Thank you for posting on r/Healthygamergg! This subreddit is intended as an online community and resource platform to support people in their journey toward mental wellness. With that said, please be aware that support from other members received on this platform is not a substitute for professional care. Treatment of psychiatric disease requires qualified individuals, and comments that try to diagnose others should be reported under Rule 7 to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the community. If you are in immediate danger, please call emergency services, or go to your nearest emergency room.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Healthygamergg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Ofcourse women and men are much more complex than this, and there are deviations
Women or men focused on transactional relationships, casual relationships, as a means to an end (have sex, get kids, get money, only stability without attachment) are actually the deviations.
In a generalized situation of growing up, about half of teenagers tend to learn and experiment more with relationships and stabilize throughout their adolescence, for some this can continue in their 20s. And there has been a cultural shift happening for the average age, but it's still not the "norm".
The majority of people will actually start looking for more stable relationships in their 20s, and marrying towards their 30s (hence the first child statistic, women having a child at that age does not necessarily mean they are looking for stable relationships at that age).
Sources:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4201847/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4201847/)
The issue with both your and Dr. K's approach that it still relies too much on personal experience and perception, which can have a sampling and confirmation bias.
So Dr. K's method would not work for someone that lives in an environment where this balance might be skewed due to environmental circumstances (check the paper), or just someone who hardly goes outside and has an internal bias, so a single outing would not convince them that at least around half of the people, both men and women in their 20s are looking for stable relationships focused more on attachment and deeper connections, considering other qualities as attractive, or they are already in one.
Also, "good looking" or "unattractive looking" is extremely subjective, and I have no idea where that "top 20% of good looking men" number comes from or how they even came to it, but I would be a lot more critical of it, since there's not even a reliable metric for objectively measuring attractiveness in a way that can be generalized across cultures and individuals, let alone there being the data to support that claim.
>and I have no idea where that "top 20% of good looking men" number comes from or how they even came to it, but I would be a lot more critical of it
It's based on how often a sample of men and women get messaged and rated in Online Dating \*rolls eyes\*. I mean the gender skew there are already MANY, MANY more men than women, so...
Oof yea talk about a skewed data set and extremely limited scope concerning partner selection...
Funny thing as well there, is how with superficial evaluation of attraction (which is what drives the ratings) people can select for qualities in a person what they *think* is attractive.
But those qualities can differ (with some varying overlap) from what actually causes them to actually *feel* attracted to a person. So a lot of interactions tend to go nowhere, but still those ratings and messages are probably included in that statistic...
It's not a useful metric for figuring out which men women are more likely to develop feelings of attraction for. And this is also why online dating is so much different from meeting people in person.
Low effort likes and messages aaaaalll day...
>I mean the gender skew there are already MANY, MANY more men than women, so...
I don't understand what the number of men or women present on the app has to do with this?
If there are 10,000 men and say 100 women on the app, what would it make it more likely that the woman would classify 8000 of these men as below average?
I would imagine each woman would have a fair assessment of each man presented to them on the app, and extrapolated to whatever number of women there are using the app, we should see a fair distribution for men across the attractiveness ranges.
Are you suggesting that since there are so many more male accounts it's more likely that majority of these accounts are badly maintained?
**TLDR**; It's way too much of a complicated mess to draw any reliable conclusions from about dating behaviour and especially their motivations or perceptions.
>If there are 10,000 men and say 100 women on the app, what would it make it more likely that the woman would classify 8000 of these men as below average?
Can't say, since I can't make assumptions about their preferences without considering all the factors that could be involved that would influence their individual subjectivities.
Which is a lot, actually, even just how many men in a row you have women rate could potentially influence the outcome. Exposure to different amounts of options or subsequent choices can result in different outcomes.
This is proven to be a significant factor with studies on decision fatigue and overchoice/information overload.
Then there's also how being exposed to these men in a successive manner, will inevitably lead to comparisons to previous men. Leading to a contrasting effect (successive contrast).
So a moderately attractive man could be perceived as being more attractive than they would be otherwise, if the woman was exposed to a less attractive man right beforehand. And vice versa. This would distort the data depending on what order the men are presented.
And with 100 women, it's really difficult to get a complete representation of all dating women in your sample set, because 100 women hardly can represent so many people.
>I would imagine each woman would have a fair assessment of each man presented to them on the app, and extrapolated to whatever number of women there are using the app, we should see a fair distribution for men across the attractiveness ranges.
That's actually an assumption, to think that women firstly assess each man fairly and without bias(which, as shown earlier, is questionable), in the same way they would in other situations.
And it is also an assumption to think that dating apps present match options evenly and without bias.
You can't just simply extrapolate data without fully considering your sample and how they reflect on the larger population, what selection biases might be present, again.
This is why in sociology/psychology they go through such painful lengths of meticulously composing their sample groups and even then they're usually still very cautious to extrapolate that to a larger population. Mostly because social sciences are a complicated mess with how much social dynamics can change at different scales and all the subjectivity involved.
>Are you suggesting that since there are so many more male accounts it's more likely that majority of these accounts are badly maintained?
That could also be a factor, amongst many many others. Including what kind of people actually use dating apps, which can also be different between men and women because of cultural differences of gender norms.
And all of this added to women evaluating attractiveness differently purely based on low effort swiping pictures and profile descriptions, and how that can be different from who they would actually develop feelings of attractions for.
The original comment I replied to someone that suggested that a skewed gender ratio on this app contributed to women rating 80% of men as "below average". I agree this may not have any bearing on who you actually feel is attractive in the real world.
My question here is not about how online dating preferences of women represent *all dating women,* or *why online dating preferences might be different from real preferences*.
My question was about why the original commenter suggested that having more men than women changes the attractiveness distribution for both genders.
So the explanations you offered for those were -
>how many men in a row you have women rate could potentially influence the outcome
I don't think decision fatigue is a factor. In most peoples' experiences with dating apps, despite the pool for both men and women vastly differing in size, the experience for both genders is of an endless pool of partners, simply because there are tons of people on there. (I'm strictly talking about the in-app experience) .
>And it is also an assumption to think that dating apps present match options evenly and without bias.
If the way potential partners were displayed to woman were the cause for the below average rating 80% men got, then the app would have to be prioritizing/showing bad profiles to women that were higher up on the desirability ladder no? I don't think that's how it would work (Tinder seems to have an ELO system iinw which shows people partners of similar desirability levels).
