Gender Attraction Differential

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart

Recommend

John Scarce : this video is 100% true. the divorce problem is just as bad even in places where the court system isn't as rigged

V A N I L L A S A D B O I : I really don't get why I was recommended this. I am really confused.

balduran2003 : 10:38. You say she sees herself as an 8 dating a 3. But that is not what the data shows. It shows that men see her on average as an 8 and women see her man on average as a 3. In order to make your argument, which I think is probably correct, we would need data on how women rate each other, and how men rate each other in terms of attractiveness, and we don't have that. In other words, It is possible that woman who is seen by the average man as a 8 would only see herself as a 5 or a 6. But, we don't have data on that.

Pterodactylus : So, I got an explanation from an older woman who does not like to sugarcoat things and knows about the SMP on why 80% of males are rates below average. It is because we have a flawed assumption of ratings. For females, males 5 and below simply does not participate in the SMP. In other words, only 6+ counts. Therefore, 8 is an average, and is better than 80% of males which the chart shows. Harsh as fuck isn't it?

Ivan Kleshnin : I think the question of Attractiveness for both genders is not really the same question. For man that question sounds like "Would I bang this girl?" and for woman it sounds more like "Would I have child from this guy?". Obviously the second one needs a higher barrier.

Smoking Horsey : It definitely seems to be the case that women are, on the average, much more selective than men in terms of what they consider to be an optimal partner. However, one thing I would say is Tinder and OKCupid force people to make judgments based on how a person appears on paper. We all know instinctively that the average looking man is not considered attractive, but the average looking girl is. We know this from sitcoms and romcoms. If a scene features an average looking guy in his underwear trying to be sexy it is seen as humorous due to how un-sexy it actually is. Whereas if an average looking girl is in her underwear acting sexy it doesn't seem so funny because to most guys it actually is sexy. Despite this, when you meet a person in real life there is a multidimensional analysis that takes place as opposed to the more uni-dimensional analysis that occurs on apps like Tinder. For example, girls like funny guys. Yet, it is difficult for that to come across simply from your Tinder bio. The issue is, no matter what aspect you make the subject of attractiveness the same pattern follows. Women like the highest ranking men in that domain. For IQ it is even harsher than looks. Male attractiveness to women peaks at an IQ of 120. That is smarter than 90% of the population. However, the upside is you may not be high ranking in all aspects of attractiveness but you could still be high ranking in some of them. That is, you may be an average looking guy who is far above average in intelligence and pretty funny. This may put you on a higher position of the curve than you would have been based on your Tinder profile due to your average looks. The real troublesome situation is for those who rank low in all aspects of attractiveness. But even then, if you happen to come into money one day you'll be seen as attractive too...

Not Jin : *T e e n d a h*

Lord Chumpington : Part of this is due to the media. We have adverts saying "all women are beautiful", "real women have curves", "fat acceptance", "this is what a real woman looks like" etc etc. So, this gives women confidence which is good, obviously, but we don't do the same for men. Most men I know are insecure and don't rate themselves highly, even the very attractive ones. I know a load of women who rate themselves as being pretty or attractive despite them not being very good looking. Obviously this is just anecdotal though. This means men can and will aim lower than themselves, while women want someone who is approximately in their league but, due to an over inflated ego, shoot above themselves. This leads to the "where are all the good men" stuff etc that you spoke about.

GimR's Lab : Did you ever ask why with the data? Men and Women's roles are different in the dating scene. Women have their pick of the litter where as men need to approach. This social dynamic most definitely affects how men and women rate each other. Women get to choose who they want so they can be now honest and blunt. Men have to approach do they're more likely to be more cordial and nicer to women they don't find as attractive. Also on Tinder it is common for men to swipe right without looking because they get so few matches it's a waste of time to look through each person. It's easier to swipe randomly and then come back later and choose who you actually like out of the matches your eventually get. Women get so many matches it makes sense for them to use the the app as intended

MrShysterme : The worst are the women that think themselves an 8 (that are percentile wise equivalent to what she thinks is a male 3) that have slept around to be with men she considers on her level (that are actually much better looking than her most likely). This inflates her ego and solidifies in her mind that she really is equivalent to these men that will not commit to her. This is one reason why promiscuous women make bad partners for men. You will always be compared to others by an out of bounds ego not in touch with the reality of the social dynamics of which she was part.

ninjalemurdude : These comments are sad.

Dener Witt : Really cool info, I hope more people study the human behaviour because damn we need to figure out lot of things before most people can have healthy relationships.

Bob Loblaw : You are my favourite MGTOW content producer. No anger, no blame, just trying to figure things out.

David Geraghty : This is what we should be learning in statistics class.

