TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

40

The unwillingness of women to settle for a partner in the same income and attractiveness range as themselves is the root of the frustrations of men and women. Women have such an inflated sense of self-worth that even low caliber women have a laundry list of requirements for potential partners.

Even the lowest RMV women, single moms, look for attractive men who can support her and her child.

If Attractive men are 10% of the population according to women and unmarried men who make more than $50k are 25% male population, then women are only really attracted to 2.5% of the male population.

Women are frustrated that 100% of women are competing for 2.5% of the male population. And the men outside of 80th percentile in attractiveness are frustrated they can't get laid easy. Seems like if women dropped their expectations back to reality, everyone would be happier.


[–]DerEwigeKatzendameThat wasn't cute or funny12 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

If Attractive men are 10% of the population according to women and unmarried men who make more than $50k are 25% male population, then women are only really attracted to 2.5% of the male population.

Are you sure that's how the math for that would work?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, of course its inaccurate. It is just much easier though to visualize with rough statistics The percentage of men making $50k+ is around 25%. Half of those men are married. But at the end of the day most of these men are probably attractive due to the bias in attractiveness and success. So yes, you are correct, but give me a break lol

[–]DerEwigeKatzendameThat wasn't cute or funny2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

give me a break

No.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

lol I think the number is around 2.5% but a different 2.5% for every woman within the 0-10% range of men women find attractive.

[–][deleted] 47 points48 points  (104 children) | Copy Link

Sorry to burst the bubble, but the vast majority of men and women do not have problems finding dates or relationships. It may seem like it, but that's likely because you frequent online forums where people who do have problems congregate.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 5 points6 points  (92 children) | Copy Link

This is the only dating related sub I frequent but my frequency of visitations to it is irrelevant to my opinion in question.

Seems like if women dropped their expectations back to reality, everyone would be happier.

True or false?

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (62 children) | Copy Link

Why is women's expectations "out of reality"?

It's certainly in reality if it you know, happens in reality. Yea you're right, if hot women started dating and fucking ugly losers, it would be great for ugly losers. Is that the answer you want?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 8 points9 points  (57 children) | Copy Link

Ad absurdum fallacy.

I certainly did not advocate for hot women to date ugly losers. I am speaking of the objectively average women who constantly seek men above their attractiveness and status.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (52 children) | Copy Link

It's called asymmetric SMV and hypergamy. If women are fucking men you deem as "out of their league", well news flash, they're not really out of their league.

Ironically it's YOUR sense of self worth that is inflated. Women are naturally just more valuable than men in today's SMP (ie free market, no expectation to save their virginity for one man to marry). The average man doesn't have the sexual options that the average woman does. Is it unfair? Maybe. Does it mean "women have too high expections" no, because clearly it's working for them. Men are hornier and willing to "pay" more for sex, doesn't mean women have the moral obligation to "sell" it for less.

[–]AnUndecidedPill4 points5 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

Men will fuck anything though, even high SMV males will throw a bone to a fatty if she can provide a fun, quick fuck.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

I know, that's what makes it so asymmetric

[–]AnUndecidedPill1 point2 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

But what I'm saying is Chad throwing a bone to a fatty here and there doesn't make that fatty a high SMV woman. That's something women and Blues keep hasmtering themselves into believing but objectively it's just not true.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

It does though, it just doesn't make them as valuable as other women. The fatty still has higher SMV than most men, because of the fact she can still get laid with higher value men, while most men can't.

[–]AnUndecidedPill3 points4 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

No it doesn't. Just because Chad tossed you a bone for a night doesn't mean you're in Chad's league. See, this is exactly the kind of shit that leads to a lopsided SMP - women thinking that they're hot shit who deserve hot Chads when in reality Chad was just horny one night and his regular HB8 plate wasn't available so he took home the chubby girl because guys just like sex. She was a fuckdoll to him, nothing more. Yet these low-SMV women trip themselves up into believing that they can regularly land a Chad when that's simply not the case.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Just because she was used by Chad for one night doesn't mean she is in his league. That is a gross misunderstanding of sexual attraction.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 3 points4 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

I am also concerned about the happiness of women. I know many who are passed the wall and have been pumped and dumped by the 2.5% for the prime of their lives. Doesn't seem like they are very happy about it now that they are 35, single and want kids. My point was that both men and women would be happier if women lowered their expectations not only for sex but for relationships, and you haven't argued otherwise.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

btw it's not "2.5%", but whatever.

Your theory would only work if everyone "lowered their standards" at once. There's nothing to stop women from taking advantage like there used to be (premarital sex shamed, old maids who couldn't get married shamed, laws against adultery) so everyone's stuck in a kinda prisoner's dilemma.

I'd argue people weren't exactly happy then either, many didn't have a choice who they were eventually with.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] -1 points0 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

It is between 0-10% where half of these men are married anyway. So it is somewhere around 5% but probably less.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Who cares what percentage it is? I'd say it's more like 20% but it doesn't really matter because in any of those ranges there's still a problem for most low value men.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 1 point2 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

I really don't care for low value men. Even average men fall outside of 20%. And how can we make women more happier too?

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Youre right, they probably would be. But then they couldnt brag on FB/Snapchat how #Blessed they are hanging out with douchebro Chads

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Technology has a lot to do with it. Everyone knows they can get other options easily because they can open up their phones and see lists of potential partners.

[–]NewOrder777 points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Actually they are. Because the testament to reciprocal value is whether these men commit to them for a LTR, which they usually do not.

Women feel used/like they can't get long term relationships and it frustrates them. The majority of men not having sex or dating in this dynamic are also frustrated.

It's not about "fair" or some stupid nietzchean power struggle. Nobody wins. The women end up cat ladies . Expect female suicide to go through the roof once Millennial women start getting into their 40s.

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

Women feel used/like they can't get long term relationships and it frustrates them.

It doesn't. They can lock down betas any day of the week

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards-2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Average women don't seek men above their attractiveness and status in general. It's just that women put much more attention in their looks, so a 50th percentile woman is hotter than a 50th percentile man. When you compare an average woman with an average man, you say they're the same attractiveness whereas they probably aren't.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Mmmyeahh, a 50th percentile woman in full makeup, and dressed to go out to the club is hotter than a 50th percentile man who pulled the least-wrinkled shirt out of his shirt pile, ran a comb through his hair, and went out on the town. Men are more focused on visual cues for attraction, and women spend more time and money trying to maximize their visual appeal. Weird. Now, how hot is she without the expensive makeup, hairstyle and clothing?

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No.

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

in addition, there are more men than women in early adulthood, so there are not enough 50th percentile and up women for all the 50th percentile & up men. Therefore average women dating up a little bit is only to be expected.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't think anyone's arguing for that, but there are a ton of chicks who are ONLY good looking but they are seeking men who are good looking sugar daddies with great personalities.

