This week we will be confronting a fact that, by definition, haunts the average online dater: no matter how much time you spend polishing your profile, honing your IM banter, and perfecting your message introductions, it’s your picture that matters most.
We’re going to look at how your photos affect both the messages you get and how successful your own outgoing messages are. We all know that beautiful people are more successful daters, but let’s quantify by exactly how much.
To illustrate the exact spectrum of looks we’re talking about here, and to put some human faces on our discussion, I want to introduce a few photos of real OkCupid users. Here are two women near the top our range.
![]() |
![]() |
And here are two rated in the middle.
![]() |
![]() |
As for photos at the bottom of the curve, it didn’t feel right to write someone and say “can I use you to illustrate the concept of ugliness on my blog?” so you’ll just have to extrapolate.
The above featured users have graciously agreed to let me post their pictures, so please don’t make them regret it. Funnily enough, I had to write about a dozen beautiful female users before anyone would even get back to me. Life imitates blog!
Anyhow, I know attractiveness is far from a universal concept, but maybe keep these folks in mind as we go through the data.
We’ll start with a simple line chart. The information I’ll present in this post is not normalized because, as we’ll see, it’s interesting how men and women evaluate looks differently.
Our chart shows how men have rated women, on a scale from 0 to 5. The curve is symmetric and surprisingly charitable: a woman is as likely to be considered extremely ugly as extremely beautiful, and the majority of women have been rated about “medium.” The chart looks normalized, even though it’s just the unfiltered opinions of our male users.
Given the popular wisdom that Hollywood, the Internet, and Photoshop have created unrealistic expectations of how a woman should look, I found the fairness and, well, realism, of this gray arc kind of heartening.
Now let’s superimpose the distribution of actual messages guys have sent:
When it comes down to actually choosing targets, men choose the modelesque. Someone like roomtodance
2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women.
above gets nearly 5 times as many messages as a typical woman and 28 times as many messages as a woman at the low end of our curve. Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women. So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten.
The medical term for this is male pattern madness.
The female equivalent of the above chart shows a different bias:
As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.
Just to illustrate that women are operating on a very different scale, here are just a few of the many, many guys we here in the office think are totally decent-looking, but that women have rated, in their occult way, as significantly less attractive than so-called “medium”:
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Females of OkCupid, we site founders say to you: ouch! Paradoxically, it seems it’s women, not men, who have unrealistic standards for the “average” member of the opposite sex.
Finally, I just want to combine the two charts to emphasize how much fuller the inboxes of good-looking people get. I have scaled this graph to show multiples of messages sent to the lowest-rated people. For instance, the most attractive guys get 11× the messages the lowest-rated do. The medium-rated get about 4×.
This graph also dramatically illustrates just how much more important a woman’s looks are than a guy’s.
Now let’s take a look at how senders’ and recipients’ attractivenesses affect reply rates, not just the number of messages sent.
As you’d expect, more attractive people get more replies. And since they themselves get so many more messages than everyone else, they write back much less frequently. Here’s the graph for female senders, plotted in evenly-spaced “attractiveness groups.”
And here’s the one for male senders.
One interesting thing seems to be going on here: when the best-looking men write the worst-looking women, taste the rainbow,
of self-esteem issues their message success rate takes a big hit. The knee-jerk response would be to somehow chalk it up to hunky spammers, but we very carefully control for that in these articles, and in any event why would better-looking girls be drastically more susceptible to it? It seems to be some kind of self-confidence thing.
As we did before, I’m going to consolidate the line charts to show just how your attractiveness changes how often your messages get responses.
This post has been the preamble to the larger discussion of “what makes a good profile?” We’ve spent a lot of time on OkTrends looking at messages, and since your profile is the other important place you express yourself, we thought it deserved the same treatment.
I wanted to address physical attractiveness right at the start, because obviously it’s a huge factor in how successful your profile is. In the upcoming posts in this series, we’re going to control for attractiveness, so that we can deliver real and useful advice for all the non-models out there.
We’ll look at, among other things: what makes a good picture (is it taken outside? inside? is it full-body? a head-shot? with your pet snake? what?), what kinds of self-presentation will get you the most messages (jokey? flirty? all business?), and how much profile information is too much. Should be good.
