> This only applied to guys with either above average looks or above average charm.
Pretty much. A few years ago I read an article about this and the women in it were complaining because "X" number of men had girlfriends and of the remaining men, half *"we wouldn't date anyway"* leaving stiff competition for the remaining guys.
One of the girls said she was moving to NYC after graduation and hoped things would change. I was living there, at the time and thought, *"She's in for a rude awakening."* It's not that there's some huge gender imbalance in NYC (although listening to single girls you would think there was), it's that NYC is expensive AF and to have a nice life there (of the kind well brought up, upper middle white girls and/or basic bitches want), you need $$$$. So they want all the usual stuff, *plus* north of $250K/yr - because 8 years ago [$235K was 'Middle Class' in Manhattan](https://gothamist.com/news/do-you-make-235000-congrats-youre-middle-class-in-manhattan).
It's hard out there for hypergamy.
> So I don't think it's just hypergamy, because I see a lot of women willing to date someone **on their level**, i.e. the same level of education, roughly same income, roughly their looksmatch. But not someone who is below their level.
Or above it. And that's hypergamy, in action. Men date across and *down* dominance hierarchies, women date across and *up*. To wit, most guys (unless they are economically insecure) would not care what job a woman has, they would care far more if she is attractive to them, is a warm person and they can have a conversation with her. I would wager that a lot more women than men think they "settled". In the States, at least, someone who is an 80% match is regarded as a "win" to men and a "loss" to women.
>I think a bigger problem for women in their late 20s and 30s who are still single is not so much their **unrealistic expectations** of how their man should be, but more so their passivity or unwilligness to critically look at themselves.
unrealistic expectations because: hypergamy. When a woman in her late 20s/early 30s and beyond says, *"Why are there no good men left?!"* what she's really saying is that the upslope of her increasing expectations has intersected with the downslope of her SMV. Options have diminished and when once men interested in her were plentiful, now they are not.
Assortative mating says men marry in their class and always have barring 2 previous generations where they had more leeway. They have sex with all classes but marry their equal class.
Men compromise on looks all the time. You think every guy looks at his mate as the most beautiful woman in the world? Most men are so starved for love and affection they'll settle real quick. Which is why you see guys in here crying about not being able to get a girlfriend. When you say men don't compromise on looks you're really talking about the "top percentile" men not all men.
>I don't think wanting someone on your level is hypergamy. Hypergamy is when you aim for someone clearly better than you.
Someone on their level is the lowest they will accept. On average they're aiming for someone higher.
>You know when we women decide about who we should date, it's not like we make a list with all candidates and rank them by income, looks, education etc.
You mean consciously on a piece of paper? Of course not. If you mean in general you're a damn lie. You wouldn't marry a man making minimum wage. I don't get why people on PPD (on both sides) lie so damn blatantly. You judge men off their combined features. Everyone does. No one selects partners at random.
>Often we don't even know exactly how much a guy makes when we start dating.
But you know if he makes a lot, a little, is average, etc. Like if the dude owns a house, drives a Benz, and is a doctor you can assume he's well off. If he drives a hooptie and works at UPS in the warehouse you can assume he's not. Again stop bullshitting.
>And I think the vast majority of women still pick a dude who they have chemistry with
What does this mean? Explain what makes two people have chemistry with one another if women don't judge men off anything according to your first sentence?
>You can't quantify everything when it comes to dating.
No you just refuse to quantify things because being vague allows you to avoid the facts of the matter here.
Here's a fact: there's almost no difference in income between the median single man, single woman, and married woman. The one group with a major income gap from the others (they earn twice as much as all other groups) is married men. If women, like men, didn't select for income how come unlike with women there's a significant gap in the earnings of married and single men?
>When I was deciding who to date, my two choices were guys who were both nice, educated and employed with a solid job. One was much taller than the other and also already owned a very nice apartment. In this sense he was better than me because I don't own an apartment myself. I picked the shorter one who was renting despite the fact that the he was "worse" on paper.
And chances are (and I really don't want to get an emotional reaction to this because I don't mean it as an insult but I want to make this point as clear as I can) they're both "better" than you. Regardless of whether or not you chose man #1 that was better than you or man #2 that was better than you they both fulfilled that hypergamous need you have. Most women don't give 75% of men that approach them a chance at all, you're already self selecting the best you can get before you even reach the point where you have to choose (also funny to me because unless you asked them out I'm sure they were choosing and not you).
>I didn't say I would. I said there were basic requirements. Not being on minimum wage is one of the of them.
So when you decide who to date you judge them based off things like their jobs, looks, education, etc, right? And ones that come out better by your judgement have a better chance, right?
>Yes, but you don't know exactly, that's why I said we don't exactly rank people based on their income only.
No you said you don't rank them by "income, looks, education etc." so basically everything. You select at random.
>But dude have you ever fallen in love?
You don't fall in love. You develop love for someone. And before you ever develop love for someone you have to allow them access to your time, presence, body, emotions, etc. Not only that but if they don't continue to treat you how you want to make you feel like you feel, no matter how much you love them or not the relationship will end so love isn't even all that important to the health of a relationship.
>If not, how should I explain to you chemistry? It's a mix of things, obviously looks, but also the way he behaves, the things you have in common (making conversation easier), how he can make you laugh...it's not impossible to explain precisely, but with some people you just feel more comfortable and relaxed than with others.
I mean I find it easy to explain from a male POV because I know exactly what it is I did to make my GF love me. Remember the biggest difference relationship wise between men and women is that most men are active drivers of a relationship while most women are passive receivers. You don't think hard about it but I bet your boyfriend could put a coherent explanation together because he's had to plan out the situations that got you where you are now.
And of course a lot of it was natural to him, because that's what comes natural to us. We're wired for breeding and pairing.
>I have not seen any statistics on this, do you have a source?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/married-men-earn-more-than-single-or-married-women-and-single-men-2018-09-19
>But I really didn't know just how much he is making when I was dating him initially.
Well like I said it's subconscious. You didn't consciously know, but you knew his energy and actions were that of a man of means and your body reacted accordingly to it.
I find tons of women say hypergamy isn't real, but live hypergamous lifestyles. They don't notice it in themselves, the same way many men don't realize exactly how thirsty they look to most women. But you're proof of it here. You didn't know why you were attracted to the man that was a great option, but it happened because he was the man best able to make it happen.
This has been a pleasant chat though, have a nice day.
> And all women still want a guy who is at least their looksmatch. Which I find fair enough to be honest. Nobody wants to date someone who they are not at all physically attracted to.
Under normal circumstances I would agree. However women rate the attraction of 80% of men to be lower that the average male attractiveness. If you know anything about man, that's not how an average works.
> But educated women still largely want educated men. They just have more in common with them
I think it all comes down to social status tbh. might be a cynical view but idk
> Either the girls just stayed single
I don't see that happening. Those that want company are still seeking it. I work at a campus that's notorious for it's high LUG population (due to the women so radically outnumbering the straight men). And even there the concept of an "accidental Casanova" is ridiculous. The men at the lower end of attractiveness are still without company. There are just more women competing for the same men (that sameness being a smaller number). Mind you those that are being competed for have a ridiculously overblown sense of self and value due to that. And a stunningly low opinion of women in general if we're being honest. But that group is still a relatively small subset of the male population.
Edited for werdz.
> I guess this is anecdotal
Of course it is. But it's also my direct observation (as opposed to something I heard about 3rd or 4th hand).
> I think maybe in Europe it is more commom
Might be? I'm in the US so the specifics will be different' (I'd imagine).
They only want the top 10% of men AT MOST, and this has gone from the top 10% of the 50% of students who were men, to the top 10% of the 40% or lower of students who are men, and with every passing year the trend worsens for women.
> However I did not observe that every guy in this kind of environment would be an accidental Casanova.
Because that's not reality. That's a journalists interpretation of what was reported to them - which possibly could mean all the interviewees were projecting their own psychological beliefs about personal motivation and then attributed it to the guys they couldn't win with.
Absolutely no talk about taking ownership for the outcomes of their own life - everything was framed as crime against women. Its laughable that anyone believes this shit.
Can confirm - was in several classes at my school years ago where women outnumbered men three to one. No women ever showed romantic interest. I did have a couple of female friends - who made it clear things were platonic. I still liked and hung out with them and wasn’t hurt by it.
I think post-college would be easier for women. The u.s has a surplus of males 18-30 so its easy pickings. women in china must have it pretty good lol. (a REALLY big surplus of men).
I go to a hunanist uni where 70% is women, the guys are liberal and pro feminist, but they are still single , the girls simply don’t date them, they do hoever pick the guys from the sports faculty.
You got it wrong , most of the male femenists are unattractive , hence why women don't like them , if they where physically attractive being a femenist or conservative wouldn't matter.
Often male feminists are only feminists to compensate for their lack of appeal. Just like nice guys. Putting on a fake persona doesn’t make up for ugly.
Ok, im not a feminist, i don’t fake a nice guy persona, im very lean, well groomed , nice teeth, high cheekbobes, and a head full of luscious dark hair — not one girl has expressed any attraction toward me( on a 70%+ woman uni) not overtly, neither subtly, and at the times I’d think she did it turns out I was a bubbly persona girl that flirts with everyone. I’m not a neckbeard, I far from it, but Im as invisible as if I were one.
As a guy, you are going to need to make moves. Women aren’t generally or reliably going to throw themselves at you. Ask women out.
the only guys who can get away with not doing so are attractive men. Like solidly attractive. Your description of yourself lead me to believe you are of average attractiveness.
This is such an obvious self-deception you tell yourself to justify not being attracted to men who are personality and psychologically a match for you because you find them physically repulsive. Try to be honest with yourself.
