Why do guys have such specific standards for girls but when a

is this what they call a strawman?

>>42777298

both shouldn't matter you shallow bitch lol

>>42777306
I think it's a little black girl

I think you'll find that men are way more flexible with their preferences.

>>42777298
No men have physical ideals that are very detailed because we are very visual when it comes to sexuality. We know what we like and are able to put together a complete list of physical traits that are +1s for women who have them.

That being said most of us will probably find you attractive enough to fugg and maybe even "love", if you are;

>not fat
>5-6/10 face
>decent hygiene
>no major physical deformities

That is way, way lower than the real life standards or laundry list of those women who qualify for the above list. I'm not saying it's wrong or bad, it's just how it is.

File: okcupid.png (77KB, 973x623px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 973x623px

Idk most of the data gathered indicates that girls have less realistic and narrower standards for men.

I've never seen a guy rattle off a very specific list of standards, I think most girls get the idea of these standards from stuff like photoshopped makeup and lingerie ads (which are made for them, not boys), and then project them scathingly onto men like they've somehow done something wrong.


I've heard of guys who like are attracted to all sorts of niches like muscle girls, amazons, fat girls, amputees, girls of all kinds of races. I've not once heard a single woman say she's attracted to short guys, I'm convinced it literally doesn't happen.

Most specifications men have can be fixed by the woman

Specifications that women have are usually out of the man's control.

>>42777639
You should really post whole studies, not just screenshotted excerpts from them.

The few I've seen demonstrate that women don't actually care as much about the physical looks, and message guys they don't rank as attractive too, whereas guys message the girls they ranked in the top third significantly more than the rest.

>I've not once heard a single woman say she's attracted to short guys, I'm convinced it literally doesn't happen.

Maybe if you spent less time interacting with strawmen on /r9k/ you'd find out that womens tastes are absolutely as varied as guys.

>implying anyone has just one pre-requisite for dating

I'm 6'3, fit blonde over blue. But that catch is I have a 5~6/10 face with no work put in, but 7~8/10 if I put effort it (hair, clothes, etc).
And I'm single. The only chicks that bite are legit ugly. Guys straight up don't bite (full homo).
Nobody has just one preference. They might find a tall guy, but they'll complain about money next. Same with dudes. They might have nice tits, but have a flat ass.
That's just how humans are. We don't realize what we have until it's gone; and "the grass is always greener on the other side."

>>42777776
>Maybe if you spent less time interacting with strawmen on /r9k/ you'd find out that womens tastes are absolutely as varied as guys.

I'm not really an /r9k/ loser, I've talked with a few girls about what they like (to the support of my current sentiments) and my girlfriend openly told me that the key feature that made me eligible for dating her was my height, yeah that board blows things way out of proportion, but they draw on the simple reality that women are across the board, in higher demand in the sexual marketplace and as a result can afford higher sexual standards.

I'm not really angry about it, if it's what they want, it's what they want. But it does leave a large margin of guys out of the equation who feel like life has cheated them, whether you blame them for it is up to you, but it's a problem nonetheless.

>>42777317
I believe nigress is the preferred nomenclature these days.

>>42777298
That's simply false.Most men are happy with a sentient being that has a female reproductive genital between their legs.That's why you see obese ugly women fucking and having relationships without much problems.
The same does not apply to men.
The women who say what you're saying usually want a Chad (a Bradd Pitt )and feel bad because they can't get him while he's fucking much more beautiful women, so they start whining about "muh high standards for women" which is simply absurd.
Sorry you are not enough for Chad. Maybe he will fuck you when he's drunk.

>>42777639
I've heard a 9/10 blonde hair blue eyes hottie say she prefers short guys. Too bad she died ;_;

>>42777896
>but they draw on the simple reality that women are across the board, in higher demand in the sexual marketplace and as a result can afford higher sexual standards.

You can't claim to be not be an /r9k/ loser and then say shit like that. No-one who's not one of those morons says "Sexual marketplace".

>>42777298

>it's a woman's choice to be fat
>it's a woman's choice to have manlet sons by breeding with manlets

I don't see what a guy has to do with any of these things.

File: 4.jpg (146KB, 1014x590px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1014x590px

>>42777298
>le higher standards for women maymay

Yeah...no

>>42777960
I've been on r9k for a grand total of like 5 minutes so I don't know what to tell you, now it really seems like you're the one making the strawman.

>>42777776
https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

>tinder data also replicates the 80%-20% meme.

Hmmm.

>>42777298

There is an ideal look for a woman, yes, but nearly all men are realistic about it. Just don't be fat, learn to flatter your natural looks with makeup and nice clothes, and grow your hair long. Outside of the worst outliers, this is possible for any woman alive to do with a little effort.

For men, height is one of the biggest factors, and we have no choice. Dick size matters, and we have no choice. We can't wear makeup, so we have to rely on our natural looks. Other things like money or muscle can be changed, but we're stuck with those traits. And women are less willing to settle for less than the best, until they're already old and busted.

>>42777298
>niggers

>>42777298
>Man: "Dont be fat"
>Women: "Dont be short"

Now one of these is actualy within your own control.

Guess who got the better end of the deal here

>>42777298
Because women aren't supposed to judge men by their physical appearance because men have personalities and status and they spend their lives building themselves up and improving their lives and the lives of the people they care about. Women don't have the luxury of favoring looks over things that are actually important. They need to choose men who can accomplish things with their lives and are competent enough to take care of all the little things that women are incapable of handsli on their own. From swinging a hammer around the house to defending your lives and property.

>>42778021

The person who isn't a nigger?

Just kidding, niggers aren't people!

>>42778027
But in the tinder age we live in, they do.

>>42778027
>handsli

handling*

>>42777995
>yfw the chad meme is real

>>42777298
>As a girl, I'm telling you that HEIGHT. DOES. NOT. MATTER. IF. YOU. HAVE. MONEY.


You stupid bitch

I'm one of the wealthiest posters on this board and I am over 6ft tall

Money means nothing without social skills

>>42777298
Literally the only standard for girls is "don't be morbidly obese" and even that barely matters.

>>42778034
They're fools and that's why we have a horrifying and growing percentage of unmarried adults and stagnant birth rates and a world filled with sad lonely fuckups.

>>42777298
I'm 6' 3 and won't date fats.

Where's your god now?

>>42777298
You have a point. If a girl isn't slim with big tits and ass, some guy is only settling for her. God forbid you don't have these traits during a night out.

>>42777639
I prefer short men, not necessarily shorter than me but in the 5'6-5'9 range.

File: 1469151055080s.jpg (4KB, 208x250px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 208x250px

>>42778091
>tfw still too short for someone who self proclaims they prefer short men

File: 1310483412100.jpg (36KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 413x395px

>>42777298
To me the funniest thing is when femlets think they are entitled to tall men.

Nothing funnier than a 5'2 midget saying she won't date anything under 6'

Golem get ye gone!

>>42777997
Sure you have buddy. Lookism and all those other shitty forums aren't any better than /r9k/, just so you know.

>>42777998
>First, the sample size is small (only 27 females were interviewed).
>Lying in this way is ethically questionable at best (and highly entertaining), but, unfortunately I had no other way to get the required data.


Hmm, sounds like a reputable and reliable study to me, what with it's whole of two dozen people interviewed, and clearly biased author.

He doesn't even say what it is that he did, just says he asked some people who liked an account some questions, then starts throwing around random numbers.

The study in >>42777995 is significantly better written, with a significantly better methodology (in that we actually know what it did).

>Retard from /r9k/ is more interested in confirming his bias than actually finding answers

Hmmmmmm.

>>42777639
We're not picky; we're wired more towards an R reproductive strategy and so pumping and dumping anything that moves works for us.

Women obviously have more to gain from being as selective about sperm donors as they can afford, hence their reproductive strategies being oriented towards superior genetics and good providers.

>>42778100
fucking this, midget women with the audacity to say they 'prefer' tall men are atrocious. they will only taint his lineage, they need to stick with the midget men.

>>42778125
The favored strat is to bear the child of a tall man while getting a short man to raise it.