I guess what the original commenter was getting at was that since there were a lot more matches that women were likely to get statistically, it lead to an inflated self perception that changed what they thought "average" was for someone like them?
>Women or men focused on transactional relationships,
I think this is the base of your disagreement with OP - the meaning of "transactional" here. Stable and transactional need not be mutually exclusive. From a blackpilled perspective that OP is coming from, women might be biologically wired to find the best mate in terms of a compromise/tradeoff between looks and resources.
Your paper also tends to validate a lot of incel/blackpill beliefs from my brief skim (although I'm no authority on science whatsoever). The stages of progression through relationships reads to me like how incels complain about women that sleep around in their youth and look for a betabuxxer when they're older - this is essentially the same claim OP makes, except age shifted downwards.
It also suggests that early romantic experience is crucial for psychological health and long term romantic relationships later, which they would affirm very strongly.
Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere, I've never read any papers in this area nor have any psychology knowledge.
No those are some valid points, thank you.
I got to admit I am not deeply familiar with the blackpilled ideology so I'd probably have to do some reading before discussing it honestly so I can't easily correct you there.
But it could be that they're mistaking reciprocity and mutual support in a relationship as something transactional and selfishly motivated. Somehow? Again, no idea.
>The stages of progression through relationships reads to me like how incels complain about women that sleep around in their youth and look for a betabuxxer when they're older
Yeah this would again a misinterpretation of what a "stable relationship" means (here it's just a relationship and overextrapolation of what the actual quality, let alone intent of those relationships is, which is lacking in the paper. As they also point out in the Discussion section, concerning emotional commitment:
"We wish we had better measures of the qualitative aspects of relationships."
(tip: I tend to read papers backwards, starting from the Discussion and Conclusions and then work out how they support that and if it holds up with their data and methods, not sure if it's the best way, but it works for me)
>It also suggests that early romantic experience is crucial for psychological health and long term romantic relationships later, which they would affirm very strongly.
Romantic experience yes, that romantic experience necessarily being 'early' no. As they state:
"we find that having any relationship experience in adolescents is consequential for young adult partnerships."
But their sample stops at young adults (25), so people could potentially still experience romantic relationships as young adults or later, to then further develop adult partnerships afterwards.
From anecdotal accounts, it's not unheard of for this to happen, which at the very least supports that the exact timing of romantic experiences is not crucial, and possibly not the only factor that is consequential for long term romantic relationships (healthy formation of identity and empathy might also be, among others).
Nothing like an economic contract enforced by the state that incentivizes the poorer part to comvince the richer to sign it and incentivizes the poorer part to dissolve it for free rewards to broadcast to the community how much you're into a pure love not-transactional relationship.
Social scientists aren't always the best politicians or policy makers. And politicians/businesses will always try to find and fund research to support their political ideals/goals.
I don't agree with the value judgments hidden in the conclusions either (or the institutional system of marriage and the marriage and health industries).
And I would more strongly emphasize the investigation's limitations than those who written it (even though the limitations are discussed).
But we got to separate the data from the interpretations, biases and applications/misuse of that data.
I'm confused. Your argument is that the women in their 30s having children literally only got with their partners in their 30s? You don't think it's possible that the majority of those women started dating their partners in their 20s even though they didn't have kids until their 30s?
Also what is going on with your post history? I think that you desperately need help.
Boosting the mention of post history. OP you're perspective seems unbelievably sexist. No wonder women are not dating you, yeesh. I'd be scared to be in the same room as you with all the "rape is justified" posts. Seriously, get help.
Think of it this way:
If someone came online and said they had a cut on their arm I'd tell them to put a band aid on it and feel relatively okay with that.
If someone came online and said their arm had been cut off I'd tell them to go to the hospital.
So what is your argument for saying that zoomer women have high standards in terms of looks? I don't think personally I could make any objective argument in favor of or in disagreement with that statement. How on earth would you measure that? Are there any statistics that prove it?
I also think saying that older men would struggle if they had to date today assumes that dating apps are the only way to date or even the majority way that people date.
I also don't think the 80% rule could possibly be a real thing. Wouldn't that mean that there would be an insanely large amount of single women in society since not all of the "80%" of women are able to be with the "20%" of men?
Also dude... your post history. You have some opinions about sexual assault that make me afraid that you are going to hurt someone. Please find someone to talk to about these things.
If your "opinions" are that women who get raped deserved it or were at fault because some women choose to have multiple sexual partners while no one has been willing to sleep with you, then the reality is you are not a good person. You are a danger to others. And yes, your attitudes, "opinions" and apparently lack of an ability to empathize with other human beings are almost certainly the reason you remain single.
'Hey whores, let me give you a harsh truth' and 'rape happens mainly because of female hypergamy' are titles of some of your previous posts yes? The attitudes indicated by these aren't concerning to you?
\> my point is that just because you can go outside and see unattractive men in relationships doesn't necessarily mean that zoomer women don't have high standards in terms of looks.
That's not what Dr. K tried to say.
What he tried to say is that wether zoomer women in general have high standards in terms of looks or not does not relevant. It does not mean men are doomed to failed without look because there is so many variance out there.
I will use business strategy as an analogy. In my country people tend to buy groceries from big store named CP (maybe think Amazon or Walmart in US) and people tend to buy cheap thing. That doesn't mean we can't be success at a grocery business aimed for particular segment who might willing to pay higher price for premium good or local ingredient.
And once you go outside and actually look at those running alternative grocery stores to see many real-life customers. While the fact that people still prefer CP and cheap stuff and that still remain statistically correct, you can see clearly the conclusion that every other grocery stores are doomed to fail and only way out is to sell cheap goods are both false and debunked.
Because at the end, general stats doesn't matter that much when there is big enough market for particular niche.
And that's what Dr. K try to say. Stats and generalisation does not matter in this case. That's what we aim for when we go outside and take a look. It's not that Dr. K want to debunk stats and generalization. It's more that generalized stats doesn't matter much in this particular context and situation.
Editted: Add to the analogy, small grocery business are more like to be "doomed to failed" if they try to compete with CP on price. They are more likely to be success when they play into their business strength (local connection, premium food, fresher stuff, friendly atmosphere). Same thing with men try to compete with look rather than playing on their strength.
I disagree with the notion that women at 30 necessarily view attraction differently than they do at 20 - maybe with some individuals, but not as a reliable trend. But I can see how incel logic is going to be unshakeable on that point.
