July 3, 2012 Author Posted July 3, 2012 I concur and can relate. I know I'm definitely in that 80% and I don't make any bones about it. So for the longest time Ive eschewed OLD, and from what I've read around here, it doesn't seem to be getting any better. Women love to "shop" whether it be literally, or for men on a site. Vehicles like OLD, and "Sex in the City" have told women it's ok to be promiscuous and horribly picky. They are entitled and should never accept anything less that "the perfect guy". Men were never, ever this bitter 20 years ago, not in such large numbers anyway. Agreed. Especially the part about being entitled. I don't know what it is about online dating that makes women behave like this? Any guy, no matter their appearance or personality or whatever, will always do better in real life. I've landed girls that would have undoubtedly ignored my messages online. Is it the amount of men on the site? They feel like they have infinite options to choose from? What's funny though is there's always this talk about how the top 20% of men are the ones getting all the girls. Well, with 80% being labeled unattractive, I guess that's true when it comes to OLD.
Emilia Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 When 80% of men are deemed unattractive; there's a problem. I think this reinforces the belief that women are ridiculously picky? At least when it comes to OLD. No, I've seen this article before. BEFORE I read it, I always rated men 1 star or 4 stars because I wanted the ones I fancied notified by the site. When I started using OKC I didn't realise the significance of giving 1 stars only. When I read this thing about men being rated below their looks, I switched to rating everyone I didn't fancy as 3 stars so that they would get the highest possible rating without getting notification from me though. I bet you lots of women go through hundreds of photos keeping it simple giving either 1 star or 4 stars rather than vacilate about anything in between. While a lot of guys will give out higher scores even if they don't like the girl that much in case she gets in touch when she gets notified. I'd say OKC data is pretty skewed.
Titanwolf Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 I've read this article before. Nothing we didn't already know, but were too afraid to find out. There's a "mgtow (men go there own way)" forum with a MASSIVE amount of studies done like this.
Author MrCastle Posted July 3, 2012 Author Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) No, I've seen this article before. BEFORE I read it, I always rated men 1 star or 4 stars because I wanted the ones I fancied notified by the site. When I started using OKC I didn't realise the significance of giving 1 stars only. When I read this thing about men being rated below their looks, I switched to rating everyone I didn't fancy as 3 stars so that they would get the highest possible rating without getting notification from me though. I bet you lots of women go through hundreds of photos keeping it simple giving either 1 star or 4 stars rather than vacilate about anything in between. While a lot of guys will give out higher scores even if they don't like the girl that much in case she gets in touch when she gets notified. I'd say OKC data is pretty skewed. I don't think it's all that skewed. It's not just about their rating, but the amount of messages sent/received. Even though you're being nice by now rating men you're not attracted to 3 instead of 1, you are still 1.) ignoring their messages 2.) not sending them initial messages, as made clear by the charts they put up. The data shows what most men on here already know (not one guy that's posted in here has been shocked at the findings so far) but women try to downplay. If you are an average man, online dating is not for you. Edited July 3, 2012 by MrCastle
Emilia Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) you are still 1.) ignoring their messages 2.) not sending them initial messages, as made clear by the charts they put up. The data shows what most men on here already know (not one guy that's posted in here has been shocked at the findings so far) but women try to downplay. If you are an average man, online dating is not for you. You don't know anything about my dating habits to make those assumptions If there is an enemy here, it's your own attitude to women Might I also add that it is exactly the kind of negative response I expected from you, it's very sad when someone can't see the woods from the trees Edited July 3, 2012 by Emilia
Author MrCastle Posted July 3, 2012 Author Posted July 3, 2012 You don't know anything about my dating habits to make those assumptions If there is an enemy here, it's your own attitude to women Not you personally; women on the site in general. I'm not going to argue that point since there's physical evidence in their studies to back that up. But my apologies if you thought I was singling you out. My feelings towards women are great. I think, in real life, a man (any man) will find some level of success. I think chemistry/connection cannot be duplicated and sometimes we may end up with someone we never would have gave a second look to online. With that said, there is no denying that for the average man, OLD is a crap shoot. Again, not something I'm interested in debating because there is evidence all over supporting that idea, not just this particular study.
Author MrCastle Posted July 3, 2012 Author Posted July 3, 2012 Modern technology is sending us all crazy. Yeah. This may not have much to do with the thread topic but I have to say I find it ironic (and sad) that social media is actually making us less social
manup Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 No, I've seen this article before. BEFORE I read it, I always rated men 1 star or 4 stars because I wanted the ones I fancied notified by the site. When I started using OKC I didn't realise the significance of giving 1 stars only. When I read this thing about men being rated below their looks, I switched to rating everyone I didn't fancy as 3 stars so that they would get the highest possible rating without getting notification from me though. I bet you lots of women go through hundreds of photos keeping it simple giving either 1 star or 4 stars rather than vacilate about anything in between. While a lot of guys will give out higher scores even if they don't like the girl that much in case she gets in touch when she gets notified. I'd say OKC data is pretty skewed. No it's fairly accurate, the reason this occurs is because starting at a young age, most girl shave been told they're special snowflakes and that their lives will end up with rainbows and gumdrops with Mr. Perfect. Throw in the fact that guys will screw anything, you have women who are 6's, 7's and 8's hooking up with higher class or better looking guys. These women then start to think that they are better looking then they are. Of course they don't distinguish between guys who will have relationships with them and guys who are just willing to sleep with them. What should be happening is that at younger ages especially, women should be pairing with men of equal attractiveness. But, women's sluttiness and hypergamy coupled with men's horniness we see situations like the one I described earlier. Studies like this also show that men like variety, and that they care about looks more than women. I remember another study where they had four fake accounts per sex, ranked 1-4 in terms of attractiveness. The hottest barely got as many messages as the ugliest woman. Women naturally do not initiate that gender role still exists and they do not care about looks as much as men. This was also shown as women cared about how witty and original a guys message was.
