Quillette has a good article that is must-read for anyone who wants to try and understand this.

https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attract...g-economy/

Quote:One of the useful tools that economists use to study inequality is the Gini coefficient. This is simply a number between zero and one that is meant to represent the degree of income inequality in any given nation or group.

Quote:He reported that heterosexual females faced a Gini coefficient of 0.324, while heterosexual males faced a much higher Gini coefficient of 0.542.

Oh, and the idea that men just feel entitled to someone that looks like Megan Fox simply isn't supported by data. In general, men find a larger percentage of the opposite sex attractive than women do.

Quote:Another study, reported in Business Insider, found a pattern in messaging on dating apps that is consistent with these findings. Yet another study, run by OkCupid on their huge datasets, found that women rate 80 percent of men as “worse-looking than medium,” and that this 80 percent “below-average” block received replies to messages only about 30 percent of the time or less. By contrast, men rate women as worse-looking than medium only about 50 percent of the time, and this 50 percent below-average block received message replies closer to 40 percent of the time or higher.

(04-02-2019 09:04 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Quillette has a good article that is must-read for anyone who wants to try and understand this.

https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attract...g-economy/

Quote:One of the useful tools that economists use to study inequality is the Gini coefficient. This is simply a number between zero and one that is meant to represent the degree of income inequality in any given nation or group.

Quote:He reported that heterosexual females faced a Gini coefficient of 0.324, while heterosexual males faced a much higher Gini coefficient of 0.542.

Oh, and the idea that men just feel entitled to someone that looks like Megan Fox simply isn't supported by data. In general, men find a larger percentage of the opposite sex attractive than women do.

Quote:Another study, reported in Business Insider, found a pattern in messaging on dating apps that is consistent with these findings. Yet another study, run by OkCupid on their huge datasets, found that women rate 80 percent of men as “worse-looking than medium,” and that this 80 percent “below-average” block received replies to messages only about 30 percent of the time or less. By contrast, men rate women as worse-looking than medium only about 50 percent of the time, and this 50 percent below-average block received message replies closer to 40 percent of the time or higher.

Wow! This is good. Every woman that I know complains about how unattractive the men in my town are compared to the women and how lucky we have it.

None of that data is surprising. Women, because they can only have a limited amount of offspring and thus have to invest heavily into preserving each child, are far more discriminatory about who they mate with than men. Men can literally have hundreds of children, potentially thousands, and so spreading that over a greater number of lesser quality females is more acceptable to men.

(04-02-2019 09:04 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Quillette has a good article that is must-read for anyone who wants to try and understand this.

https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attract...g-economy/

Quote:One of the useful tools that economists use to study inequality is the Gini coefficient. This is simply a number between zero and one that is meant to represent the degree of income inequality in any given nation or group.

Quote:He reported that heterosexual females faced a Gini coefficient of 0.324, while heterosexual males faced a much higher Gini coefficient of 0.542.

Oh, and the idea that men just feel entitled to someone that looks like Megan Fox simply isn't supported by data. In general, men find a larger percentage of the opposite sex attractive than women do.

Quote:Another study, reported in Business Insider, found a pattern in messaging on dating apps that is consistent with these findings. Yet another study, run by OkCupid on their huge datasets, found that women rate 80 percent of men as “worse-looking than medium,” and that this 80 percent “below-average” block received replies to messages only about 30 percent of the time or less. By contrast, men rate women as worse-looking than medium only about 50 percent of the time, and this 50 percent below-average block received message replies closer to 40 percent of the time or higher.

Women are much more attracted to competence, money and power than looks. It's the long running meme about how to spot a rich guy (only to see an image of a fat guy with a hot chick).

All of this is not surprising though. Women notice a lot of details guys overlook, such as whether a guy has bushy eyebrows, a guy's teeth/smile, hands and fingernails, etc. Men can overlook some of that on a woman as long a nice set of headlights and a good looking trunk.

(04-02-2019 09:09 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  None of that data is surprising. Women, because they can only have a limited amount of offspring and thus have to invest heavily into preserving each child, are far more discriminatory about who they mate with than men. Men can literally have hundreds of children, potentially thousands, and so spreading that over a greater number of lesser quality females is more acceptable to men.

Right, but remember facts don't matter to feminists and the grrl power industry. Girls get it beaten into them that they're the victims of boys who don't find them attractive because airbrushed bikini calendars give them unrealistic expectations.

And we wonder why we have so many frustrated and socially-isolated males, who sometimes act out angrily.

Men will sleep with any woman rather than go home alone and jerk off. Men are much more selective, however, with who they introduce to their friends and bring home to their family.

(04-02-2019 09:16 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 09:09 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  None of that data is surprising. Women, because they can only have a limited amount of offspring and thus have to invest heavily into preserving each child, are far more discriminatory about who they mate with than men. Men can literally have hundreds of children, potentially thousands, and so spreading that over a greater number of lesser quality females is more acceptable to men.

Right, but remember facts don't matter to feminists and the grrl power industry. Girls get it beaten into them that they're the victims of boys who don't find them attractive because airbrushed bikini calendars give them unrealistic expectations.

And we wonder why we have so many frustrated and socially-isolated males, who sometimes act out angrily.

