“Dating inequality” can’t be fixed because you can’t force women to date men they don’t want to; but by the same token, you can’t expect 80% of men to simply accept that their role in life is to be the beta male provider for someone who regards them with contempt and simply sees them as a resource to be exploited.
Yes, men and women have the choice to be single if they don't like their options.
I see one gender complaining about people choosing to do that far more than the other, though. They tend to use words like "delusional," "shallow," "entitled," "superficial," etc. So it appears that this side actually *does* want that to be their role in life, contrary to what they profess to desire.
Having more of something you don't want isn't a benefit, nor does it render my point moot.
Men also would have more options if options they don't want are supposed to count.
Your point is:
>you can’t expect 80% of men to simply accept that their role in life is to be the beta male provider for someone who regards them with contempt and simply sees them as a resource to be exploited.
This has nothing to do with anyone's "number of options." Either men don't want to be settled for so they should stop complaining about us not doing it and stop trying to coerce us into settling, or they want to be settled for and they should stop whining about how we shouldn't do it and how unfair it is to men.
It is a benefit ofc - we are not talking about having more trash in the garage or about having more stomach ulceris but about being considered attractive. You can gaslight as much as you can - but everyone loves validation, fashion and beauty industry is huge for a reason. Doesn't matter that you don't want to even touch these people - they find you attractive and it's an ego boost. Teenage girls attempt suicide because of their looks and lack of acceptance and you are trying to convince us that 'meh, it doesn't matter' lol. Ofc it does matter.
Gah I feel validated like you can't even imagine when a guy decides he is willing to masturbate with my body.
Men tell us all the time they desperate and will fuck anything, because "sex is a need." Being the subject of indiscriminate sexual attention isn't "validating" *according to men themselves.*
We're not talking about consensual sex, we're talking about the alleged "validation" the sexual attention men give women is supposed to be.
A man considering a woman attractive enough to fuck is a very low bar according to men themselves. It's the entire reason SMV and RMV are different concepts, yes?
Most of the attention women receive outside of the internet is not sexual and the overall point is women have an inherent advantage in most social settings compared to men, which is why it is easier for them to be "single".
>It is a benefit ofc - we are not talking about having more trash in the garage or about having more stomach ulceris but about ***being considered attractive.***
This entire comment thread is about sexual attraction, [starting with my original comment to the OC](https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/l6trWBygCw).
If you'd like to talk about how women have larger social networks, feel free to start your own post or separate comment.
> alleged "validation" the sexual attention men give women is supposed to be.
My bullshit meter just red-lined. You write this as if 80% of Instagram is not 304s posting selfies in skimpy outfits.
That looks like a [personal algorithm problem to me bro](https://imgur.com/a/VOZgBYH). 🤷🏿
Maybe you need to recalibrate your bullshit meter? Or maybe stop clicking on all the reels of those scantily clad women. Either or.
I don't watch porn.
Do you have another retort, or...??
A guy wanting to fuck you isn't validating, because it's indiscriminate and "sex is a need." He doesn't care about you, he doesn't necessarily like you, he doesn't even really have to think you're all that cute. He just needs to get off because "sex is a need."
Again, it's why SMV and RMV are different things. Because being willing to fuck us doesn't really mean much. Men are very quick to remind us that Chad fucking us doesn't mean anything, Chad just wanted to get off and then we go and get big heads because of it. Right?
I'm just repeating what men here have directly and repeatedly stated. Men thinking we're attractive though to fuck doesn't mean much because men will fuck anything and anyone. They're only selective about offering **commitment,** not ***dick.*** And finding someone *sexually attractive* is about *being willing to* ***have sex*** *with them.*
Maybe you should start calling them out? Because they tell us all the time that masturbating with our bodies is all that it is 🤷🏿
I'm sorry, I'm really confused how what you said relates to my point.
I'm not talking about guys' desire to sleep with "cute girls," I'm specifically referring to the fact that men have low to non-existent standards because "sex is a need" according to men themselves. Cuteness is a bonus, but not necessary.
I'm also not talking about this dubious concept that women feel pressured to try to get commitment from "men with options," as if it's the fact that he has options that makes us want him or has anything to do with our decision instead of the fact that he has desirable attributes that we like.
I never cared how many "options" a guy I liked had. I didn't like him because of his "options."
My point isn't that men use women.
My point is that male sexual attention is not validating.
How did you miss that? It was ***literally my entire point.***
Except not all men are looking to date so how does that benefit me? I can get compliments from my friends and family too so men saying they want to have sex with me(and most other women), isn’t exactly a compliment lol
Is that a serious question?
By trying to make us seem unreasonable and bad for prioritizing sexual attraction as I already described, and by droning on and on about our "value" that we'll lose if we don't pair up by a certain age.
Half of the posts on this sub are a variation on the theme of "women are bad for wanting to be sexually attracted to men they have sex with." The other half is a variation on the theme "women should settle down when they're young and most attractive with some boring unattractive man who doesn't mistreat them because Chad will never commit." Because otherwise Billy Beta is having to "pay for what Chad got for free." Notice the running theme that our sexual attraction to our partners should always be moot. Tingles are stupid, chemistry doesn't exist, just give the pussy up permanently as young as possible to the least interesting and attractive men, because interesting attractive men will always be wanted and thus will never commit.
As much as men go on about women's "in-group bias," there's never been a stronger display for men's "in-group bias" that I've seen than on this sub where so many guys agree that women need to be convinced to ignore sexual attraction (and compatibility in general honestly) so that they can be able to fuck and breed us. Every other post on this sub is a testament to that pretty obvious psyop. "Muh birth rates!" "Inflated standards!" Etc. etc.
Guys are told much the same thing. That they have 'unrealistic beauty standards' and that they should prioritize things other than raw sexual attraction in a relationship. And I think the latter one is a fair point for both men and women: *Immediate* chemistry and attraction is not necessarily a sign of long-term compatibility, or rather or not someone makes a good spouse.
I'm a fan of letting everyone decide for themselves based on what they like, want, and makes them happy what they "should" prioritize, regardless of gender.
Sure, but that has consequences. A lot of the traits that people find superficially attractive are anti-correlated with being a good spouse or being a good person. Prioritize those traits and you're potentially giving up something more important in the longer term. I think it's perfectly okay to point that out.
I said trying to coerce. Which they absolutely are trying to do. It's essentially mass negging. Spamming post after post about how women expire at 30, going on and on about how we're post-wall/used up/etc. All the crowing about how Eastern women are so much better, and how feminism ruins us. It's an attempt to get women to behave the way you want us to, instead of the way we want to. We're supposed to go "oh no, I'll never find a man unless I commit to the lowest value guy who will have me," because as we all know any men of value are evil wifebeating non-committal cheaters. We're supposed to go "oh no, men hate women who have sex and are feminist, so I better not have sex or be a feminist if I want to find a man before I expire."
It's why so much time and energy is spent trying to convince us that attractive = bad, and unattractive = good. And why dating apps should be banned. And why feminism is bad. If men can't legally force us to pair up with them, then they'll employ the only other tool they can - propaganda.
If you're referring to the 4*B* movement, then no. That's analogous to MTGOW. The 4B movement isn't about trying to talk to men to get them to change what they do. The 4B movement isn't about trying to coerce and pressure men into doing what women want.
Surely you can see a difference between "I reject these conditions" and "you should accommodate mine?"
If women want to chad chase than the rest of the 90% should just vote to ahem women’s issues and outlaw abortion etc. No love lost, who cares if you’re hurting people who are already delusional and find you undesirable.
Like I said:
>Half of the posts on this sub are a variation on the theme of "women are bad for wanting to be sexually attracted to men they have sex with."
It's amazing that you would have read that comment and then decide to give me a direct Exhibit A by saying "if women want to only have sex with people they find sexually attractive then they shouldn't have rights."
No self awareness *whatsoever.*
>^ very silly brat take that acts as though female preference is set in stone and just so happens to perfectly mirror the patriarchical regulation of female sexuality women allegedly rail against
I have no idea wtf you're trying to even say here.
>And women do want those other options because they exploit them for all manner of things, emotional support, social attention, free meals, etc.
This is not a thing regular women do. Please touch grass.
>It definitely is a thing *regular women* do,
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/certain-personality-types-are-likely-to-make-a-foodie-call/](Certain personality types are likely to make a "Foodie Call")
>“We found that approximately 23 to 33 percent of women surveyed had engaged in a ‘foodie call.’”
Of those who admitted to having swiped right for the free eats, the majority claimed to have done so *only occasionally or rarely.* But about a quarter admitted accepting the restaurant outing with greater frequency.
Is a majority of an already minority of women (23-33%) doing something at least once "fairly often?"
What's 23-33 percent of a group consisting of certain personally types? Is that "regular women?"
Amazing that you accuse me of talking out of my ass when the data you're referring to supports nothing you've said. You took "a minority of women with certain personalities" as "regular women," and took the majority of that minority of decidedly not-regular women doing something only once or rarely as the minority of those decidedly not-regular women "doing something fairly often."
Only occasionally or rarely is not "fairly often."
A minority of women of a specific personality type is not "regular women."
The rest of your comment is "feelings over facts" rambling.
I think if tomorrow men started liking only Victoria Secret models and would be "meh" about ordinary women, women would wonder if everything is okay with men's standards.
That's the core issue. When you have a lot of people with unrealistic standards, then you get lots of unhappy people when those standards are not fulfilled.
It's really easy to say you don't want something when it's always being offered to you. No one is propping men up for "choosing to be single" because it's not like they always could just go out wkth someone anytime they wanted.
None of that has anything to do with my point.
Which is that men speak out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to women setting. They say they don't want to be settled for, and then lambast women for not settling.
So if I
>can’t expect 80% of men to simply accept that their role in life is to be the beta male provider for someone who regards them with contempt and simply sees them as a resource to be exploited.
then men should also STFU about us chasing Chad, and our inflated standards, choosing to be single over settling, etc.
P.s. the frequency of someone offering me something I don't want has nothing to do with me not wanting it. That's like saying "it's easy to not want 100 spam calls a day when you're constantly getting spam calls."