>>42777298
This is bait bufukit

>I want you to be skinny
genetics makes it harder for some, but regardless it is possible to become skinny if you want it bad enough

>big ass
squat enough and you can have this

>big tits
if you care enough about your physical appearance its possible to get implants

>flat stomach
see first point

>I like tall boys
Literally nothing I can do about this other than extremely dangerous surgery

>>42777896
The nice thing about being a guy in the SMV marketplace is that if you keep on lifting and self-improving and advancing your career, once you hit your thirties and forties and are still reasonably fit, well groomed and reasonably high status and making decent money you are going to be a very hot commodity indeed and are going to be able to pick and choose in your own age cohort and pull lower age/higher ranked women more easily than men in their own cohort.

Makes me feel damn smug. Damn it's nice. Patience, young incels...

>>42777317
Ah, the ol' reddit switcharoo.

Itt OP is whore that can't be told.

File: gaben.gif (3MB, 480x292px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x292px

ignoring your straw man argument..

women's only two assets are their looks and how they perform as a caregiver. They're weaker physically, they under-perform in the work place, they are emotional, they are irrational, theyre needy, and all around just gigantic children and be should be treated as such. The horrible trade off in a relationship is that the man provides money, support, food, clothing, shelter, basically any and every good, as well as protecting the family and remaining to be attractive both physically and sexually to his wife, while the woman must be attractive and take care of the kids. Personally I'd also add that women must be there for emotional support for their husband as well, but seeing as that is subjective and modern women don't do that in the first place, we can leave that out.

cntd

What benefit would I confer by pretending to not go on /r9k/? They're already outspoken and eager to talk about how women won't fuck them and aren't exactly in any hurry to hide (this board was a cesspool of their whining at one point)

Sex and romance in general is a market, you can dress it up and tell fairy tales but at the end of the day people look for the best physical traits in a partner, and people who are generally more desired will have the elbow-room and fallback opportunities to do more picking and choosing.

>>42778232
Meant for
>>42778105

>>42778232
>What benefit would I confer by pretending to not go on /r9k/?

Looking less retarded? Not being lumped in with a board full of edgy whiny teenagers just looking for a way to be the biggest victims?

>Sex and romance in general is a market, you can dress it up and tell fairy tales but at the end of the day people look for the best physical traits in a partner

Wow anon, you should get that finding published, I'm absolutely sure that the psychological community of the world would be fascinated to hear how you've figured out what drives all intimate relationships.

File: punish.jpg (39KB, 252x223px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 252x223px

>>42778224
theres a lot to address here so I'll move to the height issue for a moment

While it is true that height is an important factor in attraction for females, it is also genetic and not something you can change. So while you might prefer taller men, you cannot blame manlets for being manlets as they can not help it. We all know if they could they would grow, but they cant so they wont. We'll come back to this point

WEIGHT, on the other hand, can be changed, and quite easily if you are really dedicated to it. I wont lecture you guys on it since calories in and calories out is pretty much universally known here, but it is indeed a factor that you can actively change. When you see a fat woman, you can infer 2 things: 1.) that she is a lazy slob who has no self respect for herself or her body 2.) that she has already failed at 50% of her duties of being a woman.

While a man's height wont tell you much about a man, a woman's weight will tell you EVERYTHING about her. It will tell you that she is gluttonous, that is is probably in poor health, that she is too apathetic or lazy or stupid to change it, that she most likely will not put forth any effort into supporting you if she cannot support herself, and if she were your wife she would be pushing her bad habits on your offspring. All of those combine to make her not only unattractive physically but mentally as well

cntd

>>42777298
Alright, OP, which is it? Men are horny mongrels who will fuck anything, or they're way too picky?

>>42778263
>Not being lumped in with a board full of edgy whiny teenagers just looking for a way to be the biggest victims?

I'm not really complaining in the first place, I don't know why you're pushing the scope of your focus onto some weird picture of me you've drawn in your head from like three posts.

>haha now I'm just gonna be sarcastic and bitchy without actually adressing what he said

Damn owned

File: BOI.gif (3MB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 360x360px

>>42778308
But where did this whole obsession with being tall come from? Its pretty obvious if you pay attention to what women define as "tall". As we all know, women are shit with making up their mind and saying what they want, as well as judging length and distance, so why are so many women parroting the 6ft or 6ft2 meme?

Thats because to women, tall is relative. It is relative to their height, it is relative to the height of other men they see, and it is relative to their girlfriends' boyfriends' heights. What they dont want is tall, what they want is tallER. Its universally accepted that when it comes to height, bigger is better, and with the entitlement of women today being so rampant, they all think that they deserve the biggest. If given a choice between a 5'10" manlet and a 6' manlet, theyd choose the 6' one. If asked why, "because I like tall guys". If given the choice between a 6' manlet and a 6'2" manlet, theyd choose the 6'2". if asked, shed again say "i like tall guys". While the height of the 6' manlet has not physically changed, it has relatively changed to make him the shortest of the two, and now he is not seen as tall enough therefore not the best, so the woman will latch on to the taller man

In the end, this stems from the delusion that all women are special queens who DESERVE and are ENTITLED to whatever 6'6" millionaire playboy they lust after. Itll all stop if you fags quit enabling them that the lot of them are fat unattractive cunts who fail at being women

>>42777298
The average male would be perfectly happy with the average female as long as shes not a fatass. I know because im an average male and pretty much dont like fat girls exclusively

>>42778386
In person, relativity matters. But on paper, 6' sounds much better than 5'11"

>>42778091
Pls be in London

guys have preferences, women have criteria

>>42778263
I'm not that anon. But this http://www2.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/harvey/Sexual_Economics.pdf
has lots of citations in
>the psychological community

>>42777298
Men's standards are very low. All most of us require is that women don't be fat. Since obesity is a choice and height isn't, women are being unreasonable and shallow

File: results-after-4-months.png (39KB, 545x400px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 545x400px

>>42777776
Those studies show that women are so pick that they message attractive men less than men message ugly women. It is also mostly fat women who message men at all which skews things. And those studies didn't account for height, something women are shallow enough to care about but most men don't

>
Maybe if you spent less time interacting with strawmen on /r9k/ you'd find out that womens tastes are absolutely as varied as guys
That's completely false. At most a few women will say they don't mind short guys. No women that are excited to date a short guy

>>42778178
>Just spend 30 years of loneliness and rejection and you'll have your pick of fat single mothers!

>>42778828

humm sweetie... obesity ISN'T a choice!

>>42777298
idk im only 5'9 and im 7 inches taller than the girl im dating we couldn't even kiss comfortably standing up

>>42778178

if you can't get laid now, just forget about getting laid then, competition tends to be far harsher and chad also grows older and wiser

moreover, ladies remember their first chads and get resentment of every man that is lower in quality in the future

Not /fit/ related. Fuck off retard subhuman biocunt. It s now essential for us to return to the true anon ways and spamming gore in such shit threads

>>42777995
>>42778105
>Ignoring the attractiveness of who sends the message
>Ignoring the total number of messages each gender sends
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>42778860
I don't think you understand how men and women naturally act in reality.

Women don't make the first move. Not even online. And only when the guy is either something special or if they know him and it's on the sly/can be easily handwaived as being innocent.

Men will ceaselessly go after the women they find attractive or have that certain thing that drives them forward, and will throw a quick line at easy pussy they can smash on the sly to keep them interested.

Stop interpreting things stupidly.

>>42777998
>gets data by setting up fake chad profile and asking matches questions after the match
>only talked to 27 girls
lmao

>>42777995

So if i get literally 0 messages from women i'm a complete god of aesthetics or a ugly cunt?