I love when girls I knew in High School see me out and about and the story turns to who I used to date in HS. They all basically are like "I never understood why you dated her. You could do much better." A good portion of them are now working on husband #2 or #3.

I just roll my eyes when they aren't looking.

(04-02-2019 09:06 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 09:04 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Quillette has a good article that is must-read for anyone who wants to try and understand this.

https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attract...g-economy/

Quote:One of the useful tools that economists use to study inequality is the Gini coefficient. This is simply a number between zero and one that is meant to represent the degree of income inequality in any given nation or group.

Quote:He reported that heterosexual females faced a Gini coefficient of 0.324, while heterosexual males faced a much higher Gini coefficient of 0.542.

Oh, and the idea that men just feel entitled to someone that looks like Megan Fox simply isn't supported by data. In general, men find a larger percentage of the opposite sex attractive than women do.

Quote:Another study, reported in Business Insider, found a pattern in messaging on dating apps that is consistent with these findings. Yet another study, run by OkCupid on their huge datasets, found that women rate 80 percent of men as “worse-looking than medium,” and that this 80 percent “below-average” block received replies to messages only about 30 percent of the time or less. By contrast, men rate women as worse-looking than medium only about 50 percent of the time, and this 50 percent below-average block received message replies closer to 40 percent of the time or higher.

Wow! This is good. Every woman that I know complains about how unattractive the men in my town are compared to the women and how lucky we have it.

I completely believe that. I also believe most of those women have an inflated sense of their OWN attractiveness.

If they look like Emilia Clarke or Scarlett Johansson, they have a point.

Most likely they THINK they look like them when in reality it's Rosie O'Donnell staring back at them in the mirror.

All that and a bag of chips when in fact they're the film of grease left in the bag.......

Most women I have encountered actually think they are uglier than they really are. They just also happen to see flaws in others equally well. Women are genetically programmed to look for flaws in themselves and others as part of their mating cycle. They look for reasons to reject men they actually like, while men look for reasons to accept women they find not particularly too attractive.

Again, it's quality (for women) versus quantity (for men).

It's an unfair game I tell ya. When I was growing up girls were usually what you saw, that is, they wore very little makeup. The only time they would wear makeup was if they were going to a dance or prom. Like the song goes, "what you see is what you get". Not today where you can even get make up lessons on Youtube and come out looking like the most gorgeous woman one has ever seen. If makeup can make Oprah Winfrey look more or less presentable imagine what it does to someone that has good bones. That make up is magical, turns a pumpkin coach into a luxury coach ala Cinderella only to see what she really looks like the next morning, "AY MAMA!

Maybe that's why some women think they're too good for you, it's the makeup. Probably the only males that wear makeup nowadays are like the Soy Boys that post here.

(04-01-2019 01:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  While you're out there tossing around endless theories to blame the men themselves, I'd just like to point out from my own observational data that the number of young women with Disney princess syndrome has skyrocketed. It isn't just 9's and 10's that think they need -- no -- DESERVE -- a husband who is a head of surgery at the local regional hospital and can cook like Gordon Ramsey, be 100% open with their emotions at all times, and is sitting on a family estate worth 8 figures. The 5's and 6's think they deserve that **** too these days. Women aren't free of culpability in this.

I was going to say this very thing, and was wondering if anyone else would.

There's another aspect to this as well. As men become more desperate for females... they will go to further lengths to try to win them over.

So they go to extreme lengths to try to attract and please a woman, which ends up exacerbating the problem. Not only do 5s and 6s think that they are Princesses deserving of a 9 or a 10 guy...
But since they have tons of guys throwing them money, compliments, at them... it reinforces that idea.
This in turn makes them more selective which just makes their disconnect with their real sexual market place value grow. Its a self feeding problem.

This makes women more selective, which makes guys even more desperate, which leads them to try even harder...

Rinse & Repeat.

This is why you have girls that are a 4 or a 5 being Thots on Instagram, or Chaturbate and pulling down six figures. If they can keep guys on the line as 'maybe having a chance' they can milk guys for whatever.

There are two main varieties of women that fall into this. The Princess types we've already discussed, but there's another group... the ones that are doing it purely as a money scam.
I know a few girls that see being a 'Thot' as a job. The already have BFs and are in a happy relationship... But they know how much money they can make from Thirsty guys. They're just gaming the system for personal profit, without a single care of what the outcome down the road may be.

The reason marriage is a good thing for our society is that it gives men something to focus on and someone to support. Which gives their lives meaning and together they help build society up.

Men with nothing to care about, and no one to care for... end up getting angry, bitter... and want to tear the system down.

(04-02-2019 06:49 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  It's an unfair game I tell ya. When I was growing up girls were usually what you saw, that is, they wore very little makeup. The only time they would wear makeup was if they were going to a dance or prom. Like the song goes, "what you see is what you get". Not today where you can even get make up lessons on Youtube and come out looking like the most gorgeous woman one has ever seen. If makeup can make Oprah Winfrey look more or less presentable imagine what it does to someone that has good bones. That make up is magical, turns a pumpkin coach into a luxury coach ala Cinderella only to see what she really looks like the next morning, "AY MAMA!

A few examples...
Oprah:


Mariah Carey:


Tyra Banks:


Kylie Jenner:


Kim Kardashian:


Mila Kunis: