TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

49

[removed]


[–][deleted] 36 points37 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Men: bell curve

Women: Pareto

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

GSS study said that 22% of men have sex with 60% of women.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, if true, then... yes

[–]qwertyuiop111222Purple Pill Masticator1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Needs to be higher!

[–]Cissnowflake1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The answer

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Correct.

[–]uglygalthrow 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

What is a paretto?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Paretto's principle (now that you point it out, I think I may have slaughtered the spelling). Also known as the 80%-20% distribution principle

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Pareto

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

to be more precise:

Men: Normal distribution.

Women: Zipf distribuition.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ21 points22 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

You can predict both men and women who are going to be attractive for the other.

There will be more attractive women than men. Men both as a group and as individuals do like greater variations of female traits than women to male traits.

This is due to the fact that men can impregnate multiple women at the same time and have therefore poly sexuality as a viable sexual strategy. For this strategy it doesn't make sense to be picky, thus why men evolved with wider standards.

However what's often implicitly asked here is if there's at least a man attracted to every woman, the answer is no. Men are still having wider standards than women on this too.

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it7 points8 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Its also due to the fact that a woman's primary factor in her SMV is her appearance and age. Men have multiple factors in their SMV, with looks being a major one but not the only one.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ15 points16 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Men's standards for women:

  • Looks: 5/10

Women's standards for men:

  • Looks: 7/10
  • Status: 7/10
  • Social: 7/10

Numbers not contractual.

[–]DumbledoresFerrari6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

You've done men's standards for a one night stand and women's for a relationship

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ13 points14 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Women's standards are for casual sex too.

[–]DumbledoresFerrari6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You do not need status for casual sex. Social at 7 is too high as well, you need to not be a social retard sure but it's 90% looks

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't remember which country, but I've seen an article about someone accused of rape because he lied about being a pilot for an ONS. :')

It does matter. The social aspect matters too. It's 90% looks when you're average on the others. You can compensate one with the other, but generally they all need to be higher than average.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not 90% looks at all. At parties/bars/night clubs the dudes who get the pussy are the ones who know how to interact with women. Yes, they have to look somewhat average at least, but that's not enough at all.

Status and better looks help, but that's not a prerequisite.

[–]rogicar1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Woman's standard for one night stand:

Looks: 9/10

Status: 7/10

Social: 9/10

[–]boomcheese441 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Looks 9/10 is the only thing that matters

[–]rogicar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually take back what I said. I think either looks or social 9/10 would get you a one night stand as long as the other one is at least an average 5/10. I'm definitely not at all a 9/10 for looks or social skills, but the few times I've scored a ONS I just happened to be out of the ordinary nights in where I'm very zoned in and on a roll with near flawless game.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Bump up the 5 to 7 for me & also they have to have a baseline for not being crazy. I just can't tolerate girls who're too crazy.

[–]maplehobo 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

I think status and social are redundant, you can't have status without social

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Social here would be your behaviour and your communication. Your social skills... Status is not what you do, it's passive.

[–]maplehobo 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

And I'm saying one is dependent on the other, you can't have status without social skills, so if a girl likes a guy for his status the social is implied.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not mandatory. You can achieve high status without social skills, you can achieve social proof without social skills, you can have social skills that allowed you to reach high status but still be clueless how to socialize with women.

[–]rebeccatwosocks0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think you have it reversed

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you blue pilled?

[–]DragoonXFury22 Yr Black Virgin Skater Stoner Anime Nerd NPC0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate your summary. Clear and succinct.

[–]87AudreyHorne35 points36 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

I've said this before, but I overall think it's like this:

There are seemingly less variations between what individual men will find attractive, so their taste seems more uniform, and they all find relatively wider scale range of women attractive (6+ perhaps).

There are seemingly more variations between what individual women find attractive, but they find a very small scale range of men attractive (8+).

This can be slightly misleading, and I think people are generally confused about the concept of "subjective" beauty - I believe beauty is very standard, and the subjective part that contributes to attraction is actually very superficial and limited to style and type. so these variations are actually much smaller than they seem, and their importance is blown out of proportion because people find it easier to identify than the much more important baseline attraction.

