The 40 Percent Man, And Some Hard Truths About Dating

The 40 Percent Man

^The 20%, or the 40% man as I hope to demonstrate

What is the 80/20 theory of dating, or the theory about the 20% man? Cited from the 'examiner' webpage:

Have you ever visited a popular nightclub in a major city, and you noticed that one guy may have three, four, or five women hanging around him while another three or four guys in that same club have no women paying them any attention at all?

Let's say a professional matchmaking organization got one thousand single heterosexual women together and transported them to an island where all of their living expenses would be covered, and they would never be in desperate need for anything crucial to their survival, such as food, beverages, clothing, and comfortable living quarters.

The mythical '80-20 Rule' Theory of Dating and Relationships says . . . . 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.

You see a lot of takes on here that are based roughly on this idea that a small pull of super hot guys with LMS (looks, money, status) have their pick of a large pool of both very attractive and moderately attractive women that would prefer to upgrade than date in their own 'league'. Attractiveness and the idea of league, is of course subjective but we can probably agree that in our culture there is some universality of desire:

Men:

- Physicality: tall and muscular builds

- Low bodyfat %

- Muscularity does not have to mean bodybuilder physique, but many women have definitely shown preference for the slender/toned variety of men ("the swimmer's physique")

- Facial symmetry

- Masculine facial features: angular bone structure (chiselled jawline, etc.), thick eye brows, deep-set eyes and good facial hair

- Smooth thick hair, preferably short for most women

- It's true that men have their beliefs totally muddled up about what constitutes an attractive physique for most women

The 40 Percent Man, And Some Hard Truths About Dating

Women:

- Narrow waists, arms and legs

- Modest curvature with very slight muscle tone (waist and thighs need to be narrower than hips as minimum requirement)

- Don't need to be as tall as men but height is a factor

- Facial symmetry

- Effeminate facial features: rounded bone structure, puckered lips and small nose

- Smooth hair and probably with length also

Now that we've got this definition of attractiveness out of the way, I think it is fair enough for me to proceed with terms like 'attractiveness' and 'league' for the remaining take without too much controversy and the underlying premise that such terms are ultimately subjective. I have been guilty of referring to the 80/20 theory a lot in my takes as well and gotten some stick lately because a lot of the 'evidence' for this theory is non-conclusive at best. I want to devote this take to digging up a few studies that have been done to confirm this - mainly based on surveys, social experiments and the social darwinism of anthropology. In this take I want to demonstrate three things:

1. 80/20 should be substituted for a more realistic theory of general hypergamy hence this take is 'the 40 percent man' rather than 'the 20% man'

2. That this theory does have some evidence behind it

3. That this theory is more useful for the pro-male agenda because it actually has a grounding in reality.

4. An adaption of the 80/20 caricature is more credible and likely to be taken more seriously in general.

1. Let's be realistic

It doesn't always help to be pessimistic. When we are pessimistic about what we can and can't achieve, we become psychologically paralyzed. Why is this? It's the brain and central nervous system literally shutting down from an overload of negative information. Rather than focusing positive energy on the kind of action that would generate an outcome, the negative individual has decided instead that he would prefer to dwell on how tough he has it and how he can't change a thing.

All of the energy that is instead redirected into negative thought is actually physically and psychologically demanding, and the brain shuts down any further action in order to conserve energy and promote survival. After all, what is the point of wasting energy on action when nothing can be done to improve the individual's circumstances?

Instead of action, the individual takes the last ditch resort to promote survival and improve his condition: he engages in the cry for help, in other words, he complains - he complains about why things are unfair, how hard he has it and asks what he has ever done to deserve being mistreated so poorly. The survival mechanism is predicated on the assumption here that somebody will listen to the cry for help and come to the individual's rescue. Who knows, maybe somebody will. But in the long run, it is not good for:

- self-esteem building

- the feeling of accomplishment when you know you have achieved something by yourself

- happiness

- feeling of security in a constant, reliable stream of success

- learning valuable lessons about life

The 40 Percent Man, And Some Hard Truths About Dating

Another point is that positive energy and confidence actually happen to be attractive to women, and negative energy is a repellent. I'm not saying this is the way things should be. A lot of guys with positive energy and confidence show narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies. A lot of guys suffering depression, anxiety or stress may be experiencing a temporary phase in their life. They might be altruistic people. They might have many positive traits and even some attractive traits (intellectual, physical and assertiveness-based). But the bottom line is, this is the way things are - even if you don't personally think that's right (subjective!) - and any period spent 'stuck in a rut' is not going to be conducive to success.

