Monday, January 17, 2011



It's a pretty well known fact that most women - attractive women - will happily date ugly men. We see it on TV -- in shows like King of Queens, though I would probably argue that Kevin James is kind of a stud, and really, that's exactly the point I plan on making-- and we see it in our friends.

There are plenty of studies on this strangely anti-Darwinian phenomenon - studies which I think don't answer the question as well as I, with my oh-so-steadfast opinions, can, do, and will.

So let's talk about this. Let's talk about what exactly is wrong with these conventionally attractive men, and let's talk about what is right about these, well, conventionally un-attractive men.

Anecdotal evidence aside, I know for a fact that I don't find "hot" men attractive.* Let me clarify - I find them pleasing to the eye, and every so often quite tempting, but I don't find myself actually attracted to them. And here I have to admit that I am undoubtedly judging their books by their covers, but I have yet to find the exception to the rule.
To explain: These high-school hotties are used to having the sort of unadulterated, fawning adoration that the symmetrically blessed always get in high-school, but the problem is that it doesn't do them any good. In fact, it's fair to say that it categorically does them harm.
They're trained from a young age to be (often) unjustifiably self-assured, to eschew personality and affability for cocksure confidence, and to generally treat people like the feudal system is alive and kickin'.
Am I making a sweeping generalization? No doubt. Can the same argument be used against women? Sometimes. But I find that women are much more inclined to date with their emotions - to pick a man that is funny, comforting, kind, and generous - and they'll often pick one or all of those traits over his looks.
I also have a little (and relatively untested) theory. I believe that women tend to come into themselves -- appearance-wise -- much later in school than men. And because of this I think women tend to retain some memory of what it means to be liked (or disliked) for who one is, not how one looks.
The bottom line: Ask any woman who she'd rather have as her boyfriend -- the lovably awkwardAlbert Brennaman (aka Kevin James -- told you he was the crux of the arugment) from Hitch, or Hugh Grant's wholly irredeemable Daniel Cleaver from Bridget Jones' Diary?

So -- let's start here. Which one would you pick? Did I just set womankind back a generation? Or do you wholly agree? Please share. I'd love to hear your thoughts.


  1. Hum.....humor, kindness etc...can make a man attractive but I dont understand the ugly man syndrome....I hate to sound snotty but I dont think I could ever date I man I find not in the least bit handsome. They dont have to look like George Clooney but it sure does help to have some eye candy......

  2. Because most of them can Lick their eyebrows..

  3. Listen some just are plain ugly AND the only explanation is that they really are attracted to that person...same goes for fine guys with some ugly girl I've seen alot of those...

  4. It depends on the woman and the depth of her character. I know beautiful women who will only date "hot" guys and I know beautiful women who truly don't care about looks and actually like a belly on a guy. Personally, I'd totally go with Albert Brenaman! The last guy I dated was kind of funny looking but I liked him as a person. I dumped him not based on looks, but because I started seeing his character and it was not what was advertized at first.... egomaniac womanizer is a good way of putting it.