Blog reader “Haselnuss” left an interesting comment on the recent Open Thread. It’s about women who, despite being OK-ish looking, can’t get a guy to date them. My first response was to ask about socioeconomic status. But there is of course another point to it. He wrote:
I know several 20 y/o women. All of which are single but not by choice for some time now. They aren’t top tier but in the upper 20 – 30 % looks-wise. They aren’t fat, they are thin. They have pleasant personalities as far as 20 y/o can have that. They aren’t sluts. They aren’t prudes. They come in contact with men and fancy some of them – no, those aren’t the “uber alphas”. But all these men are ready to give is casual sex/hookups. Deal breakers from the women’s side are the usual ones (ugly, small, no money at all, [“refugee”] etc.). My standard analysis would be that there is something wrong with them. But I can’t find it. Anyone an idea?
I thought of that comment again when I was browsing tech news today, reading up on some startup that was funded by a guy ten years younger than me who is worth several hundreds of million dollars. See, the issue is that we tend to compare ourselves to those who are doing a lot better than we are. When I look at my life objectively, I think I’m doing fine. This is probably true for a lot of you guys, too. Yet, when we look around, we tend to focus on outliers. Maybe you read up on an app you’re using, and learn that the company behind it is run by some 20 year-old who became a multimillionaire at the age you graduated from high school.
However, let’s be real here: Look at the average Joe and compare yourself to him. For a reality check, consider that nearly 70% of Americans have savings of less than $1,000. Since “Haselnuss” is, presumably, living in Germany, we can look at those numbers, too: If you have more than 50,000 Euros in the bank, you are in the top 10%! What follows from that is that if you have a stable job and sock away at least a bit of your income for a few years, you’re already ahead of 90% of the competition in terms of money.
But let’s go back to the ladies in the comment quoted above: Easily half of women aren’t attractive at all. In my estimation, less than 10% of women are attractive. Top 30% means kind of okay-looking, but you’d not rub one out thinking about them. In other words, they are nothing special. What could be wrong with them? Why can’t they get a decent guy to date them? After thinking about this for a little bit, and with the information above in mind, it’s quite easy to figure this out. They want someone who looks good (top 20 %), he shouldn’t be poor (top 10 %), and he shouldn’t be short either (top 10 %). For simplicity, let’s assume that all those variables are independent. So, for a guy who is decent-looking, not poor, and not short, the number is: 0.2 * 0.1 * 0.1 = 0.002 = 0.2 %. As a guy, the first thing you notice is whether she is attractive. If she is not attractive, you don’t care how great her personality is. The inverse is not true because an attractive woman does not necessarily get away with being a bitch.
Now think again: does it make sense that a “top 30%” woman should get a top 0.2 % guy? Of course not! If you have options, you’ll make use of them. You don’t settle for a girl who just so happened that she isn’t ugly. There are so many of them around that she won’t stand out in any way. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that the few quality guys they come across, i.e. guys who are neither ugly, nor poor, nor short, at best want to fuck them and move on. They would be stupid to settle down with them. They wouldn’t work for an employer that pays them a quarter of their market rate either.