The undoing of marriage through shitty laws for men lead to a reversal to prehistoric sexual dynamics (lots of women for top men). This leads to betas getting either no sex or raped in family courts (with still no sex). Btw it also leads to tons of bitter women unable to settle down now that sex is available without commitment. So everybody loses on average, but some (Chads and cuckolds) end up winning
Really instead of complaining about this you should be becoming part of the top men as it's not gonna change soon. I know this is 4chan where everyone is >6 feet, has 8 inch dicks etc. but seriously since realizing this and focusing on myself, improving fitness and social game and ditching empathy and morals, I've gone from having a lay count of 2 (both LTRs) to double digits within a year
Of course there is but girls don't cry about it on 4chan. They either buy into feminist propaganda that a strong woman need no men or learn to live in spinsterhood without crying about no bf/no sex and blaming chads and stacies.
>>16853910 I mean.. if I had the full blown traditional wife I would be completely fine with that. I mean real traditional. cleans the house, takes care of the children, does all the chores, cooks 3 meals a day and makes lunch, loyal for life, only need one income to have a nice lifestyle since one income families are the norm.
that sounds like the perfect setup to me. its the modern "traditional" housewife that fucking sucks, where you struggle to make ends meet on your income and she doesnt do shit and cheats on you.
>>16853883 >I don't think there's been an undoing of marriage. There has been, Google dropping marriage rates or whatever
>Most WOMEN I know want to get married Most men I know want to get a model sex slave girl who loves him unconditionally. What you want is not always what you get, moreso now that men are waking up to what a terrible deal marriage is.
>>16853823 Back again, my serial-reposting friend? I'll give you points for rewording, I guess.
The reason for the epidemic is that the old mechanisms for pressuring the less-functional boys in our society to grow the fuck up have started to fail. It's the one great sin of the geek community: the haven for people who were targeted unfairly by those mechanism also became the ultimate enabler for fair targets. Safe from pressure in our bubble, they never made the changes they so desperately need to make, and now they're wondering why they push people away.
Why is there no corresponding female epidemic? On the contrary, there is one, and it's been around for even longer. Probably longer than you've been alive, which is why you don't notice it. But every time you hear someone ask why all the good men are either taken or gay, you're staring it in the face.
>>16853896 >the corresponding female epidemic is the lack of marriage to high status "dateable" men Dateable men are not necessarily high-status. They just need to have their lives together, relative to their expected stage of development.
Women actively work to deprive men of jobs etc through feminism and then bitch about no good guys. Plenty of men were fine with women staying at home raising kids. Would women be ok with men doing the same? Also see
because men will follow around any girl that has a vagina like a lost little puppy begging for a treat
if guys stopped being so fucking desperate and trying to get with every girl possible, then those girls wouldn't have those hundreds of options to pick from and skim the top. hell, just look at /soc/. because really, why should I get with the 4/10 channer with a busted face when a "Chad" is available too? out of pity? fuck that.
Lets just cover some basics: - Sex is usually between a male and a female, both are involved. - Ugly people have at least the same amount of sex as attractive people, perhaps more due to lower standards. There are studies to show that. - Lonely males and lonely females do not interact, they do not like each other or even acknowledge each others existence, they want to get with healthy people.
>>16853948 >It's statistically proven that women rate 80% of men as below average. I know the "study" you're talking about. Utter junk. But even if it were not, the data doesn't support your convenient little conclusions.
>>16853951 >Plenty of men were fine with women staying at home raising kids. Would women be ok with men doing the same? Does it matter? Even the men in these situations wouldn't be fine with staying at home raising kids; they want to stay at home, play vidya, fap to animu, and bitch online about how no one respects them. I wouldn't trust a man like that to be a competent parent. Why would I fault women for not trusting in such a man's competency either?
>>16853979 Maybe, but it's the closest thing we can do to pressure him i to growing the fuck up. He retreats to his enablers when he starts to get uncomfortable, as his kind always does. But even that slight discomfort, tiny fraction of what he needs though it may be, is something.
there is. Have you ever looked at Cosmo? Or watched a chick flick about some girls in their late 20's? Probably not because you're dudes.
As a woman, I hear plenty of "OMG I am unlovable I will never find someone who loves me" or "I've never had a boy interested in ME, they only want to use my body and then throw me away".
also, assuming that there is a similar number of women and men- it's impossible for there to be a significant number of single men without there also being a significant number of single women. Those women arn't dating themselves.
The actual problem is expectation. The uglier member of each sex wants someone more attractive than who suits them- but women have better upward mobility in this area. A hotter guy may date an average girl, but it's more rare for a hot girl to date an average guy. Because of this, the spectrum is skewed and there are a lot of hot girls who are single and a lot of average/ugly guys who are single.
Consider also that the whole idea of "there are guys who like you, you just aren't satisfied with them!!" Can be applied to both genders in nearly any situation, NOT just women.
Yes, anonette may have 3 guys who have a crush on her, but if she isn't attracted to any of them, they might as well not be there. They might as well be fat fedora neckbeards for all she cares. Just because that option is there doesn't mean it would make her any happier than being single.
The EXACT same can be said about your average lonely joe. There are PLENTY of fat, feminist, bitchy single mothers. Why doesn't lonely joe date on of them instead of being lonely? It's because being with them would be WORSE than being lonely. It's the same situation as anonette, but lonely how's too busy lamenting being friendzoned by her that he doesn't understand that he's doing the exact same thing. Having standards isn't a bad thing.
there is a multitude of reasons why, why you think men seem to be lonelier probably has to do with the fact that you're not assigned a wife by your parents anymore, and women don't have to settle for you. Instead of bettering yourself you spend all day jacking off to anime girls.
I think lonely women don't show their loneliness as much as men. Also, I think lonely women feel the need to hide their loneliness.
She doesn't outwardly say it, but my best friend will go out a shit ton more after a break up, start experimenting with drugs more, etc. when she starts getting lonely. But then after a few months, she usually crashes and calls me sobbing about how she's actually depressed and lonely and can't handle being alone so she just acts radical and impulsive.
Pretty much every at least average looking female I know does this. I have done this (i am grill too). Some girls turn to social media and start acting "more desperate" online. Look at all the camwhores on /soc/, do you think those women are fully functioning social butterflies? We see tons of chicks posting their bodies and being sex symbols for guys to like at their finger tips. And honestly, I bet most girls would love that attention if they were feeling lonely.
With women, loneliness comes, it leads to low self esteem (feeling like an ugly old cunt), then we desperately try to fight it through validation of other people. And let's face it, most guys will get right on that vulnerable female shit.
I'm not saying it's right, but that is what female loneliness is.
>>16854005 Again, the same can be said for any dude who doesn't want to date below their league.
>>16854006 Um, scientists couldn't possibly do a study on something like that since beauty is technically subjective and not really a quantifiable entity.
I'm honestly basing that off of my own experience. Most hot guys I know date hot girls, but there are plenty who date "average looking women". People usually comment stuff like "huh, she's with HIM?" Or "you think he'd go after someone more attractive..."
It's rare to find a hot girl with an average guy unless the guy has a ton of cash.
>>16854016 In my personal analogy anonette was out of joe's league. Assuming they're around the same level of attractiveness, then yeah she should date him.
But even if he doesn't- the point is that you can't use "well SOMEONE would date you" to discount the experiences of single lonely women because the same can be said for single lonely men. If the attraction isn't there, then it just isn't there
>>16854022 Isn't that reason valid if there's an objective double standard at play? For example, very overweight people wanting someone much less or not overweight?
>>16854024 It might also help that in most cultures it's socially acceptable for females to be much more friendlier with each other, especially including physical contact like hugs. If a person is getting ample affection from their group of friends, romantic affection is much less important, and so being "alone" is much easier.
>>16853955 >>16853896 Problem with that Vice article is that women think education/degree=smarter, better person.
I'm pretty self-taught in a lot of things and it's easy to just not be a dumbass if that's what these girls are looking for. But i get the feeling that when women got "educated" (women's studies degrees notwithstanding), they wanted to find men who are even more "educated" - read: higher earning - than themselves, or something like that. Not much unlike women will not date a man their height or shorter, they do not want a man making less than them. Truly, hypergamy at its core.
