Home

Fat women don't decrease their standards despite their unattractive BMI. What is the reason for this?

fundude12

September 26, 2015

0 upvotes

Archived from /r/PurplePillDebate

r/PurplePillDebate is a neutral community to discuss sex and gender issues, specifically those pertaining to /r/TheBluePill and /r/TheRedPill.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Fat women don't decrease their standards despite their unattractive BMI. What is the reason for this?
Author	fundude12
Upvotes	0
Comments	82
Date	September 26, 2015 2:31 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3mgueb/fat_women_dont_decrease_their_standards_despite/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/fat-women-dont-decrease-their-standards-despite.279378 https://theredarchive.com/post/279378

Comments

[–]treebogSJW Thought Policeman10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]fundude12 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]treebogSJW Thought Policeman8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

i don't necessarily have a problem with okcupid data, but i do have issues with that particular post which i've gone into before (specifically it doesn't address the issue that rating people highly caused them to get notified of your interest, influencing ratings).

And what is your rationale for why that affected the female data but not the male data ?

also women rate more often on who they want to actually date seriously, men rate more often on who they are willing to have sex with, making male/female ratings comparisons not comparable. if men were rating on who they would actually date seriously, they would rate a lot more like women.

Fine. So you agree with my point entirely.

Women only consider 20% of men to be above average for dating purposes. Thank you for conceding so gracefully.

That's the fucking point. You can't explain away the point by conceding it. If women want to date, rather than fuck, and so this causes the to rate only 20% as above average for dating, then they clearly have a very skewed perspective of "what the average level is" in the dating market. They think of 80% of men as being as below average in the attractiveness that matters to them.

Whereas men have a much more balanced view of attractiveness for the attractiveness that matter to them which you say is sex.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And what is your rationale for why that affected the female data but not the male data ?

because women care whether a guy is invested and know that if they put themselves out their many guys who are not invested will still want to use them for sex.

another issue i didn't mention is what type of women rated men and why did they rate men. neither of those issues were controlled for by okcupid researchers.

Women only consider 20% of men to be above average for dating purposes. Thank you for conceding so gracefully.

did you not see that women send more messages to men 1/5 and below (if you assume the women rating men were actually not skewing their ratings because of they didn't want to announce interest, and that the women that rated are representative of all women on okcupid)? http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/your_looks_and_inbox/Female-Messaging-Curve.png

if you breakdown the chart (which is based on flawed ratings but still has some value overall) you see...

0/5 men (26% of men) get 10% of female messages (i.e. attention/interest)
1/5 men (31% of men) get 23.5%
1.7/5 men (22% of men) get 26.6%
2.5/5 men (13% of men) get 21%
3.5/5 men (5% of men) get 13%
4.2/5 men (1.5% of men) get 4%
5/5 men (<1%) get 1%

why would women send a majority of their messages to men 1/5 and below if they only thought the top 20% were worth dating? if women were only interested in the top 20% we should at least see most of their messages going to 2.5 and above, but those men only got 39% of the messages. this study and your interpretation of it don't add up, maybe because both are flawed.

That's the fucking point.

red pillers often say women are less rational because they are more emotional. do you think your emotion on this topic compromises your rationality?

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You still appear to be reading the wrong chart.

I'm not talking about the later charts on "who messages whom".

I'm talking of the earlier chart in which women "asked to rate the attractiveness of men" they rated 80% of men as below average, and only 20% above average.

So they very clearly have an issue perceiving what the real average is.

If I get shown a series of 1000 incomes chosen randomly. And rate 800 below average and 200 above average... Then I very clearly think the average income is far higher than it actually is.

That's what is shown here. If you spoke to the person above and said "my income is $60k am I above or below average" and he says "below".... He is MISPERCEIVING the average income as being higher than it is.

If I show a woman a man that is in the top 70% by relative score and say "is he above or below average" and she says "below average" ... She is MISPERCEIVING the average attractiveness as being higher than it is.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm talking of the earlier chart in which women "asked to rate the attractiveness of men" they rated 80% of men as below average, and only 20% above average.

are you forgetting how i explained how those 'ratings' are flawed, of questionable value?

So they very clearly have an issue perceiving what the real average is.

there is no valid 'they' because the okcupid data is flawed. this data showed men and women have similar attractiveness ratings - https://math.dartmouth.edu/archive/m50w06/public_html/m50_Chetan_Seth.pdf it's also flawed since it didn't control for gender but unless you think most of the people rating male attractiveness on hotornot were men (which would be very hard to believe), then it has some value.

you seem to be stuck in the assumption that okcupid data is valid. unless you can find other data that shows a similar pattern (and i've already shown you one study that contradicts it), you are really reaching. i welcome seeing another study that confirms the okcupid data. i would have no problem if that okcupid finding was true, my problem is the flawed methods (rendering the finding questionable at best).

