Hacker News Reader

Comment by YetAnotherMatt | Hacker News Reader

One factor that I didn't see addressed in the post which does make a significant impact is that men in general rate women more similarly than women rate men.

See for example:

https://www.marketingcharts.com/demographics-and-audiences/m...

As such, male advantage is probably a lot lower in the real world, if (hyperbolic) every woman has a different man on nr 1 of their preference list, and every man has the same woman as nr 1 of their preference list, all women could theoretically have their best possible partner, while only one man can.

View on HN

I'm always surprised that while men apparently rate women's attractiveness on a bell curve, women seem to rate men on a Pareto distribution.

Considering how much I hear about beauty standards and how they harm women, I almost never hear anything about male beauty standards.

If society is to be improved by having more realistic female beauty standards, then there's apparently a lot more headroom for society to be improved by having more realistic male beauty standards.

Unrealistic beauty standards are absolutely a problem for both men and women, the difference is that in society, men can be valued for other things (occupation, knowledge, athletics) and that is much less true for women.

That's fair but it's not a zero sum game. Making men happier on average doesn't necessarily make women unhappier.

men can be valued for other things (occupation, knowledge, athletics) and that is much less true for women

very strongly disagree, maybe this is true in some subset of the dating world, or non western countries, but that's it.

Though if men can be valued for other ways, that doesn't explain why most men are seen are far below average for the average woman. I think an amendment for your previous statement is that though they can be valued from different areas, the starting value for men is starts way below that of a woman.

For example in Asian cultures there is the idea of 666 standard for males, 6 feet tall, 6 figure salary, 6 pack, which make up less than 0.01% of the eligible population. It may be due to the gender ratio being off, but the standard leaves a lot of women unhappy in their later years

It's not like it's terribly hard to rationalize. Women, being the ones bearing the children, are probably better-served by being more picky.

There are two male beauty standards so to speak: male ideal for males and male ideal for women. Male ideal for males is overly bulked up dude with six pack. Male ideal for women is what you get in female journals or in boy bands.

But the other think is that the body shapes for males that showed up in entertainment were more various for males then for females. There was less perfection and more variety, but that is changing. Now it seems guys are moving toward similar restrictive requirements, so we may get there with guys too.

From what I've seen and heard from my friends, women tend to select for lean-ness. Smaller guy with six pack is usually more attractive to them than a big guy with six pack. And it shows in their dating preferences too.

It helps that women seem to weight attractiveness pretty low when it comes to partners. The stereotype of the funny fat guy with the hot partner exists for a reason.

Generally, women prefer physical attractiveness for sexual partners (genetic value), and high financial/social statue attractiveness for relationship partners (they are less likely to abandon her with nothing).

This leads to a very interesting conclusion - small gains in male attractiveness leads to a much larger perceived gain in their attractiveness. It basically means men have a LOT to gain from improving their looks!

Attractiveness is just 1 factor it doesn’t determine if that person is number 1.

You need some more factors for that.

Addict? Kinks? Religion? Politics? Music? Homeless? Job?

For most people any one of these point can be a deal breaker, even if he's a 10/10.

> One factor that I didn't see addressed in the post which does make a significant impact is that men in general rate women more similarly than women rate men.

That is addressed halfway through the post. Methinks you didn't actually read the article.

I agree with you and I can't understand why people downvoted you. Probably very few people actually reads the article.

The article is good enough to be read to the very end.

This is not the same point addressed in the post. The post references the 80/20 attractiveness bias. YetAnotherMatt is referencing a different phenomenon - that men rate women similarly to each other, whereas women rate men with much higher variance. See https://www.marketingcharts.com/demographics-and-audiences/m...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com