[HN Gopher] The Impact of Posing with Cats on Female Perceptions...
___________________________________________________________________
The Impact of Posing with Cats on Female Perceptions of Male
Dateability
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 140 points
Date : 2022-07-23 18:43 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.mdpi.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.mdpi.com)
| boboche wrote:
| Cats... meh. Would love reading the same study with dogs, and
| sub-categorize between big dogs vs. smaller.
| Kreotiko wrote:
| I'd like to see the same study but with golden retrievers
| daenz wrote:
| They mention different dog studies in the paper, which may
| cover what you're asking about.
|
| >The authors found that when labeled a "dog person" the men
| were perceived as more masculine than when labeled a "cat
| person."
| smcl wrote:
| 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.
| AlexCoventry wrote:
| > an online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey
|
| Why believe the results from such a survey? Seems easily polluted
| by people outside the target population.
| decremental wrote:
| This isn't surprising at all. It has always been my instinct that
| women would find a man less desirable if he owns a cat. Good that
| they did a study on it to drive the point home but it seems like
| common sense to me.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| 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.
| krona wrote:
| Unless your cat is a tiger, I wouldn't bother.
| housedrafta wrote:
| It seems like it would improve odds for lesbians.
| kixiQu wrote:
| 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.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| 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.
| wowokay wrote:
| As others pointed out, that is different then awkwardly
| posing with a cat that might now want to be held or looks
| forced.
| noahchen wrote:
| 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.
| highwaylights wrote:
| Not the owner of a cat, but yeah I would think the
| difference here is between:
|
| 1) I have a cat.
|
| 2) CATS CATS CATTY CAT CATS.
| Infinitesimus wrote:
| If they rejected you based on your profile, you wouldn't know
| would you?
| stephencanon wrote:
| 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.
| rvba wrote:
| You can get zero matches on tinder - what allows to
| verify that some things dont work
| bogota wrote:
| True but i think the comment you are responding too is
| commenting that "this was not my experience" can't be
| known without more information.
|
| 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
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > 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.
| TuringNYC wrote:
| >> 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.
| oblak wrote:
| 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.
| rossvor wrote:
| 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".
| Groxx wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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...
| ArcticCelt wrote:
| 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.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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...
| Groxx wrote:
| Oh wow those are bad, lol. Almost as bad as those 'shops
| where you can see the background bending around the
| inhumanly-shaped waist or butt.
|
| 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
| collegeburner wrote:
| 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)
| jffry wrote:
| Also those images in that supplementary PDF are unredacted,
| with a separate oval superimposed over the face.
| ghaff wrote:
| The paper seems to suggest that those are the only pairs of
| photos. Yes, they both sort of scream awkward photo at best,
| cat-prop at worst.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| "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."
|
| Supposedly.
| Closi wrote:
| Also the photos have completely different compositions.
|
| 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?
| rvieira wrote:
| 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".
| DonHopkins wrote:
| That's the same cat posing with two different guys! Obviously a
| seasoned professional companionship worker.
|
| They should repeat the experiment with cats that look their
| owners.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/oct/10/purrfec...
| makeitdouble wrote:
| 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.
| anewpersonality wrote:
| How did this pass ethics review?
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Are you concerned the cat's self esteem was harmed because it
| didn't get any dates?
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| If it were one of my cats, I'd have my face and arms covered with
| bleeding scratches, and no cat in the picture.
| system2 wrote:
| 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.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| This article seems kind of absurd throughout, then you get to the
| conclusion where they drip the "cats make you look gay" argument
| and you really start to question why you've read this stupid
| article.
|
| I said this last time this study was posted and got people
| telling me how they left a date midway through as the guy said he
| had a cat and they assumed he was gay. So it may be society is
| stupid and not the article.
| glouwbug wrote:
| Male dateability centers around muscle mass. Pick up iron, not
| cats
| astrange wrote:
| 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.
| lobocinza wrote:
| Being overweight certainly isn't helpful.
