This theory explains that, if you put 1,000 men and 1,000 women on an island, 'within a matter of days, weeks, or months, approximately 800 of the 1,000 women are going to be competing with each other for the attention and companionship of roughly 200 of the 1,000 men on that island... Many of those eight-hundred women are going to express an ultimatum to the Top 200 men and force them to choose THEM as their “main woman” (i. e., wife, monogamous sex partner, long-term girlfriend, etc.).'
'[M]any of the men in the Top 20% are going to become liars and cheaters... These men are going to find a way to be entrepreneurial, and at the same time, help their fellow men from the Bottom 80% out. How? They will allow the women who are currently their mistresses and side pieces to have one night stands with men from the low end of the totem pole for a flat monetary fee... The men enjoy the sex, but after a while, they come to resent the fact that they have to pay money for it. They gain a measure of ‘egotistical revenge’ by labeling such women as “whores.” '
'Many of the men in the remaining 'Bottom 80%' are going to become agitated and frustrated as time passes by. This will cause them to either a) become more competitive and ambitious so that they too can be perceived as being in that ‘Top 20%’ category, or b) become jealous, envious ‘haters’ of the men who are currently in the Top 20%.'
'Some men on that island from the Bottom 80% will soon become so bitter and resentful to the point where they will look to cause physical harm to the men in the Top 20% [or women].'
e. g., the notorious Elliot Rodger.
'A number of the women on the island who have grown tired of being relegated to the status of 'mistress' or 'side piece' by one or more members of the Top 20% are going to end up doing one of two things: 1) stop pursuing a monogamous relationship with the men in ‘The Top 20%’ and start “settling” for the men in the Bottom 80% primarily so they can have children and someone to provide for them, or 2) stop dating any of the men on the island, and become content with being by themselves indefinitely (or turn to other women for romantic and sexual companionship, hence becoming bisexual).'
'Many of these women will find themselves in a “marriage of convenience” that really does not truly make them happy. These women will immediately seek to take control of the relationship, and will expect their male companion to play up to them and feel “overjoyed” that they were even selected to have the opportunity to have occasional sex with them that the men have to practically beg for. Many women will have one or more children by a man in the Top 20%, and select a man from the Bottom 80% to help her raise the child (ren).'
'Many single men in today's dating scene are frustrated, and many of the women are as well.'
Does the '80-20 Rule' theory explains a lot of today's problems among dating singles?
Post Opinion
7 Opinion
Like
Share
Follow
1 likes
What is your opinion?
Add Opinion
Most Helpful Opinions
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
this is stupid. you're forgetting the fact that there will also always be certain women that most men will want too. and men are much more vocal about what they want. so, while there may be a ton of women after a select few men, most won't know it because few women actually throw themselves at men the way men aggressively pursue women.
2
21 Reply
Opinion Owner
+1 y
and it looks like you're making an excuse for an asshole who ruined many lives because he was weak. that's not women's fault.
so then either women don't want the aggressive guys and they are relegated to the bottom 80% and the top 20% are, like you say, desirable and don't need to be aggressive (meaning women select the top 20%)
OR
the men at the top 20% are successful because they are confident go-getters, and women prefer these men over the bottom 80% (meaning women still select the most attractive prospects in the top 20%).
those videos only prove more men will have sex with a random woman if given the opportunity. has nothing to do with top 20%.
plus she's way better looking than the guy. while there still wouldn't have been as many women to say yes, I guarantee you if they had used an attractive guy at least a few women would have said yes.
It has everything to do with top 20%: most women would reject casual sex encounters with exception of only a small minority of men. By contrast most men would not reject casual sex requests from a reasonably attractive woman.
'plus she's way better looking than the guy'
Yea, women tend to have higher standards when it comes to attraction in men.
To me, the guy seemed reasonably good looking (7.5 maybe) - an attractive enough proposal for a one night stand. I'm not bi or anything but I think I can appreciate good looks objectively. The girl WAS pretty hot - 8, 8.5 maybe.
Still, both parties were attractive enough. Not that it matters (confidence, etc. is a more attractive feature for women than good looks).
the idea that confidence makes men more attractive is a fallacy. a good looking awkward guy still has better chance than a confident ugly guy. appearances determine weather or not each comes off as a creep or sweet.
