Study: Unattractive Men Not Viewed As ‘Dating Material,’ No Matter How Great Their Personality

Study Finds ^ | 11-21-2017 | Daniel Steingold

[Fightin Whitey]

I've dated some guys

Lucky all, if we are judging on smarts, which is the only measure that makes any sense.

[PapaBear3625]

The 80-20 rule says that 80% of the women are willing, and perhaps eager, to mate with 20% of the men. What this means in practice is harems for the top 20% of men, and lots and lots of frustration as the 60% of the women who are putting out but not getting a “relationship” get ground down and replaced by the next 5-years younger cohort.

Civilization was created by patriarchal monogamy. A man who has no hope of getting a wife and family of his own has no incentive to work beyond the bare minimum to supply his own needs. A man who is certain that he will get a wife of his own if he is able to provide for her, WILL strive to build up his ability to provide. Thus is civilization built.

[PapaBear3625]

Men labeled “respectful” included the traits ‘respectful, trustworthy, and honest;’ the ‘friendly’ men were labeled ‘friendly, dependable, and mature;’ and the ‘pleasing” profile meant that the man was ‘of a pleasing disposition, ambitious, and intelligent.’ They left out the trait “rich AF”. To the women surveyed, a fly-covered turd with a private jet is “dateable”.

Women will date an unattractive-but-wealthy man, if they see the prospect of having his money, plus being able to have sex with attractive guys on the side (whether by having affairs or by divorce-raping the wealthy husband and then having affairs)

[dsc]

She looks like Quentin Tarantino.

[rb22982]

Exactly. If you are an attractive woman, don’t rush but the longer you wait, the worse marriage options you have on an exponential scale after 30+-.

[OldMissileer]

The problem is, the guys 30 to 39 are wising up. More of them have come to the conclusion that they don’t want to be second fiddle given the current family court system. If they can go it alone 22-29, why not go it alone thereafter?

It is nice to have somebody to love and who loves you in return, and children are great. The problem is the vast majority of women alive today have been so steeped in feminist crap that even the ones who profess to not be man hating flaming feminists are still actually feminists.

I know a few single women from way back when I was young who are now in their 50s and single and they are so self-centered that they talk about finding a good man as if they deserve one, but I never hear anything from them about wanting a man they can love. They want all the trimmings of a realtionship but have no capability to return the favors.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

"She's your mother. I wouldn't expect her to be objective, LOL. Do you think your sisters are pretty? There's no need to answer, you probably can't be objective either."

One of my brothers got the genetic fluke of flax colored hair and thick, jet-black eyebrows. Since he's 6'4" and wide as a truck nobody mentions it, but our mom definitely thinks he's handsome.

I do think both my sisters are pretty. I also know that one of them can eat a quarter of her weight of pancakes in half an hour and the other can fart the alphabet...At will. Any of their potential suitors of whom I strongly disapprove will be informed of these talents post haste. I'll plead big brother immunity and skip town for a while. All in a day's work. :)

[rb22982]

He was the only honorable dem in the last 20 years

[Jim Noble]

If they can go it alone 22-29, why not go it alone thereafter?

Thereafter is much, much better.

There is an endless supply of 22-24 year olds for men up to 60 or so, and getting them becomes much easier as a man becomes established.

The women in the harems in their 20s now, most of them will never marry. I was on the market from age 43-46, and, let me tell you, dating women 30-39 is a horror show.

Back in high school, in the Lost World, we had a name for girls with multiple partners. That name was "ruined".

It was true then, and it's true now.

[sparklite2]

He certainly lucked out in the hot  wife category, but it's my understanding she is a vacuous flake.

Another unlikely couple was Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft.
But that's looks only.  They were both terrifically talented.

[Crucial]

It’s a good thing women are usually more forgiving in the looks department. Women do have their limits though.

[blam]

Men With Muscles and Money Are More Attractive..Showing Gender Roles Aren’t Progressing [tr]

[sparklite2]

For now. Just wait until men start wearing makeup. Then women won’t be sure of what they’re getting until it’s too late. Like it is for men now.

[Redwood71]

Interesting and thanks for the thought. When I’m not feeling to well. which is more often than not now, I get lazy. I trust the system to catch misspelled words and let me know. The one I used could also be spelled peruse. Both are acceptable and have different meanings.

My intent was to mean to survey or examine in detail. This is a word my parents used when I was a kid. Unfortunately it was the other spelling. And the system fell into the homonym trap and didn’t know what to do. Me, either, I guess. Just shows people they are just as smart as their computer, or just as illiterate.

rwood

[Redwood71]

I heard it another way:

Romancing a women that is not that pretty is great. She tries like hell, she’s eternally grateful at what you give, and makes you the best breakfast the next morning you ever had.

Here’s to good women, not fashion models.

rwood

[Redwood71]

Another educated idiot?

rwood

[sparklite2]

I read some of his posts on the forum. He’s no idiot. I think his play on ‘peruse’ was funny.

[sparklite2]

I’ve had both. If I had a do over (maybe with some sense next time) the gorgeous one would be my choice.

[Pollster1]

Agreed. When you ask people to judge from pictures, attractiveness will be the deciding factor, unlike real life.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Thus proving that women saying looks don’t matter as much to them is a simple conspiracy to cover up the seething bowels of their human nature, which, in this case, is not dissimilar to that of men.