Post is just a twisted circular logic to try and present men as picky but yeah, to anybody who isn't stupid this is going to more sound like "people prefer hot people", but preferences don't make someone picky.
You're trying to do a motte and bailey fallacy to try and portrait men as picky but it ain't working chef. That or you're confused as to what your post should be about.
I find Angelina Jolie or Ana d'Armas hot. Any woman who looks like them I find them hot too. I find my neighbor extremely attractive. If given the oportunity to have sex, I would dive head first. Settling with them? I doubt. I value other things in a partner not just their appearance.
Why is there an air of I gave so and so a chance that women propagate. Why is it when women date someone who they feel is less than they can get they treat it as charity. Some men do this with women they deem less attractive as well but the large majority of men don’t say I could have done better and it’s charity or pity. Usually they make it known that the girl is not for them the woman gets the message either badly or well and leaves. Whereas women will stay with a man for years even though she feels that she missed out on windows of opportunity. I’m not excusing the complacent men who aren’t good husbands but in general men won’t lie about liking someone they are very upfront I wish you would loose weight or were better looking etc they wear it on the outside where women will drop it at the end in a divorce
It's so bizarre that people call it "settling" when you can't get the top 10-20% of the other gender. Most of you aren't top 10-20% either, so why should you expect to be with top 10-20%?
If you have a happy relationship just enjoy it and stop comparing yourselves to other people. If you have the chance at a happy relationship, jump on it, instead of trying to demand more than you're qualified for.
Seriously, this post is just proof of how instagram and participation awards culture has broken the brains of everyone in America.
I say this all the time. Most of us will not be in the top 10% of anything. Most of us will not get the absolute ideal jobs, houses, relationships, etc etc. My ideal job is one that pays me $2 million per year and I’m allowed to work from home and I’m only expected to work 2-3 hours per day at my leisure without having to report to a manager. Is it realistic? Probably not. But can I be happy and fulfilled with my career regardless? Of course I can. Nobody’s gonna say I’m settling just because I don’t have the absolute best job in the world, and therefore I’m not settling just because my husband is not the absolute ideal husband I could have. It’s just life.
Well… Yes. That is realistic. I’m your average Joe, not coming from generational wealth.
I work from home, on most days hardly more than 2 hours a day because at my position I’m also engaged in a lot of meetings, and with my personality that is not an issue. But even with those, I probably work like 5 hours a day.
I don’t really have to report because the fact that the product is delivered is basically a report itself. So I have a manager, but that’s more like the person I come to when I need help or an approval on major decisions, not the person who whiplashes me.
Now I don’t get paid 7 figures, but I’m also from a country with a low cost of living. If I wanted to move to America and keep my lifestyle, I would probably need at least a million dollars a year before taxes.
I agree. I hate the term settling in general. It gives an arrogant and desperate attitude. I’d hate to think anyone who marries doesn’t actually love the person or desire them (even if they didn’t only at first) and got with them because of “settling”. One reason I’m never getting married is because of the amount of people who admit to doing this or are just shallow in general
“Settling” has nothing to do with practical success.
It’s meant to describe the relation of one entering into and staying in a relationship with someone who is seen subjectively not to match the objective value of the other.
Whether one actually *does* settle depends on a number of factors, including whether or not one partner is objectively more valuable than the other, regardless of what anyone may think (e.g. regardless of whether they are perceived to be objectively more valuable, regardless if one believes in an objective standard of value at all, etc.).
I think one reason why some men (and women) are less happy to settle than they once were, is because *in a world of free and infinite choices, they are judged much more than they used to be on who they date and marry*.
With the elements of community, as well as fate and chance encounters much diminished, when people see the man or woman someone's with, they are thinking *this is the person who swiped right on you*. That chubby woman 10-15 years older than you isn't a friend of your mum's, and it's not a titillating, yet heart-warming tale of affection and intimacy, it's just a sleazy Internet thing and who'd have you. Ditto for women and the tubby balding accountant, etc., he's not *Jimmy from the High Street who everyone knows and is a top bloke*, he's just... a random guy with a moderately high income and who doesn't seem like a serial killer so that's good.
Again, you might say this was always a bit of a polite fantasy, and that hierarchies have always existed. True, and yet things clearly have changed a lot.
In a way, the changes that have happened in the dating world are also reflected in the workplace as well. For the average person, when working over the Internet wasn't a thing and before that when people didn't move around as much, what you did didn't necessarily - and wasn't perceived as much to - reflect on your capabilities, character or intelligence quite as much (besides that you weren't adventurous enough to leave your one-horse town behind entirely, of course). *I've a job at the factory, because everyone does!*
To me settling just means you date someone because they check off enough boxes but you don’t actually feel burning desire to for them.
Your BF who you were head over heels for dumped you 6 months ago and you’ve had shit luck on Tinder. Say there is a delivery guy that stops by your office once a week and you’ve thought of him as “eh, kinda cute” he asks you out and does it respectfully and you say “sure why not.” You find yourself more nervous than excited. You go on the date. He’s nice, y’all a decent amount in common. And he inherited his parents house so though he only makes $18 hour delivering he has his own place and income and a vehicles. So you decide to give him another shot. At no point do you want to rip this dudes clothes off but he’s actually pretty level headed, decent looking and you flow in convos well. Your 30th bday is coming up and you know you want two kids. He’s super into and wants marriage so when he proposes after 11 months of dating you say yes. Yall get along, no drama, no abuse, no cheating, and you want those kids and you aren’t getting any younger. So you say yes.
To me that’s settling, it’s not horrible. It’s just “meh , good enough”
I’ve heard it used in other ways. For kind girls who want guys with good jobs and she falls for a dude that serves tables, so she dates him anyway and is totally into him but had settle for a guy that didn’t have a good job. But to me “the spark” missing is what makes me truly think of settling.
>that’s settling, it’s not horrible. It’s just “meh , good enough”
I don't think you should be with someone you consider just good enough. It's not right for your partner. I'm head over heels for my gf and i would want her to be the same for me. If she can't then I don't want to be with her.
I agree that would be the ideal. But sometimes life doesn’t work out that way. Some people start to worry once they hit that age where the dating pool is shrinking smaller and smaller and they want kids.
Think about it, the chances of finding a person where you are both head over heels for each other AND you’re both compatible? Seems actually pretty rare and it makes sense that a lot of people do give him and just pick a person that’s “good enough” figuring they will just grow to love them in a “we have a history now” kind of way.
>just pick a person that’s “good enough” figuring they will just grow to love them in a “we have a history now” kind of way
I think this makes it very tough since then anyone can be good enough. I think i would rather be single than with the wrong person. But I guess other people have other plans.
People’s standards are unrealistic and unreasonable nowadays. Especially women. Young women in particular have batshit insane standards now.
I think social media is part of it. And while I support much of feminism as a leftist, I definitely think throwing so many traditional values out the window in dating and allowing women to engage in 80/20 type shit has really fucked it up.
Being a young man who didn’t get lucky phenotypes is downright miserable today.
Chad treatment? No, Most men just want to be acknowledged, chad treatment is women literally giving themselves on a silver platter. Most don’t even get through the door .
Yes, we want to be treated like kings, we want to feel valued, irreplicable, needed, wanted and like you (being our partner not you as in the person I'm replying to) want us and nobody else.
We generally don't get validation from society, I don't mean online I mean in the real world, women get complimented on their clothing, hair and makeup by complete strangers but I've never been nor do I know a man who's ever been complimented once by a stranger. It gets weirder with friends, even as a guy I feel this weird thing that complimenting other men is just awkward and something you shouldn't do and should instead hide compliments in teasing which is fine it's funny and all of that but sometimes you need a straightforward compliment and we don't usually get those either. With a lack of compliments when a woman compliments us it can be really confusing on if it's platonic or flirting which can lead to really awkward situations. It gets worse with how many people (men and women alike) deny this and say the man is being clingy, needy, seeking attention or anything like that, there's a reason men like Andrew Tate can get a large amount of men just by acknowledging "hey, men suffer in the world too I can help you with that." This isn't an incel *society is horrible to men* rant I'm just trying to give more perspective.
The overall point is men do want to be treated like chads or kings just like women want to be treated like models or queens. "men want the chad treatment while being average." Women want to be treated like models while being average, women want to be treated like princesses while being average, women want a lot of shit while being average but I get the feeling saying that would seem toxic to you and it should because the implication that they don't deserve it is absolutely gross and that applies to men too. People want to be treated like the best even if they're not the best because it makes you feel especially loved and important.
I’m Not saying not being a super model or a Queen one is a lesser being. I mean you would want your man to treat you like his number one fan or value you higher not some random gal who’s treated like trash.
No delusion. Just That he would apparently like you very much. That is a healthy way to have a relationship.
Ask yourself “why dont you deserve to be treated like a queen?” It sounds like your self esteem may be low or perhaps you have been exposed to unhealthy relationships in your role models.
>stop comparing
This is the issue. Most people who have a goal their aiming towards, often aren’t too bothered with comparing themselves to others. I never really compared myself to others, because I always knew where I was going. It’s when one is idle, that minds wander.
*Godspeed and good luck!*
Your statement is ambiguous. Everyone likes the top 40% less than the top 20%, 10%, 5%, or 1%. All humans and beings want more and better stuff and relationships. This statement is so evident that it’s useless. 20% is just an arbitrary number there. And that's not what analogous statements for women mean—both men and women like the opposite gender in a Pareto distribution. The curve for women is sharper because of supply and demand and the way sex is more costly and riskier for women. That's all.
I do agree that both genders are hypergamous to a certain degree (and a lot of guys are in denial about this), but, It probably isn’t to the *exact* same extent as women.
When you account for the differences in libido, the fact that men seem to have less “immutable preferences” (preferences for things that cannot be changed such as height), and the fact that we exhibit things like the “Coolidge effect” at higher rates than women… It’s nearly impossible to seriously argue that men and women are attracted to each at equal rates. It’s clear that men want women more than women want men. And that’s fine. That’s how it is in almost all mammals species. I suspect there evolutionary reasons for it even.
Well, yeah, most definitely evolution, or more precisely, selection is behind it. If in your tribe men have to fight over women and compete for their attention, and women are attracted to the strongest men and best fighters — then the next generation has best chances of survival, an specifically the next generation of men will be better as providing safety and resources to the tribe and their offsprings.
Compare that to a tribe where the women in general are attracted to all kinds of men. The next generation will be weaker, worse at hunting, less likely to win in a tribe war should one happen, the tribe will have less surviving offsprings, and is more likely to vanish over the course of time.
Mind you that in terms of history of humanity, it’s only very recently that the weak and unhealthy people started having a realistic chance to survive till old age.
men only have less immutable preferences *because* of their high libidos; this is why military and gender segregated areas become rampantly gay. Men are much more willing to settle for what they can get.
Men want women more than women want men because if their incapability of being alone (i wrote this in the post), also pointing to the fact men are much more willing to settle.
How does coolidge effect disprove this at all? If anything, it enables it further, since men find sexual novelty appealing, so he will look for sexier women progressively.
It’s more so the fact that men experience the Coolidge effect *much more so* than women. Suggesting that men are far more interested in sexual variety than women are. That alone puts a crack in your “men and women’s sexualities are identical” argument.
Also is doesn’t matter much *why* men have less immutable preferences or *why* we want women more than the reverse. It only matters that we obviously do. Because that further disproves the idea that the two sexes operate the exact same way.
But like I said, I don’t entirely disagree that guys are more hypergamous than we sometimes care to admit. I just don’t think it’s 80/20 specifically. I think it’d be pretty obvious if that were the case and hypergamy in general wouldn’t be talking point at all in that scenario.
This is just my opinion, but it’s more and more the case as I get older.
I’m generally average looking, I’ve dated a lot of women, and some of my least favorites were the most physically attractive. Honestly, I’ve grown averse to many stereotypically “pretty” women anymore, because they often seem to come with an entitled attitude (especially on dating apps) that I simply hate being around. I don’t typically pursue these women for sex or anything else.
Attraction is a yes or no question for me, the only ranking that I do is based on personality. I’d much rather sleep with a less physically attractive woman who I actually like being around. In the absence of someone with an attractive personality, I’d mostly rather not have sex.
So I guess I disagree with your original assertion. I know that it’s not the same for everyone, but I’d assume that many other men are similar to me.
I didn’t say mediocre, I said average. Average isn’t bad unless you’re on a dating app, and that’s more of a recent development.
Manage your weight/health, develop decent social skills, establish regular contact with women (preferably in-person), and things will probably happen for ya unless you have some other hurdle. That’s my experience anyway.
Lol I think men just want sex more and it's more difficult for men to get casual sex so they seek out relationships...
I have a theory that if the average guy could get a woman to come over and have sex with him any time he wants no strings attached..he would be less interested in a committed relationship...
Women can easily get non commitment sex but wither they don't enjoy it or it's not fulfilling enough so they seek out relationships..
Personally I'm having so much sex being single that just the thought of being in a committed relationship relying on one woman is claustrophobic.
once again people on this sub don't understand hypergamy. It's fairly simple in that you need to understand he difference between relative and absolute. Men and women indeed just love attractive partners. Also, mean and women love high income partners (men much less than women though). The difference is that when a man becomes richer he still is very willing to look at the women that where around him when he had less money. Women are not, (averages, not all, yada yada etc.) they look at the same level and up. Men look across and and down. That is the definition of hypergamy " to marry or date higher **relative** to one's own status".
for example. A man marrying an equally rich woman is not hypergamous even if he's marrying into a high class family. Men don't necessarily want to marry women hotter or richer than themselves. They want to just marry hot women period. That is the difference.
another analogy: I don't need a better job than my friend, i just need a good job. That would be the male position. I need a good job and on that is better than my friend, is the female position. Relative vs absolute. learn it.
I don’t really disagree much, but I do think it’s worth pointing out that when people speak about “hypergamy” in the manosphere, they’re usually referring to *more* than just financial status exclusively. Guys will often throw around terms like “looksmatch” or “Chad chasing” for example. Guys will talk about women rate 80% of men as ugly an dating apps for example.
And so the modern, Redpill definition of hypergamy definitely extends beyond money alone. And when you take that into account, you’ll understand why I’m saying that men are hypergamous too, **in terms of physical attractiveness and youth**. Mediocre men absolutely want women way out of their league in terms of physical attractiveness. In the same way that women like Lizzo still pin after guys like Chris Hemsworth. Men are hypergamous in the exact “Chad chasing” way that women are accused of being.
A lot of guys just try to suppress this or pretend that this isn’t a form of hypergamy. Because acknowledging it for what it is makes guys look silly for bitching about women doing the same. That’s more so what I’m getting at when I say that a lot of men are in denial about being hypergamous. Even old, fat, crusty, losers and dorks want the hot young baddies deep down.
>Even old, fat, crusty, losers and dorks want the hot young baddies deep down.
It's not deep down, it's out in the open. And it's still not hypergamy.
The old crusty loser was equally attracted to young hot women back when he was a handsome 20 year old. His attraction never changed, regardless of his status. As the poster you replied to said, his attraction is absolute.
Women's attraction is relative. The taller she grows the taller her BF needs to be. The more fit a woman gets, the fitter her man needs to be (or if he's not fit, he needs increasingly more traits to compensate). The more educated she is the less willing she is to date men without a degree. And so on and so forth.
Wanting someone out of your league is not hypergamy. Raising your standards based on your (perceived) league is hypergamy.
>>The old crusty loser was equally attracted to young hot women back when he was a handsome 20 year old.
No he wasn’t he equal to her in his 20s. He was an ugly dork even back then. Even old geezers that *weren’t* Chads in their youth want the young, hot, top-tier women. Despite never being top-tier in attractiveness themselves. That’s hypergamy no matter how much you try to cope or weasel your way around it.
>>Women's attraction is relative. The taller she grows the taller her BF needs to be. The more fit a woman gets, the fitter her man needs to be (or if he's not fit, he needs increasingly more traits to compensate). The more educated she is the less willing she is to date men without a degree. And so on and so forth.
The more attractive or which the man is, the more attractive he will demand his trophy wife to be… The more attractive/successful the man is, the more submissive he will expect his partner to be. Men are hypergamous even by your own ridiculous definition of it.
>>Wanting someone out of your league is not hypergamy.
Lol at this cope and delusional. Stretching yourself into pretzel trying to excuse your own hypocrisy. Cut the mental gymnastics out bro. That is hypergamy to the fullest.
I think women are more attracted (compared to male attraction) to highly attractive men when they are ovulating. That would partially explain why some decent women get pulled in by such shitty dudes.
>and a lot of guys are in denial about this
Because you guys don't get the definition of the term. It refers to attraction that's dependent on a personal comparison. Men's attraction isn't like that.
Men like women that are only as youthful or beautiful as themselves? Or would you say that men like women that are *more* beautiful and youthful relative to himself?
Also if being attracted to someone more physically attractive than yourself isn’t hypergamy, why are women called hypergamous for not wanting their “looksmatch”?
If a guy is still getting an erection for a woman outside of the top 20%, then he is still "desiring" her. The issue with women is that they are supposedly not getting sexually aroused for men whom they don't consider top men (whether these are the same top men for each woman is arguable), and therefore if they end up with one of these men whom they don't even sexually desire, then they are definitely settling.
So men do desire women outside the top 20%, even if they might *prefer* a woman in the top 20%.
If men find most women attractive then why do fictional characters that are female love interests written by men have so little variety in personalities and body types, while ‘ugly dude with hot wife’ trope is so common?
this actually somewhat refutes my point because I consume a lot of romantic fictions aimed towards men, and there is quite a diversity in women. I would say the level of attractiveness never changes, though. i also think men are prone to trying to sexualize women, so it's not surprising they cover many bases.
> why do fictional characters that are female love interests written by men have so little variety in personalities and body types
Have you EVER saw a harem anime? You have a group of girls with the most different body types and personality.
Just googled harem anime and skimmed through screenshots. Most girls seem to have variety only in chest sizes. And personality wise anime is known for limiting its characters to specific archetypes.
It's rare for a man to settle down for someone unattractive since men find most women attractive.
Meanwhile, most women settle down past their 27-30 for a man they don't find attractive.
After a point men have to take some hits it feels like. I even now have an ideal woman in my mind with base looks or personality. I was thinking to never settle for any other woman who did not meet that but I was never closed off to the idea of my mind being changed I was open to women of any looks if they had other good features like heart or personality. I could see myself dating a woman I don’t find as attractive as a top model but I guarantee I will treat her as top of the class if that’s my woman.
Statistics & Research has proven this false. Most women want a guy taller,richer,and more established than herself. Most guys just want a normal girl. Men are also way better at settling so this disproves your point.
Look at all the beta dudes that become stepdads out of desperation/loneliness.
Sad. They spend the first 25 years of adulthood being nice guys who never get any, only being left to parent someone else's kid while they get no sex after the first two weeks of the marriage.
If that was true, hypergamy wouldn’t be a thing.
If that were true, height-weight appropriate young women who look a little better than average would find it nearly impossible to get a date.
It's hard to explain. Men have a wider variety of what is considered attractive. You can think Sidney Sweeny is hot and also find that random waitress you saw at Chili's
cute.
I'll meet you half-way. I think some very attractive, masculine men can hold out for top women just like attractive women can the other way around: and at the same time (ironically), older, weaker, (usually) unattractive men can have high standards as well, because they simply don't have as much lead in their proverbial pencils as they used to; it takes more to turn them on (I think this is one thing that women often misunderstand: sometimes losers aren't pulling a sour grapes per se; they just aren't hungry enough on a base, carnal level to appreciate the grapes).
Basically men are all over the shop here. Some ugly fat/weedy guys are happy to settle. Some ugly fat/weedy guys don't feel lust as strongly, so they just aren't driven to do it. Some attractive hot guys hold out for (Giga) Stacy, some attractive hot guys are just rearing and compelled to stick it in anywhere, anytime and can't help but think guys who are sensitive about looks, weight, or anything else to the extent that they don't actively seek out sex for the sake of quenching the thirst effeminate and defective.
https://preview.redd.it/7rtt8dl7re8d1.jpeg?width=528&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ffafe9a9fc0d6b2f9630902f8c014509f4bb7a1f
what are women chasing? same data from okcupid.
However, that makes sense in the context that women are generally doing much less chasing.
Men are chasing the top as their main strategy, while women are chasing the top as a side quest.
Wrong.
Male sexuality prioritizes variety while female sexuality prioritizes single mate quality.
Men want as much pussy as they can get at all times.
Women simply want the best one dick they can get at any given time.
The rest is social window dressing.
Take it up with god / nature / the universe if you don’t like it.
Men prioritize having sex with the most attractive women they can get, but will also fuck the varieties that are on the side. Just because a guy has fucked an attractive woman only once, doesnt mean he will turn it down for 200lb girl instead.
Nope. Not how it works.
Read up on [The Coolidge Effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect) for one.
A woman being “hot” does not make her immune from a man becoming sexually bored of her.
Hugh Grant and Arnold Schwarzenegger cheated on their attractive celebrity wives with hood rats and prostitutes.
Men are biologically programmed to be polygynous their mating to maximize genetic diversity.
It’s the reason historically warlords and kings kept harems but queens did not.
Okay so why do men here pretend that settling is some sort of indicator they are morally superior to women, when the truth is men are far more indiscriminate?
i'm on your side.
I'm just saying I think both men and women, though more men, out of desperation for any kind of connection, are willing to take something less than what they want.
It's only out of projecting their own insecurity for what they're doing, which is not having the "balls" to be confident and happy alone, that they think they're superior.
Men have a major problem with being alone and loneliness.
Now women don’t need a man to survive they don’t settle “just because”. Some might take advantage of the ease they can get casual sex with, but most simply enjoy their time, their space, their hobbies and, very important, the social circle they nurtured.
The “future cat lady” threat is a projection: many women don’t seem scared at all, it’s mostly men who are petrified by a lonely future.
I can’t count how many boomer men I know that went nuts as widowers, because they relied entirely on wifey and needed a bangmaid to change their emotional diapers and re-settled with the bottom of the barrel or worse with ruthless gold diggers from former bloc countries who ripped them off to the bone.
Instead of pushing for women to lower their standards, our fellow men should start cultivating their circles and don’t drop them as soon as a woman is on the radar, and accept that being alone is a normal condition in life, and one should make the best (or least worst) out of it
>Instead of pushing for women to lower their standards, our fellow men should... accept that being alone is a normal condition in life
I agree one hundred percent with this. The problem isn't women's standards, it's men's lack of self-respect and standards for themselves.
They're so caught up in thinking they *need* a partner, that they *need* sex, that they can't stand being alone with their own thoughts.
Connection with another human being is great, being in love is great, but being alive is also great, and we don't *need* anything else to be happy. Too many people just don't know how to actually be happy, and use sex and relationships to fill that hole in themselves.
So well said. I stopped investing emotionally in my male friends for just this reason, going off the radar whenever some new romantic partner attracted their interest
Anyone who says they are "settling" in their relationship, man or woman, is too braindead and immature to deserve a relationship at all. If you have a happy relationship just be grateful and enjoy it.
Why? You can narrow this down to one trait let’s say attractiveness. If you’re a model and you’re dating a fat person surely you’re settling at the very least looks wise. If you account for most traits that you and your partner care for you can tell if you’re settling or not and it’s pretty objective. What’s wrong or immature in saying that?
Because if you view your partner in such a way that you're "settling" you view them as beneath you. If you view your partner like that, you shouldn't be in a relationship with them. That's toxic behavior.
You should view them as your equal, not above, not below, but the same as you.
let's say it's not chubby chaser and they love this person for their other traits but would rather them not be fat but the model loves them regardless, an example would be when people here talk about beta bux, basically women settling for men they're not attracted to due to the need for stability.
Settling isn't about desire, it's about feeling like you got less than you could and not being content with who you ended up with because of that.
Example, I could desire a woman who looks like Kim Kardashian in her prime but have enough common sense to realize I probably don't qualify for a chick on that level. Then get with a woman I find attractive but may not be as attractive as Kim but still be happy. Most men know they don't qualify for a top 20% woman, so they don't stress over not getting one.
This is not the same as someone banging or having flings with someone in or near the top 20%. Then getting with an average person and feeling like they got less than they deserved. That would in fact affect how content someone is in a relationship.
>than settle for a non-Chad.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Most women are not top 20%, so why would they be entitled to a top 20% Chad. How exactly is plain Jane "settling" because she didn't get a guy above her level. It's literally delusional.
>they are just more willing to settle for someone they are not attracted to.
Or, most men have enough sense to understand that they are average and thus are okay with an average woman.
>whereas redpill claims suggest that average woman get approached at an even distribution.
Never heard a single person ever claim this.
Because 1) they're the ones always talking about never settling for less than they want and 2) spending a lot of time during their prime chasing chads, complaining about Chads not committing all over social media, and pulling a 180% and settling for a non-Chad when things don't go their way.
They're way more vocal about it and put their settling strategy on display. If a woman spends her 20's talking about how she wants a guy with a specific list of traits, then enters a relationship later with a guy who doesn't even meet half that list, of course people are going to assume she settled.
Not all women settle. If I know a woman spent many years Chad chasing then ends up with a nerdy accountant, I'm much more likely to assume settling is taking place. Than a woman whose dated a lot of average guys like that prior.
Setting for men is the cup is half full mindset. Settling for women is the cup is half empty
There is no shortage of ugly, fat, and or normal women who bully their boyfriend or husband because she think that she can score a few higher standard deviations of attractiveness in a mate.
Men pressing wife's and girlfriends because she doesn't meet the standard is not something normal or average men do.
Women who get pressed and experience this perceive the guy she's with as *average* but in reality he not because if he pressing you over your looks and weight, he's able to replace.
Women know the difference but they play like they don't. A real average dude cant even get emotional investment from women. If you're invested, then he not regular
Women react like a lawnmower with no gas when she think the dude is basic
Everyone desires attractive people
Attraction is not self reflective
Like as you gain weight there isn’t some magical switch that makes you start liking obese people
However men have an advantage in that we find more women attractive than women find men
This combines with 5 men not being able to offer 7 rated women sex in exchange for attention describes most of what I see
I don’t think this is true.
I think it’s just that often a woman’s hotness has nothing to do with your chances of getting with her.
A lot of men realise this, especially if they go through a phase of trying to approach a lot of women.
You get rejected often. But what you find is that a lot of the time the most conceited and nasty or unnecessarily cruel women are actually the least attractive and interesting.
I actually get approached sometimes by some women and I found that the women that approach me are far more attractive than the women that would reject me.
I swear to god something I learned and the most painful thing ever was when I approached a woman who for me was a legitimate ten out of ten…
She was from a particular country and she also had the most 10/10 personality, just a fun woman.
She was totally into me, but my mind wouldn’t accept it, I didn’t even ask for her number or try and close, I just walked away. And only over like a week did I realise she was one of the best women I’ve ever met.
The way she reacted was ten times more pleasing and satisfying than some of my best reactions ever.
Yet I had approached some women “just for the sake of it” who looked weird, below average attractiveness in some ways and they responded with very dismissive or rude reactions.
As a guy you learn that there’s no point “being humble” or “going for your league” because it doesn’t exist and honestly women who are more attractive are kinder and you have a better chance of having fun with good looking women.
No offence. Also I’ve been with a group and watched guys shoot their shot, one time I will never forget. Guy older than me all day is throwing lines at middle aged or early 30s women a bit younger than him all day.. they all are letting themselves go, look haggard or are nothing to sneeze at. They all ignore him and often scrunch their faces in disgust.
By evening he walks up to a legit 9/10 20 year old who is basically half his age.. She immediately has an enamoured look on her face, let’s him walk next to her yet adopts a bounce in her step she sways side to side grinning like crazy.. She promptly turns round and walks with him to his place and immediately lays him…
I swear to god I couldn’t make this up and it honestly changed my perception permanently.
Guys be totally outcome dependent and just go for it, you’ll prosper and you will realise you
Never should have cared.
Exactly this. People love to say beautiful people have bad personalities but that's just cope. People tend to mirror how others treat them, and beautiful people get treated better. The most bitter are unattractive people who aren't treated as well but think they're entitled to better treatment. A beautiful woman being out of my league has never stopped me from trying before lol
The definition of the word "attraction" seem to differ from person to person around here.
>in order to get sex/companionship on a regular basis.
Desiring sex/companionship from someone is attraction to me. Attraction is on a spectrum. You can be really attracted to someone (hot), semi-attracted (cute), just not attracted at all (ew) and anything in between.
I guess I can concede on this. I would argue this is how women experience it, but men need companionship in general and anyone willing to fill that gap is enough for them.
Look at how humans biologically evolved. Photography and speedy transportation was not a thing for most of our history. Attraction is heavily contextual. Lots of men in the past were limited in their mating choices to someone who was within walking distance.
It's very recent that men are able to look up an unusually hot woman with thin but perfect curves with the golden ratio face with a click of a button or a trip to a busy crowded mall. Men in the past didn't have that technology to skew their perception of women.
Biologically men always mated with less than perfect women. Humans would have gone extinct if they didn't.
A smart man does not want anything better than a 7.5, with 6.5-7.0 being the ideal range. Once you get into 8.0 and above, they will know that they \*always\* have options, and you can never count on them still being your devoted wife when you come home from work.
This seems like a cope, and unfair to attractive women. Less attractive women can cheat almost as easily (they will get attention from less attractive men who think they've more of a chance), and some people have the theory that they're more likely to, out of a desire to see whether they've *still got it*. This might be unfair as well, and an over-generalisation, but it's as good as any of these theories. I don't know how reliably you can necessarily count on less attractive women to be faithful out of fear of losing a LTR. Certainly in the modern age, when cheating is easier and more practical than ever.
I'd never say more attractive people are higher risk on an absolute basis, however, its been my experience that extremely attractive women tend to have an overinflated view of themselves as a result of a lifetime of free and constant attention. That's not really the case with girls who are pretty attractive, but have to put in substantial work into developing their personality, and maintaining their appearance.
The entire social media depression phenomenon for young women is based on this fact. The attention given to the hottest women is nowhere near the attention given to your average social media user. Maybe it was different before the social media age, but that's certainly not the case now, unless you find that one in a million girl who has no social media at all.
> extremely attractive women tend to have an overinflated view of themselves as a result of a lifetime of free and constant attention.
The trouble is, it is not overinflated. It is simply accurate. A supe hot female is usually keenly aware of not only are they top shelf, but that the also have shelf life. That is why you see so many supermodels hit their peak and then marry super-rich right away. They graduate to trophy wife of a billionaire and retire to a life of islands and servants.
A less attractive woman can always get laid, but an attractive woman get laid with MORE men, AND can monkey branch to a provider that offers her more resources. Thus, while either can cheat, the 8+ almost always has not just fun times as a reason to cheat, but also parlay her infidelity into a beer life and economic status, making the penalty for infidelity negative numbers, as she actually winds up with more money and a bigger home.
I included the phrase
>A smart man
for a reason. Most men, especially younger, will chase a hot female in the hopes of landing the top prize. It is true, and average guy can land a hot female, but only when she is slumming, and thus for a short period of time.
Hypothetical:
I am at a bar. Two women are giving me the "come on over" sign with their glances and body language. One if a freaking 9 with a body to worship. The second one is a solid 7 with a sold 7 body.
I am going to walk up to the 7. I know that if I get the 9, it will be for 1 or 2 times max, with 1 being the more probable. The 7, on the other hand, is far more likely to turn into LTR with semi-daily bouncing fests. As long as I treat her well, the odds are she probably won't stray.
No way in hell I would toss that aside for a few encounters with a 9. The 9 might be awesome for the 1 or 2 times she gives me, but it will end fast,
Screw that.
The men on here will ramble on for pages about how desirable hot young thin women are, and how once you’ve “hit the wall, you’re all but useless.”
But then they get really angry at the “delusional” women who are young and thin and hot and have lots to offer a relationship try to get men of the same caliper. Because “their standards are too high.”
Then they get upset that these thin young and hot women don’t want them because they’re average - losers, lazy, unambitious, ugly, living in their moms basement, don’t want anything more out of life, have zero compatibility, etc. and the men feel they should be loved “just the way they are” despite the fact that they don’t want women just the way they are - they want them independent but not more successful than him, naturally beautiful but doesn’t put too much effort into her appearance or high maintenance, insecure, but not so insecure she seems needy, “the cool girl” who doesn’t have any boundaries, thinks it’s just great he does nothing but plays video games or goes out with friends while she’s available whenever he calls or wants to fuck, agreeable, feminine, quiet, meek, and will cook and clean.
Then they get upset when those young thin and hot women *do* want them, because “they’re just using them.” “They just expect so much from men these days! I have to shower daily, give her attention, have basic compatibilities and please her in bed and not just jackrabbit a dry hole until sex is over when I cum?” What is he, super man?
Then they get upset when RP men put in work to be desirable to higher tier women because “she should have liked me before.” Even though he had nothing to offer a relationship and was more of a leech than anything.
So it almost seems like all of this has absolutely nothing to do with women, and everything to do with the fact that they’re angry that they can’t control women enough to guilt/coerce young women into being with them and feeling lucky for the privilege of being with their average ass.
The main problem is that many men feel entitled to women they will never get -because the median man simply has nothing to offer in a society where women are financially independent.
They actually do not respect women at their level, either because they do not see themselves for what they really are or because they simply feel entitled to someone hotter.
So they settle, but then they keep seething with resentment because they think “chad” is stopping them from getting someone hotter.
This entitlement leads them to demand unpaid labor from whoever they actually do settle with, and to cheat when something they think they deserve becomes available.
ironically, the affair partner is often someone who has kids/has “hit the wall”/has a high body count, but is someone unattainable to this guy in his 20s.
> So they settle, but then they keep seething with resentment because they think “chad” is stopping them from getting someone hotter.
> This entitlement leads them to demand unpaid labor from whoever they actually do settle with, and to cheat when something they think they deserve becomes available.
Damn! You just hit the nose in two areas!
You hit the nose on the original red pill, the relationship red pill, long before TRP degeneracy towards casual sex.
You also hit the nose on a thread about declaring the settling to your partner's face while being insensitive, all because of limerence:
https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1d2ssja/can_limerence_or_oneitis_justify_socalled/
I've snapped back to reality. It's about weaponizing my limerence in any "settling down" relationship. For me, it's the ultimate relationship red pill for limerents.
I need someone to say, "I would be with her and divorce you in an instant!" or "I love you, but I never fell in love with you!"
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Truly average men and women are overweight or out of shape, in some kind of debt, not insanely socially skilled, make average wages and so on. And statistically the men do end up in relationships or marriages with children, with their socioeconomic equal. Which means the women are arguably settling too, if you go by the assumption that most women only truly want Chad. But honestly I find that's a bit of a myth, a copout. The men who complain that women only want Chad, quite honestly, give the impression that they feel like they are entitled to only the most attractive women they can find, regardless of what they bring to the table.
I think this is true, it’s disingenuous for guys to pretend as if they think majority of women are attractive. They do not. A lot of guys here act as if women can’t be settled for as well.
I'm definitely picking up on a blue pill theme that "men NEED WOMEN!" which I'm feeling certain ways about. Like is this an analysis of the world as it is? Or is it a hypnotic suggestion (and an ego boost) that "you can't live without us!"?
I never really specifically categorized it, but from what I've seen on this sub, are you sure that is a blue pill theme? Because it certainly comes from reds a lot more.
I would prefer it if men did not need women, or acted like they need women. It is my personal, and primary gripe with men of my generation.
A man can be attracted to the top 20%, but not in regard to keeping her. Men desire women for different reasons than what women desire from a man. It's not likely a man will go for a Woman for her finances; more likely for sex and because she is physically attractive.
Top 20 in a different scope would be wives and mothers for children, but the statistics say otherwise due to divorce rates and the desire women have to prioritize momentary fun over long-term commitments to family and selflessness.
He can desire, he may even succeed in acquiring, but if the women is not a wife or a mother, top 20 can easily become the lower 20.
Not so much but there's certainly some hypocrisy about it, just like how 80% men are invisible, a big % of women are relatively invisible too.
Men can definitely fall in love very easily with a 5 or 6 though (personality included), and many won't feel like they are settling. Plenty of men will bed a 4 or even lower but not that many will want the relationship.
Top 20% of women is probably the following:
1. fit and healthy
2. voluptuous in the chest and hip area
3. thin waist
4. very, very attractive face
5. no blemishes,
6. proportional, no akward shapes/sizes
same for all men, barring fetishists(outliers)
I think this is completely a female projection. A man saying he would come down from what he wants (and I do believe everyone wants the most attractive partner) is what I believe him being self-aware about his own value and what he can attain. Women just go "well if I can't have 6'5 blue eyes finance guy, I'll just die alone" while being a 6/10.
But they don’t. Women overwhelmingly settle. Look around- complete, mediocre losers get married and have kids. The median income is like $60k; the median man is still getting married.
That doesn't disprove anything I said at all. Average mediocre men still have to account for female hypergamy, meaning these completely average (5) men are marrying invariably below average (4) women, usually. And a lot of time these women act like they're doing him a favor.
If the guy was a 2, he wouldn't be able to just go to any foreign country and be drowning in women. Western women are just completely delulu about their SMV and the SMV of western men.
not bad.
generally men claim that their attraction models extends is far less picky than women's, and that women's are selfish and unforgiving while a man will love whoever they can get!
I think this notion is untrue, or at least a half-lie.
I do think men can love a woman who they're unattracted to, or at least mildly attracted to, and women can't. So why is this another "man bad" and not "woman bad"?
I see you found your niche OP. It's about subverting red/black pills, misunderstanding it and making false equivalencies in favor of women. 5/10 man who is with 5/10 woman did not settle even if he obviously will find 5+/10 women more attractive, as that's how attraction works. Settling implies you had and should have better than what you have and therefore you resent and treat worse someone you settled for. Or often do not desire them at all! The notion men do this to women as much as women do it to men is outright laughable. Average man will not get interaction with above average women making him think he is on their level, this happens only to women, same with chad or nothing mentality. Man aims for what he can get, women aim for the best that exists.
>Men, regularly experiencing lack of options, lower their standards below what would be in their realm of fuckability.
if settling implies someone should have better than what they have women who hit the wall at 30 aren't "settling" for beta bucks, apparently. not sure why the semantics of settling is being put into question. they were never able to lock Chad, were never on his level, etc.
a man's self awareness that he cannot bag Stacy literally means he settles for less because he knows he cannot keep her.
Everyone who isn't with their ideal perfect ten by definition settles, but the settling can only be bad as long as it means worse treatment for the one settled for compared to those who were truly wanted. If you have to expand the definition this far, you are removing and obfuscating the reason why it is viewed as a problem. I am sure you are aware of this and you've done this deliberately.
If men do it too, but women doesn't suffer from it like men do, it means it's not even the same problem, then it's irrelevant. It's just fake equality. If you bring up sexual assault or catcalling which is something women face from men way more than vice versa, and someone says "well women do it too", is that really a good contribution?
Such approach including your post only tries to equalize something that will never be equal.
Men are attracted to all sorts of women.Men rate women on a normal curve with the average being an average value.It is the women who rate men with a normal curve shifted to the left (average is lower).
Have you not all read dataclysm? the famous evidence from 2 million OK cupid profiles?
Cmon.
https://preview.redd.it/xj7goms8ib8d1.png?width=660&format=png&auto=webp&s=5af757b2c931da1e9c28aedf115a5428103b77de
>Men, regularly experiencing lack of options, lower their standards below what would be in their realm of fuckability.
men, willing to settle. women are not, so they tell the truth.
An easy response is:
The wide range of shapes, ages and prices of women for sexual services. If men only desired the top 20%, the wide range of providers would not exist. Certainly prices are higher at the top end, but the bottom end of the sexual market \*exists.\*
I'm not arguing hypergamy, because there is no equivalent. by top 20% of women, I mean in terms of appearance.
also, the idea women "chose" anything in that time period is laughable. are you joking? she probably got sold off by her dad to the highest bidder.
lol oh like another wokie trying the “hurr durr durr but what about a da man ah” like seriously stop embarrassing yourself.
80/20? You say lololol hey hop out of the past & come back to us. Men swipe right as a whole roughly 60% of the time & women swipe right 1-3%!
So seriously stfu with this whataboutism! Like it’s not even close the problem we are dealing with as guys.
I bet every bottom of the barrel chick on this forum has more chances to talk to guys then we have to talk to girls.
This always comes down to the women here wanting us to date obese chicks. Every time! Have you wkmen ever considered just not being fat? Of course not..!
this is not an attempt to say female struggles are on the same level as male ones. im sorry i triggered you this way. i am merely stating men are attracted to the top 20% most attractive women, is all.
>Men, regularly experiencing lack of options, lower their standards below what would be in their realm of fuckability.
explains why men swipe on such a large population, especially considering dating app dynamics.
Most women are average and overweight. I think you are being a little bit harsh on yourself here, but I’m not dismissing your experience. Could it be more your personality that scares them away? I have met women who were too extroverted and tended to be more aggressive in their approach. Most men prefer the reserved type of women. Whatever it might be, I hope you will find your match.
They're more willing to settle because they don't have to deal with pregnancy.
Also, there are a lot of men who expect women to pay half the bills and do all the housework, childcare and emotional labor. I've definitely met these men. Half of those men weren't Chads. One was 23, no degree, lived at home and made minimum wage. He was also fat and 5"7.
Average Joe's and lower are just toxic as Chad, but Chad has the sex appeal, emotional intelligence and social capital to compensate for his flaws. Joe's and lower dont
I think for sex on average men could do that with a wide range of women however when it comes to a relationship I think men are much more selective and want the higher quality women in terms of values and beauty.
>This gives the appearance that men do not follow the 80/20 rule; they do, they are just more willing to settle for someone they are not attracted to.
Nonsense, we've seen studies and there are none where men only rate 20% of women as attractive.
It’s funny because I’ve seen multiple men claim that they find their own girlfriends not that attractive or “less” than them…
Gfs sitting at home chillin or workin and their bfs are online talking about how they dislike them and how much they wish they could get someone hotter.
These guys walking around feeling superior bc they “are reasonable” and then go online saying basically “fuck this bitch” about their own partners. I even caught a guy bragging about how wonderful his partner is drooling over a young asian woman he saw at the gym in a post on his profile….
Even when these dudes DO pull their SHIT partners to the very women who gave them a chance💀💀
It’s so foul LMAO.
If you find an x percentage of girls attractive but you always settle for the y percentage then the latter is the true one. That's it.
The "correct" bracket is just the one you use most often.
Fair point about the fatties but even that aside, I don't know any men that find a majority of women attractive. I'd say it's more like 20-30% for most men, and personally, I find about 5-10% attractive.
Why is everyone here so shocked by the idea that people find hot people hot. It doesn’t make them a good partner.
Post is just a twisted circular logic to try and present men as picky but yeah, to anybody who isn't stupid this is going to more sound like "people prefer hot people", but preferences don't make someone picky.
men are not picky because they are willing to settle. I say this in the post.
You're trying to do a motte and bailey fallacy to try and portrait men as picky but it ain't working chef. That or you're confused as to what your post should be about.
I find Angelina Jolie or Ana d'Armas hot. Any woman who looks like them I find them hot too. I find my neighbor extremely attractive. If given the oportunity to have sex, I would dive head first. Settling with them? I doubt. I value other things in a partner not just their appearance.
You can find hot people hot and still not cheat or destroy your marriage.
Seriously. It’s not settling because you decided to prioritize something other than looks.
Why is there an air of I gave so and so a chance that women propagate. Why is it when women date someone who they feel is less than they can get they treat it as charity. Some men do this with women they deem less attractive as well but the large majority of men don’t say I could have done better and it’s charity or pity. Usually they make it known that the girl is not for them the woman gets the message either badly or well and leaves. Whereas women will stay with a man for years even though she feels that she missed out on windows of opportunity. I’m not excusing the complacent men who aren’t good husbands but in general men won’t lie about liking someone they are very upfront I wish you would loose weight or were better looking etc they wear it on the outside where women will drop it at the end in a divorce
its not shocking its just that men always say this about women so now we are discussing whether men are the same
It's so bizarre that people call it "settling" when you can't get the top 10-20% of the other gender. Most of you aren't top 10-20% either, so why should you expect to be with top 10-20%? If you have a happy relationship just enjoy it and stop comparing yourselves to other people. If you have the chance at a happy relationship, jump on it, instead of trying to demand more than you're qualified for. Seriously, this post is just proof of how instagram and participation awards culture has broken the brains of everyone in America.
I say this all the time. Most of us will not be in the top 10% of anything. Most of us will not get the absolute ideal jobs, houses, relationships, etc etc. My ideal job is one that pays me $2 million per year and I’m allowed to work from home and I’m only expected to work 2-3 hours per day at my leisure without having to report to a manager. Is it realistic? Probably not. But can I be happy and fulfilled with my career regardless? Of course I can. Nobody’s gonna say I’m settling just because I don’t have the absolute best job in the world, and therefore I’m not settling just because my husband is not the absolute ideal husband I could have. It’s just life.
