OKCupid study shows women say 80% of men are "below average" looking

[ripponesan]

So this is the evidence of women beeing silly?

If 80% are looking below avarage, they obviously have no clue what avarage means...
below avarage there can only be 50%...

[apepi]

I don't get this. It does not make since! 20%!=Average, Average would equal what most men look like, so 20%=above average.

[Spectral]

If someone defined "average" as "the average among men who are in reasonably decent shape and take reasonably decent care of themselves", I can see how 80% of the total pool of men would be below average.

[Reeve]

How is that any better/worse than women being expected to have a slim/hourglass figure?

Also, getting in shape (even ripped) isn't "unrealistic". Lots of guys achieve it. It just takes dedication.

Dedication and time. It takes a lot of time out of your week to exercise with the frequency and intensity needed to get "ripped." There's also a monetary cost associated with a lot of exercise activities too. For example, my running shoes cost me $120, and in order to run with the running group I belong to, that's $4/session due to the parking. I know those aren't totally unavoidable costs, but it sure makes it easier to exercise when you have the money to afford the proper tools.

Also, they need to have a lack of injury or disability that would otherwise keep them from doing the proper level of exercise.

---------- Post added 2012-11-15 at 02:20 PM ----------

But this isn't a study on all men everywhere, it's a study on all men on OKCupid. Saying 80% of all men on OKCupid are ugly (which, given the nature of dating sites, is an actual possibility) is not the same as saying 80% of all men are ugly.

If that were the case, you'd think the distribution for women would be similar. Actually, you'd think it would be worse, since it's generally considered easier for a good looking woman to meet people without a dating site than it is for men, so you'd expect a greater number of average and sub-par women on the site. That hasn't been my experience, though. There are a lot of very good looking women on OK Cupid.

[Todgruppe]

OKCupid study shows 80% of women are unreasonable. More news 10.

Titled needed to be fixed. Short story, women actually believe the white knight, marry ripped/rich guy, profit bullshit the media/society says. Men are just happy to get laid. Expectations ladies, lose them.

[Kisho]

I think it's less about the strict definition of average or women having too high standards, and more about women (or perhaps OK Cupid) using the incorrect terminology.

They say that most men are 'below average', when really what they mean is that most men aren't their preferred type. Take any one person, and you'll get many conflicting opinions on how attractive they are. These women are simply saying men that aren't their type are 'below average', while those that are are above average.

It's perhaps one explanation, at any rate. I'm a strong believer in the concept that so long as you take care of yourself and stay healthy, then you're going to appear attractive to some groups of people. Not all, never all, but some. Some will be attractive to a higher population of people, but everyone should be attractive to at least some people in the world, assuming they take care of themselves.

An idealistic viewpoint of the world, perhaps. It's nice to think and keeps me confident, in a world that is simply too nasty to those who are not conventionally attractive.

[Cephilia]

OKCupid study shows 80% of women are unreasonable. More news 10.

Titled needed to be fixed. Short story, women actually believe the white knight, marry ripped/rich guy, profit bullshit the media/society says. Men are just happy to get laid. Expectations ladies, lose them.

And if you had actually read the thing, you'd realize while women rate men to be less than average looking, they are still more likely to go on a date with them. While women have high standards on what's considered good-looking, they don't care about looks as much as men do (when making contact on dating sites, widely different than it might be in actual relationship).

[Neazy]

I don't know why this is surprising. I'd say at least 80% of women are too ugly for me to date. Hell, it's probably more like 90 or 95%. (Not using the term "above/below average" because I wouldn't date someone who I only think is only "average" looking or even "slightly above average".)

And that, my friends, is why we invented alcohol.

[Rukentuts]

I don't know why this is surprising. I'd say at least 80% of women are too ugly for me to date. Hell, it's probably more like 90 or 95%. (Not using the term "above/below average" because I wouldn't date someone who I only think is only "average" looking or even "slightly above average".)

