In dating apps, the first approximation is that women rate men based on attributes that follow the power law (such as social status), whereas men rate women based on attributes that follow the normal distribution (such as looks, age etc.). The same dynamics applies to many animals when they choose their mates.
It directly follows that on these platforms, the attractiveness of men is much less evenly distributed than the attractiveness of women, but there is "rich get richer" or Matthew effect which skews the popularity of most men.
This point is almost never mentioned in such analysis. But that is the basis of the different experience average men and average women have on current dating market.
I don't know, from what I've heard, women rate mostly based on red flags (is there anything I don't like), whereas men rate based on green flags (is there anything I like). Which of course makes it hard for men to create a good profile, whereas women get swamped with messages and have a lot of "dont's" in their profiles. But it doesn't mean women are neccessarily "pickier". They are just as "interested" or "on the search" as men, but are often more cautious because of bad experiences.
Evo-psych explanations break down when you look at actual couples, I think. I recall a study where people ranked each other with 1-9, and they found that the stated preference was similar to what you describe, with women prefering the higher ranked men, and vice-versa but with the men having wider spread preferences. But when they looked at actual couples it was far more random with "9"s paired with "5"s and so on. (I can't find a link but maybe someone else finds it?) In reality, common interests and similar social milieus are probably the most important factors.
I am not talking about self-reported preferences but the statistical analysis of the observable experiences men and women have on dating apps. I find the former to not be consistent with the latter, and I find the latter more trustworthy.
I have learned a lot about this in the zoo with my daughter. Adults become extremely uncomfortable when the children find the human-like behavior of apes funny. Adults just want to go away. To me it seems that our animal nature is too much for most people to psychologically accept.
That is why I completely avoid that evo-psych discussion in general and here in particular. Dating app popularity can be easily observed and we don't need to go into that discussion at all.
>I have learned a lot about this in the zoo with my daughter. Adults become extremely uncomfortable when the children find the human-like behavior of apes funny. Adults just want to go away.
Can you provide an example? I don't disagree, I just don't know if you're talking about bullying or what.
I meant less about what they do, and more about how they do it. Dogs for example may bully, but it does not seem eerily human-like.
If you spend some time watching our closest ancestors, you start to see that they have lot of common gestures with humans. It is difficult to thoroughly explain this using just words.
>But when they looked at actual couples it was far more random with "9"s paired with "5"s and so on.
are these general couples or couples that met online? There is definitely a whole different dynamic to meeting someone physically and how that body language and actual time to converse changes their perception (not swipe and try to woo them with a text message).
You're not even getting 5 seconds on a dating app if you don't have the right looks or right pitch. I always had an idea for one of those trashy Blind Date reality shows with a premise of "would you swipe right on your SO/Spouse?". because we're never getting organic data for that.
I hear this claim alot on social media but is there any solid research backing this up?
I want to propose a different hypothesis - men and women lie differently. Men are more likely to say they got no matches on a dating site and complain whereas women are more likely to keep quiet of they get few to no matches and exaggerate the number they do get.
Maybe men are more likely to blame the site or algorithm whereas women are more likely to blame themselves.
Maybe ratios of unsuccessful attempts are roughly evenly distributed and the difference can be explained solely by the fact that men must ask and make the first move in most cultures whereas women don't have to.
OKCupid had a blog (I believe it was called “OKData”, which had a few posts that agreed with the parent post. I believe that the blog was removed after an acquisition, but the content was published as a book, which is still available.
This chokes out competition, and users end up with several apps with some gimmick, but at their core they're designed to keep most users locked into actively dating, either to make the app seem popular, or to squeeze money out of them.
One of the deleted articles, which I think you refer to, was called "Your Looks and Your Inbox". Apparently some people have made copies of it online, for example:
Christian Rudder (main author of the blog) wrote his own book Dataclysm. It's separate from the blog though, that was called OkTrends and you can find the articles on archive.org.
Annectotal, but the women I know, if anything, try to tone down the number of matches they get, and dates they go on, whereas for the men it's the other way around. You hear of every single match from a male friend.
Women do tend to make that claim in social circumstances but to be fair it's a pretty flattering self portrait. Could these women be exaggerating to make themselves look hot and unobtainable and the women who fail be keeping quiet.
