Why Women Gladly Date Ugly Men (And Probably Even Prefer Them)
It's a pretty well known fact that most women - attractive women - will happily date ugly men. We see it on TV -- in shows like King of Queens, though I would probably argue that Kevin James is kind of a stud, and really, that's exactly the point I plan on making-- and we see it in our friends.
There are plenty of studies on this strangely anti-Darwinian phenomenon - studies which I think don't answer the question as well as I, with my oh-so-steadfast opinions, can, do, and will.
So let's talk about this. Let's talk about what exactly is wrong with these conventionally attractive men, and let's talk about what is right about these, well, conventionally un-attractive men.
Anecdotal evidence aside, I know for a fact that I don't find "hot" men attractive.* Let me clarify - I find them pleasing to the eye, and every so often quite tempting, but I don't find myself actually attracted to them. And here I have to admit that I am undoubtedly judging their books by their covers, but I have yet to find the exception to the rule.
To explain: These high-school hotties are used to having the sort of unadulterated, fawning adoration that the symmetrically blessed always get in high-school, but the problem is that it doesn't do them any good. In fact, it's fair to say that it categorically does them harm.
They're trained from a young age to be (often) unjustifiably self-assured, to eschew personality and affability for cocksure confidence, and to generally treat people like the feudal system is alive and kickin'.
Am I making a sweeping generalization? No doubt. Can the same argument be used against women? Sometimes. But I find that women are much more inclined to date with their emotions - to pick a man that is funny, comforting, kind, and generous - and they'll often pick one or all of those traits over his looks.
I also have a little (and relatively untested) theory. I believe that women tend to come into themselves -- appearance-wise -- much later in school than men. And because of this I think women tend to retain some memory of what it means to be liked (or disliked) for who one is, not how one looks.
The bottom line: Ask any woman who she'd rather have as her boyfriend -- the lovably awkward Albert Brennaman (aka Kevin James -- told you he was the crux of the arugment) from Hitch, or Hugh Grant's wholly irredeemable Daniel Cleaver from Bridget Jones' Diary?
So -- let's start here. Which one would you pick? Did I just set womankind back a generation? Or do you wholly agree? Please share. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
[Disclaimer: This post should in no way indicate that my boyfriend is ugly and/or unattractive. In fact, I find him rather dashing.]
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
V erena, please give up Darwinism to honor the dead in Iraq.
TrueD, Please give it a rest, stay on subject and get a life.
Um , because they take pity on us?
There was a study that showed that women who were more fertile, either because of their monthly cycle or because of their optimal age, were strongly attracted to handsome bad boys. But women who were at the nadir of their monthly cycles or who were more mature, went for more stable, financially better off, perhaps "frog like", men. This makes reproductive sense: More fertile women are more likely to become pregnant. So such women want the best genes for their babies, which is true for all species. Then the "handsome bad boy" obligingly get himself killed ( ex: JFK ! ) This frees the woman to seek out the more stable, wealthier, more "frog like" male to raise the "handsome bad boy's" genetically superior offspring in a more secure environment. ( for example : Onassis ! ) Does this make sense to you or not ?
I might add that this is probably totally unconscious on the part of the woman. She is not really so conniving; she goes for the uglier male, not because she perceives a financial advantage. On the contrary, she really and truly is attracted to the uglier, but more stable, male.
I feel like Joyce Brother spouting out like this, but, in a related point, woman don't marry wealthy men for their money. They are not necessarily gold-diggers. But wealth makes the man, himself, attractive to a woman.
John, the stable frog.
You are neglecting the part where women also have children with the stable frog-like male (not able to use Jackie-O as an example here) thus perpetuating the existence of stable, ugly males. You are also neglecting to illustrate how "handsome bad boys" are genetically superior..
Sorry. I can't give you the study name. I read about it some time ago. But the whole point is that women's choices in mates depend on their fertility levels.
What you're saying Seablood has some accuracy to it. And it proves women remain attracted to good looking men, because they're biologically wired to do so. Look, evolution has long ago determined the physical makeup of men. Women only have to be physically able to bear and rear children, period. But men need to be able to 1) fight off other males 2) be attractive to the female. THAT is why we have males in the species who have broad shoulders, are strong, have big penises, are masculine, etc.....it is what the females have chosen to mate with, as well as the type of male able to fend off competition.