| astrange wrote:
| Losing weight is almost all diet. Exercise helps with
| almost everything possible except losing weight.
|
| But if you do it to the point of looking too much like a
| bodybuilder it mainly impresses the other guys in the gym.
| collegeburner wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| chungy wrote:
| Would tigers count?
| ancientworldnow wrote:
| Tigers are a negative strike post tiger king doc.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Those are awful "cat and person" portraits.
|
| 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.
| jspash wrote:
| 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.
| TeaDude wrote:
| Some day I hope to try this experiment myself with a goat in the
| background ...although it might be a little tricky to assess
| effectiveness without a control and the fact that goats flip-flop
| between photobomb and photogenic whenever they feel like it.
| zvmaz wrote:
| The best resource on human mating strategies is David Buss, The
| Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating.
|
| Documented, empirical, and factually "cold".
| astrange wrote:
| "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).
|
| I think I was just reading how this isn't true?
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/women-get-...
| Oarch wrote:
| Dataclysm was a nice data-driven breakdown of all aspects of
| online dating by one of the founders of OKCupid
| ghaff wrote:
| Didn't know he had written a book. He had some interesting
| blog posts back in the day.
| amelius wrote:
| Summarized:
|
| "Women viewed men as less masculine when holding the cat; higher
| in neuroticism, agreeableness, and openness; and less dateable."
| einpoklum wrote:
| The abstract fails to mention that:
|
| > 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.
| ghaff wrote:
| 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.
| genericacct wrote:
| Entirely agree.
| dsq wrote:
| Popular culture can help us out.
|
| When the villain has a 'personal pet', as opposed to a shark tank
| or alligators, it's generally a cat. Though sometimes dogs,
| either a Doberman or German shepherd. So, relatively big dogs.
|
| I don't recall the hero ever having a pet.
|
| Maybe this is the proof for the trope that women prefer the bad
| boy?
|
| /jest
| nolok wrote:
| John Wick comes to mind, especially the part where the director
| explained having the dog died allowed them to have absurd
| amount of revenge violence committed by the hero later on and
| still feel justified for the audience. On my phone so I can't
| look up the articles but the quote was more or less "once we
| killed the dog, Wick was allowed to do anything he wanted"
| dsq wrote:
| Absolutely, John Wick stands out. Though I think he started
| out villainous in the backstory.
| latexr wrote:
| > I don't recall the hero ever having a pet.
|
| See TV Tropes' Loyal Animal Companion[1] for a list of lists of
| examples. Like Canine Companion[2], which itself contains Post-
| Apocalyptic Dog[3], which links to I Am Legend[4], The Road
| Warrior[5], and others. I'll stop before going too deep into
| this rabbit hole.
|
| [1]:
| https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LoyalAnimalCompa...
|
| [2]:
| https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CanineCompanion
|
| [3]:
| https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PostApocalypticD...
|
| [4]: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/IAmLegend
|
| [5]: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/TheRoadWarrior
| hax0rbana wrote:
| Sample size: 2 men
|
| And in at least one picture it the cat looks like the cat doesn't
| want to be there. A man who doesn't care what an animal wants
| because his desire to have a cat in his photo raises red flags
| about the type of person this is.
| irrational wrote:
| 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."
| zeptonix wrote:
| 100% agree
| venomsnake wrote:
| squarefoot wrote:
| My theory: the old joke that dogs have masters while cats have
| staff has always been true, and applies to this context too. Dogs
| can be trained to execute orders, cats cannot, therefore the dog
| owner is seen as, an often is, someone who gives orders and
| expects them to be followed, that is, an alpha male, or someone
| that is a better/stronger companion, at least when the choice is
| led by latent caveman and cavewoman instincts we still possess. A
| man willing to appear strong will almost always choose a dog.
