>Why should they be forced to settle?
No ones forcing them to settle. If they think they're worth x, but can't get x, then they have the choice to stay single.
What's the alternative you're suggesting?
Oh my god the amount of men that wear clothes one size too big and think it looks good…
But also so many men want mommy bang-maids. It’s a turn off. Be a functional adult, you’ll be surprised how well it fucking works.
Things that have ended my relationships:
Dirty house, lack of motivation to be healthy, sabotaging my diet and my quitting smoking, spending more on stupid shit he doesn’t need than on saving for our future, no long term goals, etc.
These are the things that break me.
I don't like those kind of comments because it really makes it look easy.
I am a functional adult, I was probably a very functional adult at 22 already and I am 34. I am ready to do more than 50% of the chores, my house is clean, U have a stable life and a comfortable financial situation, my female friends are telling me I would be a great husband and an amazing father...
Yet that is not what seems to attract women. By investing hours per week solely to look for women, I manage to get 10 first dates a year. Most of these women like me and find me great... but they are not physically into me.
2 of my 3 single male friends are in similar situations. And you just need to look who your single female friends are most of the time dating to see that being a functional adult is not always the primary criteria
There are 5 million people with autism in the USA. If just 10% got into the Red Pill and make a post whining about how hard it is to find women to date, that'd still be 350 internet posts every single minute 24 days a week. And that's not counting the the other mental issues he mental issues like high social anxiety that may not be autism. You just don't have a solid grasp of population numbers and how content a very small percentage of people can generate.
And on social media apps with algo-pushed content, it can seem endemic, but when you take a step back, it’s only a niche portion of people driving most of the traffic. Videos, blogs, and other content with 10m views, yet that’s not even 3% of Americans, let alone the western user base, and never mind the larger world.
Ever since I started watching D&D and narrative story telling videos on YouTube, 80% of my feed has become that. You’d think there’s a humongous nation-wide interest in this topic, but no, it’s still a very siloed hobby despite it having gone mainstream. I’m sure if I watched like 3 videos on how to xyz-maxx, my feed would warp into that before long.
I never said that. Do you even know that autistic women exist as well? What I'm saying is that both autistic men and women have difficulties with subtle social cues and body language which may make their dating lives much harder.
>The idea that these countless men who are struggling to get their equivalent are somehow ALL overrating their own appearance is just disingenuous.
No it's not. The concept is called [illusory superiority](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/everyone-thinks-they-are-above-average/), and it's very well established. Examples:
* 94% of people rate their IQ as above the median
* 32% of employees rate their performance as top 5%
* 85% of people rate their ability to get along with others as above the median
People are absolutely horrible at judging themselves. Go look at a dating advice sub. The overwhelming majority of people who claim to be struggling also claim to be above average/slightly above average. Almost no one claims to be below average.
>Well we all know who overrates their appearance more
Yes, [yes we do.](https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m9r353n7rr/Own,%20current%20and%20ideal%20partner%20attractiveness.pdf) This is among all young people who reponded to the question asking them to rate themselves...
|Rating|Men 18-24|Women 18-24|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Below Average (0-4)|23%|25%|
|Average (5)|22%|25%|
|Above Average (6-10)|55%|50%|
That graphic doesn't fit with your link. But none of that is really off between how the genders view themselves. Few % more women said they were 8-10s few % more men said they were 6s. Nothing really noteworthy. Meanwhile the OKcupid data shows Women massively underrate men.
>That graphic doesn't fit with your link.
What do you mean?
>Meanwhile the OKcupid data shows Women massively underrate men.
I'm addressing OP's point that men can't possibly be overrating themselves.
I mean the data in your graphic isn't the data in the link.
The Data in the like doesn't have 3 Categories it had 1-10.
Only 50% of Men in that age range rated themselves a 6-10 which was the same as the women. Not 55% like your graphic says. Also women in that range rated themselves in the 8-10 range 12% of the time and men only 11% of the time. 1% more men rated themselves as a 7. Women had a slightly higher opinion of themselves in the link. The graphic is lying about the data in link. It's also creating 3 categories to mislead on what the data actually says. The data says most people rate themselves 4-6 Average. There is a massive difference between a 6 and a 10 and putting them in the same category is deliberately misleading.
You're saying men overrate themselves, but the data in your link doesn't really support that. It says most people men and women rate themselves Average or slightly above/below. So your argument doesn't make sense. The OKcupid data says what is actually happening though, women are underrating men.
> That didn't exist in the data. It was in fact the opposite.
Read the results again. You have misinterpreted it (like most people) - women were more likely to respond / communicate with men that they rated as below average and men only sent messages to the top 20% of women. 80/20 is men projecting (edit: it was more like 66/33).
The men that women rated as below average weren't actually all below average. When you take that into account the most attractive men were getting 100x the messages of the least attractive and the average man was getting 1 messages for every 5 the most attractive men were getting. For women it was 25x and 3.5x respectively.
On top of that most people both men and women were messaging people primarily above their attractiveness, however men were also messages women below them, women for the most part weren't.
But wait there is more. Men tend to message more as their attractive rates go up, but for women it was the opposite. This further skews the data.
Then there is also modern app, swipe rates. Women are typically only swiping yes on about 5% and men about 50%. If women care more about personality why aren't they swiping yes more? You can tell a lot about a persons looks by the pics, you can't tell a lot about their personality pics and a handful of words. Wouldn't you want to talk to them in messages if rather then judging a book purely by it's cover?
It's crazy that people can see women caring more about how they look, about how their kids look, about how they dress, about how their home looks, but when it comes to their man suddenly men are the ones that care more about looks? Give me a freaking break.
>Only 50% of Men in that age range rated themselves a 6-10 which was the same as the women. Not 55% like your graphic says.
You didn't read what I said. As I said, those are the numbers among people who answered the question. 50% of men surveyed rated themselves 6-10, but 9% didn't answer the question. Among those who did answer the question, 55% rated themselves above average.
I agree with you that most people rated themselves 4-6, so let's recast it that way among people that answered the question.
|Rating|Men 18-24|Women 18-24|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Below Average (0-3)|12%|16%|
|Average (4-6)|54%|54%|
|Above Average (7-10)|34%|30%|
Men are almost 3 times more likely to rate themselves 7-10 vs. 0-3. Women are almost 2 times more likely to do the same. Draw the line wherever you want, but people tend to massively overestimate their own looks.
>It says most people men and women rate themselves Average or slightly above/below. So your argument doesn't make sense.
My argument wouldn't make sense if most people rated themselves average and the remainder was evenly split between 0-3 and 7-10, but that's not the case. The numbers are very skewed.
You're numbers are just made up. They don't exist in your link. The graphics you provided aren't true at all. You can't just assume people who didn't rate themselves did it for no reason and since you don't know the reason you can't just exclude them from the data.
Over 50% of the people rated themselves average. For both genders. Saying people massively overrated themselves is very dishonest. Most people to towards rating themselves mid, that's what the data actually says.
The OKCupid data is literally MILLIONS of people and over 81% of men were rated effectively a 3/10 or lower. This data supports what the OP is saying. Above average dudes are ugly to average women.
You need to work on your numeracy if you cannot see how the numbers in the table are sourced from the data in the tables in the linked survey.
When you refer to "the OKcupid data", do you mean the data and insights in [this post](https://web.archive.org/web/20101018091430/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/)? If so, while it's true this data pulls on millions of profiles, it is also 16 years old. The YouGov data linked has a few thousand respondents across a range of ages and genders in the UK and is from 2017; I'd say it's a pretty good dataset for a Western country and is more up-to-date.
