[iteria]

I hate that stupid OK cupid article because what is always missed is that it's not always the same set of guys for all women. Almost no guy was overwhelmingly considered attractive or unattractive by women. Women are picky, but what they are interested in about men varies widely. Men are are the opposite of that. They have a very liberal acceptance criteria and it doesn't vary much between men. This makes perfect sense from a biological perspective. Men want to have sex with as many women as possible. They don't have much pressure to be picky. Women can only be pregnant so many times, so they're very picky, but that pickiness would definitely vary because what would be an ideal partner would vary based what they have going on in environment and genes.

[famouswaffles]

It didn't miss that. It just changes nothing. Women can be as varied as they like but if all that variance is falling within 20% of men then it's still pretty whack which is the point.

So sure one woman could pick x number of guys and another could pick a completely different set y. If x+y is only 20% then it means nothing. If anything, it just makes things worse for any individual guy.

In real life, you're way overstating the variance anyway. I think you kind of see that yourself when you use qualifiers like "overwhelmingly attractive".