I don't know what it is about you that turns women off, but this 80/20 crap is nonsense. get over it.
the 80/20 theory is about 80% of women competing for 'the attention and companionship' of 20% of men.
at the start, you asserted that 'men are much more vocal about what they want' and will 'aggressively pursue women'.
You have now conceded that women are less interested in casual sex than men.
I think it can also be agreed that men are LESS interested in relationships than women who also happen to be LESS interested in casual sex than men.
We can also concede, therefore, that these men, generally speaking are pursuing women for SEX and that ONLY the top 20% of men are being accepted for sexual encounters by women (who have higher standards when it comes to their sexual partners).
But you are right: it is probably a good point to exit because it seems that the evidence is fairly conclusive anyway. This means that there is no further need for discussion because the truth of the matter has been confirmed.
If, as a man you have your selection of 3 or 4 women (belonging to the 80%) at any given time without having to resort to prostitution or other devices.
Or if, as a woman, you are selected as the monogamous / exclusive partner to a 20% man.
Yes, the system is harsh towards women belonging to the bottom 20% also but these are in a minority when compared to the relegation of men (belonging to the bottom 80%).
Women in this percentage either have lower standards - they COULD still be desirable - and be content dating the bottom 80%.
There are going to be various reasons for being in this percentage. The 20/80 rule is just an approximation and of course their will be blurred lines & complications (e. g. when an 80% woman 'settles' for an 80% man).
What it highlights is that 80% of women have significantly higher standards than 80% of men.
The point is that by and large, women are not content with simply dating inside their own league. The result? Most men are going to have to significantly lower their standards.
Lol you forget the fact that liars and cheaters are not exactly what women are dying to settle down with.. so your "top 20% men" are actually the bottom 20% for the majority of women.
They're called liars and cheats for a reason, hun: they're good at hiding it. And there ARE lots of women attracted to men with manipulative traits: some see it as a symbol of power.
Anyway not all 20% men are this way: it's just what happens when there's always 4 or 5 women willing to sleep with you at a given time (people become greedy).
The 'island scenario' is just there to provide a simplified explanation of what happens in real life. Obviously there's no example of 2000 people living in a vacuum (eg same ages, same sexual preferences, same religious and moral values, etc., etc.).
Still, the hypergamous practices of women are pretty obvious and can be evidenced in real life. No need for the island.
Exhibiting manipulative behavior is something everyone is guilty of doing at the least occasionally, so of course even attractive people would do it now and then.
It doesn't however mean having manipulative traits is what's making them attractive. I can acknowledge someone's attractive, however, it doesn't mean he's desirable to me.
Right. And that's exactly my point. When you are an attractive person and constantly being bombarded with sexual opportunities, you are probably even MORE likely to cheat.
You're getting too caught up on this idea that cheating is unattractive. For one thing, a lot of these men will not have established monogamous relationships leaving them free to engage promiscuous behaviour.
Cheating negated, men that are desired by other women often ARE highly desirable for that reason alone.
This is only a phenomena found in men, not in women. Also, if he was truly highly attractive, he wouldn't even need to CHEAT, his woman of choosing would be more than willing to be in an OPEN relationship with him.
Yea, that's kinda the point, hence why 20% of men are able to sleep around (they are still desirable if not more so for their abundance of women whereas this doesn't apply to women).
Yea, another reason why cheating may not be necessary for 20% men to sleep around freely.
You said in your description that the "many of the men in the Top 20% are going to become liars and cheaters". This is simply just not what the kind of men I would consider in my top 20%. Cheating IS unattractive. Now someone who doesn't need to lie and cheat to get sex is certainly an attractive guy, but I don't think those men make up 20% of men, more like less than 5%. Still, personally, I'm not interested in such a guy.. also, from experience, his desirability doesn't change the more women like him.
I think you misunderstood. "This is only a phenomena found in men, not in women." was in response to your "When you are an attractive person and constantly being bombarded with sexual opportunities, you are probably even MORE likely to cheat."