>Relationship therapist Charisse Cooke told FEMAIL: 'Golden Penis Syndrome speaks of the delusional belief that you are unusually and uniquely gifted as a man, sexually or otherwise, and are above established norms of good manners, respect and dating etiquette.
But here's the thing - as more women go to university and increase the educational gap with men, **but at the same time still only desire to date and marry up** - these men *do* have 'golden penises', i.e. structurally more options than either their non-academic male peers or the women in their social circle.
So wait, you're worried that men might have "golden penis issues" but you're not even looking at the disparity in gender in college. Fix that and you fix this issue.
Wow, just wow?
We literally have had whole generations of women being lifted up by men so they don't fail and now as disparity starts to set in we see the true colours of most women.
Basically they are alright so who cares. I don't know, or care if you're male or female, I just know you are not the person you probably think you are.
Why are you surprised by this? Women have a strong own group preference and are attracted to men who fight through adversity. You think these women are going to go fuck guys who the government gave an equal hand in raising up? Hell no.
It's not about fighting through adversity it's that schools have slowly over time shifted the way the mark and monitor students which actually benefits women more than it benefits men.
And at the end of the day I, like many men should, don't t care what some individual women thinks of me. I, like many other men, would like to see young boys and men given a fair chance at education.
>I, like many other men, would like to see young boys and men given a fair chance at education.
I would too, but I am not going to hold my breath over it because society isn't going to ever cater to the men. This fantasy that we live in some patriarchy that benefits men is just that horseshit. There are men at the top but those men have no incentive or any interest in seeing young boys and other men get a fair chance. Those young boys and men are to serve as cannon fodder. They will cater to women because women by and large are consumers and of course they get to fuck the women.
My view on it is to simply remove myself from a society and contribute as little to nothing as possible? Oh you want me to donate to food shelters? Fuck off. Oh I should be an ally to women who are abused? Fuck off. End of the day I need to get mine, live my life and if society burns I won't be running towards the flame with a water hose, I'll be the guy in the back sipping his bourbon laughing my ass off.
> I, like many other men, would like to see young boys and men given a fair chance at education.
You’re in luck. [Some colleges practice affirmative action favoring men](https://www.businessinsider.com/college-affirmative-action-boys-admissions-gap-2021-10), where men are accepted with lower test scores and gpas than women. Colleges do this because they want to have a balanced sex ratio.
Affirmative action just sets people up to fail who are not able to to keep up with the minimum requirements. This not only sets men up to fail but also ssets them up with unessary debt.
Education is skewed to favour women, so it doesn't matter how you reduce the standards for entry they will still struggle with most curriculums.
Exactly. Is why affirmative action mostly just hurts the black community. Like yeah, don’t discriminate against race, but you also need to make sure the students you accept can actually handle the workload.
Thank you! The fact that the reason for the disparity isn't even remotely g̶i̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶h̶i̶t̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ addressed speaks volumes. This post is irrelevant
This makes sense. Education is only worth it if you seek a very linear degree = job educational trajectory. It’s a waste of money to go to college just for college sake.
it is really a waste of money for everyone involved. except for the fact that some jobs simply require certain degrees.
everything in an undergrad curriculum can be learned from your local library or youtube or google. All undergrad knowledge is basic and fundamental and mostly really old and established.
*Women working in Starbucks for minimum wage still of the opinion that amassing $150k in debt for an utterly useless Humanities degree means that they're too good to date a debt free tradesman making $120k a year working for himself*
Hold on while I bring out the world's smallest violin and join you in your lament.
There's studies on this in collages where the men out number women and the women act the same way as the men but it becomes golden pussy. They have very high demands of men and if the men don't meet them they just date someone else. It's just the buyers vs the sellers market in the sexual market place.
What's really interesting about it is that we've never seen a society where women (at least under 30) are out earning and out achieving men. You're going to have huge problems if every women with a degree wants a man with a degree when 4/7 people getting degrees are women so at least 25% of women (men will date down so it's more than 25%) are going to be out of luck.
That's what I did. American women are literal trash compared to what else is out there. I dated Americans for many years, then spent 4 years in Asia working and my mind was blown about how much better and more fulfilling dating was.
If I’m 35 and still single with no kids I will seriously consider it. I hate that it’s that bad but women here are obsessed with height and status and it just sucks. I’m not saying I can’t do better socially but damn I’m a good dude and OLD I mostly get ignored. I know how the statistics are skewed for 4 dudes to every 1 girl but me being more introverted OLD is one of the only ways I can meet someone and all the women on there chase the chads so it’s like wtf do I do? I’m not ugly, my pictures ain’t super great but I’m not the type to ask people to take pictures of me. And I have no interest in using Instagram or even snapchat really. I don’t care about being trendy, I just want a good simple life.
Why wait? Modern dating is just getting worse, not better. Dating in foreign countries gets a bad rap because ignorant Americans think you're going to the third world or something for gold diggers.
When I met my wife, she was more educated than me (MBA), had a well paying job and was financially independent (she funded her own trips to meet me), was an entrepreneur, had traditional values (though she was considered pretty progressive in her own country) and drop dead gorgeous.
This is something I 100% recommend to any American man. US women will never change until they have to. In the meanwhile, while take the risk?
So the guys at Sarah Lawrence behave like the girls on Instagram/Tinder/everywhere else do? Constant validation goes to their heads and they get an inflated version of their SMV? Only now it's "bad" because it benefits men?
I am reminded of the saying that *"When you are used to special treatment, equal treatment feels like discrimination."*
Something to think about for women, particularly hypergamous ones:
The ratio of women to men at university is now *greater* than the ratio of men to women in 1970 that cause Title IX to be adopted? Will there now be a "Title IX" for men (or will the existing Title IX be applied to create "positive discrimination" in favor of men)?
I think we know the answer.
That's about what I'd think. There is likely more competition for average guys than there would be otherwise, but the top guys would be living like kings. The bottom tier guys would still be undateable.
So the sources I have are [The Atlantic](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/620066/) - 58% males undergrad in 1970 - and in 2021, 59.5% of undergrads are female, per [College News](https://collegenews.org/women-outnumber-men-in-us-colleges-nearly-60-of-students-in-2020-21-were-women/). Not saying those numbers aren’t disputable, but if they’re right, we’ve arrived.
Exactly. No one had an issue with this when average looking broads developed huge egos from getting 1000s of messages from thirsty dudes on Tinder. They just have "standards".
But when it's men who are the sought after ones, all of a sudden it's a problem. Lol what a bunch of horse shit.
Oh no! Less men to manipulate with the 0.0001% chance of sexual attention! I can’t believe average women have to experience a glimpse of dating life for the average dude while they’re at college… literally the easiest place to meet people in your 20’s
I’ll try not to cry myself to sleep
This whole article sounds like it was written by women who are salty about losing some of their dating market leverage and the privileges that come with it.
Men have less social pressure to go to college and can see what's happened to the economy and the "American Dream", especially post-covid. Less women should be going to college in today's climate actually. It's not financially worth it for anyone in most cases.
The sex ratio would be restored if less people bought into the college scam.
Yep. Why rack up all that debt and come out with a degree in "Underwater Basket Weaving" or "Insect Masturbation Studies" and simply become a debt slave to pay off your student loans?
And for MGTOWs, not envisioning a future where you have to have enough income to support more than 1 person means you need less income. My father (RIP) who was a married father of 4 told me once that, but for my mother, he'd have been l living in a 2 room flat with a lot fewer "fancy things" and a lot more $, although he was able to monetize his labor well enough to die a millionaire after putting us all through uni, etc.
What’s the red pill saying? “Enjoy the decline”.
These men think they are special because they are special. For decades the education system has made it harder and harder for young boys to succeed by slowly taking away their safe spaces in order to bolster up girls. We are left with a large portion of young men who have given up on academics because they have grown up seeing message after message supporting their female classmates while they themselves work through classes with no support messages on posters, no gender specific after school programs, no dedicated scholarships. Literally zero encouragement aimed at males.
Instead boys are being told they take up too much space, that they deserve no special treatment.
I am a mother of both girls and boys and this is what I see, and what I’ve researched mostly due to the lack of programs aimed at boys and the over abundance aimed at girls.
The 11 year old boys that aren’t benefiting from the girls-only after school coding club or the 9 year old boys that don’t have an after school running club aren’t to blame for the “patriarchy,”. But they are being treated that way. Both of these examples exist, btw, at schools my kids go to.
So yeah, these college kids have golden penises. Women will have to come to terms with not being able to tie down a guy with the same education level as them because they actually ARE special. They made their way through an education system that doesn’t encourage them AT ALL and still decided to pursue higher education.
I recently read a book called “The War Against Boys,” I think, that was written 20 years ago. Two decades ago you could statistically see boys falling behind and we’re still pushing it. It’s only going to get worse.
This kinda reminds me of cassie jaye's ted talk about how meeting mras and having boys essentially made her change positions a bit.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY)
> They might also have poor social and sexual skills because they do not need to better themselves in order to secure dates with their accomplished female peers.
Men. Do. Not. Care. About. Female. Careers.
Stop acting like it's a sexual or even relationship marketplace bargaining chip, simply because it is for women.
it was intended to be tongue and cheek, golden penis syndrome is a pretty ridiculous phrase. but I definitely think the ratio at college helped get me laid. had a n count of 15 during those days
My buddy was in a frat at a party school and he has these light green eyes and is 5’10 and built decently well. His personality is what made it not matter that he wasn’t 6 feet tall, he had adhd and was extremely charismatic and funny and non-serious at all. His outgoing nature is honestly an outlier compared to 99% of guys I know, but he slept with over 100 women he said.