They say men are the shallow gender because they want a pretty girlfriend or wife, yet women want a handsome husband who's actually so much more. But men are the real shallow ones. Right.
>>16854062 this is the problem. women never date down, but at the same time women are being propelled through college at a rate much higher than men and are being set up for white collar work at a much higher rate than men, as well as being hired at a much higher rate. there's too many women at the top and not enough men, and women only look up. meanwhile the men working construction and blue collar get shit on from above.
>>16854062 I will say though that men could help the situation a lot by having standards higher than "she has to be pretty". Fuck, I'd love an 'average' (not completely unattractive, but average) girl who has her shit together and works hard to earn her keep. But that's just me.
>>16854071 The funny thing is that these educated women still rely on men to build their computers, pave their roads and fix their cars. They treat them like the scum of the earth, but I never see women working on construction sites, fixing plumbing or repairing an air conditioner.
I'm totally down for meeting a girl who is intellectually stimulated. But even the "educated" ones are not always as open minded or mature as they'd love to believe that they are. It's OK, nobody's perfect. But that article man, talking down on men who don't have BS degrees in business or medicine like everyone else, as if that's all there is to life. Give me a fucking break.
>>16854062 Throughout history the lowest social class has had it bad. It's been the case for over a thousand years and I highly doubt it's going to change anytime soon. Complaining about it endlessly will do nothing. If you want out of it you will need to change yourselves.
>>16853999 >there is a multitude of reasons why, why you think men seem to be lonelier probably has to do with the fact that you're not assigned a wife by your parents anymore, and women don't have to settle for you. There's certainly something to the idea that women don't have to settle for him anymore, but the death of arranged marriage as an institution isn't why.
Among other things, in the Western cultures that OP almost certainly comes from, the practice of arranged marriage died out centuries ago. The phenomenon of women not having to settle for the bottom 10% of men is far more recent than that: most robots would date it to half a century at most. More to the point, they blame it on the sexual revolution, and there's a certain intuitive appeal to that, but I'm coming to think that this is misplaced.
Two other big changes came at about the same time that I believe explain the phenomenon better. Women's entry into the workforce is, as a phenomenon, only a decade or two older than the sexual revolution itself. Some even believe the former was necessary for the latter to come about. Whether or not it was necessary, however, it gave women options: survival could no longer come down only to the choice of marriage to a 1/10 or life as a prostitute. There was a third way, and compared to the other two, it was way more appealing.
But by itself, that's not quite enough: it explains why 1/10 men are in this position, but it doesn't explain the recent uptick in 1/10 men. For that, I believe we have to look at another phenomenon from around the same time period: the self-esteem movement.
It still sounds strange to say that, despite being convinced of it. For all the bravado that the modern 1/10 puts up, very few of them have any self-esteem to speak of. Entitlement, yes, in a certain legalistic sense: on a purely intellectual level, they think they've earned the benefits of a society that they think provides men with women. But they don't feel it.
Females are programmed to be attracted the the top 20% of males. Throughout all species, females are the genetic filter - they decide who gets to mate. Males have to be living forms of art just to have a chance of getting their dicks wet. In ducks, the male has aesthetic colourful feathers while the female is bland. In peacocks, males have beautiful, big, colourful feathers. In spiders, the male has to perform a dance, if the female likes it, he gets to mate, if she doesn't, she kills him, literally just weeding him the fuck out, so that he won't use up any more food because he won't reproduce anyways because he is a subhuman that can't dance. In humans, males are smart, strong, big and live for long. Females are emotional, irrational, weak and get out of prime and become useless very quicly
The reason marriage exists is not because females find the majority of males attractive, but because it was the social norm. Anthropologic studies have shown that in the stone age and before, most males (84% if i remember correctly) didn't get to reproduce. Now that women have been liberated, they express their genome fully as it is no longer oppressed by a political system, and you can see the 80/20 rule coming back.
>>16854126 What ever where you implying by your use of the term "lowest social class" other than the fact that we were a part of it somehow? And how else is somebody supposed to react when they deny that statement?
>>16854131 I'm quite confused. I used it as part of a sentence, I was implying the meaning of that sentence (I'll avoid repeating it). I think the completely normal way to react would be civil discourse, it seems so obvious to me I'm surprised it's a question.
How could a movement that tried to make everyone feel good about themselves, in the name of helping them succeed, wind up thickening the layer of gunk at the bottom of the barrel?
The problem was twofold. One was that it tried too hard to reach everyone. First they tried to provide everyone with opportunities to find respectability within themselves: access to different kinds of interests, to draw out hidden talents. This didn't work, because they could only provide access to so many things, and even though they were leading the horses around to many different water troughs, some of them just wouldn't drink. So instead they shiften to an irrational model, where everyone should feel great about themselves because reasons. It was bullshit, and they knew it, but they accepted it for the same reason we teach Newtonian physics to children in lower levels of school: an oversimplification that lets you move on to other concepts in the shorter term, then come back to fill in the gaps later on.
The hope was that by the time kids realized what they were being spoon-fed, they'd have come out of their shelves and found their talents on their own: a foundation for a rational and healthy model of self-esteem, to replace the irrational model. But to keep the illusion up as long as possible, you couldn't put pressure on the kids to get out there and discover new things, or meet new people or anything of the sort: they had to be allowed to grow "at their own pace". Most of the 1/10s were kids who abused the concept of "at their own pace" to mean never at all, out of laziness or out of fear. A few others simply figured it all out too soon for their own good, before there was even time to develop something you could hang a healthy self-image on.
But however the timing came about, the result was the same: people figuring out that healthy self-esteem needs reasons to exist, but not finding any reasons in themselves. And so they hide and hate.
>>16853825 >>16853827 >>16853835 >>16853844 Especially this, >"Really instead of complaining about this you should be becoming part of the top men as it's not gonna change soon. I know this is 4chan where everyone is >6 feet, has 8 inch dicks etc. but seriously since realizing this and focusing on myself, improving fitness and social game and ditching empathy and morals, I've gone from having a lay count of 2 (both LTRs) to double digits within a year"
But for all of people's pseudo science in thread, I'll add my own experiences after going from bottom 50% of men to top 50% of men.
The only difference between the 80% of average men compared to the 20% is work. That's it - effort and work. You all - men and women - love to tell yourselves that the difference is genetics or upbringing or wealth or [insert reason here]. There is one reason and one reason alone - you are not willing to do the work to be in the top 20%.
Some people are born there. 99.99% are not. So let me ask you this: >Are you going to the gym 3-4 times a week, researching routines on the interest, cooking food, researching nutrition, and learning how to perform maintenance on your body?
Then why do you expect women to be more attracted to you than to someone who does?
And that's just one small example of the hundreds and thousands of ways we could all be working to improve ourselves and reach for what we want. But 80% of you don't do it. And that's you. Not your genes. Not your parents. Not society. You.
None of choose how we're born, just what we do with it.
>>16854143 I'm still not even sure what you're getting at. You're telling a hard working, self-sustaining individual that he's part of the "lowest class" because he doesn't have an education? Or am I missing something here?
I wasn't complaining about how society treats me. I'm complaining about an article that just helps show that so many women have so little appreciation for a man now unless he's "college educated".
I get women not wanting to be with a guy who has no income, no education, no future. I get that. Telling a man he's a loser and that women would have to "settle" to be with him because he's not the tallest, richest, most intelligent man ever is where I draw the line.
But the low self-esteem is, in many ways, incidental. The real problem is they they aren't getting out there, whether that's due to laziness or fear. It affects all areas of life that involve social dynamics of any kind, really; women are just the scapegoats for something larger and more complex. But you've got these 1/10 men whose lives are absolute wrecks, and seek women to fix it for them. But aside from the fact that this only ever works in fiction (the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope), they're also putting the cart before the horse: women want partners, not patients. Your average 1/10 could jump four or five points on the scale, or even more, if he built a life for himself before seeking women, but they don't want to do that. They want to be given everything, just like they think others are given everything. And so they stay at the bottom of the heap, never really understanding why,
>>16853873 that is not how it works in the animal kingdom and that also applies to us humans. only the top males get to reproduce with 80% of females. what is happening is that only the top males are getting all the women.