Well, there's a number of things I can say to that. For one thing they BECOME cheats/liars, you might have been attracted to them before. Also, just because YOU don't personally find them attractive doesn't mean you speak for other girls. These men might be good at hiding the fact they are cheating/lying. Finally 'cheating' is usedloosely (it's not 'cheating' if they are in an open relationship). There's different angles to look at this from, and many blurred lines / complications (e. g. the woman THINKS she has implicitly established a monogamous relationship with someone who slept with her and has no idea that this is the case).
You never felt 'competitive' over a guy lots of women were after? I know there were times I suddenly became interested in somebody when I knew they were unattainable ("you want what you can't have" - human psychology 101).
I don't think that that's fair or true to say it's just men. When things are more easily accessible and these are things we always wanted but couldn't get, I think it is natural that we are going to want more (and take more because it is available all of a sudden). Maybe when your wants are more saturated that becomes less true, but you are probably still not going to turn down the most high status/attractive partners.
Actually, I don’t think all people become cheaters and liars, just because they can get away with it. Most attractive women could sleep with anyone they want and have boyfriends and cheat on the side.. yet they don’t. Just because you would if you could, it doesn’t mean all guys would. It’s a mentality, a morality people choose for themselves that they can live with. Even if they suddenly became more attractive through plastic surgery, grow spurt or whatever, their moralities don’t change. They would just stay single or still crave a committed relationship.
Now you are making up your own definitions for cheating to fit your narrative.
No, I don’t even know if I personally know a guy lots of women were after.. oh wait, sorta, but no.. I actually lose interest lol. Maybe this phenomena exists more among men. My boyfriend did tell me a funny story once about going out with a „fat“ girl, just because all his friends found her super hot and he couldn’t see it, and it made him second guess..
Frankly, I find envy and jealousy tiring, so I would likely turn him down for that reason alone. He must be nearly perfect on top of convincing me that he’s loyal, for me to be okay with living under the condition of constant angry stares and taunts from other women.
Not all people but it is understandable that it happens (not everybody wants to spend their whole life with one person only. It's natural to want to experiment). I think part of the reason women don't do it as much (if we are to accept that women are so clean of adultery!) is that they are more selective in who they mate with... this actually supports the hypothesis behind the 80/20 theory! (even 20% high status males are prepared to mate with the 80% of women but most women have quite high standards who they choose). Also, when these individuals become more attractive, their values might not change (well actually you'd be surprised what it takes as a man sometimes to work your way up to the top) but temptation certainly does!
I might have adjusted the narrative, but then that is to be expected since I don't have the exact same perspective, ideology or philosophy as the author (who is a total stranger to me). For this reason you can expect me to adapt certain definitions, especially since lying and cheating aren't the only way to be promiscuous (I shouldn't have to defend an argument that is not my own after all!).
Yea, social perceptions can DEFINITELY cause a person to reassess their attractiveness scale and I 've seen this in both genders. People aren't so quick to admit when it happens to THEM (nobody wants to believe society dictates their personal standards on everything).
It's perfectly possible you find yourself attracted to men for OPPOSITE reasons to what you believe. Machiavellianism is a survival trait after all, and both genders are very prone towards survival traits. Passive and overly moralising men don't tend to get what they want a lot of the time. It's all too easy for a woman to convince
It's cute how you are telling me that all the women have the same personality and some just don't know it, and the "bottom 20%" don't compete for the same reasons ALL your "bottom 80%" don't compete.. because they don't have "it", not because some of them just have different values in life they adhere to than the majority of people. As if very attractive guys who want to wait till marriage to lose their virginity e. g. for religious reasons don't exist. As if sociosexuality didn't exist. It's actually very sad, because it means you're believing that you will never be a girl's first choice until you are in the "top 20%". Good luck with that mentality!
What can I say? Cute is my middle name! The bottom percentages obviously WILL have to compete, it's just that they will be forced to date within a completely different league group. Values are compatible with this system , e. g. there's no rule that 20% guys MUST cheat or that 80% men MUST sleep with prostitutes. The bottom line is that women in general have higher standards than men. Finally your last assumption is hardly valid since for all you know I could be a 20% male analysing the system objectively. My personal experience does indeed confirm that women have SIGNIFICANTLY higher standards than women.
