Prior to AI, I had done a lot of research into the dating stats and made some pretty bleak posts on ConPro about it. Now, we have AI (Germini Pro) so I got the AI to do the heavy lifting for me this time.
The estimated number of women in the USA who are White, single, between the ages of 18-25yo, don't have children, are not overweight, do not have herpes-2, have had 0-3 previous sexual partners, consider themselves right-wing politically and don't have visible tattoos in casual clothes is 150,000. That's 150,000 in the whole country.
If you live in a city with 1m people, there's on average about 440 women living in this city who meet this standard.
On the other hand the number of single men who are aged 18-35 is about 25m.
That means in a city of 1m there's about 73,500 men you're competing against for this kind of woman, of which, there are only 440.
You need to be in the top 0.05% of men if this is what you're after.
What makes you think you're in the top 0.05% of men?
Of course your own preferences, the preferences of the women and preferences of the men you're competing against matter to a degree but something tells me even when that's factored in, you're still scraping from the bottom.
If we just compare the number of single women without kids who are aged 18-35 (16.5m vs single men (25m) you still need to be in the top 66% of all these men to even have a shot at the loweat quality woman.
Now imagine being a man with standards. If you have standards, you better be in the top 0.1% of men or you don't stand a chance.
My wife hit all those marks except being right wing when I met her, and she's right wing now. Women don't really have political beliefs, they just conform to whatever the strongest force in society is.
Especially true the younger they are. Young men are like this to an extent too. I've found the hotter the man relative to the woman, the easier it is to convince the woman of anything the hotter man says.
A woman's willingness to behave in a relationship is inversely related to her (perceived) ability to monkey branch to someone taller, richer, etc. It's why they'll let Chad beat the living shit out of them but cuck and divorce rape men who are near their SMV level. You have to have a significant attractiveness advantage over any woman you're with for there to be any hope of it being a net positive. Even then it only works if she's not delusional which is rare in the age of dating apps and social media.
Nah, everyone gets this wrong. Women cuck weak men. Women defer to leaders. Felon chad smacks her around, aka he's in charge. Beta Dave asks for her permission like a good boy, aka he's a follower.
Be a leader and your woman will respect you. Treat her like your equal in the marriage and she will cuck you. The ship can only have one captain and nobody wants a captain that's indecisive and deferring to everyone else for decisions.
Humans naturally see taller, more conventionally attractive men as leaders by default, however. If you are short and ugly, you have to earn the respect.
You're right. I've seen taller attractive men immediately lose leadership status by acting beta however.
True
That's why we need to go back to women being property, they need to be left without any means of escape so that behaving properly is their ownly option.
"if you wanna be happy for the rest of your life..."
This is why they push for indoctrination in schools
Hurrah, someone just discovered the wonders of fractional multiplication and why you don't shove a bunch of unnecessary factors into a search function. A stupid flower tattoo on the ankle isn't going to ruin a woman, just stipulating not being a hideous graffiti rag instead of zero tattoos is going to start ballooning those numbers immediately.
Not to mention those dumb AI numbers, if not completely hallucinated, almost certainly aren't trying to account for the coincidence rate of all those factors. Like someone with 0-3 sexual partners being much less likely to have HSV-2, or how a conservative woman is less likely to be a single mom or overweight. It will just be multiplying by baseline total population rates of all races and political inclinations, creating the worst case scenario.
Sure things are bleak, but there's weak to no justification for believing those numbers the AI pulled out its ass are accurate.
I have a masters in financial stats so don't worry, I know all the limitations. Even with the limitations accounted for the numbers are bleak. I once calculated them myself as best I could and got worse numbers than what the AI came out with using some estimates in the ranges of covariances for the different factors.
I literally did include all of what you spoke of before and got worse numbers. I think the one factor I did include prior-to that ended with worse numbers was also "the woman never once engaged in any sex work including having an OF account"
Obviously no correlation exists between all these factors and the data doesn't exist to calculate them yourself so no matter what you're guestimating. As is the case with all projections.
Muh masters in... bro shut up.
Of course the numbers are bad, most men are trash tho too so I'm not too worried about the competition.
Maybe run a set of numbers for men with equally strict requirements, white men under 30 that are not paying for only fans, not addicted to porn, not addicted to weed, not addicted to alcohol, not addicted to sports ball, play video games less than 4 hours a day, have a job making 50k plus a year or are building a business or in training for such, have stable housing, can maintain eye contact, make decisions without deferring to their mother, don't have painted nails, believe in family and not just republicuck, have basic hygiene.
I look around, and talk with my wife, and we see 99% of men failing these basic categories. The ones that don't are still afraid of leadership and commitment and are followers in their relationships with women.
To add on, A fat chick will lose weight for chad. Be chad. If she's chubby at 18, its likely not her fault. Give her direction and most women will be happy to achieve and be admired by their chad.
Based on what metric? Considering how conservatives back single mothers to the hilt, I'd guess the opposite.
The left will hand them money, but the right will hand them a sucker to abuse.
The obvious things that jump to mind:
I find being taller than 95% of US men is a good starting point.
Pretty bleak.
This didn't even factor in Christianity. Nor personality.
Nor any facial attractiveness traits whatsoever beyond being White & not fat.
I'd be wary about trusting a bot trained by Google, but whatever the numbers are it's hard to doubt that they're bleak . I notice your list doesn't include single which means we're even more cooked than your parameters imply. That's what right wing figures who try to shame men into marriage miss (obviously the left has its own malicious reasons for doing so). There's little point in rising to meet women's standards if the women are bottom of the barrel themselves. That's especially true when you know that they didn't hold the last guy to those standards, but that's a whole other can of worms that isn't directly related to the topic.
I once did similar calculations myself prior to AI, as I did say in my post... the numbers I got with Google's AI were similar to the ones I once calculated myself. I actually calculated closer to 40,000 as opposed to 150,000 (my numbers were bleaker).
It did include single. My mistake.
Many women think men have gone downhill in quality but it's the opposite. Women's quality in the last 60 years is what has truly gone downhill. Men, are mostly the same. Women and their standards of men is mostly a joke because there's nothing wrong with the men but women don't want to admit they aren't valuable themselves so they come up with ridiculous standards as a self-defense mechanism to never have to come to terms with the fact they aren't 1 of the 150,000 women out there who actually are worth marrying for a man.
Men are not the same bro. Men have been raised by single moms by the boatload and it shows.
Any issue women have with men was caused by women though which means women can solve the problem they've created by changing their own behavior but men can't change the problem of women by changing their own behavior. A man who hits the gym can't make women lose weight so at best the man is just competing for a shrinking group of women with an ever increasing group of men.
That's not true. Men lead. We are here because men were defeated and have tolerated gynocracy in their own wives and homes.
Some men lead and others follow. We're here because we're the followers and the men who led, specifically led us to this point.
No individual man has any power to do anything except get themselves thrown in prison or killed. Women follow power not example and no individual man has any power to lead.
Defeatist and boring. Individuals always have a choice and options, unless you're a literal slave.
We all are literal slaves. That's what you are.
Your mistake is believing "quality" to a woman means the same as it does for a man.
Women are looking for a mark, a naive, trusting individual they can exploit for all they're worth and laugh at the eventual suicide of.
Why they say men are "lower quality" now is because we're wise to what kind of scum they are. And that's why Project 2025 is furiously trying to ban the next generation off the Internet, to cut off the spread of that knowledge.
If that were true then I wouldn't still be single.
u/JosephGoebbel5, it's weird how this account goes active when you go inactive.
Truth is this whole site is JosephGoebbels5, even you.
Why would you know his original name was that?
And what you're missing is that most men are genetically incapable of rising to the standards of even the most undesirable of women.
an even more brutal statistic is that even without filtering to only desirable women not even one in two hundred considers the average man to be worth leeching resources from anymore.
I think your criteria might be a little too stringent. It's also conceivable to bring a moderate woman over to a more conservative viewpoint. I've seen it myself.
I'd rather at least give things a try rather than surrendering. Just be realistic and honest with yourself. Have some self-respect and don't demean yourself.
Oh what a loser you sound like, boohoo women arent perfect
That's what I said though.
If you're looking for perfect, you aren't finding it. Even reasonable standards are out to lunch.
You need to be targeting overweight single black women with herpes 2 and children to stand a chance.
Why? BECAUSE WOMEN AREN'T PERFECT. If women were perfect, my post wouldn't have made sense. There'd be tons of women out there for the men if women were perfect. So thank you for agreeing with me.
Pilpul is a shameful tactic
So stop doing it.
And the first retard trying to deflect by whining about Jews. Doubly funny because OP is an anti-Semite. They shill for women so hard they're attacking their own for stepping out of line on it.
Let the circular firing squad begin!
well... its actually common sense that american women are the absolute bottom of any western nation, nigh a century of cultural jewing will do that to your country's women
literally run the same test for Europe or better yet, Eastern Europe and see the difference
This is just one big elaborate way to get out of feeling rejected when they turn you down. Just ask one of those bitches out and get it over with. ;)
Lol, Im wondering this as well. I cant think there are that many more men that meet ops criteria. I also feel like its worth noting women tend to choose older men, not always ofc. But we are kinda biologically wired that way.
But this is a problem with alot of successful women is it not, their standards are way to high and most of them cant find a mate before the biological clock runs up. Choosing to fulfill whatever financial needs instead of personal ones.
Feels a bit like idiocracy, where all the smart people dont want to have children so only the idiots keep breeding lol.
I think things like tinder are prolly the biggest reason people have a hard time finding people to date. Instead of competing against people in the local pool, your suddenly competing in a ocean.
There is also alot of propaganda in media trying to convince women that they dont need men lmao. Another tactic to divide and conquer, and it worked really well sadly.
Interesting.
Not doubting the results, but needs more research.
Hence why natalism exists. You will wife up the single mom and have a "blended family" or else Project 2025 will take away everything you hold dear.
The people seething about Jews are sleepwalking to their own demise. "white genocide" is the rope the single moms will hang you with. The excuse they needed to deny your right to walk away.
Whenever someone tells you something is an existential crisis, think about what malicious groups gain from it.
Nobody on this forum ever mentioned natalism or project 2020 or whatever you keep spamming
Sophie won't notice you.
Reply.
AI's currently suck at math. Did you check these numbers are accurate? If not, why do you trust them? If so, why did you need AI?
I once calculated these numbers and came to a similar result.
I did not check the current numbers generated by the AI because of the fact that they aligned with what I once calculated.
I trust them because I know they align with what I once calculated.
I used the AI because last time I calculated these numbers it took me hours to find the data. The AI did it in 1 minute. Also, I find people trust AI more than they trust my numbers because most people don't understand how to verify if my numbers were correct but they're more inclined to trust an AI who they know is programmed to know how to calculate these things to provide somewhat accurate (rough) results.