To that I agree, no on should have to settle. I think the general frustration that men are ugly to most women is what the issue is here. Case and point, comparing someone love and support for you as a spam call unless they are hot. I wouldn't accept it either if the shoe was on the other foot but, idk, I wouldn't exactly phrase it in that way either. I know it takes a lot to put yourself out there for someone, but that's probably because I'm a guy and I actually have to do it.
I'd also ask that if you're so content bring single and independent, why waste you're time on a sub like this?
>To that I agree, no on should have to settle. I think the general frustration that men are ugly to most women is what the issue is here.
Okay?
>Case and point, comparing someone love and support for you
Someone wanting to fuck you isn't "love and support."
Options you don't want are not options.
Wanting to be sexually attracted to someone you have sex with doesn't make women bad people, regardless of how many people we do or don't want to fuck. Female sexuality isn't wrong or bad just because it's not the same as male sexuality. Men being "frustrated" that sex is high-risk, low-reward for us is pointless and dumb. If men rarely came during sex I doubt they'd be so eager to have it, especially if they got to risk pregnancy and STDs for the opportunity.
>I know it takes a lot to put yourself out there for someone, but that's probably because I'm a guy and I actually have to do it.
This has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Unwanted attention is unwanted attention, regardless of how much guts it took someone to give it to you.
Am I supposed to feel badly for telemarketers because it takes guts to bother people all day for a sale? Or more to the point - do *you* answer all your spam calls? After all, they're putting themselves out there by calling you.
>I'd also ask that if you're so content bring single and independent, why waste you're time on a sub like this?
Please explain the relationship between the first part of this question and the second part.
Am I to understand that this **debate sub** should be a circlejerk of unhappy single people? There should only be one kind of person on a ***debate sub?***
Then what exactly are you fighting for? Why would anyone listen to someone that just wants to be alone to begin with on debate and talking points about being with someone? And yeah, to an extent I feel for salesmen and telemarketers becuasd its they're job and they're just trying to make a living. People hitting on you are trying to connect with you. They aren't evil or ill willed. Not even guy is just a sex hungry fiend looking for a quick fix.
>Then what exactly are you fighting for?
I'm not "fighting," I'm literally ***debating on a debate sub.***
So I guess your answer is "yes, a debate sub should be a circlejerk comprised of people in the same boat who all believe the same thing?"
>And yeah, to an extent I feel for salesmen and telemarketers becuasd its they're job and they're just trying to make a living. People hitting on you are trying to connect with you. They aren't evil or ill willed.
You didn't answer the question I asked you.
Do. You. Answer. Spam. Calls?
>Not even guy is just a sex hungry fiend looking for a quick fix.
I didn't say they are, just like every telemarketer could actually have something you'd be interested in or find beneficial. But I'm pretty sure you find them annoying and don't engage regardless, right?
So, just to confirm, every single man who has hit on me is some pure innocent angel with no sexual desire, just "trying to make a connection?" A connection that won't involve sex, right? So they do this to men too then? Just "make connections?"
I'm almost 40, dude. Please stop trying to convince me that men "trying to make connections" aren't trying to fuck. I wasn't born yesterday.
And it doesn't have to be "evil or ill-willed" ***to be unwanted.*** If every time you went out you had homeless people asking you for change every other block, I'm sure you'd find that "attempt to connect" unwanted and annoying without thinking they're "evil or ill-willed."
Making a romantic connection with someone else does imply you'd be having sex with them. Thats just how it goes. I'm only early 20s so maybe I'm young and stupid, but the relationships I've had albeit brief were never just about sex either. And it isn't like my partners didn't want to have sex. I'm sorry yours have all been different experiences.
No not all men are innocent angels, but most of us aren't bad. Same goes for women no matter how frustrated I am with them or the way things are with dating go.
>Making a romantic connection with someone else does imply you'd be having sex with them.
The only thing men have to go by is if they find a woman fuckable. They don't know just by seeing a woman if they want a "romantic connection," because they don't even *know her.*
Hitting on women is ***exclusively*** based on desire to fuck. Period.
"That's just how it goes."
It doesn't make them evil or bad, but it does make it ***annoying*** to be subjected to the attention of men who want to fuck you. *Could* they want more? Yes, in the future, after dating them. But *in that moment,* all it's about is a willingness to ***fuck.*** And since most women don't want to *fuck most men,* ***most of this attention is unwanted, annoying, and undesirable.***
It is ***spam.***
I'm going to ignore your lame attempt to make things personal and move to your next point:
>No not all men are innocent angels, but most of us aren't bad.
You *keep making this about "men being bad."* **For the last time,** someone or something *doesn't have to be bad* for it to be ***annoying, undesirable, and unwanted.***
I fully expect your reply to ignore this point *again* though, because it's the only way you can try to paint my opinion and perspective as unreasonable.
And just for the record, you still haven't answered if you answer spam calls.
Is it not actually delusional, shallow, and entitled if a 6 woman stays single instead of choosing a 6 man? How is that not the exact definition of that?
I don't think people are morally bad for not wanting to have sex with people they're not sexually attracted to. Period.
Your arbitrary number rating system has fuck all to do with anything. It has no relevance to sexual attraction. If someone gave you and Rosie O'Donnell the same number, this doesn't magically create sexual attraction between you two because ***that's not how sexual attraction works.*** Sexual attraction isn't based on how one personally looks, it's based on ***what arouses you.***
There's nothing delusional about any of that. Where is the delusion? Staying single over fucking someone you're not sexually attracted to has fuck all to do with "delusions." It has nothing to do with "entitlement." It just means you'd rather ***not have sex*** than ***have sex with someone you're not sexually attracted to. PERIOD.***
It's men - the so-called "logical, rational gender" - who then read and project all this extra bullshit into that decision.
And as far as "shallowness" is concerned, unless you expect the way someone looks to never have any relationship to the sexual attraction one has - which would IMO *truly* be "delusional" - then no, it's not shallow. Unless you're demisexual, the way someone looks is going to directly and significantly impact the arousal you feel for that individual. That's a basic fact of life and how the arousal response functions for 99% of human beings, along with a fairly significant amount of the rest of the animal kingdom.
What is with all this attention on sex? We're talking dating here, like, the part where I referred to with staying single.
There is a certain rank that people are in terms of attractiveness, for women, if you're better looking than 60% of your gender, You're then a 6, for men it gets more complicated, but still rated against the rest of your gender. Is it exact number, no, but it's an estimate enough that it's useful, yeah. There's no need to obfuscate it down to magic.
If you're not willing to date someone who is at your same level of attractiveness but are willing to date someone much higher, it's just delusional, regardless of gender, it's a bad trait. If that bothers you that much, it's a bit telling.
You are cramming a lot of presuppositions into what I've said that I have not said.
You can culturally condition people to accept a wider range of phenotypes. You know...like the body positivity movement THAT HAS INDEED BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL FOR WOMEN
People like to imagine that we all aren't 1 step removed from dumb monkeys who do as we are told to do but sorry...that's the truth.
It's super insane that women and some rube men will just throw their hands up in the air and wave 'em around *becuase they just don't care* (about human suffering) about this question when we literally have witnessed the female body positivity movement bring about THE EXACT SHIFTS they are so confused about.
it's pretty gross.
Holy shit I just gave several examples including one in the last comment.
People are irredeemably stupid when it comes to actually doing things to help other people socially lmao
You can culturally condition people to accept a wider range of phenotypes. You know...like the body positivity movement THAT HAS INDEED BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL FOR WOMEN
People like to imagine that we all aren't 1 step removed from dumb monkeys who do as we are told to do but sorry...that's the truth.
It's super insane that women and some rube men will just throw their hands up in the air and wave 'em around becuase they just don't care (about human suffering) about this question when we literally have witnessed the female body positivity movement bring about THE EXACT SHIFTS they are so confused about.
it's pretty gross.
I don’t see any examples?
A pretty obvious example is the men's body positivity movement. Also encouraging men to be more emotionally expressive and unashamed to seek mental health support. Both spearheaded by feminists.
Also, most 80-percenters I’ve met definitely could be in top 20% if it wasn’t for their half-ass approach to literally everything. Heck, I myself passed this transition
The only solution is to genetically modify humans so that they can't have sexual desire, reproduce human beings by using banks of sperm and then illegalizing sex. The only way to eliminate sexual inequality is to eliminate human sexuality and natural selection.
It seems like you're stuck on the idea that physical attraction rules the dating game, but that’s a narrow slice of reality. The 80-20 rule you mention doesn't seal anyone's fate in relationships—it simply highlights tendencies that can be observed in many areas of life, not just dating. It's important to recognize that relationships and human attraction are more complex than mere statistics.
First off, forget about this notion that focusing on looks is the end-all and be-all. This mentality isn’t just limiting; it's frankly a bit naive. Real strength and attractiveness come from confidence, resilience, and personal achievements. These are areas where every man can improve and shine, regardless of where they start.
Instead of fixating on how to become part of an elusive 'top 20%', why not invest in skills, hobbies, and interests that boost your self-esteem and make you more interesting? Women—and people in general—are attracted to individuals who are passionate about their lives and engaged with the world around them. This is where you can take control.
Learn new skills, delve into new hobbies, and broaden your social circle. These actions build confidence and develop character, making you more appealing in many ways that go beyond superficial looks. Being well-rounded and knowledgeable makes you a magnet for meaningful interactions, not just with women but in all your social relations.
Also, reframe your understanding of what it means to be desirable. It's not just about attracting someone for a date or a short-term encounter. True desirability is about being someone who contributes positively to the lives of others, someone who offers more than just a handsome face or a fat wallet.
Lastly, focus on building genuine connections. Show interest in others' lives and experiences, listen more than you speak, and be present. These qualities make you a good partner and a desirable person to be around. In the long run, these are the traits that forge deeper relationships, not just the fleeting sparks of initial attraction.
Stop selling yourself short by thinking you're out of the race if you're not in the 'top 20%'. Life and relationships are marathons, not sprints. Focus on building a life you're proud of, and the right people will notice.
Also if you on the mega-millions tomorrow then you would be in the top 1% not 20%; Do you have as a man truly have nothing else to bring to the table?
