A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
"Like a strong 7" is about as reliable as "6' 0" tall" as self-evaluation in the context of dating.
If 5 is average and 10 is "celebrity known for being beautiful, dressed up and wearing full makeup" then probably one in ten people is a 7 or higher. For the record, I'm 5' 11.5" and a 4 on a good day. My marketing pitch is "Below average but not so much so that people stare."
I would assume that this is an IGN-style scale where it's functionally 5-10, not 1-10. 7 is average, 5 is terrible
anything below 5 is cringe but 3 or below and its abject horror
It's not.
Source: am a 2
This is going way, waaay back... but basically...
For cishets at least:
Men tend to actually use pretty close to a standard normal distribution based around the actual midpoint, and actually use the entire scoring range.
Women tend to not do this, at all, and instead have a heavily biased or skewed way of using the scoring range.
(Where I mean bias and skew in their statistical definitions, primarily.)
Women only rate 19% of men as being average or better. Women also very often say they consider and talk to and date men who they view as not in their league.
And thats not like, a spurrious result from only one early dating app. There are many studies and published analyses that consistently show that women tend to be very picky or choosy or harsh or however you want to say it, tend to rate very few men as very attractive, compared to how men rate women as very attractive.
So, to apply this kind of data to your hypothetical on the 1-10 scale, doing a rough conversion for the 1-7 scale here:
Basically, if you are a man rating women, well you can see that 21% of women are rated 6/7 or 7/7...
... but if you are a woman rating men, the amount of men rated 6/7 or 7/7 is 2%.
That is to say, men find roughly 2 out of 10 women to score 7 or higher, whereas women find roughly 0 out of 10 men to score a 7 or higher, on a 1-10 scale.
This kind of data is also a literal foundational reason why all modern dating apps work the way they do.
I have been thinking about this, and I know when I was younger, most of the guys I knew were not physically attractive, more of the women made an effort and looked good. So it's not a ranking where you take ten people and line them up with 1 the ugliest and 10 the hottest, more like a percentage of possible good looks. Really there were no "10" guys around.
That doesn't mean none were acceptable, at all- I'm sure I have written about this before but I'm straight and my judgement of guys' physical attractiveness is binary - in or out. You look good enough? That is good enough, and everything else about you matters more. I am not going to like you better because you are hotter, and nobody is so good looking I can want them just based on looks. You don't look good enough? Nothing else you are can matter. That "good enough" bar is not all that high, but it's a hard line.
So the ranking of guys' looks like 1-10 or whatever is completely separate from how attractive I might find them, if that makes sense.
Yeah, I do think women women on average put more effort into being physically attractive to men (certainly more time on average). I'm sure it's controversial to say but on a basic 1-10 scale my gay friends rank higher on average than do my straight buddies, and I think that's about effort, not nature.
I think hair, makeup,and clothes can change your base rank a lot but average women take advantage of this way more than average men while celebrity men and women both take full advantage so the 10 ranking is set just as high for both genders, but higher rankings are more attainable for "regular" women.
So maybe women aren't so much pickier as it is that neither gender exists as a perfect bell curve in our natural state compared to 10s and a lot of women's beauty is "unnatural" raising our ratings.
My husband and I are both pretty low key on attractiveness effort normally but the difference between me on an average Saturday and me attending a wedding is way bigger than his difference.
I'm sure it's controversial to say but on a basic 1-10 scale my gay friends rank higher on average than do my straight buddies, and I think that's about effort, not nature.
I am a bi guy, and this is the least controversial thing ever, imo, lol.
I don't find the ... basically lets call it 'grooming effort gap', to be a compelling explanation for the different scoring distributions.
Because... most men actually can tell when a woman is dressed to the nines and quite glammed up or what have you.
They'll often utterly lack the vocabularly to accurately (muchless politely) describe this, but they have a strong internal heuristic way of doing this.
And most of them account for that in the way they rank the attractiveness of a woman.
By that I mean... they recognize it as gesture that takes effort and signals that someone is trying to be appealing, and that is a good thing...
...but they also know that it acts as a +1 or +2 bonus to the underlying score, or maybe a 1.25x multiplier, something like that, and then you can work backward to the 'actual' attractiveness score, basically.
Yet! You still have ~20% of women being rated as pretty darn attractive. Because guys can generally mostly tell when a woman will look quite attractive whether or not they're in a photoshoot, or just finished running a marathon, or something like that.
This is why there is the whole weird mismatched female vs male social phenomenon of:
"I'm dressing up and doing make up for myself"
vs.
"Yeah, but what does she look like without makeup?"
Like uh... hopefully this isn't a reality imploding thing to say, but men who value a long term relationship lie all the time to women asking whether or not that dress makes them look fat.
... but all of that is basically just my semi informed opinion, I could not off the top of my head produce like, a cluster of studies that prove that.
I suspect that if I spent enough time doing a meta analysis, I probably could find such studies, but I am currently way too lazy (and not being paid) to do that right now, lol.
I was hanging out and my friend was swiping tinder swiping mostly left and annihilating and roasting guys that to me seemed in good shape, well dressed and either conventionally attractive or weird looking but in an interesting way. It actually killed me inside and put me off using dating apps.
This IS OKcupid users.
And on all dating apps there a survivorship bias where people who have dating difficulties stick around on dating platforms while people who do not have difficulties quickly leave.
The real problem here might be that
A) men overrate attractiveness.
Or
B) men's attractiveness is selected for on OKcupid but women's attractiveness is not. Thus there is a survivorship skew.
I propose a new dating website:
"5 and below"
Everyone caps at 5, and if you're over, you get banned :}
Just make the scale logarithmic, but it starts at 7 in the middle, like the PH scale.
So a 10 is a thousand times hotter than a 7? And a 1 is a million times less hot?
I love that you did your height down to the half inch lmfao
That was pretty much my thoughts on reading it. Then I realized, that sort of described the plenty of fish site, unsure if still around, went on a few dates from that (guess that shows my range and age) and had fun. Well more fun than not.
categorizing everyone into a pseudo-objective 1-10 attractiveness scale and saying "depressed is good!....but only fun depressed [whatever tf that means]" ... is a red fucking flag
yea i know it's a joke.
but is it really?
Everyone knows the correct scale is 0-1.
You're either interested or not.
Why are you Boolean him? He's right
Well we know which kind you have. /s
saying “depressed is good!..but only fun depressed [whatever tf that means]”
I think it has something to do with the saying "the clown is often the saddest person in the room." So they want someone who is just sad enough to always be making jokes or trying to be funny. I recognize myself in that at least. I tend to always be looking to make people laugh even if I'm kinda miserable inside every day.
Somehow I’m both too good and not good enough to meet the criteria to join.
Yeah, like I’m maybe a 5, but my car works fine, so…hmmm
It wouldnt fly because all those people want to date a 10.
It's not my fault that all women are 10s.
Sounds good except that literally 90% of people consider themselves to be in this category
7 is considered average while 5 is standing there.
What if I'm a 6 but I can run a mile?
I'm 6'2" and my check engine light has been on for over a year. How you doin?
Out of a hundred?
/J
There's one already called Tinder. It's exactly what you said.
Hi
Edit: nvm
“Older, can afford to see why the check engine light is on”
It's^free^at^autozooooone
$80 to buy the scanner yourself and never have to drive a mile down the road to have another undertrained cashier tell you your O2 sensor died again.
If I never see another P0134 I'll die happy.
fediverse partner finder when?
Damn I meet the rest of the criteria except I'm probably a 3 on a good day lol
Shit I already convinced some poor girl to marry before smart phones but I'll keep it in mind
Who decides who's a 7 though? Maybe others think I'm a 10 on a good day, and a 1 on a depressed day. Maybe I'll just want to lay in bed and cry and eat fried chicken. Maybe the next day I'll want to fuck Halle Berry and Angelina Jolee. You know Angelina would SO be down for face-sitting, and I bet Halle gives one nervous mediocre blowjob, where she's not quite sure what she's doing, but she's hot so nobody is complaining.
And maybe by Friday I'll want to walk down the streets naked eating nachos. But fuck it's too cold out there! Mr Winky would shrink! I wouldn't even NEED to be in the pool!
What were we talking about?
I call those moments, "what do women see in me?"
Damn sign me up.
Does it count if my truck's check engine light came on but it got fixed because I figured out the gas cap wasn't screwed on tight enough?
Name it 3-6 and I’m sold