I met guys who talk about their successful conquests on these apps and I get the feeling that a lot of that is just guys exaggerating or lying to impress others
I can say this I got a lot of dates in dating apps and I'm short and not very hot. My strategy was just ask for dates and play the numbers game - accept nos and just keep asking. I wasn't getting a lot of dates before I tried this strategy. I know another guy similarly situated who successfully used the same strategy.
Maybe it's not about the apps themselves but about how they are used and who uses them - eg. Shy guys who are nervous about asking girls on dates for example
> Men are more likely to say they got no matches on a dating site and complain
Does not really align with the fact that men tend to brag about their experience (hence: every single match is mentioned to friends)
> women are more likely to keep quiet of they get few to no matches and exaggerate the number they do get.
But they don't keep quiet, they complain about the quality of the men on display. And the ones who are successful usually don't mention it openly, to avoid negative connotations about promiscuity and such.
> Maybe men are more likely to blame the site or algorithm
In my experience, men tend to compain about the women (namely their behavior to be too picky). As apparent in this discussion as a whole.
> women are more likely to blame themselves
As mentioned, they're likely to blame the choice ("the grapes are sour"), or, if they get any matches, the quality of their dates.
> men must ask and make the first move in most cultures whereas women don't have to.
The book Sperm Wars talked about an interesting research about the number of sex partners for men and women. Is is well-known that men report double the amount of sex partners than women. People typically think this can be explained by men bragging i.e. exaggerating their numbers.
Researchers repeated the test by hooking men and women to a lie detector. While tge number of sex partners reported by men dropped a little, the interesting thing was that the number of sex partners reported by women raised a lot. Ultimately they were very close to each other.
I think the social stigma for women is higher for number of partners in general, and that explains the tendency to downplay numbers.
Not solid research but I set up an account with a single scrappy black/white picture of a photo of a woman from the 1940s. Her profile drew an order of magnitude more attention than what I normally get.
I know asking for funding to do research on getting girls is probably going to be a no go. But I feel like it's necessary. It's something a lot of people think is important and bad actors like pick up artists and others with various agendas like past resentment have stepped up to fill the void. The dating pool seems posioned and I think good solid fact finding especially with regard to what works would go a long way towards helping to fix things
>men and women lie differently. Men are more likely to say they got no matches on a dating site and complain whereas women are more likely to keep quiet of they get few to no matches and exaggerate the number they do get.
There's no Tinder-specific data, but it's been very well reported that the rate of matches between men and women on older dating sites was drastic, at least 1:2. So I don't think it's really a "lie" when men say they get no dates. I'm sure with the Tinder age that gap has only widened.
You also need to keep in mind that people complain in different places. You're likely not going to find a woman complaining about lack of matches on Hacker News, for example.
>Maybe ratios of unsuccessful attempts are roughly evenly distributed and the difference can be explained solely by the fact that men must ask and make the first move in most cultures whereas women don't have to.
It's possible, but I hear this is even a problem on sites where the woman is expected to make the first move. There's just some element of pickiness men lack compared to women. Be it due to quantity of choice or the bar to meet or whatnot.
> some element of pickiness men lack compared to women.
From the women I talked to about this, they were not that picky at first. They become picky as soon as they notice that every swipe they do results in a match, and all those matches pressure to meet up soon. When they've become picky, they match only with guys that have no real intention to meet. Presumably because those are the ones who are flooded with matches as well.
I have never heard the power law/normal distribution claim on social media and almost never anywhere else either. Do you have some links?
I don't know about solid research. The last time I was looking up research about this was around 15 years ago, when I was actually planning to publish a paper about the finding above.
I had some data about a series of speed-dating events. Men gave double the amount of +'s (if both give a +, then it is a match) as compared to women, and the distributions were what I claim above.
Then there was the OkCupid article and some other research articles on dating sites (no apps at that time) and speed-dating events. I don't remember any research mentioning the different distributions although it was obvious from the graphs on the research papers that all of these followed the same distributions.
I think one of the reasons why there is so little research is that there is some taboo around this subject. For example the OkCupid article mentioned was pulled off. I don't know what the taboo is. Perhaps these results hint too much about differences between sexes or our evoluationary past?
This is easy to test. Create 6 dating profiles: Looks: (1) below average, (2) average, and (3) above above. Then, man vs woman. Now watch what happens. There are lots of YouTube videos of people who have done it. It is stunning how much more attention goes to the most attractive men. Average and below attractive men will get almost zero attention. If you go deeper, and continue past the like to a conversation, it becomes more striking.
