3 ms·

Muscularity is the strongest predictor of mating success for men. More than money or its earning power? I'm skeptical.

by lr4444lr 5y ago

mensetmanusman 5y ago
San Fran millionaire coder bro versus Bronx construction bro.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sdze 5y ago
  I can only imagine the Construction worker knows how to use his body well. At the end of the day we are all animals.
- forgetfulness 5y ago
  The West Coast has a glut of coder bros. In NYC men with a college education are the buyer's market. I remember a very strange reading from a "geek girl" years ago, where she went on and on about deriding the men who were, by all measures, her own peers, and she went on and on about how now that she's realized her own worth she's pulling jacked scientist-adventurers and such and the other guys were losers all along. I remembered this after thinking about how my lowly bachelor's degree and a pretty face have earned me a warmer reception by the Academic community outside the campus than inside where I'm currently living (despite being at the moment a terrible catch). It clicked. I wouldn't, however, write a spiel trash talking women with the same level of education and a similar physique to mine just because I can, say, bat above my own league right now.
vincebowdren 5y ago
The studies weren't asking about marriage success, but about mating success. Female preferences can be pretty different between those two.
- tharne 5y ago
  You're the first person in this comments section who seems to know how the world works.
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  Fair distinction. Still skeptical that money isn't a stronger predictor (even ruling out explicit prostitution) but sure, testosterone effects matter to sex appeal.
redleggedfrog 5y ago
Who a woman chooses to marry and who she has sex with are two entirely different things.
version_five 5y ago
If I understand the article "mating success" means number of sex partners per unit time for them. There is the obvious spurious correlation that guys who work out to get big may be doing so because they are trying to play the field and attract more women. Smaller guys who are married or monogamous would have fewer sex partners, and may have other priorities than getting jacked. It's like saying women with dyed hair and lots of makeup have more sex partners, if that was true it would not be clear that means they are actually more attractive, just promiscuous
everdrive 5y ago
According to the article, this is solely measuring numbers of sexual partners. I might be more inclined to believe this, whereas money / earning power might predict better success at long-term pair bonding.
User23 5y ago
> More than money or its earning power? I'm skeptical. It’s considerably easier to lie about money than it is physique if one’s aim is just getting laid.

Muscularity is the strongest predictor of mating success for men. More than money or its earning power? I'm skeptical.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

San Fran millionaire coder bro versus Bronx construction bro.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sdze 5y ago
I can only imagine the Construction worker knows how to use his body well. At the end of the day we are all animals.
forgetfulness 5y ago
The West Coast has a glut of coder bros. In NYC men with a college education are the buyer's market. I remember a very strange reading from a "geek girl" years ago, where she went on and on about deriding the men who were, by all measures, her own peers, and she went on and on about how now that she's realized her own worth she's pulling jacked scientist-adventurers and such and the other guys were losers all along. I remembered this after thinking about how my lowly bachelor's degree and a pretty face have earned me a warmer reception by the Academic community outside the campus than inside where I'm currently living (despite being at the moment a terrible catch). It clicked. I wouldn't, however, write a spiel trash talking women with the same level of education and a similar physique to mine just because I can, say, bat above my own league right now.

vincebowdren 5y ago

The studies weren't asking about marriage success, but about mating success. Female preferences can be pretty different between those two.

tharne 5y ago
You're the first person in this comments section who seems to know how the world works.
lr4444lr 5y ago
Fair distinction. Still skeptical that money isn't a stronger predictor (even ruling out explicit prostitution) but sure, testosterone effects matter to sex appeal.

redleggedfrog 5y ago

Who a woman chooses to marry and who she has sex with are two entirely different things.

version_five 5y ago

If I understand the article "mating success" means number of sex partners per unit time for them. There is the obvious spurious correlation that guys who work out to get big may be doing so because they are trying to play the field and attract more women. Smaller guys who are married or monogamous would have fewer sex partners, and may have other priorities than getting jacked. It's like saying women with dyed hair and lots of makeup have more sex partners, if that was true it would not be clear that means they are actually more attractive, just promiscuous

everdrive 5y ago

According to the article, this is solely measuring numbers of sexual partners. I might be more inclined to believe this, whereas money / earning power might predict better success at long-term pair bonding.

User23 5y ago

> More than money or its earning power? I'm skeptical. It’s considerably easier to lie about money than it is physique if one’s aim is just getting laid.