How important is pictures for average guy?

[SophiaG]

On 8/15/2024 at 3:52 AM, Kwothe28 said:

4,5/5 out of 10? Simply put, no. Dating apps rarely work for average man.

This is simply not true. I have several guy friends who found their gf on dating apps. Or maybe your definition of average man is quite different from mine.

[Batya33]

7 hours ago, SophiaG said:

This is simply not true. I have several guy friends who found their gf on dating apps. Or maybe your definition of average man is quite different from mine.

My dear friend from grad school is average looking and met his wife on a dating site in 1999, married in 2001.  She's very pretty (not a model but she's now in her 50s like me and looks fabulous IMO).  My friend has been legally partnered with (not married) to her guy for over 16 years and he is average looking and they met on a dating site.  I have more examples.

[yogacat]

11 hours ago, ShySoul said:

In your eyes. In someone else's eyes they aren't. It's subjective, not objective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 

Honestly, I might be alone on this, but I really don't look at people and see physical attraction. 

Of course, it is subjective, and it's the visual appeal of someone's appearance, including their facial features, body shape, and overall physical presentation. It can also involve an attraction to someone's movement, body language, and mannerisms. It is both biological and a matter of personal preference, since what one person finds appealing to the eyes can be very different from another's idea.

Once I went on a date with this one guy. A blind date. 😁

I thought he was good looking when we met, but it was his mannerisms that added on much more to his physical appeal; and then with time, the inner beauty passes through. The same way I can look at somebody and think they are nice-looking, but their overall presentation turns me off.

Can I tell, without having a conversation or getting to know that person, that he or she has a good or interesting personality? No, and that is quite all right, because not everyone has to feel physical attraction toward others; that is pretty individual.  

It's okay if you personally don't experience physical attraction towards others, as everyone has their own individual experiences and preferences. You need more, I think MOST people do, myself included, than just physical attraction. But yes, I can look at someone and say to myself, "he's physically attractive."

Like Adam Ant: 😋

11 hours ago, ShySoul said:

My "attraction" for her is more a running joke with a friend due to my superfandom. I became a fan after hearing the beauty and maturity in an original song on a singing competition and was based on the personality displayed in the interview segments. It grew off of all the things I've read and observed through her career - from starting a charity for the adoption of shelter pets, to supporting up and coming female artists, to taking ownership of her career. If I see beauty on the outside, it's a by product of things I admire from within.

To each their own, as long as it works for them. My point has always been that it's not necessary for all people, and to just embrace what is right for you.

You did not feel the physical attraction to Miranda Lambert, to begin with, which I find highly disputable; through her music and personality is how you became her fan. I will argue, you do not know her in real life, and that your perception is just from the presence that she puts forth to the public. That in itself is sensed and a form of physical attraction-knowingly seen or not. 

Of course, it's appreciation for a person's inner qualities, which in turn may really make him/her attractive-even physically. Nothing wrong with that. Still, I am not entirely discarding the fact that you might have been drawn to her in the first place because of her physical appearance, since that often is what gives people's attention originally. Physical attractiveness shall be ignited after getting to know them, and that has happened with me a number of times-but it doesn't cancel the fact that physical attractiveness can indeed play a part in our attraction to someone.

Of course, it might not be the most important factor, but anyhow, it is there. And that's alright-we all have our different experiences and preferences when it comes to attraction.

[shouldhavelearned]

Years ago they didn't have the filters and staged bs

It was natural 

[Kwothe28]

8 hours ago, SophiaG said:

This is simply not true. I have several guy friends who found their gf on dating apps. Or maybe your definition of average man is quite different from mine.

Simply put, yes they are. Research shows that woman perception and ratings of men on dating apps are much "harsher" than man perception of women there. So, what is "average" to you is probably way above average. 

[Batya33]

53 minutes ago, Kwothe28 said:

Simply put, yes they are. Research shows that woman perception and ratings of men on dating apps are much "harsher" than man perception of women there. So, what is "average" to you is probably way above average. 

