As usual, OkCupid’s latest blogpost tries to take some of the mystery out of online dating, explaining “The Mathematics of Female Beauty.” They’re expanding upon their work about what white people really like, and the difference between straight sex and gay sex, as if we weren’t aware of both those answers on some deep subconscious level. But this new post made me wonder: what’s the difference between facesnarking and healthy commentary and conjecture?
Specifically focused on women (don’t worry, men are to come), this piece “investigates female attractiveness, but without the usual photo analysis stuff. Instead, we look past a woman’s picture, into the reaction she creates in the reptile mind of the human male.” Basically, with the permission of some OkCupid users, the writers looked at different photos of women to see whether those that were rated the highest on their site actually got the most messages. The results might surprise you, or maybe not: they found that women whose looks are more polarizing actually get more messages than women who …
… are generally considered more traditionally attractive. This pattern repeated itself over and over again, leading OkCupid’s crack team to conclude that it might actually just have to do with male ego. Women who are “conventionally cute, but not totally hot, might appear to be more in-demand than she actually is.” No one wants to get rejected, so men just don’t respond to the conventionally cute one. But a woman who has a lower overall score because of a few very low ratings seems like less of a risk, when in reality, she’s actually getting more play. OkCupid calls this “the curse of being cute.”
This news sort-of goes against everything we’ve ever been taught, doesn’t it? It feels like the mantra that’s been beaten into my head about attractive people having better lives and more opportunities than everyone else has just been turned on its head! But what I found far more interesting was OkCupid’s very specific disclaimer that this study was not them trying to be cruel to anyone, and that all of these users had consented to be involved. They state very clearly before breaking down the numbers that “Fair warning: we’re about to objectify women, big-time. The whole purpose of this blog is to analyze OkCupid’s data, and without a little bit of objectification that’s impossible. Men will get their turn under the microscope soon enough. As usual, none of this (with the exception of the celebrity examples) is my opinion. All data is collected from actual user activity.”
Would we require this disclaimer in a more official scientific study? When do potentially hurtful comments about peoples appearance come off as acceptable? OkCupid doesn’t do astoundingly good studies; they take from their data and find some generally inconclusive stuff that makes us all think and gets them press, good and bad. And they give us what we want to hear. Most people aren’t conventionally good-looking, so being told that you should play up your flaws because “statistically, the guys who don’t like it can only help you, and the ones who do like it will be all the more excited” is both refreshing and mind-altering.
My theory is that in order for anyone to even read their “study,” OkCupid needed this disclaimer. They couldn’t have featured just another number-pusher making mean statements about some pretty girls who might have rejected him once. They need legitimacy, and their piece wouldn’t have been taken even mildly seriously if they hadn’t cleared up that they’re not trying to judge anyone, just telling us what they’ve learned. And in some ways, they’re right. We live in a world where people have greater and greater means to hurt one another with their opinions, in places where they haven’t even met the person (right here, on the internet). Our sister site Evil Beet makes a living off of it. But we also live in a world where we get shamed for this, for being honest with ourselves and others. What’s the difference between being honest and being excessively snarky?
I’ve always valued my honesty, and, let’s be real, my snark as well. OkCupid knew they had to say that they weren’t trying to offend anyone by “objectifying” women, but should they have felt that urge? Just as we shouldn’t unnecessarily say offensive and unfunny things about what people look like, we also shouldn’t feel the need to shy away from talking honestly about the same issue. People will always be pretty or ugly or somewhere in between. Not being honest about that is not being honest with yourself.