Besides, 80/20 theory is NOT an accurate representation. Men would have evolved with much lower sex drives. Men with high sex drives simply could not cope: there would be significantly higher crime rates, violence against women and violence against sexually successful men (note: this does happen to an extent however, as was the case with the notorious 2014 Isla Vista shootings). But most men do not engage in these levels of insane, catastrophic thinking: most men are relatively relaxed and go about their regular 9-5 schedules, albeit somewhat begrudgingly.

2. Evidence behind the theory

It's near enough impossible to find direct evidence that 20% of men sleep with 80% of women (or with my argument that it's probably more like 40% of men sleep with 60% of women). But evidence can definitely be found for what I will define as hypergamous female practices.

Not all the evidence that get's referred to is solid or conclusive, for example a lot of it is just social experiment stuff posted on youtube, but still happens to be somewhat informative.

Vitalyzd happens to be quite an attractive, youthful and confident youtuber, so you'd expect him to be successful in his approaches, but many of his 'gold digger prank' youtube experiments seem to suggest that women on the whole are more interested in him when he has proven that he has a nice flash car and wad full of cash. This is evidence of female hypergamy in so far as these women are interested in the 'money' and 'status' (professionalism = high status) elements of the LMS triad:


In one of his many infield footages of live interactions with random women, Owen Cook also demonstrated how women tend to react differently from sexual comments made by an intellectual, low testosterone male with a solid work ethic compared to a high testosterone male with a fun-loving outgoing party attitude. The difference was that the latter kind of 'alpha' male received more positive comments than the former kind of 'beta'.


I am highly sceptical of a 'survey' conducted by an anonymous female and self-proclaimed psychology student on this website (by the way other similar takes have arisen from self-proclaimed psychology students posting as an anonymous female). As I say, I don't know what the truth is behind these unsubstantiated claims but if she is correct, then her experiments demonstrates that a small pool of males are promiscuous compared to a much more sizeable proportion of females on Timber (out of 600 participants, 300 male, 300 female, only 50 males were successful on Tinder, compared to 240 females).

A more scientific study would be the 1989 Elaine-Hatfield study that proved most men (75%+) would say "yes" to casual sex proposals when approached by an attractive member of the opposite gender, compared to the fact that absolutely no women (0%) would oblige given the same proposal. Of course, this study is not without criticism given the increased risks women face (STIs, pregnancy and physical danger), or the fact of need for emotional intimacy. Nonetheless, these risks can be mitigated (contraception and only taking the man back to the woman's apartment, OR getting the man's contact details to establish some form of trust over time).

Also if women need emotional intimacy for sex, this is just evidence that sexual pleasure is not something valued in and of itself (after all in women, the libido cannot be easily separated from the personal connection to one's partner). Furthermore, this study is evidence of hypergamy given the fact women are so incredibly selective about sexual partners and would not consider intercourse with the vast majority of men.

What makes women so hypergamous? As mentioned before, there are plenty of surveys and social experiments conducted that have demonstrated this same fixation women have with wealth and status:


Another theory for this selectiveness / sexual hypergamy that you find in women would be the very fact that female attraction is an essentially irrational phenomena. The linked reference here lists hundreds of reasons from a University of Austin study why women choose to have sex. Compared to the near-universality of traits that men find attractive in women there is virtually no correlation in female desire whatsoever. This means that men will need to have a lot of attractive attributes to be deemed worthy of female attention. That's because of all the different things women are typically attracted to compared to the near universality of what men consider attractive.

3. The 40 percent man theory still has a pro-male agenda

Funny, that I have feminists calling me MGTOW on one hand and MGTOWs calling me feminist on the other. The truth is, this theory is still pro-male in so far as it points out the systemic inequalities in dating for the young male. Of course, the situation is reversed for the moderately attractive man as he get's into his 30s and he has his selection then of either young women that are sexually available or older women that wish to settle down and have children. However, most men would attest to the fact that if they could choose one period in their life to have their pick of women, it would most certainly be in their 20s when they:

- don't have the same work commitments,

- are youthful and high energy

- have a higher sex drive

- want something to remember their youth by

But I digress, this is not relevant to most women who are simply more interested in emotionally mature and financially stable men from an early age. Of course, this has a very good biological rational (women are looking for survivors to pass on good genes and provide a stable and nurrturing family habitat, after all). The average man that doesn't have the ideal, desirable qualities to most women will simply have to accept his lot. Usually this means he either:

- commits to one woman that will be within his league if he is lucky (most monogamous relationships do not last that long in a man's twenties, anyway);

- he is promiscuous, it will mainly be with very undesirable women or else he will be forced to use strippers and escorts; otherwise, he remains celibate and inexperienced (possibly even a virgin) until his sexual market value begins to rise at a later age (assuming this man has a good exercise and diet regiment combined with a solid work ethic).

How is this a pro-male perspective? Simple. I am not denying the inequalities of the contemporary dating game, nor am I necessarily justifying certain trends in female dating behaviour (which are defined throughout the course of this take). I am simply denying that - as tough as it may be, and as unlikely it may be to find that one needle in the haystack (i.e. that one good girl) - men are not owed anything.

The 40 Percent Man, And Some Hard Truths About Dating

Ultimately men have the choice of lowering their standards or raising their appeal. Sure women might have standards too (arguably higher than that of men, if you agree with the premises of this take) however they are nonetheless equally and morally entitled to their standards the same way men are. I think that what makes the dating game so tough at times is the complexity and level of nuanced difference between the standards of the respective genders. These guys that cry out LOOKS! MONEY! STATUS! often have very little idea of what it is precisely women are attracted to. I don't profess to be an expert by any means but the research I've done shows radically different conclusions to a straight forward LMS triad.

4. The theory is more credible

Women cannot dismiss such a theory as ridiculous so easily as they would a take like this one for example, which compares the day in the life of an 'average' female versus that of an 'average' male:

A day in the lift of the average 5/10 girl: Wake up to 23 text messages waiting to be answered on your phone. Check your email/facebook/twitter and have 295 likes on that new selfie you took of yourself. You want more attention though, so you shower up, put some clothes on, put on the makeup, and snap a quick selfie of yourself that you quickly upload to facebook. Get on the bus, and several men stand up to give you their seat. You get hit on by a nice guy on the bus who is slightly above average looking, but not good enough so you friendzone him before he asks for your number. Get off the bus, head to class, where the professor gives a lecture on how women have it so difficult in America and how there is still male privilege out there. You grit your teeth at how unfair women have it. Men are pigs! Later on, you meet up with your girlfriends to go clubbing. You are hit on by an uncountable amount of men, and after using several of them for free drinks, you ditch them and start dancing with your girlfriends.

5/10 male: Wake up to 2 text messages one from your mum one from your phone provider. Check your email/facebook/twitter of your crush and she has already dozen guys white knighting her via social media. you get on the bus and go to school. You send a snapchat to your crush hoping she will notice your 15lbs of lean gains, truth is she couldn't care less. get off the bus, head to class, where the teacher gives a lecture on how difficult women have it in America and how there is still male privilege out there. Your forced to join the everyone in their chants of #yesallwomen. You check your snapchat and your crush stilll hasn't replied, don't worry it's only midday. You accidentally trip on your way to work and 29 women and several men all laugh at you. You see a reply from your crush. She says "that's cool" code for 'Phuck off I'm about to meet up withTravis for a quickie. He's a drugdealer, but he has a motorcycle and plays drums in a band.

Another example of the kind of guy that suffers from LMS syndrome would be the user that posted a take about good looks and social status. In this take he's basically promoting the stereotype that all nice guys are just boring, unattractive guys that don't assert themselves and good guys are the opposite of all this and are therefore successful attracting women. Actually, you see this phenomena in some feminists as well. The difference with this guy, is that he posts a picture of a guy that is actually pretty good looking by conventional standards, labels him average then insists that this kind of guy would be hooking up with someone sorely below his league.

Obviously takes like these need to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt. It doesn't really help MGTOWs that are trying to prove a valid point about female hypergamy because they won't get taken seriously. E.g. looking at some of the female responses from each of the respective takes, we can see that what I say is true. From the first question, women have written the following:

You're a f**ing dumbass

You are comparing a girl who is wildly popular, extremely good looking, a little shallow and very self absorbed to an undeniably average guy

Hahahahahahaha brb dying of laughter #maletears

In the my take, they have written:

Funny how you posted a pic of an average guy and want us to sympathize with him because he's apparently nice.
I love how a bit part of your take is basically your being upset that people, namely girls, don't treat 'nice guys' better than anyone else solely because they're nice. Because, being nice is super taxing on them, and very charitable, right?
It seems like you only hang out with a certain type of woman and think we're all the same. This take is so unbelievably ignorant and blindly full of itself, I don't even know what to say. Not that it matters anyway, somehow I get the feeling that you're so closed minded and bitter that there would be no point in saying anything.

