In terms of the distinction you make, I love it. In your experiences, how do you feel that your economic mindset and the principles of economics helped you navigate the whole online dating market? I think there are a few simple principles that economics would provide for you. What you want to do is think about whether you would rather be on Match. Find sites like Cupid or other large dating sites where the choices are going to be much greater. There are all these niche dating sites that fail the basic idea of having the thickest market possible.
If Facebook sticks to simply helping people find events and groups to connect at, there may not be as much overlap between the two services.
On an earnings call post-announcement, Ginsberg also pointed to the fact that only a quarter of Tinder users still rely on the Facebook platform to access the app. Other apps have indicated that they might actually move closer to Facebook. For example, Bumble, founded by a former Tinder executive, said they had already reached out to Facebook regarding how to collaborate. So, how exactly do dating apps make money while keeping in mind the importance of utility to the user in the space? In general, the business model for dating apps falls into three broad categories : subscription plans and freemium, which utilize advertising and in-app purchasing.
The subscription model is the oldest model in the dating app sphere, requiring users to pay a fee to use the app for a set period of time usually a week or a month. The payments are typically recurring. The most prominent example of such is Match. These sites are focused on finding people a serious relationship and tend to skew towards an older population who are willing and able to pay.
Zoosk, eHarmony, and Chemistry, and Our Time are also paid dating services. Typically, the paid subscriptions are cheaper by the month if the user commits to a longer period of time.
The freemium model hinges on the concept where users can sign up and use the basic functionalities of the app for free, while the app generates revenue either via advertising or unlocking enhanced features for a fee. Without a barrier to entryfreemium dating apps often wait to build scaleloyalty, and active users until they introduce paid features.
They typically use a combination of both options. In-app advertising is a way for the app to generate shared revenue with advertisers from clicks, views or transactions. In AprilTinder launched its first ad campaign for Budweiser, where users viewed a Budweiser video within a few swipes. The campaign went viral. However, Facebook has gone on record saying that its dating service will not include ads.
Though basic membership is free, users can pay for extra, enhanced features. As of SeptemberTinder was the highest-grossing app on the app store among US consumers. It took Tinder about three years since its inception to start monetizing, as it was working to build its user base and loyalty before turning on the monetization engine.
In second place is female-friendly Bumble, which also only started to monetize in August of The perks include Rematch, Beeline, and Busybee. Bumble uses this in combination with hyperlocal, targeted advertising.
W hen market logic is applied to the pursuit of a partner and failspeople can start to feel cheated.
This can cause bitterness and disillusionment, or worse. She estimates that she gets 10 times as many messages as the average man in her town. Recently, Liz matched with a man on Tinder who invited her over to his house at 11 p. When she declined, she said, he called her 83 times later that night, between 1 a. Despite having received 83 phone calls in four hours, Liz was sympathetic toward the man.
The logic is upsetting but clear: The shaky foundational idea of capitalism is that the market is unfailingly impartial and correct, and that its mechanisms of supply and demand and value exchange guarantee that everything is fair. And in online spaces populated by heterosexual men, heterosexual women have been charged with the bulk of these crimes. T he design and marketing of dating apps further encourage a cold, odds-based approach to love.
While they have surely created, at this point, thousands if not millions of successful relationships, they have also aggravated, for some men, their feeling that they are unjustly invisible to women. Men outnumber women dramatically on dating apps; this is a fact. A literature review also found that men are more active users of these apps-both in the amount of time they spend on them and the number of interactions they attempt. Their experience of not getting as many matches or messages, the numbers say, is real.
But data sets made available by the apps can themselves be wielded in unsettling ways by people who believe the numbers are working against them.
Let alone being told they were lucky to have him! For men the strategy is elementary: impregnate as many women as you can, attractive, but also less attractive. A successful reproductive strategy must go beyond the first generation. To name a few examples: Does he like cats, dogs, or rabbits? What are his tastes in music and movies? How many kids does he want?
What kind of food does he like? Will he run a 5k with me? Does he like to travel on vacation or relax at home? What is his philosophy of life? None of the answers to these questions are anywhere near universal.
Some women would love it if a man wanted to run a 5k with them, other women would be angry if a man wanted her to run a 5k with him. Some women like horror movies, some like action, some like comedy.
Women vary in their philosophy of life. What an awesome article in the age of politically correct fake settled science. In several landmark studies, it has been found that among married couples the physical attractiveness of the genders is highly correlated.
Thus, the trophy wife of a rich homely guy is not very common. This means that women prize good looks just like men. Perhaps the reasons are different but the outcome is the same. The modern progressive movement has become far more puritanical than most religions with even an end of the world belief in climate apocalypse. Secularists could learn a great deal from old fashioned religious rules in how to make a just and stable society. Immediate gratification versus long term security is what separates socially sentient primates from the insentient.
That might suggest an explanation for the longstanding popularity of monogamy and marriage based on pair bonding and arranged marriages. Men are much more visual and less interested in character at least as far as being initially attracted.
As far as incels go, my theory is that they lack the confidence and boldness that women are attracted to. The are often shy and insecure. In my life I have seen men who are often not that good looking or wealthy sleep with many women. These guys are confident and cocky. It also seems that the worse they treat women the more women are interested in them.
When a woman says she wants a nice man, what she means is she wants an attractive man who treats her nicely. As someone pointed out, the readers and commentators should be made aware that the situation described in this article is very particular to the Anglo countries.
In starkest difference with central and eastern European countries, where the sight of an average-looking man with a beautiful woman is not at all uncommon. Even in the cases which by no means are the norm, as some cynics would point out where she is with him for the money, he is still better off than men in Anglo countries, where they need both money and great looks to get a higher-than-average looking woman.
From these it follows that 1. Young adulthood is a sexual golden age for most women, as men will find all but a few young women attractive. Young adulthood will be sexually frustrating for many men, as sexual competition for women near their own age will be at its most intense. For most men, sexual competition will lessen as they age. Especially if they have more e. Enforced monogamy social pressure against promiscuity plus laws making divorce difficult produces something of a tradeoff.
Women typically marry near the peak of their attractiveness: never again will they be able to attract so many high-attractiveness men. Yet over time her attractiveness will fade much faster than his. But, despite her fading attractiveness, the high cost of divorce will discourage him from dumping her. With the decline of monogamy, life becomes particularly sweet for men in the top decile of attractiveness.
Sorry, that dating markets economics all became
Yet for men will below that standard, their attractiveness will rise relative to women near their own age. Whereas for most women sexual life will become more of a challenge. Thus, although it may seem that women get the better deal under declining monogamy, a life in which expectations rise with age seems easier to navigate than one in which they inexorably fall.
Women know that is, many women that they can go to the corner bar and get laid any night of the week.
They can have sex with their fellow students, fellow workers, guys in line at the grocery store, delivery and repair guys, you name it. This means that they can afford to be choosey.
Have faced dating markets economics how paraphrase?
Because they have the pussy, and we want it. However, when the sex-bots get good if will be fun to watch these same women lose their shit and they become obsolete.
This does not match my understanding of how things work. The only ethical way of handling this is to make chemical castration widely available and attractive to men. It will probably reduce crime as well. It needs to be compelled materially as well. This has been accomplished previously by giving them control over resources, defending their rights to those resources from better men, and limiting the access women have to resources of their own.
Although, I think that if we could work out a way to make men gay, it would be ideal. The currency in play is desire.
But that's when Strayed and Almond brought in Stanford economics professor Paul Oyer, whose book Everything I Ever Needed to Know About Economics I Learned From Online Dating chronicled his return to the dating scene as a single, year-old man, which he came to understand as being much like the markets he'd spent a career studying.
Blue: In my experience, crushing alimony solves the problem perfectly. Now, if we could only find a way to extract it before marriage.
They wanted to design people too. And of course, the only reason you come up with this horrifying idea is because you hate men to begin with. I fail to see how this differs from the treatment of mental illness, which is conceptualized as a social problem before it is ever established as a medical one. That way expanding genetic diversity, which is for all we know so far desirable as the more diverse offspring has a better chance for an improved immunity system and therefore survival.
