Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.3K

This is from the vaunted OKCupid study where they assessed the attractiveness of the opposite sex based upon the respondent's sex. Male respondents rated female attractiveness on a bell curve, which matches statistical expectations. Most people will be average, with declining percentages whom are either particularly attractive or particularly unattractive.

Female respondents rated male attractiveness on a pareto distribution where only the top 19% of men were considered average or better. This mirrors certain appalling trends in normie female dating patterns where multiple women share a single alpha, while the majority of beta males either become incels or settle for low quality partners.

This is insightful if you want to find a high quality, traditional husband. It's crucial to assess partner attractiveness accurately to ensure you can find a good husband rather than becoming one of Chad's alpha widows due to skewed attractiveness assessments.

This is from the vaunted OKCupid study where they assessed the attractiveness of the opposite sex based upon the respondent's sex. Male respondents rated female attractiveness on a bell curve, which matches statistical expectations. Most people will be average, with declining percentages whom are either particularly attractive or particularly unattractive. Female respondents rated male attractiveness on a pareto distribution where only the top 19% of men were considered average or better. This mirrors certain appalling trends in normie female dating patterns where multiple women share a single alpha, while the majority of beta males either become incels or settle for low quality partners. This is insightful if you want to find a high quality, traditional husband. It's crucial to assess partner attractiveness accurately to ensure you can find a good husband rather than becoming one of Chad's alpha widows due to skewed attractiveness assessments.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (11).
[–] • 1 pt

It's interesting that female distribution is so similar to how a hierarchy settles. It could even be argued that hierarchy is partially established because of women.

As to female "standards"; they do not fit this definition. It is more of a wish list. Think of it in terms of purchasing power based on sexual marketplace value. A woman that is a sex is attempting to purchase a 10. She has a deficit of 4. A man at a 6 trying to get a 10 is the same. It isn't a standard but a desire for something more valuable than oneself.

[–] • 0 pt

Productivity always follows a Pareto Distribution. Whether it's opera singers, inventors, or male partners, 80% of productivity is done by the top 20%. For partner selection, this unfortunately means that 20% of men are drawing 80% of women. While biology may not care if Chad "Alpha" McManly sires half the children in the village, this is a major problem for anyone who desires monogamy rather than a sperm donor.

The reason this is so lopsided is because almost all women reproduced throughout history. A hefty chunk of men (?40%?) did not. Because of that it's obvious that women are more choosy, and thus the de facto "buyer" demanding partners in that market. Hence why it follows a pareto distribution like all other markets.

[–] • 1 pt

60% of men, historically, did not reproduce.

[–] • 0 pt

So, what did they do? Or were these soldiers, sailers, etc?

[–] • 0 pt

Thanks for the stat-check. I knew it was exceptionally high.