The reason why I think it seems that every woman has very different taste in men is exactly because they exaggerate the importance of these secondary/subjective elements, and because of our tendency to only really regard our top as hot. Probably most girls can recall discussing hot guys from some movie with her friends, where each character was objectively 6+, but in the conversation every guy who wasn't your personal 9-10 was "ew, not my type at all" (hey I do this!). This makes it seem like our variations in taste are bigger than they are when really it's just that we refer to a difference between a 7 and an 8 as a difference between deformity and supermodels.

On the other hand if guys are discussing hottest girls in some group, even if their preferences are different, they will tend to agree that everyone considered hot is hot - it's just that one thinks girl A is slightly hotter, and the other that girl B is hotter.

[–]AndemanMan14 points15 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I think you're on the money.

Do women acknowledge this? Are you happy with a boyfriend that scores low on primary and high on secondary? Would you be happier with the scores reversed?

In my experience as a man, I think we're happier with women with higher secondary scores, because the competition is lower, but they still seem attractive to us. Men are less concerned with what other men think of us though, so I suspect it might be different for women.

[–]87AudreyHorne11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Do women acknowledge this?

I think so, but I think this leads to another misleading concept that women themselves have, and that is that we are attracted to personality. I think we need to be clear that the secondary traits still fall under the appearance category and don't stand for personality, although there is some overlap because the point of secondary traits/style is a type of suggestion of character. But that type of character is still something pretty superficial and image based, actually it is exactly that: image. it's not the same as saying that Ghandi gets you wet. But men also fall for overall image, except I think they are a little less distracted by it.

Are you happy with a boyfriend that scores low on primary and high on secondary? Would you be happier with the scores reversed? In my experience as a man, I think we're happier with women with higher secondary scores, because the competition is lower, but they still seem attractive to us. Men are less concerned with what other men think of us though, so I suspect it might be different for women.

The point with secondary is that it only really works after a certain baseline is met with primary traits. Everyone is happy to say they prefer their type over your generic hot guy or girl, but the full truth of that would be that they prefer their type on a 6-7+ base, which leads to having a full "image" of a person they can be attracted to, as opposed to an attractive shell which can be a primary 9 but has no "image" or a negative image due to secondary characteristics (or lack of them.)

So while no one is lying about the importance of their secondary preferences, it's not as amazing as we like it to be, because a) it falls apart if the primary base is too low; and b) the person with superior primary but unattractive or nonexistent secondary traits can actually very easily be everybody's type as the secondary traits require about 30 min makeover, which still puts them at advantage.

(Of course in real life, secondary traits are often really connected to some story or mentality that can't just be faked with a change of clothes, but I am talking about first impressions now.)

It's easy to forget that often when we think we find an "unconventionally" looking person hot, they aren't nearly as unconventional as we think they are. While they normally stray away from the mainstream in some deceiving ways, basic proportionality and symmetry are usually still there as a subtle foundation.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you include behavioral characteristics into the image?

[–]neubsWizard-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

because the competition is lower, but they still seem attractive to us.

Basically this for me. I try to go after the ugliest girls I could still get hard for.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian-3 points-2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I have a friend like this. We get in conflict(surrounding this issue) all the time. My standards are crazy high & he hits on any bitch with a wet hole & a pulse. It almost invokes my gag reflex.

[–]AndemanMan3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

he hits on any bitch with a wet hole & a pulse

I think this is your classic PUA, no standards whatsoever. The PUA will pick up the worst gutter trash skank at the bar instead of going home empty handed.

I don't like casual relationships. My preference for high secondary attraction is just a strategy to acquire stable, symmetric LTAs.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm the guy who disagrees. Whenever with my friends they start raving & asking how anyone could find "this" girl unattractive & I just shrug my shoulders & say "I do" it's probably a problem. But I don't care. If there aren't any sparks I don't see any need to sacrifice my agency for another person. I'm not a relationship person. & I'm no sentimental.