Following Us
To join us, visit: www.okcupid.com, which is freeTo learn of new posts, follow us on twitter: www.twitter.com/okcupid
To subscribe to our feed, click: RSS
If you’re from the press, we love you! pressokcupid.com
Man, you guys are hopeless. All four of those women are gorgeous.
I wanted to address one other of Christian’s points — the question of why women at the left side of the chart are less likely to respond to guys from the right side. Framing it as a self-esteem issue suggests that these women are necessarily down on themselves because of how the average guy perceives them. Maybe they are thinking more in terms of the personality characteristics that go along with where you are on the scale: people born with model looks tend in general to take a lot of things for granted that people born without have had to work for.
That’s just one possibility of many. But it leads me to a suggestion for future posts: please postulate a little more dignity (and beauty) for the people who don’t rock the hot-or-not. They might be reading your post too, and I’m sure they’d appreciate a little more warmth.
And BTW my first comment about those girls being lovely has nothing to do with what I just said here! It’s just true, as I’m sure their incoming-message rates after this blog post can attest…
Man, this just proves the internet sucks for dating. I find the top two girls attractive, but don’t really find the middle two attractive. If my response rate is indicative of my attractiveness, then I assuredly fall below average on attractiveness. This assumption, if true, means that
1. I only find the most attractive girls pretty.
2. I’m not very attractive myself.
Yuck… I’m gonna fail at life. Where is that guy from Shallow Hal?
Bring back Spark!
Considering that 4- or 5- star ratings have a possible consequence (random dude might rate you 4 or 5 stars and thus you get an unexpected message “Hey babe, you think I’m a 5, let’s fuck!”) it’s not surprising girls are adverse to giving them out. Did the data take into account girls that, say, rated guys exclusively from 1-3 in order to avoid giving out 4’s and 5’s?
Seems to me there’s a lot of possible biases in there since the rating system has functionality (matching/sorting/etc), I’d be curious how they were all taken into account. I mean, I’ll just give a 1-star to save girls I’m interested in and not bother rating anyone else.
In response to user Groomer’s comment:
all of the industries you speak of (that exploit women’s innate insecurity when it comes to their appearance) are mostly controlled and moderated by other women. We have women writing to other women telling them “what men want”. granted, a lot of it is what men like its nothing we (most of us with realistic expectations and levels of entitlement) don’t expect it 90% of the time. Just like men have companies Spike, FX, Maxim, and GQ telling us how to be a “real man” (their prototypical version)–and mostly they’re just industries that aim to profit from our insecurities–so women have O, Vogue, and other “female” -products-. I’d blame capitalism, to be concise.
wait a sec what do you mean with your pet snake I have to pics with mysnake is that a bad thing?
Fascinating insights onto why I get no messages no matter how many I write or how carefully I write them.
amazing dating site, you guys put the rest to complete shame!
I’d be interested to know whether this is also true of men and women who are, as I am, only seeking friends.
Curious. I use the rating system to organise people, not to rate their beauty. Given that there’s no way to “un-rate” someone you are no longer communicating with, I throw a 1 star on them and then filter. Two stars is possible interest, three stars is I should think about writing to them soon, four or five stars is “this person really (or really really) interests me”. Generally I use it to priortise writing to new girls.
So if the data for “attractiveness” was gleaned from star ratings, then I’m afraid that my ratings are probably messing with your data ever so fractionally
What about the type of photo? I’m wary of any profile that contains only face shots or dark photos. Even if a girl is less attractive, or bigger, I like to see that they are fun and can have a good time and I think photos of a person can really show that.
N it’s some how a mystery why the 4 or 5 stars always end up whining to their so called “2 star friend” about why shes so heart broken blah blah. I mean there r a few n i mean very few, down to eart 5 star girls out there.
I think girls just have too high of a standard. I suppose though in this economic crisis being educationally successful is very important, but then again those who value materialistic things TOO much general end up failing in a relationship.
