Facts: '20% of men fuck 80% of women" is a myth >In

Sources are where friendy poster?

>>34730015
A Gallup poll showed very few people call themselves Feminists; this was confirmed by a number of follow ups, including a HuffPo poll.
Marriage data is simple Census Bureau data mining.
Alpha, beta is basic Biology class
The sex partners is tougher because a lot of that data is in pay areas (peer reviewed journals, mainly) but it is from the CDC (STD, pregnancy, and abortion data), Demographic and economic data )same as CDC plus prescriptions for/purchase of birth control and examination of medical records), and a number of controlled surveys.

>>34729970
bumpity umpity

Whatever they won't have sex with me regardless so they are all scum in my eyes.

>>34729970
hey nice sources!

wait you didn't post any

>>34729970
>No scientist uses it seriously in any other context.
This is factually incorrect.

Humans aren't wolves you dumb fuck, humans are primates. In primate tribes, one alpha male fucks all the females.

File: n6vcz0u2lzhx.jpg (19KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 785x757px

>>34729970
>no sources

Nice try normohomo

>>34729970
I've been telling people here bits and pieces of this for forever.
Most of the shit people say here isn't just nothing but self defeating and absurdly pessimistic, it's also factually wrong. Like egregiously wrong. Like even if you applied this dogmatic shit to elephant seals it still wouldn't even be accurate let alone applying it to humans.

No one will listen to you, and for the life of me I don't understand why.

>>34731175
Just as many as are posted by PUAs!
>Also, read the entire thread

>>34731264
Because I want to live in the reality where there's a reason I'm a loser other than just me being a loser.

It's the Jews, goyim. They're lying to you.

>>34731213
prove it
>protip: you can't!!!!
.
.
.
.
..
saffron

>>34731242
read it for the links to studies
https://www.theguardian [put DOT COM here] /science/brain-flapping/2016/oct/10/do-alpha-males-even-exist-donald-trump

>>34731246
Read the entire thread roboloser

File: Ask-Date-2.jpg (32KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x333px

>>34731264
I have a theory.
1) Part of why they fail because they are ruled by fear.
2) No one wants to be ruled by fear.
3) Change is hard.
4) Rather than take the risk of changing (they are fearful, remember) they want to stay the same.
5) So to convince themselves they aren't just cowards, they create this elaborate fantasy world where they *can't* ever succeed.
This explains two things fairly well
A) When you tell them lies that support their fantasy ["20% of men fuck 80% of women"] they *never* ask for proof but when you tell them the truth ["over 33% of all women have less than 3 lifetime sexual partners"] they not only demand sources, they refuse to believe it regardless of the level of proof
-this is to allow them to never change while avoiding admitting they are cowards
B) When people post simple, sensible advice on how they could rather easily CHANGE their behavior and thinking they interpret it as 'just bee yourself'.
-This is because they are desperate to avoid change and risk, so they very *all* advice as 'don't change'

>>34729970
>'20% of men fuck 80% of women" is a myth
>The cock carousel and beta bux stuff is a myth

For what generation of women?
If a woman is old enough to be complaining she can't find a husband, she's old enough to have not grown up during peak degeneracy.

A girl who is 18 now grew up in a very different environment to a girl who was 18 20 years ago.

>Humans do not have 'alphas', 'betas' and the rest of the PUA bullshit

Obviously some men are more dominant than others.

>Not all women are corrupt, modernist feminists

Whether they call themselves a feminist or not, they are generally sympathetic to feminist talking points.

>>34729970
>>The term 'alpha male' was coined only to describe the unusual behavior of some wolves in captivity for a single paper. No scientist uses it seriously in any other context. This is why no two PUAs can agree on a real definition and also why the existing definitions paint "alphas" as losers, not top dogs.
There are winners in life and there are losers.
Winning is alpha. Losing is beta.
That's essentially the entire definition of it, the reason why people can't define is often is because there is a sliding scale between winning and losing and most people are losing BIG time, thus need stuff like sex with many partners to try and validate themselves as winners. The problem with defining winning and losing has been a stagnating economy and wages along with less creation of jobs with a super high concentration of wealth, this along with the fact that there is a definitive line between winning and losing means people above the losing line have a new ceiling of being a loser compared to the real alphas since they made it to one floor above losers at the least while the real alphas are 20+ stories up the building and there is restricted access getting any where near their floors.

You get rekt every time you make this thread multiple times per week, you have tons of evidence to the contrary but you just don't want to believe it. It's really sad.

