Yes, by going out and getting themselves noticed to a degree. Online dating has removed even that barrier, to which women only need to open an app and choose the top 1% of her hundreds of matches.
And then go on a date with someone who may stalk or kill you. And here in Europe, the men don't even pay for dinner. I'm exaggerating, of course, but I don't see why you think the position of women is more enviable.
Remember that it's men who want 'the night'. Women, generally, want a relationship. So you're using men getting what they want as proof that they're worse off. They really are no happier for it. Don't imagine a comparison with yourself, how happy you could be if you could get many hot women as an average guy (if you are).
You confuse "first move" with effort. Men need to break the ice, but you seem to assume a woman needs to do nothing in order to have ice he wants to break in the first place. Tinder requires a few selfies and pictures that can be doctored with filters.
Those things work both ways. What's easier for a guy who is not confident, to swipe or to approach a woman in real life?
If this is the case, then why are the numbers skewed in the favor of women by such a large margin? It can't be that a large majority of men don't meet the standards of all women, as you seem to be implying below.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Why can it not be that a large majority of men on Tinder don't meet the standards of most women? Besides, you're going to get the best you can get. If you can get both an 8 and a 10, you'd got for the 10. Why blame women because men don't have standards?
Give me an example of some of those low standards.
Gosh man, whenever I see Americans talking about this, it's as if they're from a different planet. Cause I go out and see relatively OK females with the most grotesque specimens you can imagine. It is very rare that I see a good-looking guy or even just fit guy with an ugly girl. It may be that they're all wealthy or something (though they don't look like it), but I'm not living in Beverly Hills. It's just a normal European city.
Conversely, what are your standards for men? And are you willing to compromise if a man meets all but one of your standards?
Are you assuming that I am female, or do you think my takes are so out there that I must be a homosexual? (I'm not offended, it's funny.)
I think for me, as for most, there's a few sine qua non conditions and some nice to haves. My standards are definitely higher than for most women. Basically, do you make my life better? That is rarely the case.
No, they do on Tinder as well. It's an extreme confidence. We all have anecdotes of the goofy looking dude we know who slays on Tinder; he also tends to slay in real life too. It's really the one mutable skill on which men can improve that'll have a tangible benefit to their dating life; however, like the immutable aspects, only the best of the best will get selected given the middle-man of online dating.
Yeah, I don't think confidence is readily perceptible through online interactions. For example, I'd peg you just based on how you talk as a fairly confident guy, but I assume based on the contents of your comments that you do not consider yourself confident. So how could someone even tell?
We'll disagree here. A lot of the lack of confidence in the dating market is due to constant rejection, which happens to most men who aren't in the extremes of the intangibles.
It happens to everyone. For fun, just ask a so called 'Chad' how often he has been rejected. Unless he's a braggart, you're going to hear: quite a lot. It's like a guy who has sent job applications to two companies, both of them rejected, and thinks that a guy with a great job somehow had an imperial emissary arrive and offer him the job. No, unless he was very lucky, he tried a lot and got rejected a lot.
Despite career and perhaps even physical accomplishments, enough women hold to their extreme standards enough that they will still reject those men, and every rejection is a chip from the confidence block.
Honestly, if I had a magic wand, I'd have women raise their standards. I have encountered truly grotesque creatures, balding, fat, unintelligent, unclever, no money, no home, no social skills, land themselves a fair 5. At least get your man to lose some weight. Have some standards, because I don't want to have to look at that.
It'd be nice if men raised their standards as well. It is exaggerated that 'any woman can get any Chad', but the fact that men have no standards causes trouble for those considered less desirable. At least in the Tinder market. Obviously, no 'Chad' is going to go out with some fat abomination, so the 'less desirable' men will have to break her fall when she turns 30.
How much of this is urban legend versus something that actually happens?
Most such things are very rare. But it's the fear that cripples people. Regardless, just because men have so much more physical strength, it's the woman who is at a disadvantage in any situation. This is part of the reason, though by no means the only one, why women were so much more reluctant in that infamous "will you have sex with me" study.