[–]Cho_AssmilkArrogant RP S.O.B.3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

the subjective part that contributes to attraction is actually very superficial and limited to style and type

A 6 goth/emo/scene chick everytime over a 9 with a Pro Bass Shops hat and a camo jacket. Style really matters to me.

it's just that one thinks girl A is slightly hotter, and the other that girl B is hotter.

Girl C is very fuckable, but it depends on what your homies think first.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

A 6 goth/emo/scene chick everytime

A fellow man of culture I see.

Even just having good quality tattoos instantly adds SMV points to a girl for me.

[–]Cho_AssmilkArrogant RP S.O.B.2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I love tattoos on a chick

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

A 6 goth/emo/scene chick everytime over a 9 with a Pro Bass Shops hat and a camo jacket. Style really matters to me.

Well, I'm not into goths, but a 7 in a dress is more preferrable than the 9 you described.

Ah, and having preferences based on what homies say is not really manly.

[–]Cho_AssmilkArrogant RP S.O.B.0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's more like preselection. I may necessarily even view a chick in that way until a buddy says something about her.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

TRP says preselection is a female thing, though. Anyway, sometimes I disagree with my friends on what girls are attractive and that does not affect my sexual desires at all. I still find those girls attractive even if my friends disagree.

[–]Cho_AssmilkArrogant RP S.O.B.0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

For sure. I'm just saying sometimes it goes the other way.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, if my friends say the girl is attractive it does not make me rethinking it too.

[–]reluctantly_red6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I find a very wide range of women attractive. My first wife was about as white as its possible to get (Irish and Swedish). My second wife was Mexican. My GF is dark skinned African American. I dated a 5'1" Filipino woman and a 6'4" former college basketball player. The smallest woman I've been with was about 105 lbs, the largest over 500.

[–]praisethesun799Not actually a fag 😉5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

500 lbs? 😱 Damn man, I can appreciate a woman with a bit of squishiness , it’s very sexy, but you go the full mile and then some Xd

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Supersize women can be lots of fun for casual stuff but their limitations make them poor LTR choices. I'm sticking to the smaller end of the fattie spectrum these days.

[–]flyinghorse10 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're right to do so. I also find some fat women attractive, but with anyone over 300lb i could see how out of breath they could get just walking.

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A good test is if they can't walk 5 km without almost dying they're too fat.

[–]meomeowmeoww 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

wanting to have sex with =/= attraction.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

"It's is she hot? not would you do her? Respect the game."

[–]rus9384Misanthrope1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sexual attraction is attraction too.

[–]DXBrigade3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Nope. I think it's more or less the same. It's just that women aren't as picky as people say they are while men aren't as open as people say they are.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This. It’s often a matter of “I don’t wanna be seen in public with this person.”, for girls, and for guys, hookups often leave a bad aftertaste.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

“I don’t wanna be seen in public with this person.”, for girls

Not exactly that because these girls are totally ok to be friends with those guys. They are not ok to be seen as a couple with them.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s what I meant, doing couple stuff, not platonic friends.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Men have their types but are also happy to look outside of that type too and will find those women just as attractive more likely than not.

Since this is PPD and the obvious needs to be stated: this obviously excludes obese land whales outside of a minority of chubby chasers.

With women they tend to have the luxury of being more selective so they do. It's only rational.

[–]DragoonXFury22 Yr Black Virgin Skater Stoner Anime Nerd NPC2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I like chubby girls. I find a lot of them to be very attractive.

There are some fat girls I found to be pretty hot too.

I think it's when the fat becomes so excessive you can't really see a shape or a defined figure.

I also think it matters also how the fat deposits around the body too. Usually fat girls who have "pretty" faces would just look a tone a lot better if they just worked on their figure a bit.

High intensity invertal training is king. I mean I do it on the regular at my athletics club but overweight girls who attend for a month go from 0 to 100 real quick haha.

[–]Bayard202 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, this has been proven so many times over, I've stopped keeping score.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat4 points5 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

No.

There are studies about this--while each individual man will generally have a wider "range" of acceptable women, attraction tends to center around a few particular traits which are fairly universally desirable. Any two given men will see 10 women and agree on which 6 are the attractive ones. Where as any two women are likely to have just a few men they find attractive, but it's not the same men--show them 10 men, each will only like 2 of them--and it's not the same 2 for each.