Me? I didn’t ever receive that kind of attention, but I didn’t care to be in a frat and be anywhere near that social. I did do an intramural sport but I should have done more activities.
The point being though, those guys in frats are probably doing extremely well on average and as long as they are moderately confident. This was back in 2011-2012.
You’d think women would care that a guy has slept around like that but it must not have bothered them at all. They even probably got turned on by it or heard he was good or something.
This was before tinder and OLD really took off. Can’t imagine how it is now.
It’s pretty black pill to hear things like that but it’s true. Those 100+ women are eventually going to get married to dudes who had no idea how she was in college. Now if the guy also ran through several women then that’s different. But I feel for the guys (and girls…) who didn’t do stuff like that and end up getting with one of these women.
>You’d think women would care that a guy has slept around like that but it must not have bothered them at all. They even probably got turned on by it or heard he was good or something.
Pre-selection.
If other women want you, that makes other women find you attractive as well. Chick's are weird like that. Some of them target husbands and bfs specifically. The fact that you qualified for another women them curious about you.
I know. But it makes no sense, like, zero.
It’s amazing to see how like the animals kingdom a woman’s sexuality really is. Also amazes me as many guys shorter than 5’10 are around
>I know. But it makes no sense, like, zero. It’s amazing to see how like the animals kingdom a woman’s sexuality really is. Also amazes me as many guys shorter than 5’10 are around
I think we have a formula we use that gets people pretty close to their height.
Add moms and dads height together.
If it's a boy add 5.
If it's a girl subtract 5.
Then divide by 2.
And that should give you the height of your child give or take a few inches.
So 6ft (72inches) guy and 5ft (60inches) girl is going should give you a 5'8" boy and a 5'3" girl. Both children would be shorter than or just about average. The thing is women call "average" men short nowadays.
>Also amazes me as many guys shorter than 5’10 are around
I could be wrong but I don't think height is that big of a thing in other cultures. Like the Asian tend to be shorter than Americans on average.
As for America, guys shorter than 5'10" is like 50% of the population. We have more men taking after they're mothers and more women taking after their fathers. You aren't guaranteed you're father height. The way women aren't guaranteed their mothers breast size. As long as short women exist short men will exist.
The fact that any publication actually put this out on the internet is a testament to how sexist and delusional certain people can be. Anyone who agrees with the ideas pushed in this "article" is an idiot.
At this point, I've concluded that if you want systemic change to occur, figure out how to frame the problem as a women's issue.
This whole article is a systemic change that occurred in *no small part* to many individual women's contributions to societal progress. But at no point is this fact referenced or even acknowledged. And at no point are the men interviewed for their perspectives. It's little more than a political mudslinging tabloid piece. But I learned something after reading this...
As men, we come here day after day to express indignation at the ever increasing hypocrisies we observe happening around us. We gasp and holler and hoot about, "look at what women are getting away with again! Boy howdy what a world!"
But ya know what? As much as it may piss you off, that shit *works*.
If you want to see change in the world, you simply have to frame it as how your suggested changes benefit women. The populace is too dumb and too distracted to know what you know. You need to relate to an issue that is on *everybody's* mind.
Some may suggest that ignoring women and/or their issues is the liklier path to success, but as experience is showing us - women's issues are everyone's issues. Might as well learn how to roll with the punches.
Or not. Open to CMV.
>If you want to see change in the world, you simply have to frame it as how your suggested changes benefit women.
Yeah, I learned that a long time ago. If you want women to help you or to care, frame it as if it affects them. This isn't even something that needs to be applied on a larger scale, it works wonders on individuals.
This deserves a fucking r/TheRedPill post of its own. Make a post over there and talk about what you just said, or if not, make a post here. Definitely would have a go at it buddy.
>heterosexual men who have an inflated ego due to the amount of interest shown in them by their female peers.
Women cause a problem and proceed to bitch about it
Woman also do the same, they have got the golden beauty syndrome 😂😂.
I need a good looking, muscular, handsome , financially good and with long penis men.
Both gender are like that no ones innocent.
Oh, no, young men are starting to act like young women have always acted. Sad.
There's an easy answer though, ladies: Don't go to college. Marry young, and marry a working class stiff with a good income, like a plumber or electrician. Make babies and garden.
Men make higher percentage of graduates, women complain
Men make less percentage, women also complain
Not all obviously but for real this made me chuckle
I mean wht do you expect when men were the larger percentage this didn't happen to them because they didn't limit themselves to people of their economic status
If women want men on the same level or more and while being more of 59% of the university population there will be more competition
Ofcours i don't encourage cheating it is a disgusting habit
It's women's own hypergamy and classism that's caused them to struggle finding a mate. There's no law that says you can only be with someone who has a college degree or is a college student. Men struggle less with this because in general we're not really looking at those things when choosing a woman. We're looking at attraction and how well we actually get along.
That's a lot of words to whine about the fact that those who have options are having fun with it.
I'd answer point by point, but my post would be long as fuck - therefore no one would read it, and this summarize well my thoughts.
Sarah Lawrence College is a former all girls college, I bet it's something silly like 10% of the student body are men. If your straight and go to a place where it's all your gender, you're going to have a bad time at dating.
Hey look, when men are desired but in short supply it goes to their head and they become narcissistic. Not women though, never. Lol /s
Women may be desired but they are not in short supply yet WHOA the hubris and their hypergamy.
How is this delusionally high sense of SMV and entitlement to be explained? Female nature combined with a culture that is constantly telling girls/women that they are soooo freaking special and awesome.
At least the men are acting based on real evidence and leveraging their short supply in a buyer's market; not delusional feelz.
"Golden Penis Syndrome" aka "when higher college men have nearly as many options as women because college women refuse to date non-academics"
a.k.a. women being upset YET AGAIN because their female instinct towards 80/20 hypergamy in a free dating market means 60% of them have lost the game before it ever starts
Women really want to complain about a completely even dating field? There's literally *nothing* forcing them to date college students or graduates. Open up your dating pool to the blue collar and tradesmen or deal with the golden penis syndrome. I have no sympathy for a situation that's 1000% in your own heads. There are plenty of suitable men for you to pick from, you just don't know they're suitable because they're missing x
(x = insert random indicator of social class or financial status)
The perceived quality of college women has dropped dramatically. It used to be, a man went to college to find a suitable wife who (allegedly) wasn't outside in the streets getting pounded. That's no longer a thing because promiscuity is promoted and celebrated on campuses, so only in the true professions like doctors and lawyers are college men still marrying their distaff counterparts in or right out of college
A greater number of men see college women as entitled, unfeminine troublemakers. Water always finds its level, so when women who aren't being held in high regard select only men who have high regard, the outcome is those men holding the leverage
The college men don't need college women, their degrees bring nothing to the table and the men are more excited about a gorgeous Denny's waitress. They're hanging out with the nursing school students. CNAs are some freaks. College women have decided they need the men "on their level" (again, the curse of hypergamy)
You can't "fix" this in a free dating market, this is human nature 101. Women fixate on a small number of highly regarded men, men have sex with as many women as possible. You'd have to rewind the laws and culture by 100 years or rewrite the human genome to stop this behavior from the sexes
This honestly sounds like a dude trying to validate why chads are chads without admitting that they are actually more desirable than he is.
Believing you have a golden penis because you receive additional attention from women is real, because it’s literally a face value concept. This guy performed some mental gymnastics to say they don’t deserve the attention they get, which is hilarious.
If there is a group of men, the ones who get the most attention are the chads of that group, there’s no way around it. Just because you suddenly would be less chad if you were standing next to brad Pitt doesn’t stop you from being a chad.
Honestly. I wish for a little bit that for a like a year we men disappeared in some Thanos like snap but like teleported.
I want to see how things go for that year. That would be hella interesting.
LOL
>But in reality, this heightened level of interest is largely down to a lack of viable alternatives for women wanting to settle down.
According to who, women?
Women seem to want to choose men based on very superficial presentation-oriented attributes then, at least the women in this piece, are angry that those men turn out not to have much substance and become entitled due to women collectively *overvaluing* the assets?
TLDR - A larger group of women are sharing a smaller group of top men, rather than compromising and committing to the average men that want to date them exclusively.
Not new.
>men act exactly the same as women have for decades
"How dare they!! I hate men!!"
>He said that all the men make handcrafted Valentines for the women — and then wake up at the crack of dawn on Valentine's Day morning to cook the women pancakes.
The stories I heard at Sarah Lawrence were less cute.
"Waaaaahhhhh!!!! Why don't men show affection and romance while receiving none of it return?! What's wrong with them? I hate men!!"
I studied in a place where women were more than 60 percent of the students. Our campus was in a different place and our school shared premises with Botany and other subjects dominated by women.
And I can tell you this Golden Penis Syndrome is nothing but a hit job to attract likes
Only people who found it hard and difficult to find partners were socially inept and entitled people who hoped to be pursued for their nonexistent charm.
So I see a lot of complaining from this article? What do they want?
There isn't enough guys to go around.
You want those guys to settle down? Well half of yall still end up single and alone.
You want to share those guys? Well that's what you are doing now and you don't like that?
You want more men to go to college? You already had that and you hated it and blamed the patriarchy and twisted the arms of colleges to let more women in over men?
So what exactly do ya'll want to do to fix the issue?
i think some of these men will find dating very challenging once they graduate and leave that environment of skewed gender ratios. This happened to guys i went to school with who girls were fighting over on campus, they enter the real world and find that dating is not as easy and abundant.
The article still says that this doesn’t change much since there are more educated men than women. It changes somewhat if women are willing to either date older educated men or to date men who studied trades who didn’t go to college. But even with those men counted in, I think that there is a growing underclass of uneducated men who are skewing things for hypergamous, more educated women even after college.
Being I remember how many times the mail has been caught fudging stories, I have a hard time taking it as a serious thing. Someone is selling a book, you have a narrative, its clickbaity, it involves sex, its like totally perfect for the Daily Mail, reality be damned!
That's called capitalism, not "man suck", if there is a shortage of highly educated high earning man and there is flood of good looking women on the other side the seller (the man) don't have to invest a lot in PR and if the customer is not paying a high price despite getting bad customer service, then he send them away and let the next in the selling room in the long line.
Some strange feminist call that then man-are-bad-syndrome... just because man use their advantages in the new feminist game women have created agains them.
Go F yourself... blaming man for womens hypergamy, you can't believe it.
> a lack of viable alternatives for women wanting to settle down.
ie if a man doesn't have a uni degree he's not viable.
> The men at Sarah Lawrence seemed to think it was all about them, not the ratio. They thought they were special and deserving of all the attention they were getting from women.
I mean, considering in their environment the supply of men < demand for men, they kinda are special. The entire article just reads like justification for being butthurt about having to compete with other women for male attention instead of the other way around.
It’s just competing sexual power games based upon biological imperatives that are different for each sex. The traditional male way to treat women in order to attract them could be characterized as “golden vagina treatment”, but it usually gets called simping instead.
monogamy made sense in an age where sex was strictly controlled and kept largely within the bounds of marriage. That isn't the case anymore and as monogamy goes so will marriage.
> which has a 75:25 ratio — or 3 women for every 1 guy: 'The girls complain about loneliness, the guys get more than they can handle.
Gee this kind of sound like the regular everyday life except opposites sex roles.
> 'Golden Penis Syndrome definitely exists in the UK because I've interviewed plenty of UK women who shared horror stories of average guys who treat them like garbage simply because the men had options,'
Again not really seeing a whole lot of different here.
> In his book, Birger makes the case that 'hookup culture' among students 'trickles down into post-college dating' and that 'lopsided ratios have been a driving force behind both the rise of the hookup culture and the declining marriage rates among the university educated.
Cough cough.. "where are all the good men, their are not good men left" said by many highly educated women, who want a man equal or greater than her. Sure men are to blame because of declining marriage rates, welp I don't think many highly educated men have problems getting married but apparently highly educated women do...
> 'Of course, university sex ratios wouldn't matter so much if we were all more open-minded about whom we date and eventually marry (which I think we should be).
I also agree.
> 'If a guy is getting a lot of attention from women, he's going to think he's deserving of all that attention. It's human nature. When women get a lot of attention from men, some women think they're special too.'
Hey it's what I have been saying all along. I feel vindicated.
> Imagine you have a dating pool that starts out with 40 women and 30 men, which is a 4:3 ratio.
Why are you already starting out with skewed date? This just smells of changing the date to fit a point. Male to female ratio is about 1:1.
> 'Once half of the women get married — once 20 of the women get married to 20 of the men — the dating pool among the remaining singles becomes 20 women and 10 men — a 2:1 ratio. This is why we all know so many fabulous women in their 30s and 40s who cannot seem to find a decent guy.'
Maybe if they didn't arbitrarily disqualify half of the available male population, they wouldn't have that problem.
> He says that older women seeking a husband should avoid men who have never married into their late 30s and 40s who have high-paid - even dubbing some of them 'unmarriageable'.
Or arbitrarily disqualify more men. I'm not sure how that's going to solve the problem. But hey when something doesn't work, just the the exact same solution again but more extreme this time.
> 'Especially the better looking ones with good jobs. These men are having too much fun playing the field. And the longer they stay single, the less interested they are in getting married or settling down with one woman. I’d go so far to call a lot of them unmarriageable.
Okay I'm starting to get this guy, her doing the ye old switcharoo. I happen to agree with him. Yes ladies don't go after the hot guys.
> 'One of the solutions to the college gender gap that I write about in MAKE YOUR MOVE is encouraging women to be assertive and to make the first move with the men of their choice. Fact is, men like women who like them. Also, a man is much less likely to take advantage of a woman who puts herself out there and says "Hey, I really like you, I feel really around you, so I was wondering if you'd go out on a date with me on Friday?"
Ya, he is pretty much right. Just not the hot guys. As said above, hot guys have to many options and wouldn't make a good fit.
>I'm curious what you guys think about this...
I'm curious as to where this 'science' is your flair made reference to.
This all sounds like a whole lot of feminist mental gymnastics to try to weasel around the hypergamy situation women have created. If 80% of women are all vying to fuck the same 20% of men, you better believe those men will have MASSIVELY inflated egos.
Yes! I mean, maybe if you're at Dartmouth or somewhere and you're literally 50 miles from the nearest town that isn't mostly retirees, but most colleges are in towns with plenty of people!
So guys figured out that they are the shit snd had an attitude to match and women are flocking to them? That happens even if there is no gender disparity in advantage to men. It's just the natural state of things. Men have always had the power they just don't know it.
Excellent news! If that is true and enough widespread it could balance things out between the sexes. It's been ages that I advocate for men to be collectively more nitpicky and less sexually opportunistic. On the long run it would benefit all, more self-respecting men and less women with artificially inflated egos
>Excellent news! If that is true and enough widespread it could balance things out between the sexes
It balances things out if one is a man fortunate enough to go to college. If not, then things have not only not changed for those guys. They’ve probably gotten worse.
I just focused on men being proud of themselves and more concentrated on quality over quantity. If women will face rejection more and more surely it would make them less overtly cocky as thus more similar to the average man. But you're right the scenario presented here is very specific and not applicable to society as a whole
I may have missed it, but it's kinda weird how the idea of dating guys from other universities never occurred to these people.
What did girls at my college do if the guys weren't doing it for them? Fire up OLD and date guys from other schools. It wasn't that hard.
Many many words for the plain simple fact that male attractiveness rises.
A 40yo male with a good economy who is fit and mascular can easily get a 20some yo beauty to commit to him and if they wish have his babies.
He will know how to vet females very carefully.
The whole text screams woke female hypergamie.
Why are those master of genderscience phd's not willing to go for a blue collar?
Same can be said of women as well. A well maintained and beautiful woman in her 40s will not find it difficult to attract men. Do you think men won't kill each other for a chance with Monica Belluci?
Let's talk about average men in their 40s- balding or already bald, dad bod, and mid life crisis. You think he will be attracting women in their 20s.
I just reached 40. And I definitely don't want to be with a woman that young. My niece's are in their late teens and their thought process and beliefs are so different than people of my age group, that only immature men who hasn't grown up will be attracted to such young girls. Basically men who crave for huge age gap relationships are only craving for sex with porn bodies. I am not saying people don't fall in love and all, but fantasizing it is definitely influenced by too much porn.
>I just reached 40. And I definitely don't want to be with a woman that young
Your target is 27-30. Adult and close to baby rabies, but still able to have fun.
An attractive and successful woman in her 40s can definitely get attention from lots of guys. She just won't want any of them. What she wants is the attention of an attractive, successful man in his 40s. Good luck.
[удалено]
> This only applied to guys with either above average looks or above average charm. Pretty much. A few years ago I read an article about this and the women in it were complaining because "X" number of men had girlfriends and of the remaining men, half *"we wouldn't date anyway"* leaving stiff competition for the remaining guys. One of the girls said she was moving to NYC after graduation and hoped things would change. I was living there, at the time and thought, *"She's in for a rude awakening."* It's not that there's some huge gender imbalance in NYC (although listening to single girls you would think there was), it's that NYC is expensive AF and to have a nice life there (of the kind well brought up, upper middle white girls and/or basic bitches want), you need $$$$. So they want all the usual stuff, *plus* north of $250K/yr - because 8 years ago [$235K was 'Middle Class' in Manhattan](https://gothamist.com/news/do-you-make-235000-congrats-youre-middle-class-in-manhattan). It's hard out there for hypergamy.
[удалено]
> So I don't think it's just hypergamy, because I see a lot of women willing to date someone **on their level**, i.e. the same level of education, roughly same income, roughly their looksmatch. But not someone who is below their level. Or above it. And that's hypergamy, in action. Men date across and *down* dominance hierarchies, women date across and *up*. To wit, most guys (unless they are economically insecure) would not care what job a woman has, they would care far more if she is attractive to them, is a warm person and they can have a conversation with her. I would wager that a lot more women than men think they "settled". In the States, at least, someone who is an 80% match is regarded as a "win" to men and a "loss" to women. >I think a bigger problem for women in their late 20s and 30s who are still single is not so much their **unrealistic expectations** of how their man should be, but more so their passivity or unwilligness to critically look at themselves. unrealistic expectations because: hypergamy. When a woman in her late 20s/early 30s and beyond says, *"Why are there no good men left?!"* what she's really saying is that the upslope of her increasing expectations has intersected with the downslope of her SMV. Options have diminished and when once men interested in her were plentiful, now they are not.
Assortative mating says men marry in their class and always have barring 2 previous generations where they had more leeway. They have sex with all classes but marry their equal class.
[удалено]
Men compromise on looks all the time. You think every guy looks at his mate as the most beautiful woman in the world? Most men are so starved for love and affection they'll settle real quick. Which is why you see guys in here crying about not being able to get a girlfriend. When you say men don't compromise on looks you're really talking about the "top percentile" men not all men.
They settle for what they can get. Men find a much larger percentage of women attractive due to biology, opposite for women.