Not really.
Take the JFK example. The Bad Boy offspring raised by the more secure man (not incidentally, I would consider Onassis a bad boy; just an old bad boy), is not "genetically superior" if he doesn't produce grandchildren.
Bad boys are a so-so bet, genetically. You have to have a lot more Bad Boy children to ensure survival into the next generation.
Again, the Kennedys. They obviously have a marked characteristic for risk-taking behavior (drugs, planes, car accidents, skiing, running for president etc.) that has BOTH enhanced the family's survivability (i.e. Joe's fortune, Jack's trophy wife), but has had a high cost in terms of early death. Especially of the boys. It's not really a "Kennedy Curse", it's more like a disposition for risk.
I think there are lots of young women who go for stable men. I, for instance, had a Bad Boy dad. And a Bad Boy mom. They were hot, hot, hot. Risk-takers, both of them, and dad was movie-star handsome. Mom was average, but had knockout intelligence and an interesting racial mix.
When it came time for me to mate, I chose a nice boring guy who is the world's BEST father. We're not a couple, but in the genetic lottery, we both know we scored, and so did our son!
I see men who are extremely attractive usually don't have the great personalities to go along with the great looks. They seem to take advantage of others because society has set this tone that the beautiful people have it all together, thus they are allowed to treat people any way they want - because people have given them the invisible honory right to accept that lousy behavior because they are so beautiful.
While those are not so attractive, have to work harder and actually take the time out to develop their personalities to become full not as dysfunctional people. They still have their hang ups and issues, but they tend to deal with them better I would think.
But what I've found is that those considerably attractive people are lost souls because 1. looks are superficial 2. looks don't last.....s
Men want a woman who is sexy and attractive - dig the middle aged and old geezers who marry girls old enoug to be their daughters and grand-daughters. Gotta have bucks, though.
And, women want a man with the money, honey. Simple as that, and always has been. Looks have nothing to do with it.
"And, women want a man with the money"
The prostitutes are simply more honest about what they are doing than other women.
A woman with money is always attractive, just like a man. You may be a lifelong alcoholic or dysfunctionally neurotic, but owning a nice piece of property and anticipating a substantial family inheritance will supply you with plenty of attentive nurturing males out there who just can't wait to move in with you and make it permanent. I've seen that situation more times than I can count.
wow! how shalllow.
I think there is a perfectly good Darwinian explanation for this:
There is the exciting quick f*ck and there is the faithful (but boring) provider for the family. You need to know what you are looking-for and not get the short and long-term options confused.
There is a calypso song which goes something like:
"If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never take a pretty woman for wife
As for my personal point-of-view
get an ugly girl to marry you".
Change the gender and it still works. Folk wisdom.
Anyone know the title of the song?
I'm not sure of the title, but the artist is one hit wonder Jimmy Soul.
"If you wanna be happy"
If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life never make a pretty woman your wife
So from my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you
A pretty woman makes her husband look small and very often causes his downfall
As soon as he marries her then she starts to do the things that will break his heart
But if you make an ugly woman your wife, you'll be happy for the rest of your life
An ugly woman cooks meals on time, she'll always give peace of mind
If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life never make a pretty woman your wife
So from my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you
Don't let your friends say you have no taste, go ahead and marry anyway
Though her face is ugly and her eyes don't match, take it from me, she's a better catch
If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life never make a pretty woman your wife
So from my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you
"Say man ! I saw your wife the other day.......
"Yeah but she sho' can cook"
If you wanna be happy.....
Jimmy Soul (James McCleese) 1962
eyendall: Money?
People who have money will always find whores, male or female.
Money always makes people more attractive, at least in the eyes of some.
HuffPost's Pick
Number one, there are no ugly people. It is what lies beneath the exterior that is important. Looks fade, change, but intelligence, personality, morals, ethics, values don't. That goes for women and men. It is society that has decided what is beautiful and what isn't. It is brain washing at it worst. Now, unless you are a victoria's secrets model, or joe GQ, nobody is considered valuable unless they meet those impossible standards of beauty. The man I fell in love with doesn't meet those standards. Does it bother me? Hell No. The man I fell in love with most women wouldn't give a second look to. But when I see him, I see a beautiful soul, a kind man, funny, emotionally generous, sexy, loving, strong, intelligent, confident, successful and very talented in and out of the bedroom. I have been approached and dated men from all walks of life, looks, wealth and fame. None of that compares to the man I am with, will marry. The others might have had the fancy cars, money, fame, looks, but I couldn't talk to them, which says a lot. They treated women like toys. My man treats me like a lady, his lady and that is good enough for me.