I can almost guarantee that by contrast, a take such as this one, although it has a similar agenda, it will generate a very different level of response and more interesting debate in general.

Conclusion

It's true: the world does not owe men a stream of passionate, steamy sex with hot women anymore than it owes women a stable and committed lover. Not that there aren't promiscuous women and not that there aren't men looking for love and relationships. However, it does seem there is a gynocentric bias in dating that does not favour men. Any negativity, bitterness or frustration you see in young men from their lack of sexual prowess is somewhat understandable in the very least. In particular, these trends of female hypergamous dating that I've mentioned throughout seem to be more prevalent among young, moderately attractive western women than any other group of females.

The 40 Percent Man, And Some Hard Truths About Dating
0
18
Add Opinion

Have An Opinion?

Most Helpful Guy

  • HikerDude

    “Besides, 80/20 theory is NOT an accurate representation. Men would have evolved with much lower sex drives. Men with high sex drives simply could not cope…”

    Not true. Sexual energy is easily dissipated through masturbation, which is why most sexually unsuccessful guys turn to internet porn rather than crime. Men evolved with higher sex drives to ensure mating and the propagation of the species. Nature doesn’t care if Ed gets laid on a Saturday night, Nature only cares that all the fecund females are bred to ensure a new generation. I agree with you that the 80/20 rule is probably not applicable to dating, but only because I feel that the relative interest of women in men is even more skewed than that.

    In reality, I think that women only really want the top 5-10% of men, but they end up settling for what they can get. This is why a relatively small percentage of younger guys have the vast majority of the sexual encounters, but most guys who are unsuccessful when they're younger still end up in relationships when they're older. Most women realize at some point that it's unrealistic to expect a long-term commitment from a top-echelon man, so they settle for an average man, one who is willing to make that investment in a relationship. And this is the nexus of the high divorce rate in society.

    The vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. The reason for this imbalance is that most women believe they've married down. Those women who've married up aren't so quick to bail out of their relationships. That's why the wives of pro athletes and CEOs are so willing to stay in their marriages despite infidelity and abuse. But with an average guy, most women are relatively quick to resort to dissolution when things turn sour, because they feel they've settled, even if their husbands hold seemingly the same social status as they do.

    I'll let Chris Rock explain it, because he does a better job than I ever could. Fast forward to 5:00.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M902ZJHzaLE

    Is this still revelant?
    • the_rake

      'Sexual energy is easily dissipated through masturbation'

      I think we both know that masturbation is at best an artificial substitute for the emotional and physical intimacy of sex - which is probably nature's kick up the backside to getting men putting energy into reproduction rather than just hand stimulation.

      'Nature only cares that all the fecund females are bred to ensure a new generation.'

      Well, in order for egg carriers to be reproduced, they need sperm cells.

      'the relative interest of women in men is even more skewed than that. '

      From the research I've done the evidence is pretty slim either way and very non-conclusive. I am not biased in favour of or against 80/20. Believe me when I say that I will accept research on this matter with an open mind.

      'end up settling for what they can get'

      Right. So this is where marriage, prostitution and female hypergamy come into play.

      ...

    • the_rake

      [PT2]
      ...
      At the beginning of his sexual endeavours, the average male will probably have higher standards than what he inevitably comes to accept later in life (unless of course he is a highly desirable man). Unless he chooses to commit at an early stage (marriage), he will either stay celibate (which will likely result in sexual frustration, higher crime rates and mental health issues) or he will live a promiscuous lifestyle either with paid professionals (prostitutes) or low status women (this is female hypergamy).

      Commitment typically happens at a later stage, so this leaves us with the respective options of prostitution, female hypergamy and involuntary celibacy. Few men choose to remain celibate for long periods of time, so prostitution and female hypergamy are the inevitable results of inegalitarian dating trends.

      ...

    • the_rake

      [FINAL]
      ...

      'so they settle for an average man, one who is willing to make that investment in a relationship'

      This doesn't happen until a later stage and as you yourself pointed out,

      'this is the nexus of the high divorce rate in society.'

      Very true.

      'I'll let Chris Rock explain it'

      The video has been blocked, but I think I've seen this video before anyway. He made goods points and a funny guy.

