I’d take this with a grain of salt. We tend to assign meaning and make value judgements based on context. For example, a swole guy cuddling a cat next to a squat rack will elicit a very different reaction than the same guy holding the same cat in front of a blank wall.
Similarly, I don’t think that anyone looks at this picture of Blofeld and thinks he looks particularly agreeable or open.[0]
Yeah anecdotally I can say female friends' reactions to firefighters rescuing kittens is very positive. I think part of what's going on is just the weirdness of a staged photo with a cat.
The cats are obviously engaged with an off-screen handler and not the subject so it does not come across like a person and their companion animal.
The off-screen handler shows up in most animal performances, there is a scene D-movie Devil Dog where the family dog leads the members of a satanic coven to a pentacle and it's obvious the dog is following a handler (Satan?) and being submissive, not dominant.
Not to mention the w/cat photos show poor posture and funny (my interpretation) hair.
The w/o cat photos also show the faces straight on, which makes them look more masculine. ie. thicker neck, more prominent jawline. There are too many subtle differences to list.
I'd like to see this done with identical photos with only the cat being the difference. My belief is that the results would be similar, but with a smaller significance.
I think preselection is the best indicator for success with women. Women are attracted to men who have already attracted other women. So it's best to pose with other female friends.
You need to be very careful not to cross the „jerk line“ right away with that. It has to be in a way that the interested female doesn’t feel so threatened that she turns away on the spot.
From what I understand: Muscular, but with a shirt on, and not at a gym, and not so muscular as to look like you're 'roided up. Show forearm vascularity. No dead animals or caught fish, unless it's a hunting/fishing area and everyone does it. Show teeth when smiling, and have at least one smiling picture. Don't do bathroom mirror selfies. And, as mentioned, have a stethoscope, but avoid wearing scrubs.
There was another study not too long ago that showed the most popular picture for a guy was looking off-camera at a slight angle and NOT smiling. This apparently created an air of "unavailability" or some such exclusivity that inspired interest.
PSA that there are always other countries, other opportunities, and other people with wider views out there. Nobody should limit themselves to this stuff.
That only works when you don’t want it to (you’re already in a relationship). Group photos just make you wonder why you’re not dating them already. Or which one of the group owns the profile.
I agree. I was friends with a woman who was quite out of my league as a young man. She went on to be a lingerie model for a time, but she was aware of this and would feign flirting with me when we would go out as a group to great effect. A wingwoman beats a wingman every time.
That's interesting, I would have guessed the opposite - that you might be thought of as having a more caring or loving side if you had a pet. As a dog owner myself I've met a couple of partners just through them coming up to see me about my dog in a pub or a cafe. I never thought it was down to being perceived as more masculine though, I just assumed that it gives anyone who might be interested a really simple excuse to strike up a conversation and introduce themselves, but in a way that avoids figuring out how ask someone out directly.
Interesting. Not a cat fan myself, but it seems like most women in my life are, so I expected the opposite result -- I would have thought that posing with a cat would improve my odds.
I gotta say this is a tough one just because posing with a cat is such an unnatural thing from the perspective of cat ownership. Guy sitting on sofa with cat lying on the back of the sofa is different from "Here Look At My Cat" guy.
That's funny you say that. I met my girlfriend on a dating site and I had a photo of myself with my cat laying on the back of the sofa. And I choose that picture on purpose because it always got people excitedly asking about my cat.
So this "shows a guy is undateable" has not been my experience.
I think there is as difference between having the cat in the background and posing with the cat. It's in the same vein of having a photo of your cat on your shirt.
>> If they rejected you based on your profile, you wouldn't know would you?
I guess you wouldn't know, but that seems like a good thing.
As a cat-dad, i used to put my cat on some profile photos. Why even bother wasting time on someone who doesn't like cats and/or isn't open-minded to cats? Best to filter them out asap.
Indeed. You'd have to be absolutely desperate. Long term, it makes zero sense to hide fundamentals such as affection for cats... or being a gamer. I know several guys who used to hide the fact they played games competitively. Granted that was almost 20 years ago but still.