Your vision of the animal kingdom is not inly grossly oversimplified, it also carries no evolutionary validity. Different species run a massive gamut of mating strategies. Even among out closest living evolutionary cousins, we can see that whole gamut in action, from the hypersexual bonobo ape to the hierarchical gorilla to other species, some of which even practice things akin to monogamy. Our own evolutionary history is simply too muddied for evopsych billshit to even apply.
>>16854180 >Not terribly interested in this stuff, I'm happy where I'm at. >I do understand how women can have a double standard that they demand this when they themselves aren't willing to put in the same. >Why accept less if you're coddled so much that you don't have to? I'm trying to be nice here... thank you for proving my >>16854156 point.
Look at your backwards, twisted logic that boils down to: >You just don't want to. There, we've solved the male loneliness epidemic. >You just don't want to. >You're not terribly interested In what? Improving yourself to the point that hot women throw themselves at you because they see how hard you work and the good result that it brings in your life?
Oh OK. I'm glad we solved that. >You just don't want to.
It's not about being coddled. it's not about double standards. It's about a very simple fact: >you just don't want to. Exercise is scientifically proven to improve mood, physical health, mental health, emotional health, sexual health, and increase life expectancy. >Not terribly interested in this stuff Oh. OK.
>>16853827 Yeah, guys on /r9k/ like to go on and on about hypergamy or whatever but there are tons of single girls out there looking for a relationship, they're just usually not the 7/10+ that most guys are looking for just like most single guys aren't the 7/10+ that most girls are looking for. Pretty much everyone is looking to play out of their league.
>>16854188 You seem a tad butthurt over the fact that not everyone wants to become a gym rat.
Just because somebody doesn't dedicate their life to exercise doesn't mean they are a worse person, and I've had plenty of interesting conversations with people who chose to pursue something else like an artistic, creative or professional endeavor over body building and getting all the hawt bitchez.
Where YOUR logic falls apart is that you assume that just because somebody doesn't work out regularly, it means that they don't work hard or have any value, period. But this is patently false.
>>16853823 Arguably "foreveralone" men are just as hypocritical as women who describe themselves as "foreveralone" despite having (undesirable) boyfriends, judging by what I've seen of /r9k/ most of them aren't that hideous looking, if they were truly that lonely and desperate for female companionship they'd have little difficulty finding a girlfriend if they were willing to date 300lb landwhales or mentally unstable single mothers
>>16854193 >Exercise is scientifically proven to improve mood, physical health, mental health, emotional health, sexual health, and increase life expectancy. >not everyone wants to become a gym rat. Keep twisting that logic. Keep intentionally misrepresenting. People can see what you're doing to avoid confronting the truth of the situation you know.
>Just because somebody doesn't dedicate their life One hour, 3-4 times a week is dedicated your life? Is your life only three to your hours per week long? I have 24 hours in just one day. Weird.
> it means that they don't work hard or have any value, period Nope, never said any of that. That's just you trying to twist your way out of the simple fact:
>You just don't want to.
>Exercise is scientifically proven to improve mood, physical health, mental health, emotional health, sexual health, and increase life expectancy. Why would a woman chose you over someone who has better physical, mental, emotional, and sexual health than you?
They wouldn't. Stop trying to twist it up with your silliness. You understand. Stop wasting your own time, for you own sake and accept what you can easily see is in front of your face.
Or you can keep calling me butthurt. It won't change who I am vs. who you are and what we get in real life.
>>16853951 Jesus, I'll take being lonely over being with any of the men in this thread, holy shit. Y'all ignorant. You want something badly enough, go fucking get it. You don't go get it? Guess you didn't want it, tough shit!
Personally, I like working, and I like making my own living without needing a man. It's nice to have one for the sex, as long as it's good, but a lifetime of being burned has made me incredibly wary and picky.
Guy I'm seeing now, well, I'm fucking done. I feel lonelier than I did when I was alone, so I'm peacing out.
>>16854193 To us "gym rats" people who complain about not being attractive to the opposite sex and yet refuse to take steps towards improving their physical attractiveness such as exercising are like people who complain about not having enough money to buy the shit that they want despite having ample opportunity to go and get a job to earn money to buy aforementioned shit that they want
>>16854206 it's usually the same guys who complain about "hurr women get all the guys I get no1 :((( they only want Chad" but refuse to get with, say, a chubby black girl. they do the exact same thing but refuse to acknowledge it
>>16854206 >"red pill" says that a woman will be happiest if she marries early and raises a family instead of having a career and that riding the cock carousel will eventually just make her a bitter and lonely spinster
>random femanon posts about how having a career and a lifetime of sleeping around has made her jaded and lonely
>>16854231 my experience has been the opposite desu. work has made me more fulfilled than I can imagine, my coworkers are like my best friends, and if I want a boyfriend I've got options, but for now I'm enjoying taking it easy with guys. I used to be lonely as fuck but then I worked on self improvement, got back into kickboxing and self care, things like that. it's made everything so much better. you can change your life anytime, you just can't be a lazy shit that expects it to fall into your lap
>>16854205 >keep twisting that logic I never fucking denied the benefits of working out. But the fact that some anon said "eh, not big on that stuff" has you going on your little rant here is just laughable.
>people can see what you're doing lol
>one hour, 3-4 times a week is dedicated your life? You talked about guys who work out so hard that bitches "throw themselves at him". Here's a tip though, to get the type of shredded body that women really go nuts over, you're going to have to put in more than 3-4 generic workout routines a week unless you're already tall, well built and handsome.
>nope, never said any of that You implied it with your little ramblings about how anon is not terribly interested in going to the gym, therefore he's not interested in improving himself at all:
>In what? Improving yourself to the point that hot women throw themselves at you because they see how hard you work and the good result that it brings in your life?
>Why would a woman chose you over someone who has better physical, mental, emotional, and sexual health than you? I see women get with average looking guys all the time. Your entire premise is built around the idea that every woman ever has only ever cared about getting with a /fit/izen type of guy. But there's men everywhere short tall fat and skinny who have girlfriends, wives or otherwise fulfilling sexual lives.
>b-but women would STILL rather choose a fit guy over an out of shape guy!! All things equal? Sure. Here's the thing though, more often than not "all things equal" does not apply in the slightest. If gym-guy has anger issues and is somewhat of an alcoholic, he's not always going to be considered more attractive than a skinny fat guy who has it together and doesn't struggle with emotional issues.
>but science said that I'm telling you things I've seen play out in real life. Take that as you will.
>who I am vs. who you are Someone with a superiority complex because he works out. K
>>16854255 >I understand the appeal, but looking fit is not an ultimate measure of attractiveness, and there are other ways of getting food than money.
This is exactly what I'm getting at. A variety of things make a guy attractive. Confidence, wit, humor, intelligence etc. all play a role.
I'm not even suggesting it's a bad idea to work out but anon jumped to all sorts of conclusions when other anon said he's not terribly interested in working out, which is why I called him out on his incredibly narrow view of people.
>>16854254 >>16854255 You are both missing his point. Although he also didnt really made a good job explaining his point of view.
Working out was only one example where you could put in work. There are plenty more! Build a stable career, be as creative as possible and share your creativity with others, learn to be charismatic and a good talker, do some other sports that you could like, maybe a teamsport and become a teamplayerguy, join a band(learn an instrument first), improve in that aspect of life you think is most important to yourself and your goals. Pick one, two or everything from above, pick stuff that isnt on this list. You need to do stuff to get stuff, its that simple.
>>16854295 >Working out was only one example where you could put in work. Which is what I said, here: >I've had plenty of interesting conversations with people who chose to pursue something else like an artistic, creative or professional endeavor over body building and getting all the hawt bitchez.
All I got from his post was that working out is the only sensible way to get women and if you disagree you're in denial.
I hate to admit it because I usually picture myself as aloof and ultimately flexible, but fuck me I've been lonely lately. It's even worse now because I'm stationed way away from home, and yes there's cool friends to make, things to do on weekends, family back home to face time with, but I can't help my lonely itch. Wtf is wrong with me?
>>16854180 >Are you going to the gym 3-4 times a week, researching routines on the interest, cooking food, researching nutrition, and learning how to perform maintenance on your body? >Not terribly interested in this stuff, I'm happy where I'm at. >I do understand how women can have a double standard that they demand this when they themselves aren't willing to put in the same. How many "No Fat Chicks" T-shirts do you own, I wonder?