File: 1478302858612.gif (646KB, 400x424px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 400x424px

>>34731327
I read the entire thread and you didn't post any sources

File: physical-differences-990.jpg (287KB, 990x743px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 990x743px

>>34729970
fuck off you retarded brainlet. the scientific community uses terms like alpha and beta to describe animals and we are not that different from chimpanzees. We as humans even have the same tournament strategy as chimpanzee. Human males have aggression and sexual dimorphism just like chimpanzee. In the world of primes and tournament species 5% of males are accounting for 90% of the mating. In the world of pair bonding like birds all the animals get to reproduce and women are only looking for parental skills when it comes to picking males.

File: retard chamber.jpg (98KB, 576x768px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 576x768px

>>34731710
>A girl who is 18 now grew up in a very different environment to a girl who was 18 20 years ago
Catch a clue, poindexter
Go to the search engine of your choice and type in 'generation z conservative' and watch the thousands of articles about the surveys going on
Girls who are 18 years old now are
-More likely to be virgins
-More likely to want to stay a virgin until marriage
-least likely to call themselves a feminist
-less likely to support abortion, gay marriage, and homosexual rights
-more likely to want to be a stay at home wife and mother
-more likely to be religious
than any cohort of 18 year old women since before the Korean War.
In other words, you go t it *backwards*.
>Whether they call themselves a feminist or not, they are generally sympathetic to feminist talking points.
You mean the women that are *alreeady* calling themselves 'the pro-life generation'? The women I described above as more conservative than your grandmother?
Yeah.
You are who the OP was for

>>34731836
Gen z? The generation of blue haired multi gendered antifa retards? Not degenerate? Nice laufh

>>34731735
>That's essentially the entire definition of it
So you don't even know what alpha and beta are supposed to mean?
You poor, dumb fuck.
Here is what Heartiste of Chateau Heartiste uses as a definition of a *BETA*
>"I had a friend; rich, handsome, successful, charming. All the women wanted to date him and all the men wanted to be him. But he only dated 3 or 4 hot women before he married a gorgeous blonde, totally wasting his potential"
To PUAs, etc., that guy - rich, handsome, adored, with a hot wife - is a *BETA*.
Get it, yet?

>>34731773
read more diligently

>>34731836
You are beyond delusional. What the fuck are you talking about. It's like you've never stepped foot on a college campus. I doubt you even go outside.

>>34732013
I did, still didn't find it. How about you actually source your bullshit claims instead of just whinging and saying "b-but they don't source either!!!" Dumb cunt.

>>34729970
>Ask yourself: when was the last time a PUA or shill posted any sources other than other PUA blogs?
All the time? I see government and university studies constantly posted. I'm not that invested in the topic so I don't have any saved but I don't take blogs seriously without actual studies to back it up and they almost always certainly do.

>>34731829
>5% of males account for 90% of the mating"
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!!!!
70% of even young Millennial men will marry
Looks like maybe that anthropology degree you don't have isn't helping you

>>34731836
But I'm not generation z.

I'm a millennial.

It doesn't matter to me what people who are 10 years younger than me are doing, the people my age, the people who are actually available to me, are degenerates.

>25 posts
>no source

>>34732083
Pretty sure something like 80% of men will marry in their lifetimes but marrying =/= passing your genes on.

File: retard.gif (2MB, 352x217px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 352x217px

>>34731931
>"Everyone in the world is JUST LIKE the few people I see on TV!"

File: What normies would like to believe about the male consciousness movement.png (63KB, 1648x867px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1648x867px

Protip - women have vastly more STD's than men, and this isn't because as the apologists will claim "women are more prone to trasmission!", that's just a roastie myth to keep you from actually investigating rates of transmission and how this actually works with heterosexual sex - for a hetero woman to get an STD, she has to have had sex with a hetero male who also had that STD and would count in the statistics.

>>34732041
>admit he never asks others for sources
>admits I gave a list of where to find it
Lazy fuck, aren't you?

>>34732097
Your fault for waiting too long; date younger women

File: arcanine silliness.png (76KB, 1648x867px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1648x867px

>>34732199
Arcanine will swallow anything a PUA tells them

>>34732199
>Once you control for Black women the difference vanishes

File: Refusing Feminist claims about razor 'gender tax' against women.png (749KB, 2320x1294px) Image search: [Google]

749KB, 2320x1294px

>>34732282

Are you retarded? Why does Trump use the same words as Hillary? Because words are for communicating, and are based on convention.