|
| Which could also explain why I've very often seen a lot more cats
| among left wingers and more dogs among right wingers, and bigger
| aggressive dogs among extreme right wingers who bring them around
| exhibiting both their strength and the master ability to dominate
| them. To me it's all driven by instincts, both in men and women.
| sarasasa28 wrote:
| guys with cats.. I don't know
| dvtrn wrote:
| 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
| auggierose wrote:
| I hope that study wasn't in any way tax payer funded.
| User23 wrote:
| This is an entirely unsurprising result for anyone capable of
| observation and understanding revealed preference in day to day
| life.
| MikePlacid wrote:
| Has this article passed QA? I mean - was it subjected to a
| treatment by a special team whose goal is to break it and expose
| all errors.
| anonu wrote:
| 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.
| lupire wrote:
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| fiprofessor wrote:
| Amusing, but MDPI is a semi-predatory publisher:
| https://paolocrosetto.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/is-mdpi-a-pre...
|
| 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
| conformist wrote:
| 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...
| orangeyjuicey wrote:
| What's cool is that the women in this research guessed pretty
| much the same personality traits that previous research [1] found
| cat people have versus dog people. Always cool to see how these
| social proxies for personality work.
|
| [1]
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233630429_Personali...
| rglover wrote:
| This is absolutely hilarious.
| mancerayder wrote:
| American women?
|
| 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).
| _jal wrote:
| 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.
| robocat wrote:
| 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!
| kareemsabri wrote:
| There's a lot of dog breeds. Some are aloof and distant, some
| are needy and anxious (which people do confuse as
| affection/love). I prefer the former.
| JauntyHatAngle wrote:
| What dogs are you talking about here?
|
| Hard to see a border collie as needy and pathetic to me.
|
| Labrador maybe. Pugs definitely.
| pawelmurias wrote:
| Isn't a border collie crazy need as a high energy dog that
| needs a lot of stimulation?
| njharman wrote:
| 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.
| kareemsabri wrote:
| 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.
| cenazoic wrote:
| Tangential aside, which amused me to remember. My old-fashioned,
| rural (southern US) grandmother used to tell me to never trust a
| man who didn't like cats, because he would dislike a woman for
| the same reasons. (Barring allergies)
| analog31 wrote:
| The smell?
| evancox100 wrote:
| The shedding hair?
| odiroot wrote:
| That's a weird prejudice. I understand if it was about dogs,
| but there's plenty of reasons not to like cats.
| decebalus1 wrote:
| Ironically you're calling out a weird prejudice by showing
| your own weird prejudice
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| There's plenty of reasons not to like dogs as well.
| ghaff wrote:
| Honestly, it's not even necessarily about not liking dogs.
| It's about "I'm OK with dogs but that means all our plans
| would have to fit into his having a dog." Nothing wrong
| with that, but implication of a lot more buy-in than with a
| cat generally.
| guelo wrote:
| Are there not plenty of reasons not to like women? (Also men
| but that's offtopic)
| kizer wrote:
| The soft sciences continue to substantiate the appropriateness of
| that name.
| [deleted]
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| I'm not sure... My Tinder pics had me posing with my cat, and I
| had tons of dates. Petting him was also a good excuse for getting
| the girls up to my place.
|
| He was a huge half-Russian blue. Sadly, he passed away due to
| intestinal lymphoma in 2018 :'(
| DonHopkins wrote:
| How about different more natural poses, like the cat stand on top
| of and dominating the man?
| O__________O wrote:
| 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:
|
| 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.
| itronitron wrote:
| 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?
| O__________O wrote:
| 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.
| lupire wrote:
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _This study suggests that a closer look at the effects of
| different companion species on perceived masculinity and
| dateability is warranted._
|
| Does it, though? Quantitatively affirming the existence of a
| stereotype doesn't seem like any great discovery, more like
| indulging curiosity at best or lazy grant-seeking at worst.
|
| Here, for free, are some other ground-breaking hypotheses:
|
| Men with dogs will be perceived as more masculine than men with
| cats.
