Post: #26

(11-19-2018 01:42 PM)corsega Wrote:  Again, your key word here is dating.

We are on this forum to discuss casual sex.

RSD markets towards guys that want casual sex.

The reason that these groups are fringe extremes is that the vast majority of casual sex happens on the fringe extremes!

Your coworkers/friends/whatever that went to an average university, was in marching band, had 1-4 lifetime partners, and settles down and gets married, are not a part of this conversation.

The 80/20 rule is a strawman, it's actually more like 60/20, but close enough: https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessn...cels-claim

I would agree with this. I just don't like blanket statements like "80% of all girls are banging 20% of all guys", all women are hypergamous, etc etc. Like you said, there is a small percentile of society that acts like this. And in that percentile -- which is solely focused on casual sex -- there is an even smaller minority of men who hook up with the majority of women in that group.

But I will also say that monogamy is still pretty common in America. Honestly almost everyone I know (male and female) either is in A serious relationship or has been in one in the past. I also know plenty of people who have no real desire to hook up/have casual sex. The average notch count isn't depressed because society is full of gameless schmucks. It's depressed because relationships are far, far more common than perpetually being single and chasing sex.

Are there incels? Yes. Are there "dark triad alphas"? Also yes? Are there promisicuous women who regularly bang strangers? Yes. But IMO there are many more men who are in normal relationships, who have never heard of game or hypergamy, and have fulfilling sex lives regardless.

It bears mentioning that people probably have more sex within singular LTRs than they do with FWB's or hookups. Yes, women are attracted to a strong opening approach, but they're also attracted to trust and comfort -- the dark triad alpha traits only go so far. A guy in a four or five year relationship probably has sex an order of magnitude more than someone who is constantly approaching. If you have an attractive girlfriend (which many normal dudes with average personalities do have), this isn't a bad deal at all. In many ways, it offers better return on your time than constantly playing the field.

Where I think the 80/20 principle actually is valid is in regards to the girls you're going after. I firmly believe that 20% of the available women in your environment will yield you 80% of the results. We use this principle in sales as well. This is why I tell guys to more or less dispense with venues or demographics that aren't friendly to them and are consistently rejecting their approach.

Back when I was single, I could have spent all day approaching hood black girls or cliquey ABG black girls (two demographics that regularly blew me out). Instead, I went for demographics that I knew were friendly -- alternative white and Jewish girls, more intellectual black girls, Filipinas, etc. By focusing on the 20% that I knew liked me, I saved time, had better success, and was more efficient. Had I focused on the broader 80%, I would have been beating my head against the wall in frustration.

This is the only real 80/20 split that matters in my opinion. It's not really applicable to social dynamics in any other way.

Post: #27

I hate the red pill blue pill dynamic but it seems you're still very blue pilled.

Which isn't bad.

Post: #28

(11-19-2018 12:19 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 12:17 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 12:16 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 12:13 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  In my 6 years living in Chicago I've seen ONE dude that literally caused me to gawk and think in my head "holy shit that dudes a 10/10".

It only takes one time and your you're gay

my gay?

It s a joke. "Lighten up Francis"

PT, I think he got you on grammer.

Post: #29

(11-19-2018 02:12 PM)scrambled Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 12:13 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  I live in Chicago, downtown, and every time I walk outside, I see beautiful women with average to below average guys. Women that dress like models (7+/10) holding hands with guys with ZERO fashion sense, chubby, balding guys who don't work out.

Photographic evidence please for your busted-dudes with slender hotties claim. I very rarely/never see that in westernized cities.

The main problem is that men underrate other men and overrate women [edit: absofuckinglutely! women and men both do this, underrating their own and overrating the opposite sex, and it ends up with confirmation bias]. 7+ chicks in the USA are not holding hands with chubby/balding/dressed like a child guys unless that guy is paying extra for the girlfriend experience. Even in Ukraine I don't see that unless it is an oligarch (not that I saw even that).

Frankly there are hardly any beautiful women in the USA anymore, as someone else pointed out, our bottom 90% is like the bottom 10% of Eastern Europe.

