A man that meets the 6-6-6 criteria would be in the top 0.41% of the male population. You're just setting yourself up for failure if you think your princess ass "deserves" such an Adonis, and in your thirties to boot.
Edit: Or go to igotstandardsbro.com and play with the Female Delusion Calculator yourself.
Apex fallacy. Those 1 to 10 percent of men these women are paying attention to are the only ones they actually notice - the rest of men are basically invisible to them, so they never take them into account.
To use a spicy comparison, it's why alot of FtM trannies tend to collide head-first with reality when suddenly the metaphorical shoe is on the other foot - they expected to be treated like that top 10 percent because the top ten percent where the only men they ever paid attention to. Only to find that no one gives a shit about them any more and they're basically invisible to society at large.
Its why people can't get Leonardo DiCaprio's name out of their mouth.
He is openly proving what we all know. That a peak male will just fuck hot young sluts, then replace them as their usage wears out. He can do literally whatever he wants and has zero reason to settle for a girl with even a single flaw.
The problem with those "calculators" is that these are not independent variables.
Taller people do tend to be smarter and more successful. You can't just multiply a bunch of codependent probabilities, get a small number, and say, "that's basically impossible!" because then you end up with situations like my (large) extended family where nearly all of the men meet those criteria, defying all "odds".
That said, unless you somehow have a comprehensive, government-funded study into delusional female dating standards that will hurt their precious fee-fees, this is the best we got.
That OkCupid study was just a viral version of one that has been repeated in Psychology many times in the past. We went over it during my undergrad well over a decade ago and before OkCupid started doing its famous blogposts.
Its been consistent every time. Men create a pretty normal bell curve of attractiveness, women create a lopsided monstrosity where basically every man is a 3/10.
A fun factoid I remember from one of those studies is they did another version both with and without a person's job/income under the picture. Men barely changed their numbers (and only did so for "slutty" type jobs) while women did what you'd expect and started fluffing richer or fancier jobbed men up.
A man that meets the 6-6-6 criteria would be in the top 0.41% of the male population. You're just setting yourself up for failure if you think your princess ass "deserves" such an Adonis, and in your thirties to boot.
Edit: Or go to igotstandardsbro.com and play with the Female Delusion Calculator yourself.
Apex fallacy. Those 1 to 10 percent of men these women are paying attention to are the only ones they actually notice - the rest of men are basically invisible to them, so they never take them into account.
To use a spicy comparison, it's why alot of FtM trannies tend to collide head-first with reality when suddenly the metaphorical shoe is on the other foot - they expected to be treated like that top 10 percent because the top ten percent where the only men they ever paid attention to. Only to find that no one gives a shit about them any more and they're basically invisible to society at large.
Its why people can't get Leonardo DiCaprio's name out of their mouth.
He is openly proving what we all know. That a peak male will just fuck hot young sluts, then replace them as their usage wears out. He can do literally whatever he wants and has zero reason to settle for a girl with even a single flaw.
The problem with those "calculators" is that these are not independent variables.
Taller people do tend to be smarter and more successful. You can't just multiply a bunch of codependent probabilities, get a small number, and say, "that's basically impossible!" because then you end up with situations like my (large) extended family where nearly all of the men meet those criteria, defying all "odds".
The creator of the calculator goes over that, yeah. The OKCupid study where women rated 80% of men as "below average" wasn't entirely scientific, either.
That said, unless you somehow have a comprehensive, government-funded study into delusional female dating standards that will hurt their precious fee-fees, this is the best we got.
I prefer to figure shit out without statistics. Those can be manipulated and falsified. The impressions of my actual senses are real.
If statistics contradict apparent reality, they're probably misused or wrong. Not the other way around.
That OkCupid study was just a viral version of one that has been repeated in Psychology many times in the past. We went over it during my undergrad well over a decade ago and before OkCupid started doing its famous blogposts.
Its been consistent every time. Men create a pretty normal bell curve of attractiveness, women create a lopsided monstrosity where basically every man is a 3/10.
A fun factoid I remember from one of those studies is they did another version both with and without a person's job/income under the picture. Men barely changed their numbers (and only did so for "slutty" type jobs) while women did what you'd expect and started fluffing richer or fancier jobbed men up.