Now I understand why, because like 1 in 20 of those girls who are just sexy will get what they want. But the problem is the rest of those girls(they still might catch some dick, but not what they really want) who think that the world is fair so they deserve one of those guys too, that dude is in short supply but there are tons of girls who are just sexy. That 1 in 20 chick is gonna flex on you from instagram, those women blame men when they dont get everything that other girl got

I think that this is why women perceive so many guys to be "fuckboys", their standards aren't realistic.

Just because you know the spots with all tyhe best lighting, the bars with the baddest bathrooms for selfies and do MUA shit on your snap doesn't make you entitled to this perfect male organism you are looking for. Those women are exactly the same as the men they often complain about

Personally im just gonna fall into my fuckboy role and take it as a compliment and just screw my way through random people until the stars align and I get everything I want. Sounds like the same thing they are doing but im not gonna throw shade

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

No one cares what you do

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

Good, im not a fan of responsibility or morality anyway

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

Clearly

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Seems like if women dropped their expectations back to reality, everyone would be happier.

True or false?

False, not the women who LTR men they are not attracted to.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly.

Forced monogamy (ie traditional/christian sex and marriage culture) was NOT good for most women. Tradcons take too many opinions based on 1950's propaganda pictures of happy couples with a white picket fence and 2.5 kids. Women(and men) were forced to be with partners they didn't necessarily like. Women, especially, did not have the option or ability to do what they do now, engage in almost unbridled hypergamy.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

Well you first have to define what women's expectations are for the men they're dating and why they're unrealistic.

Yes, if women lowered their standards then low SMV men would be better off, but it wouldn't necessarily make women better off.

[–]Mr_Smoogs points points [recovered] | Copy Link

I already did that.. are you illiterate?

If Attractive men are 10% of the population according to women and unmarried men who make more than $50k are 25% male population, then women are only really attracted to 2.5% of the male population.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

If only 2.5% of the male population is considered attractive enough to marry, then how do over half of all men statistically end up married?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 1 point2 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

I think the majority of these women end up settling for compassion & companionship

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

So women do end up settling eventually, or re-ordering their priorities in a partner.

So if that's the case, then your view has no merit.

Most men and women end up getting married, the women who cannot find a partner will eventually lower their standards, the women who don't lower their standards will end up worse off.

[–]Mr_Smoogs points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Women only settle when they approach the wall and realize they can't get the 2.5%. My point being if they didn't spend their prime getting pumped and dumped by the 2.5%, each gender would be happier. You are truly illiterate.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yet the average age of women marrying in the US is 27, and most of these women meet their partners several years beforehand. Young women in their early to mid 20s don't need to "settle." The natural conclusion from this is that women in their peak SMV years are locking down men they are happy with. This is a generalization, of course, but you can't deny that most women are meeting their future spouses and marrying "pre-wall" so to speak, so what incentive do they have to "settle"?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There is none. I agree with you. I am talking about the perpetually single women who feel frustrated. Not the successful women in healthy relationships who marry at 27

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

[deleted]

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It matters if they are average women struggling to settle and find happiness and they end up being 35, single and wanting kids or a single mom.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia7 points8 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Stuff incels say aren't facts just because they support your insecurities

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

I don't really give a shit what incels say. I'm not one of them and I'm in a secure relationship.

I am concerned about the happiness of women. I know many who are passed the wall and have been pumped and dumped by the 2.5% for the prime of their lives. Doesn't seem like they are very happy about it now that they are 35, single and want kids. My point was that both men and women would be happier if women lowered their expectations not only for sex but for relationships, and you haven't argued otherwise.

[–]Paranoidexboyfriend0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you settle with a person who is actually your equal, yet still behave as if you settled that's really rude to your partner. It usually means less sex, less kindness, and a less enjoyable relationship. And if a majority of women are doing that it just does unkindness in the world

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]aznphenix0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

1) isn't it only 40% of marriages end in divorce? 2) large portions of divorce are made up of people who get divorced over and over again.

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

the women settled when they couldnt get one of that 2.5%

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism[M] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Be civil

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Apologies

[–]the_calibre_cat2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This article should be in the TRP sidebar. Women are graduating from college at a rate of about five to three, compared to men. This would not be a problem for women, if they were not hypergamous. The headline says nothing about education, but the entire article is about how hard it is for women to find men worth dating (above their education/income level). Black women have faced this issue for decades, where they were more likely to get a college education, but wanted a black man with higher status. Now it applies across racial lines. Women are getting more college degrees, but they won't settle for plumbers and ironworkers. They deserve to be alone.

[–]the_calibre_cat4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

...but the entire article is about how hard it is for women to find men worth dating (above their education/income level).

Bing. There's plenty of men. Plenty of good, hardworking, sexy, interesting, decent men, even. They're just not good enough.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea I'm not sure why it's the men's faults. Men do not expect nearly as much out of women. Sorry ladies, not every man is Chad.

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

I'd say demographics play a huge role in explaining why men suddenly have it easier in their 30s.

Up until 30 years old there are literally more men than women. After that a switch happens and there are literally more women than men. Look up the stats.

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The crossover happens closer to 35-39. There are plenty of single women in their 50s. In fact, the singles ratio in the 20s (too many men, not enough women) flip-flops to people in their 50s (it takes that long to flip-flop and become as bad for women as it was for men in their 20s). Although this varies from location to location.

Source: http://jonathansoma.com/singles/

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That article is such nonsense because being college-educated doesn't give you that much of a leg-up in the dating world as a man. I think they're over-playing the importance of a college education. Women want at least a dozen or two dozen different attributes in a man (and college-educated women might want a college-educated man, but that's only one of the many attributes they demand).

[–]mgtownigga0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

lol no. I know a lot of people IRL that do not utilize these forums that have immense trouble with dating and relationships, both men and women (but mostly men). A lot of these people aren't abnormal or ugly either

[–]Helmet_Icicle0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You are not addressing his point. Viability of finding partners is not correlated with the perceived attraction quotientm, outside of irregular sample sizes.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

if women dropped their expectations back to reality, everyone would be happier.

In the late 40's and 50's in Soviet Russia, there were simply not enough men. Hell, there are even popular songs about that time period that have lines like "He may have one arm, but at least I have a man".

There were literally not enough men to go around. Was everyone happier then? I don't think so.

That kind of deficit of males is what it would take to get women back to reality. Or you know, guys could do the thing they control... and get to work.

[–]honeypuppy2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There are still fewer men now in Russia (but alcoholism and other factors are more to blame). They take advantage of it by being abusive dicks to women. Yay!

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And when the mail order brides from there come here? 5-7 years with beta bob then they take the house in the divorce. Yay for everyone

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

In the late 40's and 50's in Soviet Russia,

Yea, key words soviet russia. The Soviet union did not have girls living off their parents money in college partying all the time LOL.

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

Key words here don't mean crap. Current day Russia has a shortage of men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Silly. There are privileged classes everywhere.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

Silly. There are privileged classes everywhere.

Please do show me these privileged classes in communist Russia. Got my pop corn ready.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

"We can no longer close our eyes," he said, "to the fact that party, government, trade-union and managerial . . . officials sometimes deepen existing inequalities through their use of special canteens, special shops and special hospitals."

The nomenklatura (Russian: номенклату́ра; IPA: [nəmʲɪnklɐˈturə]; Latin: nomenclatura) were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy running all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region.

Yea a small amount of people working for the government had more privileges. No different than Mao's buddies in communist China.

That's not an economic privilege at all. Your straw manning. This has nothing to do with there being absolutely no wild blonde girls partying every weekend on daddys money in communist russia.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

LOL

ok there buddy. So the privilege they had didn't look exactly like the privilege you're used to?

and its not a few people dont be stupid.

honestly, if you haven't lived in soviet russia, shut up.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

username checks out.

Have you ever been to a gameday party? Im curious. Maybe you don't get what I am talking about.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vU7n2x7o75c/maxresdefault.jpg

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

LOL

here :

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/S2MwV37Vz-I/AAAAAAABAdM/8wRlwBDmIr0/s400/moscow_night_clubs_06.jpg

you think this shit didn't happen behind closed doors in th 40- 90's over there?

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

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

You do realize Russia has a deficit of men today right?

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

See below

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

There were literally not enough men to go around. Was everyone happier then? I don't think so.

There's a lot of middle ground between "women are so desperate that they have to be happy if they can get any men" on the one hand and "women have an incredibly inflated self-worth because they are overfed with options due to the social media/dating site attention they generate" on the other.

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

sure. but it takes a significant dearth of men to make women value themselves "normally"

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Do they control the corporations of the world to the extent that they can persuade those corporations to hire humans instead of robots?

Men can all work. To work and get paid requires a corporation willing to choose a human with its need for food and rest instead of a robot that is happy to work 24/7.

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

who is they? are you in the right thread??

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You said

Or you know, guys could do the thing they control... and get to work.

If you mean "have jobs", that looks less likely in the future.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe they were miserable because they lived in the USSR lol

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

sure, and just came through a war, and had their shit bombed. laugh all you want. my point stands.

[–]madude201611 points12 points  (45 children) | Copy Link

They refuse to settle mostly because it's easier for them to have a happy single life than men. Sex drive is a bitch. Most of people have a roughly accurate sense of self-worth, men or women.

BTW, your math is off. The percentage of attractive men making $50k+ is between 0 and 10% based on your assumption, depending on the overlap between the two populations, not 2.5%.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, of course its inaccurate. It is just much easier though to visualize with rough statistics

The percentage of men making $50k+ is around 25%. Half of those men are married. But at the end of the day most of these men are probably attractive due to the bias in attractiveness and success. So yes, you are correct, but give me a break lol

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

It's probably less people poor people don't narry, especially men

[–][deleted]  (42 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]madude20161 point2 points  (41 children) | Copy Link

Thanks. Good to know I would be a one percenter if I moved to Canada.

Edit: did you pull rug out under my feet?

[–][deleted]  (40 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun0 points1 point  (39 children) | Copy Link

omg are you Canadian?

[–][deleted]  (38 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun1 point2 points  (37 children) | Copy Link

Why would you get banned for saying whether or not you're Canadian?

[–][deleted]  (36 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun0 points1 point  (35 children) | Copy Link

I thought Canadians were supposed to be nice and apologize all the time?

[–][deleted]  (34 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Women are not only attracted to 2.5% of the population, otherwise there wouldn't be so many people getting laid.

Women have a lot of options these days, it's true. They have no reason to drop their expectations for now. I think if women were educated differently, some of them would have lower standards.

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I actually believe the 2.5% statistic to be honest.

But I think it's a different 2.5% for every woman.

Some men will probably be more popular, Thor is probably considered handsome by more women than cheetos couch potato, but as long as a guy looks presentable there's bound to be a woman who likes him.

[–]theiamsamuraiRavishment Realist4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's different niche 2.5%'s together making up the top 20%. Also, a lot of women think they're more attractive than their partner and think they're doing their partner a favor by picking them.

When non-top 20% men get laid, it's either from the woman making a mistake of thinking he's top 20% when he's not, or her being a slut (hence 20% of women who are sluttier having their niche 10%'s instead of 2.5% that collectively (for the sluts) make up 80% of men, instead of 20%.

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Also, a lot of women think they're more attractive than their partner and think they're doing their partner a favor by picking them.

I also hear a lot of women talk about how lucky they are to have their partners.

Usually, in the couples where the women think they're doing their partner a favor by picking them, their partner thinks they're doing the women a favor too. Egomaniacs who think they are god's gift to mankind tend to date likeminded people.

[–]eliechallita0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

And they both tend to keep MFT's in business.

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

I actually believe the 2.5% statistic to be honest.

But I think it's a different 2.5% for every woman.

Pretty much this. Though I think that 2.5% is a bit high - I don't think that the average woman is attracted to 1 guy in 40 if we look at literally all men from a toddler to a geriatric and account for her personal taste and account for general SMV-markers.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea, they do have plenty of options.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer15 points16 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Seems like if women dropped their expectations back to reality, everyone would be happier.

Perhaps you should come back to reality too. The majority of the males who are frustrated with females are the unattractive males. There is no attractive males lamenting on about how "women's expectations are too high". This goes for both genders.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 4 points5 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

I come from a place of privilege so I don't really care but why are you only focusing on male frustration? I am trying to solve female frustration as well.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Where are you hearing about these female frustrations? It sort of sounds like you're referring to the "where have all the good men gone" sentiment which has been the battlecry of trashy problem women for decades and is hardly anything new. Those women are a vocal minority and are, in my experience, unstable to say the least. They don't attract good men because they are not good women.

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It sort of sounds like you're referring to the "where have all the good men gone" sentiment which has been the battlecry of trashy problem women for decades and is hardly anything new.

Yeah some of them think that those women didn't exist in the 50s.

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

That battle cry has been taken up by far more women than you think. As for the main reason women are far more educated than men and refuse to date down and they see a sheer shortage of men they deemed datable around them. Hell there was a poster on this sub that complained about the lack of datable men in her city because there was next to no men making 6 figures like she was and she refused to date down.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you know any single moms yourself? Can you explain to me their dating success and failures?

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I wasn't talking about single mothers, were you? But since you're asking, I know several women who are dating men who aren't the father of their child. One such couple just had their second child, first one together.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer11 points12 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

You are trying to solve unattractive individuals "frustrations".

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 5 points6 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I think average men outside the 90th percentile are frustrated and average women are frustrated that they can't get men inside in the 90th percentile. I am not trying to solve individuals' frustrations.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia6 points7 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

It's the bottom 20% that are frustrated, but just because they make up the majority of the vocal complaints on the Internet doesn't mean that they are actually average.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What about the women who complain they can't find quality men? Is that the bottom 20% of women too?