phineas Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 The few women from OLD I did get in contact with initiated with me & did not read my profile because every time they asked me things that were in my profile & honestly my profile is short with basically just the main facts about me.
RedRobin Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 I concur and can relate. I know I'm definitely in that 80% and I don't make any bones about it. So for the longest time Ive eschewed OLD, and from what I've read around here, it doesn't seem to be getting any better. Women love to "shop" whether it be literally, or for men on a site. Vehicles like OLD, and "Sex in the City" have told women it's ok to be promiscuous and horribly picky. They are entitled and should never accept anything less that "the perfect guy". Men were never, ever this bitter 20 years ago, not in such large numbers anyway. I believe the BBD issue is the biggest reason why OLD fails for so many people. Both men and women. That and, anonymity makes jerks out of alot of people. I did it for a short period... but never again.
RedRobin Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) ................. Edited July 3, 2012 by RedRobin
zengirl Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 No, I've seen this article before. BEFORE I read it, I always rated men 1 star or 4 stars because I wanted the ones I fancied notified by the site. Yep, I'd say this is the culprit for the differences in how women rate and how they message, personally. I always rated the same way. It was rare that I gave 3 stars and usually if a guy was physically ugly (generally uglier than most of the 1 stars) but had a profile similar to what I wanted to see. Those star ratings game what you see, but not in looks really or necessarily, in profile content. I don't know any men who did that method of rating (some may) but know many women that did. The fact that women are likely to message men that are considered unattractive is interesting --- I do wonder if it's the same women messaging and rating (I imagine not). I think it's just ladies like me and Emilia dragging algorithms down with our 1 stars (I'm not anymore, of course, but I was when single). Male and female messaging patterns show more than the ratings --- men message primarily the most attractive women, and women do not do that, so I don't get the basis that they're more picky when it comes to actual dating. Rating is not dating.
manup Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Yep, I'd say this is the culprit for the differences in how women rate and how they message, personally. I always rated the same way. It was rare that I gave 3 stars and usually if a guy was physically ugly (generally uglier than most of the 1 stars) but had a profile similar to what I wanted to see. Those star ratings game what you see, but not in looks really or necessarily, in profile content. I don't know any men who did that method of rating (some may) but know many women that did. The fact that women are likely to message men that are considered unattractive is interesting --- I do wonder if it's the same women messaging and rating (I imagine not). I think it's just ladies like me and Emilia dragging algorithms down with our 1 stars (I'm not anymore, of course, but I was when single). Male and female messaging patterns show more than the ratings --- men message primarily the most attractive women, and women do not do that, so I don't get the basis that they're more picky when it comes to actual dating. Rating is not dating. You don't message really at all. Guys message any woman they think they would enjoy sticking their penis into, which is a huge amount of women. 1
zengirl Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Where do you get that women message men who are unattractive? You just made that up now. From the graph in the article linked. I'm not saying they message them in droves, but their rating of attractiveness does not correspond to messages the way the male trend does. The article SAYS that men disproportionately message the hottest women, despite being kinder with ratings, whereas women message men much more realistically (with a much softer curve) despite rating them tougher. I'm just referring to the actual data given.
fishtaco Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 I like OKCupid. I did a brief stint of online dating attempts on OKC and POF. I quickly gave that up as it just simply does not match the opportunities that I was getting in real life. I've stopped using OLD a long time ago. But I like OKCupid anyway, because they collect these very interesting statistics. The only men that should use OLD are: 1) Very photogenic men. 2) Caucasian, around 6" tall, average or better body, makes decent money, i.e. the type that appeals to most women. 3) Have uncanny magic when it comes to OLD. I don't qualify, so I don't use it. Plus I've read here on LS awhile back that some women were saying they wouldn't date 80% or 90% of the men they meet. Something like that. Sounds about right. Matches the chart. I think my recommendation to men when it comes to OLD is, well, like anything, don't knock it till you try it. But once you've tried it, and you found out you're not really getting traction, then my suggestion is to drop OLD. For most men, OLD is NOT an advantageous arena to play in. And pointing your finger at women and say... "you suck! It's your fault!" is absolutely pointless. They don't want to message someone, just like I feel like playing video games tonight. Who's to say I can or cannot do something? This is the system. OKCupid is giving us important information. Rather that changing the universe to fit your own personal preferences, how about you develop a strategy that will help you succeed under the system, without changing it? Well, step one, if OLD doesn't work for you, quit using it.
SincereOnlineGuy Posted July 5, 2012 Posted July 5, 2012 Thoughts on this? Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends Put in those terms, it becomes downright laughable that women are playing against those odds, to date those guys!!
Recommended Posts