Your assumption is that I'm looking at the position that women hold is one for which to be envious, which is a mistake. I much prefer the pursuit of women in a real life setting, and I think online dating has nullified that pursuit as the paradox of choice presented by hundreds of matches with zero effort on the part of the woman.
But whose fault is it that so many men are fine with just about any woman? Shouldn't they raise their standards, if we're going to engage in such futile lecturing?
It's not what's easier, but what works. Swiping is easier, but with no swipe back its an exercise in futility.
It's what works * the likelihood that you will do it. Any guy can swipe on 100 girls in a day. He's not going to hit on even 10 girls in a day, especially if he is so fragile. So it probably will work out for him, if he just keeps trying instead of sinking away in self-pity.
Hypergamy is a feature of women. Hypergamy in smaller groups of people makes sense, since it was gated to your physical area; you knew your competition, for all intents and purposes. Men are now competing against the best of the world.
I mean, if you just work that out, you'll see that it makes no sense. Even if the "best of the world" - who is it, the 20%? Let's be generous. 20%. Only 20% of women can simultaneously occupy that 20%. So there's 80% available at the very least.
Men also have some preferences, but you don't complain about that because you don't fall victim to it.
Your axiom that hypergamy is synonymous with standards is fallacious. The obvious issue, too, is that there are only so many 10s for all women. If women want to have their cake and eat it too, they need to understand that not all of them will get the relationship they so desire if they only take the best.
Well, yeah? You make it sound like this is not already happening.
That's odd. Occasionally I'll see the ugly dude with the hot girlfriend, but then I'll see his hyper-competence in something like BJJ or his job that answers why that happened. I also tend to see a picture of him back when dating started and he was way more in shape, or she ugly-ducklinged a bit. This is all anecdotal, of course, so who knows.
Just on balance, who is in better shape, men or women? I see far more fat men, even ignoring the fact that they do not take care of themselves. By definition, the average will be a woman who is more attractive than the man.
Or do you normally see relationships where the man is far more attractive? Almost cannot imagine it.
You're a woman.
Now I'm very interested how you came to that conclusion.
This coupled with a few good pictures tells a surprisingly good story. Text alone isn't enough, you're correct.
You can make good pictures, confident or not. In fact, if you are 'confident', you may think bad pictures are good pictures...
My buddy covers the immutable characteristics of a "Chad". He's also one of the rare ones that has women message him first on Tinder. I have asked him about rejection and he says he can remember all of them. That means, he's had so few of them that he can remember them.
But he has been rejected. If he really gets laid a lot, then he will also have a lot more rejections. Unless he simply waits to be approached. Or maybe he's the exception that proves the rule, who knows?
I get your argument, trust me, and I agree with the premise. No one should be graded on a curve just because a class of people doesn't meet the mark. If the natural curve of physical location and travel limitations has been abolished, then something's going to need to change.
Honestly, the decline of standards is one of the most worrisome things nowadays.
Why is your counter to women having standards high enough for 10% of men to eclipse, that men have no standards at all? That's quite the non-sequitur, seeing as even if men had no standards, only 10% of them would meet the standards of the women and the original problem still holds.
I'm not blaming men for having standards. I'm blaming them for having low standards. If men did not follow that worm between their legs, this whole issue would not even arise.
He'd have better luck approaching 2 girls in a day, let alone 10, let alone swiping on 100.
No one who's insecure approaches 730 girls in a year.
And those 80% all want the top 20% of men, and won't settle for less. Men, if having had dated a top tier woman.
I mean, 100% of men want a supermodel. But they do settle, as do women.
It also doesn't show in the numbers that men's preferences really affect normalized distribution of attractiveness. Why do you keep ignoring that factor, and instead focus on the motte-and-bailey of "preferences"?
I think all that is quite dubious, but even if it were true, most men aren't exactly in great shape. And the fact that (you say) they can hope to get a date with the best may dissuade them from 'settling'.
And therein lies the problem. If they can't get the best that they now reason they could get via a match on Tinder, then they won't settle for less. It's called "alpha-widowing".