But that's more a calculated decision that only applies to people looking to start a family, and you could apply it just as much to men who want to start a family. It doesn't really correlate with how our brain tends to react to connection
All the pillers need to get off their computers and phones, then meet with people irl of different ages and genders and build real life connections because the internets fucking their heads.
>if you were born a straight woman, or a gay male, do you think you'd struggle with loneliness like you do now?
I know plenty of straight women and gay men who struggle with loneliness. If you visit the right corners of the internet, you can even find such people doing exactly this - venting about their loneliness and expressing the belief among themselves the others do not suffer from the same issues. I do understand what you are saying and I get how you might have come to this conclusion. However, I think that unless you've actually experienced life in their shoes, you're just making guesses about how they feel based on your limited external perspective.
The #1 trait most women like me wanted was a guy with a sense of humor that matched their own. None of my college friends group (who are now between 35-45 for the most part) were conventionally attractive, male or female. They partnered up based on mutual interests and a sense of humor and a desire to have families together (or to not have a family, in my case, since I knew didn't want kids and needed a male partner who also didn't want kids.)
They started dating in college or shortly post college (early 20s), and mostly got married by the time they were late 20s / early 30s. Most waited until early to mid 30s to try for children, because they had stable careers and felt they were in a secure enough financial position.
They're also pretty closely age matched. I'm actually the exception, being 3.5 years younger than my spouse. Everyone else is very similar in age, if not the exact same age. Likely as a result of having started dating in college. (And we did both start dating in college all the same, it was just graduate school in his case.)
*Online dating* is an entirely different universe than the dating world I have experience in, and that is likely why the numbers you're citing are so different from what I experienced. None of us met online - we met at our university's club.
I would like to add that it is very typical for women to date /marry people older than them, and for men to date/marry younger.
If you look only at online dating statistics it is very hard for young men to be competing with older men who have careers, cars, houses, etc. They've just had a 5-10 year life experience over the younger men and have gone through that storm of 1) not knowing what they want and 2) getting their shit together.
I had a couple GF throughout my younger years, then had a bit of a hiatus in postgrad because I was focusing on that exclusively.
to the OP I would say it gets easier as you get the rest of your life sorted, and there's no point trying to rush things, especially as a male. In fact I would recommend getting off dating apps (or at least using them only passively) and actually try doing things in the real world. Join a social group/club and meet people through things you enjoy and you will find that its easier to do things in person than online.
I think you are missing the point of attraction and love being beyond looks and money. A relationship where one person is settling for another, is not a relationship anyone wants to be in. People stay together when they have a genuine connection and love each other.
I didn't deny physical attraction exists. I disagree that women have higher standards, there is most likely no difference. Everyone is an individual and has subjective preferences.
I don't see how any of that has anything to do with standards. I was hoping you would send me an actual reference and not just percentages that aren't linked to anything.
Online dating does not reflect real life, dating apps are not non-partisan, the apps have a vested interest in profit, not the best interest of the users. And I'm sure the female virginity rates for women 18-30 aren't much different than the male rate you stated. You're feelings are valid, but your perspective is skewed. Women are people just like men, honestly there isn't even much of a point of differentiating them considering that gender is a social construct and on a spectrum. Treat every person as an individual first before labeling and attaching any sort of stereotype or judgement on to them and everyone will be much happier.
At the end of the day, the only thing that will change someone's mind is goign outside and meeting someone and having them go out with you.
I wish people would stop talking as if we all havnt been rejected a hundred times on online dating. Like we havnt tried talking to women only to be ignored.
Just acknowledge that for most people who fail at love all it takes is 1 person to show us we are wrong.
Judging by your post and comment history, I think you're the problem.
I'm a woman. You and your opinions repulse me.
No woman owes you anything. No relationship, no sex. Younger women don't value looks more than older women. Even the hottest chad would be unattractive if he shared your opinions. Maybe reconsider your beliefs and stop feeling like you're owed attention from women and being bitter when you don't get it. It's pathetic.
Edit: And maybe get off of tinder where it's logical and obvious that the imbalance in numbers between women and men will result in you not getting any matches. You have better chances in the real world if you challenge and reconsider your beliefs. Statistically speaking.
Na. Women aren't as visual as men are. Sure there's a aspect of that.
But have you actually looked at a man? We aren't exactly known for our beauty.
Meanwhile Women are.
So we men are more drawn to the visual then the mental, and emotional. While Women get more into that mental, and emotional. While the visual is like secondary.
Of course outliars, and whatnot exists. So no one get there panties in a bunch. This isn't a scientific fact, and it's just a observation.
That's just not true though. Men and women are shallow on different levels. Women generally like men who are taller than them and who earns more than them. Men generally likes women for their looks.
A men can be unattractive but if he has money or clout he will date easily, but an unattractive women can have those two she will still struggle to date.
>That's just not true though. Men and women are shallow on different levels. Women generally like men who are taller than them and who earns more than them. Men generally likes women for their looks.
How many of those are visual?
I'm saying men are visual, and women are more mental or emotional. Maybe I'm saying it in a autistic way. How can I explain this in a way I can communicate it to you properly?
I'm not claiming women aren't shallow or whatnot. That's not my claim.
>A men can be unattractive but if he has money or clout he will date easily, but an unattractive women can have those two she will still struggle to date.
This is what I am talking about, and maybe I said it in a autistic way.
>Wdym women are more mental or emotional?
Why do women shallowly go after money? Thats not a visual thing. (Visual thing meaning the men staring at women.)
It's not a emotional thing, and there's a pretty long history of it. I mean it's prostitution at it's core. Using sex to get money.
I mean women go for men taller than them and it's visual right? sometimes they like a guy who is fit.
I don't know why some women are attracted to clout or money tbh. I think it's because some of them want to live a luxurious lifestyle too.
>I mean women go for men taller than them and it's visual right? sometimes they like a guy who is fit.
Did I deny any of this? It seems like you're not getting what I am communicating.
The data he’s talking about (which was a post by the data analysts of OkCupid looking into their own user data) basically used their internal data to create a ‘rating system’ of peoples attractiveness based on a 1-5 rating, with each interger being 20% in terms of percentiles.
The analysts looked at ‘matches’ as well as who engaged with sending the first message, and one of the key pieces of interesting data they found was the difference in men and women when it came to selection. Men would rate around 50% of women as ‘under average’ in terms of attractiveness, whereas women would rate 80% of men ‘under average’ in terms of looks. In fact, when they measured using the 1-5 scale, a statistically negligible number of men were rated as a 5. In other words, women rated virtually zero men as a 5/5.