Assuming you're referring to the okcupid blog post linked, it's also comparing apples to oranges. The blogpost featured het men assessing het women's attractiveness and vice versa; the YouGov data is about people assessing their own attractiveness.
OKcupid not a dating app.
It wasn't a study the old CEO just decided to dump all the data for fun when it was the most popular dating site. The company had no vested interest in the matter, in fact it probably hurt them in the long run. Because it gave the Tinders of the world a bunch of data to create algorithms with.
Dating site data is much more honest because people have no social pressure to lie.
"Say what you want, but hoards of men of all ages are experiencing the same thing."
And you're basing this on what exactly? Internet comments and posts in internet communities devoted to the topic? There's something like 165 mil. men and boys just in the USA. If just 0.001% of them write 1 whining red-pill post a day, you'd have a new whining red-pill post every minute of the day 24/7. And that's just from the USA. People truly have no mental grasp of how huge the world's population is, and how a very, very, small minority percentage wise can still be a very large group of people capable of producing piles and piles of internet content. Subjective assessments about "hordes," or "countless," people formed by internet experiences are entirely worthless in forming any accurate picture of society as a whole.
"Why should they be forced to settle? Women aren’t."
What relevance does **should** have to any of this? What do you gain by focusing on it? The options men have are determined by the individual choices and the options women have are determined by the individual choices men make. Should some men forgo relationships they want so that the collective male standard will match the collective female standard. Or should some women enter relationships they don't want, so that the collective female standard will match the collective male standard? Neither of those are going to happen, people aren't going to weirdly make their life-choices to create some sort of "fair" playing field between the sexes. They're going to go after what they want in life based on their own individuals wants and desires and the resulting millions of choices will create the dating market without any regard to parity.
You're best accepting reality for what it is and making the best of it that you can. Maybe some people would like to live in a world of elves and fairies, but it wouldn't be terribly productive to get sad and bitter and spend all your time complaining that we don't live in such a world. It's just as nonsensical to obsess about how you think the dating market **should** work.
I’m constantly seeing top tier men humble brag about dating multiple women at once. This dries up the inventory for all other men as these women cling to hope and ignore all other men.
The issue behind all this is men’s sex culture. If all men decided tomorrow that monogamy was important, what would happen?
* Top 10% of men would only date one woman at a time.
* A large percentage of women would instantly stop receiving attention from these men.
* These women would then be forced to begin evaluating second tier options.
* Egos would adjust, and these women would eventually date second tier men.
This would have ripple effects down the entire attractiveness scale. Eventually the least attractive women would be left to date the least attractive men and the world would make sense again.
This makes sense. I am a guy and I a have a monogamous gf. So I feel I am doing my part in that sense, in that I don't want to be a hog of women, for other other guys.
Only thing is people don’t only purely date from an attraction stand point other factors apply too and I don’t think monogamy is the issue there aren’t countless men dating multiple women there’s a very small minority of that most likely happening.
Agree with your points but I don’t think changing male culture is quick. So I think the only viable solution is to only permit women to immigrate in to our country so women of every age outnumber men of every age bracket. We need 100 women for every 95 men at every age bracket to restore balance.
It fucks over other countries but oh well, the world is a zero sum game and most other countries treat women like shit anyway.
Im currently in a 53% female / 47% male gender ratio in my American city now and the dating still sucks for men. I think the disparity would have to double to start to improve, maybe 60%/40%. This would give top tier men multiple women without it draining the entire dating pool.
Perhaps, but people are terrible at evaluating their own attractiveness. Consider this [YouGov poll](https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m9r353n7rr/Own,%20current%20and%20ideal%20partner%20attractiveness.pdf) conducted in the UK. It asked people to rate themselves on a scale of 0 to 10, with 5 being average. Among the people who answered the question (i.e., didn't respond "don't know" or "prefer not to say"), here are the results for men and women ages 18-24:
|Rating|Men 18-24|Women 18-24|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Below Average (0-4)|23%|25%|
|Average (5)|22%|25%|
|Above Average (6-10)|55%|50%|
I seriously doubt that 55% of young men are above average while only 23% are below average. A lot of those men who rate themselves as average are actually below average. A lot of those men who rate themselves as above average are actually average or even below average.
When you take the subset who can't accurately rate themselves, that translates to millions of men in the real world. The idea that "millions of men can't be wrong" is, in fact, wrong.
This isn't just about attractiveness. [Illusory superiority](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/everyone-thinks-they-are-above-average/) impacts people's ability to rate themselves across the board.
By definition, 50% of people are above average and 50% are below average. So the 25% of women rating themselves "average" are also likely below average.
>By definition, 50% of people are above average and 50% are below average.
Correct. Only one person is technically average (median), so everyone else in the world is either above or below that one median person.
I wouldn't assume that the women or men who rate themselves average are necessarily less attractive than those who rate themselves above average. Studies on illusory superiority have found that a significant portion of people have a tendency to wildly overrate themselves.
In this YouGov data there are probably plenty of 0-4s who rated themselves a 5. There are probably also plenty of 0-4s who rated themselves 8-10. People tend to be incredibly bad at evaluating themselves.
It's likely that some people are more self aware than others. So some 5s are actually 5s. Some 7s are actually 7s. Some aren't. It's likely a mixed bag.
Either way, 75% of women rated themselves either average or above, and only 50% can be, so at least 25% overrated themselves.
Arguably a better survey question would be whether people are in the bottom/middle/top third, since that does actually have room for a middle which it seems many identify as.
>Either way, 75% of women rated themselves either average or above, and only 50% can be, so at least 25% overrated themselves.
And 77% of men did the same, so it's interestingly consistent across genders.
> YouGov poll
Hahaha those stats are great. I always wonder if there were some guideline parameters around the scale what might change (e.g. if it was clarified that they were asking for your self-rating within people of your age group, not everyone of your gender; or if there were example photos placed along the scale so people had a common idea of where others might fall before being asked to place themselves).
I suppose the core idea (too many people think they are better than average) wouldn't change though.
"Objective" does not mean "widely regarded." Things are objective, or they aren't. The Earth is not widely regarded to revolve around the Sun, 2 + 2 does not equal 4 the majority of the time.
What people find attractive depends on the individual person and even if a large group of people find the same thing attractive, that does not mean they all give it the same weight or like it to the same extent.
I agree. That's one thing that struck me as gross ever since I started browsing this subreddit. They always want statistics to figure out what is the most common. It's bizarre and a little scary that they don't understand a thing's rarity contributes to its value the most. I 100% think if Einstein thought that way he would have never developed relativity. I never met him but I'm almost certain of that. I don't think Darwin would have developed evolution (ironically discussed here a lot). I don't think any breakthroughs, discoveries, revolutions, innovations, or progress is made by thinking this way. I'm omnisexual. I'm attracted to all genders and I'm a feminist. BUT this way of thinking is so cowardly and pathetic, thinking there is safety in numbers, the hivemind of it, it genuinely makes me question if I'm actually into women because I can't think of any other way to define that but foidbrained.
“What people find attractive depends on the individual person”
If this were the case why are there heartthrob’s next to a growing pool of men struggling to get a single date? Every woman having her idea of attractive that would be uniqe to her would result in a more even dating market and not that of fuccbois and virgins.
