Are some guys just not meant to have a girlfriend?

>>18248473
I am willing to bet you simply haven't asked enough women out. Keep trying and come back after you have asked out at least 100.

>>18248473
correct

remember, in the grand scale of history, only 20% of men passed on their genes (compared to 80% of women)

Some people, as they are, are not capable of a relationship. Most have the potential and ability to improve themselves and get themselves together, but many never do, and there sadly are some people who just fundamentally can't formulate and/or sustain a relationship.

>>18248473

yes, there is a magical force out there that dictates whether or not you date. you figured it out. god is so bored he decided to make you stay single.

>>18248478
Citation needed

>>18248523
I was referring more to darwinism

>>18248524
Not him, he is only about half right. I looked into it and the numbers are more like 40/80 rather than 20/80.
>>18248532
If Darwinism is what you are worried about then fear not and rejoice. Liberal ideals and warning labels killed that concept. Darwinism died with the fascist powers in WW2 and the threat of mutually assured destruction during the Cold War. No more imperialism or conquest for the most part.

>>18248524
Not that anon but

>as for the 80%-40% numbers, admittedly those are chosen somewhat arbitrarily. It could have been 60%-30% or 70%-35%. The only definite thing was that twice as many previously living women as men have descendants alive today.

https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-family-tree/

>>18248532

no. darwinism does not define whether or not someone is 'meant' to have a 'girlfriend'.

some people are less apt to breed but its survival of the fittest.

consider the following
>there is a forest with moths, and all the moths have brown wings
>when they land on a tree they blend in and their predators (mostly birds) are not able to see them
>once in a while a white moth is born because of a genetic deviation, and they get easily eaten up as they dont blend in with bark
>so by the OP logic these moths are simply 'not meant to have a girlfriend'.
>but that logic is flawed
>once every 25 years or so the volcano near the forest goes off
>and large amounts of white volcanic ash cover the entire forest
>suddenly all the brown moths are not able to hide and they get eaten by birds
>the few and far between white moths now live long enough to reproduce and the majority of moths are now white, with only a few brown ones being born here and there
>so now the brown ones 'arent meant to have a girlfriend'
>this trend continues until all the ash is slowly blown away over the course of many years, and as more and more tree bark is exposed, more and more brown moths are able to exist, slowly taking over until there is no ash and no room left for white moths.

the point im trying to make here is that evolution is not some conscious being, nor is it some logical algorithm. it is like time, it itself is just a concept, some words we use to describe what is going on. we cannot say 'time is meant to move forward'. its literally just the way we chose to measure things.

cont

>>18248650

evolution is not about creating the perfect beings, humans are not the endgame of evolution, and it is not a force that stops people from casually dating in modern society. evolution/darwinism is simply small deviations in genetic code that survive because they are either better suited for the long term environment, thus beating out the others, or they are more suited to coming changes in environments.

furthermore humans have removed themselves from the food chain. darwinism is survival of the fittest, or 'natural selection' however we are now a part of whats called 'sexual selection' where a mans ability to breed (or simply 'get a gf) is based entirely on the human desire to have sex regardless of if that leads to children or just a night of fun.

modern western dating culture says that men cannot have multiple girlfriends, and while there are some slight deviations here of men 'sleeping around' it ultimately means that people can only have one actual dating partner at a time, and people tend to date within their 'league', if you put that idea on a scale it would essentially mean someone able to date within 'two points' of their rating.

for instance if you are a 5 then you would not just date fives, but a SIX if your needs happened to align or a 4 if you were willing to settle. look around and you'll notice this. fat chicks dating fat guys, and ugly guys dating ugly girls, and just slightly okay guys dating just slightly better looking women.

there are other variables as well, women tend to be a bit more emotional and often look for more support in a partner, so you might see hot chicks settling more often than guys because the girl will enjoy someone who not only takes care of them financially but also is good for them psychologically.

TL;DR the only reason you struggle to date is because you are waiting for someone way too hot for you to settle for you, and thats not going to happen. date down, not up.

>>18248651
>date down, not up.

You're talking about settling when it comes to choosing who you're gonna spend the majority of your time with, you should at least be with someone you're genuinely happy to be with. Don't settle, become good enough to get what you really want.

>>18248735

i actually agree with this, i mean there are limits to how good you can get, especially without compromising your sense of self.

but if you're gonna be whiny like OP then maybe settling is the answer.

>>18248735
>You're talking about settling
Not the guy you responded to, but here's how I feel about standards when it comes to dating.

First, you gotta look at what you're looking for in a partner. If you think your girl must be 10/10 hot, you need to rethink that standard--not because you can't get a 10/10 hot chick, but you just need to kind of look at it differently. Instead of saying "I gotta have a hot chick with blonde hair and a huge ass", say "I want someone I'm physically attracted to." It might seem like you're saying the same thing, but when you leave it as open as "physically attractive", you're working more on chemistry rather than her having specific qualities.

Many people who have standards and can't find people who are meeting them might need to reexamine their standards and redefine them in ways like that. Physically attractive, shares values that are important to me, more general stuff like that

>>18248739
>i actually agree with this, i mean there are limits to how good you can get, especially without compromising your sense of self.

I know, that's why I've never made getting a gf a priority. I know I won't settle, but I know I don't really deserve what I want either. So now I'm a 24 yo virgin, but I don't mind.

>>18248763

i wouldnt quite say its a matter of 'deserve' cuz that kinda invalidates the humanity of at least one of you. its really more of not being a match.

as a general rule its hot people with hot people, average with average, ugly with ugly, with little deviations for other stuff. it doesn't mean you don't 'deserve' someone attractive, the same way that your level of income doesn't really say you 'deserve' someone of higher income.

thats just me though.

>>18248651
>within two points
Nigga what you listed is just within one point. If you said "a SIX or SEVEN" and "3 or 4" instead of "a SIX" and "a 4" then your example would have made more sense.

Anyway, I'm not the OP, but the whole moth example made me feel a bit better about myself. I need to remember that evolution works in more than just one way.

>>18248473
No such thing as fate; it's all cause and effect.
If you're not getting the results you want, do something different. If you don't do something different, how can you expect anything to change?