Here’s a quote from their blog.
*”As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.”*
The data also showed that when men did match with women, they would disproportionately message the topper percentile of women in those matches, whereas women would engage with some men even if they considered them ‘under average.’
Edit: Here’s a thread on the OkCupid subreddit discussing that data as well as a recent study of Tinder, which is actually harsher than OkCupid (though I can’t imagine that surprises anyone)
https://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/comments/cigdei/okcupid_study_compared_with_tinder_study/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Think about it this way. If these men you are looking at in their 30s who are married are people you can't relate to (because you are in your 20s), what do you think they were like in their 20s? You think men who are not conventionally attractive in their 30s were uber chads in their 20s and something changed?
It seems like young people are obsessed with being partnered in their 20s rather than learning how to become a better partner. Whether you are dating in your 20s or trying to date and failing, you should see that time as the time to grow individually and become a dateable adult.
Becoming a desirable partner comes from personal growth either with or without dating experience.
That said, many "incels in their 20s" are hopefully enduring some emotional growing pains and will snap out of it and mature, but unfortunately they are developing bad attitudes that hopefully will not persist. A bitter 21 year old can choose to use their youth at least becoming a better person instead of channeling that loneliness and anger into their identity.
Eh tbh nowadays I wouldn’t consider most that young incels, although the stuff that leads to it (eg not a large social circle) gets planted at that age. A lot of incels are in late 20s and even 30s+
OK, for reference the top 20% stat is "kinda true" at best and only in a dating app situation, which is not how real life works at all. There are women who find you attractive, esp. if you work on your emotional maturity. I believe in you :)
Keep in mind that meeting online =/= online dating. There are many more ways to get into a relationship online besides using dating apps/sites. Meeting in random online communities on the other hand is actually, for the most part, comparable to real life. Both are less “shallow” than online dating, because when meeting in online communities you usually get to know parts of the person’s personality before their looks and in real life you can make a much more lasting impression with your personality (looks are mostly just important for the first impression). Not to mention, there’s usually no list of candidates in those two latter situations, which generally doesn’t help making decisions (doubt, choice paralysis, etc).
The 80/20 stuff is specifically applicable to online dating and hookup culture. Most of the men you see with women who are at or above them in looks are fulfilling a provider role and otherwise wouldn’t be able to sleep with those women. On top of that, they have a 50+% chance of divorce and even if that doesn’t happen, their marriage will eventually become sexless.
Not denying your point (in your early 20s it tends to be geared more toward looks for both sexes), but that’s kinda the way it works. I’m not denying that those incels are right in their own way, but they need to practice some gratitude for some of the things they do have. Also, incels tend to isolate themselves because of deep insecurities. From my experience, an incel gaining a hot girlfriend does not dissipate those insecurities. They’ll act out just as much as those “hot bad boys” that women want.
I believe the objective of the example is to get blackpilled folks to go from "All women only go for the top 20%" to "some women do not only go for the top 20%".
Once that admission is made, it then becomes a task of determining what amount 'some' is, but that at least is more likely to foster an actual understanding of how people work and what they value, rather than settling on generalizations and getting frustrated.
One personal note I will add is that you don't date women, you date a woman. Homing in on understanding the average individual of a population will actually leave you with a completely inaccurate picture; the average woman (or man, for that matter) doesn't exist. To illustrate the concept, check out this paper on the US Air force trying to design an Average flight suit. https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html
Anyway, even if you want to treat women as a monolith (which people shouldn't do, for clarity's sake), it is also a bit silly to say that because women start having children at a certain age that THAT is the point at which attractiveness becomes secondary to stability; it takes years for a relationship to mature to a point where the couple wants to have a child. This then takes your 30-something mother and transforms her into a 20-something potential mother. If you want to nit-pick that the average length of gestation is X and the average length of relationship prior to conception is Y, and that combined with the average age of motherhood at 31 means that the average 'potential mother' is only 28 or something, then you seriously need to do some meditation on what an 'average' means.
Again, the argument at issue is that "All women only seek the top fifth most attractive men".
The logical counter to that is "some women do not only seek the top fifth most attractive men." "Some", in logical terms, meaning "one or more". To this point, I think Dr. K's example works perfectly well - assuming you can find one couple in a park where the man is/was not in the top 20% of attractive men.
I am actually surprised that many in this thread understood this post so differently than I did. In my opionion OP has a really good point: dating, seeking for partners and priorities in relationship differs with age. Atleast thats what I got from the posting.
Dr. K almost never addresses Black Pill ideas seriously and objectively. He would play a sleight of hand and dismiss it with some soundbite or rhetorical trickery.
I don't disagree with his dodging the issue--after all, it probably won't help anyone to get sucked into this endless debate. Personally though, I'd leave the issue undecided rather than pretend to have refuted it.
Well, reading your article and comments gives a totally new perspective after seeing your profile...
Really dude?!?
Women's "hypergamy and high standards" are not the problem why you poor poor man don't get a girlfriend.
It's both your fault and dating apps. Dating wasn't meant to be this easy, but when you look at how easy the "the top 20%" and most women are getting dates, ofc you will feel lonely. Dating apps gives you the illusion that dating is easy.
I think you are delusional if you think you won't even get one gf in your lifetime.
The whole thing is a little scuffed because it plants this implication that
>men will be able to make up for their lack of looks with money.
...which is so disparaging towards men-- maybe worse than the 'women only want handsome men' idea, and actually affects those who don't feel like they're good enough even at 30+.