I would not be surprised if this were a phenomenon, though I don't think it's as widespread as you claim. This may well be one of the reasons why marriages today do not succeed as often, since cohabitation and premarital relation are inversely correlated with marital success.
I won't ask where you live, but I would like to live there. God damn are bitches fat here.
Here as well, but less fat than the men, certanly on average, almost always in relationships.
It's odd enough to see a man date out of his league here that they made a movie about it, if that tells you anything. It's called "She's Out Of My League".
Here's why this is wrong: you consider 'league' to be just height, hair and looks. In reality, these probably matter least, except perhaps on Tinder. That is why the groteqsue beasts I mentioned earlier can get decent women.
You hold womanly opinions on abortion and dating. Also, I make extreme predictions online because who gives a shit if I'm wrong, we're both faggots on a message board. So you're a woman.
LOL. The funny thing is that women aren't that much more in favor of abortion than men. Dating, I don't know. Most important thing for me is looks. That's not womanly at all (though you may think it is).
Right, so its action oriented pictures that give off an air of confidence coupled with a good line of back-and-forth messaging. Not many average to below-average men can pull that off. The few that do are very rare.
But here I am confused. 'Average' and 'below-average' in what respect? Looks? I don't think it's related. Confidence? I assume they would find it much easier to message a girl than to come up with good lines in real life. I suspect all of this is just a problem of their own making.
Lets not get pedantic, now. A millionaire who dropped a quarter between the couch cushions has also lost money, right? Its a game of ratios vs outright rejections, and you know that.
Of course more attractive people have better ratios. But you made it sound like the 'good ones' never get rejected. I bet most get rejected more often than not. The difference is that they don't let that keep them down. The others pay altogether too much importance to 'rejection'. We're not meant for this world.
Right, and Impy is correct in this regard; men need to stop giving woman a tinker's damn until they themselves buck up, because average men going for fat fucks who think they're the prize is part of the problem. Now, I am speaking as an American, so remember that.
No, I think that problem is the same here. Of course, it's just evolution. Your genes do not care if the one you impregnate is skinny or fat. You may prefer skinny, because she's healthier, but it's no loss to you if she's fat vs. not having a kid.
Almost all of the stuff that you complain about is perfectly explicable in terms of socio-biology, and the mismatch between our environment and the legacy of our evolution.
And then go on a date with someone who may stalk or kill you. And here in Europe, the men don't even pay for dinner. I'm exaggerating, of course, but I don't see why you think the position of women is more enviable.
Remember that it's men who want 'the night'. Women, generally, want a relationship. So you're using men getting what they want as proof that they're worse off. They really are no happier for it. Don't imagine a comparison with yourself, how happy you could be if you could get many hot women as an average guy (if you are).
Those things work both ways. What's easier for a guy who is not confident, to swipe or to approach a woman in real life?
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Why can it not be that a large majority of men on Tinder don't meet the standards of most women? Besides, you're going to get the best you can get. If you can get both an 8 and a 10, you'd got for the 10. Why blame women because men don't have standards?
Gosh man, whenever I see Americans talking about this, it's as if they're from a different planet. Cause I go out and see relatively OK females with the most grotesque specimens you can imagine. It is very rare that I see a good-looking guy or even just fit guy with an ugly girl. It may be that they're all wealthy or something (though they don't look like it), but I'm not living in Beverly Hills. It's just a normal European city.
Are you assuming that I am female, or do you think my takes are so out there that I must be a homosexual? (I'm not offended, it's funny.)
I think for me, as for most, there's a few sine qua non conditions and some nice to haves. My standards are definitely higher than for most women. Basically, do you make my life better? That is rarely the case.
Yeah, I don't think confidence is readily perceptible through online interactions. For example, I'd peg you just based on how you talk as a fairly confident guy, but I assume based on the contents of your comments that you do not consider yourself confident. So how could someone even tell?
It happens to everyone. For fun, just ask a so called 'Chad' how often he has been rejected. Unless he's a braggart, you're going to hear: quite a lot. It's like a guy who has sent job applications to two companies, both of them rejected, and thinks that a guy with a great job somehow had an imperial emissary arrive and offer him the job. No, unless he was very lucky, he tried a lot and got rejected a lot.
Honestly, if I had a magic wand, I'd have women raise their standards. I have encountered truly grotesque creatures, balding, fat, unintelligent, unclever, no money, no home, no social skills, land themselves a fair 5. At least get your man to lose some weight. Have some standards, because I don't want to have to look at that.
It'd be nice if men raised their standards as well. It is exaggerated that 'any woman can get any Chad', but the fact that men have no standards causes trouble for those considered less desirable. At least in the Tinder market. Obviously, no 'Chad' is going to go out with some fat abomination, so the 'less desirable' men will have to break her fall when she turns 30.
Most such things are very rare. But it's the fear that cripples people. Regardless, just because men have so much more physical strength, it's the woman who is at a disadvantage in any situation. This is part of the reason, though by no means the only one, why women were so much more reluctant in that infamous "will you have sex with me" study.
But whose fault is it that so many men are fine with just about any woman? Shouldn't they raise their standards, if we're going to engage in such futile lecturing?
It's what works * the likelihood that you will do it. Any guy can swipe on 100 girls in a day. He's not going to hit on even 10 girls in a day, especially if he is so fragile. So it probably will work out for him, if he just keeps trying instead of sinking away in self-pity.
I mean, if you just work that out, you'll see that it makes no sense. Even if the "best of the world" - who is it, the 20%? Let's be generous. 20%. Only 20% of women can simultaneously occupy that 20%. So there's 80% available at the very least.
Men also have some preferences, but you don't complain about that because you don't fall victim to it.
Well, yeah? You make it sound like this is not already happening.
Just on balance, who is in better shape, men or women? I see far more fat men, even ignoring the fact that they do not take care of themselves. By definition, the average will be a woman who is more attractive than the man.
Or do you normally see relationships where the man is far more attractive? Almost cannot imagine it.
Now I'm very interested how you came to that conclusion.
You can make good pictures, confident or not. In fact, if you are 'confident', you may think bad pictures are good pictures...
But he has been rejected. If he really gets laid a lot, then he will also have a lot more rejections. Unless he simply waits to be approached. Or maybe he's the exception that proves the rule, who knows?
Honestly, the decline of standards is one of the most worrisome things nowadays.
I'm not blaming men for having standards. I'm blaming them for having low standards. If men did not follow that worm between their legs, this whole issue would not even arise.
No one who's insecure approaches 730 girls in a year.
I mean, 100% of men want a supermodel. But they do settle, as do women.
I think all that is quite dubious, but even if it were true, most men aren't exactly in great shape. And the fact that (you say) they can hope to get a date with the best may dissuade them from 'settling'.
I would not be surprised if this were a phenomenon, though I don't think it's as widespread as you claim. This may well be one of the reasons why marriages today do not succeed as often, since cohabitation and premarital relation are inversely correlated with marital success.
Here as well, but less fat than the men, certanly on average, almost always in relationships.
Here's why this is wrong: you consider 'league' to be just height, hair and looks. In reality, these probably matter least, except perhaps on Tinder. That is why the groteqsue beasts I mentioned earlier can get decent women.
LOL. The funny thing is that women aren't that much more in favor of abortion than men. Dating, I don't know. Most important thing for me is looks. That's not womanly at all (though you may think it is).
But here I am confused. 'Average' and 'below-average' in what respect? Looks? I don't think it's related. Confidence? I assume they would find it much easier to message a girl than to come up with good lines in real life. I suspect all of this is just a problem of their own making.
Of course more attractive people have better ratios. But you made it sound like the 'good ones' never get rejected. I bet most get rejected more often than not. The difference is that they don't let that keep them down. The others pay altogether too much importance to 'rejection'. We're not meant for this world.
No, I think that problem is the same here. Of course, it's just evolution. Your genes do not care if the one you impregnate is skinny or fat. You may prefer skinny, because she's healthier, but it's no loss to you if she's fat vs. not having a kid.
Almost all of the stuff that you complain about is perfectly explicable in terms of socio-biology, and the mismatch between our environment and the legacy of our evolution.