Gender Attraction Differential

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart

Recommend

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...

Michał Szczuryk vel Szczerba : Nothing but evolution in play. Females can have a few children maximum in their lifetime, while males can produce dozens of offspring. Women have to make it count. It's really fascinating. If you are interested in immunology, I recommend reading about "Major histocompatibility complex and sexual selection" on Wikipedia. If you don't, just skip to the "empirical evidence" section

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

Entrepreneurs in Cars : Great assessment. What happened to the "meet mark" video? Link goes nowhere

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.

interreligious dialogue : What I say may offend. Warning. Where was this study conducted? Because I have been living in Eastern Europe for 3 years Poland Ukraine and visited Russia many times. My analysis is this. Eastern European women are disproportionately hot whereas the men are less then average. When you travel to more western countries the women get uglier and the men get handsomer. That is, I got chubbies every second in Poland but once I crossed over to Germany Austria Holland or England it was nonexistent. In fact most Germanic people’s have this feature good looking men, ugly women. Whereas Slavs have ugly men amazingly good looking women.

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.

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.

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

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

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

leetledrummerboy : It's a fun theory but assuming that data is even representative of reality, I don't think it's enough to warrant those conclusions. In my experience, women tend to become aware of their partner's value after the relationship has begun. It's initiating the relationship that's an uphill battle for men

Stasoline : As an average guy, this is pretty bleak.

SWIFTzTrigger : So men's self esteem needs to drop to a catastrophic low for them to see themselves the way women see them? wow...

Pinpoint Pear : time to go gay

KAILOONE : Robot women will solve many problems.

SCORPION5O : 'the only way to win the game, is not to play'

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.

Ser Stormcrow : Women's entitlement knows no bounds.

Andrew Tidey : One of the few times I’m glad I’m gay

Hideyoshi Kinoshita : Feminists: "Stop oppressing us with your oppressive beauty norms!" Also feminists: "ewww most men are ugly"

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).

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.

Jason Reel : Makes sense in the context of an overpopulated society. Less need to reproduce pushing towards higher standards for reproduction.

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.

funkycrunk : There is no data to back up the conjecture that women see themselves as more attractive. All we can tell from the data stated is that women on average think most guys are ugly, and that men think its a normal distribution for women. For example, do we have any data to suggest that women don't think other women are also ugly, or that they themselves are just meh? Its a subtle difference, but its kind of like laying a logarithmic graph on top of a linear one and then trying to extrapolate based of that. You might have a bad time.

MadBunnyRabbit : It's a shame this is so old. Because I see a big flaw in this. You see, you assume that the distribution of men and women on those platforms is reflective of distribution in the real world. Maybe women decide to contanct only 20% of men is because only 20% of men onthose platforms are above average. Untill we know how the distribution looks on those platforms we really cant procede with any kinds of conclusions as to what the graphs mean. It is quite possible that undesirable men (and I'm not talking only about their physical attractivness) may be more likely to join the service. While inherently picky women would do the same. But then we also get another question. In those 20% of the cases, what type of profiles do women actually choose to contact. Is it some good looking guy with no job, creative type, a dreamer, someone who you would assume is there maybe for a hookup rather then an relationship, or an average looking guy with a stable job and decent income that a woman would like to settle with. This also poses a question whether good portion of men are there only for hookups (especially when you consider that tinder is really more of a hookup app rather then a dating one) and as such don't need a perfect looking girl to get their dick wet. TL;DR - this graph is like wage gap, doesn't account for a lot of variants and as such any conclusions taken from it should be taken with a huge bag of salt.

Reinis Miks : trying to rationalize female thinking is impossible

Sander Mez : if I was rich and powerful and had major influence in media (aka the 1%) it would be highly in my benefit to make the population of women at large think this way, that they deserve better (aka me). |This is why feminists are RIGHT.... the "patriarchy" is kind of true, but also not really. Since 99% of poor men are and always through history have been quite oppressed and working difficult jobs. Also, the 1% of women exist, but they seem oddly lazy and unwilling to tilt public opinion in their favor. Which is odd since women are said to have "higher social intelligence". I guess this proves that that is not so and that men are in every way, on average more intelligent than women and use the resources at hand to their benefit. that being said, there are plenty of rich women running the show, but they have different priorities then their male counterpart, and optimizing mating chances does not seem to be one of them.

