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.
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.