[identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com 2010-02-11 11:35 am (UTC)(link)
Despite being, by the standards of this study, fugly - since I basically have very similar features to that face, only less regular, fatter, and less smooth.

So what, in an anecdotal fashion, does that say about what people rate as attractive in a study vs what they're actually attracted to in real life?

[identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com 2010-02-11 11:38 am (UTC)(link)
That being said, nobody wants to sleep with supermodels.

It's when they say they'd kick, I dunno, Kate Winslet or Cameron Diaz or somesuch out of bed that they've started lying for effect.

[identity profile] major-clanger.livejournal.com 2010-02-11 12:48 pm (UTC)(link)
Slightly less anecdotal data comes from this analysis by dating site OkCupid. (Which, from its blog, clearly employs a serious stats nerd, although I suppose this is hardly surprising.) In a nutshell, it seems that among their users, women are far harsher at rating men than men are at rating women, although in both cases being a bit above the mean gets you most expressions of interest. In effect, being well into the upper quartile of appearance is what seems to be important, more than absolute level of perceived attractiveness.

(This particular userpic because it's the one of mine that is probably closest to being a picture of me.)

[identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com 2010-02-11 01:00 pm (UTC)(link)
In a nutshell, it seems that among their users, women are far harsher at rating men than men are at rating women.

Which is interesting in and of itself because in my real life experience women are much more likely to date men less attractive than them than the other way around. I guess maybe online girls get their own back? Or maybe the way they rate men and the ones they'll actually date are two very different things...