>>42778943
>Women have such high standards that they won't even date a hot guy unless he puts all the effort in
>Men's standards are so low that he'll actively pursue a fat chick
K

>>42777776
>>42777777
So close

>>42777298
I basically have very few physical standards in women, if they have a nice mouth and aren't fat then I'm in

>>42779457
I <3 UR PU$$

>>42777960
>get btfo
>b-but your a fucking virgin loser hahahaha I dont need to listen to youuuu!!!
fucking LOL

>>42779207
You forget two things

Active pursuit for men isn't just acknowledging that they exist and whipping our dicks out and slapping them with it.
Besides I said some men would go after that gross fat chick not all. All men have standards and some of those men with relatively high standards are more then willing to use a fat or ugly chick for that quick easy nut rather then jack off. The few that do does not mean the majority.
That's just basic shit.
Active honest pursuit is going all in on them and conquering them completely when they show the slightest sign of weakness or are simply within arms reach.
As for women having high standards..it has less to do with standards and more to do with a woman's nature. She won't let herself be taken so easily. To protect her perceived worth and apparent virtue and to protect her ego also because being pursued and conquered or simply taken gets women off.
But if he makes her drench through her panties by having that set of criteria for a lover or partner that she has on an unconscious or conscious level then..well..she goes full unashamed slut for him.

>>42778125
can confirm what happens when tall men have children with short women. I'm 6' (still shorter than my dad by 4inches) but my brother is 5'7"

>>42777298
women can fix most of those things except for titties without surgery.

men cant grow taller period. manlets got dealt a shit hand in life, not cripple tier, but also not far off.

>>42779574
don't forget females can EASILY fraud having nice titties with push ups and what not, and most of them do

>>42777298
Because most if not all of those things a girl can change. A manlet can't grow taller.

>>42777313
truth.

>>42778897
Work on those arms and bicep curl her up to your face

General male standards are "don't be fat" and "don't have a hideous face or bizzare proportions." Even for long term relationships, most guys would only add "not a cunt" and "is employed or can cook". Meanwhile for women, guys have to be tall, either huge or lean, financially independent and willing to spend on them right away, capitulative to their views but not TOO much of a pussy, dress and groom nicely, and be socially established. You'd have to be straight up retarded to think guys have higher standards.

>>42779522
>Women don't have high standards
>Well they do but because of biology

>>42779745
This 100%. As for >>42779522 acting like it's just about men pursuing, women also have much higher standards for something like Tinder where they both have to swipe

>>42779803
shut up asSwipe

>>42778004
See i know you don't know what fuck your talking about right after your statement about dick size mattering.

Please kys now.

>>42778922
>Ignoring the attractiveness of who sends the message

What does this even mean, are you implying 80% of men are non attractive while 50% of women are attractive?

Let me guess, you're a woman?

File: spitup4.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

Oh look, it's another /fit/ took the bait thread.

>>42779872
It does matter but only up to a point, same as height. You don't have to be over 6 feet or have a 7 inch dick to have success with women, but it DOES help, and if you're under 5" or 5'6", you're pretty well fucked

>>42777298
you are dumb if you think a woman loves only you and would still be with you if you lost it all.
just face the fact that a fucking midget sub-6 feet will never be able to be with a girl taller than that.

>>42779967
Well yeah it does matter when you have a 2 cm medical condition between your legs. If you're abnormal in any way of course it will be less attractive. Same thing applys to women too.

Doesn't mean women care about dicks.
Because they really don't.

File: 1504015130058.jpg (497KB, 2000x1228px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 2000x1228px

>>42777298
Its human nature.

You can have a mansion, 10/10 wife, beautiful kids, top flight career, famous, fleet of cars... But if the Internet keeps dropping when you're watching Narcos season 3, you're gonna be pissed, anon.

File: 1504768679902.png (119KB, 225x227px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 225x227px

>>42777298
i think guys have higher standards when it comes to relationships, but extremely low ones when it comes to regular sex

>>42780204
Yeah, guys have some pretty unreasonable demands, like "don't cheat"

Men are honest and upfront, women aren't. If all those girls talking about wanting a tall bf were honest, I'd probably be fucking girls all day everyday. They're not honest at all though.

>>42780239
Honest about what?

>>42780248
Honest about what they find attractive in men.

File: apuja_munuun_satuu.png (94KB, 796x1082px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 796x1082px

Because we're talking ideals but would take anything.

>>42777298

It's because in order to qualify as "tall" you have to be in 10% genetically gifted group of men who grow to be over 6'2

In order to be in shape and have a nice ass all you need to do is exercise regardless of genetics this is easily obtainable

>>42780457
No.

>>42780095
kek'd agente Peña

>>42780378
Why are you guys take pride in this.

How is it any better to have no standards just to make fun about the girl next morning with your buddy's?

Your not better than us - you're just hornier

>>42777298

>fat - eat less
>small boobs - get a boob job
>small ass - get a butt job
>ugly face - plastic surgery
>still ugly? - make up

And now for men:

>short - no cure
>small penis - no cure

Is this such a hard concept to understand? Men judge women on characteristics that are easily fixable with a little effort/money. Men are judged by women on things THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER.

it's called the art of the deal.

>>42779475
Confusing post

>>42777995

What would the world be like without make-up?

>>42782464
Well humanity had makeup as an expected accessory by nobility by ancient Egyptian times, so what were the sumerians like?

File: 1503667819702.jpg (74KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 645x773px

>about to be 26
>watched everyone in my social circles get into happy relationships, get engaged, or married the past two years

IT'S NOT GETTING TO ME. AT ALL.

>>42777298
>HEIGHT. DOES. NOT. MATTER. IF. YOU. HAVE. MONEY.
SO. HOW. DO. I. GET. MONEY. ?

>>42777362
>height doesn't matter
>calls him a manlet

Holy shit you're a fucking whore

>>42777298

>guys all want things that can be changed (body fat percentage, ass size)
>girls all want things that can't (dick size, height)

>>42778091
>i prefer short men
>gives the average height range of most countries

women lol

>>42782555
t. manlet
average adult male height in most of europe is 6'

>>42777298
>HEIGHT. DOES. NOT. MATTER. IF. YOU. HAVE. MONEY.

YES. IT. DOES. MATTER. UNLESS. YOU. LIKE. BEING. CHEATED. AND. DIVORCED. ON.

And that's how I know you're a manlet larping as a female.

Is this some kind of fucking joke? Most guys will fuck just about anything and let's not pretend as if makeup doesn't do wonders for women. The physical requirements like fat ass and tits are bullshit. You put decent pussy in front of a man 95% of the time it's getting fucked.

>>42782594
I am 6' tard. And no, average yuropoor height is miraculously 5'10" despite their third world muslim-enforced upbringing

File: manlet subhuman.jpg (96KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1024x683px

>>42782824
>6'

>>42778384
>haha now I'm just gonna be sarcastic and bitchy without actually adressing what he said
>Damn owned

You just repeated your claim, I'm not going to go back over and argue with uncited shit.

>>42778762
That's actually a good citation, but it draws way too many unfounded conclusions, to the point that a lot of the stuff it's claiming would be unfalsifiable.

There's a significant amount of stuff in the conclusion where they discuss findings and then immediately go "This must mean this, if you look at it this way it fits the theory".

They also outright say that it's not enough evidence to say the theory is correct, particularly in comparison to other theories.

>>42778860
>no link

I also never understood these results. How is it that their inboxes are both full, yet are more than 100 messages apart?

That study is also useless without talking about how many women and men actually use the service regularly.

>>42779310
Fuck.

>>42780595
>little effort/money
>spending tens of thousands of dollars on invasive surgical techniques in the hopes it'll make you look better

Sounds like a fair bit of effort and money to me.

File: fixed.jpg (71KB, 578x563px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 578x563px

>>42777298
fixed

>>42777639
My Dad is 5'6 and his wife (step mom) is 5'10. Although she may like short guys because she has no choice.

>>42778091
Wait do women actually think 5'9 is short? That's literally the average height of males in America...

File: 1490540034654.jpg (49KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 480x480px

>>42782528
Pro tip, most of those relationships are acts of desperation on one or both sides.

A fair amount will also not be very happy in a short time.

For every one of my friends who's gotten engaged or married I've seen one get divorced or break up with "the love of their life"

>skinny
>big ass
>big tits
>thighs not too big
>flat stomach
These are all things which can be had with either diet, working out or surgery

>height
Completely static and unchangeable

>inb4 manlet
I'm 6'1"

>>42784049
This.

>Why do guys have such specific standards for girls
We really don't.