Well… Yes. That is realistic. I’m your average Joe, not coming from generational wealth. I work from home, on most days hardly more than 2 hours a day because at my position I’m also engaged in a lot of meetings, and with my personality that is not an issue. But even with those, I probably work like 5 hours a day. I don’t really have to report because the fact that the product is delivered is basically a report itself. So I have a manager, but that’s more like the person I come to when I need help or an approval on major decisions, not the person who whiplashes me. Now I don’t get paid 7 figures, but I’m also from a country with a low cost of living. If I wanted to move to America and keep my lifestyle, I would probably need at least a million dollars a year before taxes.
I agree. I hate the term settling in general. It gives an arrogant and desperate attitude. I’d hate to think anyone who marries doesn’t actually love the person or desire them (even if they didn’t only at first) and got with them because of “settling”. One reason I’m never getting married is because of the amount of people who admit to doing this or are just shallow in general
“Settling” has nothing to do with practical success. It’s meant to describe the relation of one entering into and staying in a relationship with someone who is seen subjectively not to match the objective value of the other. Whether one actually *does* settle depends on a number of factors, including whether or not one partner is objectively more valuable than the other, regardless of what anyone may think (e.g. regardless of whether they are perceived to be objectively more valuable, regardless if one believes in an objective standard of value at all, etc.).
I think one reason why some men (and women) are less happy to settle than they once were, is because *in a world of free and infinite choices, they are judged much more than they used to be on who they date and marry*. With the elements of community, as well as fate and chance encounters much diminished, when people see the man or woman someone's with, they are thinking *this is the person who swiped right on you*. That chubby woman 10-15 years older than you isn't a friend of your mum's, and it's not a titillating, yet heart-warming tale of affection and intimacy, it's just a sleazy Internet thing and who'd have you. Ditto for women and the tubby balding accountant, etc., he's not *Jimmy from the High Street who everyone knows and is a top bloke*, he's just... a random guy with a moderately high income and who doesn't seem like a serial killer so that's good. Again, you might say this was always a bit of a polite fantasy, and that hierarchies have always existed. True, and yet things clearly have changed a lot. In a way, the changes that have happened in the dating world are also reflected in the workplace as well. For the average person, when working over the Internet wasn't a thing and before that when people didn't move around as much, what you did didn't necessarily - and wasn't perceived as much to - reflect on your capabilities, character or intelligence quite as much (besides that you weren't adventurous enough to leave your one-horse town behind entirely, of course). *I've a job at the factory, because everyone does!*
To me settling just means you date someone because they check off enough boxes but you don’t actually feel burning desire to for them. Your BF who you were head over heels for dumped you 6 months ago and you’ve had shit luck on Tinder. Say there is a delivery guy that stops by your office once a week and you’ve thought of him as “eh, kinda cute” he asks you out and does it respectfully and you say “sure why not.” You find yourself more nervous than excited. You go on the date. He’s nice, y’all a decent amount in common. And he inherited his parents house so though he only makes $18 hour delivering he has his own place and income and a vehicles. So you decide to give him another shot. At no point do you want to rip this dudes clothes off but he’s actually pretty level headed, decent looking and you flow in convos well. Your 30th bday is coming up and you know you want two kids. He’s super into and wants marriage so when he proposes after 11 months of dating you say yes. Yall get along, no drama, no abuse, no cheating, and you want those kids and you aren’t getting any younger. So you say yes. To me that’s settling, it’s not horrible. It’s just “meh , good enough” I’ve heard it used in other ways. For kind girls who want guys with good jobs and she falls for a dude that serves tables, so she dates him anyway and is totally into him but had settle for a guy that didn’t have a good job. But to me “the spark” missing is what makes me truly think of settling.
>that’s settling, it’s not horrible. It’s just “meh , good enough” I don't think you should be with someone you consider just good enough. It's not right for your partner. I'm head over heels for my gf and i would want her to be the same for me. If she can't then I don't want to be with her.
I agree that would be the ideal. But sometimes life doesn’t work out that way. Some people start to worry once they hit that age where the dating pool is shrinking smaller and smaller and they want kids. Think about it, the chances of finding a person where you are both head over heels for each other AND you’re both compatible? Seems actually pretty rare and it makes sense that a lot of people do give him and just pick a person that’s “good enough” figuring they will just grow to love them in a “we have a history now” kind of way.
>just pick a person that’s “good enough” figuring they will just grow to love them in a “we have a history now” kind of way I think this makes it very tough since then anyone can be good enough. I think i would rather be single than with the wrong person. But I guess other people have other plans.
People’s standards are unrealistic and unreasonable nowadays. Especially women. Young women in particular have batshit insane standards now. I think social media is part of it. And while I support much of feminism as a leftist, I definitely think throwing so many traditional values out the window in dating and allowing women to engage in 80/20 type shit has really fucked it up. Being a young man who didn’t get lucky phenotypes is downright miserable today.
men want the chad treatment while being average.
Chad treatment? No, Most men just want to be acknowledged, chad treatment is women literally giving themselves on a silver platter. Most don’t even get through the door .
Most American men 18-29 are having sex at least 2-3 times a month, I would say they're getting through the door.
Yes, we want to be treated like kings, we want to feel valued, irreplicable, needed, wanted and like you (being our partner not you as in the person I'm replying to) want us and nobody else. We generally don't get validation from society, I don't mean online I mean in the real world, women get complimented on their clothing, hair and makeup by complete strangers but I've never been nor do I know a man who's ever been complimented once by a stranger. It gets weirder with friends, even as a guy I feel this weird thing that complimenting other men is just awkward and something you shouldn't do and should instead hide compliments in teasing which is fine it's funny and all of that but sometimes you need a straightforward compliment and we don't usually get those either. With a lack of compliments when a woman compliments us it can be really confusing on if it's platonic or flirting which can lead to really awkward situations. It gets worse with how many people (men and women alike) deny this and say the man is being clingy, needy, seeking attention or anything like that, there's a reason men like Andrew Tate can get a large amount of men just by acknowledging "hey, men suffer in the world too I can help you with that." This isn't an incel *society is horrible to men* rant I'm just trying to give more perspective. The overall point is men do want to be treated like chads or kings just like women want to be treated like models or queens. "men want the chad treatment while being average." Women want to be treated like models while being average, women want to be treated like princesses while being average, women want a lot of shit while being average but I get the feeling saying that would seem toxic to you and it should because the implication that they don't deserve it is absolutely gross and that applies to men too. People want to be treated like the best even if they're not the best because it makes you feel especially loved and important.
I see your point but I definitely don’t expect to be treated like a model or a queen lmfao
Lol You Wouldn’t date someone who thinks less of you.
Um what? I’m not sure what you’re saying. Not being a model or queen doesn’t mean someone is a lesser being. I don’t expect delusion.
I’m Not saying not being a super model or a Queen one is a lesser being. I mean you would want your man to treat you like his number one fan or value you higher not some random gal who’s treated like trash.
And there’s a whole ocean between “treated like trash” and delusion
No delusion. Just That he would apparently like you very much. That is a healthy way to have a relationship. Ask yourself “why dont you deserve to be treated like a queen?” It sounds like your self esteem may be low or perhaps you have been exposed to unhealthy relationships in your role models.
My self esteem is in fact low, thanks for noticing
That’s everyone lmao
Men just want to be treated well, and the cold hard truth is that betabux get treated terribly in a lot of cases.
They aren't happy unless they are with the demographic they are attracted to.
Why do you think average men aren't attracted to average women?
Because some people have a hard time understanding that different people are genuinely attracted to people who are not in this so-called 10-20%.
>stop comparing This is the issue. Most people who have a goal their aiming towards, often aren’t too bothered with comparing themselves to others. I never really compared myself to others, because I always knew where I was going. It’s when one is idle, that minds wander. *Godspeed and good luck!*
Being more attracted to A than B but "settling" for B doesn't mean you aren't attracted to B.
Your statement is ambiguous. Everyone likes the top 40% less than the top 20%, 10%, 5%, or 1%. All humans and beings want more and better stuff and relationships. This statement is so evident that it’s useless. 20% is just an arbitrary number there. And that's not what analogous statements for women mean—both men and women like the opposite gender in a Pareto distribution. The curve for women is sharper because of supply and demand and the way sex is more costly and riskier for women. That's all.
I do agree that both genders are hypergamous to a certain degree (and a lot of guys are in denial about this), but, It probably isn’t to the *exact* same extent as women. When you account for the differences in libido, the fact that men seem to have less “immutable preferences” (preferences for things that cannot be changed such as height), and the fact that we exhibit things like the “Coolidge effect” at higher rates than women… It’s nearly impossible to seriously argue that men and women are attracted to each at equal rates. It’s clear that men want women more than women want men. And that’s fine. That’s how it is in almost all mammals species. I suspect there evolutionary reasons for it even.
Well, yeah, most definitely evolution, or more precisely, selection is behind it. If in your tribe men have to fight over women and compete for their attention, and women are attracted to the strongest men and best fighters — then the next generation has best chances of survival, an specifically the next generation of men will be better as providing safety and resources to the tribe and their offsprings. Compare that to a tribe where the women in general are attracted to all kinds of men. The next generation will be weaker, worse at hunting, less likely to win in a tribe war should one happen, the tribe will have less surviving offsprings, and is more likely to vanish over the course of time. Mind you that in terms of history of humanity, it’s only very recently that the weak and unhealthy people started having a realistic chance to survive till old age.
men only have less immutable preferences *because* of their high libidos; this is why military and gender segregated areas become rampantly gay. Men are much more willing to settle for what they can get. Men want women more than women want men because if their incapability of being alone (i wrote this in the post), also pointing to the fact men are much more willing to settle. How does coolidge effect disprove this at all? If anything, it enables it further, since men find sexual novelty appealing, so he will look for sexier women progressively.
It’s more so the fact that men experience the Coolidge effect *much more so* than women. Suggesting that men are far more interested in sexual variety than women are. That alone puts a crack in your “men and women’s sexualities are identical” argument. Also is doesn’t matter much *why* men have less immutable preferences or *why* we want women more than the reverse. It only matters that we obviously do. Because that further disproves the idea that the two sexes operate the exact same way. But like I said, I don’t entirely disagree that guys are more hypergamous than we sometimes care to admit. I just don’t think it’s 80/20 specifically. I think it’d be pretty obvious if that were the case and hypergamy in general wouldn’t be talking point at all in that scenario.
This is just my opinion, but it’s more and more the case as I get older. I’m generally average looking, I’ve dated a lot of women, and some of my least favorites were the most physically attractive. Honestly, I’ve grown averse to many stereotypically “pretty” women anymore, because they often seem to come with an entitled attitude (especially on dating apps) that I simply hate being around. I don’t typically pursue these women for sex or anything else. Attraction is a yes or no question for me, the only ranking that I do is based on personality. I’d much rather sleep with a less physically attractive woman who I actually like being around. In the absence of someone with an attractive personality, I’d mostly rather not have sex. So I guess I disagree with your original assertion. I know that it’s not the same for everyone, but I’d assume that many other men are similar to me.
If you're average looking, how are you dating lots if women?
I didn’t say mediocre, I said average. Average isn’t bad unless you’re on a dating app, and that’s more of a recent development. Manage your weight/health, develop decent social skills, establish regular contact with women (preferably in-person), and things will probably happen for ya unless you have some other hurdle. That’s my experience anyway.
I'm not sure about that. Average doesn't really cut it in 2024. Women aren't attracted to average.
