Women Are Superficial, Too. Mostly.

[Trausti]

For those still in the dating race, there's this -

You too fugly for Tinder.

But there's nothing more sexy to a lady than wealth and power -

Parental investment hypotheses regarding mate selection suggest that human males should seek partners featured by youth and high fertility. However, females should be more sensitive to resources that can be invested on themselves and their offspring. Previous studies indicate that economic status is indeed important in male attractiveness. However, no previous study has quantified and compared the impact of equivalent resources on male and female attractiveness. Annual salary is a direct way to evaluate economic status. Here, we combined images of male and female body shape with information on annual salary to elucidate the influence of economic status on the attractiveness ratings by opposite sex raters in American, Chinese and European populations. We found that ratings of attractiveness were around 4 times more sensitive to salary for females rating males, compared to males rating females. These results indicate that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness in men much more easily than in women. Neither raters' BMI nor age influenced this effect for females rating male attractiveness. This difference explains many features of human mating behavior and may pose a barrier for male engagement in low-consumption lifestyles.

Different impacts of resources on opposite sex ratings of physical attractiveness by males and females



Good luck out there. And remember, "if the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy."

 

[rousseau]

Tinder is for young people trying to get laid. So yea, I could see that. I expect the ratios would be a little better for a service where people were more serious about finding a relationship.

But yea, of course physical appearance is important to everyone, this is no surprise.

 

[DBT]

Perhaps it's a rare example when money is not an issue for a potential long term relationship....

 

[Bronzeage]

How can anyone take a study seriously when it starts with the assumption there are women on tinder?

 

[Hermit]

If you don't mind wasting your time, check out the full Monty here. To start with, the sample size this study is base on is 27. More importantly, who exactly is interested in participating in what is essentially a meat market/auction site? Your fate serves you fucking right if you are. :farts in your general direction:

 

[J842P]

How can anyone take a study seriously when it starts with the assumption there are women on tinder?

Are you thinking of Ashley Madison?

I can confirm, there are indeed women on Tinder. Lots and lots of them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

For those still in the dating race, there's this -

You too fugly for Tinder.

These conclusions, their assumptions, and grammar are pretty bad. Where was this study peer-reviewed?

 

[Hermit]

Where was this study peer-reviewed?

It's not a study. It's an article published by a blog host called   Medium (website).

 

[rousseau]

I always get a chuckle when people mention one gender or another's inclination toward attractiveness and money like it's a surprise. Isn't that the idea?

Would you want a partner you weren't attracted to and who had no job or career prospects?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Where was this study peer-reviewed?

It's not a study. It's an article published by a blog host called   Medium (website).

People make blogs about anything. It's not really science.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I always get a chuckle when people mention one gender or another's inclination toward attractiveness and money like it's a surprise. Isn't that the idea?

Would you want a partner you weren't attracted to and who had no job or career prospects?

So if women care more about what you've made out of yourself with career growth than what you look like, that's being labeled as superficial?

 

[rousseau]

I always get a chuckle when people mention one gender or another's inclination toward attractiveness and money like it's a surprise. Isn't that the idea?

Would you want a partner you weren't attracted to and who had no job or career prospects?

So if women care more about what you've made out of yourself with career growth than what you look like, that's being labeled as superficial?

No, I'm saying the exact opposite, that it's normal for people to judge others based on different qualities, whatever they may be.

It's only in the last century or so that we've gotten this weird idea in our heads that 'love' is supposed to trump the material reality of a partnership, like two souls melding and overcoming anything. But in practice things like appearance, social skills, and career prospects are intrinsic to pair-bonding, not some ephemeral thing we look at after the fact.

In other words, this thread is akin to pointing out that the sky is blue, and for some reason deeming that offensive.

 

[laughing dog]

<snip>

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I always get a chuckle when people mention one gender or another's inclination toward attractiveness and money like it's a surprise. Isn't that the idea?

Would you want a partner you weren't attracted to and who had no job or career prospects?

So if women care more about what you've made out of yourself with career growth than what you look like, that's being labeled as superficial?

No, I'm saying the exact opposite, that it's normal for people to judge others based on different qualities, whatever they may be.

It's only in the last century or so that we've gotten this weird idea in our heads that 'love' is supposed to trump the material reality of a partnership, like two souls melding and overcoming anything. But in practice things like appearance, social skills, and career prospects are intrinsic to pair-bonding, not some ephemeral thing we look at after the fact.

In other words, this thread is akin to pointing out that the sky is blue, and for some reason deeming that offensive.

I think it's misleading. Wages may be correlated to career growth. There's a lot in the total package, not just money: has that person gained expertise, are they responsible or lazy, are they stable and a provider, are all examples... What really are women looking for? More granularity and testing needed, not political statements disguised as science and a poorly written blog post.

 

[Bronzeage]

Tinder is for young people trying to get laid. So yea, I could see that. I expect the ratios would be a little better for a service where people were more serious about finding a relationship.

But yea, of course physical appearance is important to everyone, this is no surprise.

There is a critical flaw in studies(whatever you call them) of this type, because while we can espouse any ideal of beauty, we choose from the available. This goes for men and women, alike. What's more, experience(mine, of course, links provided on request) shows people are very likely to lie about this kind of thing. Sort of like the way people lie about books they have read, when all they did was watch a movie of the same title. We want to manipulate the way other people see us. This is natural behavior for any social animal.

This means in the real world is, a person's perceived attractiveness will immediately increase with their perceived availability. The woman who smiles and makes eye contact, always rises in attractiveness. The problem here, is that we can judge physical attractiveness at a distance, even the distance of computer monitor or phone screen. When that's all we have, it doesn't take long to make a decision based on limited information, but it's a decision of absolutely no consequence upon our life.

Experience(ibid) also shows that a woman's idea of what constitutes attractiveness in a man, is very fluid, and cologne and underwear ads not withstanding, is difficult to predict. I once had an employee who was by any standard, a beautiful young woman. She was 5'10" in height and always wore high heels with lace ankle socks. She would not consider a man taller than her. Her reasons were based on experience. She said tall guys were assholes, but a man shorter than her, who had the balls to approach her directly, won her admiration. Just her personal filter.

I'm always suspect of studies, articles, opinions, etc, of the sort cited in the OP. There is a sad legion of men, and probably women as well, who can't find the partner(long or short term), and must blame it on the shallowness of others, never looking at themselves. Citing experience again, based on the women who accompany my friends, movie star handsomeness and a high paying job don't count for much, if she likes you.

 

[rousseau]

Tinder is for young people trying to get laid. So yea, I could see that. I expect the ratios would be a little better for a service where people were more serious about finding a relationship.

But yea, of course physical appearance is important to everyone, this is no surprise.

There is a critical flaw in studies(whatever you call them) of this type, because while we can espouse any ideal of beauty, we choose from the available. This goes for men and women, alike. What's more, experience(mine, of course, links provided on request) shows people are very likely to lie about this kind of thing. Sort of like the way people lie about books they have read, when all they did was watch a movie of the same title. We want to manipulate the way other people see us. This is natural behavior for any social animal.

This means in the real world is, a person's perceived attractiveness will immediately increase with their perceived availability. The woman who smiles and makes eye contact, always rises in attractiveness. The problem here, is that we can judge physical attractiveness at a distance, even the distance of computer monitor or phone screen. When that's all we have, it doesn't take long to make a decision based on limited information, but it's a decision of absolutely no consequence upon our life.

Experience(ibid) also shows that a woman's idea of what constitutes attractiveness in a man, is very fluid, and cologne and underwear ads not withstanding, is difficult to predict. I once had an employee who was by any standard, a beautiful young woman. She was 5'10" in height and always wore high heels with lace ankle socks. She would not consider a man taller than her. Her reasons were based on experience. She said tall guys were assholes, but a man shorter than her, who had the balls to approach her directly, won her admiration. Just her personal filter.

I'm always suspect of studies, articles, opinions, etc, of the sort cited in the OP. There is a sad legion of men, and probably women as well, who can't find the partner(long or short term), and must blame it on the shallowness of others, never looking at themselves. Citing experience again, based on the women who accompany my friends, movie star handsomeness and a high paying job don't count for much, if she likes you.

Yea not knowing how effective the study was aside, it does seem to look at a very narrow window of human behavior: namely that of young people on the internet who want to get laid (who doesn't want to sleep with an attractive person?)

In the broader population the picture is more complex but not that complicated. One only has to think of what they themselves would want when picking a life-mate to raise children with. What makes a good life-partner?