But why do you assume that they don't like cats or even have an opinion on them? Most of first glance opinion forming is subconscious or near subconscious. It's less likely to be "I see a cat. I hate cats. Next" and more "Nah, not feeling it. Next".
You might be right. One thing is for sure though, if they actually like cats I assume this would be a big attractor. To flip the script, i'd 10x prefer a profile photo if it had a cat, given I like cats. Of course the two cats would also need to get along. Double date I guess.
You can only date a relatively small number of people. If a photo makes you less attractive to an average potential partner, but more attractive to potential partners who will actually be into you, that’s a huge lever for prequalifying.
Which is to say you should basically always play up your quirks, not hide them.
> Which is to say you should basically always play up your quirks, not hide them.
Not going to lie, I don't think this matters if you're a dude. I found that almost no women I dated even read my profile.
I was always up front about liking video games, board games, tabletop rpgs and the number of times date #1 would end on "You Like Dungeons and Dragons!? Ugh" was higher than
not.
I don't mean literally the date ended there, just that there was no chance of a second date after that point.
That could be the underlying masculine message. Posing with a cat can be interpreted as "I can stand razor-sharp claws sinking my flesh and still smile for the picture".
From a dating point of view, that’s a pretty important part though (for better or worse). Even before the cat person/dog person angle, there’s allergies and wether the person already has a pet or not.
Yeah, as a fan of cats: these results are exactly as I'd hope.
Cats rarely like being posed with. Neither of those pictures have happy-looking cats. If those are representative images, I'd be ranking less-date-able too, a possible inability to understand their pet is not a positive sign.
"We compared photos of two men looking fairly relaxed with photos of the same men in a different less open and relaxed pose holding an anxious cat which had never met them before. The results prove that women don't like men with pets."
Well, the little tigers can be dangerous and hold pathogenic bacteria in their little claws.
You'd be nervous too if that thing could claw at your eye
at any moment. Plus they could carry toxoplasmosis and tons of infections picked up from street animals.
Also on those pictures, the guy has is back all hunched and is holding the cat like a doll or a baby. Is it really the cat that give a less attractive vibe or the dorky posture of the guy on the picture?
Would the results be different if cat and man were posed differently?
I suspect that a picture of some guy going hiking with his cat would be seen different from some guy playing dolls with his cat in his apartment.
This reminds of the shirtless / not shirtless studies that use plainly artificial edited in muscles, no scenic background whatsoever (just a wall, not even a basic pool), and are just not generalizable to real (online) dating experiences.
Edit: This is the study. See the supplementary information section at the very bottom is you want to see the photos used.
lol yeah you can pretty much tell those authors hadn't ever gotten close to a girl or a gym
then some pop science blog writes about it and the average "i fucking love science" fan can feel good about being doughy and out of shape bc "haha science proves it" (if it sounds like im venting its because i am, i just hate pop science and this is the latest example why)
My cat is a total lap cat. She would stay there 24/7 if I let her. I do think she likes it but also likes the heat as well lol. Not all cats are hands off. Some like to be around humans too much and can be annoying they are so clingy. I'm sure she wouldn't mind taking photos while doing it, as she doesn't know wtf a photo is.
“Factually cold” is a yellow flag, and writing a book called “evolutionary psychology” is a red flag. People will accept any lie if you say it’s “the harsh truth we have to accept”, that’s why this site is so famously unnecessarily cynical.
Bit worrying Amazon reviews too, the “I hate my wife” marriage is a famous boomer pathology not a universal constant.
> You have to wonder why the divorce rate is 50%+, most marriages are miserable, marriages kill libido, many cheat, and so forth. Your dreams might be crushed reading this book so avoid it if you want to stay in Wonderland.
And:
> The most interesting topic I remember is the Coolidge Effect where males tire and withdraw from having sex with the same female partner. The Coolidge Effect has been tested many times on mammals and the same pattern can be observed (very predictable).
You could also try to read the book, or its cover, for a start. David Buss is a renowned and serious scholar. If you think that "evolutionary psychology" is a "red flag," I suggest you email another renowned biologist, Richard Dawkins, and warn him of if[1].