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, or the top 5% when it comes to having high standards.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

ever think that vocal minority could be the voice of a silent majority? It might not seem like a majority to you, but many men know to keep their mouth shut IRL about any issues they have in the dating arena, lest they be called "whiners" by women. Just because it isnt discussed openly in plain society, doesnt mean it isnt an actual issue.

[–]retskrad0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Life's not fair. There will always be people who have it better than you and there'll be people who have it worse than you.

[–]BPremiumMeh2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol when people say that, I like to respond with " but with guns and violence, I can make it fair. to me".

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

You think pretty people don't own guns?

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

Ill take "things nobody has ever said to a feminist" for $500 alex.

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

You are trying to solve unattractive individuals "frustrations".

so are you denying there is no difference to how attractive the 50 percentile man is to the 50 percentile woman? Even bp admits this

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

Lamenting? No. But we are definitely amused by it and annoyed at how many unattractive women that they they are on our level.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Humorous

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

What makes you think its only the unattractive men with this frustration?

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

There is no attractive males lamenting on about how "women's expectations are too high".

How can you actually know that? I mean, you assume that everyone complaining simply has to be unattractive, but you can't really be sure, can you? Besides, isn't it kinda harsh to dismiss peoples' struggles just because they are unattractive?

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why would attractive individuals complain about high standards?

[–]void_magic3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Hard to say women have an inflated self worth if most of them find what they are looking for eventually.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So you are saying women don't become wiser and more practical by age?

[–]void_magic2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why should women settle for a guy she isn't attracted to when she is younger if the same type of guy is still going to be available when she is older?

I'm saying this as a 30 year old virgin who really wishes this wasn't the case.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

For the same reason men settle for a woman who they aren't attracted to. And it happens quite frequently

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.15 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

"Women" are not all requiring these so-called "laundry lists" of requirements. Certain women are, not the majority. Most women seem to just want a dude they are attracted to, they can have fun with, who is "on their level". I don't see "women" behaving the way you are describing except on Reddit subs which highlight them.

And your numbers just plain don't match. If 100% of women were all going after 2.5% of men then how come most men are getting LTRs or are getting married?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you saying women don't get wiser and more practical as they get older? Why do they tend to stop chasing alphas and Chads as they hit 28+?

[–]Butt-Factory6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Most women are in committed relationships or married at 28. Those who aren't are going to be a mix of unattractive women who have a harder time finding partners, average/ attractive women who are freshly out of an LTR , women who have consciously chosen to remain single/ focus on career or education, and yes some women who spent their twenties fucking around and not being serious about finding a stable partner. This meme of women chasing unavailable men until it's 'too late' and then panic committing to some guy they overlooked before is vastly overexaggerated online.

Data also shows that older single women are happier than married women or single men, so your concern seems to be misplaced.

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

If women do end up settling, then the entire premise of your OP is false.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Christ, how could you possibly believe all women compete for 2,5% of men? Most people are out there dating and have no idea about these weird fucking problems.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

All single women would certainly prefer an attractive man. That is 10% of the male population. So they are in fact competing for somewhere between 0-10% of the male population.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

That is 10% of the male population.

Women aren't all the same person.

You can't just take the numbers of how men were rated on average to conclude how they are rated by each women.

Women's ratings of men also vary more than men's ratings of women therefore there are less men that have universal appeal, but that doesn't mean that those don't have any appeal.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This runs into the whole issue with how female attraction works anyway.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Obviously, everybody wants someone they're attracted to but that doesn't mean they all want 10% of the population. Women are a diverse group that find lots of different things attractive, just like men.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Nah, disagree women's attractiveness tends to be clustered around certain traits.

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

Would you say the same for men?

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely not. The rule 32(4)? of the internet pretty much solidifies guys will figure out how to fetishize anything about women.

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

But the fact that women can fantasise about actual animalistic monsters like werewolves doesn't? Or what about the fanbase around Spock. Does Leonard Nimoy have the traits you consider typically attractive to women? Or Charlie from It's Always Sunny?

If you look at internet pornography or the wide variety in gonewild like subreddits I do think you can see how diverse men's tastes are but that's certainly not something you'd get if you just saw mainstream culture. Then you'd believe most men like big-titted blondes, kinda like how the stereotypical Chad is always depicted as a tall ripped white jock.

I think you're basing your view of male sexuality on a lot of different things, from porn to your own tastes, but base your view of female sexuality on very little information that's cherry-picked to boot.

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

Nah.

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Reed_49831 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

"Genetic center" what bullshit is that now.

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Reed_49831 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

There are statistical overlaps between certain traits, but these are not signifcant enough that we can make these generalizations on an indivdual level, because there's enough ugly ass tall people or dumb ass people with perfect skin (also I would love to see a source for the tall people are symetric claim) or rich successsful people who are not aesthetically pleasing, that we can observe such examples on a daily basis. And enough to conclude that if a man is not perfect, or whatever, he doesn't have to worry about being on the short end of anything. Stop sperging around with these attempts at mathematically quantifying human success.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Reed_49831 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There's a big difference between real science and the dogmatic, almost religious use of selected scientific findings present in this sub. I'm going to assume that the theory of a "genetic center" is your own and you have no facts to back it up, other than the existence for the statistical correlations between certain physical and mental traits you just mentioned. So what we have here is not me being unable to grasp a scientifically accepted fact, but me not accepting a theory you apparently made up on your own.

Either way, I can't make the connection between the relevance of your theory and OP's statement, which is that a large number of men are frustrated because modern, Western women have inflated expectations of men as partners. You said in response, that a "genetic center" exists where good looking people make big money, are smart and have good skin. How is that relevant to the OP? OP didn't even say anything about himself but about society in general, and you responded that he isn't in the genetic center and belongs to the short end of the stick, which isn't even related to your theory, because it doesn't state that people not belonging to a genetic center don't find partners (hint: they do).

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Reed_49830 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's controversial to say that bigger people have bigger brains and bigger IQ.

Because that's not true, at least not in the absolutist way it is framed in this sentence. There's a slight correlation between height and IQ, from what I've read on the Wiki article, which doesn't mean that all bigger people are smarter.

You want to all of a sudden throw in the notion that nature uses men to roll the genetic dice and then have the women pick the men with the best genes?

But that's not true. There's many attributes on choosing a partner and "genetics" is one but many. Humans have constantly shown over their history that they are capable of going far beyond their pure biological imperative.

As for how it was relevant? It wasn't. My main point was that he was assuming independent events when they aren't.

Oh ok, so what's the value of your post, other than shaming OP and calling him a "whiny manlet" for posting on a debate subreddit, and other than to propose your unproven theory on genetic centers? OP didn't even refer to the dependence or independence of genetic traits, for all he said was that women have unrealistic expectations and want the top 2.5%, or whatever. The top 2.5% could have the best genetic traits and thus confirm your theory for all we know.

[–]the_calibre_cat4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, it'd be nicer for we lonelier men, but it'd be boring and we wouldn't strive for more. If men really wanted to gain some sexual power back, they'd have to consciously be less thirsty. That will never, ever happen.

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

If a woman is supposed to cook, clean, etc. then it makes sense for her to marry a guy who can financially provide for her and makes more money.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women aren't expected to do that anymore. There was a tweet that went viral the other day RP.

"If you came to an average millennial women with a cast iron skillet, she would rather take a beating than use it to cook."

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

I want to cook and do housework. I don't know how to use a skillet but I want to learn. And before you judge me, I work full time and volunteer too. I eat simply and my mom cooks for me. I practice cooking like once a week or so, but I always make healthy simple food.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Let's be honest - it is the internet isn't it? The thread the other day got me thinking about it. Even though now it is much easier to get a date, there was a lot more honesty in dating back in the day I think.

In the 90s and early 00s, dating consisted of going out and talking to people whilst drinking. You probably had to have a bit in common to start with to go to the same places. If you were a student you;d meet another student in the student pubs. If you were into rock music youd go to the pub that played rock music and talk to people there. If you were into pills youd go to the dance club and meet other people who liked doing that. From there youd make a circle of friends and start dating in that. Otherwise youd meet friends of friends, people from work, people who lived near to you, that sort of thing.

Clearly what we have now is way more choice and we are dealing with the troubles of that. Women have more choice. So instead of meeting the cute guy who lives down the road with a compatibe lifestyle, they have 5 similar ones within a 5 mile radius. And now, the guys who live further away have a much better chance of meeting her first because she uses the internet to meet people. She has to weigh up her options now instead of settling on the perfectly fine one down the road.

Likewise for guys, if they look reasonable enough they now have way more choice. They dont need to put up with the cute girl nearby as she has another hissy fit or plays hard to get. They too, can look around and find the easier lays quicker. It takes less time and money now, so they can focus on other things and know the next is a few swipes away.

The internet is probably to blame more than anything.

[–]AnUndecidedPill2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Clearly what we have now is way more choice and we are dealing with the troubles of that. Women have more choice. So instead of meeting the cute guy who lives down the road with a compatibe lifestyle, they have 5 similar ones within a 5 mile radius. And now, the guys who live further away have a much better chance of meeting her first because she uses the internet to meet people. She has to weigh up her options now instead of settling on the perfectly fine one down the road.

Forget a five mile radius, as a man you're now competing with guys who live out of state. It really has fundamentally changed the way people meet each other. the world is literally at our finger tips but oddly enough it seems to have produced the opposite effect in terms of satisfaction.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hm. It's more complicated than that, more like choice fatigue.

[–]BPremiumMeh-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

its not the same for guys, if it was, OLD and Tinder wouldn't be such a shit show for average men as it is now.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

OLD and Tinder have been pretty successful for me though. Ive had many a fun meet up from it and a number of memorable nights. It multiplies my options tenfold.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

So you're one of the few hot guys in demand. for every 1 of you, there are 10 guys that get jack shit. Congrats on the bragging, heres a 🍠 (yam)

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

I wish I was especially hot. Im a bit overweight and hairy. In one of my Tinder profiles, I had been using it for 3 weeks before some girl pointed out people could see my laundry drying in the background. I do have baby blue eyes though and get a lot of comments on them. I think Im more of a "he was really funny and friendly so I went back to his place" kind of a guy. I do have good character and I think it comes through in my writing :)

[–]writingtochucow4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It would do a lot of the men here a service to take what you're saying on board.

[–]Butt-Factory4 points5 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Women report enjoying solitude more than men, and women don't enjoy the same benefits of marriage as men. Married men are happier, healthier, wealthier than single men. Single women are happier and wealthier than married women. Now that feminism has allowed women to choose to stay single or delay marriage, it's no surprise that many women make this choice and are statistically happier for it. For many women who are happy single, there's no reason to settle for anything less than the very best. For others, they simply wish to stay as independent as possible.

I'm one of those women. My decision to not marry and stay living alone despite having many men try to convince me to move in with or marry them is often misunderstood as me holding out for something better or waiting for a more worthy man. This is totally untrue. I'm only making decisions based on careful thought and reflection on what I think is best for me and my happiness. It's pragmatism, not narcissism. I could allow myself to get swept up in the romance of a wedding, but in the long run that wouldn't be right for me or my partner. I'm not going to sacrifice my satisfaction and success to make my partner a little happier temporarily.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm gonna need a source of two before I accept any of your assertions. Do women report "enjoying solitude" as in, being utterly alone, or "enjoying solitude" as in, being in a loving and committed relationship but taking a spa day to "enjoy solitude"? They are not the same thing at all.

I've read that married men love longer than single men (probably because their wives nag them to eat healthier). Married women have a slightly lower life expectancy than single women, but I've never seen any exploration as to why. What do the numbers look like without deaths from childbirth or domestic violence? Do women really sacrifice their health to keep their husbands alive longer? And why do men still die younger, in average, despite all this?

[–]Butt-Factory-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444746/marriage-benefits-men-take-note

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201510/is-marriage-worth-the-trouble-women

I'm gonna need a source of two before I accept any of your assertions. Do women report "enjoying solitude" as in, being utterly alone, or "enjoying solitude" as in, being in a loving and committed relationship but taking a spa day to "enjoy solitude"? They are not the same thing at all.

The research shows that women appreciate solitude overall more than men, and are less likely to lonely when single. My personal theory for this is the strength and intimacy of female friendships.

And why do men still die younger, in average, despite all this?

This appears to be likely due to biology. Even factoring in deaths from accidents or violence (for which men are more prone), men still die younger across the world. Their biology makes them more prone to ailments such as heart disease, stroke, and cancer. In short, bad luck.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

The research shows that women appreciate solitude overall more than men, and are less likely to lonely when single. My personal theory for this is the strength and intimacy of female friendships.

I see we have different definitions of "solitude". You use the word to mean "not in a long-term romantic relationship". I go by the actual meaning of the word, which would preclude "the strength and intimacy of female friendships". Not getting boned on the regular is not the same as solitude. In my experience, women do very poorly with true solitude. How many women could spend more than five minutes in a deer stand, or dipping a fishing line in the water, without Snapchatting or checking Facebook?

[–]Butt-Factory0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I see we have different definitions of "solitude". You use the word to mean "not in a long-term romantic relationship". I go by the actual meaning of the word, which would preclude "the strength and intimacy of female friendships". Not getting boned on the regular is not the same as solitude. In my experience, women do very poorly with true solitude.