The Diamond Net : You're looking at female attraction through the assumptions inherent to the lens of male attraction... understandably so since you're a man. I've noticed that, men tend to be more objective in their attraction requirements where emotions need not weigh into the attraction that much in the initial stages. So, men tend to see a woman in the initial stages of attraction as being precisely sum of her parts. Basically, if the boxes are checked, then men will decide with their minds whether they're attracted or not and to what degree. Women on the other hand, tend not to size men up in an objective way. And if they try to and create a checkbox list of objective qualities that they're looking for in a man, they tend to be very unsatisfied and tend to become perfectionistic and not settle down with anyone. This is why I don't think that Tinder or other dating apps are that good for finding a compatible mate for women. Women need to be able to have face to face interactions to use her intuition properly in romantic situations. Based on my past experiences, a woman who is in touch with her femininity will use this intuition as the main factor in determining whether she wants to be in a relationship with a man or not. So, female attraction comes in the form of a Cupid's Arrow, with little rhyme or reason to the attraction. And being attracted to a man is one of the most pleasant experiences that there is for a woman. That's why she can't shut up to her friends about it. She's not attracted to him for looks, or money, or any other quantifiable factor. But when she is genuinely attracted to a man, it is the effect where a man is seen as more than the sum of his parts. And it is incredibly rare. But it isn't rare because women have unrealistically high expectations of men. It is rare simply because genuine female attraction is rare, and pointed toward one man at a time. All other men are just other men. They aren't positive or negative. They just aren't that one guy with the light inside of him. So, this is why female attraction is rare. And it's also important that male attraction is a bit more "equal opportunity" than women's, otherwise relationships would be very rare. But it's also good that women are more picky, because it would just be tons of hedonism all the time. I can't give any statistics on this... but it is true.

ninjalemurdude : These comments are sad.

Max Mustermann : Not sure why I landed in youtube MGTOW town, but still an interesting video which perfectly matches up with history. Less than 50% of men (over the span of humanity whole past) have reproduced, while over 80% of women did. There's those two figures again, but in reverse. Historically, the solution was not for women to settle for men with perceived lower value. The solution was, to settle for men of perceived equal value, but share them with other women. Which could also explain some behavior women express towards each other. The only reason it did work out quite well for the last 2000 years or so, up until recently, was the kind of society men created. Given the odds, it worked very well. But now that it's so easy for women to drop a man, basically involving no risks at all, the system has fallen apart. The necessity of needing a man in your life, made up for the perceived lower attractiveness value. Sure, you are a beautiful woman - or so you think - and your man is only an average guy. But he is a guy. He brings the bread to the table, provides security, protects you from vagabonds.... So in the end, both positions are correct. You mentioned Sargon of Akkad. He is right when he says modern feminism and mainstream society in general is the problem. But you are right to say the real reason is biology. It's both, as society in the "olden days" was what kept biology in check.

xwinglover : MGTOW

Hugo Lindum : $65,000 is in the top 10% of US salaries!? Edit: Top 10% is 90,000.

L J : So, women’s minds are the reason for divorce and not individual (male) behavior. Hmm. Ooooookay.

Saad : This video just rapes my self-confidence

Ben Hinman : Believing this is somehow a biological process rather than a social one is actually the more misogynist of the options. I prefer to believe as conscious beings, women have a choice in the standards they have and the processes by which they evaluate potential partners. Either they are biologically inclined, or they have a choice and should be blamed for making the wrong ones. And to accept the former as your paradigm of thinking voids them of any responsibility for their actions.

Nick D : 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.

iFeeva : in a nutshell, women are crazy.

L L : maybe he's a 3 when you first meet but becomes a 10 when your in love - also you mentioned societal pressure for women to look good, maybe thats why their being rated higher, because they put more effort into their appearance maybe you start at a 3 but with the power of makeup end up an 6

Blagaflaga : I wonder how this relates to lesbian relationships. Do both partners consider themselves more attractive than their partner? This could possibly explain why they have higher rates of divorce and relationship problems, if I remember that correctly.

i9incher : One problem with your theory, you say the 65,000 a year would make him more attractive since he is in a higher percentile. However, the example takes place in New York where the average salary for the middle class is between 45,000 a year and 134,000 a year. unless he meant the state of New York and not the city.

valar : So hot guys get a lot of attention. That's not exactly news.

Darrell Lim : Did you just take an integral of a bell curve to get your s-curve?

Iconian 1 : Video finally starts getting to the point at 10:13.

Felipe Vanegas : This was so interesting. Where's this video been all my life?

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

TJ Reeves : Wow. This video just blew my mind wide open!!!! Thank you!!!

Niki Gehrer : dude. that was an awesome video

Kitchen Sink : The biggest glaring issue I have with this video is that you are using data of how men view women as the woman's rating of herself. The data you used on attractiveness was solely based on how the opposite genders view each other. Your "8 dating 3" analogy falls flat because we have no idea if she views herself as an 8. Just that the "average" (by tinder and ok cupid standards) male sees her as an 8.