Striking vs. Standard: Continued Examination of Why Striking-Looking Women are More Attractive Than Their Standardly-Beautiful Counterparts

This article (er, blog post from OKCupid, via The Hairpin) corroborates what I've maintained for a long time: that striking-looking people are perceived as more attractive than their still-attractive-but-more-conventionally-so peers. Funny that I encountered the post this morning, just hours after Hook and I had a conversation about practically the same thing.

The scenario was this: it was post-Jeopardy time and Hook and I failed to turn off the TV. "The Bachelor" came on, at which point H. and I started speculating about the female contestants' motives and looks.

"How weird," I said, "that some of these people QUIT THEIR JOBS for a shot at a dude they have not met IRL."

"No shit," said Hook. "Also, most of them are not that attractive."

In keeping with my NY's resolution to be more positive, I played the role of Devil's Advocate and tried to defend the looks of some of the ladies. "They're not terrible," I said. "They're conventionally-good looking." That is, they all have long hair and symmetrical features. They're universally thin, and they seem to shop at the exact same mall. Who knew that attractiveness so relied on the ability to snag a bunch of shit from BCBG? Moreover, who knew that actually bucking the attractiveness norm set for us by shows like "The Bachelor" may actually have a more positive impact than adhering rigidly to it?

Anyway, my coffee break is almost over, and I digress. Know this, ladies: not all dudes are into flat-ironed hair and spray tans and knockoff Tiffany jewelry! At least my dude isn't, and this is just one reason I love him.