My sentiments exactly, and taking his word for it about Ukraine. Even if the Ukraine girl weren't as hot, at least she's feminine and would do shit for you. Of course he's overstating the beautiful women thing regarding USA to make the point that western women, even when hot, can offer up the ultimate tease of being just another leech you don't want around long term, let alone raising your kids.

Post: #30

(11-19-2018 03:43 PM)Lampwick Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 01:42 PM)corsega Wrote:  The 80/20 rule is a strawman, it's actually more like 60/20, but close enough: https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessn...cels-claim

I agree with your assessment, and this article has some good data.

Their conclusion on the data is ridiculous though. Paraphrasing: "Sexlessness among never-married men isn't increasing because of increasing female promiscuity, it's because of delay of marriage!"

Who does the author think is delaying marriage? If anything, he's making the case for the incel/red pill view that women's hypergamous nature is a constant, and more women are simply opting out of the marriage pool, preferring to join the rest of the never-married women cohort in fucking the top 20% of guys.

Good post, the problem here is definitional, because of the way that the "game" works --- guys do the asking or the proactive measure of "deciding" to get married, thus the way the article states it is accurate, but it doesn't talk about how the other side has had a dramatic impact on the decision making. You and I know that if the quality of woman (losing fertility and youth for career etc.) is going down, of course these guys are just making rational decisions, given the existing legal structures beyond the commitment to marry, which cinches it.

Post: #31

(11-19-2018 05:20 PM)Tiger Man Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 03:43 PM)Lampwick Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 01:42 PM)corsega Wrote:  The 80/20 rule is a strawman, it's actually more like 60/20, but close enough: https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessn...cels-claim

I agree with your assessment, and this article has some good data.

Their conclusion on the data is ridiculous though. Paraphrasing: "Sexlessness among never-married men isn't increasing because of increasing female promiscuity, it's because of delay of marriage!"

Who does the author think is delaying marriage? If anything, he's making the case for the incel/red pill view that women's hypergamous nature is a constant, and more women are simply opting out of the marriage pool, preferring to join the rest of the never-married women cohort in fucking the top 20% of guys.

While it is true that a certain, small percentage of women have elected to forgo marriage in favor of career or some other thing, most of the delay in and rejection of marriage appears to be coming from men.

In my experience, and this is reflected in a lot of the new data coming out, once a man reaches a certain age (in his 30s), he is less and less likely to marry. Some of this comes from the increasing amount of men who never enter the labor market (making them a useless prospect, so they also drop out of the dating/marriage market). But, an increasing amount is coming from men who are financially successful enough to negate any effects in that area. I've interviewed a lot of these guys. They are successful, well put together, and they (probably correctly) assess that marriage would be a bad deal for them. They aren't MGTOW or "incels" or anything like that. Often, they aren't highly sexually active (promiscuous) either. They have girlfriends. They just don't want to get married.

There are negative effects to all of this, at the societal level. However, it is primarily the women who (psychologically) suffer from this development.

I can speak to this, and while it's more complicated for me, another big reason is that to have a wife and commitment as such, the western society isn't situated to do precisely what the older, wiser, and secure man would want: a young (20s) attractive woman to give him kids and a legacy.

When you get to mid 30s and find out how little people actually want to work, and how upset that grandparents get about girl x or boy y not married with children, you see with crystal clarity how idiotic it is to dangle the career carrot in front of girls during peak years of youth. As if in the West any of these women are holding their bodies together past 26, anyway.

Post: #32

What parts of the US do you guys live in that you can't find feminine women that like to do stuff for their man? That's like 80% of women over 26 except for the very largest cities where it's still easily 50%.

The trick is you may have to be in an LTR to get them to act that way. You may not find them among the bar sluts you're trying to anal that night.

Even in Manhattan I've had pretty, very high-earning girls with and without grad degrees invite me over for a home-cooked dinner and then fuck my balls empty. I bring like a $12 bottle of wine with me. And there are tons of asian/EE immigrants who are super-feminine as well if that's more your style. Jewish girls? Love to take care of their man. They want to lock it down.

Now let's talk about the South - almost every girl is like that. Rich or poor, hot, average, smart or dumb. Let me tell you *the secret* about southern girls -- almost all of them -- even the hot hot ones, will agree to a first date with you if you're both single. I couldn't believe it at first either, even when my boys told me they would; it felt weird to just ask some girl I barely knew on a date [back then]. But it works! Of course it helps to have a job or in school for an advanced degree but that's like....such a low bar.

But if you're talking about a girl who goes clubbing 4 nights a week and hits up AC as well then no, that's not the girl you want for this kind of relationship.

Post: #33

(11-19-2018 08:30 PM)DonnyGately Wrote:  What parts of the US do you guys live in that you can't find feminine women that like to do stuff for their man? That's like 80% of women over 26 except for the very largest cities where it's still easily 50%.

The trick is you may have to be in an LTR to get them to act that way. You may not find them among the bar sluts you're trying to anal that night.

Even in Manhattan I've had pretty, very high-earning girls with and without grad degrees invite me over for a home-cooked dinner and then fuck my balls empty. I bring like a $12 bottle of wine with me. And there are tons of asian/EE immigrants who are super-feminine as well if that's more your style. Jewish girls? Love to take care of their man. They want to lock it down.

Now let's talk about the South - almost every girl is like that. Rich or poor, hot, average, smart or dumb. Let me tell you *the secret* about southern girls -- almost all of them -- even the hot hot ones, will agree to a first date with you if you're both single. I couldn't believe it at first either, even when my boys told me they would; it felt weird to just ask some girl I barely knew on a date [back then]. But it works! Of course it helps to have a job or in school for an advanced degree but that's like....such a low bar.

But if you're talking about a girl who goes clubbing 4 nights a week and hits up AC as well then no, that's not the girl you want for this kind of relationship.

Pretty much this, the notion of all American women being Machiavellian, hypergamous sluts is drastically overstated. And it deserves calling out, because it's an idea that can be seen all over the red pill/manosphere space. I especially dislike it because there are tons of impressionable young men reading this stuff. Game taught me some great lessons, but I also picked up a lot of bullshit from the community that held me back for years.

I honestly held to this belief because prior to my current LTR, I utterly failed at getting commitment from women. I used to excuse the fact that I was a complete failure at getting anything more than a hookup -- it didn't matter if girls wouldn't commit to me, because they were all hypergamous thots anyway, right? This is a belief that comes from insecurity, not from an accurate assessment of society. At best, it comes from guys taking the shitty behavior of plastered club girls and then projecting that across society.

Deep down, I knew that the way I approached women was unhealthy, and that my relationships were cheap and purely sexual. I also knew that my personality and mindset made it impossible for me to genuinely connect with women, be vulnerable around them, and create relationships that went beyond "spitting game", fucking for a couple months, then ghosting each other later down the line.

A big part of game is learning the fundamentals -- but an even bigger part is unlearning all the bullshit beliefs that come with it.

Post: #34

80/20 is pareto law.

How does that apply to this thread?

Post: #35

There are indeed plenty of pussy whipped dudes with decent looking girls, no one is arguing that OP.

No one here wants that though.

If you're good looking you don't need to have a girlfriend, you can just keep em rolling, and dump em without the drama. That's what a Chad is.

Post: #36

-Men are willing to compromise on looks in the pursuit of sex.

-Women are willing to compromise on looks in the pursuit of commitment.

Post: #37

(11-19-2018 08:45 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  Pretty much this, the notion of all American women being Machiavellian, hypergamous sluts is drastically overstated. And it deserves calling out, because it's an idea that can be seen all over the red pill/manosphere space. I especially dislike it because there are tons of impressionable young men reading this stuff. Game taught me some great lessons, but I also picked up a lot of bullshit from the community that held me back for years.

It pains me to think of all the beautiful women that I never gave a chance to because I read so much of this bullshit and let it affect my mind. Beautiful women that gave me the most obvious of chances and I wrote it off as myself not being good enough for them, that they were out of my league, etc.

It's only after I took a step away from everything and really observed my surroundings that I started to believe that it wasn't representative of reality. I nearly became one of those MGTOW idiots even though I'm very well put together.

Post: #38

(11-19-2018 02:12 PM)scrambled Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 12:13 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  I live in Chicago, downtown, and every time I walk outside, I see beautiful women with average to below average guys. Women that dress like models (7+/10) holding hands with guys with ZERO fashion sense, chubby, balding guys who don't work out.

Photographic evidence please for your busted-dudes with slender hotties claim. I very rarely/never see that in westernized cities.

The main problem is that men underrate other men and overrate women. 7+ chicks in the USA are not holding hands with chubby/balding/dressed like a child guys unless that guy is paying extra for the girlfriend experience. Even in Ukraine I don't see that unless it is an oligarch (not that I saw even that).

Frankly there are hardly any beautiful women in the USA anymore, as someone else pointed out, our bottom 90% is like the bottom 10% of Eastern Europe.

This statement is 100% bulllshit in 2005, but pretty much bang on in 2018. I used to wonder how the short fat bald dude had that awesome 24 YO hottie. Now I know it's because she didn't have 4000 dudes messaging her from every fucked up country in the world. Technology has put men and women under the microscope and frankly we both suck. Thirst vs hypergamy, which is worse?

Post: #39

"All of the beautiful women I never gave a chance"

I'm laughing. I rarely come across 7s in real life. I dont doubt DG does in NYC, we've already been through this though.

Post: #40

^^ laugh all you want. Why would I care if you believe me? Ive not made moves on many women because they were way hotter than what I thought I was capable of.

There are plenty of 8+ in chicago.

Post: #41

(11-19-2018 08:45 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  Pretty much this, the notion of all American women being Machiavellian, hypergamous sluts is drastically overstated. And it deserves calling out, because it's an idea that can be seen all over the red pill/manosphere space.

I think this thread has thoroughly couloured in the grey of this 80/20 and the nature of women. Everything in this thread has already been said before, more or less.

I think it's just a question of the grey and your blind spots. You and the OP had/have a blind spot. But you were even more blind to women before you took a hand full of RPs. You've just increased your breadth of knowledge.

The 80:20 as alluded to is more like:



As also alluded to you can divide pretty much anything people desire into such a distribution.

So for bangs:

The mean lifetime bangs is about 5: and this group is generally average people with no game, stumbling into a few social circle relationships and maybe the odd drunk bang

Top 15%: better looking and more charismatic guys - a few more girlfriends and drunk bangs, 6-15 lifetime bangs

Top 3%: notably better looking and charismatic guys - less stable girlfriends, more plates/FWBs, 15-100 lifetime bangs

Top 0.1%: probably average baseline, but maximising as much as possible, plus reading the literature and essentially having a part-time job picking up women, 100+ lifetime bangs.

*****

Through the 20th century, in The West, we saw an opening up of the previously restricted bang market. Then into the 21st century we've seen a rise of PUA + online/apps, which have redistributed bangs towards the top 0.1%. And I bet very few of the top 0.1% are actually typical chads. On average they have probably maximised one attribute, learnt game and crunched the numbers for ten years.

If anything natural chads probably don't feel the need to learn game, as they get enough girls through the course of their normal activities. They don't type things into search engines that lead to this forum.

*****

Then on hypergamy and toxic femininity. You likely find a similar distribution of those attributes as you do incels vs. PUAs (above).

Top 0.1%: Myra Hindley
Top 3%: borderline personality disorder
Top 15%: cluster of mental disorders like narcissistic personality disorder
Top 50%: a bit wobbly - turbulent
Bottom 50%: placid
Bottom: 15%: delightfully submissive
Bottom: 3%: disturbingly submissive
Bottom 0.1%: Elliot Rogers fan girls

Post: #42

(11-19-2018 10:03 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 08:45 PM)Jaxon Wrote:  Pretty much this, the notion of all American women being Machiavellian, hypergamous sluts is drastically overstated. And it deserves calling out, because it's an idea that can be seen all over the red pill/manosphere space. I especially dislike it because there are tons of impressionable young men reading this stuff. Game taught me some great lessons, but I also picked up a lot of bullshit from the community that held me back for years.

It pains me to think of all the beautiful women that I never gave a chance to because I read so much of this bullshit and let it affect my mind. Beautiful women that gave me the most obvious of chances and I wrote it off as myself not being good enough for them, that they were out of my league, etc.

It's only after I took a step away from everything and really observed my surroundings that I started to believe that it wasn't representative of reality. I nearly became one of those MGTOW idiots even though I'm very well put together.

At the end of the day, it's all a journey. I'm currently in a good LTR, good financial position, and am making good progress on my fitness. But I also recognize that I had to go through a lot of bullshit to get to this level. Eliminating the mental complexes that game/the manosphere gave me towards woman. Eliminating blatantly incorrect views on society and social dynamics.

It's unfortunate that you and I ingested a lot of the toxic bullshit from the manosphere, but without it, I wouldn't be where I am today.

I think the single best lesson game taught me was to approach. To just go out and talk to women. It transformed my life. I gained social confidence through the roof and destroyed (most) of my self-doubt around getting laid. Regardless of the psychological damage it wreaked on me and on others, it was still instrumental to my development as a person.

Post: #43

(11-20-2018 02:30 AM)Jaxon Wrote:  At the end of the day, it's all a journey. I'm currently in a good LTR

Question, how complacent are you in the stability of said LTR? Complacency breeds white-knighting. Your viewpoint may suddenly change if your LTR goes sour in a particularly nasty way. From my vantage point, you've got a good thing going for yourself right now and making the mistake of lapsing into a bit of denial over red-pill truths, attributing failure to self-fulfilling pessimism rather than hypergamy. Expect the worst and hope for the best.

Post: #44

(11-21-2018 10:23 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 02:30 AM)Jaxon Wrote:  At the end of the day, it's all a journey. I'm currently in a good LTR

Question, how complacent are you in the stability of said LTR? Complacency breeds white-knighting. Your viewpoint may suddenly change if your LTR goes sour in a particularly nasty way. From my vantage point, you've got a good thing going for yourself right now and making the mistake of lapsing into a bit of denial over red-pill truths, attributing failure to self-fulfilling pessimism rather than hypergamy. Expect the worst and hope for the best.

I get where you're coming from, but honestly, my rejection of hypergamy began long before my LTR. It happened when I got dumped by an FWB in favor of a guy she actually connected with. This guy was shorter than me, less muscular than me, didn't have "game", and wasn't socially connected, but she still went for him over me. At the time, I was in the best shape of my life, was experiencing great success in the game (6 lays in one month, most of which were from daygame) and had a good social life.

This proved to me that women don't operate on some kind of hypergamous ladder where they're constantly looking for a guy more dark triad and alpha than the last. I've regularly lost out on FWBs in favor of guys who were objectively less attractive than me. I fucked the shit out of these girls, but many of them chose genuine human connection over getting banged out by a "dark triad alpha" (I use that term extremely loosely).

Like I said, hypergamy definitely exists among a relatively small subset of women -- women who are constantly jocking to bang the highest status dudes in their environment. There are still many women who are more or less serial monogamists. Plenty are hot and plenty are relationship material.

Post: #45

Apart from airports I have never met many US girls , even for a genuine chat . As soon as an american girl starts talking , it is a -5 for me.

Post: #46

I'm surprised at the amount of RVFer's saying things like: 'you shouldn't take the 80/20 rule literally'. According to the data we absolutely should take the 80/20 rule literally. Above is a graph from data collected by OkCupid where they ask female users to rate men according to their attractiveness. The results showed that the women using the site rated 81% of male users as less attractive than average. Which is mathematically impossible, and corresponds exactly to a gini distribution. Males on the other hand rated female attractiveness on a normal bell curve. With roughly have of the women being more attractive than average and half being less attractive than average.

According to all of the research data I've seen dating markets mimic unregulated financial markets. With the gini distribution (80/20) in full effect. If anyone has some reliable data (not personal anecdotes) to contradict this I'd be interested in seeing it.


The problem OP is having is that he's confusing attractiveness with SMV. A fat badly dress Chicago Hedge fund manager can still have a high enough SMV to allow him to pull hot chicks if he's a multimillionaire. Especially if they're poor or recently arrived immigrant types; and there's a lot of those type of people in Chicago. As well as Instagram lifestyle whores.

Post: #47

(11-23-2018 08:15 PM)mpr Wrote:  

I'm surprised at the amount of RVFer's saying things like: 'you shouldn't take the 80/20 rule literally'. According to the data we absolutely should take the 80/20 rule literally. Above is a graph from data collected by OkCupid where they ask female users to rate men according to their attractiveness. The results showed that the women using the site rated 81% of male users as less attractive than average. Which is mathematically impossible, and corresponds exactly to a gini distribution. Males on the other hand rated female attractiveness on a normal bell curve. With roughly have of the women being more attractive than average and half being less attractive than average.

According to all of the research data I've seen dating markets mimic unregulated financial markets. With the gini distribution (80/20) in full effect. If anyone has some reliable data (not personal anecdotes) to contradict this I'd be interested in seeing it.


The problem OP is having is that he's confusing attractiveness with SMV. A fat badly dress Chicago Hedge fund manager can still have a high enough SMV to allow him to pull hot chicks if he's a multimillionaire. Especially if they're the poor or recently arrived immigrant types; and there's a lot of those type of people in Chicago. As well as Instagram lifestyle whores.

Explain this to me - let's say a guy is a famous actor, for example, like johnny depp. except he's literally a 2 or 3 out of 10. ugly facial features, small pecker, 25-30% bodyfat, balding, poor fashion sense, yellow teeth, bad breath, etc. But he's extremely famous, has hundreds of millions of dollars, great personality as well.

from all that you could conclude that his SMV when considering looks alone is very low, but with all the other things, it's very high - however, are you telling me that when this guy decides to sleep with a woman, she is actually sexually attracted to him? you're telling me she would give him a rimjob, swallow his cum, let him facefuck and degrade her etc, as if it were brad pitt or johnny depp? and if she would just because of who he is, do you think deep down, she actually enjoys it, or is she actually disgusted by it but lets it happen because of who he is?

THAT'S what I really don't get. You can say a man's SMV is high because of game/status/money/personality despite his shitty looks, but for a woman who dates him, is she actually physically attracted to him during the act? or is their attraction methodology completely different? Is it that because of all his other attributes, she actually isn't repulsed by the idea of doing disgusting things in bed for him? does his dick taste better to her because of his other traits?

For me at least, I don't care how much money or status or game or personality a woman has, if she's a 2/10, you couldn't PAY me to go near her and eat her out, for example.

I just know most of the dudes I see have terrible hygiene, bad breath, out of shape bodies, etc, and I just don't understand how women are attracted to them sexually.

Post: #48

(11-23-2018 08:25 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  

(11-23-2018 08:15 PM)mpr Wrote:  I'm surprised at the amount of RVFer's saying things like: 'you shouldn't take the 80/20 rule literally'. According to the data we absolutely should take the 80/20 rule literally. Above is a graph from data collected by OkCupid where they ask female users to rate men according to their attractiveness. The results showed that the women using the site rated 81% of male users as less attractive than average. Which is mathematically impossible, and corresponds exactly to a gini distribution. Males on the other hand rated female attractiveness on a normal bell curve. With roughly have of the women being more attractive than average and half being less attractive than average.

According to all of the research data I've seen dating markets mimic unregulated financial markets. With the gini distribution (80/20) in full effect. If anyone has some reliable data (not personal anecdotes) to contradict this I'd be interested in seeing it.


The problem OP is having is that he's confusing attractiveness with SMV. A fat badly dress Chicago Hedge fund manager can still have a high enough SMV to allow him to pull hot chicks if he's a multimillionaire. Especially if they're the poor or recently arrived immigrant types; and there's a lot of those type of people in Chicago. As well as Instagram lifestyle whores.

Explain this to me - let's say a guy is a famous actor, for example, like johnny depp. except he's literally a 2 or 3 out of 10. ugly facial features, small pecker, 25-30% bodyfat, balding, poor fashion sense, yellow teeth, bad breath, etc. But he's extremely famous, has hundreds of millions of dollars, great personality as well.

from all that you could conclude that his SMV when considering looks alone is very low, but with all the other things, it's very high - however, are you telling me that when this guy decides to sleep with a woman, she is actually sexually attracted to him? you're telling me she would give him a rimjob, swallow his cum, let him facefuck and degrade her etc, as if it were brad pitt or johnny depp? and if she would just because of who he is, do you think deep down, she actually enjoys it, or is she actually disgusted by it but lets it happen because of who he is?

THAT'S what I really don't get. You can say a man's SMV is high because of game/status/money/personality despite his shitty looks, but for a woman who dates him, is she actually physically attracted to him during the act? or is their attraction methodology completely different? Is it that because of all his other attributes, she actually isn't repulsed by the idea of doing disgusting things in bed for him? does his dick taste better to her because of his other traits?

For me at least, I don't care how much money or status or game or personality a woman has, if she's a 2/10, you couldn't PAY me to go near her and eat her out, for example.

Will a woman like that be willing to do what it takes to sexually satisfy an ugly high smv man? Depends on the woman. But the man is in high demand. So if she won't he can easily find a woman who will. Take a trip to the Philippines sometime, or even just somewhere in Europe where prostitution is legal. You'd be shocked at what some attractive women are willing to do to disgusting old men for a couple of dollars.

I don't know if the women are actually attracted to these guys. Considering that women are wired differently than men it's possible. Quite frankly I don't think the guys care. They're just happy that they can bang hot women. Long before Melania Trump became our first lady a reporter interviewing her said: "You wouldn't have married Donald Trump if he wasn't rich!" She simply replied: "Of course. And he wouldn't have married me if I wasn't beautiful."

Post: #49

(11-23-2018 08:15 PM)mpr Wrote:  

I'm surprised at the amount of RVFer's saying things like: 'you shouldn't take the 80/20 rule literally'. According to the data we absolutely should take the 80/20 rule literally. Above is a graph from data collected by OkCupid where they ask female users to rate men according to their attractiveness. The results showed that the women using the site rated 81% of male users as less attractive than average. Which is mathematically impossible, and corresponds exactly to a gini distribution. Males on the other hand rated female attractiveness on a normal bell curve. With roughly have of the women being more attractive than average and half being less attractive than average.

According to all of the research data I've seen dating markets mimic unregulated financial markets. With the gini distribution (80/20) in full effect. If anyone has some reliable data (not personal anecdotes) to contradict this I'd be interested in seeing it.

No, we should not take the 80/20 rule seriously. And if we do, it definitely shouldn't be because of the professional propagandists and social engineers at OKCupid.

This survey is deeply flawed for reason I'll explain below. First off, it was commissioned by an online dating service, not the National Institutes of Health. Even professional groups are known to fudge numbers and OKC is far from professional.

The survey is flawed because it views people in a vacuum. It looks at one thing: How people view PHOTOS of the opposite sex. Not actual humans, mind you. But PHOTOS of humans.

When it comes to photography, the best subjects have always been women. People like to look at women. Look at all the magazine covers. Women's magazine covers feature women. So do men's mags. Ever wonder why? Also look at how Playboy set the standard for photography but Playgirl was a laughingstock.

Sociologically speaking, women look best while posed and men look best in-action (i.e. the "Mona Lisa" vs. classic Greek sculptures of men). This reflects our roles in real life. So, photos themselves are more forgiving to women. As were paintings.

Go a bit deeper into all this and you'll notice women take a lot of time with "staging" their pics. For that matter, women take more time staging their houses. Women (most of them, anyway) are more about presentation than men.

Conversely, men tend to be less discriminating about how they present themselves. Why? Because women know their being judged mostly on looks and men know they get judged on what they do. Men tend to think 1). "I'm successful! Why the hell do I need to get dolled up like a pretty boy?" or 2). If I do myself up too much I'll look gay.

So, when all is said and done: Photos lie and women are deceptive. Hence the results of this self-serving survey.

I'd like OKC to conduct a survey how their users viewed each other out in the real world when they finally meet. My guess is that the results would swing the opposite way.

From what I see, it's mostly the men who have the "OMG! NOOOO!" moments when they meet women in real life. I've read stories on blogs about going to meet "hot" chicks from OKC who turned out to be so fat they could barely get through the front door.

Something tells me you won't see OKC putting out survey results about that anytime soon.

Post: #50

(11-23-2018 09:19 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(11-23-2018 08:15 PM)mpr Wrote:  I'm surprised at the amount of RVFer's saying things like: 'you shouldn't take the 80/20 rule literally'. According to the data we absolutely should take the 80/20 rule literally. Above is a graph from data collected by OkCupid where they ask female users to rate men according to their attractiveness. The results showed that the women using the site rated 81% of male users as less attractive than average. Which is mathematically impossible, and corresponds exactly to a gini distribution. Males on the other hand rated female attractiveness on a normal bell curve. With roughly have of the women being more attractive than average and half being less attractive than average.

According to all of the research data I've seen dating markets mimic unregulated financial markets. With the gini distribution (80/20) in full effect. If anyone has some reliable data (not personal anecdotes) to contradict this I'd be interested in seeing it.

No, we should not take the 80/20 rule seriously. And if we do, it definitely shouldn't be because of the professional propagandists and social engineers at OKCupid.

This survey is deeply flawed for reason I'll explain below. First off, it was commissioned by an online dating service, not the National Institutes of Health. Even professional groups are known to fudge numbers and OKC is far from professional.

The survey is flawed because it views people in a vacuum. It looks at one thing: How people view PHOTOS of the opposite sex. Not actual humans, mind you. But PHOTOS of humans.

When it comes to photography, the best subjects have always been women. People like to look at women. Look at all the magazine covers. Women's magazine covers feature women. So do men's mags. Ever wonder why? Also look at how Playboy set the standard for photography but Playgirl was a laughingstock.

Sociologically speaking, women look best while posed and men look best in-action (i.e. the "Mona Lisa" vs. classic Greek sculptures of men). This reflects our roles in real life. So, photos themselves are more forgiving to women. As were paintings.

Go a bit deeper into all this and you'll notice women take a lot of time with "staging" their pics. For that matter, women take more time staging their houses. Women (most of them, anyway) are more about presentation than men.

Conversely, men tend to be less discriminating about how they present themselves. Why? Because women know their being judged mostly on looks and men know they get judged on what they do. Men tend to think 1). "I'm successful! Why the hell do I need to get dolled up like a pretty boy?" or 2). If I do myself up too much I'll look gay.

So, when all is said and done: Photos lie and women are deceptive. Hence the results of this self-serving survey.

I'd like OKC to conduct a survey how their users viewed each other out in the real world when they finally meet. My guess is that the results would swing the opposite way.

From what I see, it's mostly the men who have the "OMG! NOOOO!" moments when they meet women in real life. I've read stories on blogs about going to meet "hot" chicks from OKC who turned out to be so fat they could barely get through the front door.

Something tells me you won't see OKC putting out survey results about that anytime soon.

That would be fine if the only data I was relying on was from okcupid. I've seen multiple other statistical analyses that all come to the same conclusion. I posted a link to one in my original post using data from tinder. There have been other studies done using photo's taken independently by researchers, and then rated by both sexes that come to the same conclusion.

I agree that women are more likely to be SIF's. Perhaps that does change the overall dating market. But I doubt it. Especially considering that almost all other unregulated markets seem to adhere to a Pareto distribution. In any case it seems most reasonable to base one's beliefs on the empirical findings that we have. Regardless of their potential shortcomings. Incomplete knowledge is better than no knowledge at all.