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworks1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissMaude 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

There two things going on here. First of all, attraction is more immediate for men, and less so for women.

And that might be true if they were not asked to mark relative to the average. How can you mark in such a way and mark 80% as being "below average" ?

Similarly, if this was the case how did men get rates "above average" even if they didn't know them ?

This rationale doesn't match the rating method.

Secondly, men are more stimulated by visuals than women.

Yes, and despite that they were able to distribute women around the average. They didn't go "it's all visual" and so mark the women higher.

This is another observation that doesn't match your theory. If "lack of attraction visible markers" caused women to down-mark, why didn't the reverse cause men to up-mark ?

It should be symmetrical.

Women just don't find pictures of men that interesting.

I get that, but they were asked to mark a visual stimulus on a range normalised on an average.

Let's say I'm not that interests in cats. When asked to map the attractiveness of cats as "below,average above"... Deapite the fact I'm not that interested in cats you should see a result distributed about the average. If you don't something is up with my perception of average not with my perception of cats.

So you are looking at a study that asks men and women to look at pictures and then judge their own immediate attraction based on those pictures.

YES. On a scale around an average.

Just like the cat example, the problem isn't perception of te cats it's perception of average.

Far too few "cats" are above average, and how I rate cats is irrelevant. Hair length. Nice teeth. Furryness. I have a major problem "perceiving and marking relative to average in cats".

Are you really suprised that women's reaction is 'meh...' This doesn't mean that we find 80% of men unattractive.

No, you just mark 80% of men as being "less attractive than the average man". You have a mis perception of how attractive the "average" man is.

We just aren't men. We aren't aroused by pictures like men.

I get that. But they were not asked how aroused they were.

They were asked to rate the men relative to average on physical attractiveness. They put 80% of men in a "lower than average physical attractive" bucket and only 20% in a "higher than average physical attractiveness" bucket.

If we asked women to rate "income" without telling them the average... And they placed 80% of salaries given as "below average" and only 20% as "above average".... THEN THEY ARE MISPERCEIVING WHAT THE AVERAGE INCOME IS.

Fuck. And that's true whether they are interested in income or not. The misperception is there. In the stats. It can't be avoided by saying "well, women don't care about income". That might be the reason why they are so off. But they are STILL off, and that's undeniable.

So when a woman who considers herself "average in looks" is asked to pick a photo of a man "in her league"... She is going to pick an 80% photo and NOT a 50% photo. And so on all up and down the scale (hence, "where have all the good men gone ?" ... They're right there... You are just rating them lower than your league in error)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And that might be true if they were not asked to mark relative to the average. How can you mark in such a way and mark 80% as being "below average?

Where does it say that women were asked to normalize their ratings? They were just asked to rate each picture on a scale of 1 to 5. I would guess that women used their own subjective, non-normalized feelings of attraction to rate the men.

Yes, and despite that they were able to distribute women around the average. They didn't go "it's all visual" and so mark the women higher. This is another observation that doesn't match your theory. If "lack of attraction visible markers" caused women to down-mark, why didn't the reverse cause men to up-mark ?

I don't get your logic. Say that in order to judge the deliciousness of a dish, you need to be able to see the food, smell it, and also be able to taste it. If you blindfold the taster, then they will probably under-rate the food they taste. Same thing if you don't let them smell it. However, if you let the taster see, smell, and taste the food, why would they over-rate the food? Say for a particular person, having good-smelling food is really important for them to judge the food highly. Just letting this person smell the food but not taste or see it wouldn't cause them to overrate the food, it would only cause them to under-rate the food less than other people.

I get that, but they were asked to mark a visual stimulus on a range normalised on an average.

You keep saying that, but I don't see it in the article anywhere. They were just asked to rate the users on a scale of 1 to 5. No where were they asked to try and divide it evenly.

Let's say I'm not that interests in cats. When asked to map the attractiveness of cats as "below,average above"... Deapite the fact I'm not that interested in cats you should see a result distributed about the average. If you don't something is up with my perception of average not with my perception of cats.

You are thinking that OKCupid is a closed system, and that the scales are created using only OKCupid data. The scales are created in real life. Let me give another example. Say you make men look at pictures of women, but all the women are wearing clothes that hide their body shape. You are taking away visual cues that are important to men, but the scale men use to judge attractiveness is based on real life women who don't always wear frumpy clothes. So using by using an external scale that includes scantily clad women to judge the modestly-clothed women, men would probably rate the modestly clothed women as less attractive than average. This is what is going on in the OKCupid study. Women's attractiveness scale is created in real life, where they can see men's personalities, status, humor, dominance, etc... Take this all away, and women's hands are tied behind their backs. We just can't make an adequate judgement. However, we realize this, and this is why we still message the men we rate as 'below average'.

I get that. But they were not asked how aroused they were.

Being attracted to someone is just low-level arousal.

They were asked to rate the men relative to average on physical attractiveness. They put 80% of men in a "lower than average physical attractive" bucket and only 20% in a "higher than average physical attractiveness" bucket.

You are trying to make women into men again... We don't judge attractiveness based on physical characteristics (with the exception of height) as much as men do.

So when a woman who considers herself "average in looks" is asked to pick a photo of a man "in her league"... She is going to pick an 80% photo and NOT a 50% photo. And so on all up and down the scale (hence, "where have all the good men gone ?" ... They're right there... You are just rating them lower than your league in error)

Interesting that you would mention this because men tend to overrate their own physical attractiveness, and women tend to underrate their own physical attractiveness. source

The meta-analysis found that males are more satisfied with their bod- ies than females and, to a much lesser degree, consider themselves to be better looking than do females. Moreover, the gender difference in self- rated attractiveness cannot be due to differences in actual physical attrac- tiveness because judges rated women as being better looking than men.

Also, you should take a look at this study

Importantly, the results showed that the lowest self-worth women contacted the least popular men at greater than expected rates. Presumably the least popular men received relatively few contacts overall because their profiles por- trayed them as undesirable, but women who judged them- selves to be undesirable as well chose nevertheless to contact them. This is the first evidence we know of to show that lower-social-desirability individuals will willingly select undesirable partners.

[–]pandorarosie 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]fundude12 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CheesyFedora 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fundude12 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fundude120 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]makethemsayayy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CheesyFedora 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DStoo 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]trpobservereats ass1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fundude12 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoogerBunny2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]fundude12 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]fundude12 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Majority of shows? Oh Puh-lease.

The Honeymooners – Ralph and Alice Kramden The Simpsons – Homer and Marge Simpson Family Guy – Peter and Lois Griffin King of Queens – Doug and Carrie Heffernan According to Jim – Jim and Cheryl The Sopranos – Tony and Carmela Soprano Still Standing – Bill and Judy Miller Modern Family – Jay and Gloria Pritchett, Cameron Tucker and Mitchell Pritchett Fresh Prince of Bel-Air – Philip and Vivian Banks Grounded for Life – Sean and Claudia Finnerty Just the Ten of Us – Graham and Elizabeth Lubbock Lucky Louie – Louie and Kim The Flintstones – Fred and Wilma Flintstone, Barney and Betty Rubble Entourage – Turtle and all of his girlfriends Family Matters – Carl and Harriette Winslow The Big C – Paul and Cathy Jamison Game of Thrones – Robert Baratheon and Cersei Lannister Parks and Recreation – Jerry and Gayle Gergich Roc – Roc and Eleanor Emerson The Drew Carey Show – Drew Carey and all of his wives That ’70s Show – Bob and Midge Pinciotti

To name a few.

[–]fundude12 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

My apologies, here is the revised list.

The Simpsons – Homer and Marge Simpson Family Guy – Peter and Lois Griffin King of Queens – Doug and Carrie Heffernan According to Jim – Jim and Cheryl The Sopranos – Tony and Carmela Soprano Still Standing – Bill and Judy Miller Modern Family – Jay and Gloria Pritchett, Cameron Tucker and Mitchell Pritchett Grounded for Life – Sean and Claudia Finnerty Lucky Louie – Louie and Kim Entourage – Turtle and all of his girlfriends The Big C – Paul and Cathy Jamison Game of Thrones – Robert Baratheon and Cersei Lannister Parks and Recreation – Jerry and Gayle Gergich The Drew Carey Show – Drew Carey and all of his wives That ’70s Show – Bob and Midge Pinciotti

You can hamster ALL you want, but this shows ugly/fat guys with hot women.

[–]fundude12 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fundude12 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CheesyFedora 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 10 years ago | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains[M] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CheesyFedora 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenova1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]makethemsayayy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]makethemsayayy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]makethemsayayy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]makethemsayayy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]makethemsayayy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pandorarosie0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rulenumber3034 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fundude12 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rulenumber3031 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fundude12 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissMaude 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]fundude12 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MissMaude 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fundude12 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MissMaude 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CheesyFedora -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MissMaude 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ArrantPariah0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fundude12 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redmachines0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun[M] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link