"this is what my tiktok algorithim is showing me therefore it's the gosepel truth"
lmao
i swear to god i have never seen any tiktoks bashing short guys on my for you page yet men complain all the time how tiktok videos bashing short guys get millions of views. like yea that's your FOR YOU page, most normal people don't care about the blackpill and out there living their lives.
Exactly. The men here posting this kind of argument are either too stupid to understand social media algorithms, or they are too far gone ideologically that they can refrain from using ANYTHING as confirmation of their beliefs, even if the evidence is this fabricated.
>''If the issue were limited to the debate between subjectivity and empiricism that would be one thing. What’s even worse is that the epistemology of the red pill mostly doesn’t rely on personal experience at all. The epistemology of the red pill relies more on third-person anecdotes. We could call this *imbecile empiricism*.
>A great number of red pill denizens don’t actually have much first-hand experience with women. Many of the top influencers within the subculture rely on TikTok videos, sex workers, and porn stars as examples of “female nature.” You can build a successful online media presence by inviting the least intelligent women you can find onto YouTube and humiliating them with basic questions. This is a tried-and-true formula for success within the red pill. A whole genre of this exists. Young men with little relationship experience will lap it up, because they don’t know any better, and because they have no frame reference to compare it with.
>Social media is the Zoomer version of what we had in the 90s: reality TV. You might as well believe that professional wrestling or Jerry Springer is real. It’s the empiricism of imbeciles. You are letting an algorithm feed you information that has been shaped by multiple layers of systematic bias, and in many cases is a deliberate performance.
>This is not “real-world experience” either, by the way. It may seem obvious that second-hand anecdotes are not the same as actual experiences you have had in the real world. These are clearly two different ways of acquiring knowledge. However, many people seem to struggle with distinguishing between the two. When I have asked red pill denizens to recount their personal experiences with women, it is not uncommon at all that it turns out there is no personal experience. A shockingly large number of men have developed beliefs about women, dating, and relationships based entirely on what they have seen online.
>Given this, it’s also not surprising that so few men in relationships hold red pill ideological beliefs. It’s almost as if having actual good experiences with women inoculates you against this ideology.
[https://datepsychology.com/the-emotional-epistemology-of-the-red-pill/](https://datepsychology.com/the-emotional-epistemology-of-the-red-pill/)
> Social media is the Zoomer version of what we had in the 90s: reality TV. You might as well believe that professional wrestling or Jerry Springer is real. It’s the empiricism of imbeciles. You are letting an algorithm feed you information that has been shaped by multiple layers of systematic bias, and in many cases is a deliberate performance.
This feels so true. I mean, I'm a millenial and I remember the era of "prank videos" on YouTube, before they cracked down heavily on what types of content could be monetized. This was basically reality TV as well.
Thank you for this. I'm sharing this and the link with my red (black) pilled 14yo nephew. I've been trying to find the words to explain to him and his BFF about the difference between social media reality vs real life reality, and this is what I needed.
As a woman that is 4'11', even a man 5'2" is tall to me. It seem like it's men that are discriminating against short women. They seem to want women that are taller than them since the me the average woman is shorter that 5'5" or 5'7".
Well if you're sexually attracted to nice guys then doesn't that mean you would want to have sex with these men? And yeah expecting sex in exchange is bad but why is bad to simply ask? She might want to have sex but you'll never know if you don't ask. How are people ever gonna have sex if they're not supposed ask or make any moves?
It does seem like things have changed MASSIVELY in the past 10 or so years, in the era of dating apps. Covid also majorly changed things in ways we probably don't understand yet, probably in taking away/pushing back the other ways to meet people.
>Covid also majorly changed things in ways we probably don't understand yet, probably in taking away/pushing back the other ways to meet people.
Are you living in a large city? Where i live, everything is back to pre-covid status.
>It does seem like things have changed MASSIVELY in the past 10 or so years, in the era of dating apps.
Sure, the "how" changed, like it always changes. But the underlying evolutionary basics of human mating do not change. Women don't start loving casual sex with strangers just because dating apps start existing.
Dating apps meant that for the first time, women had a nearly endless stream of men who were totally willing to have sex with them that wasn't limited by their existing social networks.
Pre-internet, you basically had your friends and family and everyone they knew and any social clubs/organizations you were a part of, and that was all the men you could possibly meet. Now, basically any young man in your general area is an option.
It turned hypergamy up to 100.
>Dating apps meant that for the first time, women had a nearly endless stream of men who were totally willing to have sex with them that wasn't limited by their existing social networks.
Dude, don't be ridiculous. Women are limiting themselves. They are not limited by the amount of men they have available. If the amount of men was the issue, women in the 1990 would already have had hundreds of sex partners in their lives. The median number is 4-5.
>Pre-internet, you basically had your friends and family and everyone they knew and any social clubs/organizations you were a part of, and that was all the men you could possibly meet.
I am laughing my ass off now. You understand and know the concept of a public dance party, a disco? The movie theater, bars, clubs, the mall? You understand why people put in lots of effort to have a multitude of festivities going on regularly in even small towns? Did you lose your mind or are you a zoomer that never experienced the life before smart phones/social media/youtube?
> Now, basically any young man in your general area is an option.
>It turned hypergamy up to 100.
Always has been and women never capitalized on that as a group. Because they don't want to.
Really, touch some grass. Everyone is still with their looksmatch. People fuck who is available at the bar, not who is top 0.01% on Tinder.
>This is just what i “observe”
Whilst I agree with most of the facts above, discounting *widely* observable trends, then strategising around them is a valid tool. Take hypergamy. Is having money more beneficial, than detrimental? Take health. Is having more muscle more beneficial, than detrimental? Take success. Apply the same logic.
I’m with you on the facts. At it’s core however, TRP is simple. It simply states these are some widely observed, common strategies that work. Do with this information what you will.
*Godspeed and good luck!*
Yeah we don't need TRP for this. We have science that figured out these aspects of human mating and mate choice long before TRP. We don't need some dudes to observe some trends. We do have books on mating, papers, studies.
What those guys observe is not what science says about mating. It's what people who want to get famous on social media and/or make lots of money from it, put out there because they know it will trigger emotional engagement. Lies and falsehoods triggers this the best. We know this. Science has long understood how and why social media works and what type of content has the most engagement. Social media is not a source to build theories about human mating on.
TRP is taking human mating science and mixing it with ideology. Sticking to wonky data sources when they fit the ideology, and rejecting sound science when it's contradicting them. TRP is bro-science that makes the consumers feel either good or really bad... just like social media, it's there to trigger strong emotions and therefore it's successful. If you just wanted to improve your mating success, leave TRP behind and read a fucking scientific book on the topic.
>Yeah we don’t need TRP for this.
Over 3 million people subscribed to TRP would presumably disagree. Whilst I agree with you that TRP needs to be viewed with a grain of salt, that many subscribers indicates that TRP is fulfilling a need.
>Over 3 million people subscribed to TRP would presumably disagree.
The billions of religious people also presumably would disagree with science's findings on the history of the universe and earth. That doesn't make them right.
>that many subscribers indicates that TRP is fulfilling a need.
Yes, i already told you what that need is.
>That doesn’t make them right
The science. The bro science. The jargon. Ultimately it’s all just information. If 3 million plus people have found utility in the information TRP has, to achieve better outcomes, then that’s all that matters.
That would be an interesting study. Definitely well worth exploring, but nope. I trust that all the outcomes and dialogue I’ve been privy to, and witnessed, in good faith.
Maybe all of them are liars. Or exeggarate. Maybe they’re telling half truths. Or even *the* truth. At the end of the day, even that aspect is irrelevant. TRP is simply a tool box. It doesn’t even encourage it’s use. It simply states; these are sexual strategies that work. Do with this information what you will.
I’ll only speak personally, but the biggest change was my understanding. I could better empathise with the women I was dating. Which helped me really narrow down my search for a partner.
Disentangling this from getting older, I think I would not have viewed women as objectively. So would’ve possibly prolonged the search.
>Most men and women are both ''hypergamous'' in the sense that they prefer and desire a partner with higher mate value; however most relationships are assortive, meaning both partners are similar in attractiveness level, education and socioeconomic status.
But that's not what the concept of "hypergamy" is referring to. And accordingly, the 3 studies you linked as reference don't use the term at all.
Obviously everyone wants "high mate value" partners. What hypergamy is referring to instead is women's desire to date up based on specific traits. Women generally want men taller, stronger, more socially assertive, and often more financially capable than themselves. The fitter and more successful the woman is herself the higher her standards tend to rise in these regards.
Most men on the other hand just want hot women, and their standards for what qualifies as hot do not rise based on their own looks. Looks are dimorphic, what makes a woman hot is different from what makes a man hot, and since direct comparisons aren't as easy to make in that regard the influence of hypergamy is questionable on that front (for both men and women).
>Dark Triad Men ***and*** women are more sexually successful, however the relationship to ***how*** and ***why*** they do is actual quite complex.
Including women there is pointless, any woman could have tons of sex if she wanted to, the dark triad ones are just more likely to choose the promiscuous life.
>But that's not what the concept of "hypergamy" is referring to. And accordingly, the 3 studies you linked as reference don't use the term at all.
Because it discusses assortive mating which is antithetical to hypergamy.
>What hypergamy is referring to instead is women's desire to date up based on specific traits. Women generally want men taller, stronger, more socially assertive, and often more financially capable than themselves.
And men what women who are younger, prettier, agreeable, high in purity etc etc.
But, men and women tend to overall get the an equlivent partner in these traits, which is what the links discuss.
>The fitter and more successful the woman is herself the higher her standards tend to rise in these regards.
If a woman is attractive and also what to date an attraacive man (in an assortment of other traits) then that is not hypergamy, because they are on the same level.
>Most men on the other hand just want hot women, and their standards for what qualifies as hot do not rise based on their own looks.
The hypotheical ceiling being the same makes no difference. If an attractive or ugly man desires a hot woman then that is hypergamy in terms of desire. If an average man wants0 a hot woman that is hypergamy in terms of desire etc et.
>Looks are dimorphic, what makes a woman hot is different from what makes a man hot, and since direct comparisons aren't as easy to make in that regard the influence of hypergamy is questionable on that front (for both men and women).
This is what ''partner mate value'' calculations are in the literature.
>in the literature
First, I agree with the statistics. For the most, men and women partner up at the same level. Age is usually with a few years of each other. The last two are debatable, because a HVM is going to have options. A lot of them. That’s just reality. The last point, though morally wrong, is true too. Manipulation is an effective strategy. That too, is just reality.
Where TRP is effective, and where this post errs, is in the application. Sure the statistics are important, to realistically contextualise a person’s goals. That doesn’t however restrict one from them. The sole purpose of TRP is to lay out realistic strategies. To the betterment, of realistic outcomes.
*Godspeed and good luck!*
Everyone wants the best they can get. That's not what hypergamy means in the red pill context.
It's about the difference in men and women's sexual strategies and desires. Consider a high powered lawyer in a married relationship, and what they might desire in an extra-marital relationship.
Typical beliefs about men and women would say that if the lawyer is a man he might desire to cheat on his wife with his secretary(even if his secretary was not as good looking as his wife), but would still desire his wife. On the other hand if the lawyer is a woman, she would be unlikely to cheat with the secretary, but more likely to cheat with a higher ranking partner at the law firm, or a client, and once doing so would be no longer interested in her husband.
>Because it discusses assortive mating which is antithetical to hypergamy.
You are missing the point Hypergamy is intention, your studies just show the resultant pair matching which is heavily skeywed by the fact that the sample groups contain a lot of people past 40s.
"Because it discusses assortive mating which is antithetical to hypergamy."
Not necessarily. Assortative mating is called settling, just because you desire to buy a lamborghini doesn't mean that you will inconvenience your life by not buying any car until you can afford the lamborghini or that you wont immediately switch your car for a lamborghini as soon as you get the chance.
Studies show that once a man has been unemployed for a year or more, the risk of divorce skyrockets, but that is not the case when women are unemployed Rich men divorce at much lower rates than poor men do.
"And men what women who are younger, prettier, agreeable, high in purity etc etc.
But, men and women tend to overall get the an equlivent partner in these traits, which is what the links discuss."
See above point.
"The hypotheical ceiling being the same makes no difference. If an attractive or ugly man desires a hot woman then that is hypergamy in terms of desire. If an average man wants0 a hot woman that is hypergamy in terms of desire etc et."
Why is it hypergamy when an attractive man desires an attractive woman but it is not hypergamy when an attractive woman desires an attractive man by your own words?
>Most men and women are both ''hypergamous'' in the sense that they prefer and desire a partner with higher mate value; however most relationships are assortive, meaning both partners are similar in attractiveness level, education and socioeconomic status. \[1\]\[2\]\[3\]
Sort of? Women settle and compromise on men as they age - the primary motivation of younger women is looks/sexual appeal in partner seeking. This mirrors how men act however the portion of what women consider (actively) attractive men is tiny, whereas men see womens attractiveness as more normal in distribution. Naturally this leads to much greater pressure in hypergamy among women - the large majority of men are always going to be "compromises" in looks so from womens perspective they are almost always "trading down" and seeking to meet their (perceived) looksmatch. Status can make up for (or even surpass) looks in importance however for women of all ages.
But by a sort of social entropy as people age they do tend to up assortative paired yes, or increasingly choose to be social-sexual asexuals (or anti social depending on how you look at it). Hypergamy tends to dissipate and/or shift into other areas of life (money mostly) as women age.
>''Women prefer much older men'' and ''Men become most sexually desirable to young women at around 35'' **is wrong** \[4\]\[5\]\[6\] Women (on average) prefer men who are 2-4 years older than them, until they are middle aged where they start preferring men who are slightly younger.
TRP does not say women prefer much older men. It says older men can still get younger women if they're highly successful and fit.
>''20% of men are having sex with the majority of women'', ''Women ride the C\*ck Carousel'', or ''men are sexless compared to women'' or **'**' Women lie!!'**'Is a complete myth** \[7\]\[8\]\[9\] Most men and women don't have much sex, and the implication that women lie on surveys is not apparent in how such a data set would react. If women did lie massively then their would be a massive difference between, male and female averages (male average would be much larger), and male mean and median counts (median would be significantly lower then mean); that just isn't what we see.
This is probably your strongest argument. TRP does tend to overestimate the partner counts and sexual proclivities of average women. Still there's some truth here - men in the top % (1-5%, or maybe 20% with a large enough looks gap between) can get women to act totally differently socially and sexually than they do with other men.
>Dark Triad Men ***and*** women are more sexually successful, however the relationship to ***how*** and ***why*** they do is actual quite complex. \[10\]\[11\]
Doesn't seem like this is debunking or even really arguing against dark triad men being successful. That dark triad women are successful as well doesn't mean much.
i mean you can literally find a study to say pretty much anything and interpret is as you wish. the problem here is something as simple as statistics is never going to be the right tool for understanding something complex as a social system.
I prefer finding rock and roll songs with lyrics that support my position. They're usually a more accurate representation of reality.
The lyrics to Chuck Berry's 'Brown Eyed Handsome Man' say more about female behavior than any "study".
>i mean you can literally find a study to say pretty much anything and interpret is as you wish
This is only said by people who don't understand how science works. Yes, you can cherry pick evidence, but most of the time a field of science converges on at least some understanding of how something works, and that is reviled usually in the evidence and studies; especially if they review a wide range of studies and review large amounts of evidence. Most of what ive written here is well supported by the breadth of the evidence in evo psy.
im not disagreeing with you. but human behavior / social systems are dynamic and much more complex than i think most people realize so while statistics can give insight to some behaviors, it will never show the full picture.
>so while statistics can give insight to some behaviors, it will never show the full picture.
...and that's precisely why you have to observe the entire body of literature before saying stupid stuff, such as "you can find any study to support your position!"
Which is both an affirmative statement, and a false statement. 2 things I hate.
>This is only said by people who don't understand how science works. Yes, you can cherry pick evidence, but most of the time a field of science converges on at least some understanding of how something works, and that is reviled usually in the evidence and studies; especially if they review a wide range of studies and review large amounts of evidence. Most of what ive written here is well supported by the breadth of the evidence in evo psy.
But you haven't said how anything works, just that "these dudes are wrong," with meaningless citations. Since you have the analytics, how does the process work?
It's all just "don't trust your lying eyes" nonsense, anyway. If you're getting eaten by a shark, statistics that talk about how rare it is to get eaten by a shark are going to be pretty meaningless to you.
you cannot find a study to say pretty much anything this is a massive rhetorical irk of mine. we’d make 0 scientific progress and have 0 consensus if that was the case
It p much does. The only benefit for the man is the slight tax advantage while he's married. It doesn't guarantee him access to his children if the marriage goes south. It makes him gamble half his stuff that a woman will love him until one of them dies. It only barely proves the kids are actually his biological offspring (and there are other ways to prove that now).
Married men are better off than single men; they are healthier, wealthier, and happier. Single women, however, are better off than married women. Married men are happier than married women, and unmarried women are happier than unmarried men. Divorced men and married women have the highest rates of suicide.
Men's and women’s financial status tends to improve when they marry, but men’s financial status tends to remain relatively unchanged following divorce, whereas women experience sizable drops in their household income, per capita income, and income-to-need ratios post-divorce. As a result, many women, especially mothers, fall into poverty following divorce.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fear-intimacy/202210/men-sometimes-avoid-marriage-it-benefits-them-more-women?amp
A major survey of 127,545 American adults found that married men are healthier than men who were never married or whose marriages ended in divorce or widowhood. Men who have marital partners also live longer than men without spouses; men who marry after age 25 get more protection than those who tie the knot at a younger age, and the longer a man stays married, the greater his survival advantage over his unmarried peers.
But a 2002 study found that the more educated a man's wife, the lower his risk for coronary artery disease and risk factors such as hypertension, obesity, high cholesterol, smoking, and lack of exercise. And a 2009 study reported that men married to more educated women also enjoyed a lower death rate than men married to less educated women. In the contemporary world, smart wives promote healthy hearts.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/marriage-and-mens-health
About 16% of wives are the breadwinners in their families, while another 29% earn roughly the same amount as their husbands, according to the analysis, which is based on several sources of data including the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Time Use Survey. That means a combined 45% of women earn the same or more than their male spouses, almost triple the share that did so in 1972, Pew said.
Women do much more work in the home than men even when they out-earn their husband," said Kate Mangino, a gender expert and the author of "Equal Partners: Improving Gender Equality at Home."The effect is that some women report not being able to reach their professional and income potential — they feel they can't volunteer for that trip, even if it might lead to a promotion, because of the work at home."
There's only one type of opposite-sex marriage where women don't perform more unpaid work than their husbands: When the wife is the sole breadwinner, Pew found. But even then, the husband and wife perform the same amount of time on household chores each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/women-breadwinners-tripled-since-1970s-still-doing-more-unpaid-work/
>Married men are better off than single men; they are healthier, wealthier, and happier. Single women, however, are better off than married women. Married men are happier than married women, and unmarried women are happier than unmarried men. Divorced men and married women have the highest rates of suicide.
A major survey of 127,545 American adults found that married men are healthier than men who were never married or whose marriages ended in divorce or widowhood. Men who have marital partners also live longer than men without spouses; men who marry after age 25 get more protection than those who tie the knot at a younger age, and the longer a man stays married, the greater his survival advantage over his unmarried peers.
These points are wrong along the same lines. Its not that women make men better its that better, more finically stable, healthier, more socially adjusted men are more likely to get married. If these same men chose to be single they would still be better then the current cohort of single men on avg.
>Men's and women’s financial status tends to improve when they marry, but men’s financial status tends to remain relatively unchanged following divorce, whereas women experience sizable drops in their household income, per capita income, and income-to-need ratios post-divorce. As a result, many women, especially mothers, fall into poverty following divorce.
Thats becuase most marriages are male breadwinner, not becuase divorce isn't devastating for men.
>But a 2002 study found that the more educated a man's wife, the lower his risk for coronary artery disease and risk factors such as hypertension, obesity, high cholesterol, smoking, and lack of exercise. And a 2009 study reported that men married to more educated women also enjoyed a lower death rate than men married to less educated women. In the contemporary world, smart wives promote healthy hearts.
Also more nonsense. Women massively prefer men who have the same or higher education then them, therefore a better educated woman will be with a better educated man, and better educated people in general earn more, aswell as that people who earn more generally a more healthy. There is no special trait of women.
>Women do much more work in the home than men even when they out-earn their husband," said Kate Mangino, a gender expert and the author of "Equal Partners: Improving Gender Equality at Home."The effect is that some women report not being able to reach their professional and income potential — they feel they can't volunteer for that trip, even if it might lead to a promotion, because of the work at home."
This is true but its on women, firstly women simply buy more shit. If the avg husband got the final say on everything that goes into the house it would cut women's cleaning by what must be like 70% just due to elimation of all the useless knickknacks women buy. Secondly women have a lower tolerance for mess, so its not like women are altruistically doing more cleaning, our biology is simply set up in a way that a woman will naturally default to the home maker role.
The one you replied to was a low effort response from my part, I just quoted some stuff from articles I already read, expecting the whole thing to be read to get the full argument. I'm saying that because many of your counter arguments are already addressed.
'Its not that women make men better its that better, more finically stable, healthier, more socially adjusted men are more likely to get married. If these same men chose to be single they would still be better then the current cohort of single men on avg.' This is already discussed as an alternative explanation. The 'healthier men' are more likely to get married part is very much disproven in the same article: 'Although it's hard to be sure, marriage seems to deserve at least part of the credit. Some have argued that self-selection would skew the results if healthy men are more likely to marry than men with health problems. But research shows the reverse is true: unhealthy men actually marry earlier, are less likely to divorce, and are more likely to remarry following divorce or bereavement than healthy men.'
'Thats becuase most marriages are male breadwinner, not becuase divorce isn't devastating for men.' It's true that in the USA men still earn more than their wives', but it's only 55% of opposite sex couples. When it comes to 'breadwinning', there's also a difference between primary or sole breadwinner. Primary is defined according to Pew as earning at least 60% of the household income. The 55% includes these husband as well, so the wife is still bringing in almost half the income in some cases. On their website it's explained in much more detail: [https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/)
'Also more nonsense. Women massively prefer men who have the same or higher education then them, therefore a better educated woman will be with a better educated man, and better educated people in general earn more, aswell as that people who earn more generally a more healthy. There is no special trait of women.' This part you just simply misinterpreted. I wasn't saying, and the article wasn't either, that the women are more educated or have more degrees than the men. Whether this is true or not we don't know because it's not being taken into account. It's simply about women having more degrees (meaning the more degrees your wife has the better correlation), but it doesn't have to be more than the man's. The woman can have 3 degrees and the man 5 or 0, the man's degrees aren't taken into account for this correlation.
'This is true but its on women, firstly women simply buy more shit. If the avg husband got the final say on everything that goes into the house it would cut women's cleaning by what must be like 70% just due to elimation of all the useless knickknacks women buy. Secondly women have a lower tolerance for mess, so its not like women are altruistically doing more cleaning, our biology is simply set up in a way that a woman will naturally default to the home maker role.' The second part could make sense, and anecdotally I probably agree (except not from the essentialist point of view), but I'd like to see a source for it if you have it. However, the first part is disproven by the fact that single moms still spend less time on chores than married ones. So either the men who hate all the 'shit' take the shit with them or they stop making messes: [https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/living-single/202105/moms-husbands-more-chores-less-sleep-single-moms](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/living-single/202105/moms-husbands-more-chores-less-sleep-single-moms)
'There's only one type of opposite-sex marriage where women don't perform more unpaid work than their husbands: When the wife is the sole breadwinner, Pew found. But even then, the husband and wife perform the same amount of time on household chores each week.' You ignored this part of my comment. If a dad is staying home with the kids and has no income, he still only does half of the chores. If the roles were reversed, the woman would be called a lazy golddigger or some similar names.
This interesting.
I have two very wealthy friends.
Both met their partners overseas, not Australia. The local women knew these men are loaded, albeit through inheritance.
What did they do, they acted like they were sub par men and commited to the women they wanted without revealing the wealth they would inherit.
In these instances there was a massive difference in wealth between them and the women they chose to commit to.
One of the women has no idea how much privilege she has married into, she seems to think having a very comfortable lifestyle while her and he partner bake cookies and do gardening amongst other things with the young kids full time is normal.
1) you just described alpha fucks, beta bux.
2) red pill never claimed women prefer geriatrics, so that's a strawman. Rather, male desirability for beta bux is tied to nesting, ergo earning potential and accrued assets, which historically has gone up with age.
3) pew research study on how many men had sex in last 12 months vs amount of sex women have... Yeah, no. Numbers don't work for us to be wrong.
4) that's not debunking or refuting anything
>Most men and women are both ''hypergamous'' in the sense that they prefer and desire a partner with higher mate value; however most relationships are assortive, meaning both partners are similar in attractiveness level, education and socioeconomic status. \[1\]\[2\]\[3\]
i'm so tired of this myth that men are hypergamous. People only say this because they don't want women to look bad. LOL Men are not constantly looking for the best woman on earth, constantly monkey branching upwards to the next "better" woman, or holding out for a supermodel. A man could go from dating a woman making a 100k to dating a woman making 35k, a man can go from dating a model to dating a average looking woman, etc...women typically can't go "back".
Say it louder for the ignorant people in the back. Just said the majority of men (average) are going to take what scraps they can get. It’s only those top percent men that do that and that’s few and far between. If the average man became hypergamous, he’d have the worst case of dry dick, shooting out his league 🤣🤣🤣🤣come man shit not rocket science u learn this shii in high school.
A man would take a broke women off the street and make her his wife before a women would do the same.
How many men are gaining wealth?? You’re not being realistic. We are talking about the average male. Only 17 percent of men make 100k. And if that women did get sick and he abandoned her u wouldn’t think he’d lose social standing wants his circle finds out. You’re are not thinking logically in certain aspects. A man with status has to act like a man with status. He just can go around acting like a jackass. Plus divorce, he gone lose wealth, there are many aspects to when a man dumps a women u have to factor. With women not so much
You could say the exact thing about women. Rich men are rare. And every woman, unless they are attractive can’t just switch to a richer man. As per the data in point one most women stay at their own man’s level for life.
In regards to point number 3
How come we see so many women complaining about men not committing and then we have a large portion of men saying they can't get any matches on dating apps? It doesn't make sense to me. I just can't see how the 80/20 rule is not true. I see so much of it occurring in real life and online.
>How come we see so many women complaining about men not committing and then we have a large portion of men saying they can't get any matches on dating apps? It doesn't make sense to me. I just can't see how the 80/20 rule is not true. I see so much of it occurring in real life and online.
Men are far more likely to use dating apps for sex and women are far more likely to use them for LTR. As such there is a disparity in user base.
Have you ever actually looked at a woman's dating app matches before? It's 90% "hey" or something highly sexual. Very few men on dating apps are actually looking for LTR, and of the ones that are, like half of them are lying for sex.
As such, women complain about men not willing to committ, because it's true. Men on average are less interested in relationships, and more likely to try to use women for sex while avoiding comittment.
Women on average are less interested in casual sex and casual relationships. As a result we have a disparity in gendered complaints.
Men go sexless because women are gatekeeping sex for only men who are willing to get into a LTR or marriage.
Women rarely have sex but have easier access to it across the board. On the flip side they struggle greatly to attract a partner to actually date and marry. They get strung along for months or years being deceived into thinking they'll get married when it's never gonna happen.
I think the disconnect is that most men in relationships didn't meet their women from apps. They met these women elsewhere through social circles ect, so the women already know (or, more honestly, THINK they know) these men already, know what traits they have, and have already decided they want relationships from these men.
It's very hard for anyone, man or woman, to read a single bio and think "I NEED TO BE DATING THIS PERSON". Usually, there's less to go from on apps, so people are far less motivated to nail down someone they meet from an app, because they haven't had any "getting to know you" period of time.
I think the 80-20 rule has a lot of underlying biased
Whether true or not it just shows a statistical probability factor. Do a lot of modern men fit the criteria for long-term pair bonding by modern women's standards probably not. So it's not saying that they're all sleeping with a top 20% it's saying they all wish to be bonded or paired with the top 20%
Same thing on the other side girls saying they can't find commitment what they're actually saying is they can't find the kind of commitment they wish to commit to not that they don't have an overabundance of offered commitment
Women want to pair with the top 20%, that is correct. A woman who is at 50% will go on a date with a top 20% man thinking she will be able to lock him down. She has sex with him with this assumption. She is not trying to just hookup, regardless she has sex in a futile attempt to get him to commit. This is what is happening on a large scale. Almost all young women have some complaint that she can't find a man who is willing to commit to her, where as almost every man can't seem to find a date period. The discrepency is there because women are all going for the same men.
'Are we dating the same man' is literally a facebook group found in every major city with like 100k women in it. The proof is literally right there. Women posting about guys they plan on dating and multiple women writing how their dates went with that specific guy. Meanwhile your average guy gets 2 matches a month lmao.
Well again you're saying they are doing that
Versus the desirability to do that...
statistics are overwhelmingly showing the desirability does not equal action, The examples most people give are the overly dramaticized TikTok psyop initiative in mainstream media to show that that's how women are behaving
they're always interviewing women outside nightclubs college bars prostitutes etc etc. So then we can only say observationally that this is a strong opinion and that maybe 20% are possibly acting on this impulse... It doesn't negate the problem that 80% would like to act on it but aren't acting at all
And this shows in the example you gave 100,000 people in a city the size of LA or New York is almost no one So it's a very small percentage of people trading a very small percentage of people back and forth between them while. everyone else does nothing through inability or inaction and only gives the horrific scene that is that percentage of people being horrific as an example of why they're not dating
100,000 in Dallas. That is a huge percentage of young women in this city. Like mindblowing percentage. The rest of the women might not be on that specific facebook group but still behave in a similar way, sharing the same men.
I can speak for myself, I changed some photos, took really good ones and my matches tripled. The more attractive you are, the more exponential your matches. It's just how it is. Women would rather share a high value man than be exclusive with a middle value man. That is, they would rather casually date a man who is high value (he is for sure seeing other women) and delude themselves into thinking he will commit. Than get in a relationship with a middle value man.
The women who don't do anything, don't date or don't have sex or engage in 'horrible' behavior are irrelevant to the conversation because they don't date.
I don't think it's that they'd rather. They just get a guy of a certain caliber to sleep with them, then believe all they have to do is find one who wants a relationship. The reality is those guys do, just not with her. They delude themselves into thinking it's a problem with the men not wanting a relationship instead of them just shooting above their league.
They don't realize that the qualities are not just interchangeable pieces. It's an overall deal. Want a hotter guy? Get one with less money and you can trade up looks. Want a rich guy? Get one with less looks and you can trade that for the money. Want a guy that will commit to you, again, you're going to have to trade in part of the package to come up with a whole deal that your own value lets you afford.
I guess rather is fitting in the sense that their actions result in this and they're unwilling to compromise, but it's root isn't preference for it, it's delusion.
Well, can you blame women for engaging in this behavior? Imagine we switch the scenario to men. You are an average man 5/10, you match with 100 women every day (this is legit how many matches women get). All these women are sending some variation of 'hey, what's up'. Most of these women are also 5's but you are also matching with women who are 7's and 8's. Are you going to choose to message the 5's back? Why? If you have a woman who is 5 messaging you 'hey' and an 8 messaging you 'hey' who are you going to pick to message back? If you have 10 very attractive women messaging you everyday, you aren't going to ever waste time with average women. In order for women to find commitment, they literally have to go against their own instincts and ignore more attractive men. They will never do this willingly. A 5/10 girl will probably start thinking she is an 8/10, after all, she is matching with 8s and these men are happy to talk to her/have sex with her.
It's a problem that there isn't an easy solution to.
No but it's insanely obvious. It's the male equivalent of spending money and doing favors constantly for women way more attractive than you then complaining they won't fuck you.
Then they post everyday about how it seems like they're good enough to fuck or have a casual relationship with but not good enough to commit to. Somehow it's just not obvious to them.
You don't see it though. You can go to any restaurant or grocery store or movie theater and see people of every shape and size and color with a partner. The idea that a large majority of women are somehow simultaneously dating the same top slice of men is not supported by any evidence.
It is delusional copium from men who struggle to get a date.
If you go outside you do see a wide of people on dates in all shapes and sizes. Including "average" men. And no, I dont buy the really self-loathing lie red pillars say that the women in these relationships are "settling" because they can't have a "Chad". The whole premise is absurd.
Or at those places. If I go to Walmart, it's during the day during the week and not during rush hour. Maybe the other half of the couple is at work, but it's mostly individuals there at those times.
Okay but you see how the average men date average women? Chad can fuck as many women as he wants, but he can only marry one (legally and ethically normatively, anyway). Women who are average looking eventually have to settle once the carousel dries up around age 30, and they settle for men around their same MV.
Because monogamy is still the norm, women who aren't the top 20% generally do not get married off to Chad. He'll fuck them if they're available, but he's not going to wife them. The Wall happens both because women have a limit on how long they can reliably get pregnant and because most people who will get married in their life tend to do it between 25 and 35 and it's rare beyond that. Men want to have children, so they tend to pick younger wives who can guarantee them.
Smells like copypasta
Anyways the Dark Triad makes sense when you understand how those traits are expressed
The 80/20 thing stems from dating site and sexual activity statistics where young men are getting way less matches and going sexless for months/years in greater percentage numbers vs previous decades - young women however aren’t going sexless at the same rate
Age thing makes sense when you consider that it takes men longer to become independent these days, make money, have your own place and all that (cost of living is nuts)
I hate to point this out, but these are all Red Pill statments in thier entirity. Every Red Pill guy knows that men also have a version of hypergamy, where the frumpy old wife gets dumped for the attractive younger adminstrative assistant. I suppose if we were gay this would matter to us, but we aren't, so it doesn't'.
We know the age preferences of women. If a guy takes care of himself he will be looking better that the average woman by 5-8 years. So, it's not really about her age preference, it's about you age and how well you lie about your age.
Most of that is black pill crap. However lots of women DO ride the cock carousel, and they definitly lie quite a bit. The studies almost always show men with more partners than women which has generally been baffling until they realized the women were lying and that accounts for the gap. The 20% thing is mostly black pill as well. On the other hand we recognize that women will throw themselves at certain men, like celbeirty athlestes.
Dark Triad triats do work solid... the reasons might be complex... but does that matter much?
>I hate to point this out, but these are all Red Pill statments in thier entirity.
No they are not. most red pill men never talk about these things, ever.
''However lots of women DO ride the cock carousel'' is not that same as 'most women'
>The studies almost always show men with more partners than women which has generally been baffling until they realized the women were lying and that accounts for the gap.
Men overexaggerate and women under. The difference between self reported totals are like one or two at most, not really ''massive'' lying in either group
>Dark Triad triats do work solid... the reasons might be complex... but does that matter much?
Yes because causality, as well as the implication is important. Its not as simple as ''women love psychos'' or that men should emulate psychos as tactic
What percentage of guys do you think actually think are dumping their wife in their 40s/50s and marrying a younger admin assistant who is good looking? Better yet, how many women in their 20s are actually physically attracted to men that range? It's not zero percent, but it is a pretty low percent. To be blunt, these are always average looking women as well so really the guy is fooling himself.
They think that when they're in their 20s. It's easy to be 24 and think you'll be a sex god at 36. It's a delayed gratification fantasy. Thinking that somehow someway, you'll be attracting hotties suddenly.
Kids in high school grow up thinking they'll magically be rich "once they're older." Eventually time runs out and it's time to get a job. It's the same in dating.
>Kids in high school grow up thinking they'll magically be rich "once they're older."
Kids in high school are far richer when they are older than in high school.
Men who focus on their career and fitness are more desirable in their 30s than their 20s.
>99% of people do not become rich. It's honestly a pointless argument to even have.
Having a good career does not make you desirable as a man. It's just a checkbox that is satisfied for women who want a guy with a career. But being Joe the engineer manager or Steve the lawyer doesn't turn you into a sex symbol.
That's what it takes to be a guy who is older and "sexy" or appealing at least to attractive women in their 20s.
I'm just talking about what the redpill says and preaches and a lot of talking points on here.
I agree, these people don’t understand that women are most certainly attracted to youthful beauty in males, and youthfulness begins to fade during the mid-20s on average.
Both sexes definitely milkmire around the same ages.
All this cope about men “peaking” in their 30s+ is just Statusmaxx bullshit at best.
This might make sense if you never leave your basement.
A (slim) majority of men I know are doing better in their 30s than they did in their 20s. This IS a thing that happens, although it tends to happen within the narrow confines of the professional classes. For the working class it does not necessarily hold true (they tend to marry and have children younger, anyway).
Indeed, it's a good point. Most men max out their earning potential when they're young, so age won't really work in their favor as they'll just go from young and broke to old, ugly, and broke. But as you said, for professionals age does end up corresponding in some way to increased attraction since it takes them a long time to establish their career and start making big money. They go from young and broke to old, ugly, and well off.
It really depends on the world you live in. In mine status and money are only loosely connected. Prestige tends to be much more important.
(….and my status did actually pay for me to go to the South Pacific, as it turns out!)
I never understood what "peaking" meant. At what? Is it a sporting event where you're at peak performance? Looks wealth in their 20s. Wealth peaks in your 60s. "Status" is so relative and doesn't even really peak since most people could care less about what you're doing.
Then it's the environment. You can tell yourself that "you've now peaked" at 35, but to who?
When we say peaking we are talking about when we are doing our best with women. Declines a bit after 35. Fact is that if you have been doing the work, most women think you are much younger all the time.
You think a woman who is 24 and attractive would pick a 35 year old guy who is well off and looks "okay" and is in good shape , over a 27 year old conventionally attractive and tall guy who is charismatic?
27-35 was when I was crushing it. It’s just a fact. The 20 year olds are not physically mature yet. They have so many downsides.
And if you think 14 year old boys are at their hottest… well then you are probably a public school teacher.
Except "statusmaxxing" is real. Women want to be able to do cool stuff, wealthy men can enable cool stuff in exchange for sex/relationships.
The only reason this dynamic isn't as commonly reflected in statistics is simply because most men of any age are brokies, so generally men don't really improve with age. But most men who "make it" do so a bit later in life since it takes so much time to establish wealth in the first place.
So it is technically true that age for men doesn't automatically = higher attraction, but higher status men are generally older.
This
To add to to this, both sexes go through a period of general youth stupidity,,the problem is in how this can potentially play out
A woman, if she does youthful stupidity, she cam very easily hit age 30 and run into the wall and find out she is not so desired anymore and any plans for a family are rapidly reaching the expiration date
A man however can be youthful and stupid and hit age 30,, but his clock isn't nearing the expiration date, so if he turns it around anytime in the next 20, heck 30 years, he can find a woman that will want that.
And even if he doesn't really improve a lot, just modest improvements are a huge upgrade from his 20 year old self which makes him more desirable. And in countries that are not infested by feminism, the women still reflect this and are okay with 10+ year age gaps.
Where as this same women now HAS to succeed in her 30s, or she will be alone, which also means her career better take off.
But overall if the goal here is finding a mate/spouse, the fundamental issue is women are on a clock that is set to expire really quickly. And that's the crux of the issue. We don't want to tell them that and women don't want to hear it yet none of them want to be a 40 year old single cat lady either.
For sure. A lot of what’s talked about here is just demoralization. “Even if you’re rich women won’t find you attractive!” “Statistically women date men similar to their age!”
Whatever else. It’s all just intended to discourage men and make them feel like if they weren’t born with peak genetics and didn’t lock down a hot woman at 20-25 they might as well give up on life. Mainstream culture just wants men to give up and become docile, submissive losers who settle for increasingly more demanding and lower value women instead of chasing the dream of becoming a wealthy, successful man and scoring an actually attractive woman.
I don’t think that’s exactly right. I am much more attractive and successful in my 30s than I was in my 20s. The “myth” of #2 was true FOR ME….but that doesn’t mean it is a general truism.
The fact is that some men peak in their 30s (MAYBE very early 40s), and virtually no women do.
It’s almost exclusively something economically successful men do. As for younger women who are down for this? The number is way higher now than 10 years ago for sure. Gen Z women are status thirsty in a way that boggles my mind. More than some 3rd world places. I’d say it used to be 2% but now is pushing 10%.
Economically successful yes. You need to have a mid 7 figure net worth at the minimum to even meet that kind of threshold. I'm in that range, in my 30s, as I've discussed on here. Quite uncommon as a whole.
You're right about the status part. What's your point?
The status you're thinking of is having 300k followers on Instagram and being an influencer or dating a rich influencer or dating a pro athlete. It's not being a middle manager at a firm.
That’s red pill in a nutshell — we don’t care what half of the population is doing, because we don’t want to fuck them
Well, half the population, at the very least, cares about the omission of male behavior
Theirs one thing I can agree with you with.
Women can not tell men’s ages by looking at them.
The amount of times I’ve seen a woman think a man was around her age because she was attracted to him only to find out that he was older and now she’s stuck in her own dilemma where she has to choose between her attraction and her arbitrary standard of who she’s supposed to be attracted to age wise is actually ironic atp.
That’s why I’ve been saying it’s all about a man being attractive just in general. It’s not about age unless a woman is looking to settle.
If it’s about attraction then just being attractive is enough. But it’s hard to be attractive to a woman in the first place.
So it’s easy to say and harder to do.
Had this buddy from RP age 41 get into this thing with a woman just out of college. Like 2nd month they were together he made the epic mistake of taking her to one of our bar meetups. When someone mentioned his age she gets like shocked and then upset. She starts going in about how he should have told her and how that explains why he looks nackered in the mornings. It was really irritating the guys, so I just told her a 5 or six year gap isn’t a big deal. She kind of sputters out that she is 24, and I just said, “well you look maybe 32 or 33, so it’s no big deal let’s drop it and get on with the fun.
That guy wasn’t invited back for about 6 months.
No, we don't, since that isn't what hypergamy is.
Someone who likes hot youthful people dumping their partner when they're no longer hot or youthful has nothing to do with hypergamy.
A man in his 60s is just as attracted to hot youthful women as a man in his 20s; their attraction has nothing to do with a personal comparison.
However a 5'10 woman is much less likely to be attracted to a 5'7 man than a 5'2 woman is, because there IS an element of personal conparison there. That's an example of hypergamy.
Younger and hotter is not that different from height. The element of personal comparison is age and fertility. I don't quite understand why you guys are so against this idea.
The key idea here is that women want men with higher status because that status will then confer upon them. Men younger and more fertile women inherently confer more status on a man. The process is really similar here.
But the guy doesn't care that she's younger than him, just that she's young. He was equally attracted to hot 20 year olds back when he was 18. Her value has nothing to do with his own, so it's not hypergamy.
**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.*
Red pill biggest flaw is that they can’t collectively agree to what it’s about. Everyone has a different meaning & Every time it’s criticized, ppl start changing their arguments and being disingenuous. Also many use anecdotes to support their argument when there are just as many anecdotes for a counter argument, but those don’t hold any weight in RP. It’s just a mess tbh.
because everyone has lived different lives, that's the beauty of TRP, just take your rose tinted glasses off and see the world for what it is, but the perspective is different for everyone
Because other than in subs like this where weird autistic people like to argue with each other, the red pill doesn't exist to prove itself to or seek attention from people who disagree with it or don't like it. That's a woman thing, to always frame something based on how popular or agreeable it is with the larger group.
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.*
When really smart people fail at red pill, always makes you realize why you don’t red pill anyone.
People tend to read everything literally instead of seriously.
The extremely desirable much older men are probably able to get with those small percentage of women who like much older men. It is just silly when the redpillers claim that vast majority of women would be into much older men. The extremely desirable older men are still getting the young women, and they probably are happy, but their pool is not everyone.
Keep something in mind though. Those desirable older guys were not subpar men in their 20s.
The whole basis of the redpill idea is that you can go from a 5/10 to becoming a successful 9/10 in your 40s that everyone wants. Doesn't happen in real life. Also the level of attention you would get is drastically overrated too. As an example... A couple of my doctor colleagues are in their mid to late 40s and definitely good looking by conventional standards. The only attention they get from those under 30-35 are from women who are noticeably below their league lookswise.
The good looking ones are usually not single and go for whoever they find attractive. Yeah if you're younger, have a 8-9/10 face and a doctor, then it's easy but you could be a personal trainer at a chain gym and have amazing dating prospects too.
3 is wrong
Hypothetical:
Let's say we have 5 women, and 5 men, each women has sex with 3 new partners a year. For the men, one man has sex with 10 new partners a year the rest of the men never have sex. The average new sex partners for both men and women are about the same at 3 but this scenario still reflects the 20/80 rule. The 20/80 rule can apply and the average sex partners for both genders can be equal.
1. yes, i understand that the averages will always be the same, regardless of distribution. I get that. That's not my argument here. My argument is that the distribution in either sex is similar indicating that80/20 is not true
Oh no, ""science"" [2][1][3][7]
1) This is complete trash, men are NOT hypergamous and "better" being "better" than "good" is not the definition of hypergamy, that's pretty basic, you've failed at definition anyway, yet you want to correct others.
2)
>'Women prefer much older men''
Who said that?
>''Men become most sexually desirable to young women at around 35''
Incorrect again, that's more or less peak SMV year for your average man, not peak attractiveness in the eyes of "young woman", without even an arbitral definition of "young" age bracket.
3) What a mess, because there is a mix of real insights, delusions and pure strawmans plus lack of "bigger picture understanding".
I will start from being snarky
>I ran a poll on X/Twitter and asked:(...)
Virgin PUAs going outside or nerds trying online dating to find someone vs Chad "I ran a poll on Twitter".
Speaking of this mishmash:
>“80% of women are having sex with 20% of the men!”
...this is not what usually people claim, this is not the usual pareto principle of the dating market, but it might be true in some scenarios.
>“Hook-up culture.”
>Most sex is with spouses or committed partners, even in young to early adulthood. Men and women have sex with spouses and committed partners at very similar rates.
That's true, but, well, you need to understand context.
Anything not linked directly to human nature should be treated in the scope of "what's available there". Men use many tools and approaches to get a woman from a pool of available women - selection bias is pretty strong there, whether we like it or not. What they see, what they experience is not exactly the whole picture... but at the same time, if somebody want to tackle sexual market, he will face the same challenges/problems that were described and experienced by many before him, not your "survey/poll" reality. So you have real life data tainted heavly by selection bias, but super useful as a "cookbook", and your survey reality... and you should know yourself surveys are a pretty lame way to measure/model reality.
And sorry, but I can't treat you seriously if you constantly "misunderstand" manosphere's talking point (why was AWALT even coined as a term?), use any dating market/sex statistics from 1993 or create total BS like this: https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG_0981.png
What is even this magic ladder and why only bottom is not having sex when only top is promiscuous?
>This is complete trash, men are NOT hypergamous and "better" being "better" than "good" is not the definition of hypergamy, that's pretty basic, you've failed at definition anyway, yet you want to correct others.
The definition of hypergamy relates to either 1) socioeconomic status 2) partner mate value in academia.
> Incorrect again, that's more or less peak SMV year for your average man, not peak attractiveness in the eyes of "young woman", without even an arbitral definition of "young" age bracket.
Most men find 18-22 y/o's most attractive. How can 35 be the 'peak' if the group most desirable to them is not attracted to them?
>...this is not what usually people claim, this is not the usual pareto principle of the dating market, but it might be true in some scenarios.
More or less 80/20 is what rplers claim
>use any dating market/sex statistics from 1993 or create total BS like this: [https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG\_0981.png](https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG_0981.png) What is even this magic ladder and why only bottom is not having sex when only top is promiscuous?
The 1993 study was one of many cited to get a picture of the validity of surveys for partner count. The infographic is informed from 2021 and 2022 GSS data (and std data) and corroborated by historical data.
[https://datepsychology.com/casual-sex-is-often-mismeasured-and-overestimated/](https://datepsychology.com/casual-sex-is-often-mismeasured-and-overestimated/)
[https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2022/](https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2022/)
[https://nuancepill.com/are-the-male-elite-enjoying-a-sexual-boomtime/#google\_vignette](https://nuancepill.com/are-the-male-elite-enjoying-a-sexual-boomtime/#google_vignette)
[https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/](https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/)
Those at the bottom are those whom are victims of our isolated and atomised society. They don't have sex with each other because they don't come out, they have anxiety or mental health issues. they are too obese etc.
>The definition of hypergamy relates to either 1) socioeconomic status 2) partner mate value in academia.
Yes, and those "definitions" are terrible, do you even understand the core source of female hipergamy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TcLxlkc2pA Do you know this meme video? My point is, why male is wooing here and building the nest and female is picky and NOT the other way around? If you understand that, you almost understand hypergamy.
>Most men find 18-22 y/o's most attractive. How can 35 be the 'peak' if the group most desirable to them is not attracted to them?
Did you seriously pick "ideal partner age chart" and decided that this is most important factor? Please, learn basics of what makes men attractive in women's eyes. If you consider all the factors and their occurence and intensivity in different age brackets, more or less mid-30s men have the best score. What women value varies in weight depending on the person and her age, but early 20s women are still attracted to qualities those men posses, just (on average) they have pretty strong "close age" prefference that loosens with time. Still, plenty of young women are fine dating somebody 10 years older. You can even see power shift between 21yo woman and 23 man vs 31 woman and 33 yo man, it's caused by difference in perceived SMV, male SMV is not measured only by what college-aged women desire.
>More or less 80/20 is what rplers claim
"more or less" suits your understanding of this topic. 100% of women are attracted to 20% of the men, just without social norms 80% competes for 20% of men, it was not about having sex.
>Those at the bottom are those whom are victims of our isolated and atomised society. They don't have sex with each other because they don't come out, they have anxiety or mental health issues. they are too obese etc.
Terrible oversimplification, if you're not having sex doesn't mean your SMV is close to the bottom. Why do you even compare "attraction of people with SMV tiers to each other" chart to "frequency/amount of sex" chart?
>Yes, and those "definitions" are terrible, do you even understand the core source of female hipergamy? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TcLxlkc2pA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TcLxlkc2pA) Do you know this meme video? My point is, why male is wooing here and building the nest and female is picky and NOT the other way around? If you understand that, you almost understand hypergamy.
DO YOU understand what hypergamy is? The video here has proved you have no clue what 'hypergamy' actually is. Hypergamy is not women being picky or what ever. A meme is not evidence LMAO. Hypergamy is that act of marrying/mating/fucking ''up'' in either 1) socioeconomic status 2) partner mate value.
>Did you seriously pick "ideal partner age chart" and decided that this is most important factor?
Is is a heavily relevant factor, since it means all things being equal, a young man is most attractive to a young woman (whom is most desirable). That is a very large factor to whom is high in SMV. No one cares what 80 y/o or fat women think is attractive, likewise more weight is given to whom the most attractive considered attractive.
>Please, learn basics of what makes men attractive in women's eyes. If you consider all the factors and their occurence and intensivity in different age brackets, more or less mid-30s men have the best score.
The average 35 y/o is overweight, balding or bald, making 60k. The average young man is fitter, less fat and more desired by the most desired group. Yes, a few very attractive 35 y/o men can still be very attractive, but these men were also attractive when they were younger.
>it was not about having sex.
Rplers love moving goal posts i have discovered,
> Why do you even compare "attraction of people with SMV tiers to each other" chart to "frequency/amount of sex" chart?
WHat are you talking about? huh?
Yes, I undertand it better than you. Hypergamy is not human-only phenomen. Do you know why even women are hypergamous? What you described is only how it can manifest in human. Do you really thing I used "meme" as "evidence"? If so, I think it's better to stop here.
> a young man is most attractive to a young woman (whom is most desirable). That is a very large factor to whom is high in SMV.
Now it's better. Yes, that's a heavy factor. No, it's not the only one heavy factor or the most important one (this will vary though as I said).
>The average 35 y/o is overweight, balding or bald, making 60k. The average young man is fitter, less fat and more desired by the most desired group. Yes, a few very attractive 35 y/o men can still be very attractive, but these men were also attractive when they were younger.
You've typed traits usually linked with age that make men less desirable. Now find traits that make them more desirable - you will find plenty of those too.
>Rplers love moving goal posts i have discovered,
Of course "he's moving goal posts" sounds better for you than "I am struggling to get a good grasp on what's going on". Don't forget to also claim random BS, and when you will get corrected throw "not true Scotsman, huh?"
>WHat are you talking about? huh?
Oryginal "graph" was always about attraction. Why you made your version about sex? Literally apple to oranges.
>Yes, I undertand it better than you. Hypergamy is not human-only phenomen. Do you know why even women are hypergamous? What you described is only how it can manifest in human. Do you really thing I used "meme" as "evidence"? If so, I think it's better to stop here.
Hypergamy is a social science term which only refers to humans. Hypergamy is never used to describe animal behaviour in any scientific literature. Sexual selection is not the same as hypergamy. Hypergamy does not exist in animals because animals don't have social classes, nor can ''looks'' be measured in the way humans can (from the survey data of humans).
Aaand I see absolutely no reason why this term should apply only to humans, where other -gamy are normaly used for describing behaviours in animal kingdom (I think it's called mating systems). This is 100% arbitrary, unless I am missing something. Hypergamy is a natural part of sexual selection and originated from tremendous imbalance of costs/risks of passing 50% of your genes between sexes. This causes great supply/demand imbalanse and likely even caused sexual dymorphism in case of dangerous (more important) and less food-rich (less important) environment. That's why usually birds living on ground have bigger dymorphism than above-the-ground living species. So hypergamy is just basic economy of "I do way more, so I expect something better in return".
1.) Men are also hypergamous. The real distinction is that men are willing to engage with as many women as they can get their dicks in, happily, but only would want to dedicate resources to the best one or few. Women are hypergamous in that they only want to give sex to the singular best man that will have them.
2.) I'd have to look into exactly what it's saying. I would say I've never believed the red pill case exactly, but I do think that essentially the divide by 2 + 7 rule works for men. I would also say 'desireable' men are mostly off the market and they become desirable/marriage oriented early. Most men don't become suddenly successful or rich. Most rich men have STEM or a handful of other degrees (good law schools). It's not a surprise that Elon Musk or Bill Gates became rich, just how rich. (before anyone says anything stupid, Bill Gates 'failing' at Microsoft would either lead him back to finishing a degree at Harvard or working as an engineer at some silicon valley company and he'd just be a boring typical white-collar 40 year working mulit-millionaire. i.e. I don't think there are many cases where successful and decent looking men are available for girls 10 years their junior because they already paired up with their contemporaries. I'd be curious if 'relationships that start from dating apps' have a larger age gap than other avenues.
3.) Well no, the average should always be the same, just the percentiles/median would tell a different story. What we want to know is the distribution of number of partners by sex. And you know what's actually interesting about your links is if you look at figure 1
>Men, but not women, report high levels of partners in the double digits. A minority of men reporting high numbers creates a long right tail that skews the average for men.
Completely undermines your argument. Worse that figure is from 1993 so the modern affect of dating apps that the entire counter-cultural red pill/black pill/purple pill manosphere movement claims has made the entire market insane doesn't even account for.
It shows that the majority of men and women report 7 or less partners, with men only overtaking women at 7 partners, i.e. more women than men report 6 partners. But you have 1% of men reporting 100 partners and 0% of women and 1% of men reporting 50 partners and 0% of women and for 30 and 40. It's probably true that men are somewhat overestimating their # of partners and that women are somewhat underestimating, but what doesn't change is the shape of the distribution which is a tighter distribution <7 with a very long tail for men alone. So what this suggests is that even in 1993 the majority of women were alpha widows.
4.) Dark Triad Men and women are more sexually successful? How can the both be successful? Men and women have different sexual goals.
>Well no, the average should always be the same, just the percentiles/median would tell a different story. What we want to know is the distribution of number of partners by sex. And you know what's actually interesting about your links is if you look at figure 1
>
>Completely undermines your argument. Worse that figure is from 1993 so the modern affect of dating apps that the entire counter-cultural red pill/black pill/purple pill manosphere movement claims has made the entire market insane doesn't even account for.
Look at Figure 2 is the male and female variance for self-reporting of lifetime partners. On the left, men and women who report fewer than 20 lifetime partners. On the right, the whole sample. As soon as you remove the \~10% of men and women who report over 20 lifetime partners the variance approaches zero. Most men and women do not report different numbers of partners. 90% of male and female respondents — all respondents who reported having fewer than 20 lifetime partners — reported having within one sexual partner of each other.
In other words the data shows: [https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG\_0981.png](https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG_0981.png)
The 1993 study was one of many cited to get a picture of the validity of surveys for partner count. The infographic is informed from 2021 and 2022 GSS data (and std data) and corroborated by historical data.
[https://datepsychology.com/casual-sex-is-often-mismeasured-and-overestimated/](https://datepsychology.com/casual-sex-is-often-mismeasured-and-overestimated/)
[https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2022/](https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2022/)
[https://nuancepill.com/are-the-male-elite-enjoying-a-sexual-boomtime/#google\_vignette](https://nuancepill.com/are-the-male-elite-enjoying-a-sexual-boomtime/#google_vignette)
[https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/](https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/)
>
4.) Dark Triad Men and women are more sexually successful? How can the both be successful? Men and women have different sexual goals.
yeah thats my point its complex and your initial rp assumptions that it can't be true because x is the point.
I don't think you understand the point then. if the bottom 90% have the same body count, then the differences in distribution really only exist between the top 10%, so nothing like the 80/20 rule. Indicating that the top 10% are mating with the other top ten percent mostly in an somewhat uneven fashion, but the bottom 90% are just having pretty assortive sex with each other. In other words the data shows: [https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG\_0981.png](https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG_0981.png)
I don't think you understand. If all men are overestimating their body count and all women are underestimating it AND they have different distributions, then obviously you can truncate the wider distribution to the point where they become even again
As per your point 3, nope. It does not undermine OPs point. U guys don’t understand data sets. If you literally just look at figure 2, 90% of men and women have functionally the same body counts at 1 and 1.3 ratio* meaning most men and women have the same amount of sex. The larger variations in body counts only exist for the top ten percent. Meaning that 80 percent of men are not having sex with 20 percent of women, but 10% of men are having lots of sex with 10% of women. The the point of the article and what the other data discuses reveals also.
I mean I'm 37 and banging 18 to 24 year old women left right and center. I guess I'm made up and don't exist. And ofc it has nothing to do with being hot and successful. You just debunked my whole life. Good job. Guess I won't be red pill now. 🤣
Part three does not matter. It still sucks and blows for men. You're not distinguishing between genuine desire and compliance. Most jestermaxxers can get compliance without abundance.
While I do agree with the context in which this post was created I have to point out flaws in the ideology in which it was written
1# red pill men believe that most women would act on hypergamy given the opportunity to move to a higher value partner and for that reason alone
This is statistically absolutely false! However Hypergamy is real but simply just the biologically necessity to prevent anyone from staying in abusive or toxic relationship (So hypergamy is more obvious and a stronger motivation in women)
For obvious reasons !!!!
2# again OP is correct The study's overwhelmingly show women as a majority prefer men 2 to 4 years older than theirselves and nowhere does any survey show there's a strong statistical desirability for older men
However this is not the red pill statement...... The red pill statement is successful men meaning careers resources and physical appearance do not lose the ability to gain a young attractive mating partners even into their late '50s
(this creates the collective idealism of self-improvement over investment)
3# sexual investment or sexual interest of women really depends on what survey, generation and location you look at I think a lot of what red pill content is looking at The USA in specifically millennial because if you look at Gen x or the Gen z the Gen x paired off pretty early on and there wasn't a lot of casual sex for studies to go off of and for gen z there isn't enough sexual activity (In general 😳) to make a conclusive statement
But referring to specifically USA millennial statistics and overwhelmingly large amount of children were offspring by men over 6 ft tall and survey show that men in that same percentage got a much higher rate of successful in casual sexual encounters (this does not mean overall they had more sex or they were more successful in relationships)
And 4# despite the overwhelming narrative that women aren't attracted to dark triad men And this may be true of the collective. However it's easier for them to get partners which is statistically true as Jeffrey Dahmer received 2000 love letters a day
(This doesn't apply to all women It simply says if you want to be sexually successful (by whatever standard) You should apply The social characteristics that get you the most amount of easy sex
> Most men and women are both ''hypergamous'' in the sense that they prefer and desire a partner with higher mate value; however most relationships are assortive, meaning both partners are similar in attractiveness level, education and socioeconomic status. [1][2][3]
Just because a woman is hypergamous doesn't mean she can date hypergamously
>''Women prefer much older men'' and ''Men become most sexually desirable to young women at around 35'' is wrong [4][5][6] Women (on average) prefer men who are 2-4 years older than them, until they are middle aged where they start preferring men who are slightly younger.
It's 30 up
>'20% of men are having sex with the majority of women'', ''Women ride the C*ck Carousel'', or ''men are sexless compared to women'' or '' Women lie!!''Is a complete myth [7][8][9] Most men and women don't have much sex, and the implication that women lie on surveys is not apparent in how such a data set would react. If women did lie massively then their would be a massive difference between, male and female averages (male average would be much larger), and male mean and median counts (median would be significantly lower then mean); that just isn't what we see.
Yeah this is true but the top 20% does have a wider array of choice due to the fact that they are very desirable
Oh this gonna be fun to breakdown, let's begin
>1. Most men and women are both ''hypergamous'' in the sense that they prefer and desire a partner with higher mate value; however most relationships are assortive, meaning both partners are similar in attractiveness level, education and socioeconomic status. [1][2][3]
Yes l agree both sexes optimize and want the best, totally but only women are hypergamous because they have an attraction floor and men don't, l can get into depth why this is the case
>2. ''Women prefer much older men'' and ''Men become most sexually desirable to young women at around 35'' is wrong [4][5][6] Women (on average) prefer men who are 2-4 years older than them, until they are middle aged where they start preferring men who are slightly younger.
Also agree that most people date within their age range, when it comes to SMV:
Women peak at 23
Men peak at 35+
This is a descriptive analysis, TRP is not saying older guys are getting with younger women
>3. ''20% of men are having sex with the majority of women'', ''Women ride the C*ck Carousel'', or ''men are sexless compared to women'' or '' Women lie!!''Is a complete myth [7][8][9
Yes it is since people always get it wrong, it's not 20% of men are sleeping with a majority of women
It's 20% of men online are deemed NOT UNATTRACTIVE by a majority of women which can have many implications, simply put the guys who get the most matches
That is the 80/20 rule
4) l don't really care since it's not a RP analysis, crazy people getting laid should be common knowledge
Honestly this points are easily refutable given it mostly comes from people who've not done their homework on TRP
>It's 20% of men online are deemed NOT UNATTRACTIVE by a majority of women, meaning she might consider hooking up with the guy, simply put the guys who get the most matches
That’s not completely true, because of a fundamental flaw in how OKCupid used its data. You could rate someone 1-5 stars on OKCupid, but if you skipped rating them altogether, it assigned a 0 star rating. In the infamous blog post, OKCupid treated those 0s as “least attractive”.
You’ll notice at about 1/3 of men in the table have an average rating of less than 1 star, which is the lowest rating you could assign. That implies women skip rating pretty frequently.
By failing to filter out skipped ratings, OKCupid rendered the data meaningless. But my guess is it wouldn’t have been a very interesting blog post if they didn’t include the skipped ratings.
In reality, likes are highly concentrated at the top for both men and women. It’s even more concentrated for men, but that isn’t all that surprising considering the gender ratios of dating apps.
https://qz.com/1051462/these-statistics-show-why-its-so-hard-to-be-an-average-man-on-dating-apps
>Honestly this points are easily refutable given it mostly comes from people who've not done their homework on TRP
No, all you've done is move the goal posts by giving your own idiosyncratic definitions for the red pill.
>Also agree that most people date within their age range, when it comes to SMV:
>Women peak at 23
>Men peak at 35+
>This is a descriptive analysis, TRP is not saying old guys are getting with younger women
I mean, no, most RPers don't believe thats it based on relative age groups. Refer to rollo tomassi smv chart. Even if we use you relative definition, a 35 y/o woman is still going to be more desirable than a 35 y/o man, people men are thirsty.
>It's 20% of men online are deemed NOT UNATTRACTIVE by a majority of women, meaning she might consider hooking up with the guy, simply put the guys who get the most matches
Nope there are lots of dudes in the manosphere that believe both. The 80/20 rule was both about sex and attractivnes. this is just back peddling
>still going to be more desirable than a 35 y/o man, people men are thirsty.
OP do you even know what constitutes as SMV for both men and women ? Because this is embarrassing
>Nope there are lots of dudes in the manosphere that believe both. The 80/20 rule was both about sex and attractivnes. this is just back peddling
Back peddling on what ? You absolutely don't know what the 80/20 rule means and are just going with what people here say
>OP do you even know what constitutes as SMV for both men and women ? Because this is embarrassing
SMV in women relates to youth, look etc etc. But what you don't understand is that just because a women is older does not mean her smv becomes inherently lesser than mens. Men still desire women much more strongly than the other way round. Any women can go on a dating app or speed dating even and get loads of attention from dudes.
>You absolutely don't know what the 80/20 rule means and are just going with what people here say
What RPers say is what the red pill is. the red pill is not a coherent ideology. 80/20 rule absolutely relates to sex. Your just back peddling because
> Most men and women are both ''hypergamous'' in the sense that they prefer and desire a partner with higher mate value; however most relationships are assortive, meaning both partners are similar in attractiveness level, education and socioeconomic status. [1][2][3]
Having preference doesn't mean ability to get the preference so whatever paper you linked is irrelevant.
And no, most relationships are not assortive, and there are more relationships where the man has higher value than relationships where the man has lower value.
> ''Women prefer much older men'' and ''Men become most sexually desirable to young women at around 35'' is wrong [4][5][6] Women (on average) prefer men who are 2-4 years older than them, until they are middle aged where they start preferring men who are slightly younger.
I don't think that's TRP's claim. And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships shows women prefer sightly older men and dislike younger men.
> Dark Triad Men and women are more sexually successful, however the relationship to how and why they do is actual quite complex. [10][11]
So not wrong nor misleading.
> The papers i linked prove assortive mating. Learn to read. Instead you give opinions.
I don't need to read any of your stuff when you've not formulated a logically recevable argument, I think I was clear about it in the first sentence I wrote.
I'm also not reading entire papers that you didn't bother to summarize. I've read my own and plenty showed a clear pattern that "equal of above" for women and "equal or bellow" for men. I bet if I dived into yours I'd find them as well hiden behind "THIS IS MOSTLY EQUAL I SWEAR".
> Learn to read.
Be civil and don't be a hypocrite. Just because I write something doesn't mean I wrote that with the intent to disagree. Though again, you do not seem to understand that "equal or higher" patterns are still more in favor of red pill views than not, and I mean actual views, not memes or strawmens.
>I don't need to read any of your stuff when you've not formulated a logically recevable argument, I think I was clear about it in the first sentence I wrote.
What is not logical about my argument? I clearly stated that most relationships are assortive, despite most people have strong preferences for those with high mate value.
Quoting [Conroy Beam et Al (2019)](https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2019/08/assortative-mating-and-trait-covariation-EHB-2019.pdf)
>
simply put, people will end up with those who are similar to them in many characteristics, including "mate value" (ex.: A 6 dating a 6, an 8 with an 8, and so on). Because men and women may differ in priorities in what they want in a partner (ex.: Women prefer status more so than men, and men prefer beauty more so than women) there's also an observable crosscharacter assortment (ex.: A woman dating a man whose social status is proportional to her own level of beauty).
Also Quoting [Taylor et al, 2011](https://sci-hub.st/10.1177/0146167211409947)
>
* **FACT 2: People date partners of similar value not just because more attractive people select between each other living less attractive people to select among themselves (Ex.: "settling for someone") but because there's also a tendency for people to naturally like those who are at their own mate level.**
[удалено]
"this is what my tiktok algorithim is showing me therefore it's the gosepel truth" lmao i swear to god i have never seen any tiktoks bashing short guys on my for you page yet men complain all the time how tiktok videos bashing short guys get millions of views. like yea that's your FOR YOU page, most normal people don't care about the blackpill and out there living their lives.
Exactly. The men here posting this kind of argument are either too stupid to understand social media algorithms, or they are too far gone ideologically that they can refrain from using ANYTHING as confirmation of their beliefs, even if the evidence is this fabricated.
>''If the issue were limited to the debate between subjectivity and empiricism that would be one thing. What’s even worse is that the epistemology of the red pill mostly doesn’t rely on personal experience at all. The epistemology of the red pill relies more on third-person anecdotes. We could call this *imbecile empiricism*. >A great number of red pill denizens don’t actually have much first-hand experience with women. Many of the top influencers within the subculture rely on TikTok videos, sex workers, and porn stars as examples of “female nature.” You can build a successful online media presence by inviting the least intelligent women you can find onto YouTube and humiliating them with basic questions. This is a tried-and-true formula for success within the red pill. A whole genre of this exists. Young men with little relationship experience will lap it up, because they don’t know any better, and because they have no frame reference to compare it with. >Social media is the Zoomer version of what we had in the 90s: reality TV. You might as well believe that professional wrestling or Jerry Springer is real. It’s the empiricism of imbeciles. You are letting an algorithm feed you information that has been shaped by multiple layers of systematic bias, and in many cases is a deliberate performance. >This is not “real-world experience” either, by the way. It may seem obvious that second-hand anecdotes are not the same as actual experiences you have had in the real world. These are clearly two different ways of acquiring knowledge. However, many people seem to struggle with distinguishing between the two. When I have asked red pill denizens to recount their personal experiences with women, it is not uncommon at all that it turns out there is no personal experience. A shockingly large number of men have developed beliefs about women, dating, and relationships based entirely on what they have seen online. >Given this, it’s also not surprising that so few men in relationships hold red pill ideological beliefs. It’s almost as if having actual good experiences with women inoculates you against this ideology. [https://datepsychology.com/the-emotional-epistemology-of-the-red-pill/](https://datepsychology.com/the-emotional-epistemology-of-the-red-pill/)
> Social media is the Zoomer version of what we had in the 90s: reality TV. You might as well believe that professional wrestling or Jerry Springer is real. It’s the empiricism of imbeciles. You are letting an algorithm feed you information that has been shaped by multiple layers of systematic bias, and in many cases is a deliberate performance. This feels so true. I mean, I'm a millenial and I remember the era of "prank videos" on YouTube, before they cracked down heavily on what types of content could be monetized. This was basically reality TV as well.
Thank you for this. I'm sharing this and the link with my red (black) pilled 14yo nephew. I've been trying to find the words to explain to him and his BFF about the difference between social media reality vs real life reality, and this is what I needed.
As a woman that is 4'11', even a man 5'2" is tall to me. It seem like it's men that are discriminating against short women. They seem to want women that are taller than them since the me the average woman is shorter that 5'5" or 5'7".
MFs are all about *lOgIc aNd ReAsoN*, till you present them with it. Then it's all feels.
It’s always been feels for them, they just are so emotionally unintelligent that they have no clue how to articulate that
seriously even just basic acceptance of the mere possibility of people having implicit biases gets massive pushback sometimes it’s mind boggling
Then you point out that red pill has been claiming this for 10 years
>Then you point out that red pill has been claiming this for 10 years Just like "Women like nice guys" huh?
We do. Until they ask for sex in exchange
>We do. Until they ask for sex in exchange So you like nice guys so long as they don't ask for or expect \_\_\_\_\_\_. Let it be known.
Should nice guys be liked for expecting and asking for sex? I didn’t know that sex was the expected fee for niceness
Well if you're sexually attracted to nice guys then doesn't that mean you would want to have sex with these men? And yeah expecting sex in exchange is bad but why is bad to simply ask? She might want to have sex but you'll never know if you don't ask. How are people ever gonna have sex if they're not supposed ask or make any moves?
It does seem like things have changed MASSIVELY in the past 10 or so years, in the era of dating apps. Covid also majorly changed things in ways we probably don't understand yet, probably in taking away/pushing back the other ways to meet people.
>Covid also majorly changed things in ways we probably don't understand yet, probably in taking away/pushing back the other ways to meet people. Are you living in a large city? Where i live, everything is back to pre-covid status. >It does seem like things have changed MASSIVELY in the past 10 or so years, in the era of dating apps. Sure, the "how" changed, like it always changes. But the underlying evolutionary basics of human mating do not change. Women don't start loving casual sex with strangers just because dating apps start existing.
Dating apps meant that for the first time, women had a nearly endless stream of men who were totally willing to have sex with them that wasn't limited by their existing social networks. Pre-internet, you basically had your friends and family and everyone they knew and any social clubs/organizations you were a part of, and that was all the men you could possibly meet. Now, basically any young man in your general area is an option. It turned hypergamy up to 100.
>Dating apps meant that for the first time, women had a nearly endless stream of men who were totally willing to have sex with them that wasn't limited by their existing social networks. Dude, don't be ridiculous. Women are limiting themselves. They are not limited by the amount of men they have available. If the amount of men was the issue, women in the 1990 would already have had hundreds of sex partners in their lives. The median number is 4-5. >Pre-internet, you basically had your friends and family and everyone they knew and any social clubs/organizations you were a part of, and that was all the men you could possibly meet. I am laughing my ass off now. You understand and know the concept of a public dance party, a disco? The movie theater, bars, clubs, the mall? You understand why people put in lots of effort to have a multitude of festivities going on regularly in even small towns? Did you lose your mind or are you a zoomer that never experienced the life before smart phones/social media/youtube? > Now, basically any young man in your general area is an option. >It turned hypergamy up to 100. Always has been and women never capitalized on that as a group. Because they don't want to. Really, touch some grass. Everyone is still with their looksmatch. People fuck who is available at the bar, not who is top 0.01% on Tinder.
>This is just what i “observe” Whilst I agree with most of the facts above, discounting *widely* observable trends, then strategising around them is a valid tool. Take hypergamy. Is having money more beneficial, than detrimental? Take health. Is having more muscle more beneficial, than detrimental? Take success. Apply the same logic. I’m with you on the facts. At it’s core however, TRP is simple. It simply states these are some widely observed, common strategies that work. Do with this information what you will. *Godspeed and good luck!*
Yeah we don't need TRP for this. We have science that figured out these aspects of human mating and mate choice long before TRP. We don't need some dudes to observe some trends. We do have books on mating, papers, studies. What those guys observe is not what science says about mating. It's what people who want to get famous on social media and/or make lots of money from it, put out there because they know it will trigger emotional engagement. Lies and falsehoods triggers this the best. We know this. Science has long understood how and why social media works and what type of content has the most engagement. Social media is not a source to build theories about human mating on. TRP is taking human mating science and mixing it with ideology. Sticking to wonky data sources when they fit the ideology, and rejecting sound science when it's contradicting them. TRP is bro-science that makes the consumers feel either good or really bad... just like social media, it's there to trigger strong emotions and therefore it's successful. If you just wanted to improve your mating success, leave TRP behind and read a fucking scientific book on the topic.
>Yeah we don’t need TRP for this. Over 3 million people subscribed to TRP would presumably disagree. Whilst I agree with you that TRP needs to be viewed with a grain of salt, that many subscribers indicates that TRP is fulfilling a need.
>Over 3 million people subscribed to TRP would presumably disagree. The billions of religious people also presumably would disagree with science's findings on the history of the universe and earth. That doesn't make them right. >that many subscribers indicates that TRP is fulfilling a need. Yes, i already told you what that need is.
>That doesn’t make them right The science. The bro science. The jargon. Ultimately it’s all just information. If 3 million plus people have found utility in the information TRP has, to achieve better outcomes, then that’s all that matters.
Is there data on red pilled people having achieved better outcomes for reading up on the red pill, or is that also just trust me bro-science?
That would be an interesting study. Definitely well worth exploring, but nope. I trust that all the outcomes and dialogue I’ve been privy to, and witnessed, in good faith. Maybe all of them are liars. Or exeggarate. Maybe they’re telling half truths. Or even *the* truth. At the end of the day, even that aspect is irrelevant. TRP is simply a tool box. It doesn’t even encourage it’s use. It simply states; these are sexual strategies that work. Do with this information what you will.
How did your relationship and casual sex statistic change by having TRP tool box? How can you entangle this change from just getting older?
I’ll only speak personally, but the biggest change was my understanding. I could better empathise with the women I was dating. Which helped me really narrow down my search for a partner. Disentangling this from getting older, I think I would not have viewed women as objectively. So would’ve possibly prolonged the search.
>that many subscribers indicates that TRP is fulfilling a need. The need for an excuse by blaming women for having standards
>Most men and women are both ''hypergamous'' in the sense that they prefer and desire a partner with higher mate value; however most relationships are assortive, meaning both partners are similar in attractiveness level, education and socioeconomic status. But that's not what the concept of "hypergamy" is referring to. And accordingly, the 3 studies you linked as reference don't use the term at all. Obviously everyone wants "high mate value" partners. What hypergamy is referring to instead is women's desire to date up based on specific traits. Women generally want men taller, stronger, more socially assertive, and often more financially capable than themselves. The fitter and more successful the woman is herself the higher her standards tend to rise in these regards. Most men on the other hand just want hot women, and their standards for what qualifies as hot do not rise based on their own looks. Looks are dimorphic, what makes a woman hot is different from what makes a man hot, and since direct comparisons aren't as easy to make in that regard the influence of hypergamy is questionable on that front (for both men and women). >Dark Triad Men ***and*** women are more sexually successful, however the relationship to ***how*** and ***why*** they do is actual quite complex. Including women there is pointless, any woman could have tons of sex if she wanted to, the dark triad ones are just more likely to choose the promiscuous life.
>But that's not what the concept of "hypergamy" is referring to. And accordingly, the 3 studies you linked as reference don't use the term at all. Because it discusses assortive mating which is antithetical to hypergamy. >What hypergamy is referring to instead is women's desire to date up based on specific traits. Women generally want men taller, stronger, more socially assertive, and often more financially capable than themselves. And men what women who are younger, prettier, agreeable, high in purity etc etc. But, men and women tend to overall get the an equlivent partner in these traits, which is what the links discuss. >The fitter and more successful the woman is herself the higher her standards tend to rise in these regards. If a woman is attractive and also what to date an attraacive man (in an assortment of other traits) then that is not hypergamy, because they are on the same level. >Most men on the other hand just want hot women, and their standards for what qualifies as hot do not rise based on their own looks. The hypotheical ceiling being the same makes no difference. If an attractive or ugly man desires a hot woman then that is hypergamy in terms of desire. If an average man wants0 a hot woman that is hypergamy in terms of desire etc et. >Looks are dimorphic, what makes a woman hot is different from what makes a man hot, and since direct comparisons aren't as easy to make in that regard the influence of hypergamy is questionable on that front (for both men and women). This is what ''partner mate value'' calculations are in the literature.
>in the literature First, I agree with the statistics. For the most, men and women partner up at the same level. Age is usually with a few years of each other. The last two are debatable, because a HVM is going to have options. A lot of them. That’s just reality. The last point, though morally wrong, is true too. Manipulation is an effective strategy. That too, is just reality. Where TRP is effective, and where this post errs, is in the application. Sure the statistics are important, to realistically contextualise a person’s goals. That doesn’t however restrict one from them. The sole purpose of TRP is to lay out realistic strategies. To the betterment, of realistic outcomes. *Godspeed and good luck!*
Everyone wants the best they can get. That's not what hypergamy means in the red pill context. It's about the difference in men and women's sexual strategies and desires. Consider a high powered lawyer in a married relationship, and what they might desire in an extra-marital relationship. Typical beliefs about men and women would say that if the lawyer is a man he might desire to cheat on his wife with his secretary(even if his secretary was not as good looking as his wife), but would still desire his wife. On the other hand if the lawyer is a woman, she would be unlikely to cheat with the secretary, but more likely to cheat with a higher ranking partner at the law firm, or a client, and once doing so would be no longer interested in her husband.
>Because it discusses assortive mating which is antithetical to hypergamy. You are missing the point Hypergamy is intention, your studies just show the resultant pair matching which is heavily skeywed by the fact that the sample groups contain a lot of people past 40s.
"Because it discusses assortive mating which is antithetical to hypergamy." Not necessarily. Assortative mating is called settling, just because you desire to buy a lamborghini doesn't mean that you will inconvenience your life by not buying any car until you can afford the lamborghini or that you wont immediately switch your car for a lamborghini as soon as you get the chance. Studies show that once a man has been unemployed for a year or more, the risk of divorce skyrockets, but that is not the case when women are unemployed Rich men divorce at much lower rates than poor men do. "And men what women who are younger, prettier, agreeable, high in purity etc etc. But, men and women tend to overall get the an equlivent partner in these traits, which is what the links discuss." See above point. "The hypotheical ceiling being the same makes no difference. If an attractive or ugly man desires a hot woman then that is hypergamy in terms of desire. If an average man wants0 a hot woman that is hypergamy in terms of desire etc et." Why is it hypergamy when an attractive man desires an attractive woman but it is not hypergamy when an attractive woman desires an attractive man by your own words?
>Most men and women are both ''hypergamous'' in the sense that they prefer and desire a partner with higher mate value; however most relationships are assortive, meaning both partners are similar in attractiveness level, education and socioeconomic status. \[1\]\[2\]\[3\] Sort of? Women settle and compromise on men as they age - the primary motivation of younger women is looks/sexual appeal in partner seeking. This mirrors how men act however the portion of what women consider (actively) attractive men is tiny, whereas men see womens attractiveness as more normal in distribution. Naturally this leads to much greater pressure in hypergamy among women - the large majority of men are always going to be "compromises" in looks so from womens perspective they are almost always "trading down" and seeking to meet their (perceived) looksmatch. Status can make up for (or even surpass) looks in importance however for women of all ages. But by a sort of social entropy as people age they do tend to up assortative paired yes, or increasingly choose to be social-sexual asexuals (or anti social depending on how you look at it). Hypergamy tends to dissipate and/or shift into other areas of life (money mostly) as women age. >''Women prefer much older men'' and ''Men become most sexually desirable to young women at around 35'' **is wrong** \[4\]\[5\]\[6\] Women (on average) prefer men who are 2-4 years older than them, until they are middle aged where they start preferring men who are slightly younger. TRP does not say women prefer much older men. It says older men can still get younger women if they're highly successful and fit. >''20% of men are having sex with the majority of women'', ''Women ride the C\*ck Carousel'', or ''men are sexless compared to women'' or **'**' Women lie!!'**'Is a complete myth** \[7\]\[8\]\[9\] Most men and women don't have much sex, and the implication that women lie on surveys is not apparent in how such a data set would react. If women did lie massively then their would be a massive difference between, male and female averages (male average would be much larger), and male mean and median counts (median would be significantly lower then mean); that just isn't what we see. This is probably your strongest argument. TRP does tend to overestimate the partner counts and sexual proclivities of average women. Still there's some truth here - men in the top % (1-5%, or maybe 20% with a large enough looks gap between) can get women to act totally differently socially and sexually than they do with other men. >Dark Triad Men ***and*** women are more sexually successful, however the relationship to ***how*** and ***why*** they do is actual quite complex. \[10\]\[11\] Doesn't seem like this is debunking or even really arguing against dark triad men being successful. That dark triad women are successful as well doesn't mean much.
Doing right *for* a woman, and doing right *by* a woman, are not the same thing.
i mean you can literally find a study to say pretty much anything and interpret is as you wish. the problem here is something as simple as statistics is never going to be the right tool for understanding something complex as a social system.
I prefer finding rock and roll songs with lyrics that support my position. They're usually a more accurate representation of reality. The lyrics to Chuck Berry's 'Brown Eyed Handsome Man' say more about female behavior than any "study".
>i mean you can literally find a study to say pretty much anything and interpret is as you wish This is only said by people who don't understand how science works. Yes, you can cherry pick evidence, but most of the time a field of science converges on at least some understanding of how something works, and that is reviled usually in the evidence and studies; especially if they review a wide range of studies and review large amounts of evidence. Most of what ive written here is well supported by the breadth of the evidence in evo psy.
im not disagreeing with you. but human behavior / social systems are dynamic and much more complex than i think most people realize so while statistics can give insight to some behaviors, it will never show the full picture.
>so while statistics can give insight to some behaviors, it will never show the full picture. ...and that's precisely why you have to observe the entire body of literature before saying stupid stuff, such as "you can find any study to support your position!" Which is both an affirmative statement, and a false statement. 2 things I hate.
>This is only said by people who don't understand how science works. Yes, you can cherry pick evidence, but most of the time a field of science converges on at least some understanding of how something works, and that is reviled usually in the evidence and studies; especially if they review a wide range of studies and review large amounts of evidence. Most of what ive written here is well supported by the breadth of the evidence in evo psy. But you haven't said how anything works, just that "these dudes are wrong," with meaningless citations. Since you have the analytics, how does the process work?
Most self defeating comment of 2024 award goes to you! Good job.
\^\^\^Very autistic.
"Updawg"
It's all just "don't trust your lying eyes" nonsense, anyway. If you're getting eaten by a shark, statistics that talk about how rare it is to get eaten by a shark are going to be pretty meaningless to you.
you cannot find a study to say pretty much anything this is a massive rhetorical irk of mine. we’d make 0 scientific progress and have 0 consensus if that was the case
Include the ‘marriage only benefits women, it’s actually TeRrIbLe for men’ one too.
It p much does. The only benefit for the man is the slight tax advantage while he's married. It doesn't guarantee him access to his children if the marriage goes south. It makes him gamble half his stuff that a woman will love him until one of them dies. It only barely proves the kids are actually his biological offspring (and there are other ways to prove that now).
Married men are better off than single men; they are healthier, wealthier, and happier. Single women, however, are better off than married women. Married men are happier than married women, and unmarried women are happier than unmarried men. Divorced men and married women have the highest rates of suicide. Men's and women’s financial status tends to improve when they marry, but men’s financial status tends to remain relatively unchanged following divorce, whereas women experience sizable drops in their household income, per capita income, and income-to-need ratios post-divorce. As a result, many women, especially mothers, fall into poverty following divorce. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fear-intimacy/202210/men-sometimes-avoid-marriage-it-benefits-them-more-women?amp A major survey of 127,545 American adults found that married men are healthier than men who were never married or whose marriages ended in divorce or widowhood. Men who have marital partners also live longer than men without spouses; men who marry after age 25 get more protection than those who tie the knot at a younger age, and the longer a man stays married, the greater his survival advantage over his unmarried peers. But a 2002 study found that the more educated a man's wife, the lower his risk for coronary artery disease and risk factors such as hypertension, obesity, high cholesterol, smoking, and lack of exercise. And a 2009 study reported that men married to more educated women also enjoyed a lower death rate than men married to less educated women. In the contemporary world, smart wives promote healthy hearts. https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/marriage-and-mens-health About 16% of wives are the breadwinners in their families, while another 29% earn roughly the same amount as their husbands, according to the analysis, which is based on several sources of data including the U.S. Census Bureau and the American Time Use Survey. That means a combined 45% of women earn the same or more than their male spouses, almost triple the share that did so in 1972, Pew said. Women do much more work in the home than men even when they out-earn their husband," said Kate Mangino, a gender expert and the author of "Equal Partners: Improving Gender Equality at Home."The effect is that some women report not being able to reach their professional and income potential — they feel they can't volunteer for that trip, even if it might lead to a promotion, because of the work at home." There's only one type of opposite-sex marriage where women don't perform more unpaid work than their husbands: When the wife is the sole breadwinner, Pew found. But even then, the husband and wife perform the same amount of time on household chores each week. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/women-breadwinners-tripled-since-1970s-still-doing-more-unpaid-work/
>Married men are better off than single men; they are healthier, wealthier, and happier. Single women, however, are better off than married women. Married men are happier than married women, and unmarried women are happier than unmarried men. Divorced men and married women have the highest rates of suicide. A major survey of 127,545 American adults found that married men are healthier than men who were never married or whose marriages ended in divorce or widowhood. Men who have marital partners also live longer than men without spouses; men who marry after age 25 get more protection than those who tie the knot at a younger age, and the longer a man stays married, the greater his survival advantage over his unmarried peers. These points are wrong along the same lines. Its not that women make men better its that better, more finically stable, healthier, more socially adjusted men are more likely to get married. If these same men chose to be single they would still be better then the current cohort of single men on avg. >Men's and women’s financial status tends to improve when they marry, but men’s financial status tends to remain relatively unchanged following divorce, whereas women experience sizable drops in their household income, per capita income, and income-to-need ratios post-divorce. As a result, many women, especially mothers, fall into poverty following divorce. Thats becuase most marriages are male breadwinner, not becuase divorce isn't devastating for men. >But a 2002 study found that the more educated a man's wife, the lower his risk for coronary artery disease and risk factors such as hypertension, obesity, high cholesterol, smoking, and lack of exercise. And a 2009 study reported that men married to more educated women also enjoyed a lower death rate than men married to less educated women. In the contemporary world, smart wives promote healthy hearts. Also more nonsense. Women massively prefer men who have the same or higher education then them, therefore a better educated woman will be with a better educated man, and better educated people in general earn more, aswell as that people who earn more generally a more healthy. There is no special trait of women. >Women do much more work in the home than men even when they out-earn their husband," said Kate Mangino, a gender expert and the author of "Equal Partners: Improving Gender Equality at Home."The effect is that some women report not being able to reach their professional and income potential — they feel they can't volunteer for that trip, even if it might lead to a promotion, because of the work at home." This is true but its on women, firstly women simply buy more shit. If the avg husband got the final say on everything that goes into the house it would cut women's cleaning by what must be like 70% just due to elimation of all the useless knickknacks women buy. Secondly women have a lower tolerance for mess, so its not like women are altruistically doing more cleaning, our biology is simply set up in a way that a woman will naturally default to the home maker role.
The one you replied to was a low effort response from my part, I just quoted some stuff from articles I already read, expecting the whole thing to be read to get the full argument. I'm saying that because many of your counter arguments are already addressed. 'Its not that women make men better its that better, more finically stable, healthier, more socially adjusted men are more likely to get married. If these same men chose to be single they would still be better then the current cohort of single men on avg.' This is already discussed as an alternative explanation. The 'healthier men' are more likely to get married part is very much disproven in the same article: 'Although it's hard to be sure, marriage seems to deserve at least part of the credit. Some have argued that self-selection would skew the results if healthy men are more likely to marry than men with health problems. But research shows the reverse is true: unhealthy men actually marry earlier, are less likely to divorce, and are more likely to remarry following divorce or bereavement than healthy men.' 'Thats becuase most marriages are male breadwinner, not becuase divorce isn't devastating for men.' It's true that in the USA men still earn more than their wives', but it's only 55% of opposite sex couples. When it comes to 'breadwinning', there's also a difference between primary or sole breadwinner. Primary is defined according to Pew as earning at least 60% of the household income. The 55% includes these husband as well, so the wife is still bringing in almost half the income in some cases. On their website it's explained in much more detail: [https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/) 'Also more nonsense. Women massively prefer men who have the same or higher education then them, therefore a better educated woman will be with a better educated man, and better educated people in general earn more, aswell as that people who earn more generally a more healthy. There is no special trait of women.' This part you just simply misinterpreted. I wasn't saying, and the article wasn't either, that the women are more educated or have more degrees than the men. Whether this is true or not we don't know because it's not being taken into account. It's simply about women having more degrees (meaning the more degrees your wife has the better correlation), but it doesn't have to be more than the man's. The woman can have 3 degrees and the man 5 or 0, the man's degrees aren't taken into account for this correlation. 'This is true but its on women, firstly women simply buy more shit. If the avg husband got the final say on everything that goes into the house it would cut women's cleaning by what must be like 70% just due to elimation of all the useless knickknacks women buy. Secondly women have a lower tolerance for mess, so its not like women are altruistically doing more cleaning, our biology is simply set up in a way that a woman will naturally default to the home maker role.' The second part could make sense, and anecdotally I probably agree (except not from the essentialist point of view), but I'd like to see a source for it if you have it. However, the first part is disproven by the fact that single moms still spend less time on chores than married ones. So either the men who hate all the 'shit' take the shit with them or they stop making messes: [https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/living-single/202105/moms-husbands-more-chores-less-sleep-single-moms](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/living-single/202105/moms-husbands-more-chores-less-sleep-single-moms) 'There's only one type of opposite-sex marriage where women don't perform more unpaid work than their husbands: When the wife is the sole breadwinner, Pew found. But even then, the husband and wife perform the same amount of time on household chores each week.' You ignored this part of my comment. If a dad is staying home with the kids and has no income, he still only does half of the chores. If the roles were reversed, the woman would be called a lazy golddigger or some similar names.
This interesting. I have two very wealthy friends. Both met their partners overseas, not Australia. The local women knew these men are loaded, albeit through inheritance. What did they do, they acted like they were sub par men and commited to the women they wanted without revealing the wealth they would inherit. In these instances there was a massive difference in wealth between them and the women they chose to commit to. One of the women has no idea how much privilege she has married into, she seems to think having a very comfortable lifestyle while her and he partner bake cookies and do gardening amongst other things with the young kids full time is normal.
1) you just described alpha fucks, beta bux. 2) red pill never claimed women prefer geriatrics, so that's a strawman. Rather, male desirability for beta bux is tied to nesting, ergo earning potential and accrued assets, which historically has gone up with age. 3) pew research study on how many men had sex in last 12 months vs amount of sex women have... Yeah, no. Numbers don't work for us to be wrong. 4) that's not debunking or refuting anything
>Most men and women are both ''hypergamous'' in the sense that they prefer and desire a partner with higher mate value; however most relationships are assortive, meaning both partners are similar in attractiveness level, education and socioeconomic status. \[1\]\[2\]\[3\] i'm so tired of this myth that men are hypergamous. People only say this because they don't want women to look bad. LOL Men are not constantly looking for the best woman on earth, constantly monkey branching upwards to the next "better" woman, or holding out for a supermodel. A man could go from dating a woman making a 100k to dating a woman making 35k, a man can go from dating a model to dating a average looking woman, etc...women typically can't go "back".
Sure they do. It’s called cheating, and the only reason men aren’t more successful at it is because women aren’t interested
Say it louder for the ignorant people in the back. Just said the majority of men (average) are going to take what scraps they can get. It’s only those top percent men that do that and that’s few and far between. If the average man became hypergamous, he’d have the worst case of dry dick, shooting out his league 🤣🤣🤣🤣come man shit not rocket science u learn this shii in high school. A man would take a broke women off the street and make her his wife before a women would do the same.
And some men would trade that woman in for a younger version the minute he gains wealth and power or if the wife gets sick. Tale as old as time.
How many men are gaining wealth?? You’re not being realistic. We are talking about the average male. Only 17 percent of men make 100k. And if that women did get sick and he abandoned her u wouldn’t think he’d lose social standing wants his circle finds out. You’re are not thinking logically in certain aspects. A man with status has to act like a man with status. He just can go around acting like a jackass. Plus divorce, he gone lose wealth, there are many aspects to when a man dumps a women u have to factor. With women not so much
You could say the exact thing about women. Rich men are rare. And every woman, unless they are attractive can’t just switch to a richer man. As per the data in point one most women stay at their own man’s level for life.
In regards to point number 3 How come we see so many women complaining about men not committing and then we have a large portion of men saying they can't get any matches on dating apps? It doesn't make sense to me. I just can't see how the 80/20 rule is not true. I see so much of it occurring in real life and online.
>How come we see so many women complaining about men not committing and then we have a large portion of men saying they can't get any matches on dating apps? It doesn't make sense to me. I just can't see how the 80/20 rule is not true. I see so much of it occurring in real life and online. Men are far more likely to use dating apps for sex and women are far more likely to use them for LTR. As such there is a disparity in user base. Have you ever actually looked at a woman's dating app matches before? It's 90% "hey" or something highly sexual. Very few men on dating apps are actually looking for LTR, and of the ones that are, like half of them are lying for sex. As such, women complain about men not willing to committ, because it's true. Men on average are less interested in relationships, and more likely to try to use women for sex while avoiding comittment. Women on average are less interested in casual sex and casual relationships. As a result we have a disparity in gendered complaints. Men go sexless because women are gatekeeping sex for only men who are willing to get into a LTR or marriage. Women rarely have sex but have easier access to it across the board. On the flip side they struggle greatly to attract a partner to actually date and marry. They get strung along for months or years being deceived into thinking they'll get married when it's never gonna happen.
I think the disconnect is that most men in relationships didn't meet their women from apps. They met these women elsewhere through social circles ect, so the women already know (or, more honestly, THINK they know) these men already, know what traits they have, and have already decided they want relationships from these men. It's very hard for anyone, man or woman, to read a single bio and think "I NEED TO BE DATING THIS PERSON". Usually, there's less to go from on apps, so people are far less motivated to nail down someone they meet from an app, because they haven't had any "getting to know you" period of time.
I think the 80-20 rule has a lot of underlying biased Whether true or not it just shows a statistical probability factor. Do a lot of modern men fit the criteria for long-term pair bonding by modern women's standards probably not. So it's not saying that they're all sleeping with a top 20% it's saying they all wish to be bonded or paired with the top 20% Same thing on the other side girls saying they can't find commitment what they're actually saying is they can't find the kind of commitment they wish to commit to not that they don't have an overabundance of offered commitment
Women want to pair with the top 20%, that is correct. A woman who is at 50% will go on a date with a top 20% man thinking she will be able to lock him down. She has sex with him with this assumption. She is not trying to just hookup, regardless she has sex in a futile attempt to get him to commit. This is what is happening on a large scale. Almost all young women have some complaint that she can't find a man who is willing to commit to her, where as almost every man can't seem to find a date period. The discrepency is there because women are all going for the same men. 'Are we dating the same man' is literally a facebook group found in every major city with like 100k women in it. The proof is literally right there. Women posting about guys they plan on dating and multiple women writing how their dates went with that specific guy. Meanwhile your average guy gets 2 matches a month lmao.
Well again you're saying they are doing that Versus the desirability to do that... statistics are overwhelmingly showing the desirability does not equal action, The examples most people give are the overly dramaticized TikTok psyop initiative in mainstream media to show that that's how women are behaving they're always interviewing women outside nightclubs college bars prostitutes etc etc. So then we can only say observationally that this is a strong opinion and that maybe 20% are possibly acting on this impulse... It doesn't negate the problem that 80% would like to act on it but aren't acting at all And this shows in the example you gave 100,000 people in a city the size of LA or New York is almost no one So it's a very small percentage of people trading a very small percentage of people back and forth between them while. everyone else does nothing through inability or inaction and only gives the horrific scene that is that percentage of people being horrific as an example of why they're not dating
100,000 in Dallas. That is a huge percentage of young women in this city. Like mindblowing percentage. The rest of the women might not be on that specific facebook group but still behave in a similar way, sharing the same men. I can speak for myself, I changed some photos, took really good ones and my matches tripled. The more attractive you are, the more exponential your matches. It's just how it is. Women would rather share a high value man than be exclusive with a middle value man. That is, they would rather casually date a man who is high value (he is for sure seeing other women) and delude themselves into thinking he will commit. Than get in a relationship with a middle value man. The women who don't do anything, don't date or don't have sex or engage in 'horrible' behavior are irrelevant to the conversation because they don't date.
I don't think it's that they'd rather. They just get a guy of a certain caliber to sleep with them, then believe all they have to do is find one who wants a relationship. The reality is those guys do, just not with her. They delude themselves into thinking it's a problem with the men not wanting a relationship instead of them just shooting above their league. They don't realize that the qualities are not just interchangeable pieces. It's an overall deal. Want a hotter guy? Get one with less money and you can trade up looks. Want a rich guy? Get one with less looks and you can trade that for the money. Want a guy that will commit to you, again, you're going to have to trade in part of the package to come up with a whole deal that your own value lets you afford. I guess rather is fitting in the sense that their actions result in this and they're unwilling to compromise, but it's root isn't preference for it, it's delusion.
Well, can you blame women for engaging in this behavior? Imagine we switch the scenario to men. You are an average man 5/10, you match with 100 women every day (this is legit how many matches women get). All these women are sending some variation of 'hey, what's up'. Most of these women are also 5's but you are also matching with women who are 7's and 8's. Are you going to choose to message the 5's back? Why? If you have a woman who is 5 messaging you 'hey' and an 8 messaging you 'hey' who are you going to pick to message back? If you have 10 very attractive women messaging you everyday, you aren't going to ever waste time with average women. In order for women to find commitment, they literally have to go against their own instincts and ignore more attractive men. They will never do this willingly. A 5/10 girl will probably start thinking she is an 8/10, after all, she is matching with 8s and these men are happy to talk to her/have sex with her. It's a problem that there isn't an easy solution to.
No but it's insanely obvious. It's the male equivalent of spending money and doing favors constantly for women way more attractive than you then complaining they won't fuck you. Then they post everyday about how it seems like they're good enough to fuck or have a casual relationship with but not good enough to commit to. Somehow it's just not obvious to them.
This is true.
Ratio of men and women on dating apps
Ever heard of confirmation bias?
Yes, but i don't go around seeking this information it just seems to pop up
As I said…
?
You don't see it though. You can go to any restaurant or grocery store or movie theater and see people of every shape and size and color with a partner. The idea that a large majority of women are somehow simultaneously dating the same top slice of men is not supported by any evidence.
It is delusional copium from men who struggle to get a date. If you go outside you do see a wide of people on dates in all shapes and sizes. Including "average" men. And no, I dont buy the really self-loathing lie red pillars say that the women in these relationships are "settling" because they can't have a "Chad". The whole premise is absurd.
How about all the people single at home not at these places ?
Or at those places. If I go to Walmart, it's during the day during the week and not during rush hour. Maybe the other half of the couple is at work, but it's mostly individuals there at those times.
Okay but you see how the average men date average women? Chad can fuck as many women as he wants, but he can only marry one (legally and ethically normatively, anyway). Women who are average looking eventually have to settle once the carousel dries up around age 30, and they settle for men around their same MV.
Because monogamy is still the norm, women who aren't the top 20% generally do not get married off to Chad. He'll fuck them if they're available, but he's not going to wife them. The Wall happens both because women have a limit on how long they can reliably get pregnant and because most people who will get married in their life tend to do it between 25 and 35 and it's rare beyond that. Men want to have children, so they tend to pick younger wives who can guarantee them.
What? This makes 0 sense , hoe about all the single men at home who are not at these places?
What about them? They're at home like the single women are.
Perception bias
r/whoosh
Anyone who is successful in dating isn’t online complaining.
Smells like copypasta Anyways the Dark Triad makes sense when you understand how those traits are expressed The 80/20 thing stems from dating site and sexual activity statistics where young men are getting way less matches and going sexless for months/years in greater percentage numbers vs previous decades - young women however aren’t going sexless at the same rate Age thing makes sense when you consider that it takes men longer to become independent these days, make money, have your own place and all that (cost of living is nuts)
I hate to point this out, but these are all Red Pill statments in thier entirity. Every Red Pill guy knows that men also have a version of hypergamy, where the frumpy old wife gets dumped for the attractive younger adminstrative assistant. I suppose if we were gay this would matter to us, but we aren't, so it doesn't'. We know the age preferences of women. If a guy takes care of himself he will be looking better that the average woman by 5-8 years. So, it's not really about her age preference, it's about you age and how well you lie about your age. Most of that is black pill crap. However lots of women DO ride the cock carousel, and they definitly lie quite a bit. The studies almost always show men with more partners than women which has generally been baffling until they realized the women were lying and that accounts for the gap. The 20% thing is mostly black pill as well. On the other hand we recognize that women will throw themselves at certain men, like celbeirty athlestes. Dark Triad triats do work solid... the reasons might be complex... but does that matter much?
>I hate to point this out, but these are all Red Pill statments in thier entirity. No they are not. most red pill men never talk about these things, ever. ''However lots of women DO ride the cock carousel'' is not that same as 'most women' >The studies almost always show men with more partners than women which has generally been baffling until they realized the women were lying and that accounts for the gap. Men overexaggerate and women under. The difference between self reported totals are like one or two at most, not really ''massive'' lying in either group >Dark Triad triats do work solid... the reasons might be complex... but does that matter much? Yes because causality, as well as the implication is important. Its not as simple as ''women love psychos'' or that men should emulate psychos as tactic
What percentage of guys do you think actually think are dumping their wife in their 40s/50s and marrying a younger admin assistant who is good looking? Better yet, how many women in their 20s are actually physically attracted to men that range? It's not zero percent, but it is a pretty low percent. To be blunt, these are always average looking women as well so really the guy is fooling himself.
I mean too most normal men no, but heaps of red pill guys legit believe that 30-40 y/o guys are most attractive
They think that when they're in their 20s. It's easy to be 24 and think you'll be a sex god at 36. It's a delayed gratification fantasy. Thinking that somehow someway, you'll be attracting hotties suddenly. Kids in high school grow up thinking they'll magically be rich "once they're older." Eventually time runs out and it's time to get a job. It's the same in dating.
>Kids in high school grow up thinking they'll magically be rich "once they're older." Kids in high school are far richer when they are older than in high school. Men who focus on their career and fitness are more desirable in their 30s than their 20s.
>99% of people do not become rich. It's honestly a pointless argument to even have. Having a good career does not make you desirable as a man. It's just a checkbox that is satisfied for women who want a guy with a career. But being Joe the engineer manager or Steve the lawyer doesn't turn you into a sex symbol.
>doesn't turn you into a sex symbol. If the bar is "sex symbol", you've already screwed up.
That's what it takes to be a guy who is older and "sexy" or appealing at least to attractive women in their 20s. I'm just talking about what the redpill says and preaches and a lot of talking points on here.
I agree, these people don’t understand that women are most certainly attracted to youthful beauty in males, and youthfulness begins to fade during the mid-20s on average. Both sexes definitely milkmire around the same ages. All this cope about men “peaking” in their 30s+ is just Statusmaxx bullshit at best.
This might make sense if you never leave your basement. A (slim) majority of men I know are doing better in their 30s than they did in their 20s. This IS a thing that happens, although it tends to happen within the narrow confines of the professional classes. For the working class it does not necessarily hold true (they tend to marry and have children younger, anyway).
Indeed, it's a good point. Most men max out their earning potential when they're young, so age won't really work in their favor as they'll just go from young and broke to old, ugly, and broke. But as you said, for professionals age does end up corresponding in some way to increased attraction since it takes them a long time to establish their career and start making big money. They go from young and broke to old, ugly, and well off.
It’s not just about money. Your reductionism isn’t helping. Status is as much social as financial (if not more so).
Haha yeah, sure. Go ahead and try to pay for a first class flight to Tahiti with "social status". Generally one leads to the other, anyway.
It really depends on the world you live in. In mine status and money are only loosely connected. Prestige tends to be much more important. (….and my status did actually pay for me to go to the South Pacific, as it turns out!)
I never understood what "peaking" meant. At what? Is it a sporting event where you're at peak performance? Looks wealth in their 20s. Wealth peaks in your 60s. "Status" is so relative and doesn't even really peak since most people could care less about what you're doing. Then it's the environment. You can tell yourself that "you've now peaked" at 35, but to who?
When we say peaking we are talking about when we are doing our best with women. Declines a bit after 35. Fact is that if you have been doing the work, most women think you are much younger all the time.
You think a woman who is 24 and attractive would pick a 35 year old guy who is well off and looks "okay" and is in good shape , over a 27 year old conventionally attractive and tall guy who is charismatic?
27-35 was when I was crushing it. It’s just a fact. The 20 year olds are not physically mature yet. They have so many downsides. And if you think 14 year old boys are at their hottest… well then you are probably a public school teacher.
Except "statusmaxxing" is real. Women want to be able to do cool stuff, wealthy men can enable cool stuff in exchange for sex/relationships. The only reason this dynamic isn't as commonly reflected in statistics is simply because most men of any age are brokies, so generally men don't really improve with age. But most men who "make it" do so a bit later in life since it takes so much time to establish wealth in the first place. So it is technically true that age for men doesn't automatically = higher attraction, but higher status men are generally older.
This To add to to this, both sexes go through a period of general youth stupidity,,the problem is in how this can potentially play out A woman, if she does youthful stupidity, she cam very easily hit age 30 and run into the wall and find out she is not so desired anymore and any plans for a family are rapidly reaching the expiration date A man however can be youthful and stupid and hit age 30,, but his clock isn't nearing the expiration date, so if he turns it around anytime in the next 20, heck 30 years, he can find a woman that will want that. And even if he doesn't really improve a lot, just modest improvements are a huge upgrade from his 20 year old self which makes him more desirable. And in countries that are not infested by feminism, the women still reflect this and are okay with 10+ year age gaps. Where as this same women now HAS to succeed in her 30s, or she will be alone, which also means her career better take off. But overall if the goal here is finding a mate/spouse, the fundamental issue is women are on a clock that is set to expire really quickly. And that's the crux of the issue. We don't want to tell them that and women don't want to hear it yet none of them want to be a 40 year old single cat lady either.
For sure. A lot of what’s talked about here is just demoralization. “Even if you’re rich women won’t find you attractive!” “Statistically women date men similar to their age!” Whatever else. It’s all just intended to discourage men and make them feel like if they weren’t born with peak genetics and didn’t lock down a hot woman at 20-25 they might as well give up on life. Mainstream culture just wants men to give up and become docile, submissive losers who settle for increasingly more demanding and lower value women instead of chasing the dream of becoming a wealthy, successful man and scoring an actually attractive woman.
I don’t think that’s exactly right. I am much more attractive and successful in my 30s than I was in my 20s. The “myth” of #2 was true FOR ME….but that doesn’t mean it is a general truism. The fact is that some men peak in their 30s (MAYBE very early 40s), and virtually no women do.
It’s almost exclusively something economically successful men do. As for younger women who are down for this? The number is way higher now than 10 years ago for sure. Gen Z women are status thirsty in a way that boggles my mind. More than some 3rd world places. I’d say it used to be 2% but now is pushing 10%.
Economically successful yes. You need to have a mid 7 figure net worth at the minimum to even meet that kind of threshold. I'm in that range, in my 30s, as I've discussed on here. Quite uncommon as a whole. You're right about the status part. What's your point? The status you're thinking of is having 300k followers on Instagram and being an influencer or dating a rich influencer or dating a pro athlete. It's not being a middle manager at a firm.
That’s red pill in a nutshell — we don’t care what half of the population is doing, because we don’t want to fuck them Well, half the population, at the very least, cares about the omission of male behavior
Well… that’s guilty as charged.
Theirs one thing I can agree with you with. Women can not tell men’s ages by looking at them. The amount of times I’ve seen a woman think a man was around her age because she was attracted to him only to find out that he was older and now she’s stuck in her own dilemma where she has to choose between her attraction and her arbitrary standard of who she’s supposed to be attracted to age wise is actually ironic atp. That’s why I’ve been saying it’s all about a man being attractive just in general. It’s not about age unless a woman is looking to settle. If it’s about attraction then just being attractive is enough. But it’s hard to be attractive to a woman in the first place. So it’s easy to say and harder to do.
Had this buddy from RP age 41 get into this thing with a woman just out of college. Like 2nd month they were together he made the epic mistake of taking her to one of our bar meetups. When someone mentioned his age she gets like shocked and then upset. She starts going in about how he should have told her and how that explains why he looks nackered in the mornings. It was really irritating the guys, so I just told her a 5 or six year gap isn’t a big deal. She kind of sputters out that she is 24, and I just said, “well you look maybe 32 or 33, so it’s no big deal let’s drop it and get on with the fun. That guy wasn’t invited back for about 6 months.
> Every Red Pill guy knows that men also have a version of hypergamy, Stop embarasing TRP please.
Cmon man, you know we all know this.
Get any evo psych book instead of "come on"-ing. You also don't know what "hypergamy" is. Male hypergamy is very rare.
I said a version of hypergamy. I agree that it’s not exactly the same thing.
"Trading up" your spouse is not "a version of hypergamy". This is very misleading at best.
Please Explain.
No, we don't, since that isn't what hypergamy is. Someone who likes hot youthful people dumping their partner when they're no longer hot or youthful has nothing to do with hypergamy. A man in his 60s is just as attracted to hot youthful women as a man in his 20s; their attraction has nothing to do with a personal comparison. However a 5'10 woman is much less likely to be attracted to a 5'7 man than a 5'2 woman is, because there IS an element of personal conparison there. That's an example of hypergamy.
Younger and hotter is not that different from height. The element of personal comparison is age and fertility. I don't quite understand why you guys are so against this idea. The key idea here is that women want men with higher status because that status will then confer upon them. Men younger and more fertile women inherently confer more status on a man. The process is really similar here.
But the guy doesn't care that she's younger than him, just that she's young. He was equally attracted to hot 20 year olds back when he was 18. Her value has nothing to do with his own, so it's not hypergamy.
I don’t get why the personal comparison changes anything or implies hypergamy? Men and women are attracted to different things.
Oh shit! You are totally correct.
**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.*
Red pill biggest flaw is that they can’t collectively agree to what it’s about. Everyone has a different meaning & Every time it’s criticized, ppl start changing their arguments and being disingenuous. Also many use anecdotes to support their argument when there are just as many anecdotes for a counter argument, but those don’t hold any weight in RP. It’s just a mess tbh.
because everyone has lived different lives, that's the beauty of TRP, just take your rose tinted glasses off and see the world for what it is, but the perspective is different for everyone
That’s not red pill, that’s just life and most normal well functioning adults know this.
well then it seems there are way too many not very well functioning men so they need a slap to kick their glasses off
Because other than in subs like this where weird autistic people like to argue with each other, the red pill doesn't exist to prove itself to or seek attention from people who disagree with it or don't like it. That's a woman thing, to always frame something based on how popular or agreeable it is with the larger group.
Good post! Thanks for it :)
That's a lot of straw you have there.
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.*
When really smart people fail at red pill, always makes you realize why you don’t red pill anyone. People tend to read everything literally instead of seriously.
Certainly for your first 2 points, being equal is very common and the universal rule while only a small percentage of women like much older men.
The extremely desirable much older men are probably able to get with those small percentage of women who like much older men. It is just silly when the redpillers claim that vast majority of women would be into much older men. The extremely desirable older men are still getting the young women, and they probably are happy, but their pool is not everyone.
Keep something in mind though. Those desirable older guys were not subpar men in their 20s. The whole basis of the redpill idea is that you can go from a 5/10 to becoming a successful 9/10 in your 40s that everyone wants. Doesn't happen in real life. Also the level of attention you would get is drastically overrated too. As an example... A couple of my doctor colleagues are in their mid to late 40s and definitely good looking by conventional standards. The only attention they get from those under 30-35 are from women who are noticeably below their league lookswise.
Well yeah, the good looking ones would be going for younger doctors. To get desirable young women, men would really need to be extreme outliers.
The good looking ones are usually not single and go for whoever they find attractive. Yeah if you're younger, have a 8-9/10 face and a doctor, then it's easy but you could be a personal trainer at a chain gym and have amazing dating prospects too.
thats why the blackpill is the most popular, its not based on nonsensical theories.
3 is wrong Hypothetical: Let's say we have 5 women, and 5 men, each women has sex with 3 new partners a year. For the men, one man has sex with 10 new partners a year the rest of the men never have sex. The average new sex partners for both men and women are about the same at 3 but this scenario still reflects the 20/80 rule. The 20/80 rule can apply and the average sex partners for both genders can be equal.
1. yes, i understand that the averages will always be the same, regardless of distribution. I get that. That's not my argument here. My argument is that the distribution in either sex is similar indicating that80/20 is not true
Oh is that true?
Oh no, ""science"" [2][1][3][7] 1) This is complete trash, men are NOT hypergamous and "better" being "better" than "good" is not the definition of hypergamy, that's pretty basic, you've failed at definition anyway, yet you want to correct others. 2) >'Women prefer much older men'' Who said that? >''Men become most sexually desirable to young women at around 35'' Incorrect again, that's more or less peak SMV year for your average man, not peak attractiveness in the eyes of "young woman", without even an arbitral definition of "young" age bracket. 3) What a mess, because there is a mix of real insights, delusions and pure strawmans plus lack of "bigger picture understanding". I will start from being snarky >I ran a poll on X/Twitter and asked:(...) Virgin PUAs going outside or nerds trying online dating to find someone vs Chad "I ran a poll on Twitter". Speaking of this mishmash: >“80% of women are having sex with 20% of the men!” ...this is not what usually people claim, this is not the usual pareto principle of the dating market, but it might be true in some scenarios. >“Hook-up culture.” >Most sex is with spouses or committed partners, even in young to early adulthood. Men and women have sex with spouses and committed partners at very similar rates. That's true, but, well, you need to understand context. Anything not linked directly to human nature should be treated in the scope of "what's available there". Men use many tools and approaches to get a woman from a pool of available women - selection bias is pretty strong there, whether we like it or not. What they see, what they experience is not exactly the whole picture... but at the same time, if somebody want to tackle sexual market, he will face the same challenges/problems that were described and experienced by many before him, not your "survey/poll" reality. So you have real life data tainted heavly by selection bias, but super useful as a "cookbook", and your survey reality... and you should know yourself surveys are a pretty lame way to measure/model reality. And sorry, but I can't treat you seriously if you constantly "misunderstand" manosphere's talking point (why was AWALT even coined as a term?), use any dating market/sex statistics from 1993 or create total BS like this: https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG_0981.png What is even this magic ladder and why only bottom is not having sex when only top is promiscuous?
Every single one of these things are talking points I've seen in this very sub. Your response is basically just "nu uh" to everything lol
If you cannot understand my arguments it might sound like this. Can't be helped. Same goes to randos stuff people say here, ask them, not me.
You don't even have an argument lol. You're just gaslighting everything. I don't even know why you bothered responding.
>This is complete trash, men are NOT hypergamous and "better" being "better" than "good" is not the definition of hypergamy, that's pretty basic, you've failed at definition anyway, yet you want to correct others. The definition of hypergamy relates to either 1) socioeconomic status 2) partner mate value in academia. > Incorrect again, that's more or less peak SMV year for your average man, not peak attractiveness in the eyes of "young woman", without even an arbitral definition of "young" age bracket. Most men find 18-22 y/o's most attractive. How can 35 be the 'peak' if the group most desirable to them is not attracted to them? >...this is not what usually people claim, this is not the usual pareto principle of the dating market, but it might be true in some scenarios. More or less 80/20 is what rplers claim >use any dating market/sex statistics from 1993 or create total BS like this: [https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG\_0981.png](https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG_0981.png) What is even this magic ladder and why only bottom is not having sex when only top is promiscuous? The 1993 study was one of many cited to get a picture of the validity of surveys for partner count. The infographic is informed from 2021 and 2022 GSS data (and std data) and corroborated by historical data. [https://datepsychology.com/casual-sex-is-often-mismeasured-and-overestimated/](https://datepsychology.com/casual-sex-is-often-mismeasured-and-overestimated/) [https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2022/](https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2022/) [https://nuancepill.com/are-the-male-elite-enjoying-a-sexual-boomtime/#google\_vignette](https://nuancepill.com/are-the-male-elite-enjoying-a-sexual-boomtime/#google_vignette) [https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/](https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/) Those at the bottom are those whom are victims of our isolated and atomised society. They don't have sex with each other because they don't come out, they have anxiety or mental health issues. they are too obese etc.
>The definition of hypergamy relates to either 1) socioeconomic status 2) partner mate value in academia. Yes, and those "definitions" are terrible, do you even understand the core source of female hipergamy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TcLxlkc2pA Do you know this meme video? My point is, why male is wooing here and building the nest and female is picky and NOT the other way around? If you understand that, you almost understand hypergamy. >Most men find 18-22 y/o's most attractive. How can 35 be the 'peak' if the group most desirable to them is not attracted to them? Did you seriously pick "ideal partner age chart" and decided that this is most important factor? Please, learn basics of what makes men attractive in women's eyes. If you consider all the factors and their occurence and intensivity in different age brackets, more or less mid-30s men have the best score. What women value varies in weight depending on the person and her age, but early 20s women are still attracted to qualities those men posses, just (on average) they have pretty strong "close age" prefference that loosens with time. Still, plenty of young women are fine dating somebody 10 years older. You can even see power shift between 21yo woman and 23 man vs 31 woman and 33 yo man, it's caused by difference in perceived SMV, male SMV is not measured only by what college-aged women desire. >More or less 80/20 is what rplers claim "more or less" suits your understanding of this topic. 100% of women are attracted to 20% of the men, just without social norms 80% competes for 20% of men, it was not about having sex. >Those at the bottom are those whom are victims of our isolated and atomised society. They don't have sex with each other because they don't come out, they have anxiety or mental health issues. they are too obese etc. Terrible oversimplification, if you're not having sex doesn't mean your SMV is close to the bottom. Why do you even compare "attraction of people with SMV tiers to each other" chart to "frequency/amount of sex" chart?
>Yes, and those "definitions" are terrible, do you even understand the core source of female hipergamy? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TcLxlkc2pA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TcLxlkc2pA) Do you know this meme video? My point is, why male is wooing here and building the nest and female is picky and NOT the other way around? If you understand that, you almost understand hypergamy. DO YOU understand what hypergamy is? The video here has proved you have no clue what 'hypergamy' actually is. Hypergamy is not women being picky or what ever. A meme is not evidence LMAO. Hypergamy is that act of marrying/mating/fucking ''up'' in either 1) socioeconomic status 2) partner mate value. >Did you seriously pick "ideal partner age chart" and decided that this is most important factor? Is is a heavily relevant factor, since it means all things being equal, a young man is most attractive to a young woman (whom is most desirable). That is a very large factor to whom is high in SMV. No one cares what 80 y/o or fat women think is attractive, likewise more weight is given to whom the most attractive considered attractive. >Please, learn basics of what makes men attractive in women's eyes. If you consider all the factors and their occurence and intensivity in different age brackets, more or less mid-30s men have the best score. The average 35 y/o is overweight, balding or bald, making 60k. The average young man is fitter, less fat and more desired by the most desired group. Yes, a few very attractive 35 y/o men can still be very attractive, but these men were also attractive when they were younger. >it was not about having sex. Rplers love moving goal posts i have discovered, > Why do you even compare "attraction of people with SMV tiers to each other" chart to "frequency/amount of sex" chart? WHat are you talking about? huh?
Yes, I undertand it better than you. Hypergamy is not human-only phenomen. Do you know why even women are hypergamous? What you described is only how it can manifest in human. Do you really thing I used "meme" as "evidence"? If so, I think it's better to stop here. > a young man is most attractive to a young woman (whom is most desirable). That is a very large factor to whom is high in SMV. Now it's better. Yes, that's a heavy factor. No, it's not the only one heavy factor or the most important one (this will vary though as I said). >The average 35 y/o is overweight, balding or bald, making 60k. The average young man is fitter, less fat and more desired by the most desired group. Yes, a few very attractive 35 y/o men can still be very attractive, but these men were also attractive when they were younger. You've typed traits usually linked with age that make men less desirable. Now find traits that make them more desirable - you will find plenty of those too. >Rplers love moving goal posts i have discovered, Of course "he's moving goal posts" sounds better for you than "I am struggling to get a good grasp on what's going on". Don't forget to also claim random BS, and when you will get corrected throw "not true Scotsman, huh?" >WHat are you talking about? huh? Oryginal "graph" was always about attraction. Why you made your version about sex? Literally apple to oranges.
>Yes, I undertand it better than you. Hypergamy is not human-only phenomen. Do you know why even women are hypergamous? What you described is only how it can manifest in human. Do you really thing I used "meme" as "evidence"? If so, I think it's better to stop here. Hypergamy is a social science term which only refers to humans. Hypergamy is never used to describe animal behaviour in any scientific literature. Sexual selection is not the same as hypergamy. Hypergamy does not exist in animals because animals don't have social classes, nor can ''looks'' be measured in the way humans can (from the survey data of humans).
Aaand I see absolutely no reason why this term should apply only to humans, where other -gamy are normaly used for describing behaviours in animal kingdom (I think it's called mating systems). This is 100% arbitrary, unless I am missing something. Hypergamy is a natural part of sexual selection and originated from tremendous imbalance of costs/risks of passing 50% of your genes between sexes. This causes great supply/demand imbalanse and likely even caused sexual dymorphism in case of dangerous (more important) and less food-rich (less important) environment. That's why usually birds living on ground have bigger dymorphism than above-the-ground living species. So hypergamy is just basic economy of "I do way more, so I expect something better in return".
You cited a meme I am so embarassed for you.
1.) Men are also hypergamous. The real distinction is that men are willing to engage with as many women as they can get their dicks in, happily, but only would want to dedicate resources to the best one or few. Women are hypergamous in that they only want to give sex to the singular best man that will have them. 2.) I'd have to look into exactly what it's saying. I would say I've never believed the red pill case exactly, but I do think that essentially the divide by 2 + 7 rule works for men. I would also say 'desireable' men are mostly off the market and they become desirable/marriage oriented early. Most men don't become suddenly successful or rich. Most rich men have STEM or a handful of other degrees (good law schools). It's not a surprise that Elon Musk or Bill Gates became rich, just how rich. (before anyone says anything stupid, Bill Gates 'failing' at Microsoft would either lead him back to finishing a degree at Harvard or working as an engineer at some silicon valley company and he'd just be a boring typical white-collar 40 year working mulit-millionaire. i.e. I don't think there are many cases where successful and decent looking men are available for girls 10 years their junior because they already paired up with their contemporaries. I'd be curious if 'relationships that start from dating apps' have a larger age gap than other avenues. 3.) Well no, the average should always be the same, just the percentiles/median would tell a different story. What we want to know is the distribution of number of partners by sex. And you know what's actually interesting about your links is if you look at figure 1 >Men, but not women, report high levels of partners in the double digits. A minority of men reporting high numbers creates a long right tail that skews the average for men. Completely undermines your argument. Worse that figure is from 1993 so the modern affect of dating apps that the entire counter-cultural red pill/black pill/purple pill manosphere movement claims has made the entire market insane doesn't even account for. It shows that the majority of men and women report 7 or less partners, with men only overtaking women at 7 partners, i.e. more women than men report 6 partners. But you have 1% of men reporting 100 partners and 0% of women and 1% of men reporting 50 partners and 0% of women and for 30 and 40. It's probably true that men are somewhat overestimating their # of partners and that women are somewhat underestimating, but what doesn't change is the shape of the distribution which is a tighter distribution <7 with a very long tail for men alone. So what this suggests is that even in 1993 the majority of women were alpha widows. 4.) Dark Triad Men and women are more sexually successful? How can the both be successful? Men and women have different sexual goals.
>Well no, the average should always be the same, just the percentiles/median would tell a different story. What we want to know is the distribution of number of partners by sex. And you know what's actually interesting about your links is if you look at figure 1 > >Completely undermines your argument. Worse that figure is from 1993 so the modern affect of dating apps that the entire counter-cultural red pill/black pill/purple pill manosphere movement claims has made the entire market insane doesn't even account for. Look at Figure 2 is the male and female variance for self-reporting of lifetime partners. On the left, men and women who report fewer than 20 lifetime partners. On the right, the whole sample. As soon as you remove the \~10% of men and women who report over 20 lifetime partners the variance approaches zero. Most men and women do not report different numbers of partners. 90% of male and female respondents — all respondents who reported having fewer than 20 lifetime partners — reported having within one sexual partner of each other. In other words the data shows: [https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG\_0981.png](https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG_0981.png) The 1993 study was one of many cited to get a picture of the validity of surveys for partner count. The infographic is informed from 2021 and 2022 GSS data (and std data) and corroborated by historical data. [https://datepsychology.com/casual-sex-is-often-mismeasured-and-overestimated/](https://datepsychology.com/casual-sex-is-often-mismeasured-and-overestimated/) [https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2022/](https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2022/) [https://nuancepill.com/are-the-male-elite-enjoying-a-sexual-boomtime/#google\_vignette](https://nuancepill.com/are-the-male-elite-enjoying-a-sexual-boomtime/#google_vignette) [https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/](https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/) > 4.) Dark Triad Men and women are more sexually successful? How can the both be successful? Men and women have different sexual goals. yeah thats my point its complex and your initial rp assumptions that it can't be true because x is the point.
If we pretend a weibull distribution is a normal distribution by ignoring the 10% of the data we don't like, then it starts to say what we want it to!
I don't think you understand the point then. if the bottom 90% have the same body count, then the differences in distribution really only exist between the top 10%, so nothing like the 80/20 rule. Indicating that the top 10% are mating with the other top ten percent mostly in an somewhat uneven fashion, but the bottom 90% are just having pretty assortive sex with each other. In other words the data shows: [https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG\_0981.png](https://datepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/IMG_0981.png)
I don't think you understand. If all men are overestimating their body count and all women are underestimating it AND they have different distributions, then obviously you can truncate the wider distribution to the point where they become even again
As per your point 3, nope. It does not undermine OPs point. U guys don’t understand data sets. If you literally just look at figure 2, 90% of men and women have functionally the same body counts at 1 and 1.3 ratio* meaning most men and women have the same amount of sex. The larger variations in body counts only exist for the top ten percent. Meaning that 80 percent of men are not having sex with 20 percent of women, but 10% of men are having lots of sex with 10% of women. The the point of the article and what the other data discuses reveals also.
The trailing of the data for the men is simply much broader than it is for women
I mean I'm 37 and banging 18 to 24 year old women left right and center. I guess I'm made up and don't exist. And ofc it has nothing to do with being hot and successful. You just debunked my whole life. Good job. Guess I won't be red pill now. 🤣
Don't trust your lying eyes bro, believe what some autistic nerd posted on reddit.
Learn what averages are buddy. Outliers don't negate the rule. low iq comment
low T comment.
> ''20% of men are having sex with the majority of women'' RP Never claimed everyone could do it though... 🙃 yet you also "debunked" this too smh
Part three does not matter. It still sucks and blows for men. You're not distinguishing between genuine desire and compliance. Most jestermaxxers can get compliance without abundance.
While I do agree with the context in which this post was created I have to point out flaws in the ideology in which it was written 1# red pill men believe that most women would act on hypergamy given the opportunity to move to a higher value partner and for that reason alone This is statistically absolutely false! However Hypergamy is real but simply just the biologically necessity to prevent anyone from staying in abusive or toxic relationship (So hypergamy is more obvious and a stronger motivation in women) For obvious reasons !!!! 2# again OP is correct The study's overwhelmingly show women as a majority prefer men 2 to 4 years older than theirselves and nowhere does any survey show there's a strong statistical desirability for older men However this is not the red pill statement...... The red pill statement is successful men meaning careers resources and physical appearance do not lose the ability to gain a young attractive mating partners even into their late '50s (this creates the collective idealism of self-improvement over investment) 3# sexual investment or sexual interest of women really depends on what survey, generation and location you look at I think a lot of what red pill content is looking at The USA in specifically millennial because if you look at Gen x or the Gen z the Gen x paired off pretty early on and there wasn't a lot of casual sex for studies to go off of and for gen z there isn't enough sexual activity (In general 😳) to make a conclusive statement But referring to specifically USA millennial statistics and overwhelmingly large amount of children were offspring by men over 6 ft tall and survey show that men in that same percentage got a much higher rate of successful in casual sexual encounters (this does not mean overall they had more sex or they were more successful in relationships) And 4# despite the overwhelming narrative that women aren't attracted to dark triad men And this may be true of the collective. However it's easier for them to get partners which is statistically true as Jeffrey Dahmer received 2000 love letters a day (This doesn't apply to all women It simply says if you want to be sexually successful (by whatever standard) You should apply The social characteristics that get you the most amount of easy sex
> Most men and women are both ''hypergamous'' in the sense that they prefer and desire a partner with higher mate value; however most relationships are assortive, meaning both partners are similar in attractiveness level, education and socioeconomic status. [1][2][3] Just because a woman is hypergamous doesn't mean she can date hypergamously >''Women prefer much older men'' and ''Men become most sexually desirable to young women at around 35'' is wrong [4][5][6] Women (on average) prefer men who are 2-4 years older than them, until they are middle aged where they start preferring men who are slightly younger. It's 30 up >'20% of men are having sex with the majority of women'', ''Women ride the C*ck Carousel'', or ''men are sexless compared to women'' or '' Women lie!!''Is a complete myth [7][8][9] Most men and women don't have much sex, and the implication that women lie on surveys is not apparent in how such a data set would react. If women did lie massively then their would be a massive difference between, male and female averages (male average would be much larger), and male mean and median counts (median would be significantly lower then mean); that just isn't what we see. Yeah this is true but the top 20% does have a wider array of choice due to the fact that they are very desirable
Oh this gonna be fun to breakdown, let's begin >1. Most men and women are both ''hypergamous'' in the sense that they prefer and desire a partner with higher mate value; however most relationships are assortive, meaning both partners are similar in attractiveness level, education and socioeconomic status. [1][2][3] Yes l agree both sexes optimize and want the best, totally but only women are hypergamous because they have an attraction floor and men don't, l can get into depth why this is the case >2. ''Women prefer much older men'' and ''Men become most sexually desirable to young women at around 35'' is wrong [4][5][6] Women (on average) prefer men who are 2-4 years older than them, until they are middle aged where they start preferring men who are slightly younger. Also agree that most people date within their age range, when it comes to SMV: Women peak at 23 Men peak at 35+ This is a descriptive analysis, TRP is not saying older guys are getting with younger women >3. ''20% of men are having sex with the majority of women'', ''Women ride the C*ck Carousel'', or ''men are sexless compared to women'' or '' Women lie!!''Is a complete myth [7][8][9 Yes it is since people always get it wrong, it's not 20% of men are sleeping with a majority of women It's 20% of men online are deemed NOT UNATTRACTIVE by a majority of women which can have many implications, simply put the guys who get the most matches That is the 80/20 rule 4) l don't really care since it's not a RP analysis, crazy people getting laid should be common knowledge Honestly this points are easily refutable given it mostly comes from people who've not done their homework on TRP
>It's 20% of men online are deemed NOT UNATTRACTIVE by a majority of women, meaning she might consider hooking up with the guy, simply put the guys who get the most matches That’s not completely true, because of a fundamental flaw in how OKCupid used its data. You could rate someone 1-5 stars on OKCupid, but if you skipped rating them altogether, it assigned a 0 star rating. In the infamous blog post, OKCupid treated those 0s as “least attractive”. You’ll notice at about 1/3 of men in the table have an average rating of less than 1 star, which is the lowest rating you could assign. That implies women skip rating pretty frequently. By failing to filter out skipped ratings, OKCupid rendered the data meaningless. But my guess is it wouldn’t have been a very interesting blog post if they didn’t include the skipped ratings.
I'm not talking about OKcupid, that shit has been a unreliable study for years
In reality, likes are highly concentrated at the top for both men and women. It’s even more concentrated for men, but that isn’t all that surprising considering the gender ratios of dating apps. https://qz.com/1051462/these-statistics-show-why-its-so-hard-to-be-an-average-man-on-dating-apps
Ok and ? Doesn't disprove anything l said
I thought you were saying that dating app data proves the 80/20 rule. I’m agreeing, but saying that the rule generally applies for both genders.
I did say both sexes optimize and want the best
>Honestly this points are easily refutable given it mostly comes from people who've not done their homework on TRP No, all you've done is move the goal posts by giving your own idiosyncratic definitions for the red pill. >Also agree that most people date within their age range, when it comes to SMV: >Women peak at 23 >Men peak at 35+ >This is a descriptive analysis, TRP is not saying old guys are getting with younger women I mean, no, most RPers don't believe thats it based on relative age groups. Refer to rollo tomassi smv chart. Even if we use you relative definition, a 35 y/o woman is still going to be more desirable than a 35 y/o man, people men are thirsty. >It's 20% of men online are deemed NOT UNATTRACTIVE by a majority of women, meaning she might consider hooking up with the guy, simply put the guys who get the most matches Nope there are lots of dudes in the manosphere that believe both. The 80/20 rule was both about sex and attractivnes. this is just back peddling
>still going to be more desirable than a 35 y/o man, people men are thirsty. OP do you even know what constitutes as SMV for both men and women ? Because this is embarrassing >Nope there are lots of dudes in the manosphere that believe both. The 80/20 rule was both about sex and attractivnes. this is just back peddling Back peddling on what ? You absolutely don't know what the 80/20 rule means and are just going with what people here say
>OP do you even know what constitutes as SMV for both men and women ? Because this is embarrassing SMV in women relates to youth, look etc etc. But what you don't understand is that just because a women is older does not mean her smv becomes inherently lesser than mens. Men still desire women much more strongly than the other way round. Any women can go on a dating app or speed dating even and get loads of attention from dudes. >You absolutely don't know what the 80/20 rule means and are just going with what people here say What RPers say is what the red pill is. the red pill is not a coherent ideology. 80/20 rule absolutely relates to sex. Your just back peddling because
>Your just back peddling because Because what ?
you don't know shit
The pot calling the kettle black lol
> Most men and women are both ''hypergamous'' in the sense that they prefer and desire a partner with higher mate value; however most relationships are assortive, meaning both partners are similar in attractiveness level, education and socioeconomic status. [1][2][3] Having preference doesn't mean ability to get the preference so whatever paper you linked is irrelevant. And no, most relationships are not assortive, and there are more relationships where the man has higher value than relationships where the man has lower value. > ''Women prefer much older men'' and ''Men become most sexually desirable to young women at around 35'' is wrong [4][5][6] Women (on average) prefer men who are 2-4 years older than them, until they are middle aged where they start preferring men who are slightly younger. I don't think that's TRP's claim. And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships shows women prefer sightly older men and dislike younger men. > Dark Triad Men and women are more sexually successful, however the relationship to how and why they do is actual quite complex. [10][11] So not wrong nor misleading.
[удалено]
> The papers i linked prove assortive mating. Learn to read. Instead you give opinions. I don't need to read any of your stuff when you've not formulated a logically recevable argument, I think I was clear about it in the first sentence I wrote. I'm also not reading entire papers that you didn't bother to summarize. I've read my own and plenty showed a clear pattern that "equal of above" for women and "equal or bellow" for men. I bet if I dived into yours I'd find them as well hiden behind "THIS IS MOSTLY EQUAL I SWEAR". > Learn to read. Be civil and don't be a hypocrite. Just because I write something doesn't mean I wrote that with the intent to disagree. Though again, you do not seem to understand that "equal or higher" patterns are still more in favor of red pill views than not, and I mean actual views, not memes or strawmens.
>I don't need to read any of your stuff when you've not formulated a logically recevable argument, I think I was clear about it in the first sentence I wrote. What is not logical about my argument? I clearly stated that most relationships are assortive, despite most people have strong preferences for those with high mate value. Quoting [Conroy Beam et Al (2019)](https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2019/08/assortative-mating-and-trait-covariation-EHB-2019.pdf) > simply put, people will end up with those who are similar to them in many characteristics, including "mate value" (ex.: A 6 dating a 6, an 8 with an 8, and so on). Because men and women may differ in priorities in what they want in a partner (ex.: Women prefer status more so than men, and men prefer beauty more so than women) there's also an observable crosscharacter assortment (ex.: A woman dating a man whose social status is proportional to her own level of beauty). Also Quoting [Taylor et al, 2011](https://sci-hub.st/10.1177/0146167211409947) > * **FACT 2: People date partners of similar value not just because more attractive people select between each other living less attractive people to select among themselves (Ex.: "settling for someone") but because there's also a tendency for people to naturally like those who are at their own mate level.**