If you have a look at my porn history it varies extremely.
>redheads
>blondes
>brunettes
>mammoth tits
>small tits
>big ass
>petite ass
>brown eyes
>blue eyes
>freckles
>no freckles
>MILF
>Teens
>Short girls
>Tall girls
>HIP WIDTH
>tiny petite

Literally my only absolute requirements for a sexual partner are
>not fat
>not facially ugly
>doesn't have an annoying voice
>white

>>42778100
>Be 6'1
>Leaving job
>qt mexican womenlet (estimating 5'0) I work with flirting with me
>Considering it up until I hear her talking to coworkers about how she "doesn't date short guys"
>Would leave a slight bad taste in my mouth even if she was taller, but the hypocrisy was too much
>dropped

It's really no surprise. Evolutionary speaking, females had to choose the best mate they could since mating is such a huge investment for them. Men can release seed hundreds of times a day, they have no investment and thus are less "picky" in choosing where to mate. The 1 to 1 rule is quite a recent phenomenon. For most of human history we see a group of men (usually the genetically superior) have 80% of women. With the deconstruction of the institution of marriage and the sexual revolution, it's no surprise humans revert back to the 80-20 rule

File: 1500037774926.png (559KB, 970x1400px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 970x1400px

>>42784049
Sad but true.

I currently know of two relationships that make sense. Both couples are happy, honestly couldn't have made a better match myself, tons of shit in common, cool to be around.

Every other couple I know is a disaster. They fight constantly, have little to nothing in common, and one or both are batshit.

I dropped two otherwise cool friends recently because they always brought their annoying as fuck buzzkill "nofunallowed" "I'm offended by that" gfs, and the two faggots were some of the least-pc people I know. Endorphins are a scary thing.

Don't use this as an excuse to not get out there, but after my fair share of shitty dates, I'd rather find my equivalent of the two relationships I talked about, or die alone.

>>42778105
>Hmm, sounds like a reputable and reliable study to me, what with it's whole of two dozen people interviewed, and clearly biased author.
not him, but tinder themselves say that women swipe right on about 14%, whereas men swipe right 46%
also, the study you quoted confirms that women rate men more harshly than men rate women
>as you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse looking than medium

File: 1504843470557.png (731KB, 1101x878px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 1101x878px

>>42777298
>>42783165
really fixed

>>42785025
>also, the study you quoted confirms that women rate men more harshly than men rate women

It would help if you'd read at least the whole paragraph, or you know, the line straight afterwards.

>>42777298
physically, dont be fat, and dont be literally deformed, like fire damage deformed
and that is good enough 2 bang

>>42785191
think amc fucked up huge not making a roger prequel

way better than don faggot draper

>>42785345
would it? Or perhaps you should have paid attention to >>42777639 which is talking about women rating men more harshly than men rate women instead of trying to reframe the conversation to one that suits your narrative

>>42777298
It's because a minority of men are tall and there is absolutely nothing a man can do about his height, while literally every woman can get a good body by not being a fat lazy skank.

I actually believe OP is a woman, only a woman would manage to prove the very thing she was trying to disprove in the same paragraph. You couldn't even make it up. LOL the lack of self awareness it outstanding. Girls are a million times more picky on looks. Cat's out of the bag, social media has proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt. PUA is garbage, even money and status are overrated, you can get girls with the latter two, but they will never truly love you.

Truth of the matter is, while most average women settle down eventually for average guys (after getting 100 Chad dicks in them in during their best years), but they almost never actually love the guy. The average woman's love seems to be reserved for the the top 20% or whatever most attractive males.

This is the redpill about the gigantic number of divorces and ruined long term relationships, 90% of break ups are of course instigated by women. Simply put, most women are incapable of truly loving a man they believe they merely settled for. There is that thing in the back of their head telling them 'you can probably still do better'.

Shit tests and mindless drama rarely happen to actual 9-10/10 Chads. This is what manosphere clowns never tell you.

Call me r9k or whatever, like I could give two shits, you don't know me, all you women do is attack someone personally when you get called out on your bullshit.

Honestly, I'm not even complaining about this. Women are what they are, it's pointless to hate them or complain to them about this (MGTOW is the biggest bunch of retards on the planet). It's only the dishonesty of women that I hate.

>>42783140
Try making sense fuckwit

File: 20759357_1138558299610780_2644350117913559040_n.jpg (135KB, 1080x1302px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1080x1302px

>>42785426
>MGTOW is the biggest bunch of retards on the planet

Explain why you think this.

>>42785482
Not the same anon but

>*can't compete in the current system*
>WAAAAH I DON'T LIKE THE CURRENT SYSTEM
>*exits the current system*
>SEE HOW GREAT IT IS OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM GUYS, IT'S SO AWESOME, I'M SO HAPPY. DON'T FALL FOR THE VAGINAL JEW. HAHA I'M SO HAPPY THAT I'M DONE WITH WOMEN. YOU SHOULD JOIN ME. IT'S SO MUCH BETTER. PLEASE VALIDATE MY DECISION.

It's just a bunch of guys who can't or couldn't control women telling themselves lies that they are better off without women.

Women are the be all and end all of male existence. Everything we do is just to increase our chances of attracting the best and most attractive women and then past that it's raising the best and most attractive offspring.

>>42785410
The conversation was about what women wanted in men. He talked purely about what how many men they rate as attractive, which doesn't talk about who they're actually interested in.

It would help if you'd actually read the fucking thread.

>>42785462
What didn't make sense there?

He said those characteristics are easily fixed with little effort or money. Several invasive and extremely expensive surgical procedures seems like the exact opposite of those criteria.

>>42785482
Because they try to portray their movement as a voluntary revolt against women, but in reality most of these men have already been (involuntarily) rejected by women. It's like a broke homeless person saying he is part of an organization who is boycotting the real estate industry. Most of these men have been sent their own way, they didn't go by themselves.

I was probably too harsh, since I on some level feel for these guys, but I don't know what they are trying to accomplish with this movement. All of MGTOW could summed up in 'all right, the modern sexual market is shit and unattractive men have it very bad, time to do something else with my life'; which is understandable and logical; But what we get is 10 000 videos on youtube of grown men thinking they are part of a societal revolution who will change female behavior.

File: 18034384_10156076199118696_1636069548560526773_n.jpg (20KB, 510x680px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 510x680px

>>42785516
>It's just a bunch of guys who can't or couldn't control women telling themselves lies that they are better off without women.

How do you control your women? How do you keep her from calling the police on You? How do you keep your neighbors from calling the police on you? I agree that women need to be checked. It just seems way to dangerous to try to check these women when all they have to do is make a phone call that lands you in jail facing serious charges.

>>42785547
How do you stop anyone calling the police and saying you assaulted them? Literally anybody who knows you, or is around you, could decide to call the police and report you for doing a crime you didn't do. It's how swatting is a thing.

>>42785547
Control through practicing domineering and stoic behaviour plus giving clear instruction.

>gf and I have an argument
>she says she's packing her things and going to her Mum's for a bit
>I say nothing and go back to eating food
>She's at the door, bags packed
>Looks at me, "Well?"
>>See you later, you won't be missed.
>You don't ever care about me do you anon?
>Just ignore her
>She sits down and calms herself, asks me if we can cuddle on the couch.

When she asks me what should she wear, I give her direct and clear instruction on what I want to see her in. When a common response from guys is "Whatever you want, I don't care." This is bad, she wants to please you and you're not allowing her to, you're making her feel like you don't care about how she looks.

When we go out to eat, I have a firm and set place we are eating at. If she doesn't like it, too bad, I'm going to go anyway with or without her. I hardly ever give her the choice. She will challenge the decision by saying "I don't feel like that place" which is just what women do, they want to challenge your authority but don't stand down.

When we go on a date, I have a clear idea of what is going to happen and when. I tell her, I do not ask. "I am going to x place at y time to do z thing." then I say "I want you to come." or "Come if you're not busy." It gives you the appearance that you're independent and don't need her so she will have to work to keep you. It gives women purpose, basically a never ending chase.

Most girls like to be lead in the relationship. They don't want to make decisions or plans things.

t. 4 years in a relationship

>>42785641
I agree with your overall point but doing it to that extent doesn't sound healthy.