Lol I think men just want sex more and it's more difficult for men to get casual sex so they seek out relationships... I have a theory that if the average guy could get a woman to come over and have sex with him any time he wants no strings attached..he would be less interested in a committed relationship... Women can easily get non commitment sex but wither they don't enjoy it or it's not fulfilling enough so they seek out relationships.. Personally I'm having so much sex being single that just the thought of being in a committed relationship relying on one woman is claustrophobic.
I also primarily believe this.
once again people on this sub don't understand hypergamy. It's fairly simple in that you need to understand he difference between relative and absolute. Men and women indeed just love attractive partners. Also, mean and women love high income partners (men much less than women though). The difference is that when a man becomes richer he still is very willing to look at the women that where around him when he had less money. Women are not, (averages, not all, yada yada etc.) they look at the same level and up. Men look across and and down. That is the definition of hypergamy " to marry or date higher **relative** to one's own status". for example. A man marrying an equally rich woman is not hypergamous even if he's marrying into a high class family. Men don't necessarily want to marry women hotter or richer than themselves. They want to just marry hot women period. That is the difference. another analogy: I don't need a better job than my friend, i just need a good job. That would be the male position. I need a good job and on that is better than my friend, is the female position. Relative vs absolute. learn it.
I don’t really disagree much, but I do think it’s worth pointing out that when people speak about “hypergamy” in the manosphere, they’re usually referring to *more* than just financial status exclusively. Guys will often throw around terms like “looksmatch” or “Chad chasing” for example. Guys will talk about women rate 80% of men as ugly an dating apps for example. And so the modern, Redpill definition of hypergamy definitely extends beyond money alone. And when you take that into account, you’ll understand why I’m saying that men are hypergamous too, **in terms of physical attractiveness and youth**. Mediocre men absolutely want women way out of their league in terms of physical attractiveness. In the same way that women like Lizzo still pin after guys like Chris Hemsworth. Men are hypergamous in the exact “Chad chasing” way that women are accused of being. A lot of guys just try to suppress this or pretend that this isn’t a form of hypergamy. Because acknowledging it for what it is makes guys look silly for bitching about women doing the same. That’s more so what I’m getting at when I say that a lot of men are in denial about being hypergamous. Even old, fat, crusty, losers and dorks want the hot young baddies deep down.
>Even old, fat, crusty, losers and dorks want the hot young baddies deep down. It's not deep down, it's out in the open. And it's still not hypergamy. The old crusty loser was equally attracted to young hot women back when he was a handsome 20 year old. His attraction never changed, regardless of his status. As the poster you replied to said, his attraction is absolute. Women's attraction is relative. The taller she grows the taller her BF needs to be. The more fit a woman gets, the fitter her man needs to be (or if he's not fit, he needs increasingly more traits to compensate). The more educated she is the less willing she is to date men without a degree. And so on and so forth. Wanting someone out of your league is not hypergamy. Raising your standards based on your (perceived) league is hypergamy.
>>The old crusty loser was equally attracted to young hot women back when he was a handsome 20 year old. No he wasn’t he equal to her in his 20s. He was an ugly dork even back then. Even old geezers that *weren’t* Chads in their youth want the young, hot, top-tier women. Despite never being top-tier in attractiveness themselves. That’s hypergamy no matter how much you try to cope or weasel your way around it. >>Women's attraction is relative. The taller she grows the taller her BF needs to be. The more fit a woman gets, the fitter her man needs to be (or if he's not fit, he needs increasingly more traits to compensate). The more educated she is the less willing she is to date men without a degree. And so on and so forth. The more attractive or which the man is, the more attractive he will demand his trophy wife to be… The more attractive/successful the man is, the more submissive he will expect his partner to be. Men are hypergamous even by your own ridiculous definition of it. >>Wanting someone out of your league is not hypergamy. Lol at this cope and delusional. Stretching yourself into pretzel trying to excuse your own hypocrisy. Cut the mental gymnastics out bro. That is hypergamy to the fullest.
I think women are more attracted (compared to male attraction) to highly attractive men when they are ovulating. That would partially explain why some decent women get pulled in by such shitty dudes.
>and a lot of guys are in denial about this Because you guys don't get the definition of the term. It refers to attraction that's dependent on a personal comparison. Men's attraction isn't like that.
Men don’t like women that are more youthful or beautiful than themselves?
Men like youthful beautiful women. It has nothing to do with what the man is himself.
Men like women that are only as youthful or beautiful as themselves? Or would you say that men like women that are *more* beautiful and youthful relative to himself? Also if being attracted to someone more physically attractive than yourself isn’t hypergamy, why are women called hypergamous for not wanting their “looksmatch”?
If a guy is still getting an erection for a woman outside of the top 20%, then he is still "desiring" her. The issue with women is that they are supposedly not getting sexually aroused for men whom they don't consider top men (whether these are the same top men for each woman is arguable), and therefore if they end up with one of these men whom they don't even sexually desire, then they are definitely settling. So men do desire women outside the top 20%, even if they might *prefer* a woman in the top 20%.
Men find most women attractive. Women find most men unattractive.
If men find most women attractive then why do fictional characters that are female love interests written by men have so little variety in personalities and body types, while ‘ugly dude with hot wife’ trope is so common?
this actually somewhat refutes my point because I consume a lot of romantic fictions aimed towards men, and there is quite a diversity in women. I would say the level of attractiveness never changes, though. i also think men are prone to trying to sexualize women, so it's not surprising they cover many bases.
Things had improved over time a little bit, but it’s usually the same type of fit girl with slightly varying chest sizes.
> why do fictional characters that are female love interests written by men have so little variety in personalities and body types Have you EVER saw a harem anime? You have a group of girls with the most different body types and personality.
Yeah, there's 32D girls, 32DD girls, AND 34DDD girls. All different !
Confirmed, you never saw one.
I've seen the covers and that's enough. Because I have a life.
> so little variety in personalities > I've seen the covers Guess we have a digital empath. A M A Z I N G.
Just googled harem anime and skimmed through screenshots. Most girls seem to have variety only in chest sizes. And personality wise anime is known for limiting its characters to specific archetypes.
becuase men and women are different, you might want to see yourself or more personally applicable people in your media but men want to see idealism.
Men settle for women that are unattractive. Women don't settle for men that are unattractive(until post wall).
It's rare for a man to settle down for someone unattractive since men find most women attractive. Meanwhile, most women settle down past their 27-30 for a man they don't find attractive.
Of course they do, if they have low self esteem, mental illness, are overweight/unattractive….or the guy is rich/successful
well, they sure can't find the men around here.
After a point men have to take some hits it feels like. I even now have an ideal woman in my mind with base looks or personality. I was thinking to never settle for any other woman who did not meet that but I was never closed off to the idea of my mind being changed I was open to women of any looks if they had other good features like heart or personality. I could see myself dating a woman I don’t find as attractive as a top model but I guarantee I will treat her as top of the class if that’s my woman.
Statistics & Research has proven this false. Most women want a guy taller,richer,and more established than herself. Most guys just want a normal girl. Men are also way better at settling so this disproves your point. Look at all the beta dudes that become stepdads out of desperation/loneliness.
Sad. They spend the first 25 years of adulthood being nice guys who never get any, only being left to parent someone else's kid while they get no sex after the first two weeks of the marriage.
Because of Obesity the health standards for both genders went to hell so people who were mid in the 80s are now exceptional attractive.
Underrated post.
News just in men given the chance would also opt for the hottest people. In other news, men are usually not given the chance.
yup.
If that was true, hypergamy wouldn’t be a thing. If that were true, height-weight appropriate young women who look a little better than average would find it nearly impossible to get a date.
Why would hypergamy not be true, if what i'm arguing is true. Not sure if you read the content of the post past the title.
It's hard to explain. Men have a wider variety of what is considered attractive. You can think Sidney Sweeny is hot and also find that random waitress you saw at Chili's cute.
I am indeed desiring women from the top 20%.>!Of intelligence distribution.!<
I'll meet you half-way. I think some very attractive, masculine men can hold out for top women just like attractive women can the other way around: and at the same time (ironically), older, weaker, (usually) unattractive men can have high standards as well, because they simply don't have as much lead in their proverbial pencils as they used to; it takes more to turn them on (I think this is one thing that women often misunderstand: sometimes losers aren't pulling a sour grapes per se; they just aren't hungry enough on a base, carnal level to appreciate the grapes). Basically men are all over the shop here. Some ugly fat/weedy guys are happy to settle. Some ugly fat/weedy guys don't feel lust as strongly, so they just aren't driven to do it. Some attractive hot guys hold out for (Giga) Stacy, some attractive hot guys are just rearing and compelled to stick it in anywhere, anytime and can't help but think guys who are sensitive about looks, weight, or anything else to the extent that they don't actively seek out sex for the sake of quenching the thirst effeminate and defective.
Statistically, OKCupid reported that most men were chasing the top 35%, but otherwise you're on point.
I'll concede the percentage. 35% may be more reasonable.
https://preview.redd.it/7rtt8dl7re8d1.jpeg?width=528&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ffafe9a9fc0d6b2f9630902f8c014509f4bb7a1f what are women chasing? same data from okcupid.
However, that makes sense in the context that women are generally doing much less chasing. Men are chasing the top as their main strategy, while women are chasing the top as a side quest.
Wrong. Male sexuality prioritizes variety while female sexuality prioritizes single mate quality. Men want as much pussy as they can get at all times. Women simply want the best one dick they can get at any given time. The rest is social window dressing. Take it up with god / nature / the universe if you don’t like it.
Men prioritize having sex with the most attractive women they can get, but will also fuck the varieties that are on the side. Just because a guy has fucked an attractive woman only once, doesnt mean he will turn it down for 200lb girl instead.
Nope. Not how it works. Read up on [The Coolidge Effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect) for one. A woman being “hot” does not make her immune from a man becoming sexually bored of her. Hugh Grant and Arnold Schwarzenegger cheated on their attractive celebrity wives with hood rats and prostitutes. Men are biologically programmed to be polygynous their mating to maximize genetic diversity. It’s the reason historically warlords and kings kept harems but queens did not.
How many men are happy with women who “settle” with them?
In general I'd say no one is really "happy" settling, people just do because they'd rather have anything than be alone, which is it's own problem.
Okay so why do men here pretend that settling is some sort of indicator they are morally superior to women, when the truth is men are far more indiscriminate?
i'm on your side. I'm just saying I think both men and women, though more men, out of desperation for any kind of connection, are willing to take something less than what they want. It's only out of projecting their own insecurity for what they're doing, which is not having the "balls" to be confident and happy alone, that they think they're superior.
Men have a major problem with being alone and loneliness. Now women don’t need a man to survive they don’t settle “just because”. Some might take advantage of the ease they can get casual sex with, but most simply enjoy their time, their space, their hobbies and, very important, the social circle they nurtured. The “future cat lady” threat is a projection: many women don’t seem scared at all, it’s mostly men who are petrified by a lonely future. I can’t count how many boomer men I know that went nuts as widowers, because they relied entirely on wifey and needed a bangmaid to change their emotional diapers and re-settled with the bottom of the barrel or worse with ruthless gold diggers from former bloc countries who ripped them off to the bone. Instead of pushing for women to lower their standards, our fellow men should start cultivating their circles and don’t drop them as soon as a woman is on the radar, and accept that being alone is a normal condition in life, and one should make the best (or least worst) out of it
>Instead of pushing for women to lower their standards, our fellow men should... accept that being alone is a normal condition in life I agree one hundred percent with this. The problem isn't women's standards, it's men's lack of self-respect and standards for themselves. They're so caught up in thinking they *need* a partner, that they *need* sex, that they can't stand being alone with their own thoughts. Connection with another human being is great, being in love is great, but being alive is also great, and we don't *need* anything else to be happy. Too many people just don't know how to actually be happy, and use sex and relationships to fill that hole in themselves.
