"Average Joe": Would they have the guts to reverse the sexes?

The NBC reality show “Average Joe” – which features a number of average-looking guys competing for the hand of one hot chick – is a refreshing change from TV-land prettyness. I guess. But what if the genders were reversed? What if a dozen average-looking (or even downright ugly) women were competing for one handsome stud? It seems to follow logically as the next step . . . but would any network have the guts to try that? How could they convince the viewers that such a guy could envision happiness with such a woman? And who would watch it? I mean, if Richard Simmons’ “Sweatin’ to the Oldies” were broadcast in a prime-time slot, it would bomb, wouldn’t it?

I raise this idea as a thought experiment that might point up some of the psychological differences between men and women, and in particular, what the sexes want in their TV programming.

FOX might. FOX would try nearly anything.

I don’t think so. They haven’t (to my knowledge) flipped around the smart/beautiful woman, lucky bastard formula for family sitcoms. Thats just the kind of world we live in.

Y’know, that’s just the kind of show I might watch. I’d love to see some women with depth, personality, and character on the tube… might make me watch it again.

Which plays into the whole theory that 90% of network television is cookie cutter crap and not worth watching. Maybe if they did have the gonads to change some of the expected and step out of their comfort zone, we’d have some decent network TV on our hands. In the meantime, I’m pretty much with SPOOFE on all but a couple network shows that I watch whenever I get a chance.

Do you really think that women with depth, personality and character ask to go on these crap shows?

And if they do, do you think they get cast?

Would never happen in a million years, and if it did the protests would be deafening. Equality fo the sexes may be a laudable goal, but men and women usually have very different expectations in terms of the roles and definitions they will accept in courtship. Women typically have the majority of the yes/no power in the inital stage of relationships.

A beautiful woman choosing amoung average schlubs is seen as amusing, and the rejected men will go on their way, little the worse for wear. To flip this around, and have one extraordinarily handsome man chose among several average looking women, would be emotionally devastating, and an order of magnitude more humilating for the rejected women than for a man, who is used to having his overtures rejected. Women stripped of their power to choose become little more than harem girls waiting for the Pasha to choose them for the evening.

Nah, but what I’m saying is that a lot of the “actresses” on these shows are picked for their looks and their ability to be semi-convincing on camera. It’d just be an interesting change of pace to see some people picked for non-superficial reasons.

Same reason why the comic strips will never show you Paige beaten up by her brother Jason in FoxTrot, or Andy Capp bonking his wife on the head with a frying pan. That would be mean.

Haven’t they already? Wasn’t that basically the idea of The Bachelor and Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?

No, because those shows had beautiful women. If they got rejected, big deal, they were convinced they were “all that” anyway. It’s different for unattractive women being put in the spotlight to compete for the affections of a handsome man. That kind of rejection is shattering to the women–and to the viewers.

You know what? It’s often shattering for a man to be rejected by a woman, too.

I always wonder why people assume ugly people have better personalities than attractive people. In my experience, the homelier specimens of either gender had far worse personalities, wit, hygiene, style and intellect on average than those with good looks.

It stands to reason that attractive people are more outgoing and vivacious due to confidence and approval of peers. thus exposing themselves to more experiences and interests, making them more well rounded. Their personalities develop better due more interaction with others.

Hey, just take an attractive women and put glassess on her. That = unattractive, doesn’t it?

It would never get broadcast because nobody would watch it.

Hot chicks sell ads. 25 ugly chicks do not. If I want to see 25 ugly chicks, I go to the cafeteria at work.

You know, I have always wondered the same thing. I am pretty sure that the ratio of vapid, uninteresting, stupid people is the same for good looking and non-good looking people.

In fact, I know a lot of ugly people that are downright nasty.

Headcoat, I think you are right on about why.

They could do that in the future, sure. Of course, what is an average woman?

BTW, if you haven’t watched the show lately last week they brought in three new guys, all hot looking studs.

I think the reason they don’t do it is that it would be an awfully short show. The average girls meet the guy and go into the cocktail party. The host tells the guy that these are the women he has to chose from. The man then runs away shrieking.

Just some food for thought:

Take the movie Forrest Gump. Now take the main storyline, i.e., the “romance” between a mentally slow man and a hot young female of normal intelligence.

Now, reverse the genders.

Everyone, to a person that I have proposed this scenario has had the same response:

EEEWW!!

Chris W

But, if they were picking “average” to “homely” women, they’d be picking them for their looks, too. Just average looks, instead of exceptional good looks. It’s just as superficial.

Two words: Bailey Quarters