3/4s Part4: what's in a mug shot?

I am not suggesting any of these woman are not attractive in person. It's the photos.

Scientists have a great deal to say about human attraction, but they did not have Internet dating in mind. I cannot think of a scenario where such eye-candy is delivered to both men and women in such rapid succession with the actual possibility of meeting, and even mating, no matter how small, is actual.

Don't be fooled. Men and women both look at the pictures first to see if they could remotely be interested. It may be a 60/40 male thing, but it still exists.

Facial structure, hair, smile, and some idea of physical presence can make a person want to learn more.

Of course, once they read the attached profile there is usually quick "red-flagging". "I'm a Bush-lover" or "Karl Rove fans need not apply," can be immediate show-stoppers no matter how initially attractive.

Now I do not know why, but the photos of women (and that is all I have looked at) on the Friendfinder network are, er..mostly just awful at best, and scary at worst.

Take the headless women above, the woman who has photoshop blurred her face (I assume she has self-esteem problems) and really just plain bad photos. Even the "glamour shots" are...well. No, and this was a random sampler.

The profiles are generally not much better, and with 3.2 million members and a search engine that produces women from the Ukraine and Namibia every third profile...well by the time you find someone to contact they've already dated someone else, become attached, engaged and their next child is due in the Spring.

Mac tried this service several years ago and did find one beautiful, intelligent and charming woman. But by the time they met she really just needed him to store her car for awhile while she hunted for a new place to live in LA.

He is so chivalrous.

Wuss.
_____________________
Next...SSN profiles...may they R.I.P...