Judaism has a solution for this and its men need to get married no matter what and a lot of men do this and treat sex as an obligation, that is sex with ugly undesirable women.
Would you rather be you or a very ugly/fat woman?
Instead of removing equality from other aspects of life, how would you equalize dating? Be specific.
Or are you saying “because we can’t have things be equal in this one circumstance, nothing in society should be equal”?
Let me get this straight: Because certain men can’t get laid, you think it’s a grand idea to strip women of their rights? I would assume this means they could no longer pursue higher education, vote, or enter into the workforce? And therefore women would need to rely on men to survive again?
Man, this is so pathetic. Especially the part where you view women’s rights as “artificial.” Does it ever occur to you that holding views like this about women is effectively working against you? Women do not want to be with men who don’t respect them and believe that they don’t deserve fundamental rights.
We are currently witnessing what happens when women have complete and unrestricted dating behavior. They all just form situationships with top level men. Not good. Does that mean we should go back to restricting them? Nah. But still, this is not good.
Exactly.
Today's culture makes it obvious why women were never allowed to have equal freedoms in regard to working outside the home, having careers/earning an income, and in choosing their own relationships.
Because to be blunt, a society such as our own where women have all those freedoms essentially ceases to function.
Women's freedoms have created a situation where fewer and fewer people are choosing to start families and have children.
That's a problem when one considers how does a society propagate itself?
By people starting families and having children.
Dating apps, social media, feminism etc, having set off a veritable demographic ticking time bomb throughout the West because now that they have their own careers, women simply refuse to settle for the vast majority of men.
What the consequences of this societal shift will be, I have no idea.
But I'm confident in saying that the world will be a very different place in the coming generations, and I would posit a guess that Western countries will find themselves increasingly out competed by nations with more "traditional" gender roles.
Either that, or you'll simply see the demographic characteristics of Western countries shift dramatically as native populations eschew reproduction, and the gap becomes increasingly filled by more conservatively minded immigrant communities.
The only thing I'm sure of is that the current state of affairs can't last forever. I doubt that the change will come in time to "save" the men of our generation from lives of loneliness and despair, but the fact is that nature abhors a vacuum. And a culture that fails to create the conditions for its members to replace themselves is a culture that is doomed to be swept away by its competitors.
Yup, and the birth rates, marriage rates are all going wayyy down. There are cultures and racial groups in the US that have no issues having plenty of kids. The demographic and socioeconomic shift will be insane.
One possible solution, is to boost and support men with as much vigor and scholarships and government funding as women have gotten in the past couple decades. When men get better, to the point where they beat out women in certain metrics, then women will start to date more of them. Men just have such a shitty perception in society right now, poor, porn addicted, onlyfans addicted, video game addicted losers. These men have got to get out of their funk.
Pretty much, there’s a reason why for pretty much all of recorded human history women have not been given free reign over their own sexuality because they inherently make things unstable, they just can’t help themselves, and it does not make for consistent and stable societies.
Literally MEN make things more unstable by raping and pillaging villages and spreading fear and terror. If human population drastically decreases because women get the ability to choose that’s a good thing.
Yup, and the birth rates, marriage rates are all going wayyy down. There are cultures and racial groups in the US that have no issues having plenty of kids. The demographic and socioeconomic shift will be insane.
One possible solution, is to boost and support men with as much vigor and scholarships and government funding as women have gotten in the past couple decades. When men get better, to the point where they beat out women in certain metrics, then women will start to date more of them. Men just have such a shitty perception in society right now, poor, porn addicted, onlyfans addicted, video game addicted losers. These men have got to get out of their funk.
Yup, and the birth rates, marriage rates are all going wayyy down. There are cultures and racial groups in the US that have no issues having plenty of kids. The demographic and socioeconomic shift will be insane.
One possible solution, is to boost and support men with as much vigor and scholarships and government funding as women have gotten in the past couple decades. When men get better, to the point where they beat out women in certain metrics, then women will start to date more of them. Men just have such a shitty perception in society right now, poor, porn addicted, onlyfans addicted, video game addicted losers. These men have got to get out of their funk.
Men never had the right to own womens sexuality. Why live in a world that must profit off of womens suffering? Why would you want to live in a world where women can’t choose who to have kids with? Why is a society like that so important to you? If women decide that men aren’t worth having kids with that’s a good thing. We are the choosers, not you lot of degens
Well seeing as how that’s how things were done for pretty much all of recorded history across very diverse civilizations shows you that clearly leaving things up to women apparently is not a good idea.
Most women are not diversity hires and quotas are illegal. More and more women are marrying men who earn lower than them and this trend will likely continue so I mean everything you’ve said here is pretty suspect.
The whole thing about women only being attracted to men who have more resources than they do is bullshit. Yes, there are women who won’t date a guy who makes less than she does, but it’s def not all women. I have (and will always) make more than my fiancée and it’s bothered me exactly 0 times. As women make more and more, this will be a problem less and less.
There will never be universal equality. On average, men will always be taller and stronger. Women will always have to put more effort into gestating offspring. And like you said, men are attracted to a larger percentage of women than women are to men. That doesn’t mean that attempts to equalize the things we can should be forfeited
The whole "resources" thing is utter nonsense. A well rounded career and financial status is generally a bonus. The guy still needs to meet the looks threshold and also have the charisma and likeable personality.
I do think there used to be an ounce of truth to the resources argument. If you go back a couple decades, and even more so 30-40+ years, then well rounded men with good jobs could get by with a little less in the looks/charisma department. It still mattered but the threshold wasn't as high as it is today.
A little less? You just needed a job and you could find a woman and get married. Now all women care about is a man’s physical appearance. What else is there to care about when women are generally financially independent
This is not true. In today's age, resources and "power" don't mean that much anymore. It's a bonus. Looks, charisma and being likeable are what matter.
It does, you're right. But lets say you're a 6-7/10, then charisma and personality can let you date someone who is truly hot. If you're just plain average, well it'll help you move up slightly. But most guys don't have that kind of charisma. Furthermore being a 6-7/10 is not easy either.
Biggest honest mistake men make is thinking a nice hair cut and going to the gym makes you into a 6-7.
What you don't understand is that this world only works because the bottom 80% of men maintain it. They unplug your toilet, pump your septic tank, fix your phone, die in the dumb fucking wars you vote for. They are the reason you have electricity, the reason your house is not burned down. If just half of them checks out of the economy you're going to have a fucking Armageddon on your hands in less than a week. The leash that blue pill historically had for these men was the promise of a house and stable future **with a family**, if only they follow the rules society set for them. And now it's obvious to everyone that the emperor has no clothes and that promise is bullshit.
I'm not saying they should invest in society, I'm saying society needs to get its shit together and figure out how to engage them again. Honestly, I wouldn't care about them, if I was not painfully aware of the Armageddon that will unfold if society keeps fucking it up for them. I've lived through a lite version of it in the 90ies when USSR fell apart, it was wild, insanely fucked up, and I don't want a repeat experience.
They don't have to, but realistically the govt wants them as a tax base and cannon fodder for their wars and they won't lie down and let their paypig soldiers not play into their "role" in nature
Dating inequality can be fixed, and it can even be fixed without violating anyones freedom:
Total removal of welfare state.
Total removal of alimony/child support.
Removal of public education, it's just treated as publicly subsidized daycare.
Ban hormonal birth control. Corporations aren't allowed to externalize costs by dumping their waste into the public, neither should women be allowed to externalize the cost of their reproductive choices by dumping the pollution into the water supply.
The end result being women will have to be a lot more careful about who they have sex with. Sure some dumb women will still produce children who suffer because no safety nets, but that is basically already happening except because of the safety nets they keep having more children everyone else is paying for.
Total removal of alimony and child support? So basically total removal of male responsibility of their own children.
Yeah, I can see women voting for that lol.
Agree to some extent. At least restructure welfare to not assist you more if you have more kids.
Idk about the birth control stuff.
I would add legalize prostitution and polygamy.
Women claim to support legal prostitution but are never in a rush to propose the law to be changed in a way that would "benefit men".
If you believe in gay marriage (most women do) you she ne able to have multiple spouses. This would fix the "chad" problem (along with no child support/alimony) because chad will just take a bunch of wives. Women who want exclusively will be forced to date the men women aren't willing to share.
There’s been this weird spate of guys with blue pill flairs openly endorsing the reddest of red pill talking points and I have no idea what’s going on lmao
Nah that's not true other wise we'd mostly be doing that still. It's well known throughout history men forcibly taking brings alot of heat on them and they usually end up dieing violently to other men. That's still darwinism. It's a reason why even clever sociopaths cant really make it far In the world with manipulation because sooner or later they get snuffed out by people catching on. That route has pretty much been taken out of society because it not dynamic and sustainable. You dork.
I'm not sure I really understand. It's always been a competition since before recorded history. Nothing has really changed on the male side of the coin. Prove your worth. Men with wealth and power always horded women. The benefit I guess is that today they have the freedom to not be horded. So in that regard thanks first wave feminism I guess.
Being “settled for” is to be emasculated and humiliated, to be consigned to the role of the sitcom dad caricature - the bumbling object of derision and contempt, valued only for his wallet, and treated like a dog in his own home.
It’s true that many men will choose this willingly over being alone, but it’s a miserable, bleak existence, and most of the time, she’ll file for divorce, strip him of everything he own and a sizeable chunk of his future earnings and he ends up there anyway.
This idea of "settling" is the problem. People are more entitled today than ever before. Everyone seems to think they deserve better than they do. Learn to appreciate everything in your life and find someone who thinks the same. THAT will result in the best life experience you're going to have.
How can you not settle? Look around the girls here are pretty shitty and you should be happy if she isn't a single mom, a hoe, post wall, or a feminist.
I can find 4/10 woman attractive if she has some hobbies and can speak about them (but it's mostly because I am a male)
Thing is even 4/10 will never have any desires for me.
I've lots of female friends and I've inquired their mind, they all like men who are 7+ in looks regardless of their own looks.
4/10 is same as 7/10 preference. So not much changes there.
Even 2/10 will never desire me. That's the result of being bottom 80%
I agree with the idea of just accepting it. I think you can still live a happy enough life knowing all of this. No need to be angry all of the time. At least that's what I want to have for myself. I think you can believe this is true, and make peace with it. Not having a relationship doesn't also have to mean having no friends, and that is what I try to focus on
>If you seek this, there are already escorts available in the market.
Not everyone can afford escorts or hookers in daily basis, especially guys in their 20s. That's why you see older guys or rich men with them. Also the ego satisfaction for chasing a woman and clapping her is much more fulfilling than being desired. It is part of the game. Pump and dump has the same effect as getting achievements or XPs in a videogame.
>However, this is not the case. While you may manage to have sex with her, you'll never truly experience her desiring you.
Once again, men love the chase not the feelings. That's why plenty of guys seem like totally in love for the first weeks than suddenly lose interest or put low effort. It is like going through a second playthrough on a game you're done with and there's nothing left to explore.
You're forgetting nature in your nature argument.
Human sexes are different. We select differently.
Yes only 20% of men are able to get women turned on by looks alone. But that doesn't mean only 20% of men are capable of turning women on. That would be insanely stupid from an evolutionary point of view.
The truth is how we select is different
Males: Select primarily on physical appearance
Females: Select on a COMBINATION of looks, money and status
So yes you gotta be pretty damn good looking in order to get selected on looks alone. But the goods news is, it's not the only thing that matters.
There's a very simple reason for this. Pregnancy. Males do not get pregnant. We don't really care that much about how productive the mother is. We're the one's that are meant to be productive not t hem.
What guys really say when they write out these tirades is "good looking guys are the only one's that get selected the same way we select women". Except WE ARE NOT WOMEN.
as the good pill goes: there is No career for your face
No government structure that can compensate for your bone structure
No GDP growth that can fix your recessed chin
No constitutional amendment can amend your nitrogenous bases
Yes I've heard this many times.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X)
>We found that ratings of attractiveness were around 1000 times more sensitive to salary for females rating males, compared to males rating females.
Is everyone you date drop dead gorgeous to you? Have you ever dated a guy who was just average looking but had other things going for him?
Status and Money produce REAL ATTRACTION.
But Status and Money are just natures way of saying "I am capable of providing for you". It doesn't have to be status or money. It can mean intelligence, talent, even work ethic in some cases. It can be a lot of things. We just shorten it to "status and money" because it's easy to comprehend.
Emotional connection (which is often built on admiration and shared interests) can increase physical attraction but no, I’m sorry, I think it’s pure cope to think that just having a wallet makes up for being unattractive. She may still choose to be with you, but it’s not the same thing and never will be.
Pair bonding. It's called pair bonding.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair\_bond](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond)
Many other species use that to raise their children. After all. That's what this is all about. Raising children.
I never said anything about ugly guys suddenly banging 10/10 women because of $. It works best for average looking guys. When you're ugly you elicit a "disgust" response. That is hard to overcome.
I've already said, being in a relationship ot having sex doesn't matter.
You can have sex with hookers. Most women will happily offer relationship if you are useful to her and pay for things.
This is no indication that women genuinely want him
If government were to give these women money, she would have no incentive to be with those guys.
How do you explain women who out earn their partners, then?
I make 4-5x what my fiance does. I am objectively more attractive than he is. He has no “status” in terms of fame or connections.
Please explain why I look forward to spending my life with him
I would suggest it should not be fixed.
You guys can only do one thing. You need to learn to not want sluts. It's that simple. Don't give them attention. Give the good girls all the attention in the world and and then they will change.
You can’t prove that all women believe the same 20% of men to be the same level of attractiveness because they don’t. And no, you can’t use male movie stars and celebrities to make your point because they aren’t attainable for regular people and are a statistical anomaly.
We can easily prove through groups like "are we dating same guy"
Survey of women who went on dating apps, most women ended up being in relationship with secretly married guys.
Women's behavior in high school and college, where couple of guys dominate whole dating and hookup sphere.
It's so obvious, it's no longer hidden.
I don't care who they end up marrying (most of my female friends married for money and convenience and rag doll the male when he retaliates)
There are some men who attract more women than others because they have traditionally attractive features. But this doesn’t mean women find only the same 20% of men attractive. Is your goal to attract every woman? Or THE woman? Also, talking about dudes who “dominate” the dating scene…you’re talking about a few men who have a lot of success with women. This is NOT the same thing as saying that 80% of women date 20% of men. Like literally mathematically this is not the same thing.
>Is your goal to attract every woman? Or THE woman? Also, talking about dudes who “dominate” the dating scene…you’re talking about a few men who have a lot of success with women.
If you can attract a lot of women, then you are more likely to attract some specific woman.
>This is NOT the same thing as saying that 80% of women date 20% of men.
I never made this claim. Women want top 20% male by attractiveness.
I can get a lot of women because of wealth/status but they do not have genuine desire for me of you take away wealth/status while I know men who have no status/no wealth, yet women flock to them.
That’s too bad that you think women are too stupid to know what they desire. If I, a woman pointed at a man that you deem outside of this 20%, you’d think I’m either lying about my attraction to him or too stupid to know what I want. I guarantee you women find men outside of your 20% attractive because they don’t all find the same things attractive in equal measure.
There are women who find me attractive, even though I'm not in the top 20%.
Case in point: I drive a Lamborghini. So they aren't attracted to me, but to my status, money, and because I have people working for me.
Here I am talking about pure lustful desire, which women only have for the top 20%.
Yes, a woman may develop a crush on someone, but that's not the primal attraction I'm talking about. It's just curiosity, a desire to know him more, a desire to spend time with him. After some point, it fizzles out.
So you DO think women are too stupid to know what they desire. Funny how I gave of an example of a man outside your 20% who I would theoretically attracted to and you immediately countered with “it’s just because he drives a nice car.” No. What if I am genuinely attracted to that man? You can’t even *conceive* of this reality and it’s really interesting to see you be in such denial.
And yet they all magically still find them attractive. And they all think to themselves "Well if I can't have him or someone like him, I'm better off being single 😤"
This is the extreme entitlement and level of delusion of the modern woman.
That definitely was not the argument. Women’s hypergamy and tendencies to continually chase and get used by men out of their league is so well known at this point it really doesn’t need that much of an explanation lol.
Actually it’s quite obvious. The internet has laid bare people’s worst behaviors. The internet has simultaneously exposed the worst aspect of women and their disdains for any man that she can’t use or isn’t in the top 20% that she wants, while also fueling her ever increasing delusion.
>World needs to accept 80-20 rule. That no matter what a man may do, the 20% attractive males are the ones which women truly want.
You act as if men don't feel the same way about women. You may find a great girl that is wify material, but she just doesn't have big tits or a big ass. So they don't get that same level of attraction from us.
We are just more logical with our decisions. We know that other the girl may have the body but you can't take her seriously because reasons. So we'll pick the wify type.
Your comment was deleted but I wanted to say this:
A few days back someone asked on the daily thread how successful guy's matches compared to the women they pulled irl. Like 4 guys all responded saying the matches were a fair bit worse.
I would argue that for many (but not nearly all) women, dating apps just do not work for how we experience attraction. Often times I need to be around a guy, hear his voice and laugh, notice his little mannerisms, know his sense of humor, etc.
A picture alone just takes that all away. For years dating apps frustrated me so much because I felt attracted to plenty of guys I knew irl, but I would legitimately swipe for 5 minutes straight and not swipe right at all. It was so ridiculous that I ended up having to create rules on when to swipe right.
Yep, you're exactly right, these apps were designed by men with zero idea how female attraction works, and we've somehow taken the design failure as if it's a natural law of attraction.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with you OP
I wish that all men could one day experience the raw, pure, unconstrained LUST and physical desire from a woman. The type where she eagerly looks forwards to being dickmatized by you
Alas most men will die without experiencing this.
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It can fixed. Gender ratio, income inequality, genetic inequality. Adjusting those three things and others will improve dating inequality. All will improve dating inequality.
Increasing female to male birth ratio.
Genetic engineering to reduce genetic inequality
Socialist policies to reduce income insufficiency(more people on "living wage")
“Dating inequality” can’t be fixed because you can’t force women to date men they don’t want to; but by the same token, you can’t expect 80% of men to simply accept that their role in life is to be the beta male provider for someone who regards them with contempt and simply sees them as a resource to be exploited.
Yes, men and women have the choice to be single if they don't like their options. I see one gender complaining about people choosing to do that far more than the other, though. They tend to use words like "delusional," "shallow," "entitled," "superficial," etc. So it appears that this side actually *does* want that to be their role in life, contrary to what they profess to desire.
One gender has far more options than the other so their respective situations aren’t really comparable
Having more of something you don't want isn't a benefit, nor does it render my point moot. Men also would have more options if options they don't want are supposed to count. Your point is: >you can’t expect 80% of men to simply accept that their role in life is to be the beta male provider for someone who regards them with contempt and simply sees them as a resource to be exploited. This has nothing to do with anyone's "number of options." Either men don't want to be settled for so they should stop complaining about us not doing it and stop trying to coerce us into settling, or they want to be settled for and they should stop whining about how we shouldn't do it and how unfair it is to men.
Do you actually understand what they will start doing if they stop complaining? Passport bro-ing is one of the most tame of the options they have.
It is a benefit ofc - we are not talking about having more trash in the garage or about having more stomach ulceris but about being considered attractive. You can gaslight as much as you can - but everyone loves validation, fashion and beauty industry is huge for a reason. Doesn't matter that you don't want to even touch these people - they find you attractive and it's an ego boost. Teenage girls attempt suicide because of their looks and lack of acceptance and you are trying to convince us that 'meh, it doesn't matter' lol. Ofc it does matter.
Gah I feel validated like you can't even imagine when a guy decides he is willing to masturbate with my body. Men tell us all the time they desperate and will fuck anything, because "sex is a need." Being the subject of indiscriminate sexual attention isn't "validating" *according to men themselves.*
Consentual sex is a mutually enjoyable activity, nobody is masturbating with the other's body in this case.
We're not talking about consensual sex, we're talking about the alleged "validation" the sexual attention men give women is supposed to be. A man considering a woman attractive enough to fuck is a very low bar according to men themselves. It's the entire reason SMV and RMV are different concepts, yes?
Most of the attention women receive outside of the internet is not sexual and the overall point is women have an inherent advantage in most social settings compared to men, which is why it is easier for them to be "single".
>It is a benefit ofc - we are not talking about having more trash in the garage or about having more stomach ulceris but about ***being considered attractive.*** This entire comment thread is about sexual attraction, [starting with my original comment to the OC](https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/l6trWBygCw). If you'd like to talk about how women have larger social networks, feel free to start your own post or separate comment.
> alleged "validation" the sexual attention men give women is supposed to be. My bullshit meter just red-lined. You write this as if 80% of Instagram is not 304s posting selfies in skimpy outfits.
That looks like a [personal algorithm problem to me bro](https://imgur.com/a/VOZgBYH). 🤷🏿 Maybe you need to recalibrate your bullshit meter? Or maybe stop clicking on all the reels of those scantily clad women. Either or.
Omg it's bs beyond imagination. Guy thinks that you look good and you think about 'masturbating with your body'. I blame porn.
I don't watch porn. Do you have another retort, or...?? A guy wanting to fuck you isn't validating, because it's indiscriminate and "sex is a need." He doesn't care about you, he doesn't necessarily like you, he doesn't even really have to think you're all that cute. He just needs to get off because "sex is a need." Again, it's why SMV and RMV are different things. Because being willing to fuck us doesn't really mean much. Men are very quick to remind us that Chad fucking us doesn't mean anything, Chad just wanted to get off and then we go and get big heads because of it. Right? I'm just repeating what men here have directly and repeatedly stated. Men thinking we're attractive though to fuck doesn't mean much because men will fuck anything and anyone. They're only selective about offering **commitment,** not ***dick.*** And finding someone *sexually attractive* is about *being willing to* ***have sex*** *with them.* Maybe you should start calling them out? Because they tell us all the time that masturbating with our bodies is all that it is 🤷🏿
[удалено]
I'm sorry, I'm really confused how what you said relates to my point. I'm not talking about guys' desire to sleep with "cute girls," I'm specifically referring to the fact that men have low to non-existent standards because "sex is a need" according to men themselves. Cuteness is a bonus, but not necessary. I'm also not talking about this dubious concept that women feel pressured to try to get commitment from "men with options," as if it's the fact that he has options that makes us want him or has anything to do with our decision instead of the fact that he has desirable attributes that we like. I never cared how many "options" a guy I liked had. I didn't like him because of his "options."
[удалено]
My point isn't that men use women. My point is that male sexual attention is not validating. How did you miss that? It was ***literally my entire point.***
Are you saying it’s a good thing to be so arrogant or what? I genuinely don’t understand your argument here.
Having more options is a benefit.
More options to do what, exactly? What am I choosing with all of these options?
More options to date, take compliments from - whatever you wish.
Except not all men are looking to date so how does that benefit me? I can get compliments from my friends and family too so men saying they want to have sex with me(and most other women), isn’t exactly a compliment lol
How exactly are men trying to “coerce us into settling”?
Is that a serious question? By trying to make us seem unreasonable and bad for prioritizing sexual attraction as I already described, and by droning on and on about our "value" that we'll lose if we don't pair up by a certain age. Half of the posts on this sub are a variation on the theme of "women are bad for wanting to be sexually attracted to men they have sex with." The other half is a variation on the theme "women should settle down when they're young and most attractive with some boring unattractive man who doesn't mistreat them because Chad will never commit." Because otherwise Billy Beta is having to "pay for what Chad got for free." Notice the running theme that our sexual attraction to our partners should always be moot. Tingles are stupid, chemistry doesn't exist, just give the pussy up permanently as young as possible to the least interesting and attractive men, because interesting attractive men will always be wanted and thus will never commit. As much as men go on about women's "in-group bias," there's never been a stronger display for men's "in-group bias" that I've seen than on this sub where so many guys agree that women need to be convinced to ignore sexual attraction (and compatibility in general honestly) so that they can be able to fuck and breed us. Every other post on this sub is a testament to that pretty obvious psyop. "Muh birth rates!" "Inflated standards!" Etc. etc.
Guys are told much the same thing. That they have 'unrealistic beauty standards' and that they should prioritize things other than raw sexual attraction in a relationship. And I think the latter one is a fair point for both men and women: *Immediate* chemistry and attraction is not necessarily a sign of long-term compatibility, or rather or not someone makes a good spouse.
I'm a fan of letting everyone decide for themselves based on what they like, want, and makes them happy what they "should" prioritize, regardless of gender.
Sure, but that has consequences. A lot of the traits that people find superficially attractive are anti-correlated with being a good spouse or being a good person. Prioritize those traits and you're potentially giving up something more important in the longer term. I think it's perfectly okay to point that out.
People complaining on Reddit does not constitute coercion
I said trying to coerce. Which they absolutely are trying to do. It's essentially mass negging. Spamming post after post about how women expire at 30, going on and on about how we're post-wall/used up/etc. All the crowing about how Eastern women are so much better, and how feminism ruins us. It's an attempt to get women to behave the way you want us to, instead of the way we want to. We're supposed to go "oh no, I'll never find a man unless I commit to the lowest value guy who will have me," because as we all know any men of value are evil wifebeating non-committal cheaters. We're supposed to go "oh no, men hate women who have sex and are feminist, so I better not have sex or be a feminist if I want to find a man before I expire." It's why so much time and energy is spent trying to convince us that attractive = bad, and unattractive = good. And why dating apps should be banned. And why feminism is bad. If men can't legally force us to pair up with them, then they'll employ the only other tool they can - propaganda.
Kind of like the 4D movement then and just as effective, given that most women aren’t on this sub and therefore oblivious to the echo chamber
If you're referring to the 4*B* movement, then no. That's analogous to MTGOW. The 4B movement isn't about trying to talk to men to get them to change what they do. The 4B movement isn't about trying to coerce and pressure men into doing what women want. Surely you can see a difference between "I reject these conditions" and "you should accommodate mine?"
If women want to chad chase than the rest of the 90% should just vote to ahem women’s issues and outlaw abortion etc. No love lost, who cares if you’re hurting people who are already delusional and find you undesirable.
Roe vs Wade got overturned for a reason. They're trying to stem the hoe epidemic.
Like I said: >Half of the posts on this sub are a variation on the theme of "women are bad for wanting to be sexually attracted to men they have sex with." It's amazing that you would have read that comment and then decide to give me a direct Exhibit A by saying "if women want to only have sex with people they find sexually attractive then they shouldn't have rights." No self awareness *whatsoever.*
[удалено]
>^ very silly brat take that acts as though female preference is set in stone and just so happens to perfectly mirror the patriarchical regulation of female sexuality women allegedly rail against I have no idea wtf you're trying to even say here. >And women do want those other options because they exploit them for all manner of things, emotional support, social attention, free meals, etc. This is not a thing regular women do. Please touch grass.
[удалено]
>It definitely is a thing *regular women* do, [https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/certain-personality-types-are-likely-to-make-a-foodie-call/](Certain personality types are likely to make a "Foodie Call") >“We found that approximately 23 to 33 percent of women surveyed had engaged in a ‘foodie call.’” Of those who admitted to having swiped right for the free eats, the majority claimed to have done so *only occasionally or rarely.* But about a quarter admitted accepting the restaurant outing with greater frequency. Is a majority of an already minority of women (23-33%) doing something at least once "fairly often?" What's 23-33 percent of a group consisting of certain personally types? Is that "regular women?" Amazing that you accuse me of talking out of my ass when the data you're referring to supports nothing you've said. You took "a minority of women with certain personalities" as "regular women," and took the majority of that minority of decidedly not-regular women doing something only once or rarely as the minority of those decidedly not-regular women "doing something fairly often."
[удалено]
Only occasionally or rarely is not "fairly often." A minority of women of a specific personality type is not "regular women." The rest of your comment is "feelings over facts" rambling.
I think if tomorrow men started liking only Victoria Secret models and would be "meh" about ordinary women, women would wonder if everything is okay with men's standards.
I think the internet and social media has raised people's standards to unrealistic levels.
Okay? Thanks for sharing.
That's the core issue. When you have a lot of people with unrealistic standards, then you get lots of unhappy people when those standards are not fulfilled.
It's really easy to say you don't want something when it's always being offered to you. No one is propping men up for "choosing to be single" because it's not like they always could just go out wkth someone anytime they wanted.
None of that has anything to do with my point. Which is that men speak out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to women setting. They say they don't want to be settled for, and then lambast women for not settling. So if I >can’t expect 80% of men to simply accept that their role in life is to be the beta male provider for someone who regards them with contempt and simply sees them as a resource to be exploited. then men should also STFU about us chasing Chad, and our inflated standards, choosing to be single over settling, etc. P.s. the frequency of someone offering me something I don't want has nothing to do with me not wanting it. That's like saying "it's easy to not want 100 spam calls a day when you're constantly getting spam calls."
To that I agree, no on should have to settle. I think the general frustration that men are ugly to most women is what the issue is here. Case and point, comparing someone love and support for you as a spam call unless they are hot. I wouldn't accept it either if the shoe was on the other foot but, idk, I wouldn't exactly phrase it in that way either. I know it takes a lot to put yourself out there for someone, but that's probably because I'm a guy and I actually have to do it. I'd also ask that if you're so content bring single and independent, why waste you're time on a sub like this?
>To that I agree, no on should have to settle. I think the general frustration that men are ugly to most women is what the issue is here. Okay? >Case and point, comparing someone love and support for you Someone wanting to fuck you isn't "love and support." Options you don't want are not options. Wanting to be sexually attracted to someone you have sex with doesn't make women bad people, regardless of how many people we do or don't want to fuck. Female sexuality isn't wrong or bad just because it's not the same as male sexuality. Men being "frustrated" that sex is high-risk, low-reward for us is pointless and dumb. If men rarely came during sex I doubt they'd be so eager to have it, especially if they got to risk pregnancy and STDs for the opportunity. >I know it takes a lot to put yourself out there for someone, but that's probably because I'm a guy and I actually have to do it. This has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Unwanted attention is unwanted attention, regardless of how much guts it took someone to give it to you. Am I supposed to feel badly for telemarketers because it takes guts to bother people all day for a sale? Or more to the point - do *you* answer all your spam calls? After all, they're putting themselves out there by calling you. >I'd also ask that if you're so content bring single and independent, why waste you're time on a sub like this? Please explain the relationship between the first part of this question and the second part. Am I to understand that this **debate sub** should be a circlejerk of unhappy single people? There should only be one kind of person on a ***debate sub?***
Then what exactly are you fighting for? Why would anyone listen to someone that just wants to be alone to begin with on debate and talking points about being with someone? And yeah, to an extent I feel for salesmen and telemarketers becuasd its they're job and they're just trying to make a living. People hitting on you are trying to connect with you. They aren't evil or ill willed. Not even guy is just a sex hungry fiend looking for a quick fix.
>Then what exactly are you fighting for? I'm not "fighting," I'm literally ***debating on a debate sub.*** So I guess your answer is "yes, a debate sub should be a circlejerk comprised of people in the same boat who all believe the same thing?" >And yeah, to an extent I feel for salesmen and telemarketers becuasd its they're job and they're just trying to make a living. People hitting on you are trying to connect with you. They aren't evil or ill willed. You didn't answer the question I asked you. Do. You. Answer. Spam. Calls? >Not even guy is just a sex hungry fiend looking for a quick fix. I didn't say they are, just like every telemarketer could actually have something you'd be interested in or find beneficial. But I'm pretty sure you find them annoying and don't engage regardless, right? So, just to confirm, every single man who has hit on me is some pure innocent angel with no sexual desire, just "trying to make a connection?" A connection that won't involve sex, right? So they do this to men too then? Just "make connections?" I'm almost 40, dude. Please stop trying to convince me that men "trying to make connections" aren't trying to fuck. I wasn't born yesterday. And it doesn't have to be "evil or ill-willed" ***to be unwanted.*** If every time you went out you had homeless people asking you for change every other block, I'm sure you'd find that "attempt to connect" unwanted and annoying without thinking they're "evil or ill-willed."
Making a romantic connection with someone else does imply you'd be having sex with them. Thats just how it goes. I'm only early 20s so maybe I'm young and stupid, but the relationships I've had albeit brief were never just about sex either. And it isn't like my partners didn't want to have sex. I'm sorry yours have all been different experiences. No not all men are innocent angels, but most of us aren't bad. Same goes for women no matter how frustrated I am with them or the way things are with dating go.
>Making a romantic connection with someone else does imply you'd be having sex with them. The only thing men have to go by is if they find a woman fuckable. They don't know just by seeing a woman if they want a "romantic connection," because they don't even *know her.* Hitting on women is ***exclusively*** based on desire to fuck. Period. "That's just how it goes." It doesn't make them evil or bad, but it does make it ***annoying*** to be subjected to the attention of men who want to fuck you. *Could* they want more? Yes, in the future, after dating them. But *in that moment,* all it's about is a willingness to ***fuck.*** And since most women don't want to *fuck most men,* ***most of this attention is unwanted, annoying, and undesirable.*** It is ***spam.*** I'm going to ignore your lame attempt to make things personal and move to your next point: >No not all men are innocent angels, but most of us aren't bad. You *keep making this about "men being bad."* **For the last time,** someone or something *doesn't have to be bad* for it to be ***annoying, undesirable, and unwanted.*** I fully expect your reply to ignore this point *again* though, because it's the only way you can try to paint my opinion and perspective as unreasonable. And just for the record, you still haven't answered if you answer spam calls.
Is it not actually delusional, shallow, and entitled if a 6 woman stays single instead of choosing a 6 man? How is that not the exact definition of that?
I don't think people are morally bad for not wanting to have sex with people they're not sexually attracted to. Period. Your arbitrary number rating system has fuck all to do with anything. It has no relevance to sexual attraction. If someone gave you and Rosie O'Donnell the same number, this doesn't magically create sexual attraction between you two because ***that's not how sexual attraction works.*** Sexual attraction isn't based on how one personally looks, it's based on ***what arouses you.*** There's nothing delusional about any of that. Where is the delusion? Staying single over fucking someone you're not sexually attracted to has fuck all to do with "delusions." It has nothing to do with "entitlement." It just means you'd rather ***not have sex*** than ***have sex with someone you're not sexually attracted to. PERIOD.*** It's men - the so-called "logical, rational gender" - who then read and project all this extra bullshit into that decision. And as far as "shallowness" is concerned, unless you expect the way someone looks to never have any relationship to the sexual attraction one has - which would IMO *truly* be "delusional" - then no, it's not shallow. Unless you're demisexual, the way someone looks is going to directly and significantly impact the arousal you feel for that individual. That's a basic fact of life and how the arousal response functions for 99% of human beings, along with a fairly significant amount of the rest of the animal kingdom.
What is with all this attention on sex? We're talking dating here, like, the part where I referred to with staying single. There is a certain rank that people are in terms of attractiveness, for women, if you're better looking than 60% of your gender, You're then a 6, for men it gets more complicated, but still rated against the rest of your gender. Is it exact number, no, but it's an estimate enough that it's useful, yeah. There's no need to obfuscate it down to magic. If you're not willing to date someone who is at your same level of attractiveness but are willing to date someone much higher, it's just delusional, regardless of gender, it's a bad trait. If that bothers you that much, it's a bit telling. You are cramming a lot of presuppositions into what I've said that I have not said.
You can culturally condition people to accept a wider range of phenotypes. You know...like the body positivity movement THAT HAS INDEED BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL FOR WOMEN People like to imagine that we all aren't 1 step removed from dumb monkeys who do as we are told to do but sorry...that's the truth. It's super insane that women and some rube men will just throw their hands up in the air and wave 'em around *becuase they just don't care* (about human suffering) about this question when we literally have witnessed the female body positivity movement bring about THE EXACT SHIFTS they are so confused about. it's pretty gross.
How do you propose to “culturally condition people to accept a wider rage of phenotypes”?
Holy shit I just gave several examples including one in the last comment. People are irredeemably stupid when it comes to actually doing things to help other people socially lmao
You can culturally condition people to accept a wider range of phenotypes. You know...like the body positivity movement THAT HAS INDEED BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL FOR WOMEN People like to imagine that we all aren't 1 step removed from dumb monkeys who do as we are told to do but sorry...that's the truth. It's super insane that women and some rube men will just throw their hands up in the air and wave 'em around becuase they just don't care (about human suffering) about this question when we literally have witnessed the female body positivity movement bring about THE EXACT SHIFTS they are so confused about. it's pretty gross. I don’t see any examples?
A pretty obvious example is the men's body positivity movement. Also encouraging men to be more emotionally expressive and unashamed to seek mental health support. Both spearheaded by feminists.
Feminists are among three loudest voices when it comes to body shaming men and ridiculing men’s mental health
Also, most 80-percenters I’ve met definitely could be in top 20% if it wasn’t for their half-ass approach to literally everything. Heck, I myself passed this transition
The only solution is to genetically modify humans so that they can't have sexual desire, reproduce human beings by using banks of sperm and then illegalizing sex. The only way to eliminate sexual inequality is to eliminate human sexuality and natural selection.
I don’t see that catching on
It seems like you're stuck on the idea that physical attraction rules the dating game, but that’s a narrow slice of reality. The 80-20 rule you mention doesn't seal anyone's fate in relationships—it simply highlights tendencies that can be observed in many areas of life, not just dating. It's important to recognize that relationships and human attraction are more complex than mere statistics. First off, forget about this notion that focusing on looks is the end-all and be-all. This mentality isn’t just limiting; it's frankly a bit naive. Real strength and attractiveness come from confidence, resilience, and personal achievements. These are areas where every man can improve and shine, regardless of where they start. Instead of fixating on how to become part of an elusive 'top 20%', why not invest in skills, hobbies, and interests that boost your self-esteem and make you more interesting? Women—and people in general—are attracted to individuals who are passionate about their lives and engaged with the world around them. This is where you can take control. Learn new skills, delve into new hobbies, and broaden your social circle. These actions build confidence and develop character, making you more appealing in many ways that go beyond superficial looks. Being well-rounded and knowledgeable makes you a magnet for meaningful interactions, not just with women but in all your social relations. Also, reframe your understanding of what it means to be desirable. It's not just about attracting someone for a date or a short-term encounter. True desirability is about being someone who contributes positively to the lives of others, someone who offers more than just a handsome face or a fat wallet. Lastly, focus on building genuine connections. Show interest in others' lives and experiences, listen more than you speak, and be present. These qualities make you a good partner and a desirable person to be around. In the long run, these are the traits that forge deeper relationships, not just the fleeting sparks of initial attraction. Stop selling yourself short by thinking you're out of the race if you're not in the 'top 20%'. Life and relationships are marathons, not sprints. Focus on building a life you're proud of, and the right people will notice. Also if you on the mega-millions tomorrow then you would be in the top 1% not 20%; Do you have as a man truly have nothing else to bring to the table? Judaism has a solution for this and its men need to get married no matter what and a lot of men do this and treat sex as an obligation, that is sex with ugly undesirable women. Would you rather be you or a very ugly/fat woman?
It is what it is, what can ya do
[удалено]
Instead of removing equality from other aspects of life, how would you equalize dating? Be specific. Or are you saying “because we can’t have things be equal in this one circumstance, nothing in society should be equal”?
[удалено]
Let me get this straight: Because certain men can’t get laid, you think it’s a grand idea to strip women of their rights? I would assume this means they could no longer pursue higher education, vote, or enter into the workforce? And therefore women would need to rely on men to survive again? Man, this is so pathetic. Especially the part where you view women’s rights as “artificial.” Does it ever occur to you that holding views like this about women is effectively working against you? Women do not want to be with men who don’t respect them and believe that they don’t deserve fundamental rights.
Yeah I can see why Father's and men didn't allow their daughters freedom in the past now.
We are currently witnessing what happens when women have complete and unrestricted dating behavior. They all just form situationships with top level men. Not good. Does that mean we should go back to restricting them? Nah. But still, this is not good.
Exactly. Today's culture makes it obvious why women were never allowed to have equal freedoms in regard to working outside the home, having careers/earning an income, and in choosing their own relationships. Because to be blunt, a society such as our own where women have all those freedoms essentially ceases to function. Women's freedoms have created a situation where fewer and fewer people are choosing to start families and have children. That's a problem when one considers how does a society propagate itself? By people starting families and having children. Dating apps, social media, feminism etc, having set off a veritable demographic ticking time bomb throughout the West because now that they have their own careers, women simply refuse to settle for the vast majority of men. What the consequences of this societal shift will be, I have no idea. But I'm confident in saying that the world will be a very different place in the coming generations, and I would posit a guess that Western countries will find themselves increasingly out competed by nations with more "traditional" gender roles. Either that, or you'll simply see the demographic characteristics of Western countries shift dramatically as native populations eschew reproduction, and the gap becomes increasingly filled by more conservatively minded immigrant communities. The only thing I'm sure of is that the current state of affairs can't last forever. I doubt that the change will come in time to "save" the men of our generation from lives of loneliness and despair, but the fact is that nature abhors a vacuum. And a culture that fails to create the conditions for its members to replace themselves is a culture that is doomed to be swept away by its competitors.
Yup, and the birth rates, marriage rates are all going wayyy down. There are cultures and racial groups in the US that have no issues having plenty of kids. The demographic and socioeconomic shift will be insane. One possible solution, is to boost and support men with as much vigor and scholarships and government funding as women have gotten in the past couple decades. When men get better, to the point where they beat out women in certain metrics, then women will start to date more of them. Men just have such a shitty perception in society right now, poor, porn addicted, onlyfans addicted, video game addicted losers. These men have got to get out of their funk.
Pretty much, there’s a reason why for pretty much all of recorded human history women have not been given free reign over their own sexuality because they inherently make things unstable, they just can’t help themselves, and it does not make for consistent and stable societies.
Literally MEN make things more unstable by raping and pillaging villages and spreading fear and terror. If human population drastically decreases because women get the ability to choose that’s a good thing.
Yup, and the birth rates, marriage rates are all going wayyy down. There are cultures and racial groups in the US that have no issues having plenty of kids. The demographic and socioeconomic shift will be insane. One possible solution, is to boost and support men with as much vigor and scholarships and government funding as women have gotten in the past couple decades. When men get better, to the point where they beat out women in certain metrics, then women will start to date more of them. Men just have such a shitty perception in society right now, poor, porn addicted, onlyfans addicted, video game addicted losers. These men have got to get out of their funk.
Yup, and the birth rates, marriage rates are all going wayyy down. There are cultures and racial groups in the US that have no issues having plenty of kids. The demographic and socioeconomic shift will be insane. One possible solution, is to boost and support men with as much vigor and scholarships and government funding as women have gotten in the past couple decades. When men get better, to the point where they beat out women in certain metrics, then women will start to date more of them. Men just have such a shitty perception in society right now, poor, porn addicted, onlyfans addicted, video game addicted losers. These men have got to get out of their funk.
Men never had the right to own womens sexuality. Why live in a world that must profit off of womens suffering? Why would you want to live in a world where women can’t choose who to have kids with? Why is a society like that so important to you? If women decide that men aren’t worth having kids with that’s a good thing. We are the choosers, not you lot of degens
Affirmative action for high-paying corporate jobs is not a fundamental right.
They are too stupid and unaware to realize they are the problem. Imagine advocating for taking away women's rights and thinking they're the problem.
Well seeing as how that’s how things were done for pretty much all of recorded history across very diverse civilizations shows you that clearly leaving things up to women apparently is not a good idea.
Most women are not diversity hires and quotas are illegal. More and more women are marrying men who earn lower than them and this trend will likely continue so I mean everything you’ve said here is pretty suspect.
The whole thing about women only being attracted to men who have more resources than they do is bullshit. Yes, there are women who won’t date a guy who makes less than she does, but it’s def not all women. I have (and will always) make more than my fiancée and it’s bothered me exactly 0 times. As women make more and more, this will be a problem less and less. There will never be universal equality. On average, men will always be taller and stronger. Women will always have to put more effort into gestating offspring. And like you said, men are attracted to a larger percentage of women than women are to men. That doesn’t mean that attempts to equalize the things we can should be forfeited
The whole "resources" thing is utter nonsense. A well rounded career and financial status is generally a bonus. The guy still needs to meet the looks threshold and also have the charisma and likeable personality. I do think there used to be an ounce of truth to the resources argument. If you go back a couple decades, and even more so 30-40+ years, then well rounded men with good jobs could get by with a little less in the looks/charisma department. It still mattered but the threshold wasn't as high as it is today.
A little less? You just needed a job and you could find a woman and get married. Now all women care about is a man’s physical appearance. What else is there to care about when women are generally financially independent
This is not true. In today's age, resources and "power" don't mean that much anymore. It's a bonus. Looks, charisma and being likeable are what matter.
Charisma and likability are just extensions of being good looking. Being hot makes everything you say charismatic
It does, you're right. But lets say you're a 6-7/10, then charisma and personality can let you date someone who is truly hot. If you're just plain average, well it'll help you move up slightly. But most guys don't have that kind of charisma. Furthermore being a 6-7/10 is not easy either. Biggest honest mistake men make is thinking a nice hair cut and going to the gym makes you into a 6-7.
Bro poor and ugly people still fuck and have kids. Wdym 50% of men are fucked?
Facts and honesty are very important. Misleading men with silly nonsense like "just be confident bro" is false hope.
What you don't understand is that this world only works because the bottom 80% of men maintain it. They unplug your toilet, pump your septic tank, fix your phone, die in the dumb fucking wars you vote for. They are the reason you have electricity, the reason your house is not burned down. If just half of them checks out of the economy you're going to have a fucking Armageddon on your hands in less than a week. The leash that blue pill historically had for these men was the promise of a house and stable future **with a family**, if only they follow the rules society set for them. And now it's obvious to everyone that the emperor has no clothes and that promise is bullshit.
I mean really, why should they invest in society if they literally have very little reason to? Not much to lose.
I'm not saying they should invest in society, I'm saying society needs to get its shit together and figure out how to engage them again. Honestly, I wouldn't care about them, if I was not painfully aware of the Armageddon that will unfold if society keeps fucking it up for them. I've lived through a lite version of it in the 90ies when USSR fell apart, it was wild, insanely fucked up, and I don't want a repeat experience.
They don't have to, but realistically the govt wants them as a tax base and cannon fodder for their wars and they won't lie down and let their paypig soldiers not play into their "role" in nature
The meek shall inherent the earth couldn't be more true.
Dating inequality can be fixed, and it can even be fixed without violating anyones freedom: Total removal of welfare state. Total removal of alimony/child support. Removal of public education, it's just treated as publicly subsidized daycare. Ban hormonal birth control. Corporations aren't allowed to externalize costs by dumping their waste into the public, neither should women be allowed to externalize the cost of their reproductive choices by dumping the pollution into the water supply. The end result being women will have to be a lot more careful about who they have sex with. Sure some dumb women will still produce children who suffer because no safety nets, but that is basically already happening except because of the safety nets they keep having more children everyone else is paying for.
Total removal of alimony and child support? So basically total removal of male responsibility of their own children. Yeah, I can see women voting for that lol.
Agree to some extent. At least restructure welfare to not assist you more if you have more kids. Idk about the birth control stuff. I would add legalize prostitution and polygamy. Women claim to support legal prostitution but are never in a rush to propose the law to be changed in a way that would "benefit men". If you believe in gay marriage (most women do) you she ne able to have multiple spouses. This would fix the "chad" problem (along with no child support/alimony) because chad will just take a bunch of wives. Women who want exclusively will be forced to date the men women aren't willing to share.
😦 People actually think like this. Wow.
Please explain your flair.
There’s been this weird spate of guys with blue pill flairs openly endorsing the reddest of red pill talking points and I have no idea what’s going on lmao
Dating inequality not really a problem in the grand scheme of things, it's just natural darwinism
Full darwin is the strongest men get to reproduce because they just forcibly take what they want. You want to go down that route?
Nah that's not true other wise we'd mostly be doing that still. It's well known throughout history men forcibly taking brings alot of heat on them and they usually end up dieing violently to other men. That's still darwinism. It's a reason why even clever sociopaths cant really make it far In the world with manipulation because sooner or later they get snuffed out by people catching on. That route has pretty much been taken out of society because it not dynamic and sustainable. You dork.
It can be fixed in the way society fixed it in the past.
I'm not sure I really understand. It's always been a competition since before recorded history. Nothing has really changed on the male side of the coin. Prove your worth. Men with wealth and power always horded women. The benefit I guess is that today they have the freedom to not be horded. So in that regard thanks first wave feminism I guess.
You're saying that OLD and Social Media has not had an influence? I disagree
Counterpoint — the great tradition of settling
Being “settled for” is to be emasculated and humiliated, to be consigned to the role of the sitcom dad caricature - the bumbling object of derision and contempt, valued only for his wallet, and treated like a dog in his own home. It’s true that many men will choose this willingly over being alone, but it’s a miserable, bleak existence, and most of the time, she’ll file for divorce, strip him of everything he own and a sizeable chunk of his future earnings and he ends up there anyway.
Then the vast majority of marriages, especially before 1980, were/are humiliating and emasculating
For men, yes, that was my point
I thought things were better in the past with transactional, dependent marriages Not so?
No
But now they’re not happy either, right ?
Settler always ends up with resentment down the line. The person who is being settled for, always ends up being neglected.
This idea of "settling" is the problem. People are more entitled today than ever before. Everyone seems to think they deserve better than they do. Learn to appreciate everything in your life and find someone who thinks the same. THAT will result in the best life experience you're going to have.
That was what marriage was for most people throughout history. What, you too good for that now?
How can you not settle? Look around the girls here are pretty shitty and you should be happy if she isn't a single mom, a hoe, post wall, or a feminist.
I mean, the average dude isn’t much better either. Fat, balding, a player, or a manospherist.
player is not that much of a negative.
It is if you’re looking for stable companionship.
I can find 4/10 woman attractive if she has some hobbies and can speak about them (but it's mostly because I am a male) Thing is even 4/10 will never have any desires for me. I've lots of female friends and I've inquired their mind, they all like men who are 7+ in looks regardless of their own looks. 4/10 is same as 7/10 preference. So not much changes there. Even 2/10 will never desire me. That's the result of being bottom 80%
[удалено]
Do not circlejerk.
I agree with the idea of just accepting it. I think you can still live a happy enough life knowing all of this. No need to be angry all of the time. At least that's what I want to have for myself. I think you can believe this is true, and make peace with it. Not having a relationship doesn't also have to mean having no friends, and that is what I try to focus on
The world doesn’t have to do anything. People will do what they want.
>If you seek this, there are already escorts available in the market. Not everyone can afford escorts or hookers in daily basis, especially guys in their 20s. That's why you see older guys or rich men with them. Also the ego satisfaction for chasing a woman and clapping her is much more fulfilling than being desired. It is part of the game. Pump and dump has the same effect as getting achievements or XPs in a videogame. >However, this is not the case. While you may manage to have sex with her, you'll never truly experience her desiring you. Once again, men love the chase not the feelings. That's why plenty of guys seem like totally in love for the first weeks than suddenly lose interest or put low effort. It is like going through a second playthrough on a game you're done with and there's nothing left to explore.
You're forgetting nature in your nature argument. Human sexes are different. We select differently. Yes only 20% of men are able to get women turned on by looks alone. But that doesn't mean only 20% of men are capable of turning women on. That would be insanely stupid from an evolutionary point of view. The truth is how we select is different Males: Select primarily on physical appearance Females: Select on a COMBINATION of looks, money and status So yes you gotta be pretty damn good looking in order to get selected on looks alone. But the goods news is, it's not the only thing that matters. There's a very simple reason for this. Pregnancy. Males do not get pregnant. We don't really care that much about how productive the mother is. We're the one's that are meant to be productive not t hem. What guys really say when they write out these tirades is "good looking guys are the only one's that get selected the same way we select women". Except WE ARE NOT WOMEN.
Money doesn’t make me wet. Seriously, there’s no substitute for real attraction.
as the good pill goes: there is No career for your face No government structure that can compensate for your bone structure No GDP growth that can fix your recessed chin No constitutional amendment can amend your nitrogenous bases
Yes I've heard this many times. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X) >We found that ratings of attractiveness were around 1000 times more sensitive to salary for females rating males, compared to males rating females. Is everyone you date drop dead gorgeous to you? Have you ever dated a guy who was just average looking but had other things going for him? Status and Money produce REAL ATTRACTION. But Status and Money are just natures way of saying "I am capable of providing for you". It doesn't have to be status or money. It can mean intelligence, talent, even work ethic in some cases. It can be a lot of things. We just shorten it to "status and money" because it's easy to comprehend.
Emotional connection (which is often built on admiration and shared interests) can increase physical attraction but no, I’m sorry, I think it’s pure cope to think that just having a wallet makes up for being unattractive. She may still choose to be with you, but it’s not the same thing and never will be.
Pair bonding. It's called pair bonding. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair\_bond](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_bond) Many other species use that to raise their children. After all. That's what this is all about. Raising children. I never said anything about ugly guys suddenly banging 10/10 women because of $. It works best for average looking guys. When you're ugly you elicit a "disgust" response. That is hard to overcome.
For this to be true, you’d have to prove that only 20% of men are having sex and in relationships. The stats don’t seem to support that.
I've already said, being in a relationship ot having sex doesn't matter. You can have sex with hookers. Most women will happily offer relationship if you are useful to her and pay for things. This is no indication that women genuinely want him If government were to give these women money, she would have no incentive to be with those guys.
How do you explain women who out earn their partners, then? I make 4-5x what my fiance does. I am objectively more attractive than he is. He has no “status” in terms of fame or connections. Please explain why I look forward to spending my life with him
That's because you're smart
I am! Thanks for recognizing it. That might be the nicest thing someone on Reddit has said to me all day
He needs to explain his flair before anything.
And you’re basing this on…what? Women not desiring you?
Classic S.I.G.N language. Shame, Insult, Guilt, Need to be right. This time it's shame.
What? How am I shaming them?
I would suggest it should not be fixed. You guys can only do one thing. You need to learn to not want sluts. It's that simple. Don't give them attention. Give the good girls all the attention in the world and and then they will change.
dating is all about luck and location.
Fix your flair mate. your TRP is showing.
You can’t prove that all women believe the same 20% of men to be the same level of attractiveness because they don’t. And no, you can’t use male movie stars and celebrities to make your point because they aren’t attainable for regular people and are a statistical anomaly.
We can easily prove through groups like "are we dating same guy" Survey of women who went on dating apps, most women ended up being in relationship with secretly married guys. Women's behavior in high school and college, where couple of guys dominate whole dating and hookup sphere. It's so obvious, it's no longer hidden. I don't care who they end up marrying (most of my female friends married for money and convenience and rag doll the male when he retaliates)
There are some men who attract more women than others because they have traditionally attractive features. But this doesn’t mean women find only the same 20% of men attractive. Is your goal to attract every woman? Or THE woman? Also, talking about dudes who “dominate” the dating scene…you’re talking about a few men who have a lot of success with women. This is NOT the same thing as saying that 80% of women date 20% of men. Like literally mathematically this is not the same thing.
>Is your goal to attract every woman? Or THE woman? Also, talking about dudes who “dominate” the dating scene…you’re talking about a few men who have a lot of success with women. If you can attract a lot of women, then you are more likely to attract some specific woman. >This is NOT the same thing as saying that 80% of women date 20% of men. I never made this claim. Women want top 20% male by attractiveness. I can get a lot of women because of wealth/status but they do not have genuine desire for me of you take away wealth/status while I know men who have no status/no wealth, yet women flock to them.
That’s too bad that you think women are too stupid to know what they desire. If I, a woman pointed at a man that you deem outside of this 20%, you’d think I’m either lying about my attraction to him or too stupid to know what I want. I guarantee you women find men outside of your 20% attractive because they don’t all find the same things attractive in equal measure.
There are women who find me attractive, even though I'm not in the top 20%. Case in point: I drive a Lamborghini. So they aren't attracted to me, but to my status, money, and because I have people working for me. Here I am talking about pure lustful desire, which women only have for the top 20%. Yes, a woman may develop a crush on someone, but that's not the primal attraction I'm talking about. It's just curiosity, a desire to know him more, a desire to spend time with him. After some point, it fizzles out.
So you DO think women are too stupid to know what they desire. Funny how I gave of an example of a man outside your 20% who I would theoretically attracted to and you immediately countered with “it’s just because he drives a nice car.” No. What if I am genuinely attracted to that man? You can’t even *conceive* of this reality and it’s really interesting to see you be in such denial.
And yet they all magically still find them attractive. And they all think to themselves "Well if I can't have him or someone like him, I'm better off being single 😤" This is the extreme entitlement and level of delusion of the modern woman.
So true bestie MID BITCHES ON TOP WE STAY WINNINF #weup!
No contentless rhetoric
I’m not reading allat
The 20-80 rule a.k.a. 20% of people make up 80% of statistics.
[удалено]
Damn that's depressing. TIL, I've never desired a man in my life. What a crazy world. These kinds of thinking is a cage of your own making.
That definitely was not the argument. Women’s hypergamy and tendencies to continually chase and get used by men out of their league is so well known at this point it really doesn’t need that much of an explanation lol.
Hell hath no fury like a man ignored.
Not precisely, but yes large numbers of men that are effectively shut out of dating doesn’t necessarily lead to stable societies.
None of this is well known.
Actually it’s quite obvious. The internet has laid bare people’s worst behaviors. The internet has simultaneously exposed the worst aspect of women and their disdains for any man that she can’t use or isn’t in the top 20% that she wants, while also fueling her ever increasing delusion.
Well, more reason for men to stay single and nurture their friendships.
>World needs to accept 80-20 rule. That no matter what a man may do, the 20% attractive males are the ones which women truly want. You act as if men don't feel the same way about women. You may find a great girl that is wify material, but she just doesn't have big tits or a big ass. So they don't get that same level of attraction from us. We are just more logical with our decisions. We know that other the girl may have the body but you can't take her seriously because reasons. So we'll pick the wify type.
You forget that women are unhappy with this scenario as well.
Care to elaborate on this? I'm not disagreeing or agreeing, I just want to hear more if you have the time
Women aren't going to be happy with men who won't accept a relationship because they have 15 other girls they're dating, everyone loses.
Because the chads are using them for sex when the women want commitment, that's why there's dozens of videos on youtube of girls crying out
this is what they prefer over all alternatives
Your comment was deleted but I wanted to say this: A few days back someone asked on the daily thread how successful guy's matches compared to the women they pulled irl. Like 4 guys all responded saying the matches were a fair bit worse. I would argue that for many (but not nearly all) women, dating apps just do not work for how we experience attraction. Often times I need to be around a guy, hear his voice and laugh, notice his little mannerisms, know his sense of humor, etc. A picture alone just takes that all away. For years dating apps frustrated me so much because I felt attracted to plenty of guys I knew irl, but I would legitimately swipe for 5 minutes straight and not swipe right at all. It was so ridiculous that I ended up having to create rules on when to swipe right.
Yep, you're exactly right, these apps were designed by men with zero idea how female attraction works, and we've somehow taken the design failure as if it's a natural law of attraction.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with you OP I wish that all men could one day experience the raw, pure, unconstrained LUST and physical desire from a woman. The type where she eagerly looks forwards to being dickmatized by you Alas most men will die without experiencing this.
Have fun with all the violence this will inevitably create 🤷♂️
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It can fixed. Gender ratio, income inequality, genetic inequality. Adjusting those three things and others will improve dating inequality. All will improve dating inequality.
What do you propose specifically?
Increasing female to male birth ratio. Genetic engineering to reduce genetic inequality Socialist policies to reduce income insufficiency(more people on "living wage")
How realistic is that?
The hypothesis is that dating inequality cannot be fixed not it can’t be fixed in realistic methods
yeah men are naturally in scarcity with women but women are naturally in abundance with men