Good post, except I'd like to point out that beauty is in fact defined by a mathematical formula known as the golden ratio, not by society. Check it out.
http://en.
Wow , this is a completely brain dead response . Actually, mature people get over whatever they were "programmed" to find attractive by the mass media and look for things that they find appealing. I know lots of women who like the odd , non-perfect features of say Owen Wilson's nose or other distinct features as opposed to some proscribed mathematical formula.
"good enough" says a lot.
" My man treats me like a lady, his lady , and that is good enough for me". What happens when he quits treating you like a lady? What is left?
I'm a guy that is well above average in most areas including looks. I am with a woman who while at her youthful peak was gorgeous and now post baby is absolutely gorgeous, however not so much to the average person. She now has a womans body, a little extra weight, but even hotter to me
.
Women throw themselves at me. Its been that way most of my life. My lady laughs it off mostly, she knows that in reality our family is where my heart is. She only becomes concerned when women who look like her pre-baby come around, and that is because she believes that they are trying to get at the DNA. She is quick to say, "that chick just wants a baby". It always makes me laugh.Who knows...Ma
Anyway, I'm sure some will say I'm bragging, but there is some truth to the man who is a 9 with a woman who is a 7 will not work out. My first wife was a 12 to me, but her own self esteem put her at a 7 when she compared the relative attractiveness between us. Very strange to say the least.
We broke up and she ended up with a short bald guy, who loves her dearly and feels like he won the lottery. She walks all over him and its kinda embarrassing the way she treats him but they are happy.
An age distinction really needs to be made here. I believe the majority of women under the age of 25 or so, if given the option, will date the good looking, high-status, "exciting" guy. Eventually she becomes smarter and more secure in herself (and tired of jerks) and will be drawn to guys who are nicer and more compatible with her, and looks and status and will become far less important. I've seen this change in most of the women I've grown up with. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. I also know women in their 40's and 50's who are still drawn to "bad boys." Sad.
I've been wondering about this ever since Paulina Porizkova married Rick O'Casek.
I could not date a man I find unattractive. And I find overweight men, such as Kevin James, unattractive.
Most people here should look at the research study that Verena is mentioning in the first place. It does not so much say that ugly men end up with good looking women but rather that when women date below their attractiveness level they tend to get a better relationship (for them). By better the study talks about the man feeling obligated (since he feels lucky to have done as well as he did, better then he deserves in his mind) while the woman feels adored and secure since she doesn't have to fight off other women for the mans affection.
There are plenty of women who opt for men at and equal level or even at a higher level of attractiveness then they are, those relationships just seem to go awry more often. This is largely because men tend to be maximizers while women tend to be pragmatic. A woman can just be happy to find someone who appreciates her even if he isn't the best guy she could possibly get (or even close). A man on the other hand ends up spending a lot of his time worrying about whether he could have done better/can do better if he doesn't end up with someone he believes is his personal maximum. This leads to criticism, cheating and in the end unhappiness. A male 7 with a female 9 is sustainable, a female 7 with a male 9 is usually not.
This is absolutely spot on. The main difference though is in what the guy is looking for in terms of his "9". Some guys want looks, others want intelligence or athleticism and a friend of mine wanted height. As soon as a guy finds the woman that is beyond his reach ( maximization as you say ) for whatever he is looking for , then said male is generally good at settling down with that woman. Otherwise, I think men will continue looking.
"Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street"--Joe Jackson
Oh, so that explains it. Actually, I sort of figured this out in high school. If you are respectful to women AND can make them laugh, they will be more inclined to find out who you really are and if you are not a jerk, they may even like you.
It's funny that Joe Jackson would sing that. He's a great musician, but he's not really good looking. According to this article, he should be swimming in beautiful women (I don't know if he's married or not).
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
