Because as a sex, men simp too much and drive the value of our attention and affection down so much that women only value men way above them in terms of status. We naturally don't value what is low-cost and abundant to us, humans are generally trying to optimize the amount of value they can attain for the amount work they're willing to perform. Think about it: as a guy, if your DM's were flooded with horny women, of all levels of attractiveness, offering to have sex with you for free, would you be spending your time with the 5's or the 10's that are contacting you?
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Say what? I just explained in my previous post that I grew up in the pre-internet days before dating apps & social media - so I can qualify my position with the comparisons of the two time periods.
You don't think dating apps & social media have changed the dating landscape in favor of women? If not - and if I'm way off base - then let's discuss this logically instead of an ignorant one-liner you give me. Lol
Is there no hope for someone not 0.01% in looks, height, income, etc?
These are very broad generalizations, but evolutionarily speaking, the optimal mating strategy for men is to have many low-investment sexual relationships with numerous women, and the mating strategy for women is to secure a long term relationship with the single best male possible. A second option for women is to simply secure the genetics of that high value man (Chad) and then have some other putz raise it.
This is all to say that women are naturally WIRED to go after the best of the best there is, and men are wired to sleep with lots of women and not commit to them if they have the options to do so. Modern dating apps etc feed into this and make it very easy for this exact combination to play out. A single Chad will have multiple regulars and frequent randoms coming and going, and women will give him sex hoping that at some point he'll commit to just her, but this rarely happens. The end result is the top 5-10% of men getting basically ALL the women, women never getting commitment from the guy they truly want, tons of guys in the bottom 80% (especially bottom 60%) basically never getting anything, and very, very few healthy long term committed relationships. The only people who really "win" with these modern arrangements are the Chads who are getting tons of women and sex without having to invest much. Everyone else kind of loses. But I would argue that even the Chads aren't living a lifestyle that is healthy and conducive to happiness and meaning in the long term.
I say all this as a Chad who currently has about 5 different girlfriends, all of whom wish I would commit to them.
do none of you ever leave the house? just go to a grocery store or home depot or something. see the couples? do most of those guys look like chads? quit using your average looks as an excuse. it's your whiny personalities that turn the ladies off
And guys don't do this? The reality is lots of young men want a 'hot' girl and get frustrated when hot girls start dating hot guys.
You've got to remember the subset of women that you're looking at is small. That girl in your class you think is below average, she's still probably top 25% of all women. Basically any girl in her twenties probably is.
I don't think you quite understand the reality of the dating landscape that's dramatically changed because of online dating & social media.
In the days before dating apps & social media women didn't want the top 5% of guys or find 90% of men unattractive like they do now. Back then women would date, and a lot of times end up marrying, an "average" looking guy (i.e. a "normie") who was nice with a good personality, responsible, decent job & would treat her good (your average "nice guy Joe."
Women back then didn't have dating apps & social media - so she didn't have the options with guys that they now have. She only had options with the guys in her community - generally guys that she meey at work, school, night clubs, etc. And back in those days, it was far less competitve for the average looking guys in her community (I know...I grew up back in those days).
Fast forward to the present time & women have so many options with dating apps & social media...that it's not even funny. Forget about the Stacys, even just an "average" looking girl will get bombarded by thousands of guys nationwide willing to say or do anything to get with her. If she just wants a good looking, 6 ft guy that's built - she can screen for just that & consequently generate interest from hundreds of those types of guys.
The sexual inflation is unreal in this day & age - women have never had it so good in the history of dating with dating apps & social media.
I also grew up back in those days. My eyes tell me plenty of decent to less than decent looking guys can still “get a decent looking girl”. Only losers sit around complaining about their inability to do so.
Stop blaming women for your lack of luck with them. If women only went for the top 0.1% then you would have more than 99% of men unmarried which is not the case.
Plenty of unintelligent and unattractive men have managed to get married so if you can't look in the mirror.
And guys don't do this? The reality is lots of young men want a 'hot' girl and get frustrated when hot girls start dating hot guys.
You've got to remember the subset of women that you're looking at is small. That girl in your class you think is below average, she's still probably top 25% of all women. Basically any girl in her twenties probably is.
I don't think you quite understand the reality of the dating landscape that's dramatically changed because of online dating & social media.
In the days before dating apps & social media women didn't want the top 5% of guys or find 90% of men unattractive like they do now. Back then women would date, and a lot of times end up marrying, an "average" looking guy (i.e. a "normie") who was nice with a good personality, responsible, decent job & would treat her good (your average "nice guy Joe."
