3 ms·

> And if I were one of these women, I'd probably do the same thing. My wife works with men and women who have a hard time finding relationships, so I have a bi

> And if I were one of these women, I'd probably do the same thing. My wife works with men and women who have a hard time finding relationships, so I have a bit of insight here. You are completely wrong about what women want. You think that women are the same as men, but you are wrong. Women do not want a 'hottie'. I can tell you those women who go out with that 'hottie' have no self esteem, and are not happy. They end up at my wife's practice. Men want a hot wife, because looks are very important. Women want a successful man, who can take care of the family, and is strong enough to protect the family. Women most of the time describe it as a "real man", but this does not translate well in what men thing a "real man" is. Most women do not want a player, and only end up with one because of the low self esteem. The good news is that men can influence their chances with women a LOT (and no this is not becoming a player). The sad part is that most men are too stubborn to accept this reality, and much rather blame their failure on women, other men or something else externally.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
troughway 6y ago
>Women do not want a 'hottie'. I can tell you those women who go out with that 'hottie' have no self esteem, and are not happy. They end up at my wife's practice. Out of curiosity, how do you integrate the online dating studies that point to 70%+ of women only wanting the top 20% of men (ie. the "hotties") into your wife's practice, and what she sees from her clients?
- luckylion 6y ago
  They don't "really" want them, they just "want" them because of low self-esteem seems to be the approach of matching that particular theory to reality.
- koonsolo 6y ago
  I looked at that data together with my wife, and my analytical mind concluded that it's all bullshit with a clickbait title. Take this for instance: https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g... , based on 27 women, and he even says himself "Additionally, I am only accounting for the percentage of “likes” and not the actual men they “like”. I have to assume that in general females find the same men attractive. I think this is the biggest flaw in this analysis". So yeah, basically you can throw away any conclusion there. Other articles are based on this "study". But maybe there are new studies that I haven't seen yet. I have a problem with the word "hottie" because we men know very well which girls fall into this category. But because women have way more and different dimensions to select on, a male photo model doesn't have as much attraction as you would expect. Men in that sense are really lucky, because we can boost our attractiveness pretty good. Women on the other hand, if you don't have the looks, there is only so much you can do with makeup.
  - pas 6y ago
    The OkCupid blog has robust data. Have you looked at that? Not saying that these studies are not flawed, but the simple fact that Tinder and most of online dating is basically a looks based popularity contest hints at a problem for the median folks. There's always a lot of new users, there are always a few young new and attractive users. So the majority just waits for the one. So the hot ones pair off, leave the platform (or come back and pair off with other hot ones, then repeat), but the Average Jane and Joe just waste their time and money while having their self-esteem crushed.
    - koonsolo 6y ago
      Have to check out the OkCupid stuff. Thanks for the tip! > the simple fact that Tinder and most of online dating is basically a looks based popularity contest hints at a problem for the median folks. Why would you think real life would be any different? There are a lot of parameters in the dating game, bug if played right, you can definitely find success on these platforms. Best example is one of my wife's customers: a 50 year old, average looking woman, who has success on Tinder. No kidding!
      - pas 6y ago
        IRL you have more than looks, more than one (at best two) static pictures. Plus online dating is very passive. There is no chance to hear someone's voice, to flirting with someone, to make them laugh. (Sure, there are online similars to them, but they are far from equivalents.) For starters IRL you rarely have the density of "encounters" that you have on Tinder, so you have a lot more resources invested in meeting people, this likely increases how much time you spend on one person at a time. Regarding the 50 year old women. She has success on Tinder? Why is that no kidding? Or you have left out a "no"?
        koonsolo 6y ago
        > Plus online dating is very passive... Like you say, it is impossible. I made that mistake when I started, until I realized that there is only 1 goal: get her on a date. And while other guys were asking "how was your day?" every few days, I asked them out after a good chat, and shortcutted it.
downerending 6y ago
I think this misses the way inclinations change over one's lifespan. When you say women aren't interested in looks, well, not as much when they're 30 or 35. But when they're 16, 20, 24, they're a lot more open to a fun weekend, especially when they're so close at hand. And they're perhaps somewhat inclined to believe that someone who will spend a weekend with them might spend a lifetime. Later, the ice weasels come, and they realize it's not so. This describes several of my ex's, and indeed, they did end up in therapy (or should have). I'm sure self-esteem has a role, and I tried hard to instill that in my step-daughters, to help them do better with this (and, as Chris Rock said, to keep them off the pole). Men also change over time, of course. But a lot of what you're missing is simply that men like me never had a clue as to what to do when we were young. Not stubborn at all--just clueless. Two hundred years ago, it didn't really matter--sheer want would make things work. Today, we're all so well off that few women really need to pair off. And those who plan on it tend to think more that they can do it a lot later. Unfortunately, by then, a lot of men have already rotted on the dock.
- InfiniteRand 6y ago
  > Two hundred years ago, it didn't really matter--sheer want would make things work I think the difference historically and this is true for conservative parts of the developing world today is that parents would spend a lot of effort getting their kids into a marriage, often in a semi-ritualistic manner which involved mutual meetings of the family, extended family background checks etc. (to state my bias, I found my wife in such a process) The result is that someone who has been through the dating process is guiding the younger generation + there is a lot of checking for compatibility dangers that could take a while to emerge in a normal dating situation. In America today this is often socially unacceptable, more from the kid's side than the parent's side. So young men often navigate the dating world with little guidance from the previous generation. I feel like the dominant message to parents these days is to stay away from their kids dating lives as much as possible, and while there is some merit to that message, it does leave the younger generation with less of a straight road to a marriage.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

troughway 6y ago

>Women do not want a 'hottie'. I can tell you those women who go out with that 'hottie' have no self esteem, and are not happy. They end up at my wife's practice. Out of curiosity, how do you integrate the online dating studies that point to 70%+ of women only wanting the top 20% of men (ie. the "hotties") into your wife's practice, and what she sees from her clients?

luckylion 6y ago
They don't "really" want them, they just "want" them because of low self-esteem seems to be the approach of matching that particular theory to reality.
koonsolo 6y ago
I looked at that data together with my wife, and my analytical mind concluded that it's all bullshit with a clickbait title. Take this for instance: https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g... , based on 27 women, and he even says himself "Additionally, I am only accounting for the percentage of “likes” and not the actual men they “like”. I have to assume that in general females find the same men attractive. I think this is the biggest flaw in this analysis". So yeah, basically you can throw away any conclusion there. Other articles are based on this "study". But maybe there are new studies that I haven't seen yet. I have a problem with the word "hottie" because we men know very well which girls fall into this category. But because women have way more and different dimensions to select on, a male photo model doesn't have as much attraction as you would expect. Men in that sense are really lucky, because we can boost our attractiveness pretty good. Women on the other hand, if you don't have the looks, there is only so much you can do with makeup.
- pas 6y ago
  The OkCupid blog has robust data. Have you looked at that? Not saying that these studies are not flawed, but the simple fact that Tinder and most of online dating is basically a looks based popularity contest hints at a problem for the median folks. There's always a lot of new users, there are always a few young new and attractive users. So the majority just waits for the one. So the hot ones pair off, leave the platform (or come back and pair off with other hot ones, then repeat), but the Average Jane and Joe just waste their time and money while having their self-esteem crushed.
  - koonsolo 6y ago
    Have to check out the OkCupid stuff. Thanks for the tip! > the simple fact that Tinder and most of online dating is basically a looks based popularity contest hints at a problem for the median folks. Why would you think real life would be any different? There are a lot of parameters in the dating game, bug if played right, you can definitely find success on these platforms. Best example is one of my wife's customers: a 50 year old, average looking woman, who has success on Tinder. No kidding!
    - pas 6y ago
      IRL you have more than looks, more than one (at best two) static pictures. Plus online dating is very passive. There is no chance to hear someone's voice, to flirting with someone, to make them laugh. (Sure, there are online similars to them, but they are far from equivalents.) For starters IRL you rarely have the density of "encounters" that you have on Tinder, so you have a lot more resources invested in meeting people, this likely increases how much time you spend on one person at a time. Regarding the 50 year old women. She has success on Tinder? Why is that no kidding? Or you have left out a "no"?
      - koonsolo 6y ago
        > Plus online dating is very passive... Like you say, it is impossible. I made that mistake when I started, until I realized that there is only 1 goal: get her on a date. And while other guys were asking "how was your day?" every few days, I asked them out after a good chat, and shortcutted it.

downerending 6y ago

I think this misses the way inclinations change over one's lifespan. When you say women aren't interested in looks, well, not as much when they're 30 or 35. But when they're 16, 20, 24, they're a lot more open to a fun weekend, especially when they're so close at hand. And they're perhaps somewhat inclined to believe that someone who will spend a weekend with them might spend a lifetime. Later, the ice weasels come, and they realize it's not so. This describes several of my ex's, and indeed, they did end up in therapy (or should have). I'm sure self-esteem has a role, and I tried hard to instill that in my step-daughters, to help them do better with this (and, as Chris Rock said, to keep them off the pole). Men also change over time, of course. But a lot of what you're missing is simply that men like me never had a clue as to what to do when we were young. Not stubborn at all--just clueless. Two hundred years ago, it didn't really matter--sheer want would make things work. Today, we're all so well off that few women really need to pair off. And those who plan on it tend to think more that they can do it a lot later. Unfortunately, by then, a lot of men have already rotted on the dock.

InfiniteRand 6y ago
> Two hundred years ago, it didn't really matter--sheer want would make things work I think the difference historically and this is true for conservative parts of the developing world today is that parents would spend a lot of effort getting their kids into a marriage, often in a semi-ritualistic manner which involved mutual meetings of the family, extended family background checks etc. (to state my bias, I found my wife in such a process) The result is that someone who has been through the dating process is guiding the younger generation + there is a lot of checking for compatibility dangers that could take a while to emerge in a normal dating situation. In America today this is often socially unacceptable, more from the kid's side than the parent's side. So young men often navigate the dating world with little guidance from the previous generation. I feel like the dominant message to parents these days is to stay away from their kids dating lives as much as possible, and while there is some merit to that message, it does leave the younger generation with less of a straight road to a marriage.