'Solitude' is the language the researchers used for the report, I suppose that could be open to the individual's concept of solitude, but the point of the research was to gage satisfaction of married and single people. Research shows that women do better than men unmarried. Unmarried women are happier than unmarried men. Unmarried women are happier or just as happy as married women. Unmarried women are wealthier and healthier than married Women. Unmarried men are less happy, less wealthy, and less healthy than married men. Unmarried women thrive more than unmarried men.

How many women could spend more than five minutes in a deer stand, or dipping a fishing line in the water, without Snapchatting or checking Facebook?

Well, a lot. Personally, I spend 4 days alone in the rainforest at least twice a year. Most of my girlfriends enjoy solo hiking and camping, etc. Maybe you hang out with a lot of teenagers?

[–]The-os20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah I'd say you and your friends are the exception. Check your average cinema, café and the like. Hell most women (and more men) that I see don't even bother to put there phone away whilst not using it.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Bullshit. If Elon Musk came to your house and picked you up you would be gone with him faster than his spaceship can travel. Women don't mind co-depending on men. They just don't see many men as worthy enough of it.

[–]Butt-Factory5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

If that were true, why did I refuse to marry my wealthy ex despite his consistent propsals? Why are women living independently happier than married women?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Living alone instead of with a husband and children liberates them from traditional roles and expectations. Of course doing this as a woman in her sexual prime will lead to happiness.

What percentage of women are single into their late 30s? I think there is some bias that these women are reporting higher happiness levels because they have always aspired to be single and working.

[–]Butt-Factory1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Single middle aged women report more satisfying social lives, greater happiness, and greater wealth than married middle aged women. Stats show that women are simply happier without a husband. I was told endlessly that I would change my mind by 30, but the opposite is true. I'm completely certain that this is the right choice for me, and I'm certain I won't change my mind in the future.

[–]raginghamsterChad's Attack Hamster1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you have no interest in having children then your reasoning makes sense. Although I'm curious to know the source of the happiness claim

[–]Butt-Factory1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Correct. Remaining childless is another decision that many more women are making lately.

That said, single women with children also enjoy the benefits of living without a husband.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If Elon Musk came to your house and picked you up you would be gone with him faster than his spaceship can travel.

For millions of dollars most people would do that.

[–]HugMuffinfrom the ground up3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

First off, it's been proven that men are the more narcissistic gender, so this "inflated sense of self worth" is out. Second, like attracts like. Men and women tend to marry people who are similar to them, in personality, social class, wealth, etc. None of what you're saying is true.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Has it really been proven that men are the most narcissistic gender, or are you just saying that? I'm not calling you a liar, but this is the internet, so you are probably just making this shit up.

[–]HugMuffinfrom the ground up-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Really? You link this thread to prove that men are the most narcissistic gender? The thread where everyone else in the discussion save one shoots down your claim? The thread where your sources are torn apart for 1) not backing your claim, and 2) being a self-reported garbage study?

It has categorically not been proven that men are the most narcissistic gender. You want it to be true, but it just isn't.

By the way, thank you for linking to the debate, rather than the two studies to which you originally linked. I read all the arguments shooting down your assertion that men are the most narcissistic gender, so I don't have to come up with my own. You saved me some time.

[–]HugMuffinfrom the ground up-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You and I will have to agree to disagree on the effectiveness of the counter arguments. The sources did back my claim, and being self reported does not immediately disqualify the results of a study.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, it's like how all men want a supermodel that can beat him in Chess. Except that's not 2.5%, it's like 0.025%.

[–]quixoticme11 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've never met a met who wanted a girlfriend to beat him in chess or anything else

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

But men should not drop their standards, or (God forbid) raise their SMV? Why not?

100% of women are competing for 2.5% of the male population

Oh hello there Hyperbole.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wait, who's saying men shouldn't raise their SMV, now? I'm pretty sure TRP advocates raising your SMV, as a man, to attract more and better women. Now, about men dropping their standards, we've been doing that since time immemorial. We crush on girls way out of our league, realize it will never happen, then lower our standards. I daresay that if no man ever lowered his standards from what he wanted to what he could get, we would have gone extinct a million years ago. Men are expected to drop their standards, while women are not.

[–]BPremiumMeh-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

cause hypergamy is like inflation. If the entire male population went up 1 smv point, then womens hypergamy would raise to account for that and still reject the majority of men.

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

You really do not understand the mechanics of female attraction if you believe this Econ 101 modelling you are trying to do means anything.

[–]BPremiumMeh-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol cause there is no modelling for female attraction. We can't use male attraction modelling, nor econ, or anything else, cause there isnt enough fucking "nuance" for Bloops or women in general. Trying to come up with a female attraction model would be pointless, as theres too much minutia that'll bog it down. And it seems thats how women like it, cause its easier to manipulate men that way.

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

And it seems thats how women like it, cause its easier to manipulate men that way.

So it's the reason we cannot model male attraction is because we're all trying to confuse and manipulate women?

Or maybe just because human beings in general and attraction itself are very complicated topics?

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Nope. If fewer men were obese the SMP would show way less signs of hypergamy because it would be better distributed.

You don't need to be the best for most women. Just don't be fat or awkward.

If all men went up 1 SMV point there would just be more attractive men, but as it stands now many are too lazy for self improvement.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What are you even talking about? Women are more likely to be overweight or obese than men, but men are more forgiving of a few extra pounds than women. Women would be as hypergamous as ever, but they would have slightly higher standards regarding BMI. Relatively fit men would find themselves stuck with even fatter women, because the healthy-weight women would have more healthy-weight men to choose from. No woman would do without sex because men collectively became more fit. Men would lower their standards, as always.

[–]MsVerleihnix2 points3 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

Arrogance is something found most often in men. It is a major turn off and also demonstrates a weak sense of self worth. So it is very unattractive.

[–]BPremiumMeh2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

lol but confidence is uber attractive, and women dont seem able to tell the difference. It, once again, comes down to looks. Hot guy acting arrogantly is deemed "confidence" while average guy acting confidently (or arrogantly) is assumed to be full of shit.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]BPremiumMeh2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And when I was a bartender I saw regular guys display confidence and get shit tested hard and frequently, while the hot douchebags arrogance was lauded and accepted at face value.

[–]MsVerleihnix0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, it also comes down to wether or not confidence is earned by experience, mastery or whatever. Arrogance insinuates that the person is not able to prove their assumptions true, whereas confidence is just demonstrating the assumed qualities.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Depends in what magnitude. Confidence is just a form of arrogance.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia3 points4 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Confidence is just a form of arrogance.

Nah. Arrogance is a desperate attempt to make oneself seem confident, but arrogance exists due to a lack of real confidence.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Fortunately there's no difference between real confidence and what you described as "arrogance" to most people.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

For many people arrogance is a sign of insecurity. It's just Trump voters that don't notice what's really going on

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

ooh Trump bashing on reddit? brave

anyways, most confidence starts (and usually is) with what you describe as "arrogance". Never heard of "fake it til you make it"?