>>42777298
Because our standards can be met by not being a lazy bum

t. over 6ft

>>42777776
we are talking about men's and women's standards, but seeing as you are so determined that how people rate attractiveness is not a standard, then shall we talk about
>>42777995
in a bit more detail, the graph on the right shows women rate men really low, on a scale of 1-5, we could even go so far as to say that an estimate of the mode is somewhere around 1 for ratings, and 2 for mesaaging.
Now if the vast majority of guys are low attractiveness, who do you think women will message? Do you think the women will be forced to "lower their standards" or will they message more attractive guys more?
It turns out that this graph doesn't exactly support an argument that women don't care about looks, because as you'll observe, they still message the more attractive guys more than they message the uglier ones.
Now I know what you're going to say
>but anon, women message lots of 1s and 2s!
And this argument might carry some weight if the ratings were uniformly distributed, or even if they were somewhat clustered around 2.5, which is what you would expect, and funnily enough is pretty much now women were rated by men as seen in the left hand graph, but I digress.
The blue line on the right graph should line up exactly with the grey line if women didn't care about looks, but it doesn't, even when faced with a bad bunch, as evidenced by the 80% of guys rated below average by the survey respondents', own ratings, women still pick the most attractive of the bad bunch to message
So who is it to whom women are attracted? If women were attracted to men regardless of looks then women wouldn't pick the most attractive of the options before them. However what we actually see is reality playing out, women rate the vast majority of men as below average, then pick the most attractive ones to message.
Also, source of the study? and you really should question the reliability of any study that says it's got a rating system from 1-5 then presents seven data pts
TL;DR ur a faget

File: 1373969599581.jpg (65KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 390x470px

>>42777298
>be a 5'10 guy
>date women that want a 6' guy by just saying i'm 6'
>they have no way of telling unless they have a fucking ruler since they're too short to notice

Yeah it's such an important standard to you even though you literally can't even tell at all.

File: 4299533-4176666-ll89.jpg (536KB, 841x1280px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 841x1280px

>>42785641
What exactly are you getting out of the relationship?

Here's the way I see it.

>I'm getting pussy
Well if you're in a monogamous relationship then you're actually limiting the amount of pussy you can get.

>I'm getting physical security
I'm 6'5 218 lbs and in relatively good
shape, I also live in Texas so I carry my .45 almost anywhere. I doubt there are many women who can protect me better than I can protect myself.

>I'm getting financial security
Don't need this, I'm enjoying and progressing through my career and I make enough to support myself

>She can have my kids
No desire to have children so this is an irrelevant point for me

>She will love me
She will love me until she doesn't love me. She will play her part until she feels the grass is greener somewhere else. I love me and I will never switch up on myself, I don't need someone else to play that part.

>She will be my friend and comfort me
Got plenty of friends that have had my back before and after every relationship I've been in

T. Young man who has been in a 5 year relationship that ended last year.

>>42785725
I haven't done anything abusive or controlling. She can have friends, she can go out whenever she wants, see whoever she wants and buy what she wants with her money. I don't call her names or ever touch her with any malice.

This behaviour is for her to know her place in my world. I know if she ever left me that I would be in pieces and a crying inconsolable wreck but externally I have her believe she is replaceable because I live such an independent life. She is a companion to that life meaning that I can still continue with or without her. She is still loved and cared for nonetheless however.

fit is so easy to bait

>>42782594
The only country in Europe that is 6' average is Holland. Every other European country is 5'8-5'10.

>>42785518
Replied to you here
>>42785753

>>42777298
>As a girl, I'm telling you that HEIGHT. DOES. NOT. MATTER. IF. YOU. HAVE. MONEY.

>guaranteed 300 replies

>>42785759
>Well if you're in a monogamous relationship then you're actually limiting the amount of pussy you can get.

Not true really. I can have sex up to 5-6 times a day if I want thanks to monogamy. Whereas with tindersloots there are dry spells which skew the average far lower. Also the investment per tinder slut for an average bang session is much higher than with a monogamous partner. Ie. fuel costs, food, electricity etc. With a partner, that cost is shared.

>No desire to have children so this is an irrelevant point for me
I mean well, everything I say is completely invalid in that case. My advice is designed for people who want long healthy relationships with women and want a family. Your personal goals seem to be much more fitting to the casual sex lifestyle.


>She will play her part until she feels the grass is greener somewhere else
This is a key part of my advice to make her always chase me, if she thinks that I'm always on the edge of slipping from her grasp she will continue to value me above others. Also humans value things which belong to them much higher than what is the actual value for them, so even if another male of higher absolute value came along, she would still choose me because of personal investment. Eg. If you gave me a coffee cup which is worth $5 and somebody then offered me $5 for the coffee cup, I probably wouldn't sell it to them because that's now MY coffee cup and has added value to me because I own it. It's the same with relationships as well.

I won't say your relationship failed because you didn't do certain things, sometimes they don't work out. But certainly having certain behaviours helps.

>>42785834

>Not true really. I can have sex up to 5-6 times a day if I want thanks to monogamy.

This is still dependent on your ONE partner. If she denies you sex for any reason you are expected to accept that you won't be having sex. As a single man you can just get you a thot rotation going.

>This is a key part of my advice to make her always chase me, if she thinks that I'm always on the edge of slipping from her grasp she will continue to value me above others.

Before I go in on this point I need some more info. How old is your gf? How old are you? What's the highest level of education your gf obtained?

>>42785753
>we are talking about men's and women's standards, but seeing as you are so determined that how people rate attractiveness is not a standard

It's absolutely not, I can think someone's not the most physically attractive person and still be interested in them.

>The blue line on the right graph should line up exactly with the grey line if women didn't care about looks, but it doesn't, even when faced with a bad bunch, as evidenced by the 80% of guys rated below average by the survey respondents', own ratings, women still pick the most attractive of the bad bunch to message

Did you even read the graph? The most often messaged category is still ranked as below average.

It's skewed away from the most attractive, as in they're not receiving that many messages (potentially because of fear of catfishing, but that's another argument).

They message just slightly ahead of the curve, whereas men message mainly the highest ranked women. It outright says this shit dude.


What the chart actually suggests, is that based on that data, women don't actually value looks that much, and instead look for some other quality mainly, or more so at least. I have no idea how you managed to claim that women message the most attractive first, when it outright shows the majority of messages being to people ranked as below average. It's like you just look at the study, ignored fucking everything on it, and then made up your own numbers.

I'll provide the source when I get home, it'll come up if you just google related keywords though.

As for the seven data points, you get that a scale of 0-5 includes decimal points, right?

TL;DR You need to learn to fucking read.

>>42785943
You can't read a graph, yet you acuse me of not being able to read, who else but below average guys are women going to message if 80% of guys are below average?
lrn2think lmao
I specifically addressed this in my last post

>>42785889
>If she denies you sex for any reason you are expected to accept that you won't be having sex

Just part of a relationship. When she does that to me, I just play her game. Just simply emotional manipulation is all you need to do. She denies sex because she thinks that will make me want her more and she wants to control my behaviour (which she is correct) but I'm not going to give her any authority over me by displaying want for her.

I don't make any sexual moves towards her. I also start to flirt with girls (ie. waitresses, shop attendants, female friends of mine) in front of her. This will make her feel as if she can be easily replaced since I have plenty of options for sex, she isn't the only woman in the world that will have sex with me which is her assumption for her action.

She will eventually start making less and less subtle sexual advances towards me, majority of which I will brush off. This will infuriate her because she's not getting what she wants, which is my desire for her.

Every time she eventually breaks of jealousy and rips my pants off and stuffs my dick down her throat to prove to me that no other girl can please me like she can.

>How old is your gf? How old are you? What's the highest level of education your gf obtained?

Gf is 19. I am 21. Gf is currently studying an undergraduate in Law, she does very well.

>>42777639
nah, I agree with this. bi chick here to say: 90% of men are fugly, 90% of women are goddesses

it's just nature and the fact that western fashion for men is nonexistant, along with the culture about men and hygiene "oh you should just be lucky he showers !!!!!! " etc

>>42785889
>>42785984
>If she denies you sex for any reason you are expected to accept that you won't be having sex

yeah because if someone doesn't want to have sex, and someone has sex with them anyway, that's rape & you can go to fucking jail

>Just simply emotional manipulation is all you need to do.

emotional manipulation is not part of a healthy relationship, and if she manipulates her, you fucking drop her because that shit's abusive. same idea vice versa.


what the fuck is wrong with BOTH of you

>>42786006
if she manipulates you***

>>42785966
Except that, you know, they're not messaging the guys they ranked as above average? It's not often I think someone is actually dumb here, but holy fuck anon, you need to go to school more.

You can't argue women only are interested in above average guys, then try to use data where the majority of guys they message are ranked as below average by them to prove they only want chads.

Sure, they message slightly in front of the curve. But the curve itself is what gives that statement any context or importance.

Clearly their standards for physical attractiveness aren't that high if they're still interested in guys they consider below average as far as looks. You get you don't have to message anyone on these sites, right?

>>42785985
To be fair men have a much stricter criteria of what they are allowed to wear and what they can do to themselves.

We get T-shirts, singlets, jeans, chinos, dress shirts, dress pants, track pants, shorts, sweatshirts, hoodies and jackets. All come in usually one accepted style and usually in nothing more than white, black, grey, blue, red or tan.

Men also can't wear makeup, nor get their nails done, they can't shape their eyebrows too much.

I see a lot of guys however that do shave their legs, wax their chests etc. I tried to keep my legs shaved but (and I think this is the problem for most guys) you have to shave them literally every single night otherwise they're prickly as fuck the next day. Whereas some girls I know can go weeks.

>>42785985
You're a bi chick who openly finds basically all men unattractive and do the whole men suck pussy is awesome thing.

Basically you're a combination of the kind of dyke that every single man on earth hates so much that not even a consequence free hatefuck is even appealing and the kind of chick that is the most hateable type of manhating cunt known to man but claims to be straight when shit hits the fan/old age reares it's head or she drops the cunt routine when chad/jamal/chang is around and she's feeling randy. Which makes the dykes hate you and straight women both feel uncomfortable around you AND see you as a threat.

Your opinions means less then nothing to basically all men who walk on two legs and have five natural appendages and even less then that to the average dyke.

>>42786045
And none of these limitations should exist. That's precisely what I'm complaining about, and citing for the reason men are fugly in today's age

>>42786055
Sounds like you have some repressed anger. It's not men's fault they're ugly, it's western fashion, culture, etc.

>claims to be straight
I haven't claimed to be straight a single time in the past 8 years... soooo... again, maybe work out your repressed anger?

>>42786055
Oh and another thing-
>men suck pussy is awesome

never have had this attitude in my life because genitalia is the least important aspect in attraction for me

>>42786074
Whatever half-dyke.
Enjoy your life...as it were.

>>42786114
Totally rad, with 4 multiple-year long, character-building, intimate and stable past relationships with women and men?

NP I'll find a hotter girlfriend than you ever will.

>>42786006
>emotional manipulation is not part of a healthy relationship

Emotional manipulation is part of every single relationship, healthy or not. This is problem with you nu-male cucks, you've been indoctrinated with this idea that you're not allowed to exhibit emotional domination. Women desire to be dominated, the alpha/chad memes have some truth to them.

You're on /fit/ so I assume you understand the importance of physical domination, but emotional is just as if not more important. It's how people like Richard Rameirez, Ted Bundy and Manson had women flocking to them despite not being terribly physically dominating guys. Especially not Manson the manlet.

>and if she manipulates her, you fucking drop her because that shit's abusive
I think you have a very traditional and strict idea of what manipulation is. Manipulation is ever present in relationships, whenever my girlfriend puts of a cute voice, curls up next to me and makes her eyes as big as possible to look up to me and asks me to do something for her, that's technically manipulation because she's using my emotional weakness to help someone who is submissive to me.

When I pay the bill for a dinner, that's manipulation. I am exhibiting dominance over her by displaying my financial wealth, it also makes her feel indebted to me.

Whenever I pick her up and throw her onto my shoulder for fun, that is manipulation. I am displaying my physical dominance over her.

Whenever she deliberately sticks her ass out to me when bending over, that's manipulation.

Relationships are just a constant back and forth of emotional energy, if I win she will submit to me via sex. If I don't win, she will withhold sex until I do win. If I consistently don't win, she is now dominating me and may begin to seek another partner.

>>42786074
>And none of these limitations should exist

Oh. You're one of the 'smash the patriarchy', 'fuck gender roles, type of people aren't you?

Yeah I feel you're definitely just a lesbian charading as bi. You only like men, when they're very similar to women.

>>42786015
>except they aren't messaging the guys that they rank as above average
what is a sample, what is a population
okay, i think im going to have to go slow for you
so let me know exactly where i lose you in what should be a relatively simple concept

women rank men in the sample

women message the more attractive individuals of the sample more than the less attractive individuals

is that really so complicated?

File: ChuckNorristhumbsup Emil P.jpg (172KB, 725x984px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 725x984px

>>42786126
LOL
K
I stand by what I said.
You're litterally one of those loser cunts who've gone full jailhouse dyke and claim that it's every man on the planet's fault you like pussy.
You also think that your opinion means more then a dogs when it comes to what normal actual women find attractive in men.

You can go away now. By the way. Congrats on your 4 relationships. Maybe relationship number 5 will be the one that sticks! So...here's hoping.

>>42786152
You can't just make up numbers like that mate, that's not how this works.

We're not talking about if looks matter full stop, we're talking about how high their standards are for looks in a relationship. You originally claimed we were just talking about how they ranked attractiveness, and have no changed it to being just about if looks matter at all.

Maybe if you're able to keep up with a fucking conversation you'd look less dumb?

Womens standards are clearly not that high, as they still displayed interest in guys they ranked as below average. You can try as hard as you like to twist this into being something else, but you just look stupid doing so.

Get out of here brainlet.

>>42785641
>gf and I have an argument
Ignored the rest of your advice after this. You're not fit for each other.

>>42786223
>make up numbers
i didnt make any up, please feel free to point to the numbers that i made up
>we're not talking about whether looks matter, but specifically about how high womens standards are for looks in a relationship
no, thats not what we are talking about, youre twisting the conversation to suit your narrative again, this thread started out about much more general standards that women/men hold, but after this post by anon >>42777639
its really about how women have ridiculous standards, you might observe that this post follows quotes straight back to this post
>you are an asshat
nice, glad to see that pop in there

>>42786241
>Ignored the rest of your advice after this. You're not fit for each other.

I feel very concerned for you if you live with someone and have never once had an argument. Either one of you is plotting something against the other or you found the single most submissive person on earth.

>>42786074
The only thing wrong with the culture is that there's no day of the rope for the likes of you, yet.

>>42782536
You just responded to a dude

Has nobody else realized that this post is bait?

>>42786266
>i didnt make any up, please feel free to point to the numbers that i made up
When you implied that the sample population was not representative of the general population.

>its really about how women have ridiculous standards

Which has not been demonstrated by any data, and is fucking exactly what I said. The whole "80/20" thing was used to argue that women have unreasonable standards because they only find the top 20% of men attractive, but ignores that they message them anyway. You continued to do this, by what I can only assume is intentionally misrepresenting data and refusing to read things.

The image above even outright says that despite men ranking women more equally, they tend to chase after only those they rank at above average.


The most you could argue for your point of view from this is that we don't have enough data to conclusively say why this behaviour happens either way, instead of trying to twist it to fit your agenda.


Go back to your containment board.