I think Richard Dawkins probably isn't very renowned anymore either; he's a sort of proto-guru, the kind who sounds impressive when you only meet him in book form but then social media is invented and it turns out he is ridiculous. Essentially one of the reasons online atheism died.
In fairness, their qualifiers probably filter out a fair bit of what's likely very unrepresentative about the Mechanical Turk pool--although I'd probably still expect it to trend poorer than the online dating pool overall.
The survey was developed by Quatrics who I've actually used and seem to be a good outfit.
There is the stereotype of the cat lady. I wonder if the survey was reversed if it would say “Men viewed women holding cats as higher in neuroticism and less dateable.”
This is a Seinfeld quote (from one of my favorite episodes, heh), for those downvoting thinking the commenter is making any kind of actual value judgement.
Merely commenting because you beat me to quoting the same scene
There was a study from a decade ago on online dating. Apparently the optimal set of profile pictures for men was: one photo with friends, one shirtless pic, and one pic with an animal. They didn't specify which. I'm guessing they didn't control for cats.
Any dating research from a decade ago is useless IMHO. The dating apps and newer generations of folks have totally changed what it's like to date on Tinder/Hinge/etc. today vs. eHarmony/Match.com/OkCupid/craigslist back in the day. Those old sites were all about writing and describing yourself, with a few pics on the side. Everything today is about making a super curated Instragram-style glamorous couple photos and that's it. The apps barely have any text description and are all about very fast decision making, yes/no, from just the first photo.
A common tactic is to have tons of "special issues" that pump out a lot of articles. This particular journal, Animals, engages in this: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals/sections
Yeah, like, sadly when I see [MDPI + interesting title] my reflex is to switch to "how did they p-hack, publish underpowered studies, or otherwise mess up the stats"-mode, and that's probably not the worst prior to have...
In the U.S. dogs seem preferred among the younger generation (and possibly in general, I don't know the numbers). I've heard it that cats are 'for women' and dogs preferred because it shows loyalty. A large percentage of women on dating profiles in my area write "I always stop to pet dogs when I'm out walking, I can't help it. Big plus if you have a dog!!"
I'm pretty sure it's cultural. In many countries dogs are expected to live outside as they're viewed as dirty. I believe in Middle Eastern countries cats are preferred to dogs.
I'm skeptical of evolutionary link here in terms of male desirability. Dog ownership might have something to do with a proxy for children and 'taking care' of a child-like creature (cats are more independent).
Evo psych like this is generally indistinguishable from just-so stories.
My partner (US American woman) thinks dogs have been bred to act needy and pathetic. I tend to agree. I guess I can see how that could be mistaken that for loyalty, but it doesn't make it more attractive.
The dimension I use is independent (most cats) vs dependancy (most dogs).
If someone is a dog owner type, I often stereotype them as wanting to both nurture and control, more parental. Cat owners often encourage independence. The relationship they want to have with a pet often bleeds over into the relationship they have with a partner.
I do strongly agree that evo-psych makes little sense: just-so narratives sound good though!
Man <-> dog connection comes from their historical role of dogs as work animals and men being in those professions. Herding, hunting, guarding, ratting, war, etc.
Cats are used as mousers/ratters. But that's it for cat jobs and they do that independently, not with a human cohort.
A boy/man and his dog is a pretty classic American archetype (Old Yeller, Where the Red Fern Grows). I don't think it's evo-pysch really, but it does indicate you are somewhat active probably, you have your shit together enough to care for a living thing, and you are capable of affection / emotionally available to another living thing.
Curious that they didn’t address the opposite as well, that being — what is the impact of posing with cats on male perceptions of female dateability? If anything, guessing that has a lot more bias, given the average cat owner is female and over 50, at least in the US.
For anyone interested in stats on (US) pet owners, checkout this post:
As one point of data, rare one at that, while I enjoy and respect animals — in my opinion, they should not be pets; that is, I would never be with anyone that had or wanted pets.
I'd also like to see that study but I also want to see them chart the impact of posing with multiple cats. Is there an elbow curve or just a linear trendline?
Once had a neighbor who feed 30+ street cats via an exterior basement entrance they left open — so there are definitely people out there that have lots of cats.