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Never heard of "fake it til you make it"?

That's not something that most confident people had to rely on.

Plus there's a difference between merely acting confident and acting arrogant. Arrogance and confidence differ in their execution.

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

No one's born as a confident alpha baby. They're created. People could just be "naturally" confident but it's because they decide to act certain ways very early in their lives.

Arrogance and confidence differ in their execution.

I disagree. They differ in how they're interpreted. Arrogant retards get laid by all time by women who will say "oh he's so confident and charming". In fact, women have stated/flirted to me "man you just have drunk confidence" when in reality, I'm just being a drunk, arrogant, idiot. When I am reserved, and questioning my actions in a rational, calm manner, it does not attract women.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Who defines the difference between 'a desperate attempt to make oneself seem confident' and actual confidence, you?

How much does that job pay? 'cause it must be time consuming.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Being perceptive to vibes isn't time consuming at all. That's second nature and happens subconsciously.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Did you reply to the wrong comment? 'cause that answer doesnt seem to match up with the question i asked.

Its okay, nobody will think less of you im sure, just have another go!

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It is relevant, because deciding what the difference is just happens based on the vibe they give off.

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

Preeeeeeyy sure the 'vibe' as you call it is primarily caused by:

1: be attractive

2: dont be unattractive.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Pretty sure that's just the explanation people that aren't perceptive to vibes come up with, but normal people generally agree that boasting is arrogant while being able to admit that one isn't perfect is confident or that arrogant people pull others down while confident people cheer them up.

There are slight differences in their execution even though attractive people have more leeway.

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

Funny how you can only describe this shit in vague generalities. Its almost like you dont have anything substantial to support your prejudices.

[–]MsVerleihnix0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, it is the ugly side of confidence.

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

It's just when an ugly person does it

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||[🍰] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Arrogance is something found most often in men.

Prove it. I think you're full of shit. I'm certain you will label me as arrogant for this post, but that's okay.

[–]MsVerleihnix0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Many men need to prove themselves so badly that any kind of "strength" gets blown out of proportion by them, these men lack a sense of self knowledge, a sense of humbleness.

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point  (12 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.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman10 points11 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I am very sure women are attracted to more than 2.5 % of the male population.

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

I think my very favorite thing about this thread (and really this sub in general) is that he is dead certain it's women who after 2.5% of men, based on sheeeeeer shallow vapity.

There is data on this, instead of just Muh Feeeeelz.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/christian-rudder-dataclysm-okcupid/

Basically, if we are just doing that thing where you rate pictures based on 1-10, as so many dudes wanna do over here? Men have a very, very, very narrow window of "hottest," by at least one metric. Women, as a group? Do not.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

He's saying 2.5% of men are hot and make cash, Alpha Bucks.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman9 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Oh okay but there is a common theme here that women are deluded and think we "deserve" that 2.5. Not so.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Plenty act like it. As they get older they readjust. It's like saving yourself for a boy band. Hopeful, and cute.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Whatever you say.

[–]Love8DeathPost-RP-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you saying women don't get wiser and more practical as they get older? Why do they tend to stop chasing alphas and Chads as they hit 28+?

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Some women never chase Alphas and some women do get wiser.

[–]LyaninaBlue Pill5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are frustrated that 100% of women are competing for 2.5% of the male population.

Women aren't competing for 2.5% of men (lol) and the majority of people (men, women) are not so immensely frustrated with their dating life that "women lowering their standards" would magically make everything better for everyone. If I lowered my standards I'd be worse off, as would anyone who's not online complaining about the state of the dating world.

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not worth committing to.

Ooh, check out the inflated self-worth on this bitch.

[–]aznphenix0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sadly, we're a very small minority.

[–]i_have_a_semicolonPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm an attractive female who makes a good salary, so what's wrong with wanting an attractive male who makes a good salary too?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Meh, this is basic TRP theory. Women have sex with high value men in their youth and just settle with a lower value man through marriage. So, they can't really lose.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

except all that fucking around with high-SMV men and subsequent settling with a lower SMV man leads to a lot of dissatisfaction. and that dissatisfaction leads to marital strife, affairs, and divorce. if you simply finding a man to marry is what you consider a win, then yeah. but there are a LOT of unhappy women out there.

and no one has really even mentioned the fact that women are also facing a biological clock. if a woman really wants to have children and wants to marry a high value man, her best bet is to "settle" when she is young and near her peak SMV and fertility instead of waiting until she is in her 30s and then settling. she trades away a decade or so of fun but ultimately meaningless dick-riding but in return will have much greater chance of achieving her long term options: multiple healthy children and a high-value husband.

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

You're arguing for a less free SMP like western christian sex/marriage culture a century ago. Problem is, I don't think women were exactly satisfied then, either. They were forced to settle with a man they aren't necessarily attracted to (just like today) and are dissatisfied anyways.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

i'm not arguing for anything. i'm about as far as you can get from being one of those trad-cuck RPers who wants to go back to some 1800s strictly-enforced marriage 1.0 bullshit. i personally benefit from all that meaningless dick-riding because i own one of those dicks that gets ridden without having to offer up any commitment.

what i'm saying is that a LOT of women whose eventual goal is to get married and have kids would be much happier by locking down a high value man when they are at the peak of their own SMV, instead of waiting and then settling for a relatively lower quality man after their SMV has decreased.

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

locking down a high value man when they are at the peak of their own SMV

Easier said than done. Many probably tried and HAD to settle for lower SMV men anyways.

[–]Yourstruly7770 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The problem with women who marry same age guys at their peak SMV (20-30) is that those guys who will peak in their 30-40 will be looking to upgrade.

I see many good looking guys with older kids and unattractive wives that are soon to become single moms.

At 24 she was a 6 and he was a 6.

At 34 she is a 4 and he is an 8.

At first look that seems like a smart deal for the girl.....

....but only if she can somehow manage to keep him.

Better would be to have married the 34 year old when she was 24. When she is 34 and a 4, he will be 44 and a 5.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

yeah that's what i'm saying. when the relative SMV difference between two people in a couple suddenly changes a lot, that's when you have trouble. a woman at her peak SMV at 22 or whatever should marry a little bit older guy, say 32, who is also close to his peak. if they are both at similar places on the SMV curve at the same time, they can ride it out together.

the worst thing (and seemingly very common) to do is for a woman in her late 20s to marry a man in his later 20s. they may be in a good place now, but her SMV is going down fast at the same time as his is going up. add in the stress of marriage and loss of attraction over time and it's a recipe for disaster.

men mature later than women. men reach their SMV peak later than women. men's fertility dimishes later than women. the idea that people are better off with someone who is very close to the same age as themselves causes a lot of problems.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

lol yep

[–]Hellothere_10 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Well that statistic stuff is pure bullshit. For most people there is a very significant difference between ideal partners and dating pool.