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it3 points4 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

But is that accurate? there are certain traits women universally find attractive in men.

Height
V shaped torso
Sexual dimorphism (a face shaped by testosterone)
clear skin
facial symmetry

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

It's still a much, much shorter list than what men find universally attractive in women (facial shape, for instance, falls into a much narrower range for men than it does with women). I'm also convinced the height thing is exaggerated, although that could be solipsism.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

And where is that long list what men find attractive? It's of somewhat of the same length: low WHR, hourglass shape, low fat percentage, perky tits, juicy butt, cute or hot bitchy face, hair length and health.

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it-1 points0 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Is men's universal list really longer? Mens list would be things like

Age (teens and 20s are best as a woman is at her most fertile and still has 20-25 years of fertility left)
Hourglass torso
Sexual dimorphism (body and face shaped by estrogen)
clear skin
facial symmetry

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Face has far stricter rules than for men (men with neotonous faces have a market while women with masculine features do not), age is on the list while it isn't for women, men are generally into a far narrower range of presentation (hair in particular)....

I also think that you're confounding "are they attractive" with "am I attracted to them" with "would I fuck them" which are three different questions with individual answers.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

hair in particular

What? Men with long hair also are not Chads.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Tell that to the punks/alt scene.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, short-haired women also have their target audience. In both cases, people limit their TA by having their hair styles.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Straight up, only 8% of women have hourglass figures. 70% are bottom heavy.

[–]uglygalthrow 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

I feel like most white women are top-heavy and most black women are bottom-heavy.

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

According to several books I have on body shape, you feel incorrectly. Look at women's fashion and see how much of it has a design across the shoulder area in order to widen it and give the impression that the wearer has an hourglass shape.

[–]uglygalthrow 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

I rarely see bottom-heavy imo

Most women are top-heavy and just titties

[–]rus9384Misanthrope1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you mean rectangular shape with tits.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Facial symmetry is not as important for men as it is for women.

Also, learn to use markdown.

[–]DragoonXFury22 Yr Black Virgin Skater Stoner Anime Nerd NPC-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This is interesting.

I wonder if it is the case that although men have a narrow list of traits for women to be deemed attractive, the vast majority of women meet those requirements and although women have a longer list of traits for men to be deemed attractive, a much smaller number of men actually meet those requirements compared to the number of women that would satisfy men's requirements.

Could this perhaps explain the intergender attraction disparity conundrum?

Oh, I want make it clear that I don't think it's a "higher" standards thing. It's just how it is maybe?

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I really don't think that's it. I think the so-called attraction disparity is a fucking disparity--women are often unwilling to fuck a man even if they are attracted to him, while men are often willing to fuck women they aren't attracted to.

[–]DragoonXFury22 Yr Black Virgin Skater Stoner Anime Nerd NPC0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

"I really don't think that's it."

Well, I wasn't so sure myself so I left a lot of what I said as question marks deliberately.

"I think the so-called attraction disparity is a fucking disparity..."

Lol, why fucking f-bomb here?

"... women are often unwilling to fuck a man even if they are attracted to him, while men are often willing to fuck women they aren't attracted to."

OK, but how often is "often"?

Also...

How do we determine when a man is not attracted to a woman but is willing to fuck her?

How do we determine when a woman is attracted to a man but is not willing to fuck him?

[–]flyinghorse15 points6 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

Nah man - look at all the dudes with girlfriends - theres so much variety in how the men look! You'll see hipster boys, bodybuilders, nerdy types, straight laced office dudes, skinny rock lads, fat guys, dandy types; theres such a massive variety of male looks that succeed with women (never feel like you have to be the boring buff dude)

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

nerdy types

I call BS on that. And I call BS on short men with girlfriends, too.

The exception for both being that they're rich.

[–]flyinghorse12 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You've never seen a normal man who is below 5'9 with a GF???

Nerdy dudes have GF's - they often date a looksmatched nerd

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You've never seen a normal man who is below 5'9 with a GF???

