Guess that depends on where the bar is, to be in the Top 20% of men.
If it's as simple as:
1. Moderately good looking
2. Has a job
3. Has his own place
4. Confident
5. Has is own ride if it makes sense in that area.
Then yea, I could see the Top 20% of guys getting with 80% of women sexually. It's easier to take a girl home if you have a place to take her, rather than trying to sneak her in your window like a highschooler. Being good looking or at least trying on your appearance is better than not trying at all. Being confident enough to go for it makes it easier to leave with a girl if you're too shy to even talk to her.
Could see a variety of reasons why it would be easier. But if you have to make 6 figures to be in the Top 20% of men, then I don't believe that theory at all. But if you're just looking at factors that directly or indirectly apply to dating, then I could see the argument for it. The bar is pretty low today for better or worse.
In dating that might be somewhat accurate since one guy can date several women in the span of a year or so. However, in long term relationships that would be mathematically impossible unless the people in question are polygamists.
Even in terms of dating, I think it is something like the top 40-50% of men that get 80% of the women.
Many guys believe that only to justify their lack of attraction and their lack of motivation to better themselves.
I don’t believe that for a second. Incredibly biased idea, with many errors and cognitive fallacies. It’s mostly something that unattractive men love to hold on to just to make themselves feel better.
I'm overanalyzing this question... top 20% in terms of achievement, looks, dateability?
Opinion
90Opinion
It's more or less true, but you have to understand the context.
The Top 10% of guys HAVE SEX with a big percentage of the Top 60% of women, and occasionally down below that line, but we are strictly talking about casual sex for the most part. I know guys who would bang 3-4 different girls a week - for years and years.
The girls, while most secretly wanted to date those guys (and a few were vocal about it), knew that it wasn't likely to happen - but the guy was still desirable enough to bang him anyway.
Those guys occasionally would date a super hot girl on a regular basis, but most remained single by choice.
The next highest 10% did much the same, except that they didn't get as many of the ultra hot girls and were more likely to be in a relationship (with an 8-9 girl), but again, many remained single by choice and had lots of casual sex with lots of girls.
The problem with this is that a girl who is a 5 or a 6 can get a guy who is a 9 or (occasionally) a 10 to fuck her, so in her mind, she is deserving of no less than an 8 (but really a 9), so she has little interest in guys who are of equal or even slightly higher social market value than herself.
That is why the 80/20 rule exists. Furthermore, women rating men's attractiveness rank more than 70% of men as "below average" - because they know that guys who are 8+ will fuck them, so they inflate their own SMV.
But SMV (for women) is based on "who will DATE you", not "who will fuck you." Men are sexually attracted to 20-30 times as many girls as they are romantically attracted to.
Conversely, SMV for men is based on "who will fuck you" as women and much more picky about that.
No, I never believed in all that bologna. Most of the guys who believe that stuff are the ones who are mad about not getting dates or sex, and want to create these ridiculous numbers to make themselves feel better about it.
It's a YES in my opinion and here is why:
You are asking this because of that other question?
Anyhow, my answer is still no.
I think it's mostly about casual sex than anything else. The average number of partners is 6. Newer studies have showed that millenials are having less sex actually, with 18% of women and 28% of men not having sex within any given year.
You'll also notice that more recently there's a lot of talk about incels. The 18% of women who don't get laid could if they wanted to, they just don't want to for some reason. Men on the other hand mostly want to get laid. Only 1% of people are asexual. A large percentage of that 28% of men will be incels then. Many of them will always be incels. So, the remaining 72% of men are getting laid, and they have an average of 6 partners.
Just because 6 is the average doesn't mean that they're all having 6 each, it's just an average between the men who have 1 sexual partner vs 100+.
There are only a small number of men who are able to get laid regularly with different women. Not that I think it's a good thing, I went through a promiscuous phase myself and it got old pretty quickly. But in order to do that they have to be attractive, have a ton of confidence, good social skills, and a good understanding of female sexuality.
Most guys aren't that confident or attractive, and are mostly confused about women, that's why they're incapable. They rely almost entirely on luck, right place at the right time, that's why when they do get laid they call it "getting lucky". Unlike the guys who have many partners, who understand how to do that, most guys just land in relationships randomly.
Also, when you put it in that way as in 80% vs 20%, that makes it seem like 20% is a tiny number. It's 1-in-5, not that big. It's not actually that hard to get into that "top 20%". Consider this: in the US, 65% of men are overweight. Of the remaining 35%, the majority are also skinny and out of shape. If you lift weights for a couple of years and eat well, build an athletic/muscular physique, and you also dress well (most guys dress like shit) that will put you firmly in the top 20% in terms of physical attractiveness. It's the same with the rest - confidence, social skills etc.
Most guys don't approach women. Go to any bar or club and just watch. Most single guys stand by the sidelines clutching a beer to their chests, talking to their friends about which girls they think are hot, but they do nothing. Only a small number have the confidence to approach a girl. Out of those guys, an even smaller number has the confidence to actually make a move on a girl he likes. Many will just stand there nervously making friendly, platonic conversation, and will maybe ask for her number - which will often be a fake one to get rid of him.
So I'd say it's true for that. When it comes to relationships however, this isn't the case or else most guys would be incels and they're obviously not.
Yes, it's a fact that 80% of women are chasing 15% of the top alpha men.
The rest of everybody is standing on the sidelines waiting for something to happen.
Worse, the women think if they bed that hot alpha guy - fukboyz - they can snag him for herself. Which doesn't work cuz he gets all the pussy he can handle and there's no reason to commit to one.
But now she thinks her smv has improved cuz hot fukboy did her so now she's 'not going to settle' and spurns any number of perfect suitors that may be a very suitable mate - she's hoping to actually find one like the fukboy.