What Girls & Guys Said

017
  • Oram52

    Good Take, at least gave solid reasoning to back up the arguments. As it comes through from your Take so far not enough research done in these aspects. Videos however did shed some light on what you are discussing.

    I would be more inclined to agree with 40-60 rule, 80-20 is too high of a disparity. In my personal experience its not what I observe. 80-20 is 4 girls to 1 guy, 40-60 is 3 girls to 2 guys, that seems more reasonable. Of course there are variations, regardless as you pointed out more girls hook up with fewer guys. They hold the cards, and have high standards when it comes to casual sex.

    All in all good take, the point comes through, so far no female response either.

    =============

    "These guys that cry out LOOKS! MONEY! STATUS! often have very little idea of what it is precisely women are attracted to. ... the research I've done shows radically different conclusions to a straight forward LMS triad."

    Of course there are more factors than just looks or money, girls immediatly jump to confidence or swag for example. The fact however remains attractive guys do better at casual sex, you can confirm that on Tinder. We all know rich guys get laid a lot.

    So I would definitely like to know more about your research, if you haven't done any MyTake on it yet. Over all good Take.

    • the_rake

      Thanks,

      - Like I said, the 80/20 is in strong circulation with the MGTOW crowd and those practically spam reference it everywhere. But where's the evidence for it. I know my own citations need some stronger cross-referencing but at least I've managed to shed some light, like you say.

      - Yeah, I'm a little disappointed that there are no female responses to this as well.

      - This is the first take I wrote that looks into the empiricism behind 80/20 in any detail. I didn't want it to be too sciencey because I knew that it would not get any hits but at the same time I wanted to filter out responses that were likely to be highly uneducated. People post a lot of shit in my takes sometimes. I'll look into the citations I already used more deeply for future takes because they will have other references in them to feed off of. That should strengthen my arguments and bring us all closer to the truth about female hypergamy.

  • hellionthesage

    I would agree to an extent that men are not owed anything, but I would also say neither are women. The problem is that men let women hold all the cards and thus allow this kind of behavior either by indulging the behavior by trying to win a woman over in this fashion or by ignoring it ie by being the providor. The way to creat balance would be to take on both roles ie instead of going the alpha route or the beta route to go the omega route, to simply be you be a nice guy but also don't allow yourself to be used. Obviously not all women yata yata yata but female hypergamy is a thing and that is why historicly we had rules that constrained female hypergamy because it was not actually beneficial to women. It is a vestigial trait, one that was affective early in development but soon became detrimental. Women who are hypergames are obviously less then loyal this means that a man really had no reason to be loyal back so what happened was those women after there fertile years would be quickly abandoned by their "alpha"(hate the terms to generic and generalized but to convient not to use) partners. Society as I pointed out in your other take acts as a parent, inhibiting negative characteristics and emphasising the good ones. In our current society we punish men for their negative traits and reward women for indulging their negatice traits. This is actually the issue with promiscuity, its an outdated approach that doesn't actually benefit people anymore as can be seen from the fact that 80% of prison inmates are from single mother homes, that men are growing more and more frustrated at the burdens that are placed at their feet even as women become more and more convinced that they are superior because they are constantly told that they are (hence the okcupid poll that had showed that women thought 80% of men where below average). By reigining in promiscuity that reduces a womans validation, it reduces their hypergamy they no longer have the option to try and date up because if a man is not getting sex from a woman of lesser status/looks then he will not (generally speaking) date or marry her. This forces her to function within her for lack of a better term "league", which in turn reduces the ego stroking that she gets and women get in general from promiscuity and the sense of power they get from men clamoring to get in their pants. This is beneficial to men because now they are no longer competeing against the top tier they are competing from within their own tier,

    • (currently I woud equate it to having the big leagues and the minor leagues all playing the same game, the winners are going to be the major league players every time). This reduces strain on those men and the need to be the very best, now they only need to be the best within their tier. This is incredibly benefical to women too (hence women pushing for this for all of history, until recently when they where duped into the "sexual revolution") because it means they are not wasting time trying to get a top tier guy they will never have but instead reprioritizing their needs in the form of providors instead of the bad boys (ie practical long lasting needs vs superficial ephemeral thrill). They get men within their own tier and those men get women every one matches up. The interesting part is this is actually beneficial to society too because we are investment parents therefore long term parenting and thus relationships are absolutely necessary for proper child development.