And that, my friends, is why we invented alcohol.

Exactly, however this is for multiple reasons.

[Firebert]

Here is an example you can look at:
take the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 50, 100. Calculate the average, and tell me how many percent of the numbers in the list are below average.

80% are below average.

But you're missing out all the numbers between 9 and 99 except 50.

[Claymore]

Honestly -- and this is to no fault of these women themselves -- they've been given an inflated sense of self-worth. It's simply "the Disney generation" of women, who have unrealistically high standards. Part of that, though, is probably propelled by the simple fact that, when a woman signs up for a dating site, she can afford to be much more picky, since there are generally more men on dating sites than women.

Of course, there is also another factor; maybe men really don't fall under an "average" anymore? I mean, if you think about it, most men these days either work-out, or they don't. It's pretty uncommon for a guy to just "keep an eye on his weight". And, since the really fit guys generally lean towards casual flings, there could simply be an uneven representation of men on said site.

Either way, even though I got a good chuckle out of the article, I wouldn't try to take too much out of it. For me, it doesn't change anything; I've always thought (most) women are beautiful creatures, while men are... I don't even know. Seriously, I don't understand what women see in us. And I know damn-sure that we don't *ALL* have good personalities.

[Aftonflickan]

I've always said that women are more shallow than men when it comes to this stuff =P
Plus, it's not really stigmatized as much if a woman goes on and on about how she loves guys with amazing abs, lean bodies etc, while there's bound to be a shitstorm of feminist-esque hate if a man would pronounce his love for women with slim figures, large racks etc.
Society, u so silly

[Shadee]

I'm glad that I am part of the 20%. I guess that I throw off the curve for a lot of other guys though.

[Verain]

The "80%" isn't just confined to men on that site.

Yes it is.

[Rukentuts]

Yes it is.

This study may be. I was insinuating that at least 80% of women on that site are below average as well.

[Purlina]

I looked at the photo of the guys they provided.

I am a male, and I also think those guys look below average...

[gneugen]

It's quite retarded, and this just tells us that women has TOO HIGH expectations of men.

How many men in the world is above average looking? 50% of them
How many is below average? 50% of them. It's simple.

I hope at least some women will figure this out and maybe say to themselves "Ohh, maybe my expectations are too high"

Or at least know how "average" works :3

Let me ask you a question. Given this set of numbers:

[1,1,1,1,1,1,10]

How many are above average?

See how your concept of "average" could easily be wrong?

[Auloria]

Women are better looking than men. If women tend to judge men AND women, and factor the attractiveness of women into the average, then their opinions of men will appear skewed.

[gneugen]

Women are better looking than men. If women tend to judge men AND women, and factor the attractiveness of women into the average, then their opinions of men will appear skewed.

I agree with this to a degree. I think that a bit of evolutionary psychology is at play here as well. Women need to be more selective so it makes sense that you would see a shifted curve. It's basically how you increase the attractiveness of a population generation after generation, increasing chances of reproductive success.

[guff]

80% are below average.

But you're missing out all the numbers between 9 and 99 except 50.

I am not missing out anything. Those numbers are imaginary data from a "rate this mans looks on a scale from 1 to 100" experiment. The subjects are then given 10 pictures and are asked to rank them. If all test subjects gave rankings like what I said (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 50, 100 (that means, 8 bad looking, one 'meh' and one perfect)), then 80% of those men are below average looking. If those men were picked from a statistically valid pool of men, then one could infer that 80% of all men are below average looking.

There is nothing wrong with having 80% of a population below average in some property. Another example is this: say there is a group of six people and five of them earn 20 000$ pr year, while the last one earns 100 000$. What is the average income among those people, and how many % are below that average?

See how your concept of "average" could easily be wrong?

It is not wrong though. Misleading, maybe, but that is only if you do not know what the average is
A lot of people do confuse the median and the average though, and it is not really that weird