A lot of today's problems among dating singles? I don't think it was very different 100 or 1000 or 2000 years ago, except that in older societies many marriages were arranged by the parents or priests.
Now everyone has to find his own partner. And then that 'rule' hurts.
True, the problem is not exclusive to polyamory but perhaps more damaging to men in today's era since women that slept around would have been stoned to death at one point.
Apart from the fact that this theory seems to be intuitively true, there seems to be lots of evidence from real life, and definitely not something to be outright dismissed, e. g.
*men of reasonable attractiveness approach a lot of women sexually and for the most part get rejected. *women of reasonable attractiveness approach a lot of men sexually and for the most part get accepted.
Your thesis is that "'[M]any of the men in the Top 20% are going to become liars and cheaters" "Many of the men in the remaining 'Bottom 80%' are going to become agitated and frustrated as time passes by. This will cause them to either a) become more competitive and ambitious so that they too can be perceived as being in that ‘Top 20%’"
That observation you quoted refer to the difference between men and women when it comes to eagerness to have sex.
'Even the last one the "elainehatfield" works on 2nd hand information and they were arguing the thesis that "men are more eager for sex than women" '
Why is it second hand information?
They had men make casual sex requests and compared that to when women made casual sex requests. The field report was pretty conclusive: women are less receptive to casual sex requests than men.
But this is just common sense: one does not need to conduct a social experiment to gather this evidence.
I went through the entire examiner article. I can follow the logic train and I can see why would such a conclusion be reached. Don't get me wrong.
What I am saying is however is that it's still something we should take with a medically unsafe amount of salt due to the lack of proper double blind experimentations or long-term observational studies with a large enough population size to prove the theory.
You commented before I could read it so , this respond to the one above. You're using 2nd hand information to prove a thesis that is completely different from theirs.
You can't just say "oh it's common sense" , you're talking about social science here.
'What I am saying is however is that it's still something we should take with a medically unsafe amount of salt due to the lack of proper double blind experimentations or long-term observational studies with a large enough population size to prove the theory.'
Tbh, I don't know or understand much about the correct experimentation procedures but personal experience plus observation DOES inform me that yes, women do have higher standards than men (in so far as the 80% are dating the 20% - these might not be the EXACT percentages but then NOBODY knows that). Yes, it's common sense that tells me this.
These empirical studies always DO have their subjective biases and problematic methods, there's never a way to escape that but to use plain and simple common sense. You said yourself that you can see how the logic might work, now I'm asking you to see how it might actually work before your own eyes because the two aren't the same.
You... changed your thesis. Your new thesis does correspond to the research but the original one of. "'[M]any of the men in the Top 20% are going to become liars and cheaters" "Many of the men in the remaining 'Bottom 80%' are going to become agitated and frustrated as time passes by. This will cause them to either a) become more competitive and ambitious so that they too can be perceived as being in that ‘Top 20%’" does not correspond to the research.
"'[M]any of the men in the Top 20% are going to become liars and cheaters" "Many of the men in the remaining 'Bottom 80%' are going to become agitated and frustrated as time passes by. This will cause them to either a) become more competitive and ambitious so that they too can be perceived as being in that ‘Top 20%’"
I would never have described this as my thesis: these were just side effects of the fact that 80% of women prefer to copulate with (and only with) the top 20% of the population. I would define THAT as my thesis, and maybe the fact that women are more selective about casual sex than men as a kind of logical conclusion, if not another way to define the original 'thesis'. (I mean it's hard to use the word 'thesis' for a question I posed on a site called girlsaskguys. com after all).
And I don't see that more salt is required! To re-emphasise:
'*men of reasonable attractiveness approach a lot of women sexually and for the most part get rejected. *women of reasonable attractiveness approach a lot of men sexually and for the most part get accepted.'
This doesn't seem to be a particularly controversial stance!
I said that makes sense and has research backing lol What I think is questionable is the attractive turning into cheater and liars while the less attractive disguise themselves as the top 20% thing.
'Okay , then that makes sense. The arguments (side effects) however need some work but I can see it happening lol (call me mr bias)'
I think evidence can be found in the side effects, e. g. if we are looking at crime rates in males compared to females or any other number of sociological factors. I think it can be concluded that men are, generally speaking, more sexually frustrated and more violent than women. I can probably dig up some evidence of this if it is really required.
