Independent_Factor65

Why can't it be a preference even if it's a judgement of character? not dating someone because you don't like their personality is also a judgement of character, yet that's valid. So why is this not?

That's what I was about to say. 10 years ago online dating wasn't as easy or popular as it is today. So it was easier for short men/ugly men to get married back then. As for the fat one, he's probably a genuine exception to the rule, but that doesn't prove anything.

Meeting through friends, or work, or hobbies isn't really that easy anymore because the much more convenient option of online dating always exists, which gives vastly more options and is much easier.

I don't see it that much, to be honest.

How old is he? And when did he get married?

Pete Davidson is not bad looking and celebrities do not prove anything about dating for normal people.

Really hope we never get a lot of left-wing mods, because as soon as that happens, you can be sure censorship will soon follow.

Lately?

Congrats, you're the one millionth person to post this opinion on this sub!

This is the way

My question would be how many of those LGBTQ youth are openly gay? Because I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of gay youth who haven't told their parents that they're gay out of fear of rebuke, even though their parents actually would be supportive.

Furthermore, I'd say that even if they have supportive parents, who have no problems with them being gay, they might still say that home is not affirming because their parents don't meet their standards of affirming (for example, maybe their parents are fine with them being gay but don't want them sleeping around, making them think their parents don't affirm their identity). School being only 55% supports this. Way more than 55% of LGBTQ youth are in schools that go out of their way to affirm LGTBQ. So maybe their standards of affirmation are so high that not even their schools fit that standard.

Do you have a link to the data? I'm interested in taking a look.

It is not the vast majority at all, that is plain wrong.

The most recent data says 71% of Americans believe that gay marriages should have the same rights as straight marriages.

LGBTQ rights are mainstream in the US though. Marriage is legal, there's plenty of representation in media, and companies and organizations go out of their way to pander.

Advocate for LGBTQ rights as a resident of the US? Not counter culture.

Advocate for LGTBQ rights as a resident of Afghanistan? Now that's counter culture.

There's a double standard both ways.

Promiscuous women are disparaged more than promiscuous men.

Virgin men are disparaged more than virgin women.

To say that If you have sub par looks you can’t get women is just bs. Yea it’ll be harder, but it’s by no means a deal breaker.

There is a threshold at which it becomes unrealistic, as evidenced by the many men who do struggle with dating despite not having a bad personality. Also the tons of studies on speed dating, dating apps, etc. It's not BS at all.

There are some things that can mitigate the impact of looks, like status and smaller dating pool, among other things. Jay Z is a celebrity who has status that most men will never have. And you have to remember that the celebrity dating scene is completely different than the normal people dating scene. Celebrities aren't using dating apps or going to regular bars. They're dating within their social circle, which consists of other celebrities. So the dating pool is much smaller. Smaller dating pools give less attractive or average men a better chance. My point is that celebrity couples shouldn't be taken as evidence against the idea that being unattractive can make it incredibly difficult to date in today's world.

Most of them are rather young. Many of them end up finding a relationship eventually, making them let go of that worldview. The percentage of men who continue to be virgins into their late 20s despite wanting not to be is very small, only a few percent. Usually, they are some of the most unattractive men in society and they have high amounts of social anxiety and neurodivergence as well.

Rereading my last comment, I actually do think it's too pessimistic. Having one bad feature is not a nail in the coffin. So yes, if you're butterfaced, but tall and fit, things aren't going to be so bad.

Things start to become very difficult if you have multiple negative features. Like being short AND ugly. Or being short AND the wrong ethnicity (statistics show that some ethnic groups are more significantly disadvantaged in dating than others). In cases like those, pursuing fitness, thinking that will get you a date will lead to disappointment. You should still pursue it for other reasons, like health, but don't have unrealistic expectations about being sexually desirable.

Lack of fitness will definitely hurt you, but fitness alone poorly compensates for an unattractive face or significantly below average height.

I know this or that is not really an argument. It's just anecdotes.

Many of these "ugly spouses" are not as ugly as you think. The other day, I was having a similar argument with someone, and they pointed to Alexandra Daddario's husband as an example of an ugly husband of a hot celebrity. But in reality, he's leagues above the average man. People have a skewed perception of ugly when it comes to celebrities.

I can tolerate it. I just scroll right past.

Only if your looks are par. If your looks do not match the minimum threshold, then confidence is not a factor at all.

Then this sub will be no better than r/unpopularopinion. If you want censorship, you can always go to that one.

Or East Asian. Avatar: The Last Airbender had a lot of success with that.

This is hilarious, lmao