If you're thinking of terms like "Alpha" and "Beta", these are terms which have a wide degree of meanings, but they're used generally because most people have an experience of this - every male here who's been through highschool has seen how some guys, usually better looking and more confident - do better than meeker guys with girls. They're general terms and if you weren't a complete sperg and autistic - you'd also realise that for the most part on r9k they're used in a humorous context.

You're actually guilty of the very thing you're accusing others of, you're repeating a feminist talking point "The manosphere repeat these things about alpha/beta because they don't understand the reality of wolves!", when literally nobody using alpha/beta as terms was basing these terms specifically on wolf packs or how they behave...the terms have been used generally within evo-psych (the actual academic community) for decades, and were casually applied to human beings - almost never in reference to wolves. So you're just spouting feminist talking points that have no connection with reality, like saying "Nice guys are the real bad guys", you ignore the context - you ignore other people's experiences, you spout lame talking points.

File: HIV and Women.png (174KB, 1419x685px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1419x685px

>>34732376

White hetero women have 4 times the HIV as white hetero males. It takes a LOT of fucking to get HIV, and you have to fuck the guys specifically who have HIV.

>>34731641
That actually makes a lot of sense. It is easier to convince yourself you live in a world that's a zero sum game where there are either "normies" who get everything or robots who get nothing, than it is to actually understand the nuances of human relationships and interaction.

I get why they'd do it but still, just damn. If I felt the way they did I'd put in whatever effort I could to change my thinking. It's not even just about improving myself as a person, but life wouldn't feel worth living if I thought I was the human equivalent of a defective toy meant to be throw away before it even touches the shelf.

>>34732083
Lol, I laughed really hard at that too. Anyone who has ever interacted with people knows that's blatantly false. I know the person who posted it has to know that it's not true either.

File: Male Behaviour Change Program.png (133KB, 1250x1460px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1250x1460px

>>34731641

>over 33% of all women have less than 3 lifetime sexual partners"] they not only demand sources, they refuse to believe it regardless of the level of proof

"Regardless of the level of proof"

Nobody has any more authoritative evidence for this other than a handful of verbal surveys, mostly carried out by women on campuses. They aren't authoritative, and this is the only 'level of "proof" provided.

>>34732263
Waiting too long?
Waiting for what?
To be born?

Oh no i've only had like three. Yeah right more like 20.

>>34731998
You don't seem to be the one that gets it, he stopped validating himself as a winner in a way other losers feel they need to do to be a winner. Your peers thinking you're beta doesn't make you beta unless they do it in a way to fuck up your social standing.
That example is simply pure jealousy

File: huh.jpg (5KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 224x225px

>>34732397
All of you morons use 'hypergamy' exactly backwards. In reality the word means 'women find other traits more important than physical appearance' yet Heartiste used t wrong and no all the brain-dead fuckwits that never read a real book use it the same way.
If this was from experience? Someone would have looked it up and used it proerly.
Other stupid terms from the PUAs that dfuckwits use without understanding?
Solipsism really stands out. Cock carousel, beta bux, and such are obvious, too.
>evo-psych, blah blah
I guess you didn't read the actual link to a psych article about the real use of Alpha, huh? Try keeping up with the thread, doofus

>>34732497
>If I felt the way they did I'd put in whatever effort I could to change my thinking.
You aren't ruled by fear

>>34732611
>"Why, no, I have never even HEARD OF the Annual Report of Sexual Behavior and Selected Health for Men and Women from the Department of Vital Characteristics of the CDC. I certainly have never seen the full report, let alone the abstracts!"
FTFY
Let me guess - you hope to get your English major from WBLUofLOF?

>>34732083
sorry I meant to say 5% of males account for 95% of the mating in tournament species.

Professor at Standford

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeKaqiELGH8

>70% of even young Millennial men will marry

yeah after the millennial women had their fun riding the cock carousel or because they had no other options they had to settle with lower tier men but I guarantee they would leave them if they had the option to pick the 20%.

>>34732140

Scientific evidence proves that women only want the genes from the most masculine males because during ovulation they are mostly attracted to masculine males. also they get the most orgasms from the most masculine and female orgasms help sperm with fertilization.

>>34732628
To get a wife, fuckwit

File: Iraqi Christians.png (2MB, 2448x1092px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x1092px

>>34732772

Dude you have to look at yourself. You're repeating the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS that normies come here and use like sheep.

"Hypergamy" as a term is NOT BEING USED INCORRECTLY by r9k and other guys online. The term "hypergamy" is used online generally to mean women going for guys they perceive as having higher status - either in terms of looks, or money, or friends. It's "bitches like guys who are liked by bitches".

Your form of argument is exactly the type of thing we see with mindless feminists. No matter how many injustices and inqualities feminists institute against males, they just throw up "Well feminism is about equality! Look at this one definition from this dictionary!!!!".

Once again - you're just betraying your own ignorance and your own mindlessness. Language isn't limited for the former use of terms.

>>34731361
It takes around 30 seconds on google to find academic sources using the term "alpha" to describe gorillas.

File: Prison and Gender 1.png (671KB, 3300x1444px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 3300x1444px

>>34732891

Holy shit you're an ideologue.

Literally nobody has ever heard the name of that report. The CDC put out a publication, does that make it true? You didn't address the issue - WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THEIR CLAIMS? I'd bet $1000 that their source are VERBAL SURVEYS of women, and the conditions of these surveys would make them even more questionable.

>>34732893
>Professor at Standford
>Standford
please use a trip so you can be filtered
...............................
So your claim is that 95% of all mating in tournament species is by 5% of males AND that humans are a Tournament species.
So your real claim is that 95% of all mating is by only 5% of men?
Does the doctor know you've stopped taking your medicine?

>>34729970
>>In poll after poll less than 25% of women even call themselves 'feminist' in any way and less than 6% call themselves 'strong feminists'. So only 1 in 17 women spout the entire 'patriarchy!' bullshit and more than 3 out of 4 *aren't* feminists at all!


because males are getting angry and pissed off at feminism. feminist realize they need to give their slaves a break or else men are just going to take their rights away. also women lie about being a feminist just to get boyfriends but they still agree to what the first and second wave feminist did.

>>34732921
You like saying I'm like a feminist, yet you cry like a little bitch.

>>34732979
Wow.
Thanks for finally making my point.
It takes about 15 second to prove
>'20% of men fuck 80% of women" is a myth
>'20% of men fuck 80% of women" is a myth
>Not all women are corrupt, modernist feminists
>Most women aren't sluts
>Most women aren't sluts
And yet, AND YET, the only person to look something up and post it was to refute something outrageous!
Let me ask - how many of the people in this thread crying OP is wrong! OP is wrong!' also googled about these topics, saw I was right, *and ignored it*? Half?

File: Gendered Intervention Order referals to services.jpg (1MB, 2480x3496px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2480x3496px

>>34733038

I'm just helping you out by drawing your attention to the fact that you're one of thousands of normies who have come here trying to convince 'us' we've got it all wrong - by misinterpreting the culture and even specific claims made on here, and trying to blame us for our own problems...when in all likelihood, as is most often the case, you're worse off than most robots because you're so self-deluded.

>>34733004
yes he is from stanford university.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky

all women would only go for the top 20% but they only settle with the rest of the males because that was the best they can do.

>>34732982
>Give you the name of the report and who makes it
>You can't be bothered
Ignorant and lazy is no way to go through life, son
>"The report is based upon epidemiological analysis of pregnancy rates, abortion rates, STD transmission (including genetic analysis of STDs, when possible), prevalence of certain cancers, name-blind analysis of medical records, deceit-controlled surveys, and behavioral analysis."
Want to quit now, or do you just enjoy losing?

>>34733009
So which is it, super-genius? Are men slaves or do feminists need to be concerned about their fee-fees?

>>34729970
But this is historically accurate. For most of human history most men didn't breed. Only wealthy men could while most were basically servants. In today's world it's somewhat better because we have an egalitarian structure.

File: Hybristophilia.webm (519KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 800x450px

>>34733194

>Ignorant and lazy is no way to go through life, son

What do you want me to do with it? I'm willing to believe there's such a CDC report, but I've already pointed out - you're claiming that this reports' claims on women's lifetime sexual history is relevant and reliable. I've told you that these will be based on surveys, in all likelihood VERBAL surveys which are simply unreliable.

>Want to quit now, or do you just enjoy losing?

You've quoted something like likely refers to the report AS A WHOLE. I'm challenging you to provide a source or citation for the specific claims about lifetime sexual partners. You could easily provide a screencap and link, but you won't because you know I'm right.

I'm not intimidated by the fact that the CDC puts out roastie-favorable reports. We're all aware of that on r9k. We're all aware that the most powerful organisations in the world are run on behalf of roasties, and promote such obviously retarded notions as the "wage gap". We're saying... these claims are based on nothing, and our lifetime experiences directly with women...from all over the world in all different life circumstances...shows that women have far more sex, and with a small group of men.

File: 36th chamber.gif (946KB, 475x211px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 475x211px

>>34733103
So let me get this straight.
1) Robots are a tiny, niche community of extremely small size.
2) Robots are largely defined by
a) extremely poor social skills
b) lack of success in inter-personal relationships
c) borderline to full-blown mental illnesses of the sort easily addressed by cognitive behavior therapy
3) Lack of overall social status
And you are pissed at me for trying to point out that a lot of what you think is true is a lie?
Believing lies is 90% of what makes you a robot, robot. Cognitive behavior therapy is based upon getting people to realize that they are wrong about critical elements of their lives.
>trying to blame us for our own problems
When a guy is misthreading a nut onto a screw showing him how to correct his behavior is not 'blaming the victim' you feminist-sounding dweeb, it is correcting behavior.
When I tell a 6 year old that there are no monsters in the closet and then show him that I am not 'misinterpreting the culture' nor am I 'blaming him for his own problems' I am showing him there are no monsters in his closet
>You'd probably have a bad MSPaint png with a quote from Roosh about Slovenian bar girls that you thought proved that there ARE monsters in closets, and I'd know that if I wasn't a normie
>you're worse off than most robots because you're so self-deluded.
How? By actually having social skills, romantic success, a lack of mental illness, the ability to find my own scientific sources, and the ability to read the dictionary?
Yeah - I'm fuced, aren't I?

>>34733138
We'd go for the top 20% of women too if we weren't all complete autists. Trying to find the best partner possible is just being human, everyone with a brain knows soulmates and true love is bullshit.

File: Pervasive double-standard of blaming men.png (91KB, 1444x906px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1444x906px

>>34733443

I'm not going to address every point in your long-winded posts, I'm about to leave the thread.

>>You'd probably have a bad MSPaint png with a quote from Roosh about Slovenian bar girls that you thought proved that there ARE monsters in closets, and I'd know that if I wasn't a normie

This is why I have the image here >>34732199 . I don't like or agree with Roosh or find him a model of behaviour or a source of truth, but you'd like to believe he's some sort of lie-disseminator existing in a complete cultural vacuum. The reason many men end up reading Roosh and those other guys is because they started out 'blue pilled', believing in equality with women - but as they grew up they witnessed things directly which taught them that women are privileged, and when it comes to sex - especially priviledge.

Women are the sexual selectors. Cultural institutions like polygamy have existed for thousands of years. If you're American - Utah once was full of them. Cults are full of this behaviour - women rallying around single charismatic leaders (most cultures are headed by a male, filled with women - look at the 'children of God', or even the Ghana mass suicide). Women willingly entered harems. When I was going to school, there was one guy that practically every girl liked and pursued. No matter how much you try to insist on this board that these experiences of reality are "deluded" or "based on lies" - the reality remains that these are based on experiences of women and how they behave, and also how men behave.

If you have a problem with the popularity of Roosh, perhaps you should criticise the women who reduce male value to their utility (often exclusively sexual) to women.

Deal with it, anon.

File: 1461460559652.jpg (406KB, 3000x1687px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 3000x1687px

>>34733218
yes males are slaves because they evolve to extract resources from their environment and women evolve to extract resources from men. if they are not gaining resources from men in marriage they will gain resources from them with the welfare state.

File: Ice cream is so nommy.webm (470KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 640x480px

>>34733611

Oh and I'll add one final point before leaving the thread for good...

You brought up Roosh... I'm an Australian. Here, a small number of feminists got together and had the government come out and state that he would be denied entry to Australia. We have allowed literal terrorists and crime-lords into the country, but a bunch of feminists were able to get him banned, based on a mischaracterisation of things that he said. This was an injustice towards him, and an injustice and insult to those who'd like to hear or see him. In this same country, I have to put up with the Governor-General (The representative of the Queen), the Prime-Minister, the Army, Navy, Airforce, the National and State Parliaments, the National and State (and Territory) Police... all making misandric, gendered pronouncements, like "Men and boys violence against women and girls must be stopped", "Violence against women and girls is never acceptable" (excluding males as a category to be defended from violence). These statements are literally stuck on billboards, in policestations, and now even on stormwater drains and in the pavements of practically every council in Australia.

This is the power that roasties have. r9k is here as an outlet for men who are victims in large part of this power of roasties.