Feminists are for free-birth control, free abortion, promoting homosexuality, experimenting with different poly-amorous relationships, etc. Blue haired savant. This is a short game feminists are playing that will ultimately win over them in the long run.
Men are adapt to being alone. Before trying something as drastic as castration, it might be worth trying some kind of biological tweak to make women orgasm during sex as easily as men do. Encouraging androgynous behavior seems like the best way to supply more of that.
Economics of Online Dating: Niche Markets. Having said that, you're focusing on a market that is a little more directed at a certain type of consumer. There are all these niche dating sites that fail the basic idea of having the thickest market possible. Economic techniques are used to examine unique features of the online dating market, such as the significance of market thickness, the prevalence of cheap talk, and search theory. Features of the online dating market are explored to simultaneously provide insight on more broadly applied economic principles including adverse selection, network. Economic metaphors provide the language for conversations on with titles like "thoughts on what could be done to regulate the dating market," and for a sub named sarcastically.
If men and women are more similar to each other they will have more in common, and therefore be more compatible in long term relationships. That might be the way forward to get a power balance between the sexes. This means learn from the experts, the lesbians. That is where the punctum saliens is.
Conceiving of it a medical problem like ADHD or restless leg syndrome, and prescribing a treatment that alleviates the personal and social suffering it causes.
We could re-engineer women to make them nymphomaniac and attracted to every male. Are women perhaps rating the men as technically unattractive but partnering with them anyway? After all, if Bill Gates and Donald Trump can find someone how important can physical attractiveness be? Modest economic capital used to translate to sexual capital although not sexual desire because women had limited access to economic capital. Truly silly statement. Women seek provider men cuz they will stick around and raise children with them.
I know, in your feminist world, fathers are irrelevant. Among many traits, personal power has a very important role in male attractiveness. A normal woman is aroused by a global perception of the individual, and power is a major player in this global picture. So, this woman definitely can be attracted and aroused by a powerful man even if his physical ct in itself is unattractive to her. He makes me tingle like never before, he makes handsomeness seems drab and boring.
Perception is a complex process linked to construction of meaning. I wanted to add to this the usual trapping of what it means to be masculine vs. Overall, beauty is not considered a masculine trait. Women, even the most average-looking ones, transform easily via make up and flattering clothing and thus can move upwards on the attractivity scale. Unfortunately, it is or at least has been for centuries a predominant social law to claim that a man who cares about his appearance is shallow or vain.
Or, absurdly, too feminine. Why not acknowledge that instead of digging in the far-reaching reasons of how most males are left at the curb? It is a very one-sided discussion if we do not address the fact that in Western society male beauty especially looking for ways to enhance it if the natural one is lacking is deemed largely inappropriate.
Female beauty, therefore, is a good worth investing in and pursuing. Male beauty is not. But what other good can a dating App offer, really? It is visual, and there is little to no way to find out if a male is funny, smart or responsible.
So I would suggest to either not use dating Apps for making such large claims about society, or to adjust for the negative trait - in fact, a sin - of a male enhancing his own natural beauty that had been nested in Western civilization for millennia.
Take a look at Middle Eastern men, or East Asians, for example. The majority of them do not mind make up, and yes, kohl eyes make quite a lot of otherwise average-looking men in the Middle East much more attractive even though some of their behaviors might be a turn off. Here, I am talking about the strictly visual experience of perceiving male beauty.
But when a Western man tries to highlight his eyes with make up, what demeaning names does he get called?
There are entire industries in East Asia built on the beauty of males and how to properly use and enhance it. Ask yourselves about why most women in the world find K-pop guys so irresistible. Is it because of their superior genes and better facial structures?
The economics of dating
No, far from that. Most of it is style, dress, diet, hairstyling and yes, make up. Because of that, the sheer sex appeal of Western males is a less obvious good than their status or personality traits.