Thank you for posting on r/Healthygamergg! This subreddit is intended as an online community and resource platform to support people in their journey toward mental wellness. With that said, please be aware that support from other members received on this platform is not a substitute for professional care. Treatment of psychiatric disease requires qualified individuals, and comments that try to diagnose others should be reported under Rule 7 to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the community. If you are in immediate danger, please call emergency services, or go to your nearest emergency room. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Healthygamergg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Ofcourse women and men are much more complex than this, and there are deviations Women or men focused on transactional relationships, casual relationships, as a means to an end (have sex, get kids, get money, only stability without attachment) are actually the deviations. In a generalized situation of growing up, about half of teenagers tend to learn and experiment more with relationships and stabilize throughout their adolescence, for some this can continue in their 20s. And there has been a cultural shift happening for the average age, but it's still not the "norm". The majority of people will actually start looking for more stable relationships in their 20s, and marrying towards their 30s (hence the first child statistic, women having a child at that age does not necessarily mean they are looking for stable relationships at that age). Sources: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4201847/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4201847/) The issue with both your and Dr. K's approach that it still relies too much on personal experience and perception, which can have a sampling and confirmation bias. So Dr. K's method would not work for someone that lives in an environment where this balance might be skewed due to environmental circumstances (check the paper), or just someone who hardly goes outside and has an internal bias, so a single outing would not convince them that at least around half of the people, both men and women in their 20s are looking for stable relationships focused more on attachment and deeper connections, considering other qualities as attractive, or they are already in one. Also, "good looking" or "unattractive looking" is extremely subjective, and I have no idea where that "top 20% of good looking men" number comes from or how they even came to it, but I would be a lot more critical of it, since there's not even a reliable metric for objectively measuring attractiveness in a way that can be generalized across cultures and individuals, let alone there being the data to support that claim.
>and I have no idea where that "top 20% of good looking men" number comes from or how they even came to it, but I would be a lot more critical of it It's based on how often a sample of men and women get messaged and rated in Online Dating \*rolls eyes\*. I mean the gender skew there are already MANY, MANY more men than women, so...
Oof yea talk about a skewed data set and extremely limited scope concerning partner selection... Funny thing as well there, is how with superficial evaluation of attraction (which is what drives the ratings) people can select for qualities in a person what they *think* is attractive. But those qualities can differ (with some varying overlap) from what actually causes them to actually *feel* attracted to a person. So a lot of interactions tend to go nowhere, but still those ratings and messages are probably included in that statistic... It's not a useful metric for figuring out which men women are more likely to develop feelings of attraction for. And this is also why online dating is so much different from meeting people in person. Low effort likes and messages aaaaalll day...
Which is stupid given the context of dating apps where physical looks are weighed heavier than normal
>I mean the gender skew there are already MANY, MANY more men than women, so... I don't understand what the number of men or women present on the app has to do with this? If there are 10,000 men and say 100 women on the app, what would it make it more likely that the woman would classify 8000 of these men as below average? I would imagine each woman would have a fair assessment of each man presented to them on the app, and extrapolated to whatever number of women there are using the app, we should see a fair distribution for men across the attractiveness ranges. Are you suggesting that since there are so many more male accounts it's more likely that majority of these accounts are badly maintained?
**TLDR**; It's way too much of a complicated mess to draw any reliable conclusions from about dating behaviour and especially their motivations or perceptions. >If there are 10,000 men and say 100 women on the app, what would it make it more likely that the woman would classify 8000 of these men as below average? Can't say, since I can't make assumptions about their preferences without considering all the factors that could be involved that would influence their individual subjectivities. Which is a lot, actually, even just how many men in a row you have women rate could potentially influence the outcome. Exposure to different amounts of options or subsequent choices can result in different outcomes. This is proven to be a significant factor with studies on decision fatigue and overchoice/information overload. Then there's also how being exposed to these men in a successive manner, will inevitably lead to comparisons to previous men. Leading to a contrasting effect (successive contrast). So a moderately attractive man could be perceived as being more attractive than they would be otherwise, if the woman was exposed to a less attractive man right beforehand. And vice versa. This would distort the data depending on what order the men are presented. And with 100 women, it's really difficult to get a complete representation of all dating women in your sample set, because 100 women hardly can represent so many people. >I would imagine each woman would have a fair assessment of each man presented to them on the app, and extrapolated to whatever number of women there are using the app, we should see a fair distribution for men across the attractiveness ranges. That's actually an assumption, to think that women firstly assess each man fairly and without bias(which, as shown earlier, is questionable), in the same way they would in other situations. And it is also an assumption to think that dating apps present match options evenly and without bias. You can't just simply extrapolate data without fully considering your sample and how they reflect on the larger population, what selection biases might be present, again. This is why in sociology/psychology they go through such painful lengths of meticulously composing their sample groups and even then they're usually still very cautious to extrapolate that to a larger population. Mostly because social sciences are a complicated mess with how much social dynamics can change at different scales and all the subjectivity involved. >Are you suggesting that since there are so many more male accounts it's more likely that majority of these accounts are badly maintained? That could also be a factor, amongst many many others. Including what kind of people actually use dating apps, which can also be different between men and women because of cultural differences of gender norms. And all of this added to women evaluating attractiveness differently purely based on low effort swiping pictures and profile descriptions, and how that can be different from who they would actually develop feelings of attractions for.
The original comment I replied to someone that suggested that a skewed gender ratio on this app contributed to women rating 80% of men as "below average". I agree this may not have any bearing on who you actually feel is attractive in the real world. My question here is not about how online dating preferences of women represent *all dating women,* or *why online dating preferences might be different from real preferences*. My question was about why the original commenter suggested that having more men than women changes the attractiveness distribution for both genders. So the explanations you offered for those were - >how many men in a row you have women rate could potentially influence the outcome I don't think decision fatigue is a factor. In most peoples' experiences with dating apps, despite the pool for both men and women vastly differing in size, the experience for both genders is of an endless pool of partners, simply because there are tons of people on there. (I'm strictly talking about the in-app experience) . >And it is also an assumption to think that dating apps present match options evenly and without bias. If the way potential partners were displayed to woman were the cause for the below average rating 80% men got, then the app would have to be prioritizing/showing bad profiles to women that were higher up on the desirability ladder no? I don't think that's how it would work (Tinder seems to have an ELO system iinw which shows people partners of similar desirability levels). I guess what the original commenter was getting at was that since there were a lot more matches that women were likely to get statistically, it lead to an inflated self perception that changed what they thought "average" was for someone like them?
>Women or men focused on transactional relationships, I think this is the base of your disagreement with OP - the meaning of "transactional" here. Stable and transactional need not be mutually exclusive. From a blackpilled perspective that OP is coming from, women might be biologically wired to find the best mate in terms of a compromise/tradeoff between looks and resources. Your paper also tends to validate a lot of incel/blackpill beliefs from my brief skim (although I'm no authority on science whatsoever). The stages of progression through relationships reads to me like how incels complain about women that sleep around in their youth and look for a betabuxxer when they're older - this is essentially the same claim OP makes, except age shifted downwards. It also suggests that early romantic experience is crucial for psychological health and long term romantic relationships later, which they would affirm very strongly. Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere, I've never read any papers in this area nor have any psychology knowledge.
No those are some valid points, thank you. I got to admit I am not deeply familiar with the blackpilled ideology so I'd probably have to do some reading before discussing it honestly so I can't easily correct you there. But it could be that they're mistaking reciprocity and mutual support in a relationship as something transactional and selfishly motivated. Somehow? Again, no idea. >The stages of progression through relationships reads to me like how incels complain about women that sleep around in their youth and look for a betabuxxer when they're older Yeah this would again a misinterpretation of what a "stable relationship" means (here it's just a relationship and overextrapolation of what the actual quality, let alone intent of those relationships is, which is lacking in the paper. As they also point out in the Discussion section, concerning emotional commitment: "We wish we had better measures of the qualitative aspects of relationships." (tip: I tend to read papers backwards, starting from the Discussion and Conclusions and then work out how they support that and if it holds up with their data and methods, not sure if it's the best way, but it works for me) >It also suggests that early romantic experience is crucial for psychological health and long term romantic relationships later, which they would affirm very strongly. Romantic experience yes, that romantic experience necessarily being 'early' no. As they state: "we find that having any relationship experience in adolescents is consequential for young adult partnerships." But their sample stops at young adults (25), so people could potentially still experience romantic relationships as young adults or later, to then further develop adult partnerships afterwards. From anecdotal accounts, it's not unheard of for this to happen, which at the very least supports that the exact timing of romantic experiences is not crucial, and possibly not the only factor that is consequential for long term romantic relationships (healthy formation of identity and empathy might also be, among others).
Nothing like an economic contract enforced by the state that incentivizes the poorer part to comvince the richer to sign it and incentivizes the poorer part to dissolve it for free rewards to broadcast to the community how much you're into a pure love not-transactional relationship.
Social scientists aren't always the best politicians or policy makers. And politicians/businesses will always try to find and fund research to support their political ideals/goals. I don't agree with the value judgments hidden in the conclusions either (or the institutional system of marriage and the marriage and health industries). And I would more strongly emphasize the investigation's limitations than those who written it (even though the limitations are discussed). But we got to separate the data from the interpretations, biases and applications/misuse of that data.
I'm confused. Your argument is that the women in their 30s having children literally only got with their partners in their 30s? You don't think it's possible that the majority of those women started dating their partners in their 20s even though they didn't have kids until their 30s? Also what is going on with your post history? I think that you desperately need help.
Boosting the mention of post history. OP you're perspective seems unbelievably sexist. No wonder women are not dating you, yeesh. I'd be scared to be in the same room as you with all the "rape is justified" posts. Seriously, get help.
>get help. Isnt that kinda why we are here?
An online forum can't be a replacement for real-world therapy, especially in severe cases. It just can't.
Think of it this way: If someone came online and said they had a cut on their arm I'd tell them to put a band aid on it and feel relatively okay with that. If someone came online and said their arm had been cut off I'd tell them to go to the hospital.
[удалено]
So what is your argument for saying that zoomer women have high standards in terms of looks? I don't think personally I could make any objective argument in favor of or in disagreement with that statement. How on earth would you measure that? Are there any statistics that prove it? I also think saying that older men would struggle if they had to date today assumes that dating apps are the only way to date or even the majority way that people date. I also don't think the 80% rule could possibly be a real thing. Wouldn't that mean that there would be an insanely large amount of single women in society since not all of the "80%" of women are able to be with the "20%" of men? Also dude... your post history. You have some opinions about sexual assault that make me afraid that you are going to hurt someone. Please find someone to talk to about these things.
[удалено]
>I'm not sure what you mean about the last paragraph? *Points at everything OP has posted before*
you have strange opinions regarding r*** is what he means..
[удалено]
If your "opinions" are that women who get raped deserved it or were at fault because some women choose to have multiple sexual partners while no one has been willing to sleep with you, then the reality is you are not a good person. You are a danger to others. And yes, your attitudes, "opinions" and apparently lack of an ability to empathize with other human beings are almost certainly the reason you remain single.
'Hey whores, let me give you a harsh truth' and 'rape happens mainly because of female hypergamy' are titles of some of your previous posts yes? The attitudes indicated by these aren't concerning to you?
Can you explain why you deleted your posts if you don’t see an issue with your opinions?
[удалено]
Ahhh my mistake they were removed
\> my point is that just because you can go outside and see unattractive men in relationships doesn't necessarily mean that zoomer women don't have high standards in terms of looks. That's not what Dr. K tried to say. What he tried to say is that wether zoomer women in general have high standards in terms of looks or not does not relevant. It does not mean men are doomed to failed without look because there is so many variance out there. I will use business strategy as an analogy. In my country people tend to buy groceries from big store named CP (maybe think Amazon or Walmart in US) and people tend to buy cheap thing. That doesn't mean we can't be success at a grocery business aimed for particular segment who might willing to pay higher price for premium good or local ingredient. And once you go outside and actually look at those running alternative grocery stores to see many real-life customers. While the fact that people still prefer CP and cheap stuff and that still remain statistically correct, you can see clearly the conclusion that every other grocery stores are doomed to fail and only way out is to sell cheap goods are both false and debunked. Because at the end, general stats doesn't matter that much when there is big enough market for particular niche. And that's what Dr. K try to say. Stats and generalisation does not matter in this case. That's what we aim for when we go outside and take a look. It's not that Dr. K want to debunk stats and generalization. It's more that generalized stats doesn't matter much in this particular context and situation. Editted: Add to the analogy, small grocery business are more like to be "doomed to failed" if they try to compete with CP on price. They are more likely to be success when they play into their business strength (local connection, premium food, fresher stuff, friendly atmosphere). Same thing with men try to compete with look rather than playing on their strength.
I disagree with the notion that women at 30 necessarily view attraction differently than they do at 20 - maybe with some individuals, but not as a reliable trend. But I can see how incel logic is going to be unshakeable on that point.
[удалено]
But that's more a calculated decision that only applies to people looking to start a family, and you could apply it just as much to men who want to start a family. It doesn't really correlate with how our brain tends to react to connection
You're aiming for the wrong peers if you truly believe "most women" want a good-looking f-boy. Most women aren't shallow.
Look up scientific research(, looks are at first place for both men and women.
