CMV: If all men were suddenly attractive, women would find all men attractive and not just the top 20%

BoogersAndSugar · 2021-02-07T17:06:07+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Pontifex_Lucious-II · 2021-02-07T16:20:55+00:00

Average Men today already are far more attractive in absolute terms than 200 years ago. Most men have access to dental care, don’t have growth defects due to malnutrition, and are at least literate enough to string together some coherent thoughts.

Hypergamy scales as general base attraction rises or falls. Women have always wanted the best. They will always want the best.

Demasii · 2021-02-07T16:27:44+00:00

If we suddenly had a society full of beautiful people, women's lizard brain would see a beautiful man and think, "that man is beautiful". They aren't going to think "he's not as beautiful as the top 20% of men, therefore he is invisible to me".

Scarcity drive up prices of goods in economics. Same works in the SMV market.

A man who is 5 foot 8 inches in Asia will have more success with women than in the United States. It's because men in Asia are statistically shorter.

If your theory is true about female lizard brains than that would mean that is a baseline beauty standard for all women. What is this standard? And why isn't this standard consist through different cultures and time periods?

PlainTundra · 2021-02-07T16:18:41+00:00

They would find other criteria besides besides being beautiful to judge the men on ( height, status, power etc) the top 20% rule will always apply

relish5k · 2021-02-07T17:22:09+00:00

If all men were equally attractive (or rather of women were equally attracted to all men) then personality would actually start to matter, at least more than it does now.

Workaholiconew · 2021-02-07T17:50:22+00:00

Considering that in places with more attractive people, like in some places in Brazil, the proportion of people considered attractive by women is mostly unchanged, while the male counterpart is highly dependent on the objective beauty of the women around them.... I think your idea does not hold water.

Heck, the 20% rule is the same even here in Brazil's northeast, South Africa, India, and Russia, if you believe the men in this community. It is clearly something neurological.

I mean... I get it, it SHOULD be a objective metric. but it is not. And simply put, even men are affected, just not to the same degree. What makes you think the highly socially sensitive women would be less socially moved?

upalse · 2021-02-07T17:59:41+00:00

Pareto distribution has nothing to do with genetics, it's a logistic law - ie some advantage has to compound for pareto distribution to manifest.

Meaning, both men or women are not "born" attractive or unattractive on this steep slope. As far as genetics is concerned, the variance is perfectly smooth normal distribution.

Pareto arises when we assign power that compounds from that start - wealthy people get wealthier, powerful men get more powerful (or "confident"), there must be snowball effect involved.

That women are not perceived on pareto distribution is largely because physical beauty doesn't really compound over time.

BlackPorcelainDoll · 2021-02-07T16:39:48+00:00

You aren't factoring in female boredom and female attraction to presence. If all men were attractive, the attraction window would be even more narrow since men with stronger presence and varying attitudes will take over unless they were isolated to subcommunities with top males to create more hierarchical variation. Aesthetical attraction has never been enough.

Bandit174 · 2021-02-07T16:24:50+00:00

I don't think they would find all men attractive, but I do think it would make the distribution more even than it is now.

Atlas__B__Shruggin · 2021-02-07T17:48:44+00:00

actually the pareto principle states that 20% of the men are responsible for 80% of the casual sex being had, just like 80% of the sales in a sales office are made by 20% of the salesforce. it tells us noting about "men being born attractive"

if all men because attractive 6'2" millionaires tomorrow women would cluster around 6'3" multimillionaires. if all men became IDENTICALLY attractive in those ways tomorrow, women would find another way to suss out a "top" man

because hypergamy is female sexual nature

THdz101 · 2021-02-07T16:52:24+00:00

If all men were the exact same women would judge based on status, game, money.

DicamVeritatem · 2021-02-07T18:34:03+00:00

As Rollo had said, in the land of the three foot men, the four foot man is king.

Until the five foot man shows up.

It’s 80:20 and hypergamy all the way down.