But status and personality take time to unveil, and most dating Apps allow us, women, to finally discriminate based solely on appearance. Because why not? After all, this is a dogma of female competition in the arena of sex appeal. Women do not put on make up to attract men. We do it to compete with other women, some of whom might have vastly superior genes and natural resources than others. Does that stop the rest of women from daring and trying to compete?
And whining about the unfairness of nature afterwards? No - it forces women to be cunning and very proficient in manipulating our appearances. Such a dated perception has nothing to do with biology - only with social customs that have far outlived their utility. In fact, biology would advise men to adapt and evolve past that and expand their horizons on what male beauty is and can be, I think.
And above all: if you use data from a visual-based ranking system where males obviously are lacking in performance and presentation skills, then please adjust the entire article to reflect that.
In era of Instagram and make-believe lifestyles, women want photogenic partners because such an accessory generates prestige for women among other women. Most males in the world could achieve that level easily if they only tried.
Look at Mick Jagger and Steven Tyler, they are hardly good looking but many, many women throw themselves at those guys.
Pretty much any guy in a successful band is a magnet to lots of women. Of course women do this for men. Women are competing with other women for MEN. To be more attractive to men. This means the guys are sleeping with multiple women or if the men are faithful to one woman each, women are still single. Women may want a photogenic guy but what are they going to do when all the Brad Pitts are taken? Look elsewhere or go single. Thank you for writing this.
I wanted to add a lot about prestige of goods, about female hierarchy, and about attraction contrary to popularity into my original comment, but it was getting too long for me already and I was afraid my thoughts would end up being too scattered to actually offer a genuine different look that could matter to the article above. Essentially this is what my comment is to offer.
It is worth keeping and protecting only if it is desired by many. Well, women see beautiful men the same way. Yes, males want females for reproduction and females want males for the same general result. That my husband is hot, reflects well on me among other women, and vice versa for him. Opinions of the opposite sex are much less valuable, though.
They are easy to get. Forgive me my vulgarity, but I know I would find a male sexual partner pretty easily whenever I want solely on the fact that I have a vagina and I am fit and look healthy. What role does make up play in that? When I put on make up to attract males, it looks wildly different from the make up I put on to impress women. Do guys really find my blue or chartreuse nails or bold oxblood or, god forbid, black lips very attractive?
Does it help with marketing my reproductory value? Not at all. But women in my circles like it, and I put on such make up solely for them. After all, only women compliment my make up my skillmy choice of nail polish my tasteor my clothes my status and proficiency in fashion industry. I have my tasteful pink lipsticks, clear nail polish and my nigh-invisible mascaras for that purpose.
Thought differently, dating markets economics are mistaken
They are dull as hell, sorry. Likewise with fashion. Most women behave this way. We know when we are visual goods to be looked at, and we know when we are our own agents and need to instead flaunt our independence from male gaze.
Please do not tell me you understand how we work better than we do. There are at least two modes of our social performance, not one. Alas, that is also true. Insert here the difference in male and female libido and all societal myths associated with that. It puts our entire system of beliefs about who we are, in question. Although, most of the time such a claim is an act and is false.
And that is much more dangerous to women than the dislike of men. A woman ostracised by her sex will not survive on her own - males will forget her once her beauty fades, is dealt with by jealous opponents, or once her reputation is ruined.
When women want to destroy a woman, they will do it more efficiently than any man can. Regarding K-pop idols, I want to say that their popularity is a good, too, but it is not entirely correct to equivolate sheer and sometimes blind popularity with baseline sex appeal.
They are different goods. So do not compare K-pop idols to Jaegger or a Beattle, for example. Jaegger did not work for all women, and Beattles did not work for everyone as well.
But there are K-pop idols who are Jaeggers, there are Paul McCartneys, and there are countless of other styles and images present there.
Now compare it to K-pop. They are pretty boys first, and only then a female listener tries to get into their music or lifestyle. Post factum. If we are talking about the strictly visual experience, sorry - no one would swipe right on Jaegger based on his looks. No one, likewise, considers K-pop boys real icons of musical industry. They are eye candy. No amount or lack of popularity will stop women from feeling attracted to a hot guy. Say, you see a very hot woman in real life who is not a celebrity, and then see a much less hot woman on a movie poster.