'I said that makes sense and has research backing lol '
Yea, the reply function here is retarded, because you can reply not knowing the other guy has replied yet which totally confuses the whole conversation. Other forums it informs you of (a) new response (s) before you send your latest reply.
'What I think is questionable is the attractive turning into cheater and liars while the less attractive disguise themselves as the top 20% thing.'
The less attractive will do whatever it takes to either BECOME more
more attractive (e. g. working out, becoming more successful, working on self-confidence, etc.) or APPEARING more attractive (e. g. boosting perceived attractiveness - nice clothes, wearing a rolex, driving a hired BMW, etc.).
This may be something of a feat for the bottom 80% of the male population to do. But what certainly IS conceivable is that attractive men, with a lot of prospective women on offer, WILL cheat behind their partner's back, and WILL pretend like a girl is that 'special somebody' if that is what is required to get her into bed.
'What I think is questionable is the attractive turning into cheater and liars while the less attractive disguise themselves as the top 20% thing.' Theory-wise that makes sense and I have heard of research that says men who cheats tend to have a higher testosterone level. https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec06/testosterone.aspx
And research does say that women are more attracted to the scent of men with higher testosterone level in their pheromones. books.google.ca/books
So if we stretch the argument we can form the hypothesis that cheaters tend to be "more attractive" than "less attractive" men but it's still just a hypothesis at best.
As for the less attractive I do recall watching a documentary called "Science of Attraction" or something that showed a social experiment of how physically less attractive men make leap on the attractiveness scale if they were to have higher social status or income.
Like I said at the start. I am not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying "more research is needed"
Thanks for the book recommendation, and yeah... that would be an excellent idea if I was a little more qualified LOL.
'So if we stretch the argument we can form the hypothesis that cheaters tend to be "more attractive" than "less attractive" men but it's still just a hypothesis at best.'
The biology behind testosterone production isn't something I've explored personally. Anything related to female attraction in fact, is at best a theory: there are hundreds of reasons why women have sex, and there is no broad consensus amongst women on what they find attractive (this is not the case for men at all). The phenomenon of female attraction is essentially irrational:
'I am not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying "more research is needed"
That's ok, but I don't really think this is a topic where any level of research will suffice. Like I said before, female attraction is essentially irrational and not very observable at all.
You know... I always wondered... we have all this information in our head... all this some would say "useless knowledge" , how can we make them useful I wonder. Thanks for the MHO by the way.
Let's not forget the divorce and the "you have two hands do it yourself". I have come to a point where I don't tolerate that. Matter of fact I don't waste my time.
The article (in full) addresses this, since the top 20% of men that DO actually settle down are still very desirable to the majority of women and thus have their pick of the litter.
Money only comes into the equation when it comes to prostitution and marriages of convenience (since there are still a lot of men in the bottom 80% are willing to pay for women).
I think the problem is people want all 1000 women and men to be equal, but the grim reality is that people are NOT equal. 200 desirable men out of 1000 is actually higher than I would believe is truly out there. 800 desirable women? Not likely. it is probably about 50 from each gender. Considering different age groups, social standards, media, etc we can assume all sorts of outcomes. The chances of the 50 women liking the 50 men is also unlikely. Many assumptions are made, the most critical one is that values like monogamy, marriage, and money would even exist on an island like that. Chances are, it wouldn't. So it is a stupid theory.
On such an island, hunter-gatherer society would be best, with selective breeding and communal raising of children with sexual openness and non-monogamy being the norm.
Well, what about certain factors being equal, e. g. if the islanders belonged to a relatively young age group (e. g. 20-30) with no religious or moral qualms about promiscuity and a roughly equal distribution of resources?
In any case, - money plays into status (women will find wealthier men more attractive prospects)
- members of older age groups can certainly be desirable to other members of the same age group, especially if they are NOT attractive to members of younger age groups in the first place, they will look to copulate WITHIN there age group
- age plays into status (older, richer men have more status and therefore more attractive to many women)
Finally, assuming a hunter gatherer mode, marriage is STILL very much a viable prospect. Many hunter-gatherer societies are polygynous orders in which many women are shared by one man - the wealthiest individual in the tribe.