WebX : So this just randomly came up on my feed. This is good at putting an argument forward, but I do disagree with the premise. A lot of guys have a very doom-and-gloom view of human sexuality like it is some war between the genders. But I think my premise is much more optimistic, and is based on personal experience and books about early humans. Most women would swipe left because for women, the sexual effect of a man's physical appearance is significantly weaker than it is for men. Meanwhile these same girls will completely open up to a guy she has made a connection with, even when he has the infamous "dad bod". If you think about it, a man doesn't need much health to ejaculate. Not like a woman does to get pregnant. So the effect of appearance is weaker. The trick is that a woman's libido is held behind the floodgates of emotional connection. She can't just look at a guy and be aroused, unless he is fucking Thor. This makes women seem mostly asexual, because we are mostly strangers to one another. A woman wanting a guy with money and a fancy car is more of a spoiled brat than a woman fulfilling some biological imperative. Don't enable or admire girls like this by acting like it's biological. Hypergamy wasn't really a thing until the advent of agriculture when women's economic standing was determined by the man she married. Prior to that (95%+ of human existance), gatherers provided most of the food for hunter-gatherer communities, and were certainly the biggest source of food stability. Furthermore, resources were rigorously shared. This eliminates the advantage of finding a "provider". As for a protector: Tribes more often either went to war with other tribes, or a couple members in the tribe might lash out and the whole tribe would gang up on them to stop them and calm them down. The advantage of pairing up with a "protector" is thus limited as well, because protection is handled much more as a group. It's also a myth that humans basically bowed down to some mythical "alpha males" who would have exclusive sexual access. This idea was formed by folks like Darwin in the sex-starved Victorian era but doesn't match observations. In a hunter-gatherer society, if you were to waltz in and declare yourself better than the others, you would be subject to ridicule and potentially violence unless you learned your place. The main time an individual would have a leadership role was if the others deferred to their expertise. But even then, decisions were made by unanimity. Not dictatorial "alphas". If you want to go farther back and compare us to Chimps (Ignoring Bonobos), in the majority of alpha-male species, the alpha male is generally not preferred sexually, but has to control the female through dominance. Females often find opportunities to sleep with the OTHER males when they get the chance. But evidence points to humans being more like bonobos sexually. Women's genitalia is built to select not just between individual sperm, but from multiple sperm sources (multiple men). The male penis is built to remove existing semen. This points to women having sex with many men (polyamory), with most selection happening between sperm of multiple men, and how men's reproductive systems are able to compete against the sperm of other men. Polygyny came from early agriculture. The most dystopian period in human existence. And it frankly wasn't long before we found a new way to try to dissolve sexual hierarchy: Monogamy. I say all this because the alpha-male narrative is a real shit way to view sexuality, and probably contributes to the rise in school shootings. If you are incel, this narrative does far more to hinder your situation and frankly drive you insane.

Dinkelstein Kerman : The top 20% of males get 4 females per male. While the bottom 80% males have to fight 4 guys per 1 woman.

Ivan Freitas : When sex robots become realistic and affordable this will change, woman will lose their ego and will be happy to just have a average looking man with a average salary, they will have male sex robots but they will not give theme emocional connection that they need so much and help theme with money

Speedy Gonzales : So women have the opposite of a man''s "beer goggles" i.e. they see men through a distorted, "dismorphic" lens wherein their man, who they have settled for after unsuccessfully chasing the uber stallion is seen as being "ugly" or "unattractive". This would explain all the man-hating adverts and movies we see nowadays. And divorce.

Anony Mous : Female settling in the attraction department is the dirty little secret behind so many problems - sexless marriages, cheating (on both sides), high divorce risk, resentment, game playing, testiness, and high maintenance/demanding behavior (you're expected to HEAVILY compensate for her lack of genuine attraction to you). So much neurotic female behavior in relationships/marriages has its root in settling. If you're only average looking, AVOID marriage like the plague!

sebsunda : Men... I stumbled upon you randomly... Now I see what was missing in this whole MGTOW conversation! Amazing! Keep going!

John Doe : Poor women, they're so oppressed: easier PT standards in the military/fire/police, lesser attractiveness threshold demands, gaining employment solely through looks and no demands for actual intelligence/skill, can accuse a man of rape with zero proof and ruin his life, given the advantage in child custody cases, etc etc. Aside from that, this video is brilliant and such an intelligent and genuinely thought-provoking analysis. Sadly, only us men will find it useful since we deal with logic.

Ed Draper : This was both insightful and well presented. Excellent content.

Fugl Featherbird : Found the incel side of youtube

David Anthony : r/niceguys

TheJaredtheJaredlong : But the data wasn't about how women rate themselves. The data is how each gender rated the other gender. If there's data on how women and men rate their own attractiveness then you failed to include that context, but used that implied information as the basis of your conclusion. Your provided evidence doesn't justify your interpretation, and doesn't match your claimed conclusion.

J. P. : In other words the patriarchy in which women's hypergamy is put in check by severe societal pressures is the only way civilization is gonna work.

Arse smith : the game was rigged from the start.

mclaclan : I wonder if we have a little bit of sampling bias. Most people on these apps are maybe younger and more volital also maybe people on these apps are potentially flawed in the psychology leading to much larger desparity. I would like to see more double blind test with more age groups and better sampling with people in random walk of life.

Pinpoint Pear : time to go gay

storyb4bed : Watched this a few times now.  Have to say it's probably the best explanation of relationship failure I have seen.

TheEgg185 : None of this surprises me one bit.

James Bond : I'm not sure if the future effectiveness of antidepressant medication can keep up with my increasing knowledge.

bunberrier : That's an interesting take on that data, but perhaps there are other factors behind the data itself. IDK, just speculating. To invent a few: perhaps male OKCupid users are generally less attractive than the average population. Or perhaps female OKCupid users are drawn there because they have an inflated sense of sexual market value. Like I said, IDK, just speculating. Great video, logical, and thought provoking. Another one... part of a man's attractiveness is his ability to obtain resources and that is not well represented in photographs, whereas a woman's fertility is better represented in photographs. Subscribed!

May August : Traditionalism, morals and standards (matrimony and monogamy) were created to tackle this issue. this problem has been uncontrolled since traditional values have been thrown out of the window after the invention of the birth control pill in the 1960s. Liberalism is not progressive, its regressive in terms of civilizational advancement.

physcoticweirdo : FINALLY, someone mentions how the problems with women start and end with their biological make up instead of trying to take blame off them by saying they were raised that way.

Ahmed Farah : Sounds a lot like a loner internet guy using flawed math to rationalize his romantic failures and putting the blame on women. Relationships are about a whole lot more than looks. I don't know who convinced you and most of the commenters that women solely care about a guy's face and wallet. Most of them mostly care about your confidence.

João Drapala : 80 percent of women want to mate with 20% of men. 80/20 Pareto's rule right here.

Marcos : It’s the 80-20 rule

Ludmila Marešová : Now seriously. For which side is it more "unfair?" Women in general tend to be more attractive than men. Only a fraction of men looks attractive while you can be an average woman to still catch the attention of majority of men. Attractive men are very scarce. And they are all taken by average women. So if you are a man, you just need to work a little bit more on your appearance and there will be women standing in a line to get your attention. On the other hand, if you are a woman, it is difficult to distinguish yourself from other women and to capture the attention of a man you think would be a good fit for you because men _so very often_ do not look past the appearance...

iFeeva : in a nutshell, women are crazy.

Vzmuž se : THe video is no longer available. Why? I mean the "Meet Mark"

ⵢⵓⵏⴻⵙ ⴷⵓⵎⵉⵍ : Disagree. The divorce rate in my country is 10%. In America and Europe it's 50%. Difference in culture, in my culture once you settle down it's for life. In Anglo-European culture it's considered normal to have multiple partners over your lifetime, and also marriage isn't considered a lifetime thing (you can divorce for trivial reasons).

Eugene InLaw : Thought it's sad for me as a man, I am not surprised. It's just an evolved survival strategy

Matthew Rabon : There are many things wrong with this analysis, but most of them have already been brought up in the comments. But how has nobody brought up the fact that most women are wearing makeup in their profile pictures as a reason for why they are rated as more attractive (on average) by men? Both men and women probably have a warped perspective of beauty thanks to airbrushing and makeup being so prevalent in today's media, but women tend to get closer to that via cosmetics while men do not. I guarantee that if men also wore makeup for their profile pictures, the stats would be a lot more equal.

The Backlash! : You did a much better job of explaining this mathematically than I did in my Invisible Man article 20 odd years ago but MRAs were discussing the "flawed from the start" aspects and it's becoming obvious to me that there was a disconnect during the past decade. On the issue of incentivizing women to divorce I have to side with TFM, who examined the economic incentives. I agree with you that the pill played a huge role but if the economic incentives offered by government "replace male" programs were eliminated we can extrapolate backwards to expect far more families to remain intact. TFM cited the destruction caused by the Great Society legislation. Daniel Patrick Moynahan opposed that program because he already knew what would happen because it was already happening on the American Indian reservations. You cannot discount or ignore the economic incentives.

Steve GO : This is why "religion" exists. "B*tch.... Go pray!" Atheists and secular men are the real idiots.

Nick Kraw : I don’t think that this is data of good quality for making decisions based off of for the following reason: attraction is far more visual for men than women, and this data was gathered from men and women looking at pictures. Physical size, height and musculature, presence, confidence, and most of all pheromones cannot be determined from looking at a picture. So unless the man was sufficiently handsome to compensate for being potentially small, weak, and having a poor immune system, low testosterone, and unhealthy gut biome, or anything else that could throw off pheromones, then he was marked as less attractive. This is because attraction is a largely subconscious process, and all those centres of approval that I just described were not being ticked. There’s a hell of a lot more to physical attractiveness than how you look in a photo. A second important data point. The men were not necessarily that much more generous. We know that in our culture, the women overall were more likely to invest a considerable amount of time into picking ideal photos taken from ideal angles in ideal light with ideal makeup and poses and ideal clothing, potentially doctored, etc. The men were far less likely to do. Therefore, we may assume that the photos that the women posted of themselves WERE indeed of objectively higher quality than the men’s and did present themselves to be disproportionately attractive. I think that if this study was repeated with face to face speed dating style contact, the two curves would be dramatically more similar.

DSRT888 : Excellent video.

feralbear3615 : Who knew the Pareto principle (80-20 rule) would have a say in dating and relationships?