XaiJu
qovesstudio
qovesstudio

patreon


QOVES Beauty Podcast Ep. 16 - Who Has It Worse? Why Physical Attractiveness Importance Is Different For Men and Women

Men and women value attractiveness differently with contemporary research showing a asymmetric distribution of the halo effect and the benefits it provides to one's desirability. The Halo effect has been popularized as a positive attribution given to strangers, where we expect better looking individuals to have more positive personality traits, regardless of it being true or not. 


Daniel Bar-Tal and Saxe's paper notes an asymmetrical and unidimensional boost to personality characteristics by virtue of being attractive. Unidimensional meaning that all character stats get an equal boost from the halo effect, but asymmetric meaning that this is not applied equally to both sexes. More importantly, men benefit less from being physically attractive than women do and part of this is due to societal gender-roles placed upon each sex.


QOVES Beauty Podcast Ep. 16 - Who Has It Worse? Why Physical Attractiveness Importance Is Different For Men and Women

Comments

Could you do an episode on what habits one could/should integrate in the daily lifestyle to look good long term?:)

The 1976 paper was cited as it was one of the first (seminal) papers on the topic highlighting a difference in how the Halo Effect was applied, sex-wise at least. Prior to this, it was seldom understood the degree to which men could benefit from being attractive (which is not all that much). While money and status may not matter for men as much as it once did with women being given greater accessibility in making their own living, the large majority of women still would not want to date a man who is less financially secure than them. This is one of the key reasons for very successful women struggling to find men they consider to be on their level. Mind you, that for these women (the number of whom are increasing), being simply physically attractive is not enough and financial status is more important, which is the exact finding reflected from Bar-Tal's paper. Having a soft and hard threshold is irrelevant to this topic, but let me clarify a few things for you. Men still have a soft threshold in that they're willing to go below their criteria for 'the right girl.' This implies that men still value physical attractiveness but can consider other personality based characteristics, like nurturing or motherliness, in the absence of meeting the physical attractiveness criteria. Conversely, women have a hard threshold. However this is NOT mutually exclusive to physical looks or status. Instead women consider status, looks, power, money, lifestyle among other factors holistically which men do not. With men, they're still looking for physical beauty as the foremost indicator. Women are NOT looking for the hottest 1% of men because as most grown women will tell you, looks don't pay the bills. It is a combination of many factors together for men that make them appealing to women, despite what the looksmax forums have told you. There isn't a bell curve distribution for men's attractiveness, this is true and I've never said otherwise. In fact I agree with the dating statistic study from OKCupid. However the real question we're trying to ask in this and the last episode is what makes a male 7/10 and a female 7/10? For the male 7/10, there are other factors that can help boost their appeal, and I'm not talking about wishy-washy things like personality, but rather their appearance of dominance and physical aggression, which are not entirely correlated to 'looks' in the sense of symmetry or proportion. Even tattoos can give the impression of increased dominance which has nothing to do with 'honest signals of genetic fitness.'

You've gotta cite more updated scientific sources than ones from 1958, 1974, and 1976.

Which one is it? Do men have a soft threshold and women have a hard threshold for attractiveness? Or do men treat unattractive women much harsher than women treat unattractive men? These are contradictory beliefs in my opinion.

I'm not sure in 1st world countries that money and status matter for men as much as they once did. Women can get their own money and status unlike in many developing countries.

I'd argue there isn't a normal bell curve distribution for men's attractiveness based off how women rate them. There's damning evidence from dating app sources that tell us that women see 80% of men as below average attractiveness. Therefore, there aren't an equal amount of 7s for males and females, with male 7/10s being more scarce. edit: I see you addressed this


More Creators