On a side note as a guy. I RARELY ever rate someone 5 stars as well as 1 star. To me all these so called “5 star” girls look all the same with no uniqueness aka just a bunch of caked on make up painted on their face which basically almost any decent girl can do/does already. So to me, when i rate i especially try to picture what they’d look like without all the make up, n one might be surprised as to what images i get lols
Indeed. When I first started here, I carefully rated a girl for appearance… Later, I found that only a 4 or 5 star triggered a match, and just left everyone who didn’t fall into that category a three. Men aren’t less superficial, they’ve just learned to game the system, and holding your mouse over three stars is both less cruel, and allows you for a faster click through rate.
Jeebus. This is an awesome post. Quite a fun and interesting read.
Anyway I liked the read.
Personally, I have no desire to know what my average star rating is. None.
What possible good could come of it? Even if I got a high score (in the 4-5 range), I would be flattered for about 5 seconds before going straight to “then how come they’re not beating down my door and maxing out my inbox?” A score of between 3 and 4 would probably be the least painful possibility, although mediocre enough to be a little disappointing. Anything below that would be truly depressing, and probably confidence-shattering for at least a while.
So there you have it: I don’t wanna know. If deluding myself about my physical appeal is what it takes for me to think a woman might like getting a message from me, then I say a little delusion isn’t a bad thing.
I don’t understand — are the star ratings supposed to be specifically about physical attractiveness? I’ve been using them much more generally to measure dateability, which includes looks but is not limited to that signal. It’s mostly a sorting mechanism for myself — I look at lots of people and end up with a categorized list of 5 stars, 4 stars, 3 stars, etc. that I can come back to later.
Only one aspect of physical beauty is really being used as a metric, a person’s face.
The use of a single category will totally skew the results. For example, what would be the rating for an “average” faced gal who is 5′10, with a great body and large breast pictured in a tempting micro dress, and has a complete body shot in her picture?
It’s likely she’d get a hell of a lot more messages than the cute little looking nymph like “attractive gals” pictured in this post.
I say increases the categories of “attractiveness” to obtain truer results.
Conclusively proves that the sole purpose of dating sites is for women to prove to themselves there are no decent men out there.
Well, this has been enlightening. According to these statistics, in that “least attractive male” category, or worse.
Thanks, OkCupid, for quantifying my low self esteem.
Should I extrapolate my objective attractiveness by the number of messages in my inbox and the reply rate to messages I send? I have a very healthy reply rate but not very many new people initiating contact per week. *groan*
Something I’ve read before… must have been the chapter in Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers” about speed dating events… is that the less selective you are (which would translate into “replies often”), the less attractive people tend to find you. Of course, I think the causation is backwards here. Not being so attractive would make you respond more strongly to whatever comes your way.
Thanks for this article!! This kind of thing is exactly the reason I persist here. Maybe I haven’t yet found the love of my life, but at least I’m intrigued and thoughts have been provoked.
As obvious as some of this data is ( all the guys secretly believe they have a shot with the most attractive women , etc. ) the fact that the majority of women find most of men on this site less than average on a scale of attractiveness seems a tad screwy . Either the male dating pool is shallow on this site , the data collected is flawed , or womens’ expectations of what a man should be are extremely distorted .
I’ve been rating star ratings as how much I like them overall, incorporating all profile information, not just looks. Is that not what everyone else does? If other people do do that, than the data is not exactly the correct data.
Well, I always knew there was a very distinct reason why I get absolutely no messages unless they’re from total losers who don’t know how to treat others with respect–oh, and never get responses back unless they’re to basically say “thanks but no thanks.”
Now I know! Thanks OkC for confirming what I already knew in a more depressingly scientific way!
Christian: Based on the message/response rate data, what’s the implied attractiveness rating of a male or female who has not posted a photo?
Also, I think it’s high time we brought back masquerade balls.
The article says: “the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.”
I think a more likely interpretation of that chart would be this: the average woman (as rated by guys) doesn’t think she’s average looking: she thinks she’s below average. She may find most of the guys on the site to be below average, but she thinks that’s her ballpark.
Just because she rates a guy below average doesn’t mean she thinks he’s “not good enough”. The high number of contacts for guys below 2.5 indicates almost the exact opposite.
I’d be very curious to see how women rate other women on attractiveness. Would it mirror the men’s perception (i.e. the bell curve) or would it mirror their own stricter standards (the 80% sub-par curve).
Thanks for the interesting article!
Ok the guy above me, Justin, has the right idea. This is human nature. This is our base genetic program baring the ugly superficial truth. This is Natural Selection, like it or not. All we have done is prove its still functioning.
So for those who still don’t get the idea, who really need that extra graphical break down. This is what I’ll give you. Women, naturally are targeted by many men. Monogamy is a Cultural adaptation for humans, not evolutionary. So that means a female must select of the many suitors she is offered. Now we are entering the whole men versus women conflict because a woman with many suitors, might very well be a pampered brainless ditz as her would be suitors will do everything they can to gain her favor. Of course on the other end of the line, a woman must fight to survive just like any male. If you have ever watched national geographic or Wild America, then these results aren’t so strange. It’s just Nature.
I think that women know that the top 30% of men are likely to be totally untouchable, realistic or not. So they pick men they deem acceptable. Plus if they have had experience, they already expect that Attractive men, are likely to already be dating. I seldom see women throw themselves at a Married man, but men don’t seem to have a problem with this.
Now that being said. Although I have seen many cases that fit the above perfectly, I also see many very good examples of the inverted results OKC has collected. Namely the idea that the more attractive women are messaging average or less attractive men. I have seen Decent looking women who selected drug using, alcoholics, abusive. The why for is illusive, but the results are common enough.
My mother used to say, when a good looking guy is with an ugly woman, there is surely a lot of love there. After all if there were not, Nature would tear them apart.
The problem with all this natural selection stuff is that, we as Humans are capable of so much more. But we don’t. It’s not even a mater of being superficial. We simply aren’t trying. We are letting our genetic programing make choices for us.
Small bit about me, and where I fit on this mess. I have rated my photos, and on sites like “Hot or Not” all of my photos get between a 70-85% ranking. In their words I am 85% hotter than all the other men. So why is that important today? I get no messages. If you apply those results to OKC findings, it simply means that to get more replies, I need to be at least 30% uglier than I am now. If I apply my personality to the norm, based on personal experience, I need to be a drunk, and at least a little abusive, otherwise I’m one of those Good Friends.
How did so many guys come away with “this means girls are more shallow than us!” message???
If I’m reading the data correctly it seems to say that while women did think most of the guys were average or below average in looks, this didn’t stop them from messaging them. This suggests that looks did NOT in fact matter to the women as much as the men.
This seems to coincide with another study that said women are evolving to be prettier but men are staying at relatively the same level of attractiveness. Basically yes most guys are hideous looking apes, but women love you anyways.
I think this could be influenced by the type of person who uses the rating system. I rated people for a really short while, but I felt uncomfortable doing it and stopped. The women who go in for rating men on appearance are likely to care more about that. For men though it’s just so normal to rate women’s looks.
Another key fact is that receiving lots of messages from people who like your looks, or even worse, think they like your personality because they like your looks, isn’t necessarily desirable.
And finally loads of this is down to the photograph. Your two middling women could easily be made to look more modelesque by pictures taken that way. A woman’s decision to pluck her eyebrows into the trendy shape, and to wear subtle make-up, will also influence things a lot because most men in my experience are unaware of the influence this has.
I wouldn’t say women are more shallow. It’s just that the media’s idea of the “ideal men” is far more than the average guy will go for, and the media’s idea of the “ideal woman” is something far more women strive for.
Thus, since most women are striving to reach their ideal, men in general will rate and support this movement.
Thus, since most men don’t care to reach their ideal, women in general will rate accordingly and remark on the gap.
Notice that female’s message patterns are IN ACCORD with their rating patterns. So they aren’t “full of themselves” or “shallow” or “superficial,” they are simply acknowledging that the best males are by far above the level of the average guy. But they still settle for the average guy since they know that’s what their chances are of ending up with.
Seems very consistent to me.
Just because I may have rated a picture low stars in the past doesn’t mean I didn’t go ahead and message (or reply to) the person anyway. They may have other perceived qualities that are more important. Also who the heck is rating these pictures? Those chicks look boring, while the guys are extremely doable (at least three out of four anyway)
In all honesty, I don’t know where I stand in the spectrum.
I don’t really have people telling me I am ugly, but I think most would not consider that acceptable behavior anyway.
I know from past experiences, the good, positive things people have said about my appearance.
Overall, I feel fairly confident about appearance… just not so much communication.
Ideally… something epic… long passionate messages… deep connections…
It is rare to find it. Which is probably why I don’t date much… because it is sort of something I look for.
I also think I may act too humble, or nice… but I just feel like there is a certain stigma about online communication, and I take building trust seriously because I can clearly see why the stigma exists.
I guess, that is one of my issues with communicating. I’ve gone through many conversations… but a lot of them get talked right into the ground. A lot of people seem to like short and simple messages, and maybe some excitement… like a bit of flattery or flirtatiousness. I just feel like there is a time and place for that.
I agree with di_vine, boy with guitar…yes please.
Maybe the response rate from unattractive women to beautiful male senders is so low because the male senders aren’t writing to actually say anything friendly?
What I’d like to know is how all this relates to or can be applied to same-sex interactions.
Well it just goes to show what I’ve thought all along. Women expect men to be perfect, when they are far from such.
We have a generation of delusional 20 and 30 somethings that are looking for something that doesn’t exist, and seem to think they’re a lot hotter than they actually are.
Perhaps you should make people have to respond at OKC. I’m not saying reply to messages, but at least make them click an I’m Not Interested button.
The women on OKC are generally shallower than a puddle, and well done for pointing it out.
It would be interesting to see how closely the ratings for any given person correlate together. If there is a low standard deviation of ratings for a particular person it would suggest that the average rating is pretty accurate, but if there’s little consistency then maybe it’s more about personal opinion varying as opposed to actual attractiveness…
Good stuff though
Guys guys guys,
The comments dismissing women as ’shallow’ have missed the point entirely. Dating is a psychological game at which women are so much more adept than men. It’s really a power play: it’s all about who has the most to offer relative to the competition and also, importantly, compared against prospective dates.
A women will often rate an attractive guy with just 1 star because it’s her way of giving him a ‘neg’ – i.e. diminishing him relative to herself and thereby increasing her relative importance. Even as in this example if the guy doesn’t know how he’s been rated, the girl is still playing the game.
So guys if you find yourself with a lower rating than one would expect objectively, it could well be that you are actually quite physically attractive – as some of the guys in the photos above so obviously are.
Also guys – try taking a leaf out of the girls playbook and rate hot girls with 1 star, then you collectively might start getting more replies. The seeds of doubt are easily sown in the female mind
Since you recently changed the stars from one set for looks and one for personality to just one over-all set, how do you know if we find them attractive or not?
Are you using old data?
And, of course girls who don’t find themselves attractive aren’t going to respond to incredible-looking guys. “That must not be their real picture” – so therefore the guy must be a scam-artist of some sort. Or one of those guys who just wants more notches in his bedpost.
Maybe not – but I think many women – even good-looking ones – think along those lines when a really hot guy emails them. (Especially the guys where it looks like they’re from the cover of GQ.)
I love reading these, OkTrends! Fascinating stuff. Worthy of a sociology dissertation, even! Keep it up.
I have a guess as to why this might be the case. Whereas the criteria against which women are judged (by men) are pretty uniform, I suspect that there’s a lot more variation in the types of men which women prefer. So, whereas the majority of men prefer a particular “type” of women and will rate women matching that consistently high, women may have a much higher range of “types.”
The result of this would be that any given women would rate men who don’t conform to their type relatively low. If there are many different types, the chances of a particular man conforming to a particular woman’s type would be low, so his overall attractiveness score would come out low as well. That would tend to explain why women are more likely to send messages to men than a given man’s average attractiveness rating would suggest–for that particular woman, that particular man seems more attractive because he matches her particular type.
I too would like to see a ratio of women’s replys to men’s heights. I’m thoroughly convinced that if I changed the 5′7″ status on my profile to 5′10″ or higher, I would be getting 50% replies if not more. I also think that if, instead of being honest in my profile about my likes and dislikes, and honest with my photos–showing pictures of me looking good AND pictures of me looking normal/funny/dorky–I’d get more hits. Basically, I think these women WANT to be lied to. No wonder you hear so many stories of fat 40 year old guys who pretend to be buff 20 somethings. At least that way the girl gets to know you and falls in love with your personality and might still forgive you for lying to her all this time. It’s starting to sound like that’s a better approach than being honest up front and never getting a reply at all!