File: 1484716038785.jpg (173KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1920x1080px

>>42785404
>actually thinking like this

>>42786354
>you implied that the sample population is different
no, no I did not say that, what i said was
women rank men in the sample
women then message the more attractive individuals in the sample more than the less attractive ones
>women dont have ridiculous standards, it's not represented in the data at all
apart from the part where they rank 80% of men as below average attractiveness lmao is that a reasonable standard? no, that's a ridiculous one
>the image says that despite ranking women more equally, men are chauvanist pigs
lol, but men, I could have predicted that you'd go for this right back when i first posted, i never said a thing about men, we are talking about women and their preferences, why on earth would you bring men and their preferences up?
furthermore, the distribution of messages sent is skewed towards the more attractive end of the sample, but who ranked the men? the women themselves lol, given how skewed towards the negative end the rankings are to start with its amazing that any messages were sent to any of these rarest of unicorns, the attractive men
how you have failed to grasp this is kind of a mystery, okay, lets go slow again
what is average attractiveness?
2.5 out of 5?
okay, that's reasonable
now ask a bunch of women, and suddenly 2.5 out of 5 is no longer average, in fact 80% of all men are now below average attractiveness, so where is average now?
all these men are below average attractiveness, in fact more men are 1/5 than anything else
so what do you do?
message the most attractive ones?
message the least attractive ones?
can you guess what the women did? they messaged the more attractive ones
also, mr boogeyman reddit spacing telling anyone to go back
kek

>>42777960
>>42778263
Daily reminded that women are literally less intellectually capable

>>42778323
Kek it's just another roastie butthurt about getting rejected by Chad

>>42786307
dude, i don't even care about the half dyke
but even i think you should go choke on a bullet

>>42777313
This is bait

my sister said she prefers shorter guys

but then she said 'short' meant 5'10

>>42786526
White knights should also be necked, it's your passivity and "everything goes" attidute that has enabled every filthy mentally ill cunt to corrupt society.

>>42786456
>apart from the part where they rank 80% of men as below average attractiveness lmao is that a reasonable standard? no, that's a ridiculous one

Oh cool, we're back to you ignoring data.

>the image says that despite ranking women more equally, men are chauvanist pigs
It says a lot that data gets you so offended.

>i never said a thing about men, we are talking about women and their preferences, why on earth would you bring men and their preferences up?

Because men are literally in the fucking OP? Once again, learn to follow a thread you tard.

I'm not going to keep going over the same point over and over again. I've explained the data to you about three times now, and you continue to ignore it and try to twist it to still support your point of view. Women message just barely ahead of the curve, so yeah, slightly above average guys get messaged a bit more, but it's in no way anything close to the 80/20 rule, as you'll see that the least attractive men still get messaged.

They're just barely ahead of the curve, which says that they do not have unrealistic expectations or requirements for a guys looks.

Do you understand that? If not, please stop trying to make statistical arguments, because you clearly are incapable of doing so (which wouldn't surprise me at all seeing your difficulty at following a conversation).

Also
>universally used formatting is reddit spacing
wew

>>42786503
Got any data for that one buddy?

>>42786609
Thanks for admitting it, friendo, it took you a while but you got there

I dont mind girls with some chub but some carry the extra weight better than others.

>>42786669
bet youve got a wicked sense of humor too kek

>>42784925
But evolutionarily speaking there were also things like rape, where you only had to be physically stronger and not necessarily more attractive to get a mate. The 1 to 1 rule, while unnatural, at least provided for an artificial structure to maintain society.

The deconstruction of marriage and the social disapproval of rape is what leads us to the present which is both unnatural and doesn't have the artificial structure to sustain itself.

>>42786669
Like I said, public hanging. It's two birds with one stone. On one hand you remove a mentally ill predatory piece of shit that's corrupting our children. And on the other hand it's a clear message to all the other cunts out there lurking, that such behavior is no longer tolerated.

>>42786638
I mean, that's not what you said at all, but good stuff mate.

Please stay in your containment board in the future.

>>42786074
That's not repressed anger, hun. It's very open and probably justified.

I'm bisexual and I think you just swing hard towards women, which is why you find most dudes "fugly," which makes your opinion invalid.

For me, a lot of dudes are pretty attractive.

>>42785759
>No desire to have children so this is an irrelevant point for me

Enjoy living life against our biological imperative and literally the only objective truth

>>42786826
Women are shallow af
Deal with it

>>42786102
You're definitely just a lesbian who thinks she's bi.

>>42777298
Holy shit another roastie whore who wants money more than a partner. Fuck you degenerate cunt

Given the global distribution of wealth you're FAR more likely to be tall than to ever have money. Retard.

That's almost as stupid as saying:

MILLIONS. OF. DOLLARS. DON'T. MATTER. IF. YOU. HAVE. TRILLIONS. OF. DOLLARS.

File: 1285c566d37e970d95ba1b273f1cf8fed10cf26c7793b596aa5c61d9e583c822.jpg (112KB, 500x346px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 500x346px

>>42777298
I honestly don't care about girls having preferences Like dick size or height cause I know it matters but it's usually the girls that cry "unrealistic standards" when guys prefer something.

>>42785482
Imagine if you wanted to become a doctor and get into medical school. But then you failed to get into medical school, so instead of working harder and applying again you got together with all the other medical school rejects and started making videos about how you're beating the system by choosing not to be doctors.


Sounds retarded? Well MGTOWS sound even stupider than that.

>>42778124
The superior genetics thing goes out the window when money comes

>>42777776

Women value looks less, but their idea of what is average is totally off-base. 80% of men are average or below, to them.

>>42786833
This is just sad at this point.

>>42786964
Yeah, I can agree with that. I'd be curious to see how men rated men and women rated women as well, I feel like those results would be potentially important for this.

It's possible that the issue is that we still have really unrealistic images of what men should be, without the backlash against it that you've seen with stuff like Barbie.

>>42786750
>Evolutionarily speaking
>Rape
Opinion discarded

>>42786964
Being considered average or "not out of the ordinary" in looks to women is good. Means that you aren't seen as something unpleasent or something too avoid.
You have a chance.
Same thing for men and our wide range of "would fuck"

Men below that are unfuckable/dateable period.
Just like women below our bottom rung are unfuckable under any circumstances

The top women have the eye of all men and some "women" and will be responded too and pursued accordingly.
The top men have their pick of any women we want and can pursue them at their leisure. Some women would even be so bold as to make the first move or give him a wink or something of the sort.

For most of the poor unfuckable men and women...well...you just have to work hard and change yourselves till youre in the average pile with the rest.
It isn't fair but life rarely is when it comes to things we find important.


By they way. Why are there fucking men here that are BITCHING like females because they are not pursued by fucking women? This isn't a fucking staged beetles pr event where hundreds of girls are paid to chase after you in the streets you faggots.
You're men.
They are women.
The first thing you should learn if you're going to be a hunter, is what your prey thinks, what they look like, their favorite foods and drinks and where they feel comfortable and most importantly their mating calls.

Until you learn these basic things bait threads like this will continue to pop up and continue to be made SPECIFICALLY to make absolute fucking losers like you with low self estteem and no understanding of the opposite sex BOTH MEN AND WOMEN question themselves and come to hate the other a bit more and become more selfiish more with drawn and even further away from their true goals of companionship or just some of that nasty nasty sex.

>>42787019
Prove me wrong nigga

>>42787011
As if anyone cares what some white knight thinks lol

>>42786750
Chimps rape each other sure, but even in evolution, human rape (within their own tribe) is rare. Any man willing to rape a woman in their own tribe (again, I'm not talking about raping other tribe's women), is seen as a danger by the rest of the men in the tribe, and is either ostracized or killed. Humans are social beings, so while a man could rape most women, he doesn't because he still has to function in a society with other people to survive.

>>42786341
Of course it's bait but it still led to interesting conversations so who cares

>>42777298
You can improve most of the expectations set on women with exercise and diet. You can't magically grow to be taller.

/thread

>>42782594
Retard

>>42786908

You have it backwards. It's not that genes become ignored when you have money, it's that having money "proves" you have good genes. You have the genes required to gather a lot of resources to be at the top of the dominance hierarchy.

>>42785985
Agreed. I'm a straight girl and find 90% ugly as fuck. I used to think I had super high standards or weird eyes till I saw that chart. Jeez, turns out the 1 semi normal looking guy I kinda liked is probably a hidden chad, the fuck?

>>42777298
Because when a man says he wants a series of qualities in a woman, he's talking about an ideal. When a woman wants a series of qualities, she's talking about bare minimum requirements.

>>42777298
>Why do guys have such specific standards for girls

It's the other way around you idiot.