AreOut · 2021-02-07T20:42:40+00:00

put 10 women of different SMV on one side and 10 twin brothers with almost the same features(character/job etc.) on the other, if 2 women start looking at the same guy other women will instinctively follow and make up a reason why that 1 is better than the others

women want what other women want and that's just how it is, that's why they are paying thousands of dollars for ridiculous pieces of cloth, because other women also want them but dont have money

trethethrowaway · 2021-02-07T16:45:49+00:00

Nope. Women are hypergamous meaning they will always be attracted to the top males in a given group, not the group itself. If all men were suddenly attractive then their standard for what they consider of "attractive" would suddenly change. On a biological level Peacocks are a great example of this. Sexual selection has made it so that all males have a vast array of exotic, vibrant feathers and are (generally) "beautiful", however female peacocks will still dismiss a significant portion of them to preselect to mate with only the top males. Their feathers are not what dictate their attraction to females but rather their feathers in relation to the feathers of others. Look at it this way If you had a rich man that was making $150,000+ in a room full of average joes women would flock to him. But if you took that same man and put him in a room full of millionaires the same women wouldn't look at him twice. Even though he is by and large "rich" women would not care because they are not just seeking the rich, they are seeking the richest. Women are not just seeking beauty they are seeking the most beautiful.

Kaisha001 · 2021-02-07T18:14:16+00:00

Well... this is something I'd like to find out, but as of yet little data has been presented that is conclusive either way. The OkCupid (and Tinder, and Match, and 100 other sources) has pretty much confirmed the 80/20 rule, but they don't explain the why.

It's possible that women are always going to be hypegamous, and that if all men got better (or worse looking) they would still shoot for the top 20% irregardless.

It's possible that the introduction of social media has hyper-charged hypergamy, where-as before it was a small effect, now is a much larger one.

It's possible that the drop in T and obesity have lead to most males being less desirable, and so have made the few healthy ones more in demand.

It's possible that makeup, social media, filters, etc... have artificially inflated woman's perceived SMV, and hence they are shooting higher than they otherwise would.

It's possible that hormonal birth control has changed female attraction (MHC profile, or similar).

It's possible that with greater financial freedom that physical factors play a much larger role.

I imagine some combination of the above... But how much each factor plays a role, IMO, has yet to be determined.

aesthetician- · 2021-02-07T18:48:18+00:00

This is like saying if all men suddenly grew up 5 inches there would be no more height issues dating. Well, 150 years ago the average height in netherlands was 5'5 for example, do you think the average 20 year old woman were looking up for 6 footers? The standarts are not set in stone, it is about normal distribution and percentiles.

RRBeachFG2 · 2021-02-07T18:50:15+00:00

If all men were equally beautiful women would still organize and rate them, just on something like personality.

angels-fan · 2021-02-07T20:30:19+00:00

You're saying that if we make something unnatural, the natural distribution of the Pareto principle would no longer apply? This makes no sense.

If the average man was good looking, then she'd still want a VERY good looking top 20% man. Why? Because now, the average man is good looking, and she believes she is well above the average man.

The Pareto Principle will work no matter how attractive men are, or what the distribution of attractive men is.

passepar2t · 2021-02-07T16:19:23+00:00

women's lizard brain would see a beautiful man and think, "that man is beautiful". They aren't going to think "he's not as beautiful as the top 20% of men, therefore he is invisible to me".

Are you sure? That's the male lizard brain you've described. Women are wired up a bit differently.

Ask_For_Cock_Pics · 2021-02-07T19:28:49+00:00

Hierarchy will always exist, that's why humanity has already come this far.

Imagine going back in time and saying this exact thing to a caveman.

Beauty is, like most descriptive words, relative. If everyone were beautiful, nobody would be beautiful except those who were the most beautiful.

THdz101 · 2021-02-07T16:50:08+00:00

The 20% rule is just about looks it’s also about SMV.

stingfucksuplol · 2021-02-07T17:00:00+00:00

Height

diraclikesmath · 2021-02-07T17:11:43+00:00

There are natural monopolies in free markets. Traditional conservatives exist to frustrate libertarians and their meat market fantasies with regulation

GunnzzNRoses · 2021-02-07T18:48:59+00:00

Women only see appeal for a one night stand in 20% of men. For anything of a meaningful capacity, it's more of a looksmatch thing

Guapscotch · 2021-02-07T18:55:43+00:00

I think hypergamy will always have its place. And this isn’t a realistic scenario, it would be like also saying one day every human woke up attractive and there would be no need to pick based on appearance. Yet there would still be people not getting any action, guaranteed. Scarcity principle would find its way to function anyhow. I don’t think this is a good argument to bring up anyway because it is beyond the scope of reality.

Notsonewguy7 · 2021-02-07T22:14:14+00:00

It would just default to innate hierarchies:

is the class you're born top or garbage
is the race / ethnicity viewed positively or badly.

desbest · 2021-02-08T00:03:31+00:00

I think you're wrong, because you have failed to consider that women tend to be more flexible than men in regards to changing their standards. When a man relies on looks on choosing women, he judges each woman on its own merits. But women don't judge men entirely on their own merits. Women's standards fluctuate unlike men's. Women tend to have gain lower or higher standards based on environmental factors. And I'm talking about staying in the same country.

Women do not judge a man's attractiveness solely on his merits. Only men do that. Women compare men to other men, and women change their standards according to their environment. This answer assumes that men and women aren't settling, to simplify the factors.

A man who is unsuccessful on one dating website, can gain success in another dating website. A man who is unsuccessful in one social environment (like work, school, church), can be successful in another social environment. Men know (from personal experience and their male peers) that a change of environment within the same country, can make them more or less successful with women. There are secret societies that men join because they know it'll increase their chances of getting women.

For women, this concept doesn't exist, because if a woman is attractive to men, her success with men doesn't increase or decrease depending on where she goes. Women being tradthots like Lauren Southern and Tara McCarthy, or female twitch streamers playing video games wearing make up and cleavage to appeal to a nerdy and socially awkward male audience doesn't count.

As only women's standards fluctuate depending on her environment, it would continue to do so even if all men were made more attractive within the top 20% range. Women will still be using their environment as a factor to deem which men is attractive, with their standards fluctuating depending on what place they're in. So I can guarantee that women would still compare men to other men and want the top 20% of the top 20% if everyone was at top 20% standards.

StrugglingRando · 2021-02-08T02:01:54+00:00

My theory is Female lizard brains would adjust to the influx of male beauty and seek out the cream of the crop. Women’s pickiness appears to be nature not nurture.

SaBahRub · 2021-02-07T18:09:50+00:00

Can you improve all their personalities (or incomes, status, what have you)?

If not, then no

I’m not going to yoke myself to an asshole, sociopath, criminal, bum or man child, no matter how hot he is

mtorres266 · 2021-02-07T17:53:12+00:00

So if all men were attractive women would find all of them attractive?

did you need a PhD to figure that one out Mr. Einstein?

M4sterDis4ster · 2021-02-07T18:16:55+00:00

Gauss is persistent indicator of what is average and what is not. If we are same at X, it does not mean there are not other variables of classification.

You would always get 20% of men best and 80% not so best.

AngelWeyesDelRey · 2021-02-07T17:21:16+00:00

You would be correct.

angels-fan · 2021-02-07T18:27:46+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Alfredaux · 2021-02-07T19:06:52+00:00

The Pareto principle is misapplied to dating/mating in humans. There’s really no reason to believe that it applies.
If the Pareto principle did apply to human dating/matin (which it doesn’t), you’d be wrong. You’re assuming that there is a purely objective measure of attractiveness and ignoring the social factors. IF the principle applied in this context, then it would stay the same 80/20 regardless as to how much everyone increases their “attractiveness”. That is how the principle works, it’s about the relative top 20%.

wtknight · 2021-02-07T19:14:03+00:00

The Pareto Principle would seemingly be in effect for anything in which choosiness is involved, I would think. If every man were attractive, than women would still distinguish between the top 20% who have the more attractive qualities compared to the bottom 80% who do not have these qualities. Thus, I disagree with OP's view.

Now, if every man were roughly identical, then obviously there would not be a way to distinguish the men, and the Pareto Principle would not hold. Also, in a world where every man is potentially attractive, but in a different way, then more than 20% of men would still benefit, as not every woman is going to find the same 20% of men attractive. In fact, it's likely that every man would find a niche of women who would like him, but still, not every woman is going to be attracted to every man, as women will still be choosy.