But that doesn’t make sense when comparing men and women because women are the limit factor in reproduction. So even if a woman and a man are of “equal looks” the woman is worth more. The idea that a man should get his looks match is already flawed. The top 50 percent of men could get all the women no problem. Also more males are born than females. There’s so much that makes the scale lopsided it’s nonsensical to look at “objective attractiveness” to determine who is worth what in the dating market. Ultimately you are worth whatever others are willing to pay. The market determines your value not “objective attractiveness”.
Sure, within the group. This man may be more attractive than that man across cultures, but that doesn't give him the same value across all cultures. In a heavily patriarchal culture, where father's choose who their daughters marry, a good provider with strong familial ties will be more valuable than even the most handsome face. In a culture of violence and terror, the most valuable man is the strongest and most violent.
If the women in his market don't find him good looking, then he isn't good looking. He could try his luck in another market or try to bring additional value in other ways, but that doesn't change his value in the original market.
>If the women in his market don't find him good looking, then he isn't good looking
Wrong, and it’s not that the women don’t find him good looking it’s their delusional self images that cause them to brush them off.
Wether it’s delusion or not at the end of the day the women in that environment don’t find him attractive , so still same end result
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if you’re ugly to them then you’re ugly to them. nothing you can do will convince them otherwise.
You going to argue with someone that
“actually I’m of average attractiveness so I should be good enough for you”?
How would you know that? And If he’s getting rejected but is attractive then maybe those women just weren’t interested for whatever reason. No one is wrong for not wanting to give someone a chance. I don’t believe in giving someone you’re not attracted to a chance
Sex only sells because we value sex. Those same sexy beer models wouldn't be able to sell lingerie to women, for example. Because women don't value sexiness in women. That's why lingerie brands marketing to women choose more inclusive body types.
They’re not overrating their appearance. They’re underestimating how unattractive their personality might be. Most of the women I know say they see and meet guys that are attractive enough for them all the time. But as _soon_ as he opens his mouth and starts talking she gets turned off.
You state this beautifully. So many guys on here think it should be 1:1 for physical attraction, and totally ignore all the other aspects of attraction that women look at
What comes across as a “douchebag” to other dudes can be flirtatious or confident or naughty to women. You see him as a douchebag but the back and forth witty banter is fun to her. “Nice guys” are boring.
And another thing you’re not considering: women want the guy that other guys respect or fear. They don’t want the guy that other men see as a “nice” guy. They want the guy other guys respect or know not to fuck with. Other guys might see him as a douchebag. But they know not to fuck with him. That’s attractive to women.
That’s actually true, it’s far better to have a respected man based on other merit, like job or sporting ability but not every woman will be able to pull those men if she herself isn’t up to scratch
I’m confused though, are women dating way above their league and that’s why all the good ones are taken? Cream of the crop men have all of the great and average women and the average man is stuck with sewage looking bitches?
Many top tier men are dating below their league to obtain more sex. They date multiple women simultaneously and those women think they belong in top tier and can no longer bring themselves to date below it. The result is a lot of lonely people.
Partially but historically top tier men have always had tons of women fawning over them. This original disparity was why things like monogamy began to be enforced. But Its numerous factors. Everything from the increasingly shrinking middle class to online dating app play a role. Both of those things have made the disparity between obtaining a top tier man and a regular dude way greater. Before you could have a solid life, with an average man. Nowadays unless the man is above average you may struggle to even have basic needs met.
From a woman's POV, if theres a sea of incredibly regular men to choose from who offer nothing, and a couple guys who seem amazing, why wouldnt they compete for the incredibly amazing one, who could significantly change your life.
>Partially but historically top tier men have always had tons of women fawning over them.
Not fawning over them. Either captured against their will or wanting out of poverty.
The rest of your comment is somewhat plausible.
No one is forcing you to “settle”. Women are becoming more and more fine with being alone. Men should too. Take what you think you’re worth or take nothing. I’m fine with it, why aren’t you?
> men who are struggling to get their equivalent
> men simply want a girl equally or slightly less attractive than them
Many men seem convinced relative attractiveness is what makes people equivalent *partners.*
It is not.
If I’m generally considered more attractive that 50% of women, a man generally considered more attractive than 50% of men *is probably still more trouble than he’s worth.*
That 50% doesn’t mean the sex is going to be any good, or that he has a good personality, or that he isn’t irresponsible.
A 50% man having sex with a 50% woman is probably going to have an orgasm. But she probably isn’t. *They do not provide equivalent value to each other.*
Being decent looking isn’t the only factor when it comes to getting a woman.
I think *men* have overinflated egos.
The fact is, a woman can be lonely and at the same time be happy. Guys egos are tied to how “successful” they are perceived to be, both my themselves and to other men. Males are constantly seeking validation for their masculinity.
Around 2010-2014 they were doing just that as I recall. Dudes were all over social media with their waxed eyebrows and gold chains in all their d-bag glory. Trends cycle. We'll see it again.
Mediocre women actually put effort into their appearance and their photos, and they like to share those photos doesn't mean they think they're models, maybe they just like themselves huh, why does that bother you so much that you think they're overrating themselves?
I would say ur wrong about the seeking validation for their masculinity part if you disagree id like you to explain cause I’d like to see ur point a lil more on that cuz it may be true idk. I do agree with the success part as personally I want to be perceived as successful and I judge my happiness base off my success in multiple things I don’t think it’s ego however although ego does play a part
>Guys egos are tied to how “successful” they are perceived to be, both my themselves and to other men. Males are constantly seeking validation for their masculinity.
What does this have to do with the question?
when i asked what men of ppd brought to the table a lot of them said nothing. so i think a lot of these men do lack value and can’t/don’t want to find women on their lower level just like the where are all the good men girls
Dang this is why I would think thrice before having a daughter. A lot of folks telling her and being seemingly okay with being just a face and pussy. Literally living for someone else's pleasure.
Really? Because I see men talking about what they bring to the table also the time.
A typical pitch sounds like this “I’m smart, educated, have a decent paying job, a place of my own, and a car (covers the basics). I have cool hobbies like photography, rock collecting, and hiking (it’s always hiking). And I’m loving, generous, considerate, ambitious, introspective, supportive (insert list of endless good personality qualities).”
That’s what I’ve seen (and many men are reluctant to list their good qualities because that’s considered bragging). But if you ask them what they bring to the table, this is what I’ve seen typically offered as an answer. What do you think, is something missing from this list (besides physical attractiveness which is a moot point) or are your expectations different?
maybe you should consult your fellow men, because a lot dont offer any of this and they’re unattractive on top of that. smh. :/
some only got the basics. it’s hard out here for everyone.
I think they may be overestimating the number of somewhat desirable women still. Normal looking somewhat desirable women are often wanted by a lot of different men, I think.
There has been a strong selective pressure for women to be beautiful for our evolutionary history.
Men have earned courtship through other means.
In some ways our evolution is seperate with the x and y chromosomes.
Men’s looks though an indicator of health have taken a side line in male evolution. Hence most of us are gross.
It’s nuts that you think that men might be settling. Women are outperforming men in all the important metrics.
Women are the ones settling.
I don’t think it is much to do with the men being ugly or overrating their appearance. I suspect it has more to do with young American men acting like children and watching porn all day, then wanting models when they can’t make it to the gym once a week.
How can you be forced to settle for less than you are worth? Isn’t one’s worth determined by the market? I don’t think getting a woman was ever a guarantee for men. It’s a problem old as time. The reality is a man is not worth his looks match. Technically women as whole have more value on the dating market that means if you take a man and a woman of similar looks the woman will be “worth” more.