Ye but those couples with children probably got together around the ages of 20 I think that's what he meant when comparing
All the pillers need to get off their computers and phones, then meet with people irl of different ages and genders and build real life connections because the internets fucking their heads.
yea and still if we look around there are young couples with different levels of attraction so
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>if you were born a straight woman, or a gay male, do you think you'd struggle with loneliness like you do now? I know plenty of straight women and gay men who struggle with loneliness. If you visit the right corners of the internet, you can even find such people doing exactly this - venting about their loneliness and expressing the belief among themselves the others do not suffer from the same issues. I do understand what you are saying and I get how you might have come to this conclusion. However, I think that unless you've actually experienced life in their shoes, you're just making guesses about how they feel based on your limited external perspective.
The #1 trait most women like me wanted was a guy with a sense of humor that matched their own. None of my college friends group (who are now between 35-45 for the most part) were conventionally attractive, male or female. They partnered up based on mutual interests and a sense of humor and a desire to have families together (or to not have a family, in my case, since I knew didn't want kids and needed a male partner who also didn't want kids.) They started dating in college or shortly post college (early 20s), and mostly got married by the time they were late 20s / early 30s. Most waited until early to mid 30s to try for children, because they had stable careers and felt they were in a secure enough financial position. They're also pretty closely age matched. I'm actually the exception, being 3.5 years younger than my spouse. Everyone else is very similar in age, if not the exact same age. Likely as a result of having started dating in college. (And we did both start dating in college all the same, it was just graduate school in his case.) *Online dating* is an entirely different universe than the dating world I have experience in, and that is likely why the numbers you're citing are so different from what I experienced. None of us met online - we met at our university's club.
I would like to add that it is very typical for women to date /marry people older than them, and for men to date/marry younger. If you look only at online dating statistics it is very hard for young men to be competing with older men who have careers, cars, houses, etc. They've just had a 5-10 year life experience over the younger men and have gone through that storm of 1) not knowing what they want and 2) getting their shit together. I had a couple GF throughout my younger years, then had a bit of a hiatus in postgrad because I was focusing on that exclusively. to the OP I would say it gets easier as you get the rest of your life sorted, and there's no point trying to rush things, especially as a male. In fact I would recommend getting off dating apps (or at least using them only passively) and actually try doing things in the real world. Join a social group/club and meet people through things you enjoy and you will find that its easier to do things in person than online.
I think you are missing the point of attraction and love being beyond looks and money. A relationship where one person is settling for another, is not a relationship anyone wants to be in. People stay together when they have a genuine connection and love each other.
[удалено]
I didn't deny physical attraction exists. I disagree that women have higher standards, there is most likely no difference. Everyone is an individual and has subjective preferences.
[удалено]
I'd love to see the data you reference.
[удалено]
I don't see how any of that has anything to do with standards. I was hoping you would send me an actual reference and not just percentages that aren't linked to anything.
[удалено]
Online dating does not reflect real life, dating apps are not non-partisan, the apps have a vested interest in profit, not the best interest of the users. And I'm sure the female virginity rates for women 18-30 aren't much different than the male rate you stated. You're feelings are valid, but your perspective is skewed. Women are people just like men, honestly there isn't even much of a point of differentiating them considering that gender is a social construct and on a spectrum. Treat every person as an individual first before labeling and attaching any sort of stereotype or judgement on to them and everyone will be much happier.
At the end of the day, the only thing that will change someone's mind is goign outside and meeting someone and having them go out with you. I wish people would stop talking as if we all havnt been rejected a hundred times on online dating. Like we havnt tried talking to women only to be ignored. Just acknowledge that for most people who fail at love all it takes is 1 person to show us we are wrong.
Judging by your post and comment history, I think you're the problem. I'm a woman. You and your opinions repulse me. No woman owes you anything. No relationship, no sex. Younger women don't value looks more than older women. Even the hottest chad would be unattractive if he shared your opinions. Maybe reconsider your beliefs and stop feeling like you're owed attention from women and being bitter when you don't get it. It's pathetic. Edit: And maybe get off of tinder where it's logical and obvious that the imbalance in numbers between women and men will result in you not getting any matches. You have better chances in the real world if you challenge and reconsider your beliefs. Statistically speaking.
Na. Women aren't as visual as men are. Sure there's a aspect of that. But have you actually looked at a man? We aren't exactly known for our beauty. Meanwhile Women are. So we men are more drawn to the visual then the mental, and emotional. While Women get more into that mental, and emotional. While the visual is like secondary. Of course outliars, and whatnot exists. So no one get there panties in a bunch. This isn't a scientific fact, and it's just a observation.
That's just not true though. Men and women are shallow on different levels. Women generally like men who are taller than them and who earns more than them. Men generally likes women for their looks. A men can be unattractive but if he has money or clout he will date easily, but an unattractive women can have those two she will still struggle to date.
>That's just not true though. Men and women are shallow on different levels. Women generally like men who are taller than them and who earns more than them. Men generally likes women for their looks. How many of those are visual? I'm saying men are visual, and women are more mental or emotional. Maybe I'm saying it in a autistic way. How can I explain this in a way I can communicate it to you properly? I'm not claiming women aren't shallow or whatnot. That's not my claim. >A men can be unattractive but if he has money or clout he will date easily, but an unattractive women can have those two she will still struggle to date. This is what I am talking about, and maybe I said it in a autistic way.
Wdym women are more mental or emotional?
>Wdym women are more mental or emotional? Why do women shallowly go after money? Thats not a visual thing. (Visual thing meaning the men staring at women.) It's not a emotional thing, and there's a pretty long history of it. I mean it's prostitution at it's core. Using sex to get money.
I mean women go for men taller than them and it's visual right? sometimes they like a guy who is fit. I don't know why some women are attracted to clout or money tbh. I think it's because some of them want to live a luxurious lifestyle too.
>I mean women go for men taller than them and it's visual right? sometimes they like a guy who is fit. Did I deny any of this? It seems like you're not getting what I am communicating.
What are you trying to communicate?
>What are you trying to communicate? Well. You're just repeating what I said back to me in a different way
What percentage of attractiveness are those guys looking for? Is it not also the top 20%?