    • So children grow up better off mentally and economicly then they do currently. The other benefit is actually economical. Its been shown that men who never married actually make less then men who have families and did marry, that is a man works more hours when he has a family to provide for then a man who only has himself to provide for so by removing promiscuity we actually improve productivity, reduce the friction between genders, reduce the impact of female hypergamy and male promiscuity, as well as having a much more developed and well off children and by extention a better generation. Hence the reason why this method was utilized in every major dominant advanced culture in the world.

  • BigJake

    Nah, the Pareto Principle (80/20) has been proven applicable throughout our world. You're not going to disprove it with a few thousand words of hand-waving.

    • the_rake

      where's your evidence it proves applicable to dating?

    • BigJake

      Where's your evidence that it doesn't? The burden of proof is on you, son, since you're the one writing the mytake here. You've got it all backward.

    • the_rake

      And I don't think you really understand either the burden of proof or the nature of my claims.

      1. I'm not really saying that 80/20 is or is not true I'm just keeping the date going, posting a few sources that could be of interest and could elucidate the discussion.
      2. Burden of proof is normally meant for affirmative statements, not just denying the existence of something - especially when that thing doesn't have any hard evidence behind it and it's something you see people talking about so often (like the existence of god, or in this case guys posting about 80/20 theory)
      3. I've essentially demonstrated scepticism that 20% of men get 80% of women. To anybody that comes online saying that, including yourself, I want to know: what's your evidence?

    • Show All
  • After all, what is the point of wasting energy on action when nothing can be done to improve the individual's circumstances? You nailed it. There are a few clients of mine who would rather give me 30 minutes of well thought out excuses then get rejected in real life. I see a lot of this here on GAG. Instead of trying something new, learning from others, they will just simply use excuses because for them... action... simply takes too much action! Nice take Man!

    • the_rake

      Yep. I will admit I get dragged into this mentality sometimes but for different reasons than most guys on GAG altogether. Usually I'm thinking about the impact of zero sum game and the heinous nature of certain aspects of the dating hierarchy which only seems to benefit a few guys. But at the end of the day I'd rather be at the top than the bottom so this is my motivation to keep working and keep improving... slowly but surely.

  • tyber1

    With regards to dating, I'd say 60/40 seems about right but for casual sex I'd say it's something like 50/5

    • the_rake

      interesting, because I'd say it's the reverse: more women are invested in dating/relationships (hence men have the power here) but men tend to be more invested in sex (hence women have the power here and only have NSA relations with a small percentage of men: 40%).

    • tyber1

      Women are more willing to date down than sleep down but they still generally have a laundry list of things they want and look for. The thing is that the 40% of guys here aren't necessarily restricted by their looks, they're picked based off of a balance of desirable and undesirable traits. But because women have higher standards in general fewer men make the cut because few men are 'the whole package'. Indeed, having the majority of traits that appeal to women is pretty rare.

    • the_rake

      'Women are more willing to date down than sleep down but they still generally have a laundry list of things they want and look for.'

      I don't disagree with this statement.

      'The thing is that the 40% of guys here aren't necessarily restricted by their looks, they're picked based off of a balance of desirable and undesirable traits. But because women have higher standards in general fewer men make the cut because few men are 'the whole package'. Indeed, having the majority of traits that appeal to women is pretty rare.'

      Agreed, but if women have higher standards in general (sex AND relationships) then it still won't be 60/40 for dating but 50/50 for sex. If anything, it would be more like 70/30 for sex by that reasoning and slightly more liberal standards for dating.

    • Show All
  • ManOnFire

    I'm sorry, but I really can't get with this. Guys have got to stop living their lives based on all this university-type pop sci stuff. It really makes no sense compared to the wider scale of things in real life. It's just a lot of stuff that's supposed to make sense on paper or according to some nerdy study or researcher, but really holds little to no bearing in every day life. I've known guys who are far from hot yet have had several gfs or sex partners, and I've also known good-looking guys who are still virgins or hardly get noticed.

    If guys would just put all this senseless mathematical deduction away and start getting out there living life, they might just get the girl.

    • the_rake

      It's not about good looks, I know. I just said that in the opening paragraph because of all the guys that would spam this thread with some LMS shit.

      What is true though are two things:
      1. Women are hypergamous (a small, selective group of men sleep with the majority of women)
      2. Women are attracted to status (like you said, looks aren't the only factor, but dominance and high status related behaviours definitely are. This means a low self-esteem guy, e. g. with depression, or some form of autism, or social anxiety, would have a tough time getting laid because girls are not 'shallow' about looks, but they are definitely 'shallow' about status.)

