Picky women are not the (sole) cause of the failures of the dating market

Who is a peach and who is a lemon can't easily be told from the outside. That is true both in the used car market and in the dating market.

Lately, there have been some Substack discussions on the phenomenon of picky women on dating apps like Tinder. Women discriminate against short men. Women only find x percent of men attractive on Tinder while men find most of the women attractive. Female pickiness has sailed up as a main culprit to explain why people are lonely, sexless and childless.

I find it hard to believe that women are inherently picky, for one reason: Just a generation ago, they weren't. When I grew up around the turn of the millennium, I thought I observed the complete opposite: Women of all ages being the devoted wives and girlfriends of men who were not obviously attractive or desirable in any sense. The Idiot Boyfriend was almost an idiom. As a teenager, I learned not to expect anything from people's boyfriends. I considered boyfriends individuals chosen solely because of their (entirely average, unsensational) maleness.

It is true that the teenage me might have been biased in every sense. I was certainly not alone in questioning whether having a boyfriend could really be worth as much as the average female seemed to think. The whole trend of picky females might have started with skeptical teenage girls like me growing up and setting the cultural agenda.

Still, it doesn't make my observation invalid. 20 years ago, girls and women were not particularly picky with whom to settle down with. Rather, the general ambience was that we couldn't wait for some willing male to occur. The main problem wasn't that the men offering themselves were substandard. The main problem was that until a certain age, most boys weren't very interested in playing boyfriend-girlfriend games. Until rather high ages they seemed to have better things to focus on. When they finally started thinking of dating, around 18 or so, there were many eager girls looking for a romantic relationship to fill their lives with.

Not that hardwired

I'm not even 40, and I still think I remember a time when women were not at all picky. Sure, they were careful. Building romantic relationships is the main act of female life, as I wrote about here. They didn't jump into things mindlessly and casually. But were they notably hypergamous? Not what I could see. Women had preferences, now like then. But their main preference was getting married at all.

Across cultures, women seem to have comparatively little problem accepting monogamy, despite the lowering of the value of the average mate it implies for them. Strictly monogamous populations like the Amish¹ and the Hutterites² have a higher retention rate of females than of males. If searching for the best of the best among men was so hopelessly ingrained in females, females wouldn't find themselves so much at ease in cultures where there is just one, mostly entirely ordinary man for every woman (and not even that, as young men are escaping to better opportunities).

Not your average woman

In general, I suspect there is a classical error in all those assertions about female nature based on female behavior on dating apps: Selection bias.

Most women do not frequent dating apps. Not even most single women who are actively searching for a partner. Surveys reveal that  men are much more likely to use dating apps than women. Tinder, for example, is estimated to have about 75 percent male users and 25 percent female users. 

That means that for some reason, dating apps fail to attract women. If something scares (or bores) most women away from dating apps, the minority of women who are not scared away can't be expected to be representative of the female race. They are there for a reason - they find it more appealing and can handle difficulties that others can't handle as easily. Statistics from dating apps says little about what women value in men. Those statistics only say what women who are less uncomfortable with dating apps are doing on the dating apps. 

And even if the minority of women who use dating apps were really representative, the uneven ratio between men and women on dating apps in itself will affect female behavior. The same woman can be expected to act differently in an environment where she is being pursued by multitudes of men compared to in an environment where men are less pushy and she has many more rivals. 

In an article in The Free Press recently, men below average height and with moderate earnings told about their dating failures. Wherever they went on dating apps, there were hotties outrightly dismissing men who are not tall high-earners. To me, it seemed self-evident that it was that kind of unpleasant attitude that allowed those hotties to be there: In a hostile environment, unpleasant people are generally doing better. Women who are hard enough to say 'no losers, please', survive on Tinder. Others do not.

It is entirely possible that a minority of females decide to frequent apps like Tinder exactly because of the opportunity to get attention from and dates with men unavailable to them in the off-line world: In a survey, 23 percent of females versus 14 percent of males said they are using dating apps to boost their confidence. The opportunity to act hypergamously might be exactly what pulls a certain part of women into male-dominated dating apps. That doesn't mean that women in general are very hypergamously minded. Just that a minority of women finds an outlet for such inclinations in environments where eager men gather.

Peaches and lemons

Recently at least two bloggers have suggested that women looking for long-term relationships could be more successful if they aimed at less physically attractive men. Jakob Falkovich asked why women don't date men who are less physically attractive than themselves in order to get more relationship commitment. Arnold Kling asked why women don't deliberately date short men for the same reason. 

Being a woman who was once in the (pre-Tinder) dating market, I think I know the answer: Because a man's body height or general looks or financial status say very little about his willingness to commit. It says even less about his willingness to commit to you rather than to anyone else. 

Men's intentions on the dating market are difficult to discern for women. It all makes me think of what I learned in economics class about the mismatch of information between buyers and sellers - the so-called Peaches and Lemons Theory, described by economist George Akerlof in 1970. Akerlof observed that some used cars are better than others. Some just break down all the time, while others work perfectly. Akerlof called the good cars peaches and the bad cars lemons. He theorized that holders of peaches can't get their cars sold at a fair price, because the buyers can't see that it is a peach. Buyers only want to pay an average price for a peach or a lemon, making the used car market tilt towards lemons. 

Akerlof's observation has been applied to a number of areas in the economy, and I think the time has come to another: Men in the dating market.

There is a certain discrepancy between what the average man wants and what the average woman wants. I have a habit of accusing men of being a bit casually-minded when it comes to relationships, so I think that having a good time is the best way of describing what men want. Women, on the other hand, tend to see relationships as the big project of their lives. They want to build something serious. Maybe not with this guy or that guy they date right now. But they tend to closely evaluate their dates for boyfriend potential.

For a woman in the dating market, a lemon is then a man in whom she invests a lot of time, brainpower and heartache, who then suddenly says "I just wanted to have a good time - I thought that you did too". A peach is a man who subjectively adores exactly this woman more than the others and is thereby prepared to commit and invest.

Fundamentally, it is not about relative social status but about a mindset: Women prefer men with the mindset to adore a certain woman without tiring of her. Is there any reason why this mindset would not be evenly spread across physical types of men? And across income categories? 

It is very probable that more lower-status, not-so-good-looking men stand prepared to commit. But not because they actually are more into commitment: The excess supply of low-mate-value men on the marriage market probably consists of men who feel forced to commit by the circumstances rather than men who are really into it. 

Lower mate value men who commit because they know they are low mate value are not especially attractive to women. Women don't want men who commit because they realize that they can't get sex otherwise. Those men are likely to stand prepared to change for a better partner as soon as their social status or confidence rises: Actually, they might be dating to 'raise their confidence'. Women want men who commit because they believe in commitment. Not men who commit as long as they are forced to.

A short man who didn't accept to be less

Spoiler alert. 

I'm not alone in the observation that dating men of moderate mate value can be as perilous as anything else. Fiction writer Kristen Roupenian, most of all known for the 2017 viral story Cat Person, has also written a short story called The Good Guy (2019)³ about a man called Ted. Ted wasn't macho like the bigger, tougher guys. He was rather short and fine-featured. So for a while, he saw himself obliged to team up with a girl who, although intelligent, had some flaws in looks and manners. But he never stopped striving for the top-notch women - the highest in both status and looks. 

With some time, he cracked the code. The trick was to talk to them when they were in distress and to seem understanding. Top rate women have their problems too, Ted realized. They are doing their best to get some commitment from hyper manly, high status men. They often fail, get heart-broken and want someone understanding to talk to - enter Ted. Ted had an ability most other men lacked: To seem really, really interested in attractive women's problems.

Those women tended to see Ted as a safer alternative to those macho men who had exhausted them emotionally. With Ted, they hoped for a man who was softer and more understanding. But Ted didn't wish to be the safe option. He wanted to be desired like those alpha males who caused the heartbreak. Through dating Ted, the women had settled for less. That insight turned Ted off, so he left girlfriend after girlfriend in an even worse state of emotional despair: If even he didn't want them, who would ever want them then? 

End of spoiler alert

Perilous market 

Kristen Roupenian's collection of horror stories is the opposite to science. Still, she neatly explained why settling-for-less is not that safe, well-functioning option: Because men might not like to be the lesser thing that women settle for, and softer-looking men are not inherently morally better than harder-looking men. They are people with personalities and issues too. Taking them for granted can back-fire.

Whatever level of the dating market a woman chooses, it is filled with perils. Men can be everything from extreme peaches to extreme lemons, and it isn't easy to see who is who. On the whole, the choice stands between physically attractive men who can be either peaches or lemons, or between physically unattractive men who can be either peaches or lemons. Women tend to divide the market between themselves in a traditional way: The more physically attractive scan the more physically attractive segment of the market for peaches. The less physically attractive scan the less physically attractive market for peaches.

What if women did like some men suggest, and tried to trade some beauty for commitment? I see several risks: 

The most serious risk is that women will make mistakes and mix up the market and their own preferences. They will encounter someone who is showing interest, they will think that he is not very attractive and that he thereby should be husband material. Then it becomes clear that he actually is considered rather attractive - other women have other preferences and value him differently. This situation is the worst of two worlds for the woman dating him. She isn't particularly attracted to him, and still he isn't on a discount, because others are attracted to him.

If he actually is on a discount but is still no peach, chances are that he will use his new girlfriend as a means to gain confidence and then move on. There is also a very realistic risk that if women consciously think that they are dating a man below their own level of attractiveness, they will enter the relationship thinking "hey, you should adore me, I'm above your level". Not the nicest way of starting a relationship.

The murder issue 

Then we have that unpleasant reason for women not to date down - violence. Psychologist David Buss has studied murder in general and has detected a pattern: Men who murder their partners are often of lower mate-value than those partners. In couples where the man murders the woman, an age difference of ten years or more is much more common than in couples in general. Typically, men who kill their partners do so when they understand that she is about to leave the relationship or has recently left.⁴

David Buss made up a hypothesis of the evolutionary history behind such violence. He meant that it is an evolved behavior that gives men access to as attractive partners as possible. If an attractive partner can't be kept through mutual attraction, another option remains: Violence. She can be terrorized to stay. Threats to kill her if she goes away can be credible, because if she goes away, she might be better dead than alive to her former husband: if she lives, she might breed children with another man, who will compete with his own children.⁵

A man of equal or higher mate value has reason to act more casually: if a wife of modest value leaves, he can obtain another. But men who have come over a partner of superior value sometimes become obsessed. They threaten her and beat her. They tell her she is worthless and ugly, in an attempt to make her believe she is of lower mate value than she actually is. From the side of the man, that is a kind of rational deception: If he can trick an attractive woman into thinking she is unattractive, he can discourage her from seeking better opportunities.⁶ 

In spite of those risks, David Buss still recommends women to be more flexible in their preferences for high-status men, and prioritize good personal properties over status and resources⁷. I agree. But detecting those personal properties skillfully is crucial - obviously, lower-status men can be dangerous. That is not a reason to avoid them entirely. But it is a reason not to view them as a cheap mass from which to pick and choose. It is also a reason not to overstep one's own intuition. If you meet a great man of low socio-economic status - go for him! But be careful with Bryan Caplan's advice to overcome your disgust and date older men. If a man feels a bit repelling, it could be that he actually is.

Don't be so expensive

In summary, dating men who appear to be at a discount for the sake of it seems like a bad idea. What is a girl who wants to get married supposed to do then? 

I think the answer is: Don't deliberately date down. Instead, don't be so high up in the first place. 

I recently read a very interesting article about dowries in India. It said that very well-educated women are expected to marry someone of equally high-status. The problem is that those men are ridiculously expensive - the groom price is astronomical. A high-earning man can marry anyone who can afford to pay for him. But a high-earning woman can only marry a man who earns equally much or more - if her family can pay for him. Being high-status leads women into a narrow range of options.

That seems to be a bit of the same with Western women. As I hypothesized earlier - men most of all want to have a good time. They can have a good time with someone of their own social status or somewhere below or even above. If a woman is beautiful, lively or interesting, they may fall in love with her a bit haplessly.

Meanwhile, women have their reasons not to search out a man below their own level. As David Buss explains, all of them are not entirely irrational. For that reason, I think one of the best things women can do, is to not rise higher than necessary on the mate value scale.

That sounds hard - getting a simple and boring job instead of a highly qualified job is not an appealing prospect. I wouldn't have minded being a little more important myself, actually. But one thing that can be done easily is to avoid looking too good. 

The world is crowded with pretty girls. Many of them spend quite a lot of time on being even prettier. Not being the most conventionally pretty female is very easy: Just spend less effort on it than others. 

There are two good reasons for women on the dating market to be moderately, pleasantly pretty rather than shockingly pretty. 

1. Being moderately pretty increases one's searching scope. It will be possible to date more men without dating down.

2. Shockingly pretty women will disproportionately attract men who are shockingly obsessed with looks.

Phrased differently, I think that looking too good will attract lemons. What kind of man is on the look-out for the best-looking woman? What kind of man wants an expensive-looking woman? Let's face it: Getting old together is the same as getting uglier and uglier together. A very high appreciation of good looks is not a good prediction for intention to commit for life.

Make-up transforms 7s to 10s, to the price of painting a generic, Beautiful Face over one's own, idiosyncratic face. If the goal is to attract the peaches and not the lemons, that's a bad idea. It is better to be a seven who can look for peaches among a vast pool of others of the same level of attractiveness, than being a ten who tries to trade good looks for love.

Women’s obsession with looking great contributes to a certain top-heaviness on the female side of the distribution. If females can artificially create a great look while males can’t, the number of female 10s should exceed the number of male 10s. There will be a surplus of shockingly beautiful women, forcing some of them to date down, or to just not date at all. Sailing through life like a queen is of limited use when the market is oversaturated with queens.

Shockingly beautiful women definitely attract a larger number of men. But what is the point in that? The task was to attract as many peaches and as few lemons as possible - not to attract so many men that one needs to apply stupid filtering mechanisms like "more than x feet tall and more than y in income” to make demand manageable.

Stop feeding the apps!

If men on the dating market are both peaches and lemons, peaches will always be underappreciated. Unless they can actually show they are peaches.

Superficial dating sites like Tinder are useless for that. So what are men with modest outsides and attractive insides doing there? Why are they wasting their time and money on sites populated by women who want to boost their confidence through dating superficially attractive men? 

I don't think those undervalued men should stay on Tinder and wait for women to figure out how to discern them from the overvalued men. Instead, I think all those undervalued men should take the first step and move away from dating services that fail to show their true value. Anders had a great idea a few weeks ago: Let an AI figure out which men actually have what women want. 

While we wait for AI to solve all of our problems there are a few things all average-looking, average-earning but high-commitment men can do. One of them is to support whatever dating app that conveys as much information as possible.

The foremost problem with today's dominating dating apps is that they force people to make selections based on insufficient data. Something that deters women much more than men. The women who nonetheless choose to be on dating apps are under pressure to clearly assert those uninformed choices in order to avoid being overwhelmed by demand.

The solution is simple: Find or create places that provide women with the data they need. Help create places friendly to females, and the chance to find a friendly female will increase.

1. See for example Cory J Coyler et al, Amish population pyramids: demographic patterns across affiliations in the Holmes County, Ohio, settlement, 2022, Link

2. Rod Janzen, Max Stanton, Hutterites in North America, 2010, 69 percent

3. Published in Kristen Roupenians book You Know You Want This, 2019

4. David Buss, The Murderer Next Door, 2005, chapter 4

5. David Buss, The Murderer Next Door, 37 percent

6. David Buss, When Men Behave Badly, 2021, chapter 5

7. David Buss, When Men Behave Badly, 2021, 81 percent