I don’t agree with those studies. Too many subjective variables. I was looking for chemistry which was partly related to looks but okly partly. When I was looking for arm candy - because there were times as a teenager and in my early 20s I wanted a hottie on my arm to up my self esteem - then objectively handsome mattered a lot more. I remember at a party when I was with my devastatingly gorgeous boyfriend this woman I was in school with who was single and prettier than me and wanted a boyfriend asked how I “got” him.  That whole thing would be ridiculous to me now but back then it seemed perfectly natural for her to ask. 

[Kwothe28]

10 minutes ago, Batya33 said:

I don’t agree with those studies.

Dont think your subjective experience trumps empirical data. But you are allowed not to agree with facts. That do say men and women rate people very differently. For example, your "average man" is in those 12%. That is still top 20% of all men on the app. But you and everybody else need to realize that "bellow average" is in those 31%. Of men you deem very bellow average and unattractive.  Women rarely understand what those 31% comes through on dating apps. Even though, for example, we get stories like that here. Men and women experience on apps is vastly different. And dont think many of you women do understand that. For example, we never had a woman who has come here to complain about not getting any matches at all. Not getting quality matches yes. Not getting matches at all? Never. Well, guess what? Not getting matches or getting them very rarely is average man experience on dating apps. What you are talking about is those top 20%. And you equate that with "average man". While its just simply not that by any metrics. 

Also, I never said its impossible to find somebody on dating apps. Whatsoever, lots of people meets in that way. Just that his experience would probably be very bad and not worth the trouble and time he would put into it. That is why I suggested different ways of meeting women.

[yogacat]

@Kwothe28

I've heard this from men as well.

A male family member just brought this topic up to me yesterday! He said the that the average man hardly get matches on dating apps and that women are pickier with their criteria ("looks" being one of them).

It's the top men who get all the matches for the most part.  And yep attraction is subjective. But, there is a majority of what people find attractive.

In contrast, there was a thread of a male that wasn't interested in Obese or Tall women, so I am sure men are overlooking these women as well. 

I wonder if these studies consider the gender makeup though on the apps, like, are 80% men or 20% women? I think that's somewhat relevant to those studies. If it's an equal ratio, then yeah it may be true, but, if there's way too many of one gender then the data will change.

I also feel that maybe it's not so much about being "picker" but more careful. I was messaged once by a man, I FOUND HIM average, I read his profile, really liked some of things I read, we communicated a bit and seemed to have a small connection there and I was looking forward to meeting him! Well, he never showed up for the date, he said he saw me talking to a female through the window and it pissed him off.

The truth is, I had asked a female friend to be at the location (not sit in on our date literally....) for safety reasons because I was new to online dating and heard some of horror stories of the dangers on people on there a bit.

Anyway, he totally flipped out on me in a voicemail he left. I am glad I didn't go on a date with a guy that would leave five minute message going off on me and insulting me in the message. And that's just a small tidbit of maybe why some women are more careful than they are "picky."

Also, there is a large percentage of men on dating websites that are not looking for boyfriend-girlfriend labels and I think the majority of women are and so that's another reason they may be more selective with their criteria. 

Here's an article that says the opposite when men are the ones being "pursued":

Men Are Just As Picky As Women About Who They’d Date—If They’re the Ones Being Pursued | Smithsonian (smithsonianmag.com)

"Evolutionary psychologists will tell you that this is all just part of our natural heritage: eggs are expensive, sperm is not, so it makes sense for girls to be more picky than guys. These built-in limits create a lop-sided dating game."

[Kwothe28]

25 minutes ago, yogacat said:

In contrast, there was a thread of a male that wasn't interested in Obese or Tall women, so I am sure men are overlooking these women as well. 

 

Oh I dont doubt that. For example, while women tend to be harsher when it comes to rating looks, they also tend to message men further down the looks line for them(that is still probably top 30%-40% of men though). While men tend to message the most attractive women more. Which says that men tend to value looks more than women do. Just dont think it matters that much when even those women you mentioned do get a lot of matches. As Ive said, no matter how they describe themselves, never saw a thread of a woman saying how they didnt get matches at all. While we do tend to see a lot of those with men threads. That is why I said experiences are vastly different. Because dating apps like Tinder tend to work for average women. But rarely work for average men.

Also "OK Cupid" is quite even with men/women ratio(1,5 man on 1 woman), so it doesnt change that much with their research. 

[ShySoul]

Doesn't matter what most people do, most people think, most people rate, or anything involving the words most/majority/average/etc..

It's not about numbers. It doesn't matter how many people think you are attractive. It doesn't matter where you are placed on an arbitary scale. It doesn't matter how many matches, dates, or relationships you have.

All that matters is you, the individual. It's about finding yourself attractive, in appreciating the special unique individual you are. It's being comfortable in your own skin and allowing your inner light to shine, which in turn makes you more attractive on the outside as well.

You can be voted the sexiest man/woman in the world and still feel lonely. You can get rated perfect 10s across the board, and nothing comes of it. You can have a 100 dates, and they all go terrible.

Or you can have one person who sees the beauty within you and loves you for it, building a life together that lasts forever.

Just be yourself and be happy to be yourself. The right person will like you just as you are. And the opinions of the rest, really don't matter.

 

[Batya33]

2 hours ago, Kwothe28 said:

Dont think your subjective experience trumps empirical data. But you are allowed not to agree with facts. T

I mean I don't find it an authoritative study. I never said I was right -just gave my opinion.  It's only my personal opinion.

I don't know about others but I tended to go for men who I found to be at a similar level of attractiveness as me, all else equal.  Sometimes I clicked on really hot guys and sometimes I clicked on men where I wasn't sure I would find them attractive in person. My self-image was that I was cute, more traditional girl  next door girl, nowhere near model looks or "glamorus" and I was slim which was a big plus when I was dating in my city.  I mean maybe it' silly but I felt a bit intimidated by really hot looking men.  I didn't assume they'd be full of themselves at all but I'd feel uncomfortable in that way.

My early 60s age friend just started a dating app search and she has a date today.  She without apology says she is totally focused on looks, has a specific type, and is meeting someone today who did not meet her looks criteria but seems nice. The hot guy she's been messaging with seems to be flaking on her.  Plus she says his photos are really old.  She is very attractive for her age and petite and slim. I cannot relate at all to her focus on looks to the extent of her focus but I am wishing her well....

[ShySoul]

Women can have just as much issues getting matches as men. But I noticed twenty years ago on this site that men are much more likely to complain about things and try to find something to blame, excuses, etc. Women either bear it, or do more about it. And those that complain or vent tend to be the vocal minority anyway.

Just my experience, you're experience will vary.

And a lot of the issues women face involve the same sterotyping, superficial judgements, and assumptions that haunt males. 

"Turns out the patriarchy, gender assumptions, toxic masculinity etc etc plays a huge part here."

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/the-sunday-hook-up/why-you-might-not-be-getting-matches/13901508

 

[SophiaG]

3 hours ago, Kwothe28 said:

Research shows that woman perception and ratings of men on dating apps are much "harsher" than man perception of women there

Interesting. Yes in my personal experience I would say the average attractiveness of guys on dating apps is much lower than what I see irl - either because the good looking guys are already taken or tend to date offline, or because guys are really bad at taking pics. Many of the pics are truly horrendous. In this case I would actually argue an "average looking guy" in real life will probably do better online if they have a few flattering (not fake) pics as they'd be in the top 20% there!

Another thing to keep in mind is women might be getting more matches because a lot of men are not selective in matching (not to say they aren't selective in asking their matches out). So many of those matches end in nowhere as the men might be lukewarm or outright flakey like yogacat mentioned. I've heard from multiple men that a common strategy for them is to swipe everything right and basically let the women do the picking. Women tend to be a lot more careful in matching - I think I only "like" 5-10% of the profiles - but we also typically invest more in a real match.

[ShySoul]

5 hours ago, yogacat said:

Can I tell, without having a conversation or getting to know that person, that he or she has a good or interesting personality? No, and that is quite all right, because not everyone has to feel physical attraction toward others; that is pretty individual.  

Mentioned on another thread that the three people I've most been attracted to in my life (sorry, Ran isn't on the list 😉) all started from online conversations where it was the personality and character that attracted me. I never saw even a picture until at least a month into talking with them. 

Just saying looks don't have come first or even play a role at all. There's every possibility under the sun out there.

In the end, how you get there isn't what matters, the end goal is the same. If you see physical first, fine. If you don't, fine. 

Just wish people wouldn't put so much focus on it. Someone will either be attracted or not. If they aren't, it's not worth the thought people put into it. If they are, it's the inner qualities that will keep a person around. 

Just embrace being who you are, inside and outside.

[Batya33]

2 hours ago, ShySoul said:

Mentioned on another thread that the three people I've most been attracted to in my life (sorry, Ran isn't on the list 😉) all started from online conversations where it was the personality and character that attracted me. I never saw even a picture until at least a month into talking with them. 

Just saying looks don't have come first or even play a role at all. There's every possibility under the sun out there.

In the end, how you get there isn't what matters, the end goal is the same. If you see physical first, fine. If you don't, fine. 

Just wish people wouldn't put so much focus on it. Someone will either be attracted or not. If they aren't, it's not worth the thought people put into it. If they are, it's the inner qualities that will keep a person around. 

Just embrace being who you are, inside and outside.

For many people both are needed to maintain the romantic relationship. For me it wasn’t “the physical “ because chemistry was essential and that was partly based on what the person looked like and his physical posture and mannerisms and his voice quality and tone. How he presented himself and dressed. How he smelled - which often is not that changeable. You seem to have some bias that anything “superficial “ or seeming so should have no part in a romantic relationship. I think it’s fine if it does. And typical. 

[rainbowsandroses]

@ShySoulin another thread or it may have been this thread you posted you were "soul sexual" which means:

"A person who is not attracted to gender or looks but to the soul inside the object of their affection."

I had never heard of this before you mentioned but anyway thank you for sharing that, it explains a lot about why you feel as you do. 

You also said you felt you were alone feeling that way; I don't think you're alone but I do think it's atypical and part of a very small percentage.

Most people care about physical appearance and not just because we require that someone be "hot," it goes deeper than that, at least for me and others I know. 

In short, what's inside and outside are linked together to provide the complete and authentic "picture" of the entire person.

Edit:  Batya33 explained it well and true for me too. 

That said I do respect your right to feel differently, I just wanted to clarify because although physical appearance ÌS important to me, I don't consider myself to be a shallow or superficial person and it's certainly not all I am focused on. 

It's quite nuanced with lots of layers, that's all.

[waffle]

5 hours ago, Kwothe28 said:

. . . dating apps like Tinder tend to work for average women. But rarely work for average men.

What do you mean by "work"?

[Batya33]

I consider it shallow and superficial when I focus on someone's looks, clothes ,etc. And I was totally fine with part of dating and finding someone to marry had some shallow and superficial aspects and I was fine that the men who were attracted to me likely had some shallow or superficial aspects as to why.  I have aspects of my life that are on the more superficial level but to me it's a matter of extent, balance, etc. 

I know I am not a shallow or superficial person as a core part of me and I have known that forever and ever and I live a life that is consistent with depth and values and character and integrity -meaning that is what is important to me overall, that is what I strive for.  And yes I care about some shallow and superficial stuff - I like certain material things very much.

  I like what my husband looks like and I notice what he looks like.  I like that my son is very handsome and was an adorable looking baby and I never liked the focus on what a child looks like as opposed to what he is like. I feel good when I am having a good hair day. 

So when I dated looks mattered and to the extent they mattered to me that to me was a shallow and superficial aspect of dating and I was fine with owning it.  By contrast my insistence on a certain level of education was not at all for shallow or superfiical reasons while for certain of my friends it was -like if they only dated men who'd attended an ivy league school or a prestigious school more for ego reasons than any values based reason.

[ShySoul]

@rainbowsandroses I agree with you, the inside and outside are linked. At this point in evolution I'd be pretty foolish to think otherwise. And I've never said anyone is shallow or superficial for being attracted to the outside. There are those people, but I'm not saying anything about anyone specifically. And you especially I wouldn't think that of. 

What I've tried to say (poorly it seems lol), is that it doesn't have to be attracted physically then get to know them. It can be the opposite. Especially in this day and age, you can be attracted to someone without ever seeing them. And then once you do see them, you'll think they are attractive, because you've already been attracted to the rest of them. 

Of course, leave it to me to be backwards on how I approach things. 

For some it's notice the outside first. For some it's notice the inside first. Doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks or what most people think. Doesn't matter what is typical. Do what is right for you. 

If were're going with the outside, then people are going to be attracted based on their own tastes. So it's out of your hands. They will find you attractive or not. If they do, it will be because of how you naturally are. If they are not, then it's not worth the time to think about. What isn't important is the all the time spent worrying about it or trying to appear a certain way. What isn't important is trying to compare ourselves to others or trying to decide where we rate.

We are all attractive in some way, to some one. So just be you and someone will eventually find that attractive, all of you.

Hadn't heard of soul sexual until recently either. I dislike lables in general, but this one comes as close as anything I've heard. I mean, I seem to care about souls (look at the name I chose 😉).

And for the record, once I love the person, I have no problem appreciating every part of them. I've had nothing but compliments in the physical/chemistry area - from touch, to smell, to... everything else. I've had the alias "cuddlecakes." I throw you to my answer on the spice up your sex life thread. And that was the edited tame response. Censors might come after me if I say more, so I'll leave it to your imagination.... 😈

Hope you find that someone who touches you on all levels. 

[Batya33]

1 minute ago, ShySoul said:

Especially in this day and age, you can be attracted to someone without ever seeing them

In my day and age we had print personal ads and often no photos. I went on many blind dates too. I never felt the sort of attraction relevant to a romantic relationship before we met in person or based on a photo when there was one.  Could I click with the person over the phone or as a penpal? For sure but not for purposes of dating with potential for marriage.  I knew I wouldn't feel any sort of relevant attraction. Which is why I never was interested in any sort of online relationship that involved any romantic attraction on one side or the other -I dated in person, not online.  

I did feel attracted to one guy who I didn't meet for 5 or 6 weeks -a very long time for me -and we had chemistry in person too.  There was another guy who was so devastatingly handsome I think I did feel attraction.  And in person.  But the attraction wasn't relevant to a romantic relationship because in the first case it wasn't based on knowing him inside and out and once I saw the red flag from his inside about 3 months in I was done and the attraction faded too.  With the second guy the attraction wasn't as strong once he started pressuring me for casual sex which I didn't know at all would happen based on seeing his photo and speaking before meeting.  

[yogacat]

8 hours ago, Kwothe28 said:

Also "OK Cupid" is quite even with men/women ratio(1,5 man on 1 woman), so it doesnt change that much with their research. 

Did you mean to write "5 men to 1 woman?" If yes, wouldn't that still mean more men are messaging the smaller pool of available women so the competition is higher?

8 hours ago, Kwothe28 said:

Just dont think it matters that much when even those women you mentioned do get a lot of matches. As Ive said, no matter how they describe themselves, never saw a thread of a woman saying how they didnt get matches at all. While we do tend to see a lot of those with men threads. That is why I said experiences are vastly different.

Yes, experiences are vastly different.

I'd argue a chief complaint from some women is receiving lots of initial messages from some men, a good portion of women receive requests for sex or a picture of the man's junk as soon as they sign up! I also feel a big part of it is evolution, eggs are expensive, sperm is not, why men have traditionally been the one to ask the woman out or make first contact whereas women are more "careful."

Just hitchhiking onto the other things I mentioned to explain a possibly high discrepancy this study found for why that study concluded men were generally less selective and did more of the messaging/matching first.

[Kwothe28]

8 hours ago, waffle said:

What do you mean by "work"?

"Work" as in actually getting matches. Because that is how they are suppose to work. To match with people and talk to them. Which again, probably wouldnt work for OP. He would maybe spent months there for a few matches and 1 conversation. Not a quality use of his time when irl he could have that by just going for a walk. With probably same results. 

5 hours ago, yogacat said:

Did you mean to write "5 men to 1 woman?"

No, I meant what I meant, 1,5 man to 1 woman. That means that for every 1 woman there is 1,5 man competing for her. Or if you dont want to split man in half, for every 2 women there is 3 men competing for them. That is quite evenly for a dating app.

[rainbowsandroses]

16 hours ago, ShySoul said:

What I've tried to say (poorly it seems lol), is that it doesn't have to be attracted physically then get to know them. It can be the opposite. Especially in this day and age, you can be attracted to someone without ever seeing them.

^^Fair enough ShySoul and thank you for your kind words. 😀

I am curious though since we are discussing online dating, dating apps and websites, how one would become initially attracted to another without seeing them (a photo) first and/or reading a profile?

Or perhaps you're suggesting dating apps do away with pics altogether and simply focus on what's written in their profile?

How they articulate themselves, structure sentences, what their interests are and how they feel about life and the world in general?

Do you think people could become initially attracted that way?  No pics?  At least at first?  And just by reading their profile? 

Sincere question Shy, I am not being flop I promise!  Your thoughts are interesting imo.

You have said you've never done online dating (via the apps) and your connections online have been with people you interacted with on forums like ENA and others. 

So just wondering do you have an opinion or advice for people seeking connections via the apps? 

And how they could experience the initial attraction without seeing a photo first? 

 

 

[rainbowsandroses]

19 hours ago, Batya33 said:

In my day and age we had print personal ads and often no photos.

^^This is interesting thanks for sharing!  It might answer the question I just ask ShySoul.

Batya, how successful were these personal ads?  Do you know many couples who had relationships and got married?

Not just that you know personally but generally? 

I just found the below after doing a quick research.

>>"Personal dating ads in newspapers were a common way to find love before the internet and dating apps became popular.

• Early history

  Personal ads were first placed in newspapers as classified ads, and were often intended for marriage. 

   
• Popularity

  As interest in personal ads grew, newspapers began to set aside specific sections for them. 

   
• Content

  Personal ads from the 1800s and 1900s often sought lovers with certain qualities, such as money, kindness, or religious conviction. 

   
• Finding a date

  To respond to a personal ad, people would sometimes call an answering machine and leave a message. The person who placed the ad would then call back to arrange a date. 

   
• Evolution

  With the rise of the internet, personal ads began to appear online, eventually becoming profiles on dating sites and apps.

   
• Comeback

  The format of personal dating ads has made a comeback on social media platforms like Instagram and Twitter. 

   

The last section "comeback" is especially interesting! 

[jazz_lover]

I think the modern dating apps (Bumble/Hinge/Tinder) etc are absolutely dreadful for both men and women. 

Everyone is on them and the way the algorithms work is that the most popular profiles get shown first so depending on where you are on the spectrum you either get completely overwhelmed with likes and messages or completely starved of messages. And because the dating apps have a lot more men than women and men are a lot less selective when it comes to swiping (playing a numbers game) most women are completely overwhelmed on the app and therefore it is easy to get buried at the bottom of their inbox or forgotten so your only chance is if they really like your photo or you manage to make an instant connection with a funny comment or something else that catches their attention. There is also a freemium business model whereby a lot of users don't pay for it so only get a handful of swipes a day. While this results in a lot more users and especially a lot more attractive users it just adds to all the noise and decreases the chances that your profile will even get seen by the people you are swiping right on. And you can spend an absolute fortune on add-ons such as boosts, premium features etc which only modestly increase your odds of success and there are new user boosts so that over time your matches tailor off forcing you to pay for these premium features or simply delete and recreate your profile which is a hassle. 

I much preferred online dating in the old days. There was a stigma about online dating which meant that the pretty and popular men and women stayed away which meant the dating pool was a lot more realistic than a modern dating app where half the profiles I am shown the women look like models. Generally you had to pay to get any use out of it which discouraged timewasters. You had the chance to write a profile essay and people generally had to use their computers to use the dating site which encouraged a more thoughtful consideration of profiles and even a popular user would have a manageable amount of emails to read a day so there was a chance that through a funny or charming email you could get someone's attention even if your photos didn't really stand out. 

Going back to the OP question. Photos make a huge difference. And men are generally bad at taking and selecting good photos whereas women are very adept at using filters, getting their friends to take flattering photos and know their angles etc. There is nothing wrong with using a professional photographer or at the very least a young female friend or relative who will be able to take good photos. And if you aren't the best looking guy then use photos to advertise your lifestyle i.e. doing cool things with cool people. Even if your face doesn't catch their attention the background might and prompt a question. And body language is important if you look warm and approachable and friendly it can make you seem like someone people would want to meet.