Of course status matters, what would it be like if it didn't. Like I said, people are NOT equal. Unattractive or prudish women will be undesirable, and ugly weak men will be undesirable. I don't see how money would be relevant in an isolated island society (in the sense that it wouldn't exist at all) if resources are shared equally, polyamoury would serve the best since it would require a group effort to raise children and things like jealousy and possessivness would be eliminated and seen as negative qualities, and those who possess them will end up being shunned. Polygamy and polyamoury are different. Many men would have sex with many women, and vice versa, even woman-woman, man-man, and orgies too. In these cases, it would even be difficult to know whose child is whose (a very GOOD thing, in fact) similar to Plato's "beautiful city," without the socially constructed ideologies of marriage and monogamy, you will find people's values change very quickly, especially without religion?
I understand the difference between polyamory and polygamy. I am saying this new society would be polygynous, and most likely marriage WOULD come into play when the most powerful, high status males begin to see women as their property. Even in the beginning before there are these property contracts established, women may be promiscuous but only with a small, selective minority of men.
Darwinistically, they are PROGRAMMED to be selective about who they sleep with, usually (in my theory and from what I have observed) favouring confidence and intrinsic qualities such as natural leadership over extrinsic qualities such as looks and physicality. But regardless of what factors they find attractive, numerous social experiments and studies seem to prove that women are far more selective about their partners than men. That is not only because Darwinistically, they are looking for men with high reproductive fitness, but because of risks and precautions, e. g.
Men that have access to the majority of women will find ways to manipulate their newly found sexual advantage, e. g. prostitution, marriage contracts, and lying to and cheating on the women that would prefer monogamous relationships. Lying means that they will have casual sex with a woman under the pretense that they have chosen HER to be their exclusive partner.
You may be right, but i strongly feel that it would only be this way if everyone on this island was predisposed to western values regarding all of these things. Those values may or may not break down. But if somehow these were all babies that managed to survive into adulthood without being preconditioned by the social structure we know. The greatest thing about humans is how adaptable they are. There is nothing specifically compelling about monogamy or marriage to humans, it is simply an adaptation given the circumstances, and it happened to have stuck due to conquest and success in wars by certain groups of people. The adaptations a fresh set of 2000 humans on an isolated island would be less than predictable, all in all. I understand that the hypothetical situation was supposed to say something about our society though, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. However, given the parameters set by society, what else would you expect? And why is it immoral, or wrong?
Tbh, looking at the way most tribal societies have organised themselves (the chieftain of the tribe with his ten brides), it seems western values would be much KINDER towards the prospect of a genuinely polyamorous society. It seems like that is not a reality in any society though, since female attraction has always been considerably more selective.
'monogamy or marriage to humans, it is simply an adaptation given the circumstances, and it happened to have stuck due to conquest and success in wars by certain groups of people.'
I don't know much about the history of it but it seems wherever there have been property rights established and a question of how to distribute resources, the institution of marriage (polygynous or monogamous) has come into play THEN. And this seems to be the crucial factor in determining social and economic arrangements.
'However, given the parameters set by society, what else would you expect? And why is it immoral, or wrong?'
It's not immoral or wrong, it is what it is.
If you are asking about the consequences of such an arrangement, I have highlighted the keypoints from the examiner:
''[M]any of the men in the Top 20% are going to become liars and cheaters... These men are going to find a way to be entrepreneurial, and [sell women into prostitution]'.
'Many of the men in the remaining 'Bottom 80%' are going to become agitated and frustrated as time passes by... Some men on that island from the Bottom 80% will soon become so bitter and resentful to the point where they will look to cause physical harm to the men in the Top 20% [or women].'
''A number of the women on the island who have grown tired of being relegated to the status of 'mistress' or 'side piece' by one or more members... will find themselves in a “marriage of convenience” that really does not truly make them happy.'
Of course evolution should be selective. The point is that one gender seems to be significantly MORE selective than the other.
I don't know that polyamory necessarily assists the 'ethics' of it all. That's because it usually trends towards polygyny. In any case there's nothing wrong with settling down with one partner you truly love. This is the optimal arrangement for child rearing in my view.
Most Helpful Opinions