I think there is another factor that needs to be included into these charts – that of ‘Distance’. Who wants to try to converse with someone whom they may never meet because of being too far away?
The dotted line on Chart 3 makes me feel MUCH better about my Hot-or-Not rating.
You want to see some VERY unrealistic data have women rate each other, thats where harshness really kicks in, they think they are prettier than everyone, and will even find ways to cut down girls like Megan Fox ( I hear them doing it every time a guy brings her up)
This was very interesting. As a female looking around on this website, I think that I DO have higher expectations when browsing through these profile pictures. But that’s because the whole experience, unlike meeting someone out there in person, does not allow the personality to go along with the face. When I’m at the computer, I can go on any website and I’ll see nothing but attractive pictures, and perhaps that’s what I am associating this browsing with when I log in.
But when it all boils down to it…I think that many guys just don’t have good profile pictures!
are you going to do this for the queers next?
I think the data shows that women are less shallow then men, not more. Yes, we tend to rate men lower on attractiveness, BUT we also message more average looking guys, vs guys rating more women as attractive but only going for the most attractive. I think this plays out in real life-women are not as highly concerned with how attractive their guys are; we tend to care more about personality and other stuff more so than the hotness factor. Result: most men are with women who are several points higher on the attraction scale then they are.
And everyone on the internet is white. Or, at least, all the people of any significance or import.
Get thee to your cave, Plato. Get thee to your cave.
Regarding the 2/3 of men chasing after 1/3 of women reality, nobel prize winner John Nash famously (and probably fictionally) addresses this exact phenomenon in “A Beautiful Mind.”
A higher percentage of messages go to poorly-rated guys, yes, but there are proportionally many more of them than highly-rated guys. Hence the ratios. More messages, total, go to the bottom of the curve, but more *per capita* go to the high end.
I’ve polished my profile ad nauseum and even rewritten it a few times. And I get almost no messages. I guess that tells me where I stand on the attractiveness scale.
The thing that I would like to see changed is the negative trend of replying vs attractiveness. You claim this is because more attractive users get more messages. I interpret this that they get too many. That causes grief on both sides of the equation: The ones that don’t have their messages answered feel rejected, the ones that don’t answer feel overwhelmed. I think this mismatch is a bad thing. The good thing about it is that you can change this: if you reduce the frequency a attractive profile is shown, it will receive less messages. You could just count the number of messages he/she has received, and if it approaches a certain max, the chances of her profile appearing will become less, to eventually stop when the limit is reached. That is not very hard to program, but it will require a paradigm change for most programmers/architects: Normally your want a ‘truthfull’ report from what kind of data is in the database. But this is not about data, this is about people. Personally, I want my messages to be answered, so anything that reduces that chance is bad. I do not really care how many potential matches are in the database, I care about the end result.
A by-product of such a policy, is that the average attractiveness of the shown profiles will go down. I think that will offset the tendency to make ones profile a bit more beautiful then reality.
This is why sites like Hot or Not exist. Because as much as we want to NOT be shallow, we are. Blame it on society and the media if it helps you sleep better at night. But the truth is that first impressions on an online dating site have a LOT to do with looks.
In real life, people might be more forgiving, because they see personality and looks TOGETHER. But even then the you-look-good factor still exists. But why not? Sure it sucks that we have to be judged on looks but is not chemistry and sexual attraction what makes a lover different from a friend? Who would you rather, the Brad Pitt or the overweight, unfortunately ugly person?
And moreover, because more attractive people score more dates, more attention, and more action (both online and off) they have high self-confidence (or at least SHOW more self-respect) and know HOW to be more of a catch.
I’d like to think of myself as fairly attractive. I’m no Jessica Alba, but I’m certainly not ugly either. I know the difference between a boy who can get ass and one who can’t. They behave differently, have different personality structures, and different standards.
And furthermore, you MEN tend to be a little more picky with looks. While women do both to get to know people that may not be all that attractive, men normally don’t give them more then a polite acknowledgement. Look at Hollywood. Female beauties might date less then stunning men, but the men? Let’s see one with a “fugly” attached to his arm.