I'm a man. I would love to date a very attractive, smart woman with a perfect personality and high income. Who wouldn't?

The point is that while there are qualities among females which I find attractive and which I look for in potential partners this doesn't mean they are a bullet list I check off and women don't do that either.

If most women were only willing to date 2.5% of men it just doesn't make sense 66% of the American population are currently in a relationship.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Is settling for an unattractive, dumb woman with a shit income and personality a smart move? We all have these checklists whether you admit to them or not.

So 66% of the American population settle on someone who meets the lowest set of standards for a relationship. Great.

I'm dating a smart attractive woman with a great personality in the infancy of her career. It's much better. It's much better than the floozy women I settled on previously.

[–]Hellothere_10 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well obviously everyone has a hard limit of negative traits that you aren't willing to look past. I never claimed otherwise.

Let me rephrase my point:

You stated that women are overly picky since 100% of women want to date the top 2.5% of men. This is bullshit. You can just as well state that 100% of men want to date the top 2.5% of women.

This doesn't mean that either gender has inflated self worth or too high standards since most people of both genders are perfectly willing to settle below the top 2.5% (as shown by the fact that 66% are dating)

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're whole point is moot though when I'm only concerned with the perpetually single and unhappy of both genders. 2.5% was just a number I threw out to visualize how women have standards far higher than men.

[–]Hellothere_10 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well that's the thing, those 2.5% are completely arbitrary.

You are essentially taking the fact that women like attractive men and deriving that they have too high standards. That's not even a real chain of reasoning, that's just two very loosely connected statements.

If you really wanted to test whether women have too high standards you would have to find a statistic on where women's bottom line requirements for a partner lie. Essentially the level of attractiveness, money, intelligence and other traits a man definitely needs to have to be considered dating material. Then you would need a second statistic on which percentage of men fulfills those requirements.

2.5% was just a number I threw out to visualize how women have standards far higher than men.

That number doesn't really visualize any of those things. None of the claims you make can be derived from that number.

when I'm only concerned with the perpetually single and unhappy of both genders.

Considering that it takes (in most cases) both a woman and a man to form a relationship it is literally impossible that men are the one perpetually single gender. Since there are in fact more women then men in the US basic math dictates that, unless lesbianism becomes super popular over night, there are always more single women then men.

unhappy of both genders.

Do you have any statistic to support the idea that men are significantly less happy than women and that the reason for this lies with women's dating standards?

[–]Gorgatron1968where are the craps0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Is that 50k before or after taxes.

[–]eliechallita0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think that you're massively oversimplifying the issue here, because you assume that most women have an inflated sense of self and entitlement.

This paper by the APA has an excellent breakdown on the subject: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-pspp0000078.pdf

To quote from its conclusion, men tend to have higher self-esteem than women, especially in Western countries, and self-esteem tends to increase with age for both genders.

If you're trying to correlate an inflated sense of self-worth with higher dating requirement, then the average man should have an even longer laundry list than the average woman: That's not even going into the body image and self-doubt issues that are generally more common in women than in men (or, at least, more readily reported).

That 2.5% claim doesn't hold water either: The percentage of people in a relationship each year is much higher than 2.5%, and that's leaving out the number of people who are casually dating. If you were right, it would mean that the majority of these people are settling for an unattractive partner, which would contradict your statement about women's insanely high requirements: If they're settling, it means that their sense of self-worth isn't as high as you think it is.

Furthermore, you're assuming an entirely free and open dating market, whereas people are generally constrained by who they can date at any given time: The dating pool is usually segregated by geography and different social factors such as income, education, race, etc. At best, you could say that women desire the cream of the crop within their respective dating pools, rather than worldwide.

There are other problems with your statement too: You assume that men have no requirements of their own, and would be happy enough to have any woman simply jump into bed with them. Not only does that ignore the fact that men also have their own set of physical requirements for women, you're also ignoring the criteria that men might use to select a long-term relationship beyond basic physical attraction, or sex.

I think that your main problem is that you're conflating what people fantasize about, with what they actually go after: Men and women always fantasize about the highest value people they can think of (although there are limits to what they think of, in many cases), but both tend to go for a pretty realistic match. You're presuming that women, and only women, are always waiting for an imaginary prince charming and completely ignore everyone else.

[–]abicus43430 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Considering the high number of men here constantly posting some version of this scenario I'm getting the impression that its men with the inflated sense of their value. If they are constantly thinking women's standards are too high then that must mean that these guys think they are in the same league as these women when clearly they are not. If they were in their league then they wouldn't be on reddit bitching about this problem, they would be out there swimming in pussy.

Clearly it's men with the inflated sense of their own market value.

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

"women are to blame for my problems"

[–]rulenumber3030 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are pretty good at pleasing themselves nowadays. It is reasonable to assume that the average woman's worth to herself is more than it was fifty years ago... and that this is not unwarranted. Women earn more than they used to, have higher educational levels than they used to and just like men they have access to more cultural and recreational options than they used to. This creates a higher floor price. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It is not an unreasonable standard to expect of men that they make themselves overall into a better deal (when all costs and benefits are toted up) than six cats and an hitachi wand. The woman with six cats and that hitachi wand may be frustrated but she'd still be worse off if she partnered with a guy who just ain't worth it.

Men vastly underestimate the amount of trouble men are to the women they form relationships with. The majority of several large categories of work always seems to fall to women, and a lot of men have bad habits and a sense of entitlement to unearned power in relationships. Men also vastly overestimate how repulsive unfit and socially inept men are to women... I blame it on porn, tugging their dicks to fat american tech dudes boning asian street meat seems to destroy any instinct they may have had for what is and isn't attractive to women.

Or to sum it up... if you think she's decided you're not worth it then she's probably right.

[–]gopher_glitz0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The reason so many men have low SMV is because their moms settled for their dads resulting in a low SMV dud.

The higher everyones standards, the better off the next and subsequent generations will be.

[–]EliteSpartanRangerNice Guys Don't Ask For Rewards-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You are misunderstanding things.

First of all is there a statistic on the fact that only 25% make more than 50k? Because I highly doubt that. 50k is practically bare minimum to live comfortably. It's not rich.

Most women also date within their range. A single mom might say she wants a billionaire who looks like an actor but she knows it's just a pipe dream. She will probably end up dating someone who has a similar standard of living as herself.

Second of all, not all women find the same 2.5% attractive. I don't find Chris Hemsworth handsome but many people do. I find Tae-Min handsome and other women don't. Some women like 40+ men others like men in their 20s. Tastes exist, and women's tastes vary more than men's.

[–]aznphenix0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

50k is practically bare minimum to live comfortably. It's not rich.

Poor people are really common. I think median household income is like only 50k.

[–]abicus4343-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm thinking that considering the amount of times I've seen men post about this that it is actually the other way around. If men are the ones here bitching about not being able to get the women they want then it looks like its men with the problem of shooting out of their leagues not women.

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

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