    • ManOnFire

      This is all still subjective. A lot more men are sleeping with a lot more women than most of us really realize. And a lot more women make sex easily available to a lot of men more than they realize themselves, or will admit. I find it hard to believe that guys are getting little access to girls or sex in times like these where sex is actually much more available to men now than it ever has been. I'm even living proof of it, and I don't think I'm all that special-looking even though I've had females say I'm good looking or sexy.

      None of that nonsensical, algebraic stuff matters in the real world.

    • the_rake

      Maybe you were lucky enough to get a girlfriend and get experienced at the right time. Guys that get experience early on in life have that confidence boost, and like I said before, women are attracted to positivity. Even if a guy is low self-esteem, suffering from depression or has social anxiety, women do not care about that guy's problems, they just want a fun high status guy like Owen Cooke - the guy I posted a youtube video about. There are plenty of guys that have a hard time getting laid just look around on this site or places like bb. com miscellaneous section. Fact is, those guys don't come out about it in real life because male virgin shaming is just as real (if not more real) than slut-shaming.

    • Show All
  • slimstiffy

    Nice take man.
    I think its rather 20 80 than 40 60 .
    For some reason i think the mens numbers are lower than 20.
    Im not sure about the females but a lot seem to go for the crowd. All i know is if i ever marry, it will be one of the 20 % chicks.
    I wouldn't ever marry a girl to whom im expendable

    • the_rake

      if I mention 20-80 on here people tend to go ape shit - especially women - and they always insist that it's not true, bla bla bla, and that there's no statistics for it, that I'm full of it and just being misogynist, etc., etc.

    • slimstiffy

      Hehhe..
      Yeah i understand.
      The struggle is real

  • mostwomenshouldstfu

    I love how no girls responded to this. Not stereotypical of their attention spans at all.

  • PineappleBreath

    Cool an entire essay that confident attractive men get more women.

  • vk99x

    Women tend to focus more on a guy's personality while men are more focused on a woman's looks. I do think social status plays a much bigger part than we realize. Women (and men) place high value on feeling significant and validated and with social media and selifies it plays a big part so looks and being active and popular play a big role. I've noticed if I treat the lady as I would talk to my best guyfriend (and also being positive and confident) it goes over extremely well. I also think looking fit and dressing decent plays a big part. At the end of the day, the higher the interest level she has for him the easier it is to accomplish any dating/relationship goal.

    • the_rake

      'I do think social status plays a much bigger part than we realize.'

      Sure. I talked about looks because normally when I make takes like these guys on here jump on and start shouting, "it's all looks, bro!" so it's kind of ironic that when I make the shift from status to looks, guys start talking about all the intrinsic factors. Truth is, it's not one or the other and like I said in the take (if you read the whole thing - it is pretty long, I'll give you that) there is much, much, much more to it than just 'looks, money or status'. Truth is, female attraction is essentially a highly irrational phenomena: www.amazon.com/.../0312662653

      Anyway, I do recommend you read the whole take, because like I said, I wanted to appeal to the guys that think in terms of "looks first" - because looks, after all, is the most obvious thing and therefore, guys (not you, necessarily) are inclined to think that women are just as interested in looks as they are.

    • Indigo91

      So if its much more than looks, money and status... then what is it that attracts women? PUA?

  • Riggers

    Great take. I agree.

  • WombRaider

    It's not even close to 20%... it's 3%.

    • the_rake

      what's your source

    • WombRaider

      Coach Corey Wayne.

    • the_rake

      any particular book? and does he have empirical references or is it just more dating and PUA theory?

    • Show All
  • Anonymous
    • the_rake

      yeah, it's not intelligence basically. it's swag/dominance/status.

    • Anonymous

      I think it is more about charisma. not necesarily dominance, though it can be related to swag i guess.

    • Anonymous

      Though yeah I do think at least logical-mathematical intelligence and dating/seduction/attraction don't mesh together in the least.

    • Show All
  • Anonymous

    You don't have to be rich at all. I work at a fast food place and I get a lot of attention from girls.

  • Anonymous

    Advice from a semi older guy in his 30s. Try NOT CARING. Show some initial interest and after that back off. It's amazing how women will go after men who are a CHALLENGE. I finally figured this out in my late 20s and I saw a HUGE turnaround.