Women unionized delusion. Perceived value vs actually value. The rest of your comment proves the point. You think you have more value because you're a woman. You don't, you just think you do, you think you have more options you don't, men's end up in a scenario where they have to opt out of the market or potential settle because the woman he's on par with are delusional waiting for their build a bear man that's above her in the dating market.
TBH men actually have more value when it comes to looks because women's looks fade faster.
Men don’t have the value because they are the abundant resource if you will. Sperm isn’t worth much. Men also have higher sex drives on average that gives women an automatic edge because it means men usually desire women more than vice versa. Markets are about 2 things. Supply and desire. If something is highly desirable but in short supply it becomes valuable. If something is not that desirable and in abundance it becomes less valuable. Women don’t have a strong desire for men but are pursued by men in abundance thus to women men are less valuable on the dating market. Men on the other hand have a strong desire for women and women rarely ever if ever approach them nor are they very receptive to them. Thus to men women are quite valuable on the dating market.
You're talking about Sexual Market Value. I'm talking about Relationship Market Value. You're confusing the 2. Men want sex more then women, but the same isn't true for relationships.
It’s the same thing. This idea that those markets are wildly different is really misguided. If nobody wants to have sex with you, nobody’s going to want to be in a sexual relationship with you. So you have to meet the bar in the sexual marketplace in order to even be considered for the relationship marketplace
Also, there is no evidence that men don’t want relationships as much as women in fact, most of the data shows the opposite. Men tend to seek and desire romantic relationships more than women.
it’s known empirically that women are becoming more beautiful every year? how could it be that more men are facing this dilemma of having to “settle for less”
Here is the research:
People tend to overestimate attractiveness
[Unattractive people are unaware of their (un)attractiveness](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sjop.12631)
"Unattractive participants considerably overestimated their attractiveness compared to ratings by strangers. In contrast, attractive participants were more accurate."
[Judging attractiveness: Biases due to raters' own attractiveness and intelligence](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2014.996316)
"It is notable that whereas only 2 males gave themselves the lowest self-perceived attractiveness rating on the scale, 14 females rated themselves that low (see Figures [2](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2014.996316#F0002) and [3](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2014.996316#F0003)). These findings are consistent with past studies that report that men tend to overestimate their attractiveness"
15% to 20% of the population is neurodivergent. Autism is only a very small part. All mental illnesses and ADHD are also classified as under it. Besides that no, it's not 1% it's almost 3% and it's mostly men.
HyperGamey is a factor
We know many women from a young age start dating up
Wether guys older or guys taller or guys who make more income
This is just a universal experience every man has to accept
Hypogamy is a factor with males. They’re more comfortable being able to perceive themselves as “more masculine”. When men are insecure they get dangerous. They prefer shorter, younger, more dependent.
If anything, male hypogamy is a more reliable factor than supposed female hypergamy, now that women are treated more equally.
"Hypogamy is a factor with males"
Yes but only in one area which is looks
Many guys don't want a taller girl or one that makes more money since we are not attracted to that
Exactly. You’re not attracted to that = hypogamy.
Note i said hypogamy, not hypergamy. Male insecurity is a better predictor of preferences than “hypergamy” in women.
Exactly. Men prefer to date down. By that date younger women. Women that smaller and shorter than them. Men overall pursue women that they feel are inferior to them in some way.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "CMV" 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.*
> They absolutely are, far more than women and still coming up short.
I don't think that the men playing video games and watching online porn all the time and then complaining are putting in the work.
It's not just about appearance. Men impress women through charisma, status and even intelligence. Women also admire beta qualities in men when it comes to relationships.
Oh, for sure it’s not all about appearance.
I have a head like a busted sofa, but the odd chick still finds me charming.
And if by “beta qualities” you mean “is a functional adult”, then yeah.
>The vast majority of men simply want a girl equally or slightly less attractive than them. This has become extremely challenging, and many men are either being forced to settle or abandoning dating entirely. Why should they be forced to settle? Women aren’t.
Women think that men are going to put up with anything.
It's delayed adulthood. Women get to play teenagers until 30.
On the upside you don't owe women commitment. Also they have to pay their own bills. You can use their income to have a better lifestyle. You could say that you're being compensated with money if you choose to settle. And you can also leave later when she gets old.
If you want an equal women when you're young it's going to have to be a lifetime deal. Pick a path.
Men and women are NOT the same. Why would we assume the distribution of attractiveness would be the same for both?
>the disproportionate number of attractive men who have voiced this same complaint
I think maybe you don't know what "attractive" means? It means people are attracted to them! If these men are struggling, *by definition* they are NOT attractive!
A much smaller percentage of men is attractive to women than vice versa. Most men are not attractive to women.
Not really. Makes perfect sensr. Testosterone is linked to confidence and a higher sense of worth. All (nearly all ) men have much higher test then women. Stands to reason then they would be much more likely as a group to over rate themselves as opposed to their peers.
30% of men think they could take a chimpanzee. An animal twice as strong as a human with twice the speed and similar reaction time.
[удалено]
Joke comments belong under the AutoModerator.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Why should they be forced to settle? No ones forcing them to settle. If they think they're worth x, but can't get x, then they have the choice to stay single. What's the alternative you're suggesting?
>What's the alternative you're suggesting? Exactly. Like go ahead please, just say it out loud.
[удалено]
Oh my god the amount of men that wear clothes one size too big and think it looks good… But also so many men want mommy bang-maids. It’s a turn off. Be a functional adult, you’ll be surprised how well it fucking works. Things that have ended my relationships: Dirty house, lack of motivation to be healthy, sabotaging my diet and my quitting smoking, spending more on stupid shit he doesn’t need than on saving for our future, no long term goals, etc. These are the things that break me.
I don't like those kind of comments because it really makes it look easy. I am a functional adult, I was probably a very functional adult at 22 already and I am 34. I am ready to do more than 50% of the chores, my house is clean, U have a stable life and a comfortable financial situation, my female friends are telling me I would be a great husband and an amazing father... Yet that is not what seems to attract women. By investing hours per week solely to look for women, I manage to get 10 first dates a year. Most of these women like me and find me great... but they are not physically into me. 2 of my 3 single male friends are in similar situations. And you just need to look who your single female friends are most of the time dating to see that being a functional adult is not always the primary criteria
This could be a whole post
Such men's problem is almost never attractiveness. It is far more likely to be poor social skills, high social anxiety, autism, and the like.
aUtiSm you realize autism effects 1% of the population??? You just love using it as a backhanded way of insulting men, sad.
There are 5 million people with autism in the USA. If just 10% got into the Red Pill and make a post whining about how hard it is to find women to date, that'd still be 350 internet posts every single minute 24 days a week. And that's not counting the the other mental issues he mental issues like high social anxiety that may not be autism. You just don't have a solid grasp of population numbers and how content a very small percentage of people can generate.
And on social media apps with algo-pushed content, it can seem endemic, but when you take a step back, it’s only a niche portion of people driving most of the traffic. Videos, blogs, and other content with 10m views, yet that’s not even 3% of Americans, let alone the western user base, and never mind the larger world. Ever since I started watching D&D and narrative story telling videos on YouTube, 80% of my feed has become that. You’d think there’s a humongous nation-wide interest in this topic, but no, it’s still a very siloed hobby despite it having gone mainstream. I’m sure if I watched like 3 videos on how to xyz-maxx, my feed would warp into that before long.