- no serious disabilities or defects, physical or social
- acceptable socio-economic status
- producing as good looking kids as possible (which plays out in people matching attractiveness with their partner)
- in general, a person who will commit to you, and who isn't an asshole

Between men and women men weigh appearance a little more highly, and women socio-economic status a little more, averaged out.

 

[rousseau]

No, I'm saying the exact opposite, that it's normal for people to judge others based on different qualities, whatever they may be.

It's only in the last century or so that we've gotten this weird idea in our heads that 'love' is supposed to trump the material reality of a partnership, like two souls melding and overcoming anything. But in practice things like appearance, social skills, and career prospects are intrinsic to pair-bonding, not some ephemeral thing we look at after the fact.

In other words, this thread is akin to pointing out that the sky is blue, and for some reason deeming that offensive.

I think it's misleading. Wages may be correlated to career growth. There's a lot in the total package, not just money: has that person gained expertise, are they responsible or lazy, are they stable and a provider, are all examples... What really are women looking for? More granularity and testing needed, not political statements disguised as science and a poorly written blog post.

I'd tend to agree that studies being written about on Medium are a bit unscientific, but I don't think the question of what men and women want is that unclear. There should be a huge number of robust studies done on the topic. And the findings in the OP don't really contradict those studies by much.

 

[thebeave]

Gosh, it sounds like some people are denying that this coupling might not really be true love:



People can be so cynical sometimes. My world is shattered.

 

[DBT]

Gosh, it sounds like some people are denying that this coupling might not really be true love:

View attachment 13933

People can be so cynical sometimes. My world is shattered.

They both get what they want in the end, each to their own needs....with a bit of luck.

 

[Bronzeage]

Tinder is for young people trying to get laid. So yea, I could see that. I expect the ratios would be a little better for a service where people were more serious about finding a relationship.

But yea, of course physical appearance is important to everyone, this is no surprise.

There is a critical flaw in studies(whatever you call them) of this type, because while we can espouse any ideal of beauty, we choose from the available. This goes for men and women, alike. What's more, experience(mine, of course, links provided on request) shows people are very likely to lie about this kind of thing. Sort of like the way people lie about books they have read, when all they did was watch a movie of the same title. We want to manipulate the way other people see us. This is natural behavior for any social animal.

This means in the real world is, a person's perceived attractiveness will immediately increase with their perceived availability. The woman who smiles and makes eye contact, always rises in attractiveness. The problem here, is that we can judge physical attractiveness at a distance, even the distance of computer monitor or phone screen. When that's all we have, it doesn't take long to make a decision based on limited information, but it's a decision of absolutely no consequence upon our life.

Experience(ibid) also shows that a woman's idea of what constitutes attractiveness in a man, is very fluid, and cologne and underwear ads not withstanding, is difficult to predict. I once had an employee who was by any standard, a beautiful young woman. She was 5'10" in height and always wore high heels with lace ankle socks. She would not consider a man taller than her. Her reasons were based on experience. She said tall guys were assholes, but a man shorter than her, who had the balls to approach her directly, won her admiration. Just her personal filter.

I'm always suspect of studies, articles, opinions, etc, of the sort cited in the OP. There is a sad legion of men, and probably women as well, who can't find the partner(long or short term), and must blame it on the shallowness of others, never looking at themselves. Citing experience again, based on the women who accompany my friends, movie star handsomeness and a high paying job don't count for much, if she likes you.

Yea not knowing how effective the study was aside, it does seem to look at a very narrow window of human behavior: namely that of young people on the internet who want to get laid (who doesn't want to sleep with an attractive person?)

In the broader population the picture is more complex but not that complicated. One only has to think of what they themselves would want when picking a life-mate to raise children with. What makes a good life-partner?

- no serious disabilities or defects, physical or social
- acceptable socio-economic status
- producing as good looking kids as possible (which plays out in people matching attractiveness with their partner)
- in general, a person who will commit to you, and who isn't an asshole

Between men and women men weigh appearance a little more highly, and women socio-economic status a little more, averaged out.

This is one of those times when reality varies from the predictable, mostly because what we want and what we can get do not often coincide. Men may value appearance, but as I said above, availability has an attraction all it's own, and a woman who wants to get laid is going to put less weight on socio-economic status.

There is a great difference between choosing a partner for the night and a partner for life, which it may take longer to choose a life partner, the process starts out the same. If appearance and high socio-economic status were high criteria for a life partner, I would be married to Crazy Redheaded Julie, but that's another story.