Fucking hell no.

Nerdy dudes have GF's - they often date a looksmatched nerd

Said woman is usually dating Chad. Or someone way above her looksmatch.

[–]flyinghorse11 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just walk around a mall and theres tons of men with partners who are short.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol, that dude blocked me because he thinks I talk too much shit. How hypocritical from his side.

[–]flyinghorse10 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Who blocked who? on this chat?

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

LeJaquelope blocked me on reddit. I mean, put me in the black list. So, now he does not see my messages.

[–]Bayard200 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

Nah man - look at all the dudes with girlfriends - theres so much variety in how the men look!

There really isn't.

[–]flyinghorse10 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

Haha how do they look then?

[–]Bayard200 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

All the same, really.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, they all have a peen.

[–]Bayard200 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

They're all also all tall, conventionally attractive, etc.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

You don't look at people when you go outside, do you? Or maybe tall is everyone above 5'7" to you.

[–]Bayard200 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

5'7 is about the average height where I'm from. I'm a little over 5'7 and I'm on eye-level with most men I come across - hell, if anything, I'm slightly taller than most. Height is overrated.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Average height is not tallness. Also, in that case I could reduce my number as I guess you are from Asia now.

The point is that dudes below average height also can have relationships.

[–]Bayard200 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Average height is not tallness. Also, in that case I could reduce my number as I guess you are from Asia now.

Western Europe actually.

The point is that dudes below average height also can have relationships.

Not unless they got something to offset it, they can't.

[–]wub123413 points14 points  (66 children) | Copy Link

No, this is some complete bullshit that continues to be perpetuated. You can easily predict what almost any man will find attractive, and you can put a certain woman in front of a group of men, and they will almost uniformly find her attractive. The reverse does not apply.

We men are actually rather narrow in what we find attractive. Of course, some men will basically fuck anything. That's completely different.

If you've actually spent time around men, particularly when women are not present, it very quickly becomes clear that a small percentage of stereotypically attractive women get a hugely disproportionate amount of attention, while others are largely ignored.

I'm not above this myself, I just recognise that it is the case. It's one of aspect of self-knowledge that I've acquired from being here.

[–]goldmedalflower19 points20 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

We men are actually rather narrow in what we find attractive.

A man can walk into a room of 100 age-appropriate average women easily be attracted to a large majority. When you reverse the genders, women are only attracted to a tiny % of guys at the very top. Yes, they'll relunctantly settle for less, and yes he can make up for it in other ways, but in terms of real attraction, men are much more inclusive and it's not even close

[–]tickledpic7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

You can also see this on tinder. As a man I mostly swipe right. I'm attracted to majority of women.

Women mostly swipe left and sprinkle in some right swipes when someone stands out to them. They are attracted to minority of men.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

That's Tinder. Women are like 30% of its users and can afford being picky there.

[–]tickledpic1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Why does that matter? Take a first time user man and a first time user women. Within seconds you'll see the difference in behaviour.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Within seconds? No. A woman will see there is a lot of hot guys and will understand what to swipe. But that takes a few minutes at least.

[–]tickledpic0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Ok, minutes...

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

But that's totally a result of skewed sex ratio.

[–]tickledpic0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

She doesn't see how many other women there are on the app. She sees men. And the more she swipes the pickier she gets. I just swipe right constantly...

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

She doesn't see how many other women there are on the app.

She does not need to. Tinder suggests her more hot guys because there are more hot guys on Tinder than IRL.

Also, she gets lots of matches which makes her pickier. Not what you said.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Which is a reaction to getting immediate results (matches, conversation) vs not getting any. Adapting to be less discriminate

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Sure, but a woman can meet a guy with no initial attraction and develop physical attraction on how he carries himself

This is very very very difficult for women to do with men who don’t find them attractive

[–]RoninCDN2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Wait what? Can you back this up?

[–]rus9384Misanthrope1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Happens constantly in Moscow bars, night clubs. That happens even in social networks.

To women most men of appropriate age are like "I don't find him sexy but I don't find him repulsive too".

[–]boomcheese440 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

True, but rare.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not at all. I’d argue even most relationships start this way

[–]oneprettycoolcat0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Only relevant when she's looking for a provider, which has nothing to do with sexual attractiveness.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Wrong boyo. A woman can and will be sexually aroused by status, charisma, confidence, etc

[–]oneprettycoolcat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not at all. It's no different than a prostitute fucking her john.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

easily be attracted to a large majority.

I disagree. Say, the selection is totally random and global. There will be white, black, asian, native american women. There will be jews, pinay, japanese, georgian, mulatto, etc.

In that case I believe an average guy won't find the majority of women attractive.

women are only attracted to a tiny % of guys at the very top.

Without studies it's not confirmed. And studies should ask if a participant would have sex with a person for free.

[–]LuxuriousBottleCap1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

100 average women and easily be attracted to a large majority

True if we're talking about a man in Vietnam or Ethiopia where most women are slim. In America, absolutely not. The median woman in that group weighs more than the man's grandfather did when he served in the military. Plenty of American men are desperate for female attention and social validation, but that's not sexual attraction.

[–]qwertyuiop111222Purple Pill Masticator2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The median woman in that group weighs more than the man's grandfather did when he served in the military.

r/murderedbywords

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ10 points11 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

You can totally predict which man is going to be attractive to women.

Let's write down with example numbers why you have this false interpretation of reality.

Women find 20% of men immediately attractive, then the next 20% have to prove themselves, they're "meh". Because of the later group, people are under the impression that women have a wide variation of what is attractive to them, because the later group is just as big as the immediately attractive group.

Men will find 50% of women immediately attractive, and then next 25% can prove themselves.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

then the next 20% have to prove themselves,

IME that category is larger. But yeah, might not be the case in America where the majority of people are overweight.

next 25% can prove themselves.

Lol, for a woman if she's meh (not ugly, but not attractive too) in looks, the only way to prove herself is to hit guys first.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

IME that category is larger. But yeah, might not be the case in America where the majority of people are overweight.

In countries where people aren't all overweight women simply have higher standards.

Like maybe in the USA being short isn't a death sentence, but it is in a country where the short men can't compensate by being in shape.

Lol, for a woman if she's meh (not ugly, but not attractive too) in looks, the only way to prove herself is to hit guys first.

Almost as if it was easier for them to prove themselves than men.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

In countries where people aren't all overweight women simply have higher standards.

Still, as I see, that category is larger where I live. But it depends on the amount of women whi do hook ups, I think. Gender ratio on hook up market is male biased and that's why it's hard.

With relationships it's a lot easier for men, because sex ratio in relationships market is not male biased.

Almost as if it was easier for them to prove themselves than men.

Well, for relationships they have to do more.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

With relationships it's a lot easier for men, because sex ratio in relationships market is not male biased.

It's still male biased.

Well, for relationships they have to do more.

Nah. High SMP of women is a thing for relationships too.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

It's still male biased.

Depends on the country, I think.

High SMP of women is a thing for relationships too.

I mean, a woman in the question does not have high SMV. RMV is even lower in relative scale.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

Depends on the country, I think.

If you mean Russia after WW2 where there was 0.6 man for 1 woman, yes, otherwise, no.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Well, do you mean there are more men than women on average? Or that women are less interested in relationships?

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

Women are less interested, search less often, for shorter windows of time. The market between casual sex and LTR is overlapping.

[–]ohheyhi99Conflicted Feminist Man, No Pill2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. Even if I pursue 1 out of the 15 women at a party, I probably find the majority of the others attractive. I just don’t want to seem tacky—to women, not men—by shooting my shot too many times. If one of the other 14 women approached me later, her chances probably wouldn’t be bad. Maybe my standards would be narrower if I was more attractive, but that’s how I function.

[–]celincelin 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Bitch please. Go outside once and look which gender approaches which.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Be civil.