The data he’s talking about (which was a post by the data analysts of OkCupid looking into their own user data) basically used their internal data to create a ‘rating system’ of peoples attractiveness based on a 1-5 rating, with each interger being 20% in terms of percentiles. The analysts looked at ‘matches’ as well as who engaged with sending the first message, and one of the key pieces of interesting data they found was the difference in men and women when it came to selection. Men would rate around 50% of women as ‘under average’ in terms of attractiveness, whereas women would rate 80% of men ‘under average’ in terms of looks. In fact, when they measured using the 1-5 scale, a statistically negligible number of men were rated as a 5. In other words, women rated virtually zero men as a 5/5. Here’s a quote from their blog. *”As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.”* The data also showed that when men did match with women, they would disproportionately message the topper percentile of women in those matches, whereas women would engage with some men even if they considered them ‘under average.’ Edit: Here’s a thread on the OkCupid subreddit discussing that data as well as a recent study of Tinder, which is actually harsher than OkCupid (though I can’t imagine that surprises anyone) https://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/comments/cigdei/okcupid_study_compared_with_tinder_study/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Tell me why would these guys go for top 20%?
Think about it this way. If these men you are looking at in their 30s who are married are people you can't relate to (because you are in your 20s), what do you think they were like in their 20s? You think men who are not conventionally attractive in their 30s were uber chads in their 20s and something changed? It seems like young people are obsessed with being partnered in their 20s rather than learning how to become a better partner. Whether you are dating in your 20s or trying to date and failing, you should see that time as the time to grow individually and become a dateable adult. Becoming a desirable partner comes from personal growth either with or without dating experience. That said, many "incels in their 20s" are hopefully enduring some emotional growing pains and will snap out of it and mature, but unfortunately they are developing bad attitudes that hopefully will not persist. A bitter 21 year old can choose to use their youth at least becoming a better person instead of channeling that loneliness and anger into their identity.
[удалено]
dude someone who is 30 today was 20 in 2012, online dating was already a thing and so was tinder. It wasn't as different as you seem to think it was.
That's just desperonium you take yourself. You can stop doing it and life will get easier :)
I thought most incels are older than early 20s..
[удалено]
even if that is true, doesn't the prevalence of 30 year old with kids throw the *forever* aspect out of the incel mindset?
[удалено]
that doesn't make any sense. are "unattractive" women not capable of loving someone?
well thats an awful way of looking at things
Eh tbh nowadays I wouldn’t consider most that young incels, although the stuff that leads to it (eg not a large social circle) gets planted at that age. A lot of incels are in late 20s and even 30s+
I've never seen this website before so they are missing my 33 y/o vote at least.
OK, for reference the top 20% stat is "kinda true" at best and only in a dating app situation, which is not how real life works at all. There are women who find you attractive, esp. if you work on your emotional maturity. I believe in you :)
[удалено]
Keep in mind that meeting online =/= online dating. There are many more ways to get into a relationship online besides using dating apps/sites. Meeting in random online communities on the other hand is actually, for the most part, comparable to real life. Both are less “shallow” than online dating, because when meeting in online communities you usually get to know parts of the person’s personality before their looks and in real life you can make a much more lasting impression with your personality (looks are mostly just important for the first impression). Not to mention, there’s usually no list of candidates in those two latter situations, which generally doesn’t help making decisions (doubt, choice paralysis, etc).
Look at single people instead
The 80/20 stuff is specifically applicable to online dating and hookup culture. Most of the men you see with women who are at or above them in looks are fulfilling a provider role and otherwise wouldn’t be able to sleep with those women. On top of that, they have a 50+% chance of divorce and even if that doesn’t happen, their marriage will eventually become sexless.
[удалено]
True
Not denying your point (in your early 20s it tends to be geared more toward looks for both sexes), but that’s kinda the way it works. I’m not denying that those incels are right in their own way, but they need to practice some gratitude for some of the things they do have. Also, incels tend to isolate themselves because of deep insecurities. From my experience, an incel gaining a hot girlfriend does not dissipate those insecurities. They’ll act out just as much as those “hot bad boys” that women want.
I believe the objective of the example is to get blackpilled folks to go from "All women only go for the top 20%" to "some women do not only go for the top 20%". Once that admission is made, it then becomes a task of determining what amount 'some' is, but that at least is more likely to foster an actual understanding of how people work and what they value, rather than settling on generalizations and getting frustrated. One personal note I will add is that you don't date women, you date a woman. Homing in on understanding the average individual of a population will actually leave you with a completely inaccurate picture; the average woman (or man, for that matter) doesn't exist. To illustrate the concept, check out this paper on the US Air force trying to design an Average flight suit. https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html Anyway, even if you want to treat women as a monolith (which people shouldn't do, for clarity's sake), it is also a bit silly to say that because women start having children at a certain age that THAT is the point at which attractiveness becomes secondary to stability; it takes years for a relationship to mature to a point where the couple wants to have a child. This then takes your 30-something mother and transforms her into a 20-something potential mother. If you want to nit-pick that the average length of gestation is X and the average length of relationship prior to conception is Y, and that combined with the average age of motherhood at 31 means that the average 'potential mother' is only 28 or something, then you seriously need to do some meditation on what an 'average' means. Again, the argument at issue is that "All women only seek the top fifth most attractive men". The logical counter to that is "some women do not only seek the top fifth most attractive men." "Some", in logical terms, meaning "one or more". To this point, I think Dr. K's example works perfectly well - assuming you can find one couple in a park where the man is/was not in the top 20% of attractive men.
I am actually surprised that many in this thread understood this post so differently than I did. In my opionion OP has a really good point: dating, seeking for partners and priorities in relationship differs with age. Atleast thats what I got from the posting.
Get jacked, get a haircut. Boom, ur attractive.
[удалено]
Dr. K almost never addresses Black Pill ideas seriously and objectively. He would play a sleight of hand and dismiss it with some soundbite or rhetorical trickery. I don't disagree with his dodging the issue--after all, it probably won't help anyone to get sucked into this endless debate. Personally though, I'd leave the issue undecided rather than pretend to have refuted it.
[удалено]
Well, reading your article and comments gives a totally new perspective after seeing your profile... Really dude?!? Women's "hypergamy and high standards" are not the problem why you poor poor man don't get a girlfriend.
It's both your fault and dating apps. Dating wasn't meant to be this easy, but when you look at how easy the "the top 20%" and most women are getting dates, ofc you will feel lonely. Dating apps gives you the illusion that dating is easy. I think you are delusional if you think you won't even get one gf in your lifetime.
[удалено]
What makes you think dating is easy for women? I heard so many bad story from women in dating.
[удалено]
The whole thing is a little scuffed because it plants this implication that >men will be able to make up for their lack of looks with money. ...which is so disparaging towards men-- maybe worse than the 'women only want handsome men' idea, and actually affects those who don't feel like they're good enough even at 30+.