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

1. This thread should be retitled "crises on MMO-Champ".

I mean I guess it's true though. Here's what these bitches need to understand.

If you look like Larry the god damn cable guy, then expect larry the god damn cable guy. NOT CHANNING TATUM

I am getting to god damn sick of these girls always yapping about how they can't find a man. Everybody can get someone, it's a matter of being realistic, and not being fucking retarded.

2. I am now confused by the definition of average.

3. Originally Posted by Idontlikeyou
I am now confused by the definition of average.
Average = sum of all sample values / total number of samples
In this case the values would be the numerical ratings the men got

Example:
Sample values (rankings on a scale from 1 to 10): 2, 4, 10, 3, 3, 1, 9, 1, 3, 1
Number of samples: 10

average = (1+1+1+2+3+3+3+4+9+10)/10 = 3.7

7 out of 10 (70%) are below average

4. Originally Posted by Spectral
Assuming those things would lead to incorrect conclusions. Part of what I like about my girlfriend is that she's a "girl with a future" - what this means isn't that she'll necessarily make "loads of money", but that she's getting a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and has strong career prospects going forward. She'll be doing something interesting, useful, and yes, something that pays reasonably well (although not "loads of money"). I also like that we'll be financially stable, which doesn't mean that I get free things, it means that we're able to share equally in our shared life expenses and go forward knowing that if either one of us was unemployed for a bit, we can pick up each other's slack. The same applies from her end regarding me being a guy with a future that brings financial stability to the table.
This, exactly. I don't understand all the butt-hurt coming from guys in this thread regarding women who would like a stable partner. Sure, it's not for everyone, but not everyone likes to live on the edge of stability. And for the record, a "guy with a future" also has a context outside of financial stability. A partner who adores you for you would be sad to watch you waste talent, or your life, or not try to make the most of your abilities, or give up on dreams. That has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with personal success and happiness. If you can't understand this basic principle, it's likely that you are a guy with no future, and should look at your own life first before blaming women for seeing you as unattractive.

5. Originally Posted by Knight Gil
I'll just assume "a guy with a future" means "someone who will make loads of money" and "financial stability" means "free dresses and other shit, while not going bankrupt because of my materialistic desires, because when that happens, I'm going to dump his sorry ass and marry a rich entrepreneur"
TBH, I have no idea where you got that crap from... I'd consider my current boyfriend to be a "guy with a future" - meaning, he's studying something he wants to actually work with and that there's a good change he's going to get a job on that field. Meaning, he's happy and can support himself, and that we together could support a small family of our own. It also means he has some goals in life, like becoming a father. Someone playing WoW all day without any incentive to change things is not a a guy with a future. A guy thinking he can support himself solely by playing guitar and who considers absolutely no other option in life than to become famous musician is not a guy with a future. Essentially, a normal guy who has at least some concept of realities of life is a guy with a future.

Financial stability means that if I for some reason would become unable to work for a while we wouldn't go completely bankrupt and that even with kids we could still afford to live fairly normal life. And my "materialistic desires" are currently limited to three things I wouldn't actually need: tea, WoW and two small dogs. I don't buy new clothes unless I absolutely need to, and I refuse to buy anything unnecessary.

6. Originally Posted by Laize
The thing that boggled my mind about the study was that 80% of men being "below average" is a mathematical impossibility.

There's something going on, but all I can get from the article is "fgsfdsa?"
Maybe their personal average is the set of all men, and the OkCupid representation just doesn't pull enough from the above average (which makes sense if you think about it)

7. I think the point is that when people use "average" in the context of "average looks", they are not talking about a statistical average. They're saying whether or not someone is above (or below) a standard of attractiveness.

For example, if you took a population of 1000 people and fed them fatty foods for a few years, making them all fat, it would still make sense to say that they are all "overweight", even though with respect to themselves there might a different average. It wouldn't make sense to say that any of them were below average.

8. Originally Posted by The EagleOwl Mage
It's a two way street. It's rather arrogant to assume men don't think along similar lines when looking for a potential mate.
It's arrogant to assume that ANYTHING stated in this thread is some sort of gender-wide truism.

9. Originally Posted by Cephilia
TBH, I have no idea where you got that crap from... I'd consider my current boyfriend to be a "guy with a future" - meaning, he's studying something he wants to actually work with and that there's a good change he's going to get a job on that field. Meaning, he's happy and can support himself, and that we together could support a small family of our own. It also means he has some goals in life, like becoming a father. Someone playing WoW all day without any incentive to change things is not a a guy with a future. A guy thinking he can support himself solely by playing guitar and who considers absolutely no other option in life than to become famous musician is not a guy with a future. Essentially, a normal guy who has at least some concept of realities of life is a guy with a future.

Financial stability means that if I for some reason would become unable to work for a while we wouldn't go completely bankrupt and that even with kids we could still afford to live fairly normal life. And my "materialistic desires" are currently limited to three things I wouldn't actually need: tea, WoW and two small dogs. I don't buy new clothes unless I absolutely need to, and I refuse to buy anything unnecessary.
Cool, so you simply want to not go bankrupt and have a guy with a cookie-cutter 9 to 5 job. Fine, but still, I don't believe I'm too far from reality when I assume that most girls who go after that so called "financial stability" just mean they want a boyfriend who gives them free, expensive shit. The video that some guy linked a while ago proves it.

10. Originally Posted by Knight Gil
Cool, so you simply want to not go bankrupt and have a guy with a cookie-cutter 9 to 5 job. Fine, but still, I don't believe I'm too far from reality when I assume that most girls who go after that so called "financial stability" just mean they want a boyfriend who gives them free, expensive shit. The video that some guy linked a while ago proves it.
and a lot of guys want women who just look pretty to have sex with, with no regards to a real relationship. so they get rich to attract them. these types go together like peanut butter and jelly, and theres nothing wrong as long as theyre both happy.

11. Originally Posted by darenyon
and a lot of guys want women who just look pretty to have sex with, with no regards to a real relationship. so they get rich to attract them. these types go together like peanut butter and jelly, and theres nothing wrong as long as theyre both happy.
The world would be a perfect place if those kind of people always ended up together. Unfortunately, people who are actually decent, women or men, doesn't matter, are expected and taught to play that game as well. That's what makes me pissed.

12. Originally Posted by darenyon
and a lot of guys want women who just look pretty to have sex with, with no regards to a real relationship. so they get rich to attract them. these types go together like peanut butter and jelly, and theres nothing wrong as long as theyre both happy.
Some guys don't really respect women as people and don't really care about personalities or intelligence. They find them hot and want to be with them sexually, but there's no interest in anything beyond that. It always makes me boggle when I see some doctor or lawyer in a relationship with a hairdresser or something like that. I mean, what kind of possible dinner conversations could they possibly be having?

13. Originally Posted by Firebert
Easy to solve:

*80% of the men on OKCupid are below average looking (from the OKCupid stats)
*50% of all men are below average looking (the definition of average)
=> There exists a population without a profile on OKCupid that are above average looking. If they signed up on OKCupid, then the percentage in the first premise would drop (until either more above average looking men are signed up than below average, or the entire world is signed up to OKCupid).

Which is kind of obvious.
What he said. Also, how many good looking/attractive men feel it necessary to use an online dating service to find a date? I would imagine that most men that use an online dating service either lack the look to get that initial impression or just don't have the confidence to approach a woman in person so they post a bio and hope someone out there finds them and has something in common with them. I've never used such a service, but I also never had an issue getting a first date...most of which were found through the bar and nightclub service. Liquid courage for the win! Also I've been married for 8 1/2 years and with the same woman for over 10 years so I have no idea what the dating scene is like these days.

14. Originally Posted by FathomFear
Some guys don't really respect women as people and don't really care about personalities or intelligence. They find them hot and want to be with them sexually, but there's no interest in anything beyond that. It always makes me boggle when I see some doctor or lawyer in a relationship with a hairdresser or something like that. I mean, what kind of possible dinner conversations could they possibly be having?
"fine"
"cool. lets fuck later?"
"only if you buy me that purse"

15. it is not a mathematical impossibility... Or am I being trolled?

16. Originally Posted by guff
it is not a mathematical impossibility... Or am I being trolled?
average also means "mediocre".

17. Originally Posted by Laize
While possible, I still find it extremely unlikely. You're talking about a really huge sample size.
The point is that a poll of a million football fans doesn't give you anything but the views of a million football fans. Sites like OKCupid have their demographic markets.

18. Originally Posted by Wells
The point is that a poll of a million football fans doesn't give you anything but the views of a million football fans. Sites like OKCupid have their demographic markets.
As I said, while that's true I still find it incredibly hard to believe that, of the millions of members, a perfectly distributed sample of women joined up but only unattractive men.

19. Originally Posted by Laize
As I said, while that's true I still find it incredibly hard to believe that, of the millions of members, a perfectly distributed sample of women joined up but only unattractive men.
Honestly what it probably is is a buyer's market for women and their increased options increasing their selectiveness.

20. Originally Posted by Wells
Honestly what it probably is is a buyer's market for women and their increased options increasing their selectiveness.