>>42787083
Exercise won't make ugly women with awful bodies or horrible personalities dickable anon.

>>42787124
You're as gay as she is.

>>42777298
Fuck off thot!

>>42777298
is it really this easy to troll /fit/ ? this is like an amy schumer joke

>>42787274
But no one mentioned their vaginas.

>>42778386
6'6 is too long, what you talking about breh

>>42785985
>90% of men are fugly
Okay, sure.
>90% of women are goddesses
Absolutely incorrect.

I have no issues with high standards, or even with the idea that both males and females see the female form as more beautiful, but describing anywhere near 90% of the female population as goddesses just reeks of that whole "u go gurls, all of your bodies are beautiful, and anybody who says otherwise has unreasonable standards" shtick.
If it's a case of you find girls more attractive to the point that your standards for them are lower, that's cool and all; but taking the "top" 90% of women is, purely statistically, going to include a lot of obese people, overweight people, people with awful teeth, people with crazy saggy boobs, etc.
It feels like lowering the bar to call them all goddesses, do you not think?

>>42777298
Because we're the ones who will have to begin the interaction with them and fucking try and have sex with them, while they can just be pretty and wait a man come and ask them out. We can fucking choose, thank you very much.

>>42787338
She's a manhating dyke who outright states that nearly all men are ugly almost all women are pretty and blames men for her snatch lust.
Her claims of bisexuality are so that she can pretend that her opinion has any weight right now..and so that she has an out when she hits the wall and can hook up with a man or talk stupid cunts into experimenting/dyking out.
Or she's just a dyke who'll fuck anything.

Ignore her and her dumb bullshit.

>>42787362
Maybe, maybe not. Call me naive, but I'm curious as to what her reply to me will be. I wrote politely, and I'm basically asking whether she thinks obese people (as an example) are in the 90% of "goddesses", or whether she's not aware/refutes that there are that many obese people. I wrote to her in earnest, I'm hoping for a calm reply.

Interestingly, I had a conversation with a completely straight female friend, who told me that she has "never seen a girl who isn't beautiful". Now, I know for sure that she is straight as an arrow, and yet, she claims to rate more women as "beautiful" than any of the straight men I know would. I'm kind of curious as to whether this mindset is genuine/some kind of virtue signalling. Either way I personally disagree, I'm a straight guy, and I'd rate maybe 40% of girls as hot, and could justify the use of the term goddess for maybe 5%, absolutely maximum 10%.

>>42787454
>she has "never seen a girl who isn't beautiful"
Maybe she's just really sheltered and never visited the poor parts of town.

>>42777298

I don't have really specific standards though. Just don't be a landwhale and we are golden.

>>42787454
no, straight people just have shit ability to determine the same sex's real attractiveness

>>42787454
Your straight friend doesn't rate all straight men as 90% unattractive and she doesn't fuck women correct?

It's kind of like how guys all say that all guys aren't gross. We don't fucking know. That guy that women think is a creep or ugly is an okay dude and seems cool to normal men.

Her "all girls are beautiful" thing is just cheap empty all girls are pretty in their own way thing. If she wanted to or in fact did fuck them? Then she'd just be a lez with no standards.

The woman in question however has not only outright stated that 90% of all women are goddesses and attractive, but all men are ugly losers and it's somehow mens fault that she likes pussy.

She's just a dyke who's LARPING as bisexual to get all of the positives of being straight and an object of dickability and able to pull stupid easily manipulated jailhouse dyke straight cunts into "experimentation".

She'll start talking about being straight when she hits 30 and realize that she's used goods and men have stopped ignoring her open dislike of men because she's old and since she more then likely depends on her youth or natural charms to lure in men, because her personality sure isn't doing it, she's going to pretty much end up an exclusive lesbian not because she chose it but because no man wants her.

Oh and sorry.
It's because gays have what can be considered a far lower set of criteria for partners compared to normal straight people. Of course she'd see basically all women as goddesses.

>>42777777

>>42787480
We share social circles, live in the same city, go to the same uni. She even has friends that I would call unattractive. We either have wildly different standards, or she's lying.

>>42780595

Women want money above all else and that's bloody difficult to get.

File: 1489633461171.jpg (20KB, 283x447px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 283x447px

>/fit/
>these are the kind of threads that get the most replies other than the gay shit
>shiggy

>>42778386
>writes a fucking essay to defend his 5'3" height
When will they learn?

File: 1504727219049.jpg (59KB, 480x633px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 480x633px

>>42786895

You just convinced me

>>42787568
Mang, I'm fully aware that a lot of guys are gross or creepy, and I can generally pick out the guys that girls will avoid/be attracted to. I agree that it's probably a "cheap empty all girls are pretty in their own way thing" though.
I had a really interesting conversation with her when I said that I only date people that I find physically attractive (as well as liking them as a person), I have never been attracted to a fat person, and that I would break up with my girlfriend if she got fat, stopped taking care of herself, etc.
At first she started telling me that I'm awful, shallow, yada yada. Then I reasoned it through with her.
Yep, personality is more important, maybe more important even, but I'm allowed to want a person who has both. Yes somebody you fall in love with can get fat, and they have the right to do what they want with their body, but if they decide they can no longer be bothered to put a little effort into something that is important to me, I'm not sticking around. I compared it to a guy deciding that now that he's your bf, romance, dates, and occasional flowers are too much effort, even if he knew it was something you really loved, and that mattered to you in a relationship.
Over time, she went from angry "all girls are beautiful, how dare you; also, looks don't matter" to not being able to refute my points, was nearly crying over it. Started lamenting that it wasn't fair that her if somebody saw her tits, they wouldn't realise she was worth it, and that her personality is her true winning trait. Kek. It wasn't even aimed at her, we were just chatting about relationships.
/storytime

>>42777298
You and I know that women can pour all manners of vile contempt of short men in real life and on social media. Nobody cares. Because women-are-wonderful-effect.

However, men can't even say that they don't prefer morbidly obese women without the Borg consensus of women kick in. Then you should be publicly shamed, at the very least. Because women have a strong in-group preference and men do not.

Have you seen even a tenth of the scorn sort men receive being directed at women with small tits? You haven't.

You're dishonest and have a flawed concept of logic and events outside of your own solipsistic worldview. You're a woman.

>>42787693
uh huh...

>implying there are women on this website
>it hits you right after you realise that you've been arguing with virgins pretending to be women the whole time

>>42785759
he's satisfying a basic human need for physical and emotional intimacy you dumb fuck

>>42778091
>Short men
>Average height of men in many countries

Just fuck my shit up senpai

>>42784049
Ending my first long time relationship was a weird feeling, all that time gone to nothing and that feeling of having nothing to tie you down was strange after having a routine for so long, looking back at it I wasn't even happy in the relationship

Never fall for the sunk cost fallacy anons

>>42786895
That's a dumb analogy. It's more like: imagine wanting to become a doctor only to find out you'll end up unemployed.

>>42777298

I'll bite

The "specific standards" simply can be put in one word: healthy.

Being healthy is a sign of self respect, a healthy mind, a sociable person, one who can be an addition to your life.

Why is this a more acceptable preference than wanting a spouse to be necessarily tall?

Because anyone can be healthy and not anyone can be tall. I can be more healthy and respectable but short than a tall, overweight, aggressive, unhygienic man and according to you you would go with the latter and ignore me.

Then you confirm this flaw in personality (which it is, if you as a woman select a spouse based on height) by saying that money can persuade you. Which means that your love in insincere, and in addition to not respecting a person who takes good care of themselves and others, you have no self respect.

I'd definately not be interested in you regardless of height, even if I was tall and rich, because you are a worthless person.

>>42785985
>90% of women are goddesses

I agree with the other posters that you're either a delusional feminist or not bisexual at all and just a a really thirsty dyke in denial. My experience as a straight guy is that about 50% of men are fine looking, healthy, in decent shape etc. But far from 90% of women are goddesses, it's almost inversed, maybe 1/10 women are NOT overweight and at the same time have a decent looking face.

>>42787124
It's fine to hold high standards like that, I do too, but you better not be another mediocre looking cunt who starts complaining when she realizes her mouth is bigger than her SMV.