In fact, this is probably how reality is now, somewhat. Most men find a woman who is attracted to the good qualities that he does have and who doesn't mind his less attractive qualities, and hence, she is still fairly attracted to him. In a situation like casual sex, the fact that many men are not extraordinarily attractive to women comes more to light, because women who are looking for casual sex can afford to be very choosy. Women who are looking for monogamous relationships cannot be as picky, as the supply of available men is more limited since women cannot share men like they might do with casual sex, and hence more men's attractiveness meets the standards that they set. Thus, we don't have a society in which only 20% of men are able to have sex with women in those men's lifetimes.

blueshirt_8005 · 2021-02-07T19:52:37+00:00

Average US male height is around 5'9. Average female height around 5'5. Lets say female height remains the same. But now every man is 6'1 tall at the minimum. 20% of men are 6'1. 20% of men are 6'2. 20% of men are 6'3. Another 20% of men are 6'4. And the final 20% is 6'5. Is there still a preference for height? The shortest man in this scenario is now seven inches taller than the average woman.

Caring_Cactus · 2021-02-07T20:27:28+00:00

I don't think anyone uses hardcore science/principles like pareto principle when looking for a partner. This conversation is kind of moot point

HODL_monk · 2021-02-07T21:14:17+00:00

This theory reminds me of some anime's where every woman has exactly the same figure (very busty), and the dialog tries to convince us that this woman is massively feeling inferior in looks to another woman, but the animation makes this comparison absurd (Misaki Chronicles is the most guilty of this in anime, the models are laughably similar among all main women characters). Clearly the dating scene would be much more challenging with identical male good looks, some other measure would have to be used beyond looks, because its awkward in our society to date multiple men, or choose at random. Personality differences between men are huge, so you would just have to have conversations, and then the 80/20 could be reestablished.

Emberily123 · 2021-02-07T21:21:23+00:00

I don’t think the 80/20 rule is really a thing. Women have a lot more men to choose from while men have fewer women to choose from so the women chooses the best man she can get even if that man is part of the 80% and honestly if it was the other way around men would do the same.

Hoopy223 · 2021-02-07T23:13:57+00:00

People would still find things “ugly”. If it wasn’t height it would be voice or the color of your shoes or whateverthefuck.

willwa2103 · 2021-02-07T23:22:07+00:00

I disagree with you OP. Because women don’t view attractiveness the same way men view it. I think when people are talking about top 20% when it comes to men, they refer to men who not only have good looks, but are also very successful financially speaking. So even if all the men were suddenly very attractive today, if there’s only 20% of those men who earn the kind of money women really look for in a man, they will still go after the top 20% regardless. That’s my perspective on this. Anyone feel free to disagree and let me know your perspectives.

fndo84 · 2021-02-07T23:39:24+00:00

That specific generation of woman will find that specific generation of men attractive since it will be a sudden change that meet their standards. But since that hypothetical sudden change only occurred to men and not to woman, the next generation of men will be a genetic mix of previous all-attractive men generation and the regular distribution of female attractiveness. The result will be a new distribution of attractiveness since the mix of attractive men and attractive women should result in attractive individuals, but the mix of attractive men and and not-attractive women should result in less attractive individuals. In short, next generation will have a new baseline presumably higher in attractiveness than previous, but with a new regular distribution that following known concepts of natural selection should result in the same scenario of female selectiveness we know today.

2021-02-07T23:39:32+00:00

I remember reading somewhere that there was a study done with women in a society of ...Polynesians? ... that tracked rates of subjective well-being and self-beauty assessment both prior to and years after post-WWII American influence.

iirc, before American beauty standards were introduced, very few women reported anxiety about their bodies and facial looks, whereas after they showed a significantly different outlook.

CrabBucketSecurity · 2021-02-08T03:21:21+00:00

Yet another total nonsense post

Auzaro · 2021-02-08T03:23:23+00:00

Sexual selection and evolution is all based on relative fitness, not absolute. Simple as that.

LooseIndication · 2021-02-08T21:07:16+00:00

No. A higher percentage of men would be attractive, but there still be choice and selection.

And male attractiveness goes far beyond physical beauty.

Lameador · 2021-02-09T05:39:03+00:00

Since “attractive man” is strongly tied to social status/dominance, your questions makes no sense . Most women are attracted to 6ft men, yet being 6ft tall in the Netherlands means women will NOT find you particularly attractive based on your height

DP8414 · 2021-02-07T16:48:57+00:00

So imagine every man on planet earth is fit and muscular, has a full head of hair, good jawline, proportionate facial features, all that stuff. Women would find something else to distinguish men (probably height or eye shape). The pyramid would reset itself, with the “new” bottom 80% being universally more attractive then the previous 20%, but still in the same boat of pain as the old 80% that was filled with overweight, badly dressed men.

Female nature doesn’t change, which is why we should submit to it instead of fighting it in vain.

angels-fan · 2021-02-07T16:34:45+00:00

That's not how hypergamy works.

Why are average western men more desirable in 2nd / 3rd world countries? because their LMS is way higher than local men's...

rosephase · 2021-02-07T16:19:19+00:00

I’m only attracted to 0.05 of men or even less. And it has very little to do with how they look. So no, changing all men into Chads wouldn’t change what percentage of men I find attractive. Because I’m attracted to men for who they are, how they act in the world and how they think.

flapperfemmefatale · 2021-02-07T16:46:37+00:00

Woman here. I totally agree. I don't judge someone's attractiveness by what other men look like.

alialahmad1997 · 2021-02-07T16:30:29+00:00

That is just wrong, there is something called conditioning, plus you adjust your standard to what you see

you cant mesure women attractiveness vs men objectively, because its not on the same axis. what an attractive man is what attrckt you the most among the sample and your mind condition this to be the attractive feature.

its like the iq test the avrrage is aalways 100 even if people got smarter because the new 100 will become the old 120 for example

pongaminbloom · 2021-02-07T18:58:43+00:00

For me, comparison doesn't factor into my attractiveness judgements at all. I'm not more attracted to someone with a perfect face and body than someone who simply meets my benchmarks:

My general preferences are (1) He can't be shorter than me if he is skinny or average. Only, fit bulky guys can be shorter without losing points, (2) He can't be morbidly obese, (3) He needs a sufficiently active lifestyle to maintain decent muscle tone. The amount required is inversely related to fat. The more fat he has, the more muscle he needs to avoid being a droopy blob, (4) I must like how he smells, (5) His head needs to be the same size or larger than mine, (6) He can't have old-person hair, (7) If he has a beard, it needs to be skillfully trimmed and well cared for, (8) If he has male pattern baldness or extremely thin hair, he needs to shave it all off, (9) If hes bald he needs a beard, (10) He needs to dress well, (11) His hygiene needs to be perfect.

I think at least 50 percent of men could be attractive if they wanted to, but they would rather make women feel guilty for not being attracted to them. They don't understand that it isn't our choice.

Sultmaker_9000 · 2021-02-07T19:54:24+00:00

Id swap being a 10 looks to being 5 average for 10 game, rather than 10 looks and 5 game. Anyone who's spent enough time running game seriously can verify that.

YouSaidChicken · 2021-02-07T16:38:42+00:00

Well then you have to add billionaires instead of just millionaires.

Women may want 250,000 traits to make them happy, but they'll have to settle for 20.

If everyone has 20 then they'll have to settle for 50, and so on.

It used to be women might be happy with a hard working man, but one with more hair they like more. Then the one with a white collar job, then one who had inherited wealth and a summer home upstate, then takes her to 5 star resorts around the world all year long, and then, and then.

It never ends.

Really. Don't overlook women's shallowness, greed, and desire for the top, and why do they? Because they don't particular want men.

Look at just how many women threw of trad con shackles as fast as possible. A loving husband and family? Abuse. Not working in a cubicle for 40 years? Slavery. Embracing femininity or domesticity? Oppression. Being financially provided for by a husband? subjugation.

Women obviously had zero interest in that, or you'd still see it happening. But women simply don't want those things. Oh sure, a handful may, and they'll certainly marry up just as much as always because they barely respect men in the first place and they sure as hell don't like them lower on the totem pole, but this just makes women more and more shallow in their selectivity.