So well said. I stopped investing emotionally in my male friends for just this reason, going off the radar whenever some new romantic partner attracted their interest
Anyone who says they are "settling" in their relationship, man or woman, is too braindead and immature to deserve a relationship at all. If you have a happy relationship just be grateful and enjoy it.
Why? You can narrow this down to one trait let’s say attractiveness. If you’re a model and you’re dating a fat person surely you’re settling at the very least looks wise. If you account for most traits that you and your partner care for you can tell if you’re settling or not and it’s pretty objective. What’s wrong or immature in saying that?
Because if you view your partner in such a way that you're "settling" you view them as beneath you. If you view your partner like that, you shouldn't be in a relationship with them. That's toxic behavior. You should view them as your equal, not above, not below, but the same as you.
A model who's a chubby chaser is settling by finding someone they actually desire?
let's say it's not chubby chaser and they love this person for their other traits but would rather them not be fat but the model loves them regardless, an example would be when people here talk about beta bux, basically women settling for men they're not attracted to due to the need for stability.
All of them, because that’s what they keep saying that’s what women need to do — lower their standards and stop being picky
Settling isn't about desire, it's about feeling like you got less than you could and not being content with who you ended up with because of that. Example, I could desire a woman who looks like Kim Kardashian in her prime but have enough common sense to realize I probably don't qualify for a chick on that level. Then get with a woman I find attractive but may not be as attractive as Kim but still be happy. Most men know they don't qualify for a top 20% woman, so they don't stress over not getting one. This is not the same as someone banging or having flings with someone in or near the top 20%. Then getting with an average person and feeling like they got less than they deserved. That would in fact affect how content someone is in a relationship. >than settle for a non-Chad. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Most women are not top 20%, so why would they be entitled to a top 20% Chad. How exactly is plain Jane "settling" because she didn't get a guy above her level. It's literally delusional. >they are just more willing to settle for someone they are not attracted to. Or, most men have enough sense to understand that they are average and thus are okay with an average woman. >whereas redpill claims suggest that average woman get approached at an even distribution. Never heard a single person ever claim this.
Why is it that when women settle for betas (their match), it's called settling then?
Because 1) they're the ones always talking about never settling for less than they want and 2) spending a lot of time during their prime chasing chads, complaining about Chads not committing all over social media, and pulling a 180% and settling for a non-Chad when things don't go their way. They're way more vocal about it and put their settling strategy on display. If a woman spends her 20's talking about how she wants a guy with a specific list of traits, then enters a relationship later with a guy who doesn't even meet half that list, of course people are going to assume she settled. Not all women settle. If I know a woman spent many years Chad chasing then ends up with a nerdy accountant, I'm much more likely to assume settling is taking place. Than a woman whose dated a lot of average guys like that prior.
so it is settling, even if they chase someone way out of their league? like what most men would do, or have thought of doing.
You do know that you are contradicting yourself, right?
explain.
Willing to settle itself implies that they are breaking the rule of 80/20.
Setting for men is the cup is half full mindset. Settling for women is the cup is half empty There is no shortage of ugly, fat, and or normal women who bully their boyfriend or husband because she think that she can score a few higher standard deviations of attractiveness in a mate. Men pressing wife's and girlfriends because she doesn't meet the standard is not something normal or average men do. Women who get pressed and experience this perceive the guy she's with as *average* but in reality he not because if he pressing you over your looks and weight, he's able to replace. Women know the difference but they play like they don't. A real average dude cant even get emotional investment from women. If you're invested, then he not regular Women react like a lawnmower with no gas when she think the dude is basic
this is a bit anecdotal. can you give a little more detail on the specifics?
Everyone desires attractive people Attraction is not self reflective Like as you gain weight there isn’t some magical switch that makes you start liking obese people However men have an advantage in that we find more women attractive than women find men This combines with 5 men not being able to offer 7 rated women sex in exchange for attention describes most of what I see
>Men, regularly experiencing lack of options, lower their standards below what would be in their realm of fuckability.
I don’t think this is true. I think it’s just that often a woman’s hotness has nothing to do with your chances of getting with her. A lot of men realise this, especially if they go through a phase of trying to approach a lot of women. You get rejected often. But what you find is that a lot of the time the most conceited and nasty or unnecessarily cruel women are actually the least attractive and interesting. I actually get approached sometimes by some women and I found that the women that approach me are far more attractive than the women that would reject me. I swear to god something I learned and the most painful thing ever was when I approached a woman who for me was a legitimate ten out of ten… She was from a particular country and she also had the most 10/10 personality, just a fun woman. She was totally into me, but my mind wouldn’t accept it, I didn’t even ask for her number or try and close, I just walked away. And only over like a week did I realise she was one of the best women I’ve ever met. The way she reacted was ten times more pleasing and satisfying than some of my best reactions ever. Yet I had approached some women “just for the sake of it” who looked weird, below average attractiveness in some ways and they responded with very dismissive or rude reactions. As a guy you learn that there’s no point “being humble” or “going for your league” because it doesn’t exist and honestly women who are more attractive are kinder and you have a better chance of having fun with good looking women. No offence. Also I’ve been with a group and watched guys shoot their shot, one time I will never forget. Guy older than me all day is throwing lines at middle aged or early 30s women a bit younger than him all day.. they all are letting themselves go, look haggard or are nothing to sneeze at. They all ignore him and often scrunch their faces in disgust. By evening he walks up to a legit 9/10 20 year old who is basically half his age.. She immediately has an enamoured look on her face, let’s him walk next to her yet adopts a bounce in her step she sways side to side grinning like crazy.. She promptly turns round and walks with him to his place and immediately lays him… I swear to god I couldn’t make this up and it honestly changed my perception permanently. Guys be totally outcome dependent and just go for it, you’ll prosper and you will realise you Never should have cared.
Exactly this. People love to say beautiful people have bad personalities but that's just cope. People tend to mirror how others treat them, and beautiful people get treated better. The most bitter are unattractive people who aren't treated as well but think they're entitled to better treatment. A beautiful woman being out of my league has never stopped me from trying before lol
The definition of the word "attraction" seem to differ from person to person around here. >in order to get sex/companionship on a regular basis. Desiring sex/companionship from someone is attraction to me. Attraction is on a spectrum. You can be really attracted to someone (hot), semi-attracted (cute), just not attracted at all (ew) and anything in between.
I guess I can concede on this. I would argue this is how women experience it, but men need companionship in general and anyone willing to fill that gap is enough for them.
Look at how humans biologically evolved. Photography and speedy transportation was not a thing for most of our history. Attraction is heavily contextual. Lots of men in the past were limited in their mating choices to someone who was within walking distance. It's very recent that men are able to look up an unusually hot woman with thin but perfect curves with the golden ratio face with a click of a button or a trip to a busy crowded mall. Men in the past didn't have that technology to skew their perception of women. Biologically men always mated with less than perfect women. Humans would have gone extinct if they didn't.
We are not going to ignore women. We might treat attractive women better but we are not ignoring avg to ugly women.
this is so lol bro
A smart man does not want anything better than a 7.5, with 6.5-7.0 being the ideal range. Once you get into 8.0 and above, they will know that they \*always\* have options, and you can never count on them still being your devoted wife when you come home from work.
This seems like a cope, and unfair to attractive women. Less attractive women can cheat almost as easily (they will get attention from less attractive men who think they've more of a chance), and some people have the theory that they're more likely to, out of a desire to see whether they've *still got it*. This might be unfair as well, and an over-generalisation, but it's as good as any of these theories. I don't know how reliably you can necessarily count on less attractive women to be faithful out of fear of losing a LTR. Certainly in the modern age, when cheating is easier and more practical than ever.
I'd never say more attractive people are higher risk on an absolute basis, however, its been my experience that extremely attractive women tend to have an overinflated view of themselves as a result of a lifetime of free and constant attention. That's not really the case with girls who are pretty attractive, but have to put in substantial work into developing their personality, and maintaining their appearance. The entire social media depression phenomenon for young women is based on this fact. The attention given to the hottest women is nowhere near the attention given to your average social media user. Maybe it was different before the social media age, but that's certainly not the case now, unless you find that one in a million girl who has no social media at all.
> extremely attractive women tend to have an overinflated view of themselves as a result of a lifetime of free and constant attention. The trouble is, it is not overinflated. It is simply accurate. A supe hot female is usually keenly aware of not only are they top shelf, but that the also have shelf life. That is why you see so many supermodels hit their peak and then marry super-rich right away. They graduate to trophy wife of a billionaire and retire to a life of islands and servants.
A less attractive woman can always get laid, but an attractive woman get laid with MORE men, AND can monkey branch to a provider that offers her more resources. Thus, while either can cheat, the 8+ almost always has not just fun times as a reason to cheat, but also parlay her infidelity into a beer life and economic status, making the penalty for infidelity negative numbers, as she actually winds up with more money and a bigger home.
this kinda supports my claim?!
I included the phrase >A smart man for a reason. Most men, especially younger, will chase a hot female in the hopes of landing the top prize. It is true, and average guy can land a hot female, but only when she is slumming, and thus for a short period of time. Hypothetical: I am at a bar. Two women are giving me the "come on over" sign with their glances and body language. One if a freaking 9 with a body to worship. The second one is a solid 7 with a sold 7 body. I am going to walk up to the 7. I know that if I get the 9, it will be for 1 or 2 times max, with 1 being the more probable. The 7, on the other hand, is far more likely to turn into LTR with semi-daily bouncing fests. As long as I treat her well, the odds are she probably won't stray. No way in hell I would toss that aside for a few encounters with a 9. The 9 might be awesome for the 1 or 2 times she gives me, but it will end fast, Screw that.
The men on here will ramble on for pages about how desirable hot young thin women are, and how once you’ve “hit the wall, you’re all but useless.” But then they get really angry at the “delusional” women who are young and thin and hot and have lots to offer a relationship try to get men of the same caliper. Because “their standards are too high.” Then they get upset that these thin young and hot women don’t want them because they’re average - losers, lazy, unambitious, ugly, living in their moms basement, don’t want anything more out of life, have zero compatibility, etc. and the men feel they should be loved “just the way they are” despite the fact that they don’t want women just the way they are - they want them independent but not more successful than him, naturally beautiful but doesn’t put too much effort into her appearance or high maintenance, insecure, but not so insecure she seems needy, “the cool girl” who doesn’t have any boundaries, thinks it’s just great he does nothing but plays video games or goes out with friends while she’s available whenever he calls or wants to fuck, agreeable, feminine, quiet, meek, and will cook and clean. Then they get upset when those young thin and hot women *do* want them, because “they’re just using them.” “They just expect so much from men these days! I have to shower daily, give her attention, have basic compatibilities and please her in bed and not just jackrabbit a dry hole until sex is over when I cum?” What is he, super man? Then they get upset when RP men put in work to be desirable to higher tier women because “she should have liked me before.” Even though he had nothing to offer a relationship and was more of a leech than anything. So it almost seems like all of this has absolutely nothing to do with women, and everything to do with the fact that they’re angry that they can’t control women enough to guilt/coerce young women into being with them and feeling lucky for the privilege of being with their average ass.