  • Anonymous

    Really great take! Thanks for directing me here. I do like many of your points.

    Pls clarify and explain though, this is what I was trying to get at with my take on does a woman react differently to two (or three) different guys saying things to her in and outside the bedroom?

    You mentioned the women reacting differently to the work ethic provider type guy and the player type guy?

    This is what I was trying to ascertain in the take. Why do you think this is and how does a good guy (who is suave, respectful, work ethic and playful, tho not a player) then arouse her in this way and get to say that stuff?

    • the_rake

      I think the work ethic guy / nice guy / beta male / whatever you want to call him is going to have a hard time in general trying to act like the fun party guy / alpha male type. That's why in the context of our discussion, I talk a lot about straight forward authenticity and stating your true feelings like a man. I think all of that stuff comes off as much more natural (and in some ways, sexier) than the guy that just wants to talk all night about how the girl looks like a stripper.

    • Anonymous

      1. But isn't the guy in the white suit talking about how she looks like a stripper?

      2. Is an 'alpha' male, or confident guy also not a confident guy who happens to be nice and respectful as well? So if he is polite to her and then talks a little dirty, wouldn't that be welcome?

      3. Or is only a guy who is just purely party like and dirty going to be allowed to say that stuff?

      4. For example, a genuinely good guy might be a party guy and also have a strong work ethic and be a gentleman right?

      5. So can this guy who is suave, but also polite talk dirty to her in public and in the bedroom? For example James Bond would not be the guy in the white suit in this video right?

      6. E. g. can a good guy call her a dirty name or tell her she looks hot, or even tell her to beg in the bedroom?

    • the_rake

      1. Yes, Owen Tyler's playing the role of cretinous douchebag. To some extent it is who he really has become. To some other extent, he's just trying to help out guys that can't get laid. So while I don't have much love for the guy I don't dislike him either.
      2. There's fake confidence and real - authentic - confidence. This is all stuff Mark Manson talks about in his book, so it's not some original idea I have.
      3. Delivery / presentation are definitely important factors. Notice how Tyler keeps on rationalising stuff he says. For example, if the girl looks like she is about to get pissed off, he suddenly goes back on a statement. I'm making this line up, but if for example she said, "how degrading is it for you to say that to women", a guy with fake confidence could turn around and say something like, "yes, but you're the only woman I would ever remember" with a wry grin...

    • Show All
  • Anonymous

    "Now that we've got this definition of attractiveness out of the way"

    Not my experience at all. Women's definition of attractiveness in a man isn't nearly as exclusively based on appearance as you make out. I have only half those attributes and got interest from virtually every woman I came in contact with and I know guys who had even less going for them than me in the looks department who did as well. Intelligence when allied with wit and charm is at least as important as abs, exceptional skill at something is as attractive as good hair, a graceful, smooth manner, taste in clothes etc & etc, your over-emphasis on appearance is utterly misguided. Appearance is only the first line of communication, what comes next is at least as important.

    Other than that I agree except I think in your scenario things would be even more skewed, 80% of the women on your desert island would probably be going after about 5% of the men.

    • the_rake

      I begin talking about physical attractiveness because it's something people understand. However, other features of attractiveness are accounted for later on:

      'This is evidence of female hypergamy in so far as these women are interested in the 'money' and 'status' (professionalism = high status) elements of the LMS triad'

      'Owen Cook also demonstrated how women tend to react differently from sexual comments made by an intellectual, low testosterone male with a solid work ethic compared to a high testosterone male with a fun-loving outgoing party attitude. '

      Finally,

      'Another theory for this selectiveness / sexual hypergamy that you find in women would be the very fact that female attraction is an essentially irrational phenomena. The linked reference here lists hundreds of reasons from a University of Austin study why women choose to have sex. Compared to the near-universality of traits that men find attractive in women there is virtually no correlation in female desire whatsoever.'

    • Anonymous

      Yes but your emphasis is physical and that is quite misleading. Human intelligence probably evolved for the purpose of seduction and should be placed alongside looks in any mention of what attracts women.

    • the_rake

      1. I don't think it's intelligence so much as dominance and status related behaviours or more generally, just intrinsic qualities.
      2. These qualities are not easy to define because they are intangible, hence I have not attempted to explain them all at once but spread the explanation throughout the take.

    • Show All

Share the first opinion in your gender
and earn 1 more Xper point!

Loading...
Loading...