You will be attracted to both for different reasons because they offer you different goods. And in fact, too much popularity in K-pop may even work against most of them. K-pop and J-pop idols change so often precisely because no one really likes to be attracted to the most popular ones. In this, Jaegger and Beattles work against your argument because, again, they are iconic in more ways than visual, and they were also slim pickings in an otherwise empty supermarket.
Lastly, to talk about male make up and care. I know men take care of themselves, and I respect them for that. Clean, well-dressed man is a classic staple of female gaze, especially if he possesses a beautiful face. And what if he has to compete with other males who are just as clean, well-dressed and fit, but also have good facial structures he lacks?
And in an environment where he cannot prove how smart, kind, funny and wonderful he is deep inside? Like on a dating App? What then? No woman would ever say that. So do not say male care for their looks is nearly on the same level as female. Men are not eager to be the focus of unashamed female gaze. And the point is, unashamed female gaze does not even fully exist yet. We, women, have a lower libido than men. We usually take pride in being more cerebral when it comes to finding a sexual partner - even in modern times when we are very far away from choosing husbands based on their status.
So female gaze is a very discreet, finally-trying-to-grow thing, and industries like K-pop and some others only now begin to cater to it.
It had worked for males for millennia except for some brief times during decadent eras. Males now can only compete in the area of visual ranking if they evolve to cater to female gaze while sacrificing their need for validation in the male one. And no - I and most women do not want men to wear caked on make up and false eyelashes like women. God no. But we want more pleasing faces to choose from.
Guys with pimples? Chaffed lips? Weak eyebrow angles? Skin discoloration? All these things are minor and do not require a Trans Diva worth of make up. But it still helps women who do not possess outstanding facial genetics. Upkeep is not a sign of competing for female gaze. Thank you for your detailed reply. Hypocritical, no? Also it beggars belief to think every woman in the world understands women better than any man could.
Are you saying that self-centered, deluded or unbalanced women understand women better than a male trained psychologist who has studied human psychology for decades does?
If you accept that in this circumstance the male would have a better understanding of women then there must be other instances too. I am not a psychologist btw. You mention K and J pop a lot. These boy bands go for an androgynous look.
You are projecting your likes onto all women. A true test of the attractiveness of these band members would be to have them walk around anonymously on the street and see if women think the same about them as they do when they see them in a video or on stage. I highly doubt it. What is the most popular music in the western world right now?
Rap and hip hop. These are unbermasculine forms of music. Even female rappers generally emphasize masculine traits. Yet many women love the look and image of them. We are not all the same. Some men do this throughout their lives, but they are in the minority. People are different. How do these fit into your comments about every woman only liking the most attractive men? Do they have a lower bar? However, what is the goal of being at the top of the attractiveness pecking order? It is to get the top pick of men.
It is to put on makeup so when you are out you can maximise your appeal to men.
Dating markets economics
Now maybe you do this to find a man or to show off for your man but nonetheless, it is to be attractive to men. Also, not ALL women do this. You seem to be someone who likes the glamorous life where everyone is pretty and looks are very important to social standing.
There are certainly a lot of people who enjoy this life, but I doubt if even half the population of either gender is as focused on looks as you are. Certainly not once people get a bit older. Some women know what they like, are vocal in expressing it and have no shame or embarrassment about it, as should be the case. Also there are lots of men who love the focus of unashamed female gaze. In the - keitaiplus.com world it may be uncouth to act like a heathen, but not everyone lives in those circles.
Your whole comment is about how important looks are for women but then you say women are more cerebral? I am sorry to make you feel like you can insult me with attacks on my personality and my sincere opinions. I thought this was a site for people to discuss things. Why would you think I ever considered you or your words that? Where have I ever done that? Show me.
