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.
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.
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.
And what you're missing is that most men are genetically incapable of rising to the standards of even the most undesirable of women.