They are supposed to be biologically selective, which is why women barely have sex drives. It would interfere with that. They have many many shallow traits they desire, because the "men" on the side doesn't really matter that much, as they're pretty much the same, so go for all the standard shallow things you can get.

This isn't even a bad thing. But every man should be aware of it.

tulip_problems · 2021-02-07T19:47:09+00:00

Women are not as shallow as men say they are. The reason you’re “unattractive” is because you think you are and it makes you a dick.

I’ve been told I’m pretty and I always date dudes that aren’t very attractive. I think they’re very handsome. They’re nice and they’re funny. It’s personality.

Dudes who everyone I know think are attractive are assholes. Because they get whatever they want, when they want it. And they believe that they’re superior to other males because they have the best most colorful feathers. But we aren’t birds, women don’t give a fuck, if you’re not cool to be around, then you’re not. Attractive or unattractive.

Same with dudes, the “she’s hot enough to fuck, but not hot enough to actually be around.” I’ve heard that a thousand times.

SeemedGood · 2021-02-07T16:16:54+00:00

Women are sexually attracted to power (read as position on a dominance hierarchy).

GrandRub · 2021-02-07T16:20:08+00:00

if everyone would be attractive .. no one would be attractive.

2021-02-08T01:17:07+00:00

the 80/20 rule is dumb :)

peachycreaam · 2021-02-08T01:25:34+00:00

why are males on this sub so dense?

Most women don’t care about having the hottest man on their arm at all. Most women who are average and below average looking can’t even get near a “CHaD” and they are self aware enough to know this unlike men with Stacies.

The hottest women don’t care about having a male model partner either. 99% would rather an ugly guy who “is good to them” and puts them on a pedestal. We aren’t men.

TheOffice_Account · 2021-02-07T18:56:49+00:00

The pareto principle states that only 20% of men are born attractive

Bullshit. Please, give your source.

angels-fan · 2021-02-07T21:13:26+00:00

I am over the whole "80% of women go after 20% of men" bullshit. No, 80% of women MOST men aim for because they're ridiculously pretty, well put together, and mentally stable aim for 20% of all men. Hot looks for hot. That's it. If you want a smoke show of a girl with a lot to offer in terms of intelligence and income potential, you need to make sure that you're the type of guy a girl like that is going to want.

20% of men realized that dressing well and having a developed sense of personal style, smelling good, being fun and interesting and actually giving a shit about their physical appearance is attractive to women who *gasp* do the fucking same. I wish most men understood how a lot of the guys women consider "hot" aren't that good looking in the first place. Sure, you have your guys that are born naturally good looking, but there are a lot of technically physically attractive guys that aren't sexually attractive for a variety of reasons.

I think a lot of boils down to men assuming that women view attractiveness on the same level as men. Men place a lot of focus on women's physical appearances and think it's the same for women. What men think is physically attractive in men is also very different from what women find physically attractive. What most men also consider putting in work into their personal style is laughable in comparison to the type of work the women they seek go after.

While physical appearance does matter to women (especially very hot women!), it's more a matter of whether or not we find you attractive as a whole. It just means that your physical attractiveness is taken into consideration amongst a number of other factors, but it generally sits lower on importance than it does for men. Some women will value physical attraction a lot more than other qualities, but I am generalizing here. And since I am generalizing, while a lot of men will also value things like intelligence, humor, creativity and talent in a woman, those qualities come in secondary to her sexual attractiveness. A man will not find a woman attractive exclusively for her intelligence, for example, but there are many women who will find a man attractive for his intelligence.

I think that women as a whole are just a lot more flexible about what we find attractive in men, as well as placing a lot more importance on non-physical traits such as intelligence, creativity, talent, and financial stability.

L0SERlambda · 2021-02-08T00:49:52+00:00

Attractive.. but to who? Attractiveness is purely subjective. There's no fact to it.