Women back then didn't have dating apps & social media - so she didn't have the options with guys that they now have. She only had options with the guys in her community - generally guys that she meey at work, school, night clubs, etc. And back in those days, it was far less competitve for the average looking guys in her community (I know...I grew up back in those days).
Fast forward to the present time & women have so many options with dating apps & social media...that it's not even funny. Forget about the Stacys, even just an "average" looking girl will get bombarded by thousands of guys nationwide willing to say or do anything to get with her. If she just wants a good looking, 6 ft guy that's built - she can screen for just that & consequently generate interest from hundreds of those types of guys.
The sexual inflation is unreal in this day & age - women have never had it so good in the history of dating with dating apps & social media.
The reality is unless she wants a long-distance relationship she is going to end up with a guy from her community. There aren't hundreds of good-looking 6ft+ men living in the same city, and if there are a few, they're probably taken.
And as a man, you have the ability the attract women based on things other than your looks. Think of it like this, if you're a woman, the ONLY thing you have is your looks (which fade). Men do not care what job their partner has or what grades they got at school or where they live or how funny they are.
But if you're an average looking man, that doesn't limit you because you can be the rich guy, the funny guy, the guy who lives in a cool apartment, the guy who can play the guitar, the guy who can speak another language fluently. And that boosts your attractiveness instantly. Just pick one of these things are run with it.
Is there no hope for someone not 0.01% in looks, height, income, etc?
The thing with a lot of modern incels is that they lack self awareness.
I know plenty of well below average dudes that have a girlfriend almost all of the time or are married.
Here’s the problem.
Say you are in the standard deviation of attractiveness which most people are, somewhere in that 35-70th percentile range. No one’s looking at you going “ew he’s ugly” or “wow he’s attractive” which is fine cause that’s most people.
Now, when you are saying “why does she always go for chad?” your problem is that you are trying to get with a woman who is attractive enough to pull a top 10% guy, and completely ignoring those that are realistically in your shooting range. Then you blame all women and call them awful because the 8s and 9s you want arent willing to date a 5/10 with a loser mentality and victim mindset.
Would you date a 5/10 girl that only wants to date guys that look like Jacob Elordi, works at mcdonald’s, and has no social life? No?
Problem solved. Either improve yourself or stop expecting handouts.
And guys don't do this? The reality is lots of young men want a 'hot' girl and get frustrated when hot girls start dating hot guys.
You've got to remember the subset of women that you're looking at is small. That girl in your class you think is below average, she's still probably top 25% of all women. Basically any girl in her twenties probably is.
Forget about the Stacys, even just an "average" looking girl will get bombarded by thousands of guys nationwide willing to say or do anything to get with her. If she just wants a good looking, 6 ft guy that's built - she can screen for just that & consequently generate interest from hundreds of those types of guys.
And yet, women are more likely to choose to be single in 2024.
The simple reason: Women do not *need* men anymore to survive, and definitely do not need men in order to find fulfillment in life.
Married men are more fulfilled and happier compared to single men; married women are more unhappy than single women.
Why? Women have leveled up in society, earning their own money, being independent. Conversely, men have NOT leveled up to match their same energy. Instead, they expect women to both a) have a career/bring money home and b) still take care of the household, cook, clean. And you are not entitled to being with a woman. You have to earn it.
Typically, women want men to be a partner by their side; but most men want women to mother them/take care of them.
I have a lot of women friends. They all say the same thing. One friend said: "I'm single and so happy just with my dog and female friends because being single and alone has treated me better than any man I've ever dated."
If your takeaway from this is still "women don't want me, grumpy grumpy pout" then no one can help you, and you're just holding out for confirmation bias. It's about mutual respect and partnership, not being an entitled brat.
There are some really ugly dudes out there. Focusing on your looks is the last thing you should be doing (besides basic hygiene and strength workouts.) So many other factors of attractiveness that are actually possible to improve on and way more worth it than just looksmaxxing. Also look into the story behind "The Beautiful Ones" rat experiment. Just an excerpt from the research on it:
"The few secluded spaces housed a population Calhoun called, "the beautiful ones." Generally guarded by one male, the females—and few males—inside the space didn't breed or fight or do anything but eat and groom and sleep. When the population started declining the beautiful ones were spared from violence and death, but had completely lost touch with social behaviors, including having sex or caring for their young."
In 1972, animal behaviorist John Calhoun built a mouse paradise with beautiful buildings and limitless food. He introduced eight mice to the population. Two years later, the mice had created their own apocalypse. Here's why.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.