A friend of mine photoshopped his dating profile with puppies and pizzas. He is now engaged. His fiancé said that she thought it was obviously ridiculous but he looked like a fun guy so why not!
Shoot me for saying this but cat doesn't serve a purpose other than companionship. Dogs on the other hand are protective, loyal, submissive. These might play a subconscious role with cat/dog people. Cat also means laziness and no walking them outside, running with them, hiking, parks etc.
Also the article didn't mention if these people had cats or dogs in the past. Dog owners or anyone who participated interacted with dogs will have a bias towards cat owners.
based. and accurate tbh it's the biggest thing we can control physically maybe along with grooming. the "dad bod" shit is maximum cope from guys who arent willing to work off those extra 20lbs.
That’s mostly good for dating other men. For women it’s only the psychological benefit you get from it.
Anyway, if you’re dating a lot you’re failing. Should be taking advice from people who only had to go on one first date, they know how to pick winners.
Most Americans are overweight and most Americans are in relationships, so if you put these two together it seems like it’s not a deal breaker. Might be one under 30 though.
(I looked those two things up separately but not together and am not sure what “overweight” means here. I, of course, am in perfect shape.)
The parent comment was that male date-ability centers around muscle mass. While 'centers' is a strong word it's obvious that being fit is an important factor to attractiveness. By overweight I mean people that are over BMI 25 (which unintended could also include 'roid people'). Over 30 I guess pragmatism wins and other things are more important. e.g. single mom in his 40s will look for caring man with stable life/income.
I don't disagree with you. Being on any extreme negatively affects date-ability outside that niche. There's definitely an inflection point, probably around 'doesn't look natural/healthy', where muscle mass contribution is negative.
170 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 233 ms ] threadSimilarly, I don’t think that anyone looks at this picture of Blofeld and thinks he looks particularly agreeable or open.[0]
0. https://images.app.goo.gl/jFHLBo883XVo3Gb86
The cats are obviously engaged with an off-screen handler and not the subject so it does not come across like a person and their companion animal.
The off-screen handler shows up in most animal performances, there is a scene D-movie Devil Dog where the family dog leads the members of a satanic coven to a pentacle and it's obvious the dog is following a handler (Satan?) and being submissive, not dominant.
The w/o cat photos also show the faces straight on, which makes them look more masculine. ie. thicker neck, more prominent jawline. There are too many subtle differences to list.
I'd like to see this done with identical photos with only the cat being the difference. My belief is that the results would be similar, but with a smaller significance.
"He's a doctor! Wait. He's a cat doctor..."
>The authors found that when labeled a “dog person” the men were perceived as more masculine than when labeled a “cat person.”
So this "shows a guy is undateable" has not been my experience.
1) I have a cat.
2) CATS CATS CATTY CAT CATS.
I guess you wouldn't know, but that seems like a good thing.
As a cat-dad, i used to put my cat on some profile photos. Why even bother wasting time on someone who doesn't like cats and/or isn't open-minded to cats? Best to filter them out asap.
Which is to say you should basically always play up your quirks, not hide them.
But to your point you only have so much time and it will likely help narrow down better long term partners if your profile is honest
Not going to lie, I don't think this matters if you're a dude. I found that almost no women I dated even read my profile.
I was always up front about liking video games, board games, tabletop rpgs and the number of times date #1 would end on "You Like Dungeons and Dragons!? Ugh" was higher than not.
I don't mean literally the date ended there, just that there was no chance of a second date after that point.
I think more people need to understand this.
Like, if you sell something used you don’t need to craft the “perfect” ad or get tonnes of exposure on it. You only need to sell one.
They should repeat the experiment with cats that look their owners.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/oct/10/purrfec...
Cats rarely like being posed with. Neither of those pictures have happy-looking cats. If those are representative images, I'd be ranking less-date-able too, a possible inability to understand their pet is not a positive sign.
Pictures involving a cat willingly snuggling up to the subject may perform very differently. E.g. nearly all of these look good, and showcase very different cat-language: https://welovecatsandkittens.com/cat-pictures/12-adorable-ph...
Supposedly.
Would the results be different if cat and man were posed differently?
I suspect that a picture of some guy going hiking with his cat would be seen different from some guy playing dolls with his cat in his apartment.
Edit: This is the study. See the supplementary information section at the very bottom is you want to see the photos used.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-022-01278-1
I found it via an article on theguardian.com, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/may/25/keep-yo...
I have to assume the conversation between authors went something like this:
> Muscles look like this, right? https://unbelievab.ly/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/photoshop.j...
> LGTM, ship it
then some pop science blog writes about it and the average "i fucking love science" fan can feel good about being doughy and out of shape bc "haha science proves it" (if it sounds like im venting its because i am, i just hate pop science and this is the latest example why)
How do you separate the impact of the cat from the impact of a clear headshot that is front on vs someone sitting awkwardly with one leg up?
Documented, empirical, and factually "cold".
Bit worrying Amazon reviews too, the “I hate my wife” marriage is a famous boomer pathology not a universal constant.
> You have to wonder why the divorce rate is 50%+, most marriages are miserable, marriages kill libido, many cheat, and so forth. Your dreams might be crushed reading this book so avoid it if you want to stay in Wonderland.
And:
> The most interesting topic I remember is the Coolidge Effect where males tire and withdraw from having sex with the same female partner. The Coolidge Effect has been tested many times on mammals and the same pattern can be observed (very predictable).
I think I was just reading how this isn’t true?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/women-get-...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxhzmIlgBLY
(ex https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/140123936567899750... https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/146403399255088332...)
As for evo psych, find me a study design that doesn't allow just making things up post facto.
> Survey respondents were recruited in January 2020 through > Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk; Amazon Inc., Seattle, WA, > USA) platform
which is a tiny fraction of the group of women who use online dating apps/websites, and is most likely quite unrepresentative as a sample.
That in itself makes the conclusions, IMHO, invalid.
The survey was developed by Quatrics who I've actually used and seem to be a good outfit.
Merely commenting because you beat me to quoting the same scene
A common tactic is to have tons of "special issues" that pump out a lot of articles. This particular journal, Animals, engages in this: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals/sections
In the U.S. dogs seem preferred among the younger generation (and possibly in general, I don't know the numbers). I've heard it that cats are 'for women' and dogs preferred because it shows loyalty. A large percentage of women on dating profiles in my area write "I always stop to pet dogs when I'm out walking, I can't help it. Big plus if you have a dog!!"
I'm pretty sure it's cultural. In many countries dogs are expected to live outside as they're viewed as dirty. I believe in Middle Eastern countries cats are preferred to dogs.
I'm skeptical of evolutionary link here in terms of male desirability. Dog ownership might have something to do with a proxy for children and 'taking care' of a child-like creature (cats are more independent).
My partner (US American woman) thinks dogs have been bred to act needy and pathetic. I tend to agree. I guess I can see how that could be mistaken that for loyalty, but it doesn't make it more attractive.
Hard to see a border collie as needy and pathetic to me.
Labrador maybe. Pugs definitely.
So not pathetic or needy. Just don't lock it inside.
If someone is a dog owner type, I often stereotype them as wanting to both nurture and control, more parental. Cat owners often encourage independence. The relationship they want to have with a pet often bleeds over into the relationship they have with a partner.
I do strongly agree that evo-psych makes little sense: just-so narratives sound good though!
Cats are used as mousers/ratters. But that's it for cat jobs and they do that independently, not with a human cohort.
For anyone interested in stats on (US) pet owners, checkout this post:
https://www.pawlicy.com/blog/us-pet-ownership-statistics/
__
As one point of data, rare one at that, while I enjoy and respect animals — in my opinion, they should not be pets; that is, I would never be with anyone that had or wanted pets.
Also the article didn't mention if these people had cats or dogs in the past. Dog owners or anyone who participated interacted with dogs will have a bias towards cat owners.
Anyway, if you’re dating a lot you’re failing. Should be taking advice from people who only had to go on one first date, they know how to pick winners.
(I looked those two things up separately but not together and am not sure what “overweight” means here. I, of course, am in perfect shape.)
I don't disagree with you. Being on any extreme negatively affects date-ability outside that niche. There's definitely an inflection point, probably around 'doesn't look natural/healthy', where muscle mass contribution is negative.