|
| Men with large dogs will be perceived as more masculine than men
| with small dogs.
|
| Men with snakes or tarantulas will be considered less dateable.
|
| However, this result will not obtain for women who identify as
| goths, necessitating the formation of a new subfield.
|
| Men with fish will be perceived as more or less dateable
| depending on whether they appear likely to eat the fish or feed
| it, with a small exceptional cohort composed exclusively of shark
| attack survivors.
|
| Men with sheep present a quandary: are cheap sweaters worth the
| uncertainty?
| badrabbit wrote:
| > Men with dogs will be perceived as more masculine than men
| with cats.
|
| Would a skinny guy with a chiuaua look more muscular than a
| bulkier guy with a cat? What about fat guy with a retreiver? If
| you are average build do cats add a "gentle giant" vibe? As
| opposed to a "tiny dick"/"he is compensating" stereotype if he
| had a pitbull?
|
| The car stereotypes are interesting, it use to be that a muscle
| car or a big truck made you look stronger but now it has the
| opposite effect. Overt displays if masculinity can be mistaken
| for insecurity about your weakness these days so this study is
| interesting in my opinion.
| guelo wrote:
| I don't have a problem with a study like this. Companies like
| match.com have this data and much more. OKCupid's founder used
| to share some of their insights but he sold out. I'll always
| welcome adding more data to the public knowledge base even if
| it's a silly little thing like human matchmaking.
|
| This is actually what scares me about the artificial
| intelligence revolution, private companies are feeding their
| exclusive knowledge about humans to machine models that will
| then know more about us then we do. Those models are already
| being used to psychologically manipulate us, which after all is
| the specialty of these advertising companies.
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| > Women viewed men as less masculine when holding the cat; higher
| in neuroticism, agreeableness, and openness; and less dateable.
| pfisherman wrote:
| 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]
|
| 0. https://images.app.goo.gl/jFHLBo883XVo3Gb86
| derbOac wrote:
| 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.
| mrwh wrote:
| As someone who did have a cat in one of my online dating
| pictures, I can believe that both: a) having a cat picture
| decreases the number of matches, especially against having a dog
| picture; but also that b) it increases the likelihood of hitting
| it off with those matches that do come.
|
| Which is a net positive.
| runnerup wrote:
| Yeah when it comes to dating, whether online or IRL, I think
| standing out (in a way that's true to _yourself_ )is generally
| a higher "return" for the same effort vs "standing above".
|
| Getting a Mohawk may decrease your potential dating pool by a
| lot, but also the few who see that as a symbol of compatibility
| will be far more likely to push harder to get a relationship
| with you.
|
| Whereas competing to be the most classically eligible bachelor
| wins you the most dates if you can be in the rarefied
| percentiles...but there's a _lot_ of competition. And within
| the population of single men and single women, it does tend to
| be a "winners-take-most" situation.
|
| I think the real "social crime" though is people pretending to
| be who they are not in order to score dates. Then even if you
| get in a relationship it's usually not what either party
| actually wanted.
|
| Somewhat similar advice for jobs, actually. (In terms of being
| true to yourself as much as possible to find a good employer
| match). Obviously with jobs you just need money sometimes and
| have to shove yourself through a square hole.
|
| Whereas few people actually need sex/dates. Sometimes it sure
| feels like it, and human companionship has huge effects on
| physical and mental well-being (good or bad). Yes, I'm sure
| it's saved more than a few people from suicide or poor
| decisions. But there's no way to categorize this as a need
| unless we invent a way to fulfill it, all of which previously
| have been inhumane. Maybe AI/robotic companionship will allow
| new options.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I definitely go for polarizing over general appeal.
|
| I'm also generally not looking for a relationship.
|
| So there are also winner takes mosts in the fringes as well.
| sgjohnson wrote:
| > Which is a net positive.
|
| That would entirely depend on what you're looking for. Not
| everyone one dating sites is looking for a long-term romantic
| partner.
| quitit wrote:
| Some people seem to have a strong dislike of cats, so posing
| with one would lend to providing a filtering effect (i.e. Just
| as you describe: more rejections, but the passes are better
| matched.)
|
| That said I don't really buy into studying these kinds of
| perceptions beyond the obvious conclusions because attraction
| is too subjective to be studied with such simple toggles. To
| study it this way has the naivety of a reddit thread "LADIES
| WHAT IS THE ONE THING THAT MAKES YOU INSTANTLY ATTRACTED TO A
| MAN".
|
| Attraction is more than a sum of the individual parts, and the
| success of a relationship [interpreted as longevity] has been
| shown to not rely so much on choosing the perfect partner, but
| rather how you treat them once you have them.1
|
| 1. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/29/us/what-makes-a-
| relations...
| [deleted]
| yabatopia wrote:
| Posing with a cat makes a man less dateable is not really an
| issue. As long as it attracts the right person, another cat
| loving partner.
| pizzathyme wrote:
| A friend of mine photoshopped his dating profile with puppies and
| pizzas. He is now engaged. His fiance said that she thought it
| was obviously ridiculous but he looked like a fun guy so why not!
| amelius wrote:
| Sounds like an idea for a SaaS business.
| jiffage13 wrote:
| A legendary friend of mine regularly poses with cats:
| https://www.instagram.com/berkavitch/?hl=en-gb
| starkd wrote:
| Is that what makes him legendary?
| mise_en_place wrote:
| 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.
| andix wrote:
| 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.
| paulsutter wrote:
| A friend ran product at Match.com, and the two most popular
| male images were always (a) a male with a stethoscope, and (b)
| a muscular male
| itronitron wrote:
| popular by what metric?
| moffkalast wrote:
| Clearly the ultimate male is a buff doctor with a cat.
| system2 wrote:
| Buff doctor with a dog*
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| havblue wrote:
| If she finds out the stethoscope is only used on cats though,
| she might not be as interested.
|
| "He's a doctor! Wait. He's a cat doctor..."
| HPsquared wrote:
| The first hurdle is the highest.
| zeptonix wrote:
| PSA that there are always other countries, other
| opportunities, and other people with wider views out there.
| Nobody should limit themselves to this stuff.
| astrange wrote:
| 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.
| havblue wrote:
| My wife told me that having a cat on my profile was a positive:
| it showed I was at least responsible enough to take care of a
| small animal.
| glouwbug wrote:
| Because nothing else about you as a man says otherwise?
| khazhoux wrote:
| Lucky you. When my wife saw the profile picture of me and my
| cat, she asked me why the hell I'm posting on dating sites and
| threw me out of the house.
| synu wrote:
| The two particular cat photos they chose for the study seem
| almost comical, like a parody of a posed cat photo trend from the
| 80s. There are much more "normal" ways to have a picture with a
| cat that I wonder if they would perform differently.
| BenJong-Il wrote:
| Exactly! Especially in comparison to the non-cat pictures.
| zeptonix wrote:
| Exactly. And this really continues the whole idea that when you
| have thousands of "researchers" (people) who are judged solely
| upon quantity/acceptance hierarchy of published papers -- and
| what's at risk is their livelihoods -- you end up with lots of
| BS unreproducible research that can't be relied upon.
| croddin wrote:
| This is one study where (...in mice) would have made made the
| study very different!
| gnicholas wrote:
| Yes, a male mouse posing with a cat would be seen as very
| masculine -- perhaps foolishly so!
| ricksunny wrote:
| "Received: 28 April 2020"
|
| Imagine writing up this piece on cats in male pictures in dating
| profiles while the pandemic is breaking out in full force.
|
| (Note not judging - I just find it an interesting place to be
| operating from)
| lobocinza wrote:
| What if the cat poses without a male?
| baal80spam wrote:
| What a great candidate for the Ig Nobel Prize!
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-23 23:01 UTC)