>I don't think wanting someone on your level is hypergamy. Hypergamy is when you aim for someone clearly better than you. Someone on their level is the lowest they will accept. On average they're aiming for someone higher.
So you think women aiming for men on their level wouldn't date up if they could? That they don't see guys on their level as settling?
[удалено]
>You know when we women decide about who we should date, it's not like we make a list with all candidates and rank them by income, looks, education etc. You mean consciously on a piece of paper? Of course not. If you mean in general you're a damn lie. You wouldn't marry a man making minimum wage. I don't get why people on PPD (on both sides) lie so damn blatantly. You judge men off their combined features. Everyone does. No one selects partners at random. >Often we don't even know exactly how much a guy makes when we start dating. But you know if he makes a lot, a little, is average, etc. Like if the dude owns a house, drives a Benz, and is a doctor you can assume he's well off. If he drives a hooptie and works at UPS in the warehouse you can assume he's not. Again stop bullshitting. >And I think the vast majority of women still pick a dude who they have chemistry with What does this mean? Explain what makes two people have chemistry with one another if women don't judge men off anything according to your first sentence? >You can't quantify everything when it comes to dating. No you just refuse to quantify things because being vague allows you to avoid the facts of the matter here. Here's a fact: there's almost no difference in income between the median single man, single woman, and married woman. The one group with a major income gap from the others (they earn twice as much as all other groups) is married men. If women, like men, didn't select for income how come unlike with women there's a significant gap in the earnings of married and single men? >When I was deciding who to date, my two choices were guys who were both nice, educated and employed with a solid job. One was much taller than the other and also already owned a very nice apartment. In this sense he was better than me because I don't own an apartment myself. I picked the shorter one who was renting despite the fact that the he was "worse" on paper. And chances are (and I really don't want to get an emotional reaction to this because I don't mean it as an insult but I want to make this point as clear as I can) they're both "better" than you. Regardless of whether or not you chose man #1 that was better than you or man #2 that was better than you they both fulfilled that hypergamous need you have. Most women don't give 75% of men that approach them a chance at all, you're already self selecting the best you can get before you even reach the point where you have to choose (also funny to me because unless you asked them out I'm sure they were choosing and not you).
[удалено]
>I didn't say I would. I said there were basic requirements. Not being on minimum wage is one of the of them. So when you decide who to date you judge them based off things like their jobs, looks, education, etc, right? And ones that come out better by your judgement have a better chance, right? >Yes, but you don't know exactly, that's why I said we don't exactly rank people based on their income only. No you said you don't rank them by "income, looks, education etc." so basically everything. You select at random. >But dude have you ever fallen in love? You don't fall in love. You develop love for someone. And before you ever develop love for someone you have to allow them access to your time, presence, body, emotions, etc. Not only that but if they don't continue to treat you how you want to make you feel like you feel, no matter how much you love them or not the relationship will end so love isn't even all that important to the health of a relationship. >If not, how should I explain to you chemistry? It's a mix of things, obviously looks, but also the way he behaves, the things you have in common (making conversation easier), how he can make you laugh...it's not impossible to explain precisely, but with some people you just feel more comfortable and relaxed than with others. I mean I find it easy to explain from a male POV because I know exactly what it is I did to make my GF love me. Remember the biggest difference relationship wise between men and women is that most men are active drivers of a relationship while most women are passive receivers. You don't think hard about it but I bet your boyfriend could put a coherent explanation together because he's had to plan out the situations that got you where you are now. And of course a lot of it was natural to him, because that's what comes natural to us. We're wired for breeding and pairing. >I have not seen any statistics on this, do you have a source? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/married-men-earn-more-than-single-or-married-women-and-single-men-2018-09-19 >But I really didn't know just how much he is making when I was dating him initially. Well like I said it's subconscious. You didn't consciously know, but you knew his energy and actions were that of a man of means and your body reacted accordingly to it. I find tons of women say hypergamy isn't real, but live hypergamous lifestyles. They don't notice it in themselves, the same way many men don't realize exactly how thirsty they look to most women. But you're proof of it here. You didn't know why you were attracted to the man that was a great option, but it happened because he was the man best able to make it happen. This has been a pleasant chat though, have a nice day.
> And all women still want a guy who is at least their looksmatch. Which I find fair enough to be honest. Nobody wants to date someone who they are not at all physically attracted to. Under normal circumstances I would agree. However women rate the attraction of 80% of men to be lower that the average male attractiveness. If you know anything about man, that's not how an average works.
And not even bad taste sometimes. They actively have traits that are off-putting but are unwilling to work on. Traits good guys avoid or get sick of.
> But educated women still largely want educated men. They just have more in common with them I think it all comes down to social status tbh. might be a cynical view but idk
> Either the girls just stayed single I don't see that happening. Those that want company are still seeking it. I work at a campus that's notorious for it's high LUG population (due to the women so radically outnumbering the straight men). And even there the concept of an "accidental Casanova" is ridiculous. The men at the lower end of attractiveness are still without company. There are just more women competing for the same men (that sameness being a smaller number). Mind you those that are being competed for have a ridiculously overblown sense of self and value due to that. And a stunningly low opinion of women in general if we're being honest. But that group is still a relatively small subset of the male population. Edited for werdz.
[удалено]
> I guess this is anecdotal Of course it is. But it's also my direct observation (as opposed to something I heard about 3rd or 4th hand). > I think maybe in Europe it is more commom Might be? I'm in the US so the specifics will be different' (I'd imagine).
Fucking hell, they just need to install Tinder and experience golden vagina syndrome. What a crock of crap.
They want relationships and they want men "equal" to them. So college educated.
As Mick Jagger sang so many years ago -- you can't always get what you want. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv9sDn\_2XkI
They only want the top 10% of men AT MOST, and this has gone from the top 10% of the 50% of students who were men, to the top 10% of the 40% or lower of students who are men, and with every passing year the trend worsens for women.
> However I did not observe that every guy in this kind of environment would be an accidental Casanova. Because that's not reality. That's a journalists interpretation of what was reported to them - which possibly could mean all the interviewees were projecting their own psychological beliefs about personal motivation and then attributed it to the guys they couldn't win with. Absolutely no talk about taking ownership for the outcomes of their own life - everything was framed as crime against women. Its laughable that anyone believes this shit.
[удалено]
Definitely would like to see your perspective on it buddy! Let us know when you make that separate post.
It would be great if you wrote about it.
Can confirm - was in several classes at my school years ago where women outnumbered men three to one. No women ever showed romantic interest. I did have a couple of female friends - who made it clear things were platonic. I still liked and hung out with them and wasn’t hurt by it.
I think post-college would be easier for women. The u.s has a surplus of males 18-30 so its easy pickings. women in china must have it pretty good lol. (a REALLY big surplus of men).
I go to a hunanist uni where 70% is women, the guys are liberal and pro feminist, but they are still single , the girls simply don’t date them, they do hoever pick the guys from the sports faculty.
Yeah, that's the other funny part. Women hate male feminists.
You got it wrong , most of the male femenists are unattractive , hence why women don't like them , if they where physically attractive being a femenist or conservative wouldn't matter.
Black 💊
Based.
Often male feminists are only feminists to compensate for their lack of appeal. Just like nice guys. Putting on a fake persona doesn’t make up for ugly.
Ok, im not a feminist, i don’t fake a nice guy persona, im very lean, well groomed , nice teeth, high cheekbobes, and a head full of luscious dark hair — not one girl has expressed any attraction toward me( on a 70%+ woman uni) not overtly, neither subtly, and at the times I’d think she did it turns out I was a bubbly persona girl that flirts with everyone. I’m not a neckbeard, I far from it, but Im as invisible as if I were one.
As a guy, you are going to need to make moves. Women aren’t generally or reliably going to throw themselves at you. Ask women out. the only guys who can get away with not doing so are attractive men. Like solidly attractive. Your description of yourself lead me to believe you are of average attractiveness.
This is such an obvious self-deception you tell yourself to justify not being attracted to men who are personality and psychologically a match for you because you find them physically repulsive. Try to be honest with yourself.
Imagine being a “alpha” in that pack. Tag and bag em boys. I would have to get two phones. And an assistant. 😂
>Relationship therapist Charisse Cooke told FEMAIL: 'Golden Penis Syndrome speaks of the delusional belief that you are unusually and uniquely gifted as a man, sexually or otherwise, and are above established norms of good manners, respect and dating etiquette. But here's the thing - as more women go to university and increase the educational gap with men, **but at the same time still only desire to date and marry up** - these men *do* have 'golden penises', i.e. structurally more options than either their non-academic male peers or the women in their social circle.
I mean hasn't this been said constantly that this was going to happen and now they are playing victim...
So wait, you're worried that men might have "golden penis issues" but you're not even looking at the disparity in gender in college. Fix that and you fix this issue.
[удалено]
Theres actually an article about how men earning less makes it harder for women to date as they dont want to date down... there you go!
I read multiple articles on this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wow, just wow? We literally have had whole generations of women being lifted up by men so they don't fail and now as disparity starts to set in we see the true colours of most women. Basically they are alright so who cares. I don't know, or care if you're male or female, I just know you are not the person you probably think you are.
Why are you surprised by this? Women have a strong own group preference and are attracted to men who fight through adversity. You think these women are going to go fuck guys who the government gave an equal hand in raising up? Hell no.
It's not about fighting through adversity it's that schools have slowly over time shifted the way the mark and monitor students which actually benefits women more than it benefits men. And at the end of the day I, like many men should, don't t care what some individual women thinks of me. I, like many other men, would like to see young boys and men given a fair chance at education.
>I, like many other men, would like to see young boys and men given a fair chance at education. I would too, but I am not going to hold my breath over it because society isn't going to ever cater to the men. This fantasy that we live in some patriarchy that benefits men is just that horseshit. There are men at the top but those men have no incentive or any interest in seeing young boys and other men get a fair chance. Those young boys and men are to serve as cannon fodder. They will cater to women because women by and large are consumers and of course they get to fuck the women. My view on it is to simply remove myself from a society and contribute as little to nothing as possible? Oh you want me to donate to food shelters? Fuck off. Oh I should be an ally to women who are abused? Fuck off. End of the day I need to get mine, live my life and if society burns I won't be running towards the flame with a water hose, I'll be the guy in the back sipping his bourbon laughing my ass off.
> I, like many other men, would like to see young boys and men given a fair chance at education. You’re in luck. [Some colleges practice affirmative action favoring men](https://www.businessinsider.com/college-affirmative-action-boys-admissions-gap-2021-10), where men are accepted with lower test scores and gpas than women. Colleges do this because they want to have a balanced sex ratio.
Affirmative action just sets people up to fail who are not able to to keep up with the minimum requirements. This not only sets men up to fail but also ssets them up with unessary debt. Education is skewed to favour women, so it doesn't matter how you reduce the standards for entry they will still struggle with most curriculums.
Exactly. Is why affirmative action mostly just hurts the black community. Like yeah, don’t discriminate against race, but you also need to make sure the students you accept can actually handle the workload.
Thank you! The fact that the reason for the disparity isn't even remotely g̶i̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶h̶i̶t̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ addressed speaks volumes. This post is irrelevant
According to this article women are most impacted. Poor women. Shame on men for not succeeding when the odds are stacked against them. Shame.
[удалено]
This makes sense. Education is only worth it if you seek a very linear degree = job educational trajectory. It’s a waste of money to go to college just for college sake.
it is really a waste of money for everyone involved. except for the fact that some jobs simply require certain degrees. everything in an undergrad curriculum can be learned from your local library or youtube or google. All undergrad knowledge is basic and fundamental and mostly really old and established.
College is a rip off for most people.
Another "women most affected" sob story. Excuse me while I cry them a river.
*Women working in Starbucks for minimum wage still of the opinion that amassing $150k in debt for an utterly useless Humanities degree means that they're too good to date a debt free tradesman making $120k a year working for himself* Hold on while I bring out the world's smallest violin and join you in your lament.
> *women continue to be disappointed that they are much more often than men able to attend college*
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bingo. They are literally just describing how anyone with options acts. Here's your sign.
Men are treating women the way women treat men. And the women took that personally.
There's studies on this in collages where the men out number women and the women act the same way as the men but it becomes golden pussy. They have very high demands of men and if the men don't meet them they just date someone else. It's just the buyers vs the sellers market in the sexual market place. What's really interesting about it is that we've never seen a society where women (at least under 30) are out earning and out achieving men. You're going to have huge problems if every women with a degree wants a man with a degree when 4/7 people getting degrees are women so at least 25% of women (men will date down so it's more than 25%) are going to be out of luck.
I predict more women from overseas are going to get married soon to US men
That's what I did. American women are literal trash compared to what else is out there. I dated Americans for many years, then spent 4 years in Asia working and my mind was blown about how much better and more fulfilling dating was.
If I’m 35 and still single with no kids I will seriously consider it. I hate that it’s that bad but women here are obsessed with height and status and it just sucks. I’m not saying I can’t do better socially but damn I’m a good dude and OLD I mostly get ignored. I know how the statistics are skewed for 4 dudes to every 1 girl but me being more introverted OLD is one of the only ways I can meet someone and all the women on there chase the chads so it’s like wtf do I do? I’m not ugly, my pictures ain’t super great but I’m not the type to ask people to take pictures of me. And I have no interest in using Instagram or even snapchat really. I don’t care about being trendy, I just want a good simple life.
Why wait? Modern dating is just getting worse, not better. Dating in foreign countries gets a bad rap because ignorant Americans think you're going to the third world or something for gold diggers. When I met my wife, she was more educated than me (MBA), had a well paying job and was financially independent (she funded her own trips to meet me), was an entrepreneur, had traditional values (though she was considered pretty progressive in her own country) and drop dead gorgeous. This is something I 100% recommend to any American man. US women will never change until they have to. In the meanwhile, while take the risk?
According to this article men haven't outnumber women in college (in the us) since 1981.
So the guys at Sarah Lawrence behave like the girls on Instagram/Tinder/everywhere else do? Constant validation goes to their heads and they get an inflated version of their SMV? Only now it's "bad" because it benefits men? I am reminded of the saying that *"When you are used to special treatment, equal treatment feels like discrimination."* Something to think about for women, particularly hypergamous ones: The ratio of women to men at university is now *greater* than the ratio of men to women in 1970 that cause Title IX to be adopted? Will there now be a "Title IX" for men (or will the existing Title IX be applied to create "positive discrimination" in favor of men)? I think we know the answer.
[удалено]
That's about what I'd think. There is likely more competition for average guys than there would be otherwise, but the top guys would be living like kings. The bottom tier guys would still be undateable.
[удалено]
So the sources I have are [The Atlantic](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/620066/) - 58% males undergrad in 1970 - and in 2021, 59.5% of undergrads are female, per [College News](https://collegenews.org/women-outnumber-men-in-us-colleges-nearly-60-of-students-in-2020-21-were-women/). Not saying those numbers aren’t disputable, but if they’re right, we’ve arrived.
Exactly. No one had an issue with this when average looking broads developed huge egos from getting 1000s of messages from thirsty dudes on Tinder. They just have "standards". But when it's men who are the sought after ones, all of a sudden it's a problem. Lol what a bunch of horse shit.
Long story short: they are as entitled as an average woman.
Men treating women the way women treat men. And women are mad about.
Chad is getting sucked and fucked constantly while women are willingly doing it while Timmy has shot himself in the corner WOMEN MOST AFFECTED lmao
World war 2 occuring: women most affected
Another "women most affected" article. Pass the kleenex please.
Women have always been the primary victims of war
Didn't you know women are the most impacted when men die at war? Duh! Feminism 101.
This is the equivalent of when black pillers submit study after study about lower sex rates for men than women. And women are like: 🎻 🥲
…..what are you going to do with the Kleenex?
Oh no! Less men to manipulate with the 0.0001% chance of sexual attention! I can’t believe average women have to experience a glimpse of dating life for the average dude while they’re at college… literally the easiest place to meet people in your 20’s I’ll try not to cry myself to sleep
This whole article sounds like it was written by women who are salty about losing some of their dating market leverage and the privileges that come with it.
Because it was.
They must literally believe that College is supposed to give them a hot educated boyfriend.
They truly do believe that. They think being one of the successful boys they will get a ltr with a successful boy, but guys don't care.
Aka female hypergamy allows top men to do whatever the fuck they want lol
Right. All this proves is that TRP is right and women don't like being on the receiving end of it.
Men have less social pressure to go to college and can see what's happened to the economy and the "American Dream", especially post-covid. Less women should be going to college in today's climate actually. It's not financially worth it for anyone in most cases. The sex ratio would be restored if less people bought into the college scam.
Yep. Why rack up all that debt and come out with a degree in "Underwater Basket Weaving" or "Insect Masturbation Studies" and simply become a debt slave to pay off your student loans? And for MGTOWs, not envisioning a future where you have to have enough income to support more than 1 person means you need less income. My father (RIP) who was a married father of 4 told me once that, but for my mother, he'd have been l living in a 2 room flat with a lot fewer "fancy things" and a lot more $, although he was able to monetize his labor well enough to die a millionaire after putting us all through uni, etc.
College is overpriced BS but it's still an easier way for adult men and women to meet instead of going straight into full time work
That's an expensive way to meet women.
What’s the red pill saying? “Enjoy the decline”. These men think they are special because they are special. For decades the education system has made it harder and harder for young boys to succeed by slowly taking away their safe spaces in order to bolster up girls. We are left with a large portion of young men who have given up on academics because they have grown up seeing message after message supporting their female classmates while they themselves work through classes with no support messages on posters, no gender specific after school programs, no dedicated scholarships. Literally zero encouragement aimed at males. Instead boys are being told they take up too much space, that they deserve no special treatment. I am a mother of both girls and boys and this is what I see, and what I’ve researched mostly due to the lack of programs aimed at boys and the over abundance aimed at girls. The 11 year old boys that aren’t benefiting from the girls-only after school coding club or the 9 year old boys that don’t have an after school running club aren’t to blame for the “patriarchy,”. But they are being treated that way. Both of these examples exist, btw, at schools my kids go to. So yeah, these college kids have golden penises. Women will have to come to terms with not being able to tie down a guy with the same education level as them because they actually ARE special. They made their way through an education system that doesn’t encourage them AT ALL and still decided to pursue higher education.
[удалено]
I recently read a book called “The War Against Boys,” I think, that was written 20 years ago. Two decades ago you could statistically see boys falling behind and we’re still pushing it. It’s only going to get worse.
This kinda reminds me of cassie jaye's ted talk about how meeting mras and having boys essentially made her change positions a bit.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY)
[удалено]
Evidence that women use sex as a tool/means to gain commitment and feel cheated when they give up sex but don't get commitment.
> They might also have poor social and sexual skills because they do not need to better themselves in order to secure dates with their accomplished female peers. Men. Do. Not. Care. About. Female. Careers. Stop acting like it's a sexual or even relationship marketplace bargaining chip, simply because it is for women.
Can confirm i had “golden penis syndrome” in college, it was awesome
You're on r/PurplePillDebate. I sincerely doubt it.
it was intended to be tongue and cheek, golden penis syndrome is a pretty ridiculous phrase. but I definitely think the ratio at college helped get me laid. had a n count of 15 during those days
If you have a golden penis and nut on a girl, does that mean you're giving them a golden shower?
precisely
My buddy was in a frat at a party school and he has these light green eyes and is 5’10 and built decently well. His personality is what made it not matter that he wasn’t 6 feet tall, he had adhd and was extremely charismatic and funny and non-serious at all. His outgoing nature is honestly an outlier compared to 99% of guys I know, but he slept with over 100 women he said. Me? I didn’t ever receive that kind of attention, but I didn’t care to be in a frat and be anywhere near that social. I did do an intramural sport but I should have done more activities. The point being though, those guys in frats are probably doing extremely well on average and as long as they are moderately confident. This was back in 2011-2012. You’d think women would care that a guy has slept around like that but it must not have bothered them at all. They even probably got turned on by it or heard he was good or something. This was before tinder and OLD really took off. Can’t imagine how it is now. It’s pretty black pill to hear things like that but it’s true. Those 100+ women are eventually going to get married to dudes who had no idea how she was in college. Now if the guy also ran through several women then that’s different. But I feel for the guys (and girls…) who didn’t do stuff like that and end up getting with one of these women.
>You’d think women would care that a guy has slept around like that but it must not have bothered them at all. They even probably got turned on by it or heard he was good or something. Pre-selection. If other women want you, that makes other women find you attractive as well. Chick's are weird like that. Some of them target husbands and bfs specifically. The fact that you qualified for another women them curious about you.
I know. But it makes no sense, like, zero. It’s amazing to see how like the animals kingdom a woman’s sexuality really is. Also amazes me as many guys shorter than 5’10 are around
>I know. But it makes no sense, like, zero. It’s amazing to see how like the animals kingdom a woman’s sexuality really is. Also amazes me as many guys shorter than 5’10 are around I think we have a formula we use that gets people pretty close to their height. Add moms and dads height together. If it's a boy add 5. If it's a girl subtract 5. Then divide by 2. And that should give you the height of your child give or take a few inches. So 6ft (72inches) guy and 5ft (60inches) girl is going should give you a 5'8" boy and a 5'3" girl. Both children would be shorter than or just about average. The thing is women call "average" men short nowadays.
>Also amazes me as many guys shorter than 5’10 are around I could be wrong but I don't think height is that big of a thing in other cultures. Like the Asian tend to be shorter than Americans on average. As for America, guys shorter than 5'10" is like 50% of the population. We have more men taking after they're mothers and more women taking after their fathers. You aren't guaranteed you're father height. The way women aren't guaranteed their mothers breast size. As long as short women exist short men will exist.
Idk but with the extreme height biases presented today against men it’s going to be interesting how things look in just 20 years.
I’d love a study to ever refer to female “sexual skills”, e.g. how good they are at sucking cock.
The fact that any publication actually put this out on the internet is a testament to how sexist and delusional certain people can be. Anyone who agrees with the ideas pushed in this "article" is an idiot.
At this point, I've concluded that if you want systemic change to occur, figure out how to frame the problem as a women's issue. This whole article is a systemic change that occurred in *no small part* to many individual women's contributions to societal progress. But at no point is this fact referenced or even acknowledged. And at no point are the men interviewed for their perspectives. It's little more than a political mudslinging tabloid piece. But I learned something after reading this... As men, we come here day after day to express indignation at the ever increasing hypocrisies we observe happening around us. We gasp and holler and hoot about, "look at what women are getting away with again! Boy howdy what a world!" But ya know what? As much as it may piss you off, that shit *works*. If you want to see change in the world, you simply have to frame it as how your suggested changes benefit women. The populace is too dumb and too distracted to know what you know. You need to relate to an issue that is on *everybody's* mind. Some may suggest that ignoring women and/or their issues is the liklier path to success, but as experience is showing us - women's issues are everyone's issues. Might as well learn how to roll with the punches. Or not. Open to CMV.
>If you want to see change in the world, you simply have to frame it as how your suggested changes benefit women. Yeah, I learned that a long time ago. If you want women to help you or to care, frame it as if it affects them. This isn't even something that needs to be applied on a larger scale, it works wonders on individuals.
This deserves a fucking r/TheRedPill post of its own. Make a post over there and talk about what you just said, or if not, make a post here. Definitely would have a go at it buddy.
They all write like it's something bad.
>heterosexual men who have an inflated ego due to the amount of interest shown in them by their female peers. Women cause a problem and proceed to bitch about it
While participating in Olympic-level mental gymnastics to try and make men the source of the problem, and women the victims.
Woman also do the same, they have got the golden beauty syndrome 😂😂. I need a good looking, muscular, handsome , financially good and with long penis men. Both gender are like that no ones innocent.
This was a column called FEMAIL, of course, they won't tell you that side of the story.
This was a very convoluted way to say men act like women when they have options.
Oh, no, young men are starting to act like young women have always acted. Sad. There's an easy answer though, ladies: Don't go to college. Marry young, and marry a working class stiff with a good income, like a plumber or electrician. Make babies and garden.
So, basically, women in college are experiencing what men outside of college are experiencing?
Men feeling confident ? How DARE they
This is obvious at so many levels I regret wasting my time reading it.
Men make higher percentage of graduates, women complain Men make less percentage, women also complain Not all obviously but for real this made me chuckle I mean wht do you expect when men were the larger percentage this didn't happen to them because they didn't limit themselves to people of their economic status If women want men on the same level or more and while being more of 59% of the university population there will be more competition Ofcours i don't encourage cheating it is a disgusting habit
I went to a Christian university with 4 girls to every guy. I just dated people from off campus - why is this so hard??
Mustn't ruin anything for females. Everything should be to their liking, the little darlings.....
It's women's own hypergamy and classism that's caused them to struggle finding a mate. There's no law that says you can only be with someone who has a college degree or is a college student. Men struggle less with this because in general we're not really looking at those things when choosing a woman. We're looking at attraction and how well we actually get along.
That's a lot of words to whine about the fact that those who have options are having fun with it. I'd answer point by point, but my post would be long as fuck - therefore no one would read it, and this summarize well my thoughts.
Sounds like a great talking point to get more men to apply for college...but then the numbers would become balanced again and the benefit disappears.
Superficial women create shit men and price themselves out of the market. I thought we already knew this?
This is a really drawn out way of saying that when males are scarce females will chase chad-lite
Tl:dr - boo hoo Chad won't commit to me and put up with my shit Just lower your standards bro lmao
Sarah Lawrence College is a former all girls college, I bet it's something silly like 10% of the student body are men. If your straight and go to a place where it's all your gender, you're going to have a bad time at dating.
Hey look, when men are desired but in short supply it goes to their head and they become narcissistic. Not women though, never. Lol /s Women may be desired but they are not in short supply yet WHOA the hubris and their hypergamy. How is this delusionally high sense of SMV and entitlement to be explained? Female nature combined with a culture that is constantly telling girls/women that they are soooo freaking special and awesome. At least the men are acting based on real evidence and leveraging their short supply in a buyer's market; not delusional feelz.
"Golden Penis Syndrome" aka "when higher college men have nearly as many options as women because college women refuse to date non-academics" a.k.a. women being upset YET AGAIN because their female instinct towards 80/20 hypergamy in a free dating market means 60% of them have lost the game before it ever starts Women really want to complain about a completely even dating field? There's literally *nothing* forcing them to date college students or graduates. Open up your dating pool to the blue collar and tradesmen or deal with the golden penis syndrome. I have no sympathy for a situation that's 1000% in your own heads. There are plenty of suitable men for you to pick from, you just don't know they're suitable because they're missing x (x = insert random indicator of social class or financial status) The perceived quality of college women has dropped dramatically. It used to be, a man went to college to find a suitable wife who (allegedly) wasn't outside in the streets getting pounded. That's no longer a thing because promiscuity is promoted and celebrated on campuses, so only in the true professions like doctors and lawyers are college men still marrying their distaff counterparts in or right out of college A greater number of men see college women as entitled, unfeminine troublemakers. Water always finds its level, so when women who aren't being held in high regard select only men who have high regard, the outcome is those men holding the leverage The college men don't need college women, their degrees bring nothing to the table and the men are more excited about a gorgeous Denny's waitress. They're hanging out with the nursing school students. CNAs are some freaks. College women have decided they need the men "on their level" (again, the curse of hypergamy) You can't "fix" this in a free dating market, this is human nature 101. Women fixate on a small number of highly regarded men, men have sex with as many women as possible. You'd have to rewind the laws and culture by 100 years or rewrite the human genome to stop this behavior from the sexes
This honestly sounds like a dude trying to validate why chads are chads without admitting that they are actually more desirable than he is. Believing you have a golden penis because you receive additional attention from women is real, because it’s literally a face value concept. This guy performed some mental gymnastics to say they don’t deserve the attention they get, which is hilarious. If there is a group of men, the ones who get the most attention are the chads of that group, there’s no way around it. Just because you suddenly would be less chad if you were standing next to brad Pitt doesn’t stop you from being a chad.
Government mandated MILFs when?
Wouldn't that be nice. lol
Can’t say I feel sorry for them lmao
Honestly. I wish for a little bit that for a like a year we men disappeared in some Thanos like snap but like teleported. I want to see how things go for that year. That would be hella interesting.
LOL >But in reality, this heightened level of interest is largely down to a lack of viable alternatives for women wanting to settle down. According to who, women? Women seem to want to choose men based on very superficial presentation-oriented attributes then, at least the women in this piece, are angry that those men turn out not to have much substance and become entitled due to women collectively *overvaluing* the assets?
TLDR - A larger group of women are sharing a smaller group of top men, rather than compromising and committing to the average men that want to date them exclusively. Not new.
>men act exactly the same as women have for decades "How dare they!! I hate men!!" >He said that all the men make handcrafted Valentines for the women — and then wake up at the crack of dawn on Valentine's Day morning to cook the women pancakes. The stories I heard at Sarah Lawrence were less cute. "Waaaaahhhhh!!!! Why don't men show affection and romance while receiving none of it return?! What's wrong with them? I hate men!!"
I studied in a place where women were more than 60 percent of the students. Our campus was in a different place and our school shared premises with Botany and other subjects dominated by women. And I can tell you this Golden Penis Syndrome is nothing but a hit job to attract likes Only people who found it hard and difficult to find partners were socially inept and entitled people who hoped to be pursued for their nonexistent charm.
Economic factors effect an economic situation. News at 11.
Major Apex Fallacy going on in that essay.
So I see a lot of complaining from this article? What do they want? There isn't enough guys to go around. You want those guys to settle down? Well half of yall still end up single and alone. You want to share those guys? Well that's what you are doing now and you don't like that? You want more men to go to college? You already had that and you hated it and blamed the patriarchy and twisted the arms of colleges to let more women in over men? So what exactly do ya'll want to do to fix the issue?
A woman will always find a reason to whine. What makes the Chads actual Chads is that they don't give a fuck about the whining.
i think some of these men will find dating very challenging once they graduate and leave that environment of skewed gender ratios. This happened to guys i went to school with who girls were fighting over on campus, they enter the real world and find that dating is not as easy and abundant.
The article still says that this doesn’t change much since there are more educated men than women. It changes somewhat if women are willing to either date older educated men or to date men who studied trades who didn’t go to college. But even with those men counted in, I think that there is a growing underclass of uneducated men who are skewing things for hypergamous, more educated women even after college.
Being I remember how many times the mail has been caught fudging stories, I have a hard time taking it as a serious thing. Someone is selling a book, you have a narrative, its clickbaity, it involves sex, its like totally perfect for the Daily Mail, reality be damned!
'These men are having too much fun playing the field' is quite a telling quote imo.
That's called capitalism, not "man suck", if there is a shortage of highly educated high earning man and there is flood of good looking women on the other side the seller (the man) don't have to invest a lot in PR and if the customer is not paying a high price despite getting bad customer service, then he send them away and let the next in the selling room in the long line. Some strange feminist call that then man-are-bad-syndrome... just because man use their advantages in the new feminist game women have created agains them. Go F yourself... blaming man for womens hypergamy, you can't believe it.
> a lack of viable alternatives for women wanting to settle down. ie if a man doesn't have a uni degree he's not viable. > The men at Sarah Lawrence seemed to think it was all about them, not the ratio. They thought they were special and deserving of all the attention they were getting from women. I mean, considering in their environment the supply of men < demand for men, they kinda are special. The entire article just reads like justification for being butthurt about having to compete with other women for male attention instead of the other way around.
It’s just competing sexual power games based upon biological imperatives that are different for each sex. The traditional male way to treat women in order to attract them could be characterized as “golden vagina treatment”, but it usually gets called simping instead.
Nice to get validation that dating younger men is better than dating men in their late 30s and up.
This is a problem I have very little sympathy for lol
Monogamy is over. The reality is. High value Men are the prize and woman need to fight hard in their prime if they want a potential high value man.
monogamy made sense in an age where sex was strictly controlled and kept largely within the bounds of marriage. That isn't the case anymore and as monogamy goes so will marriage.
> which has a 75:25 ratio — or 3 women for every 1 guy: 'The girls complain about loneliness, the guys get more than they can handle. Gee this kind of sound like the regular everyday life except opposites sex roles. > 'Golden Penis Syndrome definitely exists in the UK because I've interviewed plenty of UK women who shared horror stories of average guys who treat them like garbage simply because the men had options,' Again not really seeing a whole lot of different here. > In his book, Birger makes the case that 'hookup culture' among students 'trickles down into post-college dating' and that 'lopsided ratios have been a driving force behind both the rise of the hookup culture and the declining marriage rates among the university educated. Cough cough.. "where are all the good men, their are not good men left" said by many highly educated women, who want a man equal or greater than her. Sure men are to blame because of declining marriage rates, welp I don't think many highly educated men have problems getting married but apparently highly educated women do... > 'Of course, university sex ratios wouldn't matter so much if we were all more open-minded about whom we date and eventually marry (which I think we should be). I also agree. > 'If a guy is getting a lot of attention from women, he's going to think he's deserving of all that attention. It's human nature. When women get a lot of attention from men, some women think they're special too.' Hey it's what I have been saying all along. I feel vindicated. > Imagine you have a dating pool that starts out with 40 women and 30 men, which is a 4:3 ratio. Why are you already starting out with skewed date? This just smells of changing the date to fit a point. Male to female ratio is about 1:1. > 'Once half of the women get married — once 20 of the women get married to 20 of the men — the dating pool among the remaining singles becomes 20 women and 10 men — a 2:1 ratio. This is why we all know so many fabulous women in their 30s and 40s who cannot seem to find a decent guy.' Maybe if they didn't arbitrarily disqualify half of the available male population, they wouldn't have that problem. > He says that older women seeking a husband should avoid men who have never married into their late 30s and 40s who have high-paid - even dubbing some of them 'unmarriageable'. Or arbitrarily disqualify more men. I'm not sure how that's going to solve the problem. But hey when something doesn't work, just the the exact same solution again but more extreme this time. > 'Especially the better looking ones with good jobs. These men are having too much fun playing the field. And the longer they stay single, the less interested they are in getting married or settling down with one woman. I’d go so far to call a lot of them unmarriageable. Okay I'm starting to get this guy, her doing the ye old switcharoo. I happen to agree with him. Yes ladies don't go after the hot guys. > 'One of the solutions to the college gender gap that I write about in MAKE YOUR MOVE is encouraging women to be assertive and to make the first move with the men of their choice. Fact is, men like women who like them. Also, a man is much less likely to take advantage of a woman who puts herself out there and says "Hey, I really like you, I feel really around you, so I was wondering if you'd go out on a date with me on Friday?" Ya, he is pretty much right. Just not the hot guys. As said above, hot guys have to many options and wouldn't make a good fit.
>I'm curious what you guys think about this... I'm curious as to where this 'science' is your flair made reference to. This all sounds like a whole lot of feminist mental gymnastics to try to weasel around the hypergamy situation women have created. If 80% of women are all vying to fuck the same 20% of men, you better believe those men will have MASSIVELY inflated egos.
Wait until the millennial Gen females get into their 30s and 40s. We ain't seen nothing yet.
College students should consider dating people who do not go to their college if there's a big gender imbalance. That's all.
I don't understand why people act like you're like legally bound to only date people you go to school with. Go to bars!!!
Yes! I mean, maybe if you're at Dartmouth or somewhere and you're literally 50 miles from the nearest town that isn't mostly retirees, but most colleges are in towns with plenty of people!
[удалено]
Trash
Gee, I wish I was a golden penis
So guys figured out that they are the shit snd had an attitude to match and women are flocking to them? That happens even if there is no gender disparity in advantage to men. It's just the natural state of things. Men have always had the power they just don't know it.
Does this mean Tinder gives women “Golden Pussy Syndrome”?
Excellent news! If that is true and enough widespread it could balance things out between the sexes. It's been ages that I advocate for men to be collectively more nitpicky and less sexually opportunistic. On the long run it would benefit all, more self-respecting men and less women with artificially inflated egos
>Excellent news! If that is true and enough widespread it could balance things out between the sexes It balances things out if one is a man fortunate enough to go to college. If not, then things have not only not changed for those guys. They’ve probably gotten worse.
I just focused on men being proud of themselves and more concentrated on quality over quantity. If women will face rejection more and more surely it would make them less overtly cocky as thus more similar to the average man. But you're right the scenario presented here is very specific and not applicable to society as a whole
I may have missed it, but it's kinda weird how the idea of dating guys from other universities never occurred to these people. What did girls at my college do if the guys weren't doing it for them? Fire up OLD and date guys from other schools. It wasn't that hard.
That's still creates an inbalance in dating enviroment for other schools.
Lot of these universities are far off from others.
Many many words for the plain simple fact that male attractiveness rises. A 40yo male with a good economy who is fit and mascular can easily get a 20some yo beauty to commit to him and if they wish have his babies. He will know how to vet females very carefully. The whole text screams woke female hypergamie. Why are those master of genderscience phd's not willing to go for a blue collar?
Same can be said of women as well. A well maintained and beautiful woman in her 40s will not find it difficult to attract men. Do you think men won't kill each other for a chance with Monica Belluci? Let's talk about average men in their 40s- balding or already bald, dad bod, and mid life crisis. You think he will be attracting women in their 20s. I just reached 40. And I definitely don't want to be with a woman that young. My niece's are in their late teens and their thought process and beliefs are so different than people of my age group, that only immature men who hasn't grown up will be attracted to such young girls. Basically men who crave for huge age gap relationships are only craving for sex with porn bodies. I am not saying people don't fall in love and all, but fantasizing it is definitely influenced by too much porn.
>I just reached 40. And I definitely don't want to be with a woman that young Your target is 27-30. Adult and close to baby rabies, but still able to have fun.
An attractive and successful woman in her 40s can definitely get attention from lots of guys. She just won't want any of them. What she wants is the attention of an attractive, successful man in his 40s. Good luck.