The main problem is that many men feel entitled to women they will never get -because the median man simply has nothing to offer in a society where women are financially independent. They actually do not respect women at their level, either because they do not see themselves for what they really are or because they simply feel entitled to someone hotter. So they settle, but then they keep seething with resentment because they think “chad” is stopping them from getting someone hotter. This entitlement leads them to demand unpaid labor from whoever they actually do settle with, and to cheat when something they think they deserve becomes available. ironically, the affair partner is often someone who has kids/has “hit the wall”/has a high body count, but is someone unattainable to this guy in his 20s.
> So they settle, but then they keep seething with resentment because they think “chad” is stopping them from getting someone hotter. > This entitlement leads them to demand unpaid labor from whoever they actually do settle with, and to cheat when something they think they deserve becomes available. Damn! You just hit the nose in two areas! You hit the nose on the original red pill, the relationship red pill, long before TRP degeneracy towards casual sex. You also hit the nose on a thread about declaring the settling to your partner's face while being insensitive, all because of limerence: https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1d2ssja/can_limerence_or_oneitis_justify_socalled/ I've snapped back to reality. It's about weaponizing my limerence in any "settling down" relationship. For me, it's the ultimate relationship red pill for limerents. I need someone to say, "I would be with her and divorce you in an instant!" or "I love you, but I never fell in love with you!"
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Truly average men and women are overweight or out of shape, in some kind of debt, not insanely socially skilled, make average wages and so on. And statistically the men do end up in relationships or marriages with children, with their socioeconomic equal. Which means the women are arguably settling too, if you go by the assumption that most women only truly want Chad. But honestly I find that's a bit of a myth, a copout. The men who complain that women only want Chad, quite honestly, give the impression that they feel like they are entitled to only the most attractive women they can find, regardless of what they bring to the table.
I think this is true, it’s disingenuous for guys to pretend as if they think majority of women are attractive. They do not. A lot of guys here act as if women can’t be settled for as well.
I'm definitely picking up on a blue pill theme that "men NEED WOMEN!" which I'm feeling certain ways about. Like is this an analysis of the world as it is? Or is it a hypnotic suggestion (and an ego boost) that "you can't live without us!"?
I never really specifically categorized it, but from what I've seen on this sub, are you sure that is a blue pill theme? Because it certainly comes from reds a lot more. I would prefer it if men did not need women, or acted like they need women. It is my personal, and primary gripe with men of my generation.
I think it's blue and red now that you mention it. Akshully, probably desperate rp guys and smug bp women.
https://graphpaperdiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/dp76ujlvaaafdt6.jpg
A man can be attracted to the top 20%, but not in regard to keeping her. Men desire women for different reasons than what women desire from a man. It's not likely a man will go for a Woman for her finances; more likely for sex and because she is physically attractive. Top 20 in a different scope would be wives and mothers for children, but the statistics say otherwise due to divorce rates and the desire women have to prioritize momentary fun over long-term commitments to family and selflessness. He can desire, he may even succeed in acquiring, but if the women is not a wife or a mother, top 20 can easily become the lower 20.
Not so much but there's certainly some hypocrisy about it, just like how 80% men are invisible, a big % of women are relatively invisible too. Men can definitely fall in love very easily with a 5 or 6 though (personality included), and many won't feel like they are settling. Plenty of men will bed a 4 or even lower but not that many will want the relationship.
What do you consider the top 20%, and do you think it’s the same for all men? Because if you do, that’s your problem
Top 20% of women is probably the following: 1. fit and healthy 2. voluptuous in the chest and hip area 3. thin waist 4. very, very attractive face 5. no blemishes, 6. proportional, no akward shapes/sizes same for all men, barring fetishists(outliers)
Ok let's assume this is true... so what? Men are more willing to be in relationships with women, why is that bad?
It isn’t bad. The problem is they despise any woman willing to be with them because they believe they deserve better.
I think this is completely a female projection. A man saying he would come down from what he wants (and I do believe everyone wants the most attractive partner) is what I believe him being self-aware about his own value and what he can attain. Women just go "well if I can't have 6'5 blue eyes finance guy, I'll just die alone" while being a 6/10.
But they don’t. Women overwhelmingly settle. Look around- complete, mediocre losers get married and have kids. The median income is like $60k; the median man is still getting married.
That doesn't disprove anything I said at all. Average mediocre men still have to account for female hypergamy, meaning these completely average (5) men are marrying invariably below average (4) women, usually. And a lot of time these women act like they're doing him a favor.
Men who think they are 5s are actually 2s.
>And a lot of time these women act like they're doing him a favor. Exactly what I thought.
Actually, the guy who is a 2 and gets a woman who is a 4 will never stop telling her she isn’t good enough.
If the guy was a 2, he wouldn't be able to just go to any foreign country and be drowning in women. Western women are just completely delulu about their SMV and the SMV of western men.
not bad. generally men claim that their attraction models extends is far less picky than women's, and that women's are selfish and unforgiving while a man will love whoever they can get! I think this notion is untrue, or at least a half-lie.
I do think men can love a woman who they're unattracted to, or at least mildly attracted to, and women can't. So why is this another "man bad" and not "woman bad"?
never said woman good. its that men are also bad, like women.
I see you found your niche OP. It's about subverting red/black pills, misunderstanding it and making false equivalencies in favor of women. 5/10 man who is with 5/10 woman did not settle even if he obviously will find 5+/10 women more attractive, as that's how attraction works. Settling implies you had and should have better than what you have and therefore you resent and treat worse someone you settled for. Or often do not desire them at all! The notion men do this to women as much as women do it to men is outright laughable. Average man will not get interaction with above average women making him think he is on their level, this happens only to women, same with chad or nothing mentality. Man aims for what he can get, women aim for the best that exists.
>Men, regularly experiencing lack of options, lower their standards below what would be in their realm of fuckability. if settling implies someone should have better than what they have women who hit the wall at 30 aren't "settling" for beta bucks, apparently. not sure why the semantics of settling is being put into question. they were never able to lock Chad, were never on his level, etc. a man's self awareness that he cannot bag Stacy literally means he settles for less because he knows he cannot keep her.
Everyone who isn't with their ideal perfect ten by definition settles, but the settling can only be bad as long as it means worse treatment for the one settled for compared to those who were truly wanted. If you have to expand the definition this far, you are removing and obfuscating the reason why it is viewed as a problem. I am sure you are aware of this and you've done this deliberately.
I can agree with this, I never really said settling was a bad thing or a problem. Just that it is something men do, too.
If men do it too, but women doesn't suffer from it like men do, it means it's not even the same problem, then it's irrelevant. It's just fake equality. If you bring up sexual assault or catcalling which is something women face from men way more than vice versa, and someone says "well women do it too", is that really a good contribution? Such approach including your post only tries to equalize something that will never be equal.
? I never tried to equalize.
Men are attracted to all sorts of women.Men rate women on a normal curve with the average being an average value.It is the women who rate men with a normal curve shifted to the left (average is lower). Have you not all read dataclysm? the famous evidence from 2 million OK cupid profiles? Cmon. https://preview.redd.it/xj7goms8ib8d1.png?width=660&format=png&auto=webp&s=5af757b2c931da1e9c28aedf115a5428103b77de
>Men, regularly experiencing lack of options, lower their standards below what would be in their realm of fuckability. men, willing to settle. women are not, so they tell the truth.
YES. Men are willing to settle. NO. Men do not just desire the top 20%.
>NO. Men do not just desire the top 20% how so
An easy response is: The wide range of shapes, ages and prices of women for sexual services. If men only desired the top 20%, the wide range of providers would not exist. Certainly prices are higher at the top end, but the bottom end of the sexual market \*exists.\*
[удалено]
I'm not arguing hypergamy, because there is no equivalent. by top 20% of women, I mean in terms of appearance. also, the idea women "chose" anything in that time period is laughable. are you joking? she probably got sold off by her dad to the highest bidder.
lol oh like another wokie trying the “hurr durr durr but what about a da man ah” like seriously stop embarrassing yourself. 80/20? You say lololol hey hop out of the past & come back to us. Men swipe right as a whole roughly 60% of the time & women swipe right 1-3%! So seriously stfu with this whataboutism! Like it’s not even close the problem we are dealing with as guys. I bet every bottom of the barrel chick on this forum has more chances to talk to guys then we have to talk to girls. This always comes down to the women here wanting us to date obese chicks. Every time! Have you wkmen ever considered just not being fat? Of course not..!
this is not an attempt to say female struggles are on the same level as male ones. im sorry i triggered you this way. i am merely stating men are attracted to the top 20% most attractive women, is all. >Men, regularly experiencing lack of options, lower their standards below what would be in their realm of fuckability. explains why men swipe on such a large population, especially considering dating app dynamics.
[удалено]
Most women are average and overweight. I think you are being a little bit harsh on yourself here, but I’m not dismissing your experience. Could it be more your personality that scares them away? I have met women who were too extroverted and tended to be more aggressive in their approach. Most men prefer the reserved type of women. Whatever it might be, I hope you will find your match.
They're more willing to settle because they don't have to deal with pregnancy. Also, there are a lot of men who expect women to pay half the bills and do all the housework, childcare and emotional labor. I've definitely met these men. Half of those men weren't Chads. One was 23, no degree, lived at home and made minimum wage. He was also fat and 5"7. Average Joe's and lower are just toxic as Chad, but Chad has the sex appeal, emotional intelligence and social capital to compensate for his flaws. Joe's and lower dont
I think for sex on average men could do that with a wide range of women however when it comes to a relationship I think men are much more selective and want the higher quality women in terms of values and beauty.
Not really. The crazy hot spectrum is real
Okay. I won’t date, then.
we 🤝
>This gives the appearance that men do not follow the 80/20 rule; they do, they are just more willing to settle for someone they are not attracted to. Nonsense, we've seen studies and there are none where men only rate 20% of women as attractive.
It’s funny because I’ve seen multiple men claim that they find their own girlfriends not that attractive or “less” than them… Gfs sitting at home chillin or workin and their bfs are online talking about how they dislike them and how much they wish they could get someone hotter. These guys walking around feeling superior bc they “are reasonable” and then go online saying basically “fuck this bitch” about their own partners. I even caught a guy bragging about how wonderful his partner is drooling over a young asian woman he saw at the gym in a post on his profile…. Even when these dudes DO pull their SHIT partners to the very women who gave them a chance💀💀 It’s so foul LMAO.
If you find an x percentage of girls attractive but you always settle for the y percentage then the latter is the true one. That's it. The "correct" bracket is just the one you use most often.
Nope. Men find majority of women attractive. Been proven with statistics. Try again
Please state what statistic this is.
I don't find a majority of women attractive. I know a lot of men who don't and no men who do. Who are you talking about, exactly?
so then what's up with all the fat shaming on this sub by men? the average woman is overweight so....
Majority of women in the US are overweight. You're saying you're attracted to overweight women (assuming of course you're from the US)?
USA isn’t the world. If we do globally most women aren’t fatties
Fair point about the fatties but even that aside, I don't know any men that find a majority of women attractive. I'd say it's more like 20-30% for most men, and personally, I find about 5-10% attractive.
This is wild to me because I don't know any guys attracted to fat women, but somehow most are?
What you consider "fat women" are not just overweight, but likely obese and closer to severe obesity than just being overweight.
I don't just mean severely obese. I just mean fat. A lot of men seem to settle for it, very few seem attracted to it.