While it does require less effort for women to get responses from the opposite sex, they’re not really in the best position, as they have to dig through a lot of junk before they find any substance.
Headlines are just as important as the content in your message.
Good looking, for me, does not necessarily equate to sexy.
Take David Beckham, for instance: The squeaky voice, the dull-as-ditchwater personality, that sarong... Give me a crooked nose, a lanky body and a gap between the teeth any day.
Ten attractive single women are sitting at individual tables, each waiting expectantly to talk to him. 'I popped a mint in my mouth, fixed on my name tag and promptly fainted,' he confesses. In fact, he believes that he is so ugly that women won't want to spend even ten minutes with him, let alone allow him to prove what a lovable, loyal partner he might be.
It's a speed-dating night, and Stan has ten minutes to woo and charm each of the ten women. For the past two years, Stan has been writing a hugely popular blog about his experiences looking for love.
This doesn’t mean that they’re not shallow (they are), but rather, that they are consistent and reasonable in terms of “rating” women’s looks.
I've every sympathy with a bloke who thinks he's not getting the girls because of his less than dazzling looks. But Christ, isn't this just a little bit defeatist? I bumped into a very good friend at a wedding the other day. I think she moved straight to "you're a humourless idiot.
This product of social conditioning rears its ugly head online even more so, as an average of seven men compete for the attention of one woman.
According to research, women who send messages to men are twice as likely to receive a response compared to men who start conversations.
2) Women, on the other hand, rate 80% of men as below average.
Let me repeat: It’s women, not men, who have unrealistic standards for the “average” member of the opposite sex.