AutoModerator · 2021-02-07T16:12:50+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator · 2021-02-07T16:12:50+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a CMV. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to have your view challenged may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Asking few or no genuine questions;

Seeming more interested in arguing or convincing others than understanding opposing views;

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Explicit statements of an intent to change the other posters’ minds; or

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to CMV OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2021-02-08T03:29:44+00:00

Agreed. Kellan Hartmann would still be hot if all men were suddenly super-hot tomorrow.

Feminsmkildredtt · 2021-02-08T04:28:33+00:00

The more alpha widows in our society, the more the inflation with male looks

2021-02-08T04:30:35+00:00

I think this is somewhat true. Something like 70+% of men in America are overweight, so no wonder they’re not attractive. Whenever I see pictures of guys from the 50’s, they all look pretty handsome, and it’s just because they were much leaner and thus had more well defined and less bloated faces. I’m sure women would still seek out the top men, if every man suddenly became lean and at least decently attractive, but I think the average guy would still have an easier time with women.

Also, about the same percentage of women are overweight as men, so most women can easily be above average in looks just by being a healthy weight.

loucos3 · 2021-02-08T05:05:18+00:00

You should just stop using math for the day. You only know enough to make a mess, but not enough to clean it up.

Myagooshki4004 · 2021-02-08T05:25:48+00:00

Absolutely. "Hypergamy" is more in full swing today because there's more gammas than there was 40 years ago, and so now women don't know what men to trust. When most men become at least betas in a 7 tiered sociosexual hierarchy, that's when you'll start to see things get much easier for humanity. Hierarchies will flatten, people will be very connected, etc

Flightlessbirbz · 2021-02-08T21:23:45+00:00

Agree and disagree. I think part of the reason women don’t find a lot of men very attractive has to do with the fact that men just are less attractive on average because they don’t have to be. Evolution favors prettier women but not so for men, apparently. Men also tend to put in less effort. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-29/evolution-makes-women-more-attractive/1371676

If all men were to level up magically, it’s likely we’d see a more even bell curve of ratings. However, beauty is always relative. We can see this for women since the popularity of cosmetic surgery has exploded. Standards have gone up. They’d go up for men too.

LowCreddit · 2021-02-08T22:14:54+00:00

No. If you live near a military base, which is filled with young, fit, and confident men, the standards go up. I knew several men who would get tackled and dragged back to apartments by women in one city who wouldn't even get a second look in another.

The 20% is rooted in the number of women who are fertile and available at the time. Women's sex drive isn't constant like a man's. They go through sex drive cycles that coincide with their menstruation cycles.

ThrowawayCOVID999 · 2021-02-09T06:27:18+00:00

I think so but then they might start looking for only the wealthiest men and wealth is a lot less attainable than looks.

Jake-Mueller · 2021-02-10T06:40:01+00:00

Then other attributes would start to matter - money, personality, etc

bionix90 · 2021-02-11T03:00:48+00:00

Nature does not accept disruption to the status quo. If all men suddenly became conventionally attractive, then some obscure characteristic that only a select few posess will become the new standard for beauty. If 10% of men had heterochromia, that would be the next hot thing. Or facial beauty marks. Something that sets you apart.

fad94 · 2021-02-11T11:04:44+00:00

Unless we were all clones then people would just judge by even more specific standards and sort out the "best" ones....but tbh I think that principle is bullshit.

Bruhmuh · 2021-02-12T19:05:45+00:00

Yes they would find all men equally attractive. However, if apart from looks the characters of men do not become the same, then the dominance hierarchy continues to exist. So women will only select the top 20% of attractive men.

Persianx6 · 2021-02-15T21:37:34+00:00

This is not how attraction works, actually what happens is that, for women to find the mate of their desires they simply push for something marginal to become the attractive feature. As in, if everyone made more money the attention would still be placed on the 1% of whatever the 1% suddenly looks like.

This doesn't mean that average people can't find eachother in fulfilling relationships.

Title	CMV: If all men were suddenly attractive, women would find all men attractive and not just the top 20%
Author	angels-fan
Upvotes	79
Comments	458
Date	February 7, 2021 4:12 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/lepe17/cmv_if_all_men_were_suddenly_attractive_women/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/cmv-if-all-men-were-suddenly-attractive-women.1192646 https://theredarchive.com/post/1192646