a "betabux" isnt so much what he has, but what he is. A $40k earning "beta" will still let some thot walk all over him and give her everything he owns, and control of [their] his finances.
nope, I dont care about big floppy tits. just "not obese" natural tits are perfect if they fit her frame, meaning: if a woman is a corn-fed "laborer" body type, a broad shouldered midwestern kind, she would look mannish if she didnt have tits to fill her out.
i would instead add "not ran through" or "not a bitch" / "nice" / "feminine"
The last one is going to do most of the narrowing. Not obese would eliminate 2/3 of all women, although the stats might be a bit better for the 25-30 group. There is a calculator for women somewhere, but I don't have a link unfortunately. I remember seeing a bunch of women circle jerking about how men's requirements eliminate all but 20% or so of women. The hilarious part is women's requirements left a fraction of a percent of men. But somehow men are the picky ones.
That's the thing about the 80/20 rule (although there's evidence that it's more like the 95/5 rule these days). It's not the top x% of men, it's the top x% of every single category which is how you get those tiny numbers for women. When a woman wants, say, a man who's 6' or taller that's not a problem on its own. That's about the 85th percentile, so they still have 15% left to choose from. It's not a huge proportion, but it's doable if height is the most important thing and she's willing to compromise on other qualities. That means she might have have to accept a face that's not male model tier, a body that doesn't belong to a roided up douchebag, or a sub-$100k income. Of course she won't compromise on those other qualities, because she feels entitled to gigachad. When women say they can't find good men, what they really mean is the only men offering her commitment are icky betas instead of the gigachad that feminism has taught her that she's owed.
remember seeing a bunch of women circle jerking about how men's requirements eliminate all but 20% or so of women. The hilarious part is women's requirements left a fraction of a percent of men. But somehow men are the picky ones.
what men find physically attractive in a woman varries much more than what women find attractive in men. No women like short men, no women like skinny [scrawny] men, no women like pudgy/dad-bod men. The "free because you are the product they are selling" dating site OK Cupid used to have a blog that analyzed everything about its users, turns out men rate womens attractiveness on a bell curve, and women rate 80% of all men "less than average" attractiveness.
Women in general dont have the self reflection to understand they are all chasing these top 1%ers of men and if they want to keep him for a lifetime and not just one night they have to be a top woman themselves. But they are told since before they are teenagers that they are perfect and dont need to change or improve anything.
Also both men and women do this: they believe what they find attractive in the opposite sex, the opposite sex finds attractive in them. Women think men find a tall, aggressive, highly educated, world traveled/experienced, career driven woman attractive because it is what they find attractive in men. And men, however cliche it is, think women like men who are "nice".... surprisingly that trait is very low on womens list of desires, and ask any woman about her ex, she will without a doubt say he was "an abusive jerk".... you dated him sweetheart, what does that say about what you desire in a man?
Its a sad state of affairs modern dating has become
Even with those criteria, a large chunk are still going to be insane. It's not the raw numbers that matter; you could find plenty. Whether the ones you find are worth anything is the real question.
You guys are going to love this, lol: https://igotstandardsbro.com/
Savage. Even the nondescript white dude is nearly unattainable:
2.9% - 3/5 Aspiring cat lady
Cut the earnings to $40k and it is still 5.9% overall (9.4% for whites).
Wow. Even betabux is increasingly unobtainable for these entitled whores. It serves them right.
a "betabux" isnt so much what he has, but what he is. A $40k earning "beta" will still let some thot walk all over him and give her everything he owns, and control of [their] his finances.
I like how the slider for income has $100,000 almost all the way to the left.
is there one for women? i want to know how fucked everything is.
height - doesnt matter
income - doesnt matter
education - preferably NOT college educated
age - 25-30
weight - not obese
As a plumber or mechanic would say, “here’s yer problem”
yeah i know
As a man of culture, I would like to suggest some form of "Measurements" also be added. For science.
nope, I dont care about big floppy tits. just "not obese" natural tits are perfect if they fit her frame, meaning: if a woman is a corn-fed "laborer" body type, a broad shouldered midwestern kind, she would look mannish if she didnt have tits to fill her out.
i would instead add "not ran through" or "not a bitch" / "nice" / "feminine"
but that is too much to ask I guess.
I mean, some of us do still have standards. What if we're only looking for someone with a tiny body and small tits?
Hold on the FBI is at my door.
The last one is going to do most of the narrowing. Not obese would eliminate 2/3 of all women, although the stats might be a bit better for the 25-30 group. There is a calculator for women somewhere, but I don't have a link unfortunately. I remember seeing a bunch of women circle jerking about how men's requirements eliminate all but 20% or so of women. The hilarious part is women's requirements left a fraction of a percent of men. But somehow men are the picky ones.
That's the thing about the 80/20 rule (although there's evidence that it's more like the 95/5 rule these days). It's not the top x% of men, it's the top x% of every single category which is how you get those tiny numbers for women. When a woman wants, say, a man who's 6' or taller that's not a problem on its own. That's about the 85th percentile, so they still have 15% left to choose from. It's not a huge proportion, but it's doable if height is the most important thing and she's willing to compromise on other qualities. That means she might have have to accept a face that's not male model tier, a body that doesn't belong to a roided up douchebag, or a sub-$100k income. Of course she won't compromise on those other qualities, because she feels entitled to gigachad. When women say they can't find good men, what they really mean is the only men offering her commitment are icky betas instead of the gigachad that feminism has taught her that she's owed.
what men find physically attractive in a woman varries much more than what women find attractive in men. No women like short men, no women like skinny [scrawny] men, no women like pudgy/dad-bod men. The "free because you are the product they are selling" dating site OK Cupid used to have a blog that analyzed everything about its users, turns out men rate womens attractiveness on a bell curve, and women rate 80% of all men "less than average" attractiveness.
Women in general dont have the self reflection to understand they are all chasing these top 1%ers of men and if they want to keep him for a lifetime and not just one night they have to be a top woman themselves. But they are told since before they are teenagers that they are perfect and dont need to change or improve anything.
Also both men and women do this: they believe what they find attractive in the opposite sex, the opposite sex finds attractive in them. Women think men find a tall, aggressive, highly educated, world traveled/experienced, career driven woman attractive because it is what they find attractive in men. And men, however cliche it is, think women like men who are "nice".... surprisingly that trait is very low on womens list of desires, and ask any woman about her ex, she will without a doubt say he was "an abusive jerk".... you dated him sweetheart, what does that say about what you desire in a man?
Its a sad state of affairs modern dating has become
Even with those criteria, a large chunk are still going to be insane. It's not the raw numbers that matter; you could find plenty. Whether the ones you find are worth anything is the real question.
You shouldn't be carrying women over the age of 20. Thats asking for problems.
Just playing around with the "exclude obese" setting has a huge (kek) impact. It seems like it's worth an extra bag of litter all by itself.