>>16853823 I see ugly 3/10 guys with solid 8/10 girls all the time. Maybe your personality just blows. Women go for funny and friendly guys, whose personalities make them become attractive. I didn't find my bf attractive at all until he made a particular joke, that I can't even remember now, and I realized how clever he is and suddenly I got wet every time I saw him.
Ug, I actually read the entire thread. Look, "personality is more important" is wrong. Girls are crying about how they don't want some rich muscley chad and the problem is "men don't want to be men these days". Guys are telling other guys to "try harder" and "practice socialising". That's bullshit.
Males, you want female attention, increase your money and your looks. Girls are going to jump on me and say they value confidence, humor, charisma, "personality". YOU CAN'T HELP THAT. A boring/creepy/shy/low-self-esteem guy will never change. If you COULD change your personality, then there wouldn't be any losers right?
When you get out of retail and enter the real workplace you'll get it, you'll start noticing that people in their 30s, 40s and even 50s do things that seem like a middle school kid. Because people don't change.
So for the lonely girls, fuck off. You say you'd accept a less attractive guy as long as he acts like the perfect BF, but all the good-personality guys are already taken and there won't ever be any more. Lonely guys, make good career choices and start bulking, eventually a girl will look past your spergs.
>>16854345 >you assumed because Anon doesn't want to be in the gym, he isn't interested in bettering himself period. But is that assumption incorrect? That's the real question. Few people who neglect their bodies are ever interested in putting in the effort to maintain or improve much if anything else.
Not going to read every post. However, I'd like to throw in my 2 cents to all you lonely dudes.
( I'm not posting a pic as I have a professional job and don't need co-workers knowing I visit 4chan. )
I've been told I'm a 9/10 or 8/10 and a few 10/10s. By women. Many women, will flirt with me and such. Now here's the kicker. I'm a-sexual, ( not just saying I am... I REALLY am. ) ... I have zero sexual interest, doesn't mean I don't enjoy looking at hentai / porn / erotic drawings writings. But when it comes to my own needs. I can jack off and be fine for months. I only jack it for health reason frankly.
Its pretty sad to see how angry everyone gets over lack of girlfriends or boyfriends. As some might say ( I'd be swimming in pussy. ) ... But I just don't care, want or need it to live and be happy. Sucks for all of you wanting sex so bad you dwell into a depression of self hate and anger, when life has so many other interesting fun things to experience.
You can get the same sensations you gain from orgasm if you find the right hobbies or things to do. I've had better and bigger pleasure from sky diving for example or rock climbing. Then thinking of dunking my dick in some girls pussy. Seriously...
Fuck girls if that's how they make you feel. Why give them more power?
But do whatever you want. Its just a suggestion. There's more things worth doing than dwelling on something that dominates your own ego.
>>16854605 Haha those are just the girls with really high standards though, and those are also the girls who are at least 7/10. There are a lot of lonely, average looking girls who probably have too low self esteem to even consider making a profile. They just stay low and hidden
>>16855187 It can't hurt. I've met shorter guys than me (I'm 5' 5") with money and muscles. No hint of any napoleon complex or self-esteem issues from them either. It can be done and it's totally worth it.
>>16854124 >Anthropologic studies have shown that in the stone age and before, most males (84% if i remember correctly) didn't get to reproduce. They haven't. Women are certainly more selective than men, on average, and higher-status individuals always have been and always will be more reproductively successful (again on average), but the current thinking is that prehistoric bands were substantially more egalitarian than that. So are most h/g bands today. So, for that matter, are most chimpanzee communities! The trends you're talking about do exist, but both human and primate mating strategies are substantially subtler and more complex than you're giving us to believe. In fact, there's recent evidence suggesting that agriculture and stratified society may have substantially reduced reproductive equality for men!
I'm not trying to be belligerent, but I'm curious what studies you're referencing, how recently they were done, and by whom. Our picture of prehistoric society is constantly changing and has seen some dramatic upheavals in the past couple decades.
>>16853873 >someone jumps into a thread with no idea and assumes something I've not been to this board for very long but it's really starting to remind me what normal people are like. Doesn't think before they open their mouths. And you had to enter a captcha.
>>16854870 >There are a lot of lonely, average looking girls who probably have too low self esteem to even consider making a profile. They just stay low and hidden Except there are still a ton of lonely average looking girls on dating site.
>>16854353 That's the way it worked in Scandinavia. The 'husmor' is in charge of hiring staff for a farm and everything except for the direct day to day control of farmhands. Usually a position that commands respect and has a lot of control concerning finances and decisions. Generally she also did housework since management wasn't a full time endeavor. She also decided on the social and political stances in the house. Since society has moved away from the kind of family structure that demands management like that the duties are more about housework than anything. And eventually the modern day where for no reason other than sexism housewives are looked down upon.
As if it's not a perfectly valid choice and has major statistical advantages when it comes to family planning matters. Fairly rare to be able to support a household on one wage now.
>>16855943 >So lover means consumer... By your definition, I suppose that's exactly what it means, but women don't want to be co sumed in that way. To use another set of metaphors, they want partners, not patients. They are not interested in being your manic pixie dream girl who shows you how to live. Are you really that disposable?
>>16855187 >Self improvement only works if you're average/slightly below average. If you're a 5'1'' ugly manlet with social anxiety no amount of self improvement will save you. Your defeatist attitude hurts your chances of dating far worse than any of the others, followed by your social anxiety, your looks, and your height, in order of decreasing severity. The first three are all fixable. Your wounds are almost entirely self-inflicted.
Go on 4chan. >dude only the hottest guys get le gurlz!!! >gurlz all want le same guy!!!! Go outside. >fat, scrawny, 4/10 males holding hands with decent looking babes and vise versa >short guys chatting girls up in bars and going home with them
>>16854295 I'm someone whos about to finish biz school, am currently a bass player in 2 bands, have been playing hocky sice I could walk, cycling, gunsmith/shooter, has 30k inna bank at 22y/o not counting stocks and bonds, and got to sit at the table with the company prez, cfo, and other important mafuckas last week, why have I never been able to get a girlfriend? I don't go arround flaunting all this shit, but even my friends are starting to be shocked Im going to turn 23 with my virginity.
>>16857502 2, I've always have been friendzoned. I'm just an average looking czech/welsh dude. The problem probably is my fraternal twin is better looking and better at hockey and music than me. Dude gets girls thrown at him but his problem is he is some moralfag who wants a nice innocent girl.
>>16857546 >it does not exist. It does, in a sense: there are certainly a lot of lonely men out there, and it's pretty easy to argue that there are a lot more of them than there used to be. But the real epidemic is of undateability: the NEETs and shut-ins, the redpillers and MGTOWs, and the creepers and manchildren. These are people who are not ready for relationships or even sex, but hormones being what they are, they obsess and whine to no end. They are aware they don't measure up, but literally cannot see themselves doing anything about it -not because they can't do it, but because they just don't want to- and so they go about blaming everyone and everything but themselves. Which, of course, makes them even less desirable. And this really HAS reached epidemic status.
>>16857634 >They are aware they don't measure up, but literally cannot see themselves doing anything about it -not because they can't do it
Why do you assume that there's always a solution for everyone? Do you really believe that any life is salvageable? In many cases, they don't measure up due to factors that are either genetic, or were determined during adolescence and can't be changed. If these people felt that there were real solutions to their problems that are realistically achievable for them, then they would love to have them.
It's kind of a numbers problem too. There has always been a bunch of people, male and female, who weren't getting laid/married. Even the ones that were getting married, it was to the daughter of one of the other serfs who was probably a 5/10 aka average at best. Only an irresponsible father would marry his daughter to someone who couldn't support a family and/or didn't bring any resources into a family alliance. Plus, since families were large, it was efficient to keep a couple of unmarried old maids around to take care of the parents when they got old, or nurse the sick, or basically be an unpaid house slave until they died, if they didn't have any good prospects. Then, from the prehistoric times through the Middle Ages and even up until the Victorian period, there were always plenty of wars and conflict to "burn off" the excess male population. This would hit the lower status males the worst, since it was generally frowned upon for non-officers to be married. Now that we don't have those systems in place, all of the old maids that would have stayed home to take care of their parents/relatives and the unmarriagiable guys that would have bit the dust in some war or been a shepherd or sailor in the middle of nowhere, are still around to bitch on the internet about "tfw no gf/bf".
