The Great Debate: "How girls rate guys" vs. "How guys rate girls"

The problem that I find with this theory is that it's too generalised, it doesn't take into consideration the differences between the different ages and cultures. For example, a woman in her early twenties like myself will not necessarily look for financial stability in a relationship but it may be more important for a woman in her thirties. People's needs and priorities will vary throughout different demographics.

I also feel that today, financial stability would probably apply to both genders.

So you think men are attracted to financial stability? I'm not, but then I'm not money driven myself. I can't think of any time a guy has talked about a good job/wealth as a sexy thing, though again that might be my age. Also, I've always found posh girls sexy, so maybe subconsciously I do want to get with the upper class!

I'd say for men, a women being caring is at least as important as intelligence and humour.

"Audrey Fukuman created the following infographic, representing the differences in how men and women rate each other when looking for a potential mate"



In other words, when initially judging a person (before personality figures in the equation), girls tend to weigh up the whole package, including 'money' (a proxy for income, financial wealth, material possessions, GSOH etc, and perhaps also, importantly, future wealth prospects too)

Guys on the other hand aren't concerned about wealth ('security value') in a mate and whilst intellect and humour are important, allegedly they are irrelevant if we do not find the girl physically attractive ('replication value')

What do you think? Is there, in fact, really any difference at all between the sexes?

Does this apply to students? If not do you think this applies to other groups/age-groups in society?

Is Ms. Fukuman roughly correct or has she perhaps oversimplified or made a glaring omission?

I don't think that financial stability is a priority thing that most people look for in a partner. However, what I got from this theory is that money is a priority for women as they want to be supported by their partner, which was probably applicable in yesteryears but not so much today. What I meant in that last statement is that people today don't really feel the need to support their partners financially because both genders have roughly the same opportunities to earn a living. So I do think that both men and women would much prefer someone who can support themselves than have someone who mooches off them.

I wouldn't want to be exploited, but I don't think I'd really take profession/future profession into account, and I don't mind helping a partner out with money if they need it. Like I wouldn't care if a girl was, say, a doctor or a waitress, whereas I think most girls would make some distinction.

You may not care about the prospects of your partner but there'll be men out there who do and sure, there'll be women out there that would much rather date a guy with a better income and prospects but other women, like myself, don't really care too much about that sort of thing.

You can't really generalise between genders.

But that's what it's about, in general what are people attracted to. For example, say you've got a party, there's a very pretty waitress, an average looking female doctor, a very handsome male waiter and an average looking male doctor, you've gotta back the male doctor to be getting more attention than the female one, and the female waitress to get much more attention than the doctor.

I don't know really, I agree that maybe some women would be drawn to the male doctor, more so than men being drawn to the female doctor but I would still say that the attractive waiter/waitress will still get the majority of the attention, especially in a situation like a party where most people go purely from the aesthetics of someone.

In my experience of dating (and I'm talking about when you're just meeting someone for the first time), the foundation of the attraction is physical appearance. If you don't find that person attractive then you are less inclined to want to pursue them any further, so to say that people are attracted to someone for their career is generally not really accurate and if their career is the main attraction to you then you probably want to be with them for the wrong reasons.

I do see your point, maybe the looks are too low a factor on the women's side. Trying to quantify this stuff is always a bit futile, though. It's like when people say "looks or personality", both are essential, so it's a bit pointless. She makes a fair general point though, about how looks matter more for men.

I do think it's odd you say finding career attractive is a bad thing, surely that's less shallow than looks? Whatever you find attractive, it isn't something you can help or something you should feel bad about.

There's nothing wrong with being attracted to someone for their career per se, but I don't think that it's a good thing if it's the sole reason for being attracted to that person because it doesn't really set that person apart from all the other people in the same profession.

I would say that somebody's looks would rank higher than their career/financial stability and isn't really as shallow as people make out because I feel in order to be sexually attracted to someone, you need to be attracted to their physical appearance.

I would agree with that also when you look at attraction from a certain perspective you see that many things that cause people to be physically attracted to one another are often ways in which desirable evolutionary traits are shown. For example men sometimes find a certain waist to hip ratio desirable, this ratio in a woman is also a sign of fertility and health.

Although I would place looks probably quite high myself I would probably put sense of humor or common interests above it. After all if there is no common ground you can end up tearing each other's hair out.