We are talking about visual perception of beauty. By women. By young women of my age. The demographic that is the majority of what it cited in this article. I offer my opinion on the piece since the piece lacks the opinion of its research target completely. This is simply a waste of my time, alas.
Which are, again, truisms! If you actually bothered to read me carefully, you would have understood that. Which, I hear most often in all the SJW-bashings, is a choice. I hope you enjoy this choice of yours to be so offended. Here I wrote an extensive paragraph elaborating, again, what tastes are and can be, and how changes in taste such as hip-hop and females gravitating towards that is a different damned good from the concept of barest VISUAL attractiveness, but god, I feel like I am talking to a wall.
So instead of going on with my commentary to your reply, I erased my words. You will never listen. You will never even pretend to respect anything I will ever offer you in good faith like I did to you - if not from genuine interest, then at least basic human politeness.
If not by their current claim power, then by the use of the same old techniques of silencing the opponent. By name calling. Which, incidentally, only proves one point: if given all this cultural power back, you will abuse it just like all those SjWs do. To bully and shut people up. I do lament dignity and patience people had in the Age of Enlightenment when everyone, no matter their gender, profession, language skill, class, race, or education could be in the same place, coffeehouse or debate salon, and hold arguments made to help each other understand other humans better.
Instead of whatever this is. Again, sorry to frustrate you, and have a good day. This is a very interesting discussion as well, and I have wondered a lot about it when considering the male-on-male romance catering to female audiences or female-on-female porn catering to males. To be fair, I am completely out of my depth in discussing the latter, but I can testify a lot in the formet, plus, I know that a lot of hikkikomori males, for instance, prefer the all-female casts of normal, non-porn-related slice-of-life TV Shows and anime only because they are the sole male present in the picture.
The voyeuristic viewer is the alpha male in that case because there is no other one male present in his perception of the female dynamic. So it works much the same for women.
Mar 12, Jesus said that the poor would always be with us. Despite the best efforts of philanthropists and redistributionists over the last two millennia, he has been right so far. Every nation in the world has poor and rich, separated by birth and luck and choice. The inequality between rich and poor, and its causes and remedies, are discussed ad nauseam in public policy debates, campaign . Nov 02, Not so fast. After all, they don't call it a "meet market" for nothing. The dating world is, in fact, its own market, with complex economic judgments taking place all the time. Paul Oyer, Stanford economist and the author of "Everything I Ever Needed to Know About Economics I Learned from Online Dating," explains the marketplace of online love.
When he hangs out with a boy, we do not mind. A boy is not competing with the female audience for another boy no matter what he does we know we have something he will never have - a vagina. So we are the only gaze that matters. Consider homoerotic teasing a male harem slice of life. By the way, some of homoeroticism is attractive to women only because we, women, like to see men in submissive roles.
But only sometimes. We usually do not see them in submissive roles when in sexual relationships with us, so we do not mind seeing him submitting at least somewhere, to someone.
A lot of sexual tension, I believe, is built on power dynamics of submission and control and balance between them. But since such a facet as male submission usually is missing in female-male partnership and is in fact derogatory to a male so by nature not very attractive to a femalewe substitute it with fascination with homoeroticism.
A male submitting to his complete equal is not as derogatory, overall, and is even romantic because nothing truly serious a baby, the sole biological purpose of sex can really come out of such relationship.
In a way, homoerotic male relationships, to females, seem purer than male on female relationship, and we all know that females are much more romantically minded than males. Ah, the arrogance of youth. I dont think this is true at all. In fact, many cultures, including our own here in the west, have been very infatuated with the beauty of the male body.
Look at the ancient Roman and Greek statues, they were all celebrations of the male body. In fact, bodybuilding is probably the most extreme form of beauty enhancement and considered socially acceptable, not a sin as you say. The dont. Only a small sub set of nerdy females give a shit a k pop guys.
Most women dont even know what k pop is. How so? You dismiss my thesis by strawman fallacy, really.
I never said that male beauty the way I talked about it is confined to body, and this is the most widely represented area of male beauty in the West, yes. But, first of all, I never claimed that and I will address this point in full, below, and second of all, representing female sexuality via historical realistic art is erroneous at best, and simply incorrect at worst. Add to this the fact that most historical art has been created by males - and we cannot really base our assumptions of what constitutes female gaze from it.
Moreover, there are at least two big directions in all visual art: the realistic one and the idealistic one. Classic antiquity and Renaissance sculpture and paintings celebrating male body and female as well represent only half of all historical art.
Sorry, that dating markets economics opinion
The other one is idealistic. The religious art, the sentimental, the Romance, the Gothic, the Art Nouveau, Modernism by a large margin. Nowhere is the true human beauty more evident than in those art narratives. But please show me where the human body is exalted there. When we say a man is beautiful, we mean his eyes, his face, his overall image in which his body is only one of many parts.
Beautiful, lovely and pretty all usually describe the human face, not the human body. So please do not straw man me here. Too add to the above, historically, women have always been more drawn to idealistic art than to the realistic one. Just how we are. We like romance, we like sentimentality, we like chivalry, we like galantry and above all, dignity. The beauty of human body, while undeniable, is also walking a fine line with vulgarity and most women usually shy away from that.
Jan 07, The CEO, knowing the market will discount what she says, really has no choice but to inflate expectations. Harvard economist Jeremy Stein analyzed the cheap talk of CEOs and how markets react, concluding that careful analysis "clearly exposes the fallacy inherent in a statement such as 'since managers can't systematically fool the market. Dating App Market Size. Dating services in the US will be a $3 billion a year business in , growing since the previous year. Around 15of US adults, or around 50 million Americans, say that they have or continue to use websites or mobile dating apps in their pursuit of romance.; Some predict that revenue is expected to grow 25by ; Still, it's a fast-growing industry. May 17, The Economics Of Dating: This Is Why Dating In Suuuuucks. Photo: weheartit Here's why dating sucks for both men and women, according to an economic standpoint. The Oversaturated Market.
Body building effort also fades much sooner than a well-proportioned, symmetrical, truly beautiful face, and cannot be passed on to the offspring.
In fact, most body builders in old age are distractingly unattractive compared to males who had not been body building their entire lives. Age, getting fat, getting sick or injured maim bodily beauty so much faster.
There will always be younger, more fit bodies around. Like having sex with a person with a bag on their head? Why should it be different? If the person lacks in the good facial structure department, then a beautiful body is more than enough!
But I would ask you not to equivocate natural beauty one is born with: face, good proportions, nice shapes to enhanced beauty gym, make up, plastic surgery, etc. If the first one is lacking, no one would mind the second, but the first is and will always be preferable. Subconsciously, a woman is much more likely to evaluate his intellect and personality higher if he has a pretty face. We want our babies to be hot and reproduce as much as possible!
Note that a lot of women state outright that they swipe to ignore the guys who only post photos of their specs or abs on dating Apps. If she mainly focuses on her breats and butt, without showing her face, yes - she would be labeled that. Why is that such a surprise? Another biological facet I have to address here is that males have always been appreciated for what women lack: strength. So women in the times before ours have always looked for males who could prove, physically, how strong they are.
Most women did not care about male beauty in those times because those times were harsher than ours. Women cared about survivability of the offspring and the higher chance that a strong male can 1 defend her and the child by sheer power, 2 more likely to return home from the war based on how strong he is, 3 can work more land and amass more capital through his strength.
But we live in a different society now, and male strength, while attractive, is mostly a leftover instinct in appreciating male beauty than a real point against the focus on a beautiful face. And the further we go from the primeval instincts, the more male beauty wil be concentrated in appreciating his face rather than anything else.
Because, to repeat, a body can be built through natural means. A face cannot. Hope this reply clarifies my previous points, and sorry if I wrote unclearly in my original post.
Also thank you for talking to me. Which is our disagreement. You dont think we as a society think men can be beautiful, but I do. While yes, much of the art in that I am talking about is centered around the body, the body is not separate from the head and face.
David is a beautiful man. He was sculpted to be both beautiful and a man.