[–]__queenofsaigon_1 point2 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

Well what is the ideal looking female that all guys find attractive

[–]Santaclause374 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Literally anyone with a vagina

[–]BlindingTwilight 1 points [recovered]  (19 children) | Copy Link

Think Victoria Secret model

[–]__queenofsaigon_2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Idk about that, every guy ik likes short girls

[–]TheEnchantedHunters1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think that's usually a big factor for men as long as they're still taller. I actually think tall looks cooler and the last person I dated was my height (5'11). There's more uniformity of opinion around weight but even that varies a good amount (skinny being out of fashion with the whole 'thick' obsession these days..)

[–]2Manadeal2btw0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Guys like girls shorter than them. Its a masculinity thing.

But if a guy is 6'4, it doesn't mean he'll go for a 5'8. He might go for someone who is 6'1. Its all relative.

[–]oftheinfinite 1 points [recovered]  (13 children) | Copy Link

🤢Never in my life have I ever thought VC models are attractive or as ideal looking females.

🤮

[–]geyges🐇1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Yea I don't see how any man would want those hideous tramps.

I bet you'd have your dick out faster than anyone.

[–]praisethesun799Not actually a fag 😉1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Disgusting, all goblins and freaks I say! Wouldn’t touch those with a 10foot pole 🤮

/s

[–]oftheinfinite 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

[–]geyges🐇0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're just more into trashy beckys with big tits than classy stacies with tight asses.

But the difference there is so minuscule its not even worth talking about. They're all conventionally attractive.

[–]praisethesun799Not actually a fag 😉-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

A+ taste in woman right there 👍🏻

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Well, the woman on the left has too wide waist. Next (to the right) woman has 4-5/10 face. Then there is a 7/10 woman (eyes too far from each other and her WHR also is not that cool, also she's too skinny). The rightmost woman is 6/10.

[–]geyges🐇0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

eyes too far from each

This is actually a huge evolutionary advantage. She can keep an eye on kids while making you a sandwich at the same time.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Strabismus then should give +1 to hotness.

[–]geyges🐇0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Strabismus

I had a professor that had that. It was so stressful during the tests, because it seems like he was just sitting at his desk messing around with paperwork, but at the same time always watched everyone in the room too. Cheating was impossible.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The point is, strabismus makes people less attractive.

[–]ashitanothrowaway1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They are not attractive to me or most souther black men I know.

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to Littleknownfacts[M] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]SweetLikeTupeloHoney1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You could line the men I am attracted to up and someone would suggest they are related. I have a type and it may vary a little (height, weight, eye color), but it is extremely consistent. Same with personality - introvert, driven, intelligent. Maybe I am an outlier.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

IMO that's a weird move from nature. It is more beneficial to produce children with different advantageous genes (when you can't have them all in once). Better to make both introverted and extraverted kids.

While height & weight is something understandable, eye color is ridiculous.

[–]SweetLikeTupeloHoney0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I probably wasn’t clear but my attractions all are very similar except slight differences in height, weight and eye color. I specifically but that because I’ve always thought it was strange that I love all eye colors but many of my friends only like blue. You are correct though. The men I am attracted to are generally just like me.

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Just not being fat these days in the US makes you an automatic 5. This is unfortunate. I think the obesity problems have really impacted relationships in an off way.

Low quality women tend to also make the kind of decisions to be obese.

Back in the "old days" aka 1980's and earlier those lower IQ low quality women would have been in much better shape. Low rank men would have been happy with them physically at least. Now, ugh.

So basically obesity is making the low end women even less desirable, and this is a problem for low ranking men.

I personally would be celibate before having sex with todays land whale. I have options though. Many men don't.

I'm probably not doing this discussion justice but I'm coincidentally and probably ironically heading to the gym so I'll maybe revisit it.

[–]Bayard200 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

s in the US makes you an automatic 5.

Oh, hi, Bigger D.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, at least smart guys will pull smarter girls if they hit on slim girls specifically.

[–]oneprettycoolcat0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Just not being fat these days in the US makes you an automatic 5.

If you're a woman, yeah. Not being fat isn't nearly enough if you're a man, though, as you need to get muscular to have any chance in women finding you sexually attractive. Getting muscular is a lot harder than getting skinny.

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agree.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I’ve seen data on this and the answer was no.