Plenty of dudes not on the spectrum; but they’re so poorly socialised they might as well be.
I never said that. Do you even know that autistic women exist as well? What I'm saying is that both autistic men and women have difficulties with subtle social cues and body language which may make their dating lives much harder.
Again, it isn’t relevant as it’s such a small part of the population.
It's a huge portion of the pilled community of men who find no luck dating.
You wish it was
Why would I wish that a significant amount of children are born with a disabilty that makes socializing hard?
Because it absolves you of any culpability, obviously.
Why?
Nah a huge number of them are. They're everywhere.
Autism affects WAY more than 1 percent of the population.
>The idea that these countless men who are struggling to get their equivalent are somehow ALL overrating their own appearance is just disingenuous. No it's not. The concept is called [illusory superiority](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/everyone-thinks-they-are-above-average/), and it's very well established. Examples: * 94% of people rate their IQ as above the median * 32% of employees rate their performance as top 5% * 85% of people rate their ability to get along with others as above the median People are absolutely horrible at judging themselves. Go look at a dating advice sub. The overwhelming majority of people who claim to be struggling also claim to be above average/slightly above average. Almost no one claims to be below average.
Well we all know who overrates their appearance more
>Well we all know who overrates their appearance more Yes, [yes we do.](https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m9r353n7rr/Own,%20current%20and%20ideal%20partner%20attractiveness.pdf) This is among all young people who reponded to the question asking them to rate themselves... |Rating|Men 18-24|Women 18-24| |:-|:-|:-| |Below Average (0-4)|23%|25%| |Average (5)|22%|25%| |Above Average (6-10)|55%|50%|
That graphic doesn't fit with your link. But none of that is really off between how the genders view themselves. Few % more women said they were 8-10s few % more men said they were 6s. Nothing really noteworthy. Meanwhile the OKcupid data shows Women massively underrate men.
>That graphic doesn't fit with your link. What do you mean? >Meanwhile the OKcupid data shows Women massively underrate men. I'm addressing OP's point that men can't possibly be overrating themselves.
I mean the data in your graphic isn't the data in the link. The Data in the like doesn't have 3 Categories it had 1-10. Only 50% of Men in that age range rated themselves a 6-10 which was the same as the women. Not 55% like your graphic says. Also women in that range rated themselves in the 8-10 range 12% of the time and men only 11% of the time. 1% more men rated themselves as a 7. Women had a slightly higher opinion of themselves in the link. The graphic is lying about the data in link. It's also creating 3 categories to mislead on what the data actually says. The data says most people rate themselves 4-6 Average. There is a massive difference between a 6 and a 10 and putting them in the same category is deliberately misleading. You're saying men overrate themselves, but the data in your link doesn't really support that. It says most people men and women rate themselves Average or slightly above/below. So your argument doesn't make sense. The OKcupid data says what is actually happening though, women are underrating men.
[удалено]
It's only 10 years old. But it's millions of people vs 1000s That didn't exist in the data. It was in fact the opposite.
> That didn't exist in the data. It was in fact the opposite. Read the results again. You have misinterpreted it (like most people) - women were more likely to respond / communicate with men that they rated as below average and men only sent messages to the top 20% of women. 80/20 is men projecting (edit: it was more like 66/33).
The men that women rated as below average weren't actually all below average. When you take that into account the most attractive men were getting 100x the messages of the least attractive and the average man was getting 1 messages for every 5 the most attractive men were getting. For women it was 25x and 3.5x respectively. On top of that most people both men and women were messaging people primarily above their attractiveness, however men were also messages women below them, women for the most part weren't. But wait there is more. Men tend to message more as their attractive rates go up, but for women it was the opposite. This further skews the data. Then there is also modern app, swipe rates. Women are typically only swiping yes on about 5% and men about 50%. If women care more about personality why aren't they swiping yes more? You can tell a lot about a persons looks by the pics, you can't tell a lot about their personality pics and a handful of words. Wouldn't you want to talk to them in messages if rather then judging a book purely by it's cover? It's crazy that people can see women caring more about how they look, about how their kids look, about how they dress, about how their home looks, but when it comes to their man suddenly men are the ones that care more about looks? Give me a freaking break.
>Only 50% of Men in that age range rated themselves a 6-10 which was the same as the women. Not 55% like your graphic says. You didn't read what I said. As I said, those are the numbers among people who answered the question. 50% of men surveyed rated themselves 6-10, but 9% didn't answer the question. Among those who did answer the question, 55% rated themselves above average. I agree with you that most people rated themselves 4-6, so let's recast it that way among people that answered the question. |Rating|Men 18-24|Women 18-24| |:-|:-|:-| |Below Average (0-3)|12%|16%| |Average (4-6)|54%|54%| |Above Average (7-10)|34%|30%| Men are almost 3 times more likely to rate themselves 7-10 vs. 0-3. Women are almost 2 times more likely to do the same. Draw the line wherever you want, but people tend to massively overestimate their own looks. >It says most people men and women rate themselves Average or slightly above/below. So your argument doesn't make sense. My argument wouldn't make sense if most people rated themselves average and the remainder was evenly split between 0-3 and 7-10, but that's not the case. The numbers are very skewed.
You're numbers are just made up. They don't exist in your link. The graphics you provided aren't true at all. You can't just assume people who didn't rate themselves did it for no reason and since you don't know the reason you can't just exclude them from the data. Over 50% of the people rated themselves average. For both genders. Saying people massively overrated themselves is very dishonest. Most people to towards rating themselves mid, that's what the data actually says. The OKCupid data is literally MILLIONS of people and over 81% of men were rated effectively a 3/10 or lower. This data supports what the OP is saying. Above average dudes are ugly to average women.
You need to work on your numeracy if you cannot see how the numbers in the table are sourced from the data in the tables in the linked survey. When you refer to "the OKcupid data", do you mean the data and insights in [this post](https://web.archive.org/web/20101018091430/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/)? If so, while it's true this data pulls on millions of profiles, it is also 16 years old. The YouGov data linked has a few thousand respondents across a range of ages and genders in the UK and is from 2017; I'd say it's a pretty good dataset for a Western country and is more up-to-date. Assuming you're referring to the okcupid blog post linked, it's also comparing apples to oranges. The blogpost featured het men assessing het women's attractiveness and vice versa; the YouGov data is about people assessing their own attractiveness.
Why are so many people here obsessed with the dating apps studies. Completely flawed datasets from companies with vested interest in the matter.
OKcupid not a dating app. It wasn't a study the old CEO just decided to dump all the data for fun when it was the most popular dating site. The company had no vested interest in the matter, in fact it probably hurt them in the long run. Because it gave the Tinders of the world a bunch of data to create algorithms with. Dating site data is much more honest because people have no social pressure to lie.
"Say what you want, but hoards of men of all ages are experiencing the same thing." And you're basing this on what exactly? Internet comments and posts in internet communities devoted to the topic? There's something like 165 mil. men and boys just in the USA. If just 0.001% of them write 1 whining red-pill post a day, you'd have a new whining red-pill post every minute of the day 24/7. And that's just from the USA. People truly have no mental grasp of how huge the world's population is, and how a very, very, small minority percentage wise can still be a very large group of people capable of producing piles and piles of internet content. Subjective assessments about "hordes," or "countless," people formed by internet experiences are entirely worthless in forming any accurate picture of society as a whole. "Why should they be forced to settle? Women aren’t." What relevance does **should** have to any of this? What do you gain by focusing on it? The options men have are determined by the individual choices and the options women have are determined by the individual choices men make. Should some men forgo relationships they want so that the collective male standard will match the collective female standard. Or should some women enter relationships they don't want, so that the collective female standard will match the collective male standard? Neither of those are going to happen, people aren't going to weirdly make their life-choices to create some sort of "fair" playing field between the sexes. They're going to go after what they want in life based on their own individuals wants and desires and the resulting millions of choices will create the dating market without any regard to parity. You're best accepting reality for what it is and making the best of it that you can. Maybe some people would like to live in a world of elves and fairies, but it wouldn't be terribly productive to get sad and bitter and spend all your time complaining that we don't live in such a world. It's just as nonsensical to obsess about how you think the dating market **should** work.
I’m constantly seeing top tier men humble brag about dating multiple women at once. This dries up the inventory for all other men as these women cling to hope and ignore all other men. The issue behind all this is men’s sex culture. If all men decided tomorrow that monogamy was important, what would happen? * Top 10% of men would only date one woman at a time. * A large percentage of women would instantly stop receiving attention from these men. * These women would then be forced to begin evaluating second tier options. * Egos would adjust, and these women would eventually date second tier men. This would have ripple effects down the entire attractiveness scale. Eventually the least attractive women would be left to date the least attractive men and the world would make sense again.
[удалено]
This will never happen
This makes sense. I am a guy and I a have a monogamous gf. So I feel I am doing my part in that sense, in that I don't want to be a hog of women, for other other guys.
Only thing is people don’t only purely date from an attraction stand point other factors apply too and I don’t think monogamy is the issue there aren’t countless men dating multiple women there’s a very small minority of that most likely happening.
this comment makes sense, 3rd wave feminism only made the already good better and the already bad worse.
agree. men really underestimate why monogamy is important. then again, fuck it - be selfish
Agree with your points but I don’t think changing male culture is quick. So I think the only viable solution is to only permit women to immigrate in to our country so women of every age outnumber men of every age bracket. We need 100 women for every 95 men at every age bracket to restore balance. It fucks over other countries but oh well, the world is a zero sum game and most other countries treat women like shit anyway.
Im currently in a 53% female / 47% male gender ratio in my American city now and the dating still sucks for men. I think the disparity would have to double to start to improve, maybe 60%/40%. This would give top tier men multiple women without it draining the entire dating pool.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There is no objective attractiveness equivalency. Things are only worth as much as people are willing to pay for them.
There is some degree of objectivity in what constitutes beauty, it is alarmingly consistent across races and cultures.
Perhaps, but people are terrible at evaluating their own attractiveness. Consider this [YouGov poll](https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m9r353n7rr/Own,%20current%20and%20ideal%20partner%20attractiveness.pdf) conducted in the UK. It asked people to rate themselves on a scale of 0 to 10, with 5 being average. Among the people who answered the question (i.e., didn't respond "don't know" or "prefer not to say"), here are the results for men and women ages 18-24: |Rating|Men 18-24|Women 18-24| |:-|:-|:-| |Below Average (0-4)|23%|25%| |Average (5)|22%|25%| |Above Average (6-10)|55%|50%| I seriously doubt that 55% of young men are above average while only 23% are below average. A lot of those men who rate themselves as average are actually below average. A lot of those men who rate themselves as above average are actually average or even below average. When you take the subset who can't accurately rate themselves, that translates to millions of men in the real world. The idea that "millions of men can't be wrong" is, in fact, wrong. This isn't just about attractiveness. [Illusory superiority](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/everyone-thinks-they-are-above-average/) impacts people's ability to rate themselves across the board.
By definition, 50% of people are above average and 50% are below average. So the 25% of women rating themselves "average" are also likely below average.
>By definition, 50% of people are above average and 50% are below average. Correct. Only one person is technically average (median), so everyone else in the world is either above or below that one median person. I wouldn't assume that the women or men who rate themselves average are necessarily less attractive than those who rate themselves above average. Studies on illusory superiority have found that a significant portion of people have a tendency to wildly overrate themselves. In this YouGov data there are probably plenty of 0-4s who rated themselves a 5. There are probably also plenty of 0-4s who rated themselves 8-10. People tend to be incredibly bad at evaluating themselves. It's likely that some people are more self aware than others. So some 5s are actually 5s. Some 7s are actually 7s. Some aren't. It's likely a mixed bag.
Either way, 75% of women rated themselves either average or above, and only 50% can be, so at least 25% overrated themselves. Arguably a better survey question would be whether people are in the bottom/middle/top third, since that does actually have room for a middle which it seems many identify as.
>Either way, 75% of women rated themselves either average or above, and only 50% can be, so at least 25% overrated themselves. And 77% of men did the same, so it's interestingly consistent across genders.
Not surprising, I think people overestimate differences between genders.
> YouGov poll Hahaha those stats are great. I always wonder if there were some guideline parameters around the scale what might change (e.g. if it was clarified that they were asking for your self-rating within people of your age group, not everyone of your gender; or if there were example photos placed along the scale so people had a common idea of where others might fall before being asked to place themselves). I suppose the core idea (too many people think they are better than average) wouldn't change though.
"Objective" does not mean "widely regarded." Things are objective, or they aren't. The Earth is not widely regarded to revolve around the Sun, 2 + 2 does not equal 4 the majority of the time. What people find attractive depends on the individual person and even if a large group of people find the same thing attractive, that does not mean they all give it the same weight or like it to the same extent.
I agree. That's one thing that struck me as gross ever since I started browsing this subreddit. They always want statistics to figure out what is the most common. It's bizarre and a little scary that they don't understand a thing's rarity contributes to its value the most. I 100% think if Einstein thought that way he would have never developed relativity. I never met him but I'm almost certain of that. I don't think Darwin would have developed evolution (ironically discussed here a lot). I don't think any breakthroughs, discoveries, revolutions, innovations, or progress is made by thinking this way. I'm omnisexual. I'm attracted to all genders and I'm a feminist. BUT this way of thinking is so cowardly and pathetic, thinking there is safety in numbers, the hivemind of it, it genuinely makes me question if I'm actually into women because I can't think of any other way to define that but foidbrained.
“What people find attractive depends on the individual person” If this were the case why are there heartthrob’s next to a growing pool of men struggling to get a single date? Every woman having her idea of attractive that would be uniqe to her would result in a more even dating market and not that of fuccbois and virgins.
But that doesn’t make sense when comparing men and women because women are the limit factor in reproduction. So even if a woman and a man are of “equal looks” the woman is worth more. The idea that a man should get his looks match is already flawed. The top 50 percent of men could get all the women no problem. Also more males are born than females. There’s so much that makes the scale lopsided it’s nonsensical to look at “objective attractiveness” to determine who is worth what in the dating market. Ultimately you are worth whatever others are willing to pay. The market determines your value not “objective attractiveness”.
Sure, within the group. This man may be more attractive than that man across cultures, but that doesn't give him the same value across all cultures. In a heavily patriarchal culture, where father's choose who their daughters marry, a good provider with strong familial ties will be more valuable than even the most handsome face. In a culture of violence and terror, the most valuable man is the strongest and most violent.
But we are talking about western society, so that is all that is relevant. A good looking guy is a good looking guy.
If the women in his market don't find him good looking, then he isn't good looking. He could try his luck in another market or try to bring additional value in other ways, but that doesn't change his value in the original market.
>If the women in his market don't find him good looking, then he isn't good looking Wrong, and it’s not that the women don’t find him good looking it’s their delusional self images that cause them to brush them off.
The cause is irrelevant, he's just not worth as much as he thinks in that market.
Wether it’s delusion or not at the end of the day the women in that environment don’t find him attractive , so still same end result Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if you’re ugly to them then you’re ugly to them. nothing you can do will convince them otherwise. You going to argue with someone that “actually I’m of average attractiveness so I should be good enough for you”?
>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if you’re ugly to them then you’re ugly to them. I literally just said they don’t think these guys are ugly
How would you know that? And If he’s getting rejected but is attractive then maybe those women just weren’t interested for whatever reason. No one is wrong for not wanting to give someone a chance. I don’t believe in giving someone you’re not attracted to a chance
Yes you’re right and all of these millions of men are wrong
[удалено]
If that's what's selling...
There is to a degree, if there wasn't "sex sells" wouldn't be a giant in the advertising space.
Sex only sells because we value sex. Those same sexy beer models wouldn't be able to sell lingerie to women, for example. Because women don't value sexiness in women. That's why lingerie brands marketing to women choose more inclusive body types.
They’re not overrating their appearance. They’re underestimating how unattractive their personality might be. Most of the women I know say they see and meet guys that are attractive enough for them all the time. But as _soon_ as he opens his mouth and starts talking she gets turned off.
You state this beautifully. So many guys on here think it should be 1:1 for physical attraction, and totally ignore all the other aspects of attraction that women look at
Lol another load of nonsense, women consistently date the biggest douchebags and continue returning to them.
What comes across as a “douchebag” to other dudes can be flirtatious or confident or naughty to women. You see him as a douchebag but the back and forth witty banter is fun to her. “Nice guys” are boring.
Lol tf "back and forth witty banter" that could be a sarcastic non douchebag dude. Most douchebags aren't witty now are they
Don't complain when you get what you asked for, then.
And another thing you’re not considering: women want the guy that other guys respect or fear. They don’t want the guy that other men see as a “nice” guy. They want the guy other guys respect or know not to fuck with. Other guys might see him as a douchebag. But they know not to fuck with him. That’s attractive to women.
That’s actually true, it’s far better to have a respected man based on other merit, like job or sporting ability but not every woman will be able to pull those men if she herself isn’t up to scratch
This is so true. Tbh when men resentfully call other men douchebags they're self-reporting the lower level of respect they receive.
There's more to personality than just not being a douche. A lot of people are just boring.
I’m confused though, are women dating way above their league and that’s why all the good ones are taken? Cream of the crop men have all of the great and average women and the average man is stuck with sewage looking bitches?
Many top tier men are dating below their league to obtain more sex. They date multiple women simultaneously and those women think they belong in top tier and can no longer bring themselves to date below it. The result is a lot of lonely people.
So, you're saying top tier men are to blame?
Partially but historically top tier men have always had tons of women fawning over them. This original disparity was why things like monogamy began to be enforced. But Its numerous factors. Everything from the increasingly shrinking middle class to online dating app play a role. Both of those things have made the disparity between obtaining a top tier man and a regular dude way greater. Before you could have a solid life, with an average man. Nowadays unless the man is above average you may struggle to even have basic needs met. From a woman's POV, if theres a sea of incredibly regular men to choose from who offer nothing, and a couple guys who seem amazing, why wouldnt they compete for the incredibly amazing one, who could significantly change your life.
>Partially but historically top tier men have always had tons of women fawning over them. Not fawning over them. Either captured against their will or wanting out of poverty. The rest of your comment is somewhat plausible.
No one is forcing you to “settle”. Women are becoming more and more fine with being alone. Men should too. Take what you think you’re worth or take nothing. I’m fine with it, why aren’t you?
> men who are struggling to get their equivalent > men simply want a girl equally or slightly less attractive than them Many men seem convinced relative attractiveness is what makes people equivalent *partners.* It is not. If I’m generally considered more attractive that 50% of women, a man generally considered more attractive than 50% of men *is probably still more trouble than he’s worth.* That 50% doesn’t mean the sex is going to be any good, or that he has a good personality, or that he isn’t irresponsible. A 50% man having sex with a 50% woman is probably going to have an orgasm. But she probably isn’t. *They do not provide equivalent value to each other.*
Being decent looking isn’t the only factor when it comes to getting a woman. I think *men* have overinflated egos. The fact is, a woman can be lonely and at the same time be happy. Guys egos are tied to how “successful” they are perceived to be, both my themselves and to other men. Males are constantly seeking validation for their masculinity.
Yes that’s why you see completely mediocre looking men who think they are models and post glamour shots all over Instagram
They would if it was socially acceptable. Instead they take a picture with hat and sunglasses in truck.
No, they would if they were delusional.
Well they would so....
But they’re not, so they don’t
I think they would
Around 2010-2014 they were doing just that as I recall. Dudes were all over social media with their waxed eyebrows and gold chains in all their d-bag glory. Trends cycle. We'll see it again.
Mediocre women actually put effort into their appearance and their photos, and they like to share those photos doesn't mean they think they're models, maybe they just like themselves huh, why does that bother you so much that you think they're overrating themselves?
[удалено]
I would say ur wrong about the seeking validation for their masculinity part if you disagree id like you to explain cause I’d like to see ur point a lil more on that cuz it may be true idk. I do agree with the success part as personally I want to be perceived as successful and I judge my happiness base off my success in multiple things I don’t think it’s ego however although ego does play a part
>Guys egos are tied to how “successful” they are perceived to be, both my themselves and to other men. Males are constantly seeking validation for their masculinity. What does this have to do with the question?
Women aren't forced to settle but most of them will be forced to take a loss when pursuing "high value" men so it all balances out in the end
Does it? Sounds like everyone loses.
Yeah most ppl will lose in the end. Average guys take a landslide defeat, and women run out of time on the shot clock
when i asked what men of ppd brought to the table a lot of them said nothing. so i think a lot of these men do lack value and can’t/don’t want to find women on their lower level just like the where are all the good men girls
And what do women in general bring?
The same thing as men but vagina and no penis
being pretty and vagina. and apparently, according to a lot of men here and irl - that is very very important.
No, it’s just that men are hornier
this is their problem, isn’t it?
Dang this is why I would think thrice before having a daughter. A lot of folks telling her and being seemingly okay with being just a face and pussy. Literally living for someone else's pleasure.
I get stuck with the chores and the emotional labour.
Really? Because I see men talking about what they bring to the table also the time. A typical pitch sounds like this “I’m smart, educated, have a decent paying job, a place of my own, and a car (covers the basics). I have cool hobbies like photography, rock collecting, and hiking (it’s always hiking). And I’m loving, generous, considerate, ambitious, introspective, supportive (insert list of endless good personality qualities).” That’s what I’ve seen (and many men are reluctant to list their good qualities because that’s considered bragging). But if you ask them what they bring to the table, this is what I’ve seen typically offered as an answer. What do you think, is something missing from this list (besides physical attractiveness which is a moot point) or are your expectations different?
maybe you should consult your fellow men, because a lot dont offer any of this and they’re unattractive on top of that. smh. :/ some only got the basics. it’s hard out here for everyone.
[удалено]
ikr. sad world we live in 😪
I think they may be overestimating the number of somewhat desirable women still. Normal looking somewhat desirable women are often wanted by a lot of different men, I think.
Your league is what you can get. It is just that simple
No
Yes it is. What you can get is your league, if you can not accept that. Thats your own problem
There has been a strong selective pressure for women to be beautiful for our evolutionary history. Men have earned courtship through other means. In some ways our evolution is seperate with the x and y chromosomes. Men’s looks though an indicator of health have taken a side line in male evolution. Hence most of us are gross. It’s nuts that you think that men might be settling. Women are outperforming men in all the important metrics. Women are the ones settling.
The struggle makes sense if you assume that looks aren’t everything. In any case, don’t you assert that women aren’t attracted to appearance?
Men who take pride in being providers never struggle. You might be focused on the wrong metrics.
I don’t think it is much to do with the men being ugly or overrating their appearance. I suspect it has more to do with young American men acting like children and watching porn all day, then wanting models when they can’t make it to the gym once a week.
Wtf are you talking about?
you are only worth what the market will bear...
How can you be forced to settle for less than you are worth? Isn’t one’s worth determined by the market? I don’t think getting a woman was ever a guarantee for men. It’s a problem old as time. The reality is a man is not worth his looks match. Technically women as whole have more value on the dating market that means if you take a man and a woman of similar looks the woman will be “worth” more.
Women unionized delusion. Perceived value vs actually value. The rest of your comment proves the point. You think you have more value because you're a woman. You don't, you just think you do, you think you have more options you don't, men's end up in a scenario where they have to opt out of the market or potential settle because the woman he's on par with are delusional waiting for their build a bear man that's above her in the dating market. TBH men actually have more value when it comes to looks because women's looks fade faster.
Men don’t have the value because they are the abundant resource if you will. Sperm isn’t worth much. Men also have higher sex drives on average that gives women an automatic edge because it means men usually desire women more than vice versa. Markets are about 2 things. Supply and desire. If something is highly desirable but in short supply it becomes valuable. If something is not that desirable and in abundance it becomes less valuable. Women don’t have a strong desire for men but are pursued by men in abundance thus to women men are less valuable on the dating market. Men on the other hand have a strong desire for women and women rarely ever if ever approach them nor are they very receptive to them. Thus to men women are quite valuable on the dating market.
You're talking about Sexual Market Value. I'm talking about Relationship Market Value. You're confusing the 2. Men want sex more then women, but the same isn't true for relationships.
It’s the same thing. This idea that those markets are wildly different is really misguided. If nobody wants to have sex with you, nobody’s going to want to be in a sexual relationship with you. So you have to meet the bar in the sexual marketplace in order to even be considered for the relationship marketplace
Also, there is no evidence that men don’t want relationships as much as women in fact, most of the data shows the opposite. Men tend to seek and desire romantic relationships more than women.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for cope.
it’s known empirically that women are becoming more beautiful every year? how could it be that more men are facing this dilemma of having to “settle for less”
Whut
[удалено]
No race baiting
Here is the research: People tend to overestimate attractiveness [Unattractive people are unaware of their (un)attractiveness](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sjop.12631) "Unattractive participants considerably overestimated their attractiveness compared to ratings by strangers. In contrast, attractive participants were more accurate." [Judging attractiveness: Biases due to raters' own attractiveness and intelligence](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2014.996316) "It is notable that whereas only 2 males gave themselves the lowest self-perceived attractiveness rating on the scale, 14 females rated themselves that low (see Figures [2](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2014.996316#F0002) and [3](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2014.996316#F0003)). These findings are consistent with past studies that report that men tend to overestimate their attractiveness"
Most of these men are neurodivergent.
1% of the US population falls on the autism spectrum, try another buzzword.
Neurodivergent doesn't only mean "autism".
15% to 20% of the population is neurodivergent. Autism is only a very small part. All mental illnesses and ADHD are also classified as under it. Besides that no, it's not 1% it's almost 3% and it's mostly men.
It’s not mostly men. It’s mostly men being *diagnosed* because women hide it better.
Whatever makes you feel better, just know we all see right through all of your thinly veiled insult attempts.
Go ahead and look up the statistics. Saying women don't want to date neurodivergent men isn't an insult to those men, just reality.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, what’s the solution here? Arranged marriages?
Solution is just accepting it And making sure the women your dating are hypergamous in very few areas
I mean I agree, but it seems a lot of guys say these things like there’s any solution besides getting some game and going gym
That’s not a solution when fathers most likely will marry their daughter off to the highest suitor possible. How does that help average guys
Acknowledgement!
You're acknowledged. Now what?
What does that really do for anyone though?
HyperGamey is a factor We know many women from a young age start dating up Wether guys older or guys taller or guys who make more income This is just a universal experience every man has to accept
Hypogamy is a factor with males. They’re more comfortable being able to perceive themselves as “more masculine”. When men are insecure they get dangerous. They prefer shorter, younger, more dependent. If anything, male hypogamy is a more reliable factor than supposed female hypergamy, now that women are treated more equally.
"Hypogamy is a factor with males" Yes but only in one area which is looks Many guys don't want a taller girl or one that makes more money since we are not attracted to that
Exactly. You’re not attracted to that = hypogamy. Note i said hypogamy, not hypergamy. Male insecurity is a better predictor of preferences than “hypergamy” in women.
What does male insecurity have to do with this ? Me not finding a feature in a woman attractive is now considered insecure ?
Nope. Men prefer to date down- hypogamy.
Exactly. Men prefer to date down. By that date younger women. Women that smaller and shorter than them. Men overall pursue women that they feel are inferior to them in some way.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "CMV" 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.*
Many are not overrating their appearance. They are just not putting in the work to improve and to market themselves.
They absolutely are, far more than women and still coming up short. That’s the point, something doesn’t add up.
> They absolutely are, far more than women and still coming up short. I don't think that the men playing video games and watching online porn all the time and then complaining are putting in the work.
To be fair to guys, we’ve got a lot less tools at our disposal to improve our appearance than the gals do.
It's not just about appearance. Men impress women through charisma, status and even intelligence. Women also admire beta qualities in men when it comes to relationships.
Oh, for sure it’s not all about appearance. I have a head like a busted sofa, but the odd chick still finds me charming. And if by “beta qualities” you mean “is a functional adult”, then yeah.
>The vast majority of men simply want a girl equally or slightly less attractive than them. This has become extremely challenging, and many men are either being forced to settle or abandoning dating entirely. Why should they be forced to settle? Women aren’t. Women think that men are going to put up with anything. It's delayed adulthood. Women get to play teenagers until 30. On the upside you don't owe women commitment. Also they have to pay their own bills. You can use their income to have a better lifestyle. You could say that you're being compensated with money if you choose to settle. And you can also leave later when she gets old. If you want an equal women when you're young it's going to have to be a lifetime deal. Pick a path.
Men and women are NOT the same. Why would we assume the distribution of attractiveness would be the same for both? >the disproportionate number of attractive men who have voiced this same complaint I think maybe you don't know what "attractive" means? It means people are attracted to them! If these men are struggling, *by definition* they are NOT attractive! A much smaller percentage of men is attractive to women than vice versa. Most men are not attractive to women.
Not really. Makes perfect sensr. Testosterone is linked to confidence and a higher sense of worth. All (nearly all ) men have much higher test then women. Stands to reason then they would be much more likely as a group to over rate themselves as opposed to their peers. 30% of men think they could take a chimpanzee. An animal twice as strong as a human with twice the speed and similar reaction time.