>> In dating apps, the first approximation is that women rate men based on attributes that follow the power law (such as social status)
Based on my observations and conversations with girlfriends who use dating apps, women rate men based on height first, and everything else (including social status) second.
I am five foot four and my former dating life from the time I was 22-36 wasn’t anything to write home about (with one failed marriage in between).
I got friend zoned more than I wish to admit. I started dating my now wife at 36 and I’m now 49.
I wasn’t unattractive - I was in peak physical shape by any metric as a part time fitness instructor, runner, muscular, 10% body fat. I was outgoing, decently successful financially etc.
But I am short.
It got better after my divorce At 32. Maturity - maybe? The nature of competition changed - probably? I was single, no kids, intelligent, still in above average shape. But I would have still failed miserably on dating apps I think. I met my now wife at work and the women I dated before then were mostly through teaching classes at gyms.
They were more willing to let their guard down with me as an instructor than just some random dude trying to hit on them at the gym
Dating apps are pretty much worthless for men under 5'11" or so.
My 5' 2" wife freely admits I would have never passed her height filters (we met at a bar).
It's sad - for my age group, I'm roughly average (slightly below) height at 5' 8".
Most women I've talked to (my wife included) set their height filters at 5' 11" or above.
When you take weight into account, they're all looking at the same 15-20% of guys - and then complain that all the guys they meet online are jerks.
I wish the online platforms would include population demographics in those filters - I don't think most people understand how many potential partners they're missing out on by setting filters that they don't really care about.
This is fascinating to me. I'm a 5'9 American guy who got married in my early 20s to a girl who I met in college the old-fashioned way (in-person through an extracurricular activity) before the iPhone existed. So I was just never aware at all that height is such a big deal for women until I started reading about it in discussions of these online dating services. I'm wondering:
1. Knowing this, don't guys just lie about their height in their profile?
2. Are most women really able to look at a guy in-person and know that he's 5'10 vs. 6'0? Or is it mostly abstract and only becomes an issue because height is explicitly listed in online profiles?
There is in fact an entire small meme culture of "five feet eleven and a half inches vs six feet" based on the absurdity of this, yes. you can probably get away with being 5'10 or especially 5'11 and lie to say 6' without issue unless you are in fact dating a taller than average woman. But if you get to the point of meetting up that probably won't matter.
You can only lie to some extent, though. hard to pass off 5'8 as 6'.
There is a huge difference between being 5-9 and 5-4. Again, I’m just stating the obvious, I’m happily married and have been for 13 years.
I also started dating my now wife at 35 and she was a single mother of a then 9 and 14 year holding her own and we met at work. She was looking for something different than women in their 20s.
Yes, I can imagine that. At 5'4 I think you're close to the average for women and that will stand out. What's fascinating to me is this apparently strong preference for 6'0+ and not a hair under that.
This is mostly a rhetorical question. But why does the man have to be taller?
My only two long term relationships (and marriages) were with short women. I have never gone after taller women and I only had any type of romantic chemistry with one person that was taller than I was. We were in the same friend group at the gym I taught at and she was going through a divorce. By the time things finalized and the opportunity made itself available, I was dating my now wife.
> It's sad - for my age group, I'm roughly average (slightly below) height at 5' 8".
This is not the average for men in certain socioeconomic classes/age groups/ethnicities. For a non malnutritioned young man, 5ft8in or 172cm is probably going to be on the lower end depending on ethnicity.
This is not to make any judgment on which heights woman should or should not be “filtering”.
I'm 5'8" on a good day, and my dating app experience is pretty meh. But in real life, my height never seems to matter. Literally last night I was approached by a woman over 6'.
It's wild how people's real-world preferences can be completely different than their more superficial online ones (I'm not excluding myself from this, or is this aimed at any gender/group in general).
This was my question elsewhere, but I'll put it here too because I'm really curious: Are most women really able to look at a guy in-person and know that he's 5'10 vs. 6'0? Or is it mostly abstract and only becomes an issue because height is explicitly listed in online profiles? I suspect the latter, and I think you're saying the same.
When dating in Korea women would guess my height to 2 cm higher than I am tall. Which was very eerie, because I correct my gait with 1.5 cm high insoles. I would estimate most women there have an accuracy of +/- 1 cm, and the worst were +/- 2.5 cm.
I did not go too deep into what I mean by social status. I actually do not think women rate men on attributes like education/job title/car/wealth that are typically associated with social status, but more with dominance, and height is one proxy attribute for dominance -- lack of above-average height is a good indicator that men is likely not very dominant.
I wonder if this also relates to the choice of people in "visible" positions such as politicians and business executives. The men are selected for tallness first, and the women for competency.
The entire premise of that analysis is broken by a simple truth - that while rarely discussed in "polite society", it turns out that women enjoy sex too.
I've only read the abstract, but I think your pithy analysis doesn't seem to undermine the hypothesis that sexuality in society can be analyzed through an economic lens. After all, sellers of goods and services tend to enjoy the activity of selling, but many other incentives and interactions can also be in play at the same time.
It is easier to talk about this in the context of dating apps. This phenomenon appears to touch some taboos, and I think that explains why these discussions never get anywhere. You can always find narratives that support what you want to believe, because social behavior is so complex. When we concentrate on the statistical analysis of differences of experiences men and women have in dating apps, it is easier to keep the talk about the actual phenomenon.
Such pressure does exist. And it's even stronger in, say, Christian communities, but I don't think it makes finding a partner a breeze in them (although they do tend to get married sooner?)
This is a spectacularly polemic framing that can only serve to score points, not advance civil discussion. In other domains it seems that our society has come to terms with the idea that systemic discrepancies in attainment can't just be dismissed by looking at low-attainment individuals in isolation - would you accept "$minority people could accept that they don't have a right to a job at Google/spot at Harvard/position in government" as a retort against allegations of racial discrimination?
I mean, it doesn't seem more spectacularly polemic to me than "Social pressure to commit to monogamous relationships is the only possible solution to this".
It does to me; your quoted sentiment amounts to a concrete claim that can be argued for or against, and does not insinuate that the position of the speaker's opponents is due to something that everyone in the discussion would be bound to agree to be an indefensible moral failing.
A contextually appropriate mirrored version of the statement I responded to would be something along the lines of "or women could accept that they don't have a right to a romantic relationship with a rich, hot, committed and deferential movie star". Would you consider that no worse than the "enforced monogamy" claim?
Women aren't saying they have a right to go out with a movie star. At worst, some of them are choosing, upon finding out they can't get the movie star, to remain single. Which would seem to be their right, no? Even if us non-movie-star males might prefer if they chose differently.
I don't agree. The difference is that people do have a right to not be discriminated against because of their race etc. But no right to force another person to be in a romantic relationship with them.
true. But the issue here is that if men start stating physical preferences for women they are seen as sleazy at best. This isn't an equal playing field socially, even if the sentiment of "no one is owed a relationship" is a technically correct one.
And it applies even to your metaphor. Man or woman, if you explicitly say "no blacks" you are going to be eviscerated. Even if older OkCupid profiles did in fact show that african americans, both male and female, had fewer matches there.
I think your google example is a bad one. Almost everyone is more "libertarian" about the right to choose your partner / choose to be single then they are about the right to freely choose who to employ without any constraints.
Men don’t have a right but “Too bad sucks for you” isn’t a sustainable approach to a basic biological function. Imagine saying “you don’t have a right to a meal” to a crowd of starving people. That’s how we get violent revolutions and bloody wars and mass shootings.
I think the first step would be creating a well funded government organization or nonprofit with a broad mandate to solve the problems of community, relationships, and the birth rate in the 21st century. Make it a proper national security issue.
Creating a neutral dating app with proper moderation (against harassment and fake/spam accounts) and without the profit incentive would be a great entry point for that organization to study relationships in general.
Replying to scarface, who has no reply button... It would help to know that profiles are not likely to be a Chinese scammer, and it would help in that the app wouldn't be actively _hiding_ profiles of people that have expressed an interest you behind a "gold-level" function. Because that's what Tinder does: it finds the short list of people that might be interested in you, and then hides them behind a pay wall, occasionally trickling one out (and dare I speculate, the one that is least likely to lead to a relationship).
If anything, Tinder is the precise opposite of a dating app.
Every time the app successfully matches two people well enough that they form a long-term commitment to each other, that is a step in the right direction. When the app instead matches people adequately enough for a short-term relationship but keeps them coming back to the app for more, that aggravates the problem.
Possibly, the commercial incentives of these apps have them deliberately optimizing for short-term matches. Or it may be the case that the apps are doing as best as they can manage and the problem is simply very difficult to solve. If the former is the case, then removing or regulating the commercial incentive might help.
I like to stew on this a lot. The root of it all might be economic and social opportunity. If you can succeed, you can attract good partners. If you are secure, you can be a better parent. If you have good parents, you will have more opportunity.
Of course, this has little to do with dating apps.
That still doesn’t help the fact that no woman says “you know I really like short fat guys”.
As incellish as that sounds, I am 50 and I have been happily married for 13 years and before that unhappily married for four from the time I was 28-32. But my dating life mostly sucked in my 20s as a five foot 4 decently successful guy, in great shape as a part time fitness instructor, outgoing, and with a modicum of social skills.
A guy who is not financially successful and who is tall has a much better chance in the dating or at least the hookup pool than a short person who is financially successful.
Fair point, I’ve focused on “maybe you’re short, but you can still be fit, confident, great partner, etc”. However, unrealistic expectations and dating “market structure” that lets the top 10% of guys dominate the whole field can significantly undermine all that.
Yes too bad sucks for you. There is no other option that's not horrifying for those involved. By definition anything other than freely given enthusiastic consent is coercive. Just get a masturbatior, jesus christ.
Do you want to sign up for the "might get forced to be with someone who's abusive" lottery?
I've heard taxation is theft, taxation is rape is definitely a new one.
Realistically, if I were forced into that I would kill
my husband or myself. I would rather be in jail or dead than be subjected to institutionalized human trafficking and domestic slavery. That's the difference. You're trying to draw an equivalence between a mountain and mole hill in magnitude by saying that what they have in common is that they're backed by the force
of law.
For several reasons. First, taxes builds the foundation of a productive society. Without them we would all be less productive. Second, taxes makes sure we provide for people who are not able to provide their basic needs for themselves, this is a moral obligation (in my opinion).
Taxes may build the foundation of a productive society, but reproduction builds the actual society. And in both taxes and coerced reproduction, something is taken by force from someone who has not consented to that. In the case of reproduction we are talking about roughly nine months of effort (at least), and in the case of taxes it depends on the country, but in mine it is roughly six months of effort (Tax Liberation Day falls on June 20th here). So that's roughly six month of coerced slavery, and unlike reproduction, it comes back every single year.
So I see a lot of similarities, yet one is generally accepted, and the other... not so much. Even though most of the world is heading towards population collapse, and surely the moral obligation you speak of also applies when it comes to ensuring society survives in the first place.
God I really hope when you're reincarnated it's as a woman so you can truly understand how completely certifiably insane you sound.
"the government death squads and taxes are both taking something by force that's not consented to -- life, and percentage of your income" -- like holy hell dude.
I don't even know where to begin to bridge the experience gap of someone who thinks that government sponsored human trafficking (because that's what forced marriage is), rape, and forced impregnation is comparable to taxes.
Give me the choice between working a menial dead end job until I die or the hell you're describing for only 1 year and I'll have my resume polished before you can finish the sentence.
They are taking literally HALF THE LIFE of every working person, and you are sufficiently brainwashed to think that that's perfectly normal. Or perhaps you know full well what's happening, but prefer the status quo because you are a net receiver in this situation.
For the rest, your total lack of empathy ("only women can suffer"), twisting of my words ("death squads", really?), and your willingness to kill your husband (irrational, but there you go) means I won't be responding to you in the future.
I'm not a receiver in taxes, I'm a software engineer who pays far more than I will ever receive in taxes. It's fine, they're not taking half my life they're taking (for my last tax year) about 30% of my gross income. I wouldn't suddenly get 4 months off if I had that money back. My salary negotiation takes taxes into account. I just voted for two tax levies one being for schools where I don't have and never will have children going because I have a private school I want to send my future kids.
I'm not saying only women can suffer, I'm saying you literally can't grasp how much of a hell the world you're imagining with forced marriage is. And of course I'd kill my husband, in your world he's my government appointed rapist whose babies I will be forced to have. What other option do I have? Right now today that would be more than enough to qualify for self defense. You apparently think this is fine and the pregnancy is "just" 9 months of your civic duty while me and every other woman will say is the furthest thing from fine possible. You're arguing that "death squads" is too hyperbolic but I'd rather take the firing squad. Men would suffer in your hell too but you don't see any of the downsides I guess.
People's autonomy over their sexual activity is universally acknowledged to be much more important than their autonomy over the totality of their paycheck. For a start, getting taxed is much less distressing and psychologically / spiritually / physically damaging than getting raped.
Tell from what? I've always heard it as the exact opposite. From the article:
From men:
> The apps are algorithmic doom barrels
> I’m fated to end up alone
> he has tried Bumble, Match, Badoo and Facebook dating, but in nearly three years has only met one person, with whom he had six dates before the relationship ended
> The vast majority of matches have resulted in no dialogue, most of the rest there was a bit of to and fro before being ghosted
From women:
> I meet so many men,” she says enthusiastically
> So I’ve given myself the challenge of flirting with one person every day, which has been a lot of fun
> I was getting a torrent of likes – and I absolutely hated it
> I’m simply looking for an interesting or creative person, and that’s one thing you can’t spot easily on an app, but then I’d get too many matches, which was really overwhelming
> I’d get a lot of comments about being a wheelchair user
Hell even disabled women seem to have absolutely no issue getting matches. Maybe the buffet of men they get to fastidiously sort through isn't well stocked enough for them? Well la di da, welcome to reality.
There appears to be quite a large contingent of women that are upset with so-called 'passport bros', as well as women that have hit the wall and haven't yet come to terms with the fact that it's too late to establish a family. But you are right that younger women are having the time of their lives; for that group, everything is possible on the dating apps.
There's a reason for this, how we raise girls is tailored to making good girlfriend/wife material. You don't see the incredible amount of effort that is spent over a lifetime to this end because we're
used to it.
Once you see the dynamic you can't unsee it. It even happens with bisexual women where the joke is, "I'm attracted to like 10 men and every woman."
For better and worse boys don't get this treatment. If you spent 10,000 hours under the weight of intense social and societal pressure to mold yourself into someone that you think of as attractive because your social status depends on it, where the idea of what's attractive that has been planted into your brain since birth lines up with what women find desirable in a partner i'd bet you'd be a catch too.
There's a huge impedance mismatch that is set up to hurt men which is that being the kind of guy that women find attractive hurts your social status among men. Pretty boy is used as an insult but you will find no shortage of women throwing themselves at them.
> There's a reason for this, how we raise girls is tailored to making good girlfriend/wife material. You don't see the incredible amount of effort that is spent over a lifetime to this end because we're used to it.
No, you're mistaking pressure to conform for pressure to be attractive. Women are constantly pressured not to stray too far away from society's defaults, and they're judged much more strictly for non-conformism than men are.
But the things which mainstream society encourages for women in the name of conformity have a huge overlap with what men consider attractive anyway (a quick example which comes to mind is the pressure to stay thin). Whereas men still gain social status by being attractive, but are given much more leeway to deviate in their lifestyles.
> ...being the kind of guy that women find attractive hurts your social status among men. Pretty boy is used as an insult but you will find no shortage of women throwing themselves at them.
No, being attractive is still a boost for a man's social status. Being tall, or rich, or strong won't get you insulted at all. "Pretty boy" is an exception, but I could compare it to "bimbo" for women.
There is a surprising amount of overlap between two groups of people: those who argue that society should not provide any material benefits or services (money, housing, healthcare etc.) to its members, and those who argue that society should be structured so that men have access to sex.
I didn’t exactly win the genetic lottery at 5 foot 4. My only saving physical grace was that I build muscle fast and even when I do let my weight go to hell, I look muscular.
But is the problem that men who are looking for 10s are twos? I’m in no way considering myself more than a 5.
I’m a social person by nature, I like to try different things and I’ve really spent my adult life working on my emotional intelligence. I was in more or less great physical shape throughout my 20s and 30s and even after being married for 12 years I make it my mission to stay in shape the best I physically can as does my wife - at 49 and 47.
The unstated alternative here is that women would be forced into the misery of sexual slavery. As a man, my daughters have the freedom to decide to participate in marriage, and nobody will take that right away from them.
Let me introduce you to the article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
> Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
This comment is so eye-poppingly fatuous that I don't even know where to begin. The parent commenter is speaking about how people (a group which includes women) have the right to choose who they want to marry, which includes the right to marry nobody at all. You appear to be using the declaration of human rights to imply that the desire of one person to marry another somehow overrides the prior right, which is utter nonsense. Please refrain from commenting if you can't provide a more cogent argument than ChatGPT.
It directly follows that on these platforms, the attractiveness of men is much less evenly distributed than the attractiveness of women, but there is "rich get richer" or Matthew effect which skews the popularity of most men.
This point is almost never mentioned in such analysis. But that is the basis of the different experience average men and average women have on current dating market.