>Women are naturally selective and have high standards for physical attraction/sex >Men naturally like to fuck a lot of women, and are less selective than women >Men and women can generally have casual sex without any real negative personal consequences >The most attractive guys have no reason to limit themselves to only one woman
>>16857634 >talking shit about MGTOWs when they are doing you a huge favor by telling you to self improve and warning you that the dating game is rigged against you.
MGTOWs exist to study female nature and to spread the knowledge. After that is up to you to decide what you do with that knowledge and we do this because we generally care about men because men are committing suicide at an alarming rate by marring women.
>>16857674 >easy to argue but fundamentally untrue. Then where have all of these men been for the last ten thousand years? That's as far back as we have records, and they contain nothing like this. Ever. Anytime. Anywhere.
>>16857727 >Why do you assume that there's always a solution for everyone? Do you really believe that any life is salvageable? Partly because people have agency. They can and do, through their choices, make meaningful changes on their lives and their environments.
Partly because love and atteaction are complex things. Literally anything can be compensated for, and that can be done in myriad different ways. >In many cases, they don't measure up due to factors that are either genetic... ...and less impactful in this day and age than at any other time in history...
>... or were determined during adolescence and can't be changed. They can be. All of them.
>If these people felt that there were real solutions to their problems that are realistically achievable for them, And that, right there, is the "realistically achievable" but. They are, indeed, realistically achievable. Outside the comfort zone, yes, but that is not the same as unrealistic, and it is certainly not an excuse.
>>16857666 >Are you sure it's men that are bitter, or are you just buying into "junk stats"? Are you honestly trying to tell me that men are not bitter? I hate telling people to open their eyes, but for the love of God, man, open your eyes. This very thread reeks of bitterness, and there are dozens like it on this board. Hundreds, if you expand it to the whole site. Reading this thread, you stand in the center of a hurricane of bitterness, so thick you could eat it with chopsticks, and you tell me that men are not bitter?
>>16857900 >it is always the opposite the guy is usually the most attractive in the relationship or the same level of attractiveness. Dennis Kucinich. Celine Dion. Literally any supermodel. Thousands of others. You lose.
>>16857813 >MGTOWs exist to study female nature and to spread the knowledge. They exist to make shit up, blame women for their own failure, and sink into a quagmire of self-pity. Their message is fundamentally poisoned by its raw narcissism; we may coincidentally agree that self-improvement is a good and necessary thing, but they are no allies of mine.
>>16853992 >>16854006 >>16853992 >>16854014 i often observe that girls are with guys below their attractiveness level. unless you have self confidence, (shocker) you tend to not think you're hot. people get with partners who are thought to be good matches.
All sorts of people are bitter when it suits them. But are you certain that it's not you in this instance? Because so far you're just rejecting statements that don't seem to appeal to your agenda without making any sort of argument to justify your prejudice.
>>16853823 Because you're only looking at cute girls. Of course cute girls will never be lonely. All men want them, after all.
But once you look at the ugly, fat, annoying women, you'll see the majority of them are either complaining about being lonely, settling for whoever can take them, or just giving up and shipping gay guys in whatever series or anime they watch.
>>16854295 Can people be shy without it being a personal problem? (inb4 pointing out i'm being pedantic) >>16854455 https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/humor-sapiens/201504/good-in-bed-funny-men-give-more-orgasms
The purpose is to help relieve confusion. The Disney story which leads many men to unwittingly enter into a Bad Deal (marriage or other heavily-invested relationships) is fueling suicide rates as per >>16857813
There isn't a solution to hypergamy because it isn't a problem. It's a logical decision for females to make give the circumstances.
The problem is the delusions that enable these circumstances and the cowardice of all of us to stand up to it. After all, challenging the status quo is dangerous.
Live comfortably and contribute to death and destruction of humanity, or stand up and face adversity from that same thankless humanity in order to benefit all. It doesn't seem like there's no logical choice here, but I think one of them resonates more with each of us, and that's nature.
>>16853823 There is. But men and women go about solving this problem in two very different ways that are more self destructive for men than they are for women outside of the most outlandish and disgusting situations. Men are also more likely to just fucking end it brutally, whereas women linger. Men are also more likely to complain about loneliness, where women are more likely to complain about bad relationships. It's a weird paradox.
>>16854455 We find people we imagine superior to be funny as a defense mechanism in hopes that they won't commit violence against us. Either that, or we have an arbitrarily developed framework of personal humor, which you don't. Your bf isn't actually funny at all. It's good that you're able to find a positive way to view someone so evidently intimidating though.
>>16858495 Not always. I have a nice guy now who is wonderful. The key is him not fawning all over me like a little bitch and doing everything for me. That's where the "nice guys" go wrong- they're TOO nice. Women don't want to be treated like goddesses graced from heaven all of time, except for the ones that you don't want to be with anyway.
>>16858558 >I have a nice guy, and I admit he is wonderful, probably more than any of my competitors could gain, but he still needs to validate himself because there are always options.After all, I could use the "TOO NICE" excuse if it becomes inconvenient...
>>16854651 Maybe people just want intimacy with another human being you soulless freak. It's not about the orgasms, otherwise apes would have gone extinct the moment their arms were long enough to reach their genitals
>>16858139 >All sorts of people are bitter when it suits them. But are you certain that it's not you in this instance? I would certainly hope not, seeing as I've got almost no skin in this game. I was a creepy kid, but I came to my senses in high school. Fucking sucked. But I got myself a girlfriend, I survived all of college with her long-distance, and we've been happily married ever since. I've got no reason to be bitter.
But I could certainly have taken that path. This was back before terms like redpill and MGTOW were even coined, but I see people here every day who are where I was before I woke up. Often they even use the same words. That's why I come here: I'm under no illusions about saving souls, but a nudge is still useful.
>>16859682 >hypergamy is a problem, it could be nullified by getting us back to arranged marriages. The Western world abandoned arranged marriage as a common practice centuries ago: long before the so-called "hypergamy" "problem" ever took shape. You are barking up the wrong tree entirely if you are looking for causes or solutions to your undateability.
>>16859248 >Maybe people just want intimacy with another human being you soulless freak. Maybe, but not the people whining about this sort of thing. They're quite keen on sex, of course, but intimacy? That's for beta cucks.
>>16858495 that is true nice guys are not going to giver her the drama she craves and she wants a guy who is unpredictable like a bad boy. also the bad boy will not be afraid to initiate sex and give her rough sex. If I was you I would just continue to ignoring nice guys they have nothing to offer but kindness. you ladies need a bad boy who is going to fuck you rough and give you excitement.
Creepy is code word for unattractive. You still haven't made any attempt to substantiate your position.
But if you have a gf, I do understand the motivation to keep up appearances. I would say you're doing everyone a disservice by doing so, but your blatantly dishonest approach (repeatedly avoiding subjects) should give anyone reading this a pretty good idea of the nature of your message.
>>16853823 Militant feminism and male shaming happened.
A bunch of delusional, fat, ugly liberal cunts decided that it's a guys fault for not wanting to have their beef queefed inside a hamplanet hogmonster' nasty sweaty unshaven meatflaps. So they collectively began a perma-period and began to punish men in general with marches, campaigns and the Internet.
Now boys are taught that it's ok to be sensitive and cry, wear guyliner and grow their hair long, consider their sexuality "fluid", while being taught that traditionally manly characteristics and traits are to be shunned or even feared, such as growing facial hair, working on and driving fast cars, weight lifting or hunting. Problem is that most girls actually like the idea of being protected and lost in a man's masculinity, so they shy away from feminine guys.
TL;DR modern day guys are pussies so man up. Girls already have one pussy and don't need another
>>16854156 This. I don't think it has anything to do with women only wanting to be with guys that are "chads" (fuck /r9k/ for even coining this term, it's a fucking stereotype). You simply have to give off an aura of confidence and not be a complete social fuckup, which comes with experience.
Most people here like to pretend that they are looking for something real, but in reality they have poor self-esteem, a negative outlook on life, and hunt after girls that are physically attractive/communicate with them because they are desperate. That, or they have have a cringeworthy, idealistic view of relationships.
I go to the gym. I go outside and do things with my friends. I play a sport and have hobbies that require human interaction. I am more focused on the future, who I want to become and what I want to accomplish, more than what is going on around me now.
Low self-esteem destroys potential. Having faith in yourself, dispipline, and dedication to achieving your goals even when others don't will take you far.
Most women and men are insecure. If you are able to analyze your own thought processes, see how they influence your subconscious, and putting your effort into stomping them out will put you ahead of them. Not only that, but it will improve your personality and make you much more attractive as well.
You don't have to be good looking to be attractive (with the right makeup and demeanor, Ive seen average looking girls shoot up a few points in my eyes and are more appealing than a physically beautiful girl who is unconfident in herself in my eyes).
Sure, I have better genetics than most. Then again, I may be lying about that and its just my ego/warped sense of self-perception telling me that. Or its just the result of the effort that I have put into improving every aspect of myself.
Improving yourself isn't about changing what you say, its about changing the easy you feel and ACT.
It doesn't matter who you are, but you must work hard and set yourself apart.
>>16860269 One of my best friends is 5'5" and has a golden personality. He's a smart person, gives the impression that he does not care what other people think of him, and is just a great guy to be around in general. He's with one of the most attractive girls that I have ever met, and they have been with each other for several hours a day the past year. She just happens to be short, too.
>>16860337 Why the fuck do you care what other people think? Insecure people will always be insecure people unless they change on their own, if they want to be jealous of you then just let them feel inferior. You know why? Because you know you would've worked hard for it and earned it.
>>16860361 >Height is very low on the list of things that make up a guy's attractiveness. It's not the be-all-end-all as these self-defeatists make it out to be, but it is important. Being tall is the ideal. However, you can still be attractive even if you're short if you're adequate in other areas.
>>16853873 That statement is only valid in a society that enforces female chastity and monogamous marriage. Bereft of those conventions we become more like most animal populations, where a small minority of the top males monopolizes virtually the entire female breeding population.
>>16860382 It's not even in the top 10. The important things are confidence, being interesting, funny, successful, having good style/hygiene, good looks (yes, face trumps height every time), not being a jerk, and so on. All a lot more important than height.
>>16853823 >Male Loneliness You are joking, right?
Women have created a massive fucking minefield of social nonsense. Combine that with the NSA quick hook up culture and it is a fucking recipe for disaster.
Also we have a growing number of people who were children from divorce families. Do you honestly know what family fragmentation does to a child? It screws them up, that's what it does.
We have a generation of men who were raised in divorced households or from women who were single mothers; some have wised up and swore off even having kids as a result knowing that their own kids and themselves would have to deal with the Child Support and Alimony BS.
>>16860424 Why does your single personal anecdote conflict with everything I've heard women say about height, and every statistical figure I've seen in regards to the relationship between height and attraction?
>>16860440 In every survey or study I've seen, the majority of women consistently prefer taller men. In every video I've seen where they go around asking random girls about height, they all say that they want a tall guy. I've spoken to many short dudes who've talked about how they've been turned down over their height and had girls tell them "He'd be great if he was taller".
>>16860449 You're the same faggot who keeps posting this shit on other boards too.
>I'm a loser only because of my height! >m-m-muh studies! >i-i-it's anecdotal evidence if it goes against my beliefs!
No matter how many times you are shown successful good-looking short guys vs awkward virgin lanklets, you refuse to see what's right in front of you. All because of one reason: because if you admitted that height isn't such a big deal, it would mean you would also have to admit the reason why you're a complete failure is your own doing, and not something you can't control.
Just do us all a favor and cut off your balls already. You're not a man. You're a mouse. You have chosen to be a failure in life, so live with the consequences instead of trying to lump yourself in with all the successful short guys out there.
>>16860405 I would much rather be my short good-looking self than an ugly lanklet.
I am successful in life and with girls. Maybe it's you who are doing something wrong? And before you go all anecdotal evidence, it's yours that is anecdotal. You're a loser in life and with girls, and decided it must be because of your height. Seriously, your desperation and mental issues shine through your posts. You must be even more insufferable in real life. Nobody likes whiny cunts like you. That's why you are alone.
That being said it's never too late to change. Man up. Or if that's too hard see a therapist.
>>16860566 Bullshit. I've formed my point of view from seeing how women have interacted with the majority of short dudes I've met, as well as what I've heard from the mouths of plenty of women themselves. The ones who would ever consider a short guy are far few in-between.
>>16860569 He told me that he was short and it wasn't a big deal. I made the short thing not seem as important as some of my other issues, but I will bring it up again and stress how important it is when I get the chance. I din't know what a therapist could tell me to make me feel better. It won't change the fact that being short makes me undesirable to a good three quarters of women, to estimate that conservatively.
>>16860576 Why can't you just accept the fact that the reason girls find you unattractive is because you are a massively desperate, whiny annoying faggot? No girls will find the behavior you're showing anything but repulsive.
>>16860595 So in real life you act confident and positive? Hahahaha. No, your desperation is like an aura that girls sense from far and stay away.
Again, why can't you accept the fact that your desperation is what makes you unattractive? Explain why girls find me, a short guy, attractive. Explain what makes me different from you. Why I am successful and you a failure.
>>16860609 Not that OP, but..You can be short and good looking. A lot of females who wouldn't date a short guy would be willing to overlook it if he's fit/good looking. But average and short is going to put a lot more strain on things. I've spoken to plenty of girls, seen plenty of dating profiles outright stating they wouldn't date a man shorter than them/less than 6ft.
I wouldn't say that being short completely stops the ability to date, but it is something that works against a male.
The biggest thing for females, is face. Face trumps all. Then body, then height.
>>16860630 Pure bullshit. As a short guy, I may be able to have some luck with girls, but they will likely be fat and desperate, and thus, not able to be as choosy as their more attractive counterparts.
Being short is literally the male equivalent of being a fat chick.
>>16860655 Being 30, I've probably fucked more women than you have, because I understand how dating actually *works*. It's all shallow and superficial. If you believe confidence will get you laid, you're a fucking idiot that doesn't understand the game at all and naively believe that you got these chicks because you were "confident". Confidence only comes into play once you've passed that fuckable bar.
You might as well put down getting laid to your horror-scope or jedi mind tricks, because that's how fucking stupid it is. Why am I saying jedi mind tricks? Because that's exactly what it is, "You will fuck me tonight" he said, waving his hand in a cocky manner and the weak willed woman obeyed. Lmao. Seriously, I can't make this shit up.
>>16860660 >he claims to be short and get girls >he must be a liar because it would shatter my worldview and make me look like a loser!
Whatever. You have chosen a life of loneliness. You live in constant fear. If you only shut your eyes and ears and pretend that no short guys can ever get laid, it will remain true in that sad little bubble you live in.
>>16860673 I wasn't whining. Merely stating. But, if we're going to talk about that, then the same can be said about fat chicks. Who apply the double standard of not wanting to date fat guys, but expect fitter guys to date them. Which is why all dating comes down to being shallow.
>>16860672 I'm older than you, have possibly fucked more girls than you, and fail to see your point. Being confident is important and does make you more attractive, but of course it's not the only thing. Being insecure, on the other hand, is a guaranteed way for you not to get laid.
>>16860681 I very much doubt that. I'm not even going to enter into a pissing contest about this, so lets just drop it there.
My point is, that confidence isn't a jedi mind trick. If you're fat, ugly, short, or have any physical limitations, being confident is not going to get you laid. People need to stop treating confidence as this magic pill you swallow that will solve all your problems in the dating game. It doesn't. Looks come first, status/power/wealth, then finally confidence/personality comes into play. If you don't have any of the first 4, all the confidence in the world isn't going to get you laid.
>>16860710 Nope. I never said you wouldn't be able to get laid because you are short. But your options are significantly reduced because you are short. There are girls who will not date you because of your height. That is fact. It cannot be debated. Confidence is not going to help you overcome that if the girls are not interested.
Confidence only comes into play if the girl sees you as potential. For you to have potential, she needs to find you physically appealing, or have something she's drawn to, like having status/power/wealth.
From the way some people speak about confidence, it should trump all and be the most important factor of getting laid. It's not.