[–]TheReformist940 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Wrong, as it contradicts the Pareto principle

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Well the data exists and that is what it found. It was based on ratings of attractiveness similar to the okcupid data people love to cite:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626153511.htm

[–]TheJim66Red God-Emperor of Slut Country1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

As far as I can see this speaks about how much variation there is between what the sexes find attractive.The OkCupid data points to what the percentage of above average attractiveness between genders is.Arent these completely different?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It says men agree on what is attractive more than women which is what the OP is asking? It’s similar to the okcupid data in that it too is based upon ratings of photos...

[–]TheJim66Red God-Emperor of Slut Country0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh okay,thought you meant that that study makes the OkCupid data obsolete.Nvm

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No i just think it’s funny that it had similar methodology and the looksist crowd loves to cite it yet I keep getting downvoted for raising this one.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Meh. IMO it’s like this:

Men like to gloat they’re super virile and down to fuck pretty much anything, therefore they tend to say a majority of women is attractive.

Women tend to be defensive as most don’t want to be seen as slutty, so they claim most men are meh.

The above mostly applies to public discourse, just put people in a secluded place and things change.

[–]IHeartDay91 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women probably find a wider range of other woman attractive than they do guys.

[–]Planetof120 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think so. I see a lot of couples in my country. Pretty much ALL OF THEM has an incredibly skinny dude. I'm talking thin-ness that you need an amphetamine addiction to achieve unless you're blessed genetically.

[–]ChadThundagaCockBorderline Personality Wrangler0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Is methamphetamine legal in your country

[–]itsokma0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are thirstier, so ya.

[–]BanProLeagueSiege0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Statistically speaking, when looking at dating site data, this seems to be the case. Real world results may vary as factors and human evaluation are different on the internet than in person on person interaction.

[–]aypi980 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, men find most women aged 16-45 at least somewhat attractive. Women only find a very small number of men attractive.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I did a statistical regression analysis comparing female to male attraction indicators at the PPD subreddit and found that women find -12% of the men here sexually attractive, with a 12% margin of error.

[–]The_Lone_Apple0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

On a macro scale, I think the laws of attraction balance out in favor of either gender finding a very wide range of people attractive. If you narrow it to college-age people in the US, you probably will find it skewing towards one end of the curve based upon their consumption of popular cultures notions of beauty.

[–]ButtersStotch4Prez0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

if you get a group of men and women together and tell each of them to rank all the opposite gender, the lists that men make will be very consistent. but the rankings that the women make of the men will be all over the place. some guys will end up ranked higher on more lists than others, but every girl's list will be different.

male and female SMV are based on very different things.

female SMV is almost entirely about looks. guys can look at a picture of a girl and be able to know if they would fuck her or not. and then if he meets her in person his opinion probably won't change (assuming the pic is accurate).

if women look at a picture of a guy they can tell if he looks hot, and they may make a guess about whether he is fuckable or not. but when she meets that guy in person, her opinion can change drastically. a guy who isn't great looking but is very charismatic and charming might suddenly shift to the "fuckable" category, and a hot guy who is awkward and weird in real life might become unfuckable.

[–]boomcheese440 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I believe you are wrong. The women would be saying to themselves "Can this be long-term boyfriend material?" even if you are asking them to primarily rate on looks. If women become more cognizant and honest with themselves, they will be rating the Chad highest on all lists.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The more I think about it, the more it looks like I’m an outlier.

I cant stand it if the woman is trashy, and below average intelligence. Maybe a hookup is tolerable but nothing else.

[–]TheReformist94 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes. Women only like white men (and variations with similar facial features) with pointed noses, hgih cheekbones and a good jaw line.

Height it negotiable.

If you don't have these features, you are fucked. Hence why very dark brown men, Asians etc are fucked, not because women don't like these races per se, but they don't have those features.

[–]pngmafia97 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

Can’t speak for men but as a woman I definitely find a wider range of women attractive than my male SO (who rules out butterfaces, to which I say - hit it from behind) but probably a narrower range (as women are incredibly self critical) than men at large.

[–]rus9384 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

No, he asks if women find smaller range of the opposite sex people attractive than men.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter