Post: #151

(07-20-2018 04:04 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  Fat Acceptance anyone?

And A-cup acceptance.

Post: #152

(07-20-2018 09:59 PM)questor70 Wrote:  And A-cup acceptance.

I'm looking for a long term relationship. Women with A-cups don't wind up with their nipples south of their bellybutton in 20 years.

Post: #153

(07-20-2018 10:14 PM)chicane Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 09:59 PM)questor70 Wrote:  And A-cup acceptance.

I'm looking for a long term relationship. Women with A-cups don't wind up with their nipples south of their bellybutton in 20 years.

... right? Although I find B's offer the best balance of size and resiliency

Post: #154

(07-20-2018 10:35 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  ... right? Although I find B's offer the best balance of size and resiliency

Too small and you can't tit-fuck. It's not a showstopper as that isn't a main-course item but it's just something I like to know is on the menu.

Post: #155

And here goes my negative post of the month:

Like everyone on the thread says, the SMP is vastly miscalculated. Part of the problem:

1. Large amounts of single women who have little interest in a boyfriend. Since woman have 1/2 the interest in sex as men, at most, this creates an entire population of women who are sharing apex alphas 1-2 times a week, or going months without sex. In a monogamous society, most men are completely sexually satisfied by one woman. Whenever I've had a plate, its been about 1x a week sex at most, leaving me no option other than to pick up another. Whether they had another man is a separate debate, but I know that I needed more.
2. Women being able to extract attention/resources from social media, dating sites, beta orbiters without giving up the goods.
3. The vast majority of the male population not giving a fuck if a girl is 25+, with a 20+ notch count, 20 lbs heavier than her prime. Red pill fantasy loves to believe that the majority of women ride the carousel and end up alone in their 30's. This is not true-most women who start life as a 7+ can carousel it into her early-mid thirties and still get married to a respectable man. I've witnessed the multiple times with my own eyes, women 33+ having bachelorette parties, a sad sight but truly a sign of the degenerate times we live in.
4. Women who are 8-10 have access to apex alphas not ever seen before. I'm not talking about a handsome, fit guy who makes 500k and has tight game. I got a makeout + number of a 20 year old the other night, after she ghosted me I checked her insta follows and saw that she was followed + following a top star on the NY Yankees. In the past, Derek Jeter, NYC's most eligible bachelor, would walk into a club and have his pick for the night, and that would be that. Now, an pro athlete, musician, famous person, etc, is following 1000+ girls on social media, with instant access. This grossly skews her value and perception of the quality man she could land long term.

Everyone likes to think that the majority of high value men are red-pill alphas who only go for 18-24 low count women-this is not the case. Most men are taking what they can get, whether it be a 25 year old with a 50 body count or a 31 year old with a decent career. This forum is unique, most guys don't think like us. They are focused on being "modern" and "progressive", wifing up post-wall sluts.

Post: #156

Plus, to flip #3 around, how many of you see women under 24 getting married? Even in Kansas all the brides I see are over 30 and fat.

Post: #157

(07-21-2018 01:30 AM)Graft Wrote:  And here goes my negative post of the month:


3. The vast majority of the male population not giving a fuck if a girl is 25+, with a 20+ notch count, 20 lbs heavier than her prime. Red pill fantasy loves to believe that the majority of women ride the carousel and end up alone in their 30's. This is not true-most women who start life as a 7+ can carousel it into her early-mid thirties and still get married to a respectable man. I've witnessed the multiple times with my own eyes, women 33+ having bachelorette parties, a sad sight but truly a sign of the degenerate times we live in.

Everyone likes to think that the majority of high value men are red-pill alphas who only go for 18-24 low count women-this is not the case. Most men are taking what they can get, whether it be a 25 year old with a 50 body count or a 31 year old with a decent career. This forum is unique, most guys don't think like us. They are focused on being "modern" and "progressive", wifing up post-wall sluts.

Can concur and verify your number 3 anytime I log onto my companies facebook and peruse the "finding people" feature. I search my work city(major college town) and the suburb I live in. TONS of women who are blown out, below average looks, shit personality on display posing for wedding pics with terrible body language towards the man. The men are not much themselves. If this forum is the major leagues of men making moves in life then what I see on social media and in public is AAA minor leagues at best. Most men ARE just taking the scraps and making a feast of it as if their life depended on it. Truly a sad sight to see but nonetheless everything you mentioned IS happening and the red pill cocoon isn't what it seems. Shit women are landing shit men and the 2 morons could nor would ever figure out they both are getting the shit end of the deal.

In other news: I'd rather have this forum than what the dregs have in their lives.

Post: #158

(07-21-2018 01:30 AM)Graft Wrote:  And here goes my negative post of the month:

Like everyone on the thread says, the SMP is vastly miscalculated. Part of the problem:

1. Large amounts of single women who have little interest in a boyfriend. Since woman have 1/2 the interest in sex as men, at most, this creates an entire population of women who are sharing apex alphas 1-2 times a week, or going months without sex. In a monogamous society, most men are completely sexually satisfied by one woman. Whenever I've had a plate, its been about 1x a week sex at most, leaving me no option other than to pick up another. Whether they had another man is a separate debate, but I know that I needed more.
2. Women being able to extract attention/resources from social media, dating sites, beta orbiters without giving up the goods.
3. The vast majority of the male population not giving a fuck if a girl is 25+, with a 20+ notch count, 20 lbs heavier than her prime. Red pill fantasy loves to believe that the majority of women ride the carousel and end up alone in their 30's. This is not true-most women who start life as a 7+ can carousel it into her early-mid thirties and still get married to a respectable man. I've witnessed the multiple times with my own eyes, women 33+ having bachelorette parties, a sad sight but truly a sign of the degenerate times we live in.
4. Women who are 8-10 have access to apex alphas not ever seen before. I'm not talking about a handsome, fit guy who makes 500k and has tight game. I got a makeout + number of a 20 year old the other night, after she ghosted me I checked her insta follows and saw that she was followed + following a top star on the NY Yankees. In the past, Derek Jeter, NYC's most eligible bachelor, would walk into a club and have his pick for the night, and that would be that. Now, an pro athlete, musician, famous person, etc, is following 1000+ girls on social media, with instant access. This grossly skews her value and perception of the quality man she could land long term.

Everyone likes to think that the majority of high value men are red-pill alphas who only go for 18-24 low count women-this is not the case. Most men are taking what they can get, whether it be a 25 year old with a 50 body count or a 31 year old with a decent career. This forum is unique, most guys don't think like us. They are focused on being "modern" and "progressive", wifing up post-wall sluts.

Damn that's one fucking depressing red pill yet in my guts I know it to be true.

Post: #159

jeffreyjerpp, I read your post and tinder is the classic free market and that’s precisely why it locks more and more men out of it after every inflationary cycle.

The pill, no fault divorce, alimony, affirmative action, the end of the married man’s salary premium and abortion contribute to women being able to delay marriage until their thirties so has created a hook up culture which tinder came from.

Tinder itself is the classic chaotic free market (yes it has algorithms but so do the financial markets) which sees the items of value increasingly be monopolised by a smaller and smaller minority.

Women are the Dutch tulips of the tinder SMP.

There’s a good experiment on you tube about the equal value profiles of “Simon” and “Simone”. Simon struggled with matches and was compelled to date down while Simone was flooded with matches and was superliked by a Tinder executive.

This is why equality will create a gulf between rich and poor, alpha and incel.

Post: #160

(07-22-2018 03:02 AM)N°6 Wrote:  This is why equality will create a gulf between rich and poor, alpha and incel.

It's true for the SMV, though not how the left frames equality for economics. For the latter the method is reducing the successful to make everyone seem more equal; though a side result seems to be a smaller upper middle class and more distant elite for whom the rules are generally more favourable.

But when it comes to the SMV the left appear to be in favour of complete deregulation, combined with using general equality narratives to beat down the lowest males in society (incels: toxic masculinity) and prop up the lowest females in society (fatties: fat positivity).

As such the left are, as noted above, making the SMV grossly more unequal. In the increasingly hostile mainstream environment for men (while being told we are in a hostile environment to women) we are only going to get fewer and fewer men who can surmount all the shit to get to the top. They are going to be more desirable than ever.

That there was such a shit-storm about the recommendation of what is still partially law, enforced monogamy might be useful shows where we are heading.

Monogamy was developed as a response to the turmoil created by societies where a sub-set of men had multiple wives and the mess of other men trying to get access to other mens' wives. Over a long time of monogamy it changes the genetic pool, which acts in a feedback loop with the society.

Ironically, the left, which only exists through a domesticated multi-generational eugenics program, is now doing all it can to dismantle it and give all the spoils to "toxic males".

It's been such a long time since the pre-monogamous mess was truly known and as a result marriage is seen as a bastion of conservativism (things that are tried and tested) that the left feel they are dismantling it in a crusade for freedom.

It's probably only once we again see the mess that it will be re-installed. And to a considerable extent it's currently being hidden by the unsustainable welfare state.

And all these social justice warriors who have been exploding out of the universities for the last several years. They're now getting into politics and journalism and other areas of influence. This shit show is only just kicking off.

Post: #161

(07-21-2018 01:30 AM)Graft Wrote:  Whenever I've had a plate, its been about 1x a week sex at most, leaving me no option other than to pick up another. Whether they had another man is a separate debate, but I know that I needed more.

Good post, but I couldn't help noticing this. A new plate that really digs you should be wanting to hang out way more than that. Especially as time goes on and she gets more invested. Is it possible you're just not creating enough connection?

Or maybe it's just an NYC thing (too many options and distractions or a busy lifestyle overall)?

Post: #162

(07-21-2018 01:30 AM)Graft Wrote:  This forum is unique, most guys don't think like us. They are focused on being "modern" and "progressive", wifing up post-wall sluts.

Very well observed and absolutely true, I speak from personal experience witnessing this with friends of mine (I'm early 30s). I'm also seeing girls around my age having kids with the guy they just happen to be with at the time because of the biological clock etc. Including my first girlfriend. I'm honestly starting to see some of the wisdom in arranged marriages at a young age. I think if I'd married that girl at 18 I'd probably be a happy guy. Maybe bored, but content.

Post: #163

(07-21-2018 12:56 PM)estraudi Wrote:  TONS of women who are blown out, below average looks, shit personality on display posing for wedding pics with terrible body language towards the man.

Back in my pre-game simp days, I didn't know how to read body language.

After spending some time on this forum, and having a couple good, honest male friends give me some instruction, I can read the basics of body language now.

A few months ago a friend announced on FB that his son was getting married. The son is about 20; raised Christian, a hard-working earnest dude, couldn't do college so joined and graduated from the police academy, zero game.

The girl is 19, a 7.5, reasonably thin, and already has one kid from another man.

When my friend announced the marriage, the first thing I did was look at their FB profiles for photos. In *all* of their pics together, her body language is terrible. She's leaning away. Avoiding physical contact. Barely smiling. Yet in pics of just her and her son, she's always holding him close and smiling, so it's not like she's some kind of autist who can't show emotion. She just doesn't want to smile with and touch her fiance.

Everyone on FB was congratulating them on the marriage, and all I could think was, "This poor dude."

Post: #164

I think there are two categories of incels, and both have been robbed by modern western society.

Nobody should be angry about women not banging or being in relationships with men they don’t find attractive (the first category of incel). The issue is that they are refusing to bang or form relationships with men they do find attractive, and who would be a good fit for them under principles of assortive mating, because there are other guys they can bang whom they find even more attractive. This is the second category of incel – men with an average SMV and poor game, whose level of attraction is not enough to compete with runaway hypergamy.

As women age and their value drops below that of the men who were a good match for them in their prime, they expect to be able to return to these men. Unfortunately, the thirst created by the years of inceldom leads many of them to foolishly accept this deal.

For the other category of incel - the men no modern woman finds attractive at any level, the high female to male ratios and assortive mating principles in former times would have guaranteed them a partner. But even more importantly, since the process of attraction is very different for virgins who have only ever seen the faces of 100 men, there was a good possibility that even men with the lowest SMV could have inspired genuine attraction.

The fact that women were pious in former eras also allowed this attraction to be maintained. Women had their alpha, the ultimate alpha - God. Nothing could compete with his omnipotent greatness and domination over their entire life. Every thought and action had to be submitted to his will. This satisfied women's alpha cravings and allowed them to maintain attraction to a low SMV man who behaved like a beta.

For a pious woman, the maintenance of a marriage to a beta or low SMV male is itself an act of submission to the will of a supreme alpha. This is one of the most overlooked psychological techniques monotheistic religions have used to contain hypergamy.

I could probably accept women’s liberation if it actually made women happier. But we have an increasing body of statistical and anecdotal evidence that women are more miserable than ever. The fact that the causes of this misery have also led to many good men being ostracised from the sexual market place only adds insult to injury.

Post: #165

(07-22-2018 08:11 AM)Oak Wrote:  As women age and their value drops below that of the men who were a good match for them in their prime, they expect to be able to return to these men. Unfortunately, the thirst created by the years of inceldom leads many of them to foolishly accept this deal.

That's not the worst of it.

When she 'settles' for her peer, she won't be satisfied as his cock won't be as big as the biggest man she slept with, he won't be as tall or as muscular as the strongest man and he won't be as exciting as the most exciting man.

Women patch together a chimera of all the men she enjoyed, and this unmeetable standard leads to a lifetime of dissatisfaction.

Post: #166

(07-22-2018 08:11 AM)Oak Wrote:  I think there are two categories of incels, and both have been robbed by modern western society.

Nobody should be angry about women not banging or being in relationships with men they don’t find attractive (the first category of incel). The issue is that they are refusing to bang or form relationships with men they do find attractive, and who would be a good fit for them under principles of assortive mating, because there are other guys they can bang whom they find even more attractive. This is the second category of incel – men with an average SMV and poor game, whose level of attraction is not enough to compete with runaway hypergamy.

As women age and their value drops below that of the men who were a good match for them in their prime, they expect to be able to return to these men. Unfortunately, the thirst created by the years of inceldom leads many of them to foolishly accept this deal.

For the other category of incel - the men no modern woman finds attractive at any level, the high female to male ratios and assortive mating principles in former times would have guaranteed them a partner. But even more importantly, since the process of attraction is very different for virgins who have only ever seen the faces of 100 men, there was a good possibility that even men with the lowest SMV could have inspired genuine attraction.

The fact that women were pious in former eras also allowed this attraction to be maintained. Women had their alpha, the ultimate alpha - God. Nothing could compete with his omnipotent greatness and domination over their entire life. Every thought and action had to be submitted to his will. This satisfied women's alpha cravings and allowed them to maintain attraction to a low SMV man who behaved like a beta.

For a pious woman, the maintenance of a marriage to a beta or low SMV male is itself an act of submission to the will of a supreme alpha. This is one of the most overlooked psychological techniques monotheistic religions have used to contain hypergamy.

I could probably accept women’s liberation if it actually made women happier. But we have an increasing body of statistical and anecdotal evidence that women are more miserable than ever. The fact that the causes of this misery have also led to many good men being ostracised from the sexual market place only adds insult to injury.

This post is very close to hitting the nail on the head, but you're missing one key thing re: the bolded part- Most women do not find evenly matched men attractive.

You correctly identify that women have the option to bang men who are well out of their league. And you correctly imply that many (most?) women choose to exercise this option multiple times. You know that nagging feeling you get when you're pursuing a girl significantly less attractive than ones you've gotten in the past? That voice in your head going "Dude what are you DOING? You're better than this!" You think women don't get that same feeling?

But here's the difference- When you get the nagging "dude you're too good for her" subconscious revolt, it's because you really ARE too good for her. The women in your past who you're comparing her to were almost certainly not out of your league. But when a woman with an even mildly promiscuous past gets that feeling, it's because the man in question ISN'T way OUT of her league; i.e. he doesn't measure up to her previous sexual partners who were. The result of this phenomenon is a lot of women who are totally indifferent to, or even repulsed by, their male equivalents.

And that of course is a recipe for profound unhappiness on both sides of the equation:
Women are unhappy because they're not attracted to even matches.
Men are unhappy because they're not attractive to even matches.

Post: #167

(07-21-2018 12:52 PM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  Plus, to flip #3 around, how many of you see women under 24 getting married? Even in Kansas all the brides I see are over 30 and fat.

Most married girls in my age bracket ~30 got married at 27-29 at the earliest and these were to guys they met in college. Only a few have kids.

Already seen a couple divorces. No children thankfully.

You would be surprised how blue bill the guys are about their wife's fertility window.

Post: #168

(07-22-2018 06:59 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 01:30 AM)Graft Wrote:  This forum is unique, most guys don't think like us. They are focused on being "modern" and "progressive", wifing up post-wall sluts.

Very well observed and absolutely true, I speak from personal experience witnessing this with friends of mine (I'm early 30s). I'm also seeing girls around my age having kids with the guy they just happen to be with at the time because of the biological clock etc. Including my first girlfriend. I'm honestly starting to see some of the wisdom in arranged marriages at a young age. I think if I'd married that girl at 18 I'd probably be a happy guy. Maybe bored, but content.

Yea, that's the biggest pain in the ass that I've noticed with the sample group I've observed (Upper middle class, white, educated, career, 32-33). It's like they are all drunk, single, or serial monogamy until 29-30, one of them hits the panic button and then they all decide to get married in succession to whatever guy lands on the musical chair. It never seems to be the best guy who "wins" either, just seems to be whoever happens to be there.

Even before I ever came across ROK or Rooshv material, none of this sat well with me. I knew I wanted a virgin or low count young girl, having an older broad with a laundry list of ex-boyfriends/fiances/flings just didn't appeal to me, it was almost stomach-turning to think about it.

The group that I referenced still looks respectable, not quite in their prime but aging well, but when I take a look at bachelorette party/wedding shower pictures, it just pains me to see a group of 30+ women acting like degenerates and performing celebrations meant for women ten years younger. It's like seeing a 30 year old don a cap and gown to graduate high school/college, you want to be happy for him, but deep inside you know he fucked up somewhere in life to be in this position.

Post: #169

(07-22-2018 04:49 PM)Graft Wrote:  Yea, that's the biggest pain in the ass that I've noticed with the sample group I've observed (Upper middle class, white, educated, career, 32-33). It's like they are all drunk, single, or serial monogamy until 29-30, one of them hits the panic button and then they all decide to get married in succession to whatever guy lands on the musical chair. It never seems to be the best guy who "wins" either, just seems to be whoever happens to be there.

Very true.

I've seen some crazy fast escalations, like a guy I knew who went from dating to having children with a female doctor within 7 months. Met online too. Would never have thought he would end up with such a career woman. People thought he was joking when he announced he was going to be a father.

Stats say half of these end up in divorce in 5-7 years though.

Then there's that second spike in slutting it up late 30s and another round of musical chairs as the fertility window is rapidly closing. Usually the same women then find some guy who already have kids. Then they might get one kid to bring together a big happy family of strange offspring.

Your first group of incels get blown out twice (tripple if you count early success).

Second group of incels should probably go for the deal, provided he is above average intelligence, which is something most of these women select for. With some work on himself, he even is preselected in 40s with kids, so can get in on the second round.

The difficulty would be staying optimistic and working on improving yourself in your 20s with little action.

My course of action for the incel would be to go to Asia for several years in your 20s, make money, get fit, bang bishes on WGF, return late 20s with some exotic value, money from IT career and then wife up one of these carousel riders. Take a second round abroad in your 40s and 50s.

Post: #170

(07-22-2018 05:06 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  My course of action for the incel would be to go to Asia for several years in your 20s, make money, get fit, bang bishes on WGF, return late 20s with some exotic value, money from IT career and then wife up one of these carousel riders. Take a second round abroad in your 40s and 50s.

Or just skip the wifing up part, have more fun and more money left.

Post: #171

(07-22-2018 06:17 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 05:06 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  My course of action for the incel would be to go to Asia for several years in your 20s, make money, get fit, bang bishes on WGF, return late 20s with some exotic value, money from IT career and then wife up one of these carousel riders. Take a second round abroad in your 40s and 50s.

Or just skip the wifing up part, have more fun and more money left.

Well yeah, but this is assuming you want to breed and judging from my experience, the lesser status the guy has, the more the wedding is expected. On the other hand, a higher status man can get away with no wedding, but still have kids.

Post: #172

(07-22-2018 05:06 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 04:49 PM)Graft Wrote:  Yea, that's the biggest pain in the ass that I've noticed with the sample group I've observed (Upper middle class, white, educated, career, 32-33). It's like they are all drunk, single, or serial monogamy until 29-30, one of them hits the panic button and then they all decide to get married in succession to whatever guy lands on the musical chair. It never seems to be the best guy who "wins" either, just seems to be whoever happens to be there.

Very true.

I've seen some crazy fast escalations, like a guy I knew who went from dating to having children with a female doctor within 7 months. Met online too. Would never have thought he would end up with such a career woman. People thought he was joking when he announced he was going to be a father.

Arguably the only caveat to this deal is that a guy making a modest income can marry up in social class once the broad realizes Mr. Chad is out of range. Tough to do because of hypergamy, but as long as he is educated and she is desperate enough, he can find himself an upper middle class life.

Post: #173

(07-22-2018 06:33 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 06:17 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 05:06 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  My course of action for the incel would be to go to Asia for several years in your 20s, make money, get fit, bang bishes on WGF, return late 20s with some exotic value, money from IT career and then wife up one of these carousel riders. Take a second round abroad in your 40s and 50s.

Or just skip the wifing up part, have more fun and more money left.

Well yeah, but this is assuming you want to breed and judging from my experience, the lesser status the guy has, the more the wedding is expected. On the other hand, a higher status man can get away with no wedding, but still have kids.

You missed a third option. Wife up a foreign chick and stay in her country. Raise kids there.

Post: #174

(07-22-2018 04:49 PM)Graft Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 06:59 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 01:30 AM)Graft Wrote:  This forum is unique, most guys don't think like us. They are focused on being "modern" and "progressive", wifing up post-wall sluts.

Very well observed and absolutely true, I speak from personal experience witnessing this with friends of mine (I'm early 30s). I'm also seeing girls around my age having kids with the guy they just happen to be with at the time because of the biological clock etc. Including my first girlfriend. I'm honestly starting to see some of the wisdom in arranged marriages at a young age. I think if I'd married that girl at 18 I'd probably be a happy guy. Maybe bored, but content.

Yea, that's the biggest pain in the ass that I've noticed with the sample group I've observed (Upper middle class, white, educated, career, 32-33). It's like they are all drunk, single, or serial monogamy until 29-30, one of them hits the panic button and then they all decide to get married in succession to whatever guy lands on the musical chair. It never seems to be the best guy who "wins" either, just seems to be whoever happens to be there.

Again, absolutely spot on. Also, once one gets married it starts off a chain of succession. The amount of engagement ring posts on my facebook exploded about 2 years ago and it's almost constant. Everyone trying to keep up the Jones', as it were.

Post: #175

(07-22-2018 01:03 PM)Delta Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 08:11 AM)Oak Wrote:  I think there are two categories of incels, and both have been robbed by modern western society.

Nobody should be angry about women not banging or being in relationships with men they don’t find attractive (the first category of incel). The issue is that they are refusing to bang or form relationships with men they do find attractive, and who would be a good fit for them under principles of assortive mating, because there are other guys they can bang whom they find even more attractive. This is the second category of incel – men with an average SMV and poor game, whose level of attraction is not enough to compete with runaway hypergamy.

As women age and their value drops below that of the men who were a good match for them in their prime, they expect to be able to return to these men. Unfortunately, the thirst created by the years of inceldom leads many of them to foolishly accept this deal.

For the other category of incel - the men no modern woman finds attractive at any level, the high female to male ratios and assortive mating principles in former times would have guaranteed them a partner. But even more importantly, since the process of attraction is very different for virgins who have only ever seen the faces of 100 men, there was a good possibility that even men with the lowest SMV could have inspired genuine attraction.

The fact that women were pious in former eras also allowed this attraction to be maintained. Women had their alpha, the ultimate alpha - God. Nothing could compete with his omnipotent greatness and domination over their entire life. Every thought and action had to be submitted to his will. This satisfied women's alpha cravings and allowed them to maintain attraction to a low SMV man who behaved like a beta.

For a pious woman, the maintenance of a marriage to a beta or low SMV male is itself an act of submission to the will of a supreme alpha. This is one of the most overlooked psychological techniques monotheistic religions have used to contain hypergamy.

I could probably accept women’s liberation if it actually made women happier. But we have an increasing body of statistical and anecdotal evidence that women are more miserable than ever. The fact that the causes of this misery have also led to many good men being ostracised from the sexual market place only adds insult to injury.

This post is very close to hitting the nail on the head, but you're missing one key thing re: the bolded part- Most women do not find evenly matched men attractive.

You correctly identify that women have the option to bang men who are well out of their league. And you correctly imply that many (most?) women choose to exercise this option multiple times. You know that nagging feeling you get when you're pursuing a girl significantly less attractive than ones you've gotten in the past? That voice in your head going "Dude what are you DOING? You're better than this!" You think women don't get that same feeling?

But here's the difference- When you get the nagging "dude you're too good for her" subconscious revolt, it's because you really ARE too good for her. The women in your past who you're comparing her to were almost certainly not out of your league. But when a woman with an even mildly promiscuous past gets that feeling, it's because the man in question ISN'T way OUT of her league; i.e. he doesn't measure up to her previous sexual partners who were. The result of this phenomenon is a lot of women who are totally indifferent to, or even repulsed by, their male equivalents.

And that of course is a recipe for profound unhappiness on both sides of the equation:
Women are unhappy because they're not attracted to even matches.
Men are unhappy because they're not attractive to even matches.

I think it’s been shown that women consider the vast majority of men below average in attractiveness, so you are probably correct.

But I think attraction could be developed if a woman is young enough and gives their male equivalent a chance (which they generally don't at that age). Spending enough time with them may allow bonds to form, provided they actually look away from their smartphone. The problem is that once women reach their 30s these bonding mechanisms have been destroyed by their high partner count, so time and shared experiences are futile.

But I do think much of this is due to modernity. The sheer number of men women are visually exposed to through urbanisation and technology warps their sense of what is attractive.