[jseban]

> Courage, getting out there, skill, practice, being fun to be around, are skills people value much more than looks.

I don't think this is universally true, I bet it works in a lot of cases, but the opposite is often true as well. Try too hard and you look desperate. And looks will always win past a certain level, if you are johnny depp level attractive, you will always get the girls over some average looking guy who is working his ass off.

I bet the same goes for money as well past a certain level.

[Arkhaine_kupo]

> I don't think this is universally true

You can easily google it. Women rate looks as the 4th most important attribute in dating. as always, its an average, there are some vain people who only care about looks. They are by no means common or enough to make 95% of men undateable.

> And looks will always win past a certain level

pretty people who are single say the same thing about people with money. People with money say this about younger people. Turns out its never their fault, and its just something unattainble someone else has.

I guess blaming women is easier than working on yourself but that doesn't make it true.

[cromd]

I think you and those responding to you are saying many valid things, but there are ambiguities still. Does "dating" mean "late-stage worried-about-dying-alone parents-nagging-me dating"? Or does it mean "screw around and go where the wind takes me?". Is the context online or offline?

I think "looks win" accurately describes the way many women select men online for many of their dating years, but it can't continue forever. The "20% of the men get 80% of the women" works in short term dating, but it won't work out for more permanent relationships. From 100 men and 100 women, 20 men would pair with 20 women, and you have 80 men and 80 women left over. So they start to change preferences as they get older. And women know that a man can have a trait that's useless in the bedroom but very useful when raising a child.

It's also hard to say what "4th most important" means. Maybe looks are the 4th most important thing, given that the man is, at a minimum, in the top X%. But what's the formula? There are nonlinearities also, i.e. you can't always compensate. Having a million dollars and being 5.5 feet tall is better than having a billion dollars and being 4.5 feet tall, I'd predict. Something can be low-importance, but just about anything can be a dealbreaker.

I think you're correct in saying the gender inequity isn't so terrible at the end of the day. I predict if you surveyed both genders about whether they get what they really want out of online dating, they'd largely say no. Yes, the average woman has lots of options on Tinder, but that doesn't mean the average woman enjoys using Tinder much. Men think women have it great online because the women have what men want - lots of choice. But I have many female friends who are depressed about dating despite their long list of suitors. They struggle to build satisfying connections. We could ask who is to blame, but I'll just note at the end of the day, one side might be slightly happier than the other ... but only slightly! So frustrated people should keep that in mind.

[jseban]

> Women rate looks as the 4th most important attribute in dating.

You can't ask women this, see instead who the men are that get the most girls, there's your answer. Actions speak louder than words, and women are infamous for their cognitive dissonance in the field of mating.

> pretty people who are single say the same thing about people with money. People with money say this about younger people. Turns out its never their fault, and its just something unattainble someone else has.

And the young, pretty and rich people don't say anything, because they do in fact get first choice.