If they do this long enough they hit the wall and now have to compete with women much younger and prettier - the longer this goes on the worse her chances are actually landing a quality guy - the high-value guys aren't looking for a used up cock-carousel rider. She screws herself in the process.
And here you have all the rest of the 85% of guys whining about the fukboyz and why don't the women go for them instead of these alpha dogs.
It's a cruel world out there in the dating pool.
Ummmm after much pondering I say No.
After a while, many women (including myself I will admit) will want something more of substance no matter the money looks, power. Not to mention, I don't think there will ever be a deep sense of trust. It will be like dating a batman or Hollywood mobster but far less dreamy cause you know
reality sucks sometimes. Once the anime eyes light dies. so does the relationship. I have dated a few wells off guys and I felt more like a "person" they needed to call when they have to show off to family and friends. You know to show just how successful they are at everything (rolls eyes here)
I also have talked to a lot of older females who have dated some big shots and they say it was fun at first but it lost its appeal and they marry the opposite.
YES AND NO.
YES because evolution is a competition, most if not all women are going to look for the strongest, healthiest, best looking and most providing male to breed with just like most if not all men are going to look for the prettiest and healthiest young women to bare their offspring.
NO because there's nothing that really determines who the top 20% are, and even then I don't think most women are specifically searching for them. Most women aren't specifically looking for the strongest, wealthiest and best looking man on the planet, but most are looking for a man who is strong, good looking and has a stable income.
I think they're more likely to be players and most would date a middle class woman because men biologically and socially aren't that concerned about a woman's resources. I do agree that most can get 80% of women and 98% if he's in the top 5% with money and looks included
Men will become more unattractive as a disposable resource provider as machines and computers replace men as laborers. Men think women find them attractive no women find men useful. Did the male slave owners find the female slaves attractive probably but what was more important? The means of production. So women see you as willing sharecroppers and the gynocentric courts are the jim crow laws. Do women have it fair in the first world nations no but they have a slap on the wrist by a ruler and the men get to break rocks in a chain gang. Once the rich elite can publicly become transhuman and live without human labor women will be seen as equal to men disposable. The woman can be replaced by a machine artificial wombs. The men can be replaced by robots. So muh vagina and my fee fees good luck believing that humping rich men is going to save you from extinction.
It can sure seem that way if you live in a very small town. But reality a kind of bigger than that, and people who believe that bullshit are usually dudes who just don’t want to put in the work to be or go after better.
It's about the same the other way around.
The funny thing is the 80% rarely get anyone of the 20% since they doesn't have what's needed to get them no matter gender. The 20% tends to choose one of 20% that aren't obsessed about to get them before they get real connection. with other words they doesn't choose people that are attracted to shallowness for instance physical or status. that means that the majority of humans are shallow as fuck but aren't aware of their own shallowness.
If the numbers are accurate or not doesn't really matter since it's a representation of the majority.
Some logical problems with this proposition. Firstly, the demographic distribution (of any area) does not support this hypothesis. Secondly, for this to be true, the rest of the men and women would have to be single. That's obviously not true, either.
Perhaps, you mean to ask whether the top 20% of guys have the potential of 'getting' 80% of the women. In that case, yes, quite trivial, too.
I think they get the most attention by women... by the time a woman realizes he’s too in demand she has moved onto a family man with dad bod that is actually an amazing guy. 🤷🏾♀️ for a short while i think women do tend to go after the “it” guy... I never bothered he was out of my grasp and I knew it.
Yes they do, and its their choice whether they want to sleep with them or date them but nevertheless, they do attract 80% of women of course
why wouldn't a 5/10 girl be attracted to a 9/10 man...
he may not choose her, but she still would go with him if he did choose her
so what happens is lets say a 9/10 man, he will get his fair share of 9/10 girls, maybe some 10's probably too... but he will also sometimes go for 7/10... maybe 6/10... for variety, to sleep with.. I've seen it. Not all hot guys always want all 10's
It’s a bit of an exaggeration. It’s also specific to a context.
In a population where all sex is casual hookups something like that happens.
When all sex is in monogamous relationships that last for life it’s much closer to 1-1 matching.
When behaviour falls between the two something between the two happens. Men are more likely to have more than one friends with benefits. Successful men are more likely to remarry (hence having multiple partners serially rather than simultaneously). Etc.
Well for one thing those numbers come from dating site statistics so maybe they dont act on it 100% but that is how dating interest is divided. You're also giving those 20% of guys way too much credit for 1: having high standards and 2: being honest with women about what number they are. The 20% might not be seeking relationships with the 80%, but they'll happily give them one night stands all through their 20s.
Well, it’s about attraction for any given reason.
I think it’s pretty high, in that women are more desired by men than men are by women. This could be an issue if standards, maybe, but I’m
unsure.
Women shift in paradigm as they age/have children usually.
However, in modern dynamics, have you ever noticed how many women just want friends? While at the same time how many of a certain kind of man keeps many female friends?
This probably has some correlation.
This question is put 'to the world', so the answers especially if they're in-depth could be interesting, as in my opinion your reason depends on age, your question does as well, (As well as other aspects such as culture, environment, beliefs etc).
well, that depends on what you're asking for.
Trophy wives — yep, easy peasy for them
New one nights stands everyday — I can't see why not
Women want to date, doesn't care much if he's a player — well, certainly
High status attracts billions. Millions of them are just golddiggers... so in terms of love, I don't think they have it easy or anything. In fact if I were one of them, I'd for 200% sure have been going through trust issues,'does she love me, or my power, wealth and status?'
Most Helpful Opinions