>>16860722 >Here is my unfounded opinion >It's a fact >It cannot be debated
You must be fun at parties. There is nothing to debate indeed because your entire premise is wrong. You claim falsehoods as facts. I don't know why it makes you so much butthurt that a short guy can get pussy. Did manlet take your oneitis away from you, or why are you so angry?
>>16860698 Lol... are you stupid? Confidence and good personality contribute heavily to ones attractiveness. Looks pretty much only come first for purely superficial people at the beginning of their trial and error stages.. if they aren't dumb they'll put something else as a priority pretty quickly. All the forever friendzoned fools.. they are at this stage in life and it sounds like you are too.
Hot girls out there are lonely and posting selfies in their underwear all over social media for attention because they're looking to date guys as hot as them, but the sexual revolution has led to guys being able to get sex from them without committing because girls literally "put out easier". So the girls are losing out and being lonely despite being hot
Meanwhile many guys are becoming victims of this liberal nampy pamby "raised by a single mother" culture going down in the west, growing up to be in touch with their emotions, caring, focusing on things other than themselves
Which sounds nice, until you realize these are the "Nice guys" so vilified by women in pop culture. Meanwhile the comparitively fewer guys that remember how to be a traditional man (Self serving, confident, go getter, productive, aggressive, aka "Chad Qualities") are getting all the attention for themselves
But theres no reason to be bitter about the fact that despite it being a lonely revolution, women still get more attention
Because ironically, women are stuck and cant change their situation. Victims of their own success, they're still slaves to the whims of the hot men they lust after
Guys on the other hand can self improve. You can GET hot. Work on yourself. Go gym, get some fun hobbies that get you outta the house, do whatever you can to make new friends to expand your social circle
And learn to act like a chad. And a guys situation can change
The idea that any woman can get laid but not any man is stupid and relies on a double standard. Any woman can get laid... if she doesn't care about who she's fucking. Any man can get laid if he doesn't care about who he's fucking too. If you have no standards, you'll find someone who's willing to fuck.
But of course men don't want to sleep with hambeasts, so they complain about not being able to get attractive women. But then get mad at women for having endless sex available to them because women can fuck any neckbeard they want, as if women want to fuck neckbeards any more than men want to fuck hambeasts.
>>16860752 The "nice guys" villified in pop culture are selfish dicks who pretend to be nice to get someone to do something for them and turn hostile if it doesn't work. They aren't hated because they're genuinely nice.
>>16860761 1. No, I'm attractive. Consistently rated 8/10. But I also look young for someone who's 20, which may be a turn-off.
2. I don't know. I'm pretty sure I don't act like that at all, and the only thing preventing me from having fun is introversion. I went on a date one time in my life and had a ton of fun, but I'm anxious about going into those sorts of interactions.
3. No. I'm going for any girls who are not overweight and at least 5/10. I'm afraid that if I end up with someone who's 5'2", I'll have short kids with the same insecurities as me. Why would I want to put them through that? Ideally, I would like a tall girl so I can have a normal-sized kid.
>>16860739 >Nu uh, you're wrong. I have no reasons why you're wrong, but you're wrong!
If you think out of a planet with billions, millions and millions of females won't fuck a guy because he's too short, or too fat, or too ugly you're living on another planet, bro. Keep thinking that "confidence" (AKA JEDI STATUS, the ability to get people to do what you want with a frame of mind) is what matters, lol.
Show me where I said "a short guy can't get pussy". I said that
Maybe you should stop watching the romcoms and live in the real world if you think good personality is what REALLY lands females, lol. Additionally, I was talking about getting laid. A relationship is a different ball game entirely.
>>16860782 > How often do you actually seea couple where the girl is significantly taller than the guy?
I see them once in a while. Nothing special about it. You never leave your home, do you? Because it's as if you have never talked to people and don't even know the basics of how people socialize. Either way, you are just one pathetic sheeple if you think that tall girls belong to tall guys only.
>>16860791 >Maybe you should stop watching the romcoms and live in the real world if you think good personality is what REALLY lands females, lol. That's funny, because the only one here spouting rpmcom bu;lshit is you.
>Additionally, I was talking about getting laid. A relationship is a different ball game entirely. There was a time when that might have increased the size of your dating pool. Those days are over. Now you'rw just a creep.
>>16860825 >That's funny, because the only one here spouting romcom bullshit is you Really? Personality is what wins over looks? And that isn't romcom?
"No, u" isn't really a valid form of debate, btw.
>>16860827 Keep saying I'm wrong with nothing backing it up except from petty ad-hominems and "I'm wrong." Present a reason as to why. If you're incapable of doing that, fuck off. Repeating that I'm wrong with another "Virgin" insult is about the only thing you can post.
>>16860834 If you claim something to be an undeniable fact, then post irrefutable evidence. Go ahead. Prove to us that short men have only a tiny fraction of the dating pool available and that confidence does absolutely nothing.
If this were a fact and not an opinion, surely this would be easy for you.
>>16860838 Since we're talking about a subjective topic, that would be impossible to provide proof. However, simply denying that out of a planet with billions that people will get rejected based on physical attributes goes beyond mere idiocy. It shows complete ignorance towards the world. It's why people who fat aren't as successful at dating compared to people who are in shape. That's proof, take it for what you want.
Now again, show me reasoning as to why I'm wrong. If you're incapable of doing that, admit you can't and fuck off.
>>16860857 Yawn. You ask for proof, I give you proof. Now you're calling the proof anecdotal, despite it being a social experiment. I'm not the one grasping at straws friend, you are. You have yet to provide ONE reason why I'm wrong. Why don't you just admit you're wrong? It's not hard. You've provided nothing to refute my claims, you've gave no reasoning, the only reason you're even posting is because your pride does not allow you to admit you are wrong, because you've yet as said to provide ONE reason why I'm wrong. Seriously, swallow your pride and admit you can't, or provide a reason. I'm not interested in you ad-hominem me, or asking for more evidence. I'm asking for a clearcut reason as to why I'm wrong, despite providing proof for you that physical attributes matter. If you can't admit it, fuck off. Just stop embarrassing yourself by posting with nothing.
On the advice of our lawyers, we pause here for a mental-health notice. Tall men are invited to forge on, as are women (for whom it is weight, not stature, that is life's bane--but that is another story). Short men, however, proceed at their own peril. What follows will depress them.
Height discrimination begins from the moment male human beings become vertical. Give 100 mothers photographs of two 19-month-old boys who resemble each other closely, except that one is made to look taller than the other. Then ask the mothers which boy is more competent and able. The mothers consistently pick the "taller" one. As boys grow, the importance of height is drummed into them incessantly. "My, how tall you are!" the relatives squeal with approval. Or, with scorn, "Don't you want to grow up big and strong?"
Height hierarchies are established early, and persist for a long time. Tall boys are deferred to and seen as mature, short ones ridiculed and seen as childlike. Tall men are seen as natural "leaders"; short ones are called "pushy".
>>16860906 "If a short man is normally assertive, then he's seen as having Napoleonic tendencies," says David Weeks, a clinical psychologist at Royal Edinburgh Hospital. "If he is introverted and mildly submissive, then he's seen as a wimp."
Dr Weeks is 5'2", so he may have an axe to grind. But he can prove his point. Turn, for example, to the work of two American psychologists, Leslie Martel and Henry Biller, whose book "Stature and Stigma" (D.C. Heath, 1987) is especially useful.
Mr Martel and Mr Biller asked several hundred university students to rate the qualities of men of varying heights, on 17 different criteria. Both men and women, whether short or tall, thought that short men--heights between 5'2" and 5'5"--were less mature, less positive, less secure, less masculine; less successful, less capable, less confident, less outgoing; more inhibited, more timid, more passive; and so on. Other studies confirm that short men are judged, and even judge themselves, negatively. Several surveys have found that short men feel less comfortable in social settings and are less happy with their bodies. Dustin Hoffman, that 5'6" actor, is said to have spent years in therapy over his small stature.
>>16860909 The western ideal for men appears to be about 6'2" (and is slowly rising, as average heights increase). Above that height, the advantages of extra inches peter out, though very tall men do not, apart from hitting their heads, suffer significant disadvantages. And medium-sized men do fine (though they typically will say they would like to be taller, just as women always want to be thinner). The men who suffer are those who are noticeably short: say, 5'5" and below. In a man's world, they do not impress. Indeed, the connection between height and status is embedded in the very language. Respected men have "stature" and are "looked up to": quite literally, as it turns out.
One of the most elegant height experiments was reported in 1968 by an Australian psychologist, Paul Wilson. He introduced the same unfamiliar man to five groups of students, varying only the status attributed to the stranger. In one class, the newcomer was said to be a student, in another a lecturer, right up to being a professor from Cambridge University. Once the visitor had left the room, each group was asked to estimate the man's height, along with that of the instructor. The results are plotted in the chart above. Not only was the "professor" thought to be more than two inches taller than the "student"; the height estimates rose in proportion to his perceived status.
>>16860913 t is little wonder, then, that when people meet a famous man they so often say, "I expected him to be taller." If you still doubt that height matters, look around. At the palace of William III at Hampton Court, London, you will see door knockers above eye level: the better to make callers on the king (who was, in fact, decidedly short) feel, literally, lowly. Or sit across from your boss in his office, and see who has the higher chair.
Now the worse news
Perhaps heightism is just a western cultural prejudice? Sadly not. In Chinese surveys, young women always rate stature high among qualifications for a future mate. Indeed, the prejudice appears to be universal.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Thomas Gregor, an anthropologist at America's Vanderbilt University, lived among the Mehinaku, a tropical forest people of central Brazil who were amazed by such new-fangled gadgets as spectacles. Among the Mehinaku, attractive men should be tall: they are respectfully called wekepei. Woe unto the peritsi, as very short men are derisively called (it rhymes with itsi, the word for penis). Where a tall man is kaukapapai, worthy of respect, the short one is merely laughable. His lack of stature is a moral as well as physical failing, for it is presumed to result from sexual looseness during adolescence.
>>16860914 "No one wants a peritsi for a son-in-law," Mr Gregor writes. By many measures--wealth, chieftainship, frequency of participation in rituals--tall men dominate in tribal life. They hog the reproductive opportunities, too. Mr Gregor looked at the number of girlfriends of Mehinaku men of varying heights. He found a pattern: the taller the man, the more girlfriends he had. As he explained, "the three tallest men had as many affairs as the seven shortest men, even though their average estimated ages were identical."
He went on to note that the Trobriand Islanders of the Pacific, the Timbira of Brazil, and the Navajo of America were among the many other traditional cultures that also prize male height. "In no case have I found a preference for short men," he said. Among anthropologists, it is a truism that in traditional societies the "big man" actually is big, not just socially but physically.
>>16860834 >Really? Personality is what wins over looks? And that isn't romcom? >"No, u" isn't really a valid form of debate, btw. Neither is begging the question, but you seem to have no problem with that.
>>16860965 >What's the point of this thread? It's gone into full shitflinging mode long ago. That IS the point. Misogynistic assholes come in to vent their poison, and the rest of us work to contain it.
>>16861627 The term you're looking for is "misandrist". We see a few of those here from time to time, but they tend to avoid places like this, which should frankly come as no surprise. Especially on /adv/, most of the threads they post are asking how to get out of that trap. Misogynists are far, far more common around these parts. And that's not even getting into the honest androphobes and gynophobes, or others under the broader umbrella of sexism. We do occasionally get a misogynist asking how to get out, but they're rarer in absolute terms, and especially in proportional terms. If you want to see what a place full of misandrists looks like, see Tumblr; 4chan is many things, but Tumblr it ain't.
>>16861693 >people love women so much >that they come here to complain that they can't seem to get one to want them in return That's not love.
>If a person is a misog, they don't want anything to do with women. They'd rather burn their face off with acid than fuck their pussy. Not true, actually. It's quite possible to be attracted to something you hate, It happens all the time. This is only one common example.
>Calling people misogynists for being upset is retarded. Callong people misogynist for being upset is indeed retarded, at least on its face. Delve deeper into why they're upset, and you can sometimes make a stronger case. For example, blaming women for your own personal flaws.
>>16858558 Fuck you so much. >Whao this faggot is showing affection for me? What a dweeb. Can't he tell that he's supposed to pretend to be cold and aloof? Chances are he's just interested but doesn't understand that women are fickle whores who need to be treated in very specific ways or they'll lose interest and walk all over your heart. he'll probably behave like anyone else once you just get to know him.
>>16861873 >Then I got news for you honey, 90% of the world doesn't love. You really think you're normal, don't you?
Everyone wants conpanionshop, OP. Even most asexuals are not aromantic. But you depart from the norm in two very important ways One is that you conflate sex with relationships, to the point where you no longer make any distinction between them, as evidenced by the ways you speak of such things. By itself, that would not be so damning; certainly you would be far from alone. But then you take your obsession with having sex with women -which is not accompanied woth any interest in relationships- to degrees that are well beyond the norm. You're a cartoon villain: you fancy yourself to be the Beast winning love before the last petal falls, but you're really just Gaston minus the physique. You dream of Mario fighting through castle after castle for his princess, but you're far closer to Bowser.
>Go google "why I cant find a good man". Even an adjective like "good" implies an interest in men for something more than sex, which is more than can be said for the complaints we get. Most of those, if any descriptions are given at all, point back to nothing but raw sexual attraction. Even among those that pass this test, most don't get beyond wanting, not an intimate, equal partner, but a mother-figure or a manic pixie dream girl.
In what universe does it not make sense for women to run away from theae guys as fast as they can? These are the guys who turn psycho. These are the ones who get so desperate that they won't take being turned down for an answer. They're the ones who get so fixated that they turn possessive and controlling when relationships start. They're the ones so irresilient that become capable of anything to prevent a relationship from ending. And your every word and action betrays you as belong squarely to this group. This is why you get called creepy. And it's why you deserve it.
>>16861888 >Fuck you so much. >Chances are he's just interested but doesn't understand that women are fickle whores >You have no idea how much I hate you. You say you're not a misogynist, and then you turn around and spew these things that have no plausible interpretation other than rank misogyny. Is this supposed to be doublethink?
>>16861971 I never said that I wasn't a misogynist. I'm not a "nice guy" either. The reality of women has made me extremely bitter and cynical. I really do believe that women in general are soulless and stupid creatures who exist only to make me miserable.
Eh, there's plenty of angst directed towards both genders here in this thread and adv in general. I think calling it one way or the other is not taking into consideration the full spectrum of discussion.
More importantly, labeling like this seems to fuel the angst.
>>16862010 >40k per annum >gold digger No self-respecting gold-digger would aim for anything less than ten times that amount. The economy isn't in a great place right now, but it hasn't gotten THAT bad.
>>16862001 >The reality of women has made me extremely bitter and cynical. I really do believe that women in general are soulless and stupid creatures who exist only to make me miserable. Part of your problem is tge way you've reversed cause and effect.. The "reality" of women hasn't made you bitter and cynical; your bitterness and cynicism has distorted your perception of women.
And why is that? You reveal that in your other delusion: that women exist only to make you miserable. I doubt this is actually your literal belief, but even in the milder form I suspect you have, it's all about you. This is narcissism at its most sordid: rather than accept your own need to change and grow as a person, you twist reality just so you can stay in this miserable yet comfortable idea that you are somehow okay.
>>16853992 The difference is that women get a lit if average guys that are fully willing to work hard and sacrifice for her. A woman gets several 5-6/10 guys that would happy work so she never has too. Truthfully, these guys could probably be made into alpha males with little effort too.
Men get 3/10s. We get the mentally dull, the ugly or deformed, the mentally I'll, the used whores, and the single mothers. We get women that are a good margin below average. This isn't a case of a 6/10 getting with another 6/10, a lot of the times its a 6/10 getting pursued by a 3/10 or lower.
If you don't know why this is unfair then just think for a second. A man has to put extreme effort into exercise, diet, career, fashion, and his social life to be considered a dateable man. A woman just has to exist and not be disgusting scum.
Its too hard for men to get a reasonably attractive and loyal mate. That's why you see so many men just giving up.1
I can only say this so many times. Thank you based anon, women are literally incapable of realizing this. Women LITERALY think that everyone can get at least a 6/10 mate. That's like their version of a 1/10.
>>16862381 >This isn't a case of a 6/10 getting with another 6/10, a lot of the times its a 6/10 getting pursued by a 3/10 or lower No, it's a case of a 3/10 or lower getting pursued by girls in his league and refusing to believe it.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.