More from yesterday, since the morons came out

>>34748405
Sources:
>the Annual Report of Sexual Behavior and Selected Health for Men and Women from the Department of Vital Characteristics
>CDC
>Census Bureau Detailed Statistics on Marriage, Cohabitation, and Divorce
>Psychology Today article on 'Do alpha males actually exist?' which links to multiple reports
>Joint Ohio State/NIH/NHS analysis of infidelity and false paternity
[4chan keeps blocking direct links as spam]
[This is still 1,000% more evidence than anyone has ever given for PUA bullshit]
more

I thought only americans believed in these silly theories since they believe in creationism and such

File: hypergamy4.jpg (52KB, 416x440px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 416x440px

>>34748441
More bullshit
>"Women are the sexual selectors"
This is usually written by guys that immediately follow it with
>"When I was going to school, there was one guy that practically every girl liked and pursued"
This was written yesterday by a robot, proving him wrong *and* stupid.
In reality it isn't men or women as a group that are sexual selectors, it is 'anyone with an advantage'.
Short, balding, pudgy guy who is famous?
Selector.
Gangly ugly girl with a millionaire daddy?
Selector.
Here is the thing - as pointed out in the OP and here, women do NOT make their selections solely based on looks - hypergamy is all about how a man's personality, status, wealth, and other traits can trump appearance when seeking out women.
THAT is why the lies are so dangerous! If you honestly believe 'I am only 5'9" so I can't get a hot girl' you are setting yourself up to fail for no reason. If you seriously quit because you aren't conventionally attractive you are quitting over a lie.
Sure, it is a lot easier to blame "them", but that is a cop out.

what are you talking about anon? Are you sure are you using the right data? We are not in 1950 anymore.

>>34748459
'Merica is the 3rd most populous nation on earth, so even then it is a big problem
>Ever read the blog posts about PUAs going to Europe thinking they'll do great? They stagger home broke and unloved, whining about foreign women!

>>34748405
>model and dude.jpg

By "dude", did you mean "rich world-famous author Salman Rushdie"?

hey OP, did you know the two people in your image had a 3 year marriage and are currently divorced?

File: cathfam.jpg (150KB, 640x445px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 640x445px

>>34748496
The 1950's were the birth of go-go bars and swinger culture, kid.
And yes - the data is accurate. Just google 'generation z is conservative' and see all the various studies showing men and women under 23 are more conservative than you'd believe. Some political analysts are predicting a huge impact in the next few elections because of it.

>>34748523
>women under 23 are more conservative than you'd believe
confirmed for never stepping foot on a college campus

File: exactly.gif (656KB, 500x271px) Image search: [Google]

656KB, 500x271px

>>34748508
Yes.
And by 'model' I meant "world-famous supermodel padma lakshmi, who was worth 20 times more money was was much more famous than rushdie when they married"
Which is my point - Rushdie married a freakin' supermodel who is more than 20 years younger than he is and who is much more wealthy and famous than he is.
Obviously looks don't matter that much, right?
THAT is what 'hypergamy' means.

>>34748523
>Just use Google
>Just do my research for me and use only the sources that support me
Lol no that's not how this works
You made a lot of claims but have no sources
Pointing to an organization doesn't count, they do hundreds of studies and I'm not doing your work for you

>>34748541
Oh, I'm sorry. Was I expected to take your sarcastic reference to the anecdotal experience of someone who noticed obvious public behavior in a limited social environment as somehow confounding to the experience of others *and* scientific analysis?
Because I won't.
Also, which campus. Brigham Young University? Ave Maria University? How about Bob Jones University?

>>34748441

>the Annual Report of Sexual Behavior and Selected Health for Men and Women from the Department of Vital Characteristics
>CDC

You were challenged repeatedly last night to provide a link to the report and show the methodology specifically for determining female lifetime partner counts. It was said that the source would very likely be surveys. You repeatedly ignored these requests.

>Psychology Today article on 'Do alpha males actually exist?' which links to multiple reports

I talk to women all the time about sex. The term 'alpha males' isn't so commonly known by women - but ask them whether they know what "fuckboy" is (guess what, females are the main ones to use this term)

>>34748441

[This is still 1,000% more evidence than anyone has ever given for PUA bullshit]

Practically nobody on r9k knows about PUA shit. YOU have shown more knowledge about PUA blogs than the average r9k poster.

cont...

>>34748487

>This was written yesterday by a robot, proving him wrong *and* stupid.

That was me, OP. Good to see that you're making an effort here by posting again, when you finally go outside and get red-pilled you'll be more likely to remember these days and cringe hard.

>This was written yesterday by a robot, proving him wrong *and* stupid.

The example I gave wasn't to prove that women are the sexual selectors. The example was to show how the average male experiences and learns about female hypergamy and sexual value. It's an experience that practically everyone has had since the start of time. Aristophanes' was writing about this in 400BC.

>In reality it isn't men or women as a group that are sexual selectors, it is 'anyone with an advantage'.

You really haven't been outside, have you? Women have the INHERENT ADVANTAGE OF BIOLOGY, not just their own traits being inherently attractive, but the fact that male biology pushes men to seek to reproduce with females, and that this urge is a far more immediate and constant one. Have you read nothing on Sexual Selection? The whole point of gender is that there's a division where males seek access, and women control access - that's practically universal not just to mammals but the vast majority of gendered animals. This isn't even just sex - various studies have shown that the neotenous features of women are universally preferred by both genders in general (socially).

>Short, balding, pudgy guy who is famous? Selector.
>Gangly ugly girl with a millionaire daddy? Selector.

Women might be more likely to go for guys based on fame, but most guys are going to be uninterested in a repulsive woman who happens to be wealthy. This is where your ideological blinders become obvious again. Women and men desire different qualities in general - they aren't strict or universal, but they are general enough to be very meaningful to existence.

>>34748405
the 20% of men fuck 80% of women is true if you only look at casual hookups
women use the term alpha male themselves
>In addition to 1/3rd of all women having a lifetime partner count of less than 3, the average age a woman loses her virginity has been going *up* for a generation and more are waiting for marriage.
those women aren't going to marry us though

>>34748556
Ignorant and lazy is no way to go through life, kid.

>>34748487
>Short, balding, pudgy guy who is famous?
jonah hill is literally this and he's considered unfuckable

>>34748405
I'm a KHV and 23 and even I can say that this was OP writes is correct. Sure, you must become self confident to get women (and don't be ugly), but that whole Alpha and Beta stuff is complete pseudo bro science. I am a virgin because I'm afraid to talk with People.

>>34748614
>You were challenged repeatedly last night
One guy asked once.
That one (probably you) was too stupid to read the quote from the report, to wit;
>"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."
And as *another poster that wasn't OP pointed out* the original report is behind a paywall, but you can get to it from a university library.
>I talk to women all the time about sex.
*snort* Suuuuuure you do, poindexter.
>Practically nobody on r9k knows about PUA shit
So why is it in every third thread, poindexter?
>YOU have shown more knowledge about PUA blogs than the average r9k poster.
Yeah. Because I actually research stuff. That's why I know it is bullshit.
Poindexter, you don't even realize what you just actually said; what you just said is, really,
>"You obviously know a lot more about this stuff than almost everyone else on arcanine"
True.
So why aren't you listening to me, poindexter?

>>34748726

>That one (probably you) was too stupid to read the quote from the report, to wit;

I asked TWICE, and you quoted me that already - to which I responded that you were quoting the GENERAL methodology for the report as a whole, when I'd asked for the SPECIFIC methodology used to ascertain the average lifetime sexual partners of women - which was the issue we were discussing. You still haven't posted the link to the original report which I've also asked for several times.

>And as *another poster that wasn't OP pointed out* the original report is behind a paywall, but you can get to it from a university library.

So you're the one defending this report by the CDC. Go get access to the report, make it available to us - or take relevant screenshots.

>*snort* Suuuuuure you do, poindexter.

This is a major error with you ideologues. You convince yourself that men who have negative things to say about women must be somehow lacking in experience with women. I've literally just ended three conversations in the past hour with three women, all involved discussions on their sex lives. Most women are reasonably open about it, if you're polite.

>So why is it in every third thread, poindexter?

It isn't, you're insane. Alpha/Beta/Chad/Stacey are HUMOROUS memes on a fucking kinder crayon blackboard. They're appropriated references from pop culture, mostly, movies like 'Revenge of the Nerds'.

>Yeah. Because I actually research stuff. That's why I know it is bullshit.

The point here is that you're ranting on r9k about something the vast majority of us don't even know anything about. Put up a survey, it would be far less than 20% of people here who'd know what chateua heartiste is.

>So why aren't you listening to me, poindexter?

You're quite funny, in that you have the sensibilities of a hystrionic baptist hellfire preacher who simply MUST believe in the reality of certain insane things or the result is eternal torment.

OP is right about the first 3. And the fact that all of them are (or were originally) perpetuated by the PUA "community" in order to sell ebooks

File: rdrr.gif (490KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 500x200px

>>34748628
>That was me, OP.
It takes a brave man to admit he is wrong and stupid. So, regardless of your ignorance and retardation, you got that going for you.
>when you finally go outside and get red-pilled
A self-proclaimed robot telling a normie to go outside? RDRR.
What was it you wrote? 'Practically nobody on r9k knows about PUA shit'?
And here you are, talking about 'redpills'. I'm not sure if you are
1) Retarded for real
2) Totally lacking in self-awareness
3) A PUA who comes here to shill his shitty ebooks
4) Some combination of 1,2, and 3
>The example I gave wasn't to prove that women are the sexual selectors
Good! Because it proved that your own, personal experience proves that they aren't, after all.
>Women have the INHERENT ADVANTAGE OF BIOLOGY, not just their own traits being inherently attractive, but the fact that male biology pushes men to seek to reproduce with females, and that this urge is a far more immediate and constant one
You're confusing the small, marginal, contemporary culture you live in with Real Life In General, poindexter.
Ever see the data on devout religious populations worldwide? N counts, marriage rates, divorce rates, etc. effectively unchanged from 1920. The major impetus is still to find a good *husband* making the groom the selector in almost all cases.
Other cultures are similar! Shia Muslims with a traditional bent, virtually all of India, etc. Hell, one of the major cultural impacts of the Chinese one child policy is that the men are not the absolute selectors anymore because of female scarcity!
So not only have I read about sexual selection, I've obviously read a lot more about it than you have!
>most guys are going to be uninterested in a repulsive woman who happens to be wealthy.
Why, look! You've almost stumbled upon why the word 'hypergamy' is used for women, not men AND proven your ignorance again! A twofer!

>>34748628
> ideological blinders
I don't have an ideology.
That is the problem - you do (PUA bullshit) so you assume everyone else does, too.
No, I have no "ideology", I just know a lie when I see one.

>>34748547
>who was worth 20 times more money
false

actually not even close

>>34748647
But only about 10% of women are engaged in casual hookups
That's the point.

>>34748405
OP, why are you going so far to defend roasties whores? Deep inside we all know the memes are true. This board is the living proof of the hipergamy.

Everybody here is fucking retarded. Case closed go home.

File: 1258782057972.jpg (85KB, 1000x862px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1000x862px

>>34748405

It's not bullshit when it forms a model that makes it to where you can accurately predict female behavior because of it. That's fucking science.

>>34748899
yeah but seeing as the only way robots can get sex is through casual hookups, seeing as they're socially retarded, it's not wrong for robots to believe that 20% of men get 80% of the sex they could have

File: jonah hill.jpg (103KB, 634x784px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 634x784px

>>34748660
>"Pictured here with his current girlfriend, Hill in the past few years has dated Ali Hoffman, Isabelle McNally, and Brooke Glazer"

File: 1486493266341.jpg (233KB, 600x4113px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 600x4113px

All you need to know is in this picture.

>And here you are, talking about 'redpills'. I'm not sure if you are

Here we go again. "Redpill" is a term that's entered the lexicon back in the early 2000's, it was originally mostly used by 911 truthers and NWO conspiracy theorists. It was only LATER appropriated by the 'manosphere', and not primarily by PUA's at all - it was mostly MRA's and MGTOW types - the redpill is the painful emotional experience of being told your whole life that you have 'male privilege' and realising that it was all a manipulation and that women hold significantly better cards than you, HENCE the internalisation of an abusive lie.

>Good! Because it proved that your own, personal experience proves that they aren't, after all.

Those girls pursuing a single guy in highschool literally ignored and rejected vast numbers of males who remained virgins, or at best ended up sleeping with one girl, perhaps one relationship. Only a minority of guys were living anywhere near the level of the average female.

>You're confusing the small, marginal, contemporary culture you live in with Real Life In General, poindexter...

>Ever see the data on devout religious populations worldwide?

There are surveys showing that divorce is MORE common in some Christian communities than non-Christian, and in monogamous cultures - women STILL have the higher sexual value. You're actually agreeing with many robots here - who complain about sexual liberation because it allows women to use their sexual value while discarding and ignoring the status and other things that a male husband might bring to the table. Interestingly, even first wave feminists like Elizabeth Cady-Stanton wrote about how this was the desired goal of feminism, to reduce males in status to hangers-on, to establish what she and other feminists called the "Matriarchate" or "matriarchy".

>you don't have to be attractive!

>you just have to be ridiculously rich and famous!

wow thanks, my third eye is open now, my brown eye as well

>>34748874
>>34748987

Now I'm off to bed, but here's some research for you...

>Who gets paid the most in porn? What is the differential between the payments female and male pornstars make per shoot?
>Who gets paid the most in modelling? What is the differential between what male and female models earn?
>Who are the vast majority of prostitutes and who earns the most? Male or female prostitutes?
>Among transexuals of either original gender, what physical attributes are the ones MOST sought after? Hint - they're feminine ones.
>Who are the biggest trending and earning ASMR youtube stars and what do they have in common? Hint - they're female

This is just some of the evidence that women in general have higher innate sexual value by default - while they're young.

Here's some more:

>How many boys are born for how many girls on average? What does this mean for that gender?
>Who are the vast majority of labour\war conscriptees? Who are the majority of gang-pressed and human trafficked individuals?
>Who are the vast majority of those working dangerous, destructive, risky, undesirable jobs?

This is male powerlessness AND lower sexual value at work - if men were inherently more sexually desired, they wouldn't be working like this, often just for the HOPE of getting a female partner.

This is Poindexter signing off.

>>34748405
>>34748405
I applaud your efforts OP, but it's useless. A lot of the people hear cling to the ideas you post as the last refuge for their sexual failure. They NEED to believe that women don't want them because of some impossible caricature they have of the ultimate man, Chad. They then blame Chad and women:
>How can I compete with Chad?
>Why do women have impossible standards?

All in this is just an attempt to avoid ego death, or at least what remains of the ego.

You can't win, the ideas of this board are held to with an almost religious conviction. Just do what I do, shitpost, it's about all this board is good for.

>>34749019
Applaud him for posting ridicolously long monologues?

Nobody is going to read all that shit. Can't blame that on 'religious conviction', which actually is an apt description of how you cling to your romantic notion of women as actual people.

>>34749019

Chad is an abstraction. Males are always in a position of sexual competition for females, so the prospect of losing out to another 'better' male is an ever-present one. Even if you find the best woman and you marry her and stay with her for 20 years, a "Chad" can come along and pose at least some threat. Whether wealthier, better looking, more powerful, more sociable, better drug connections, whatever - there is always the possibility and temptation to leave for this. Much literature written by women admits this, who the fuck wouldn't?

Ontop of this you now have a social and legal culture that is almost entirely the product of exclusively female lobbying - to make it not only easier but desirable for women to make these sorts of trades and dispose of former partners without consequence, or even with possible benefits.

>>34748405
ONE big problem, op. These studies are all based on self reported polling.
You know, the same technique that told us Trump had a 0.1% chance of winning?

Surveys ain't science, people. Especially when you're asking women for their history.

File: butthurt detector.jpg (28KB, 544x420px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 544x420px

>>34748816
>I asked TWICE
Well, I did leave the thread for work, so I might have missed the second one.
It is pretty funny, though. In both threads you have a *severe* case of being assblasted. It has been a long, long time since I have seen a robot as dedicated to proving himself retarded like you! A real flashback to the old days.
>This is a major error with you ideologues. You convince yourself that men who have negative things to say about women must be somehow lacking in experience with women
Totally wrong. I am laughing - hard! - at the idea of a guy who calls himself a robot talking to a woman about the time, let alone about sex! And I was in the army - compared to the military attitude toward women, you're a fucking feminist.
That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, though, does it moron? I am *NOT* saying 'women are pure, perfect creatures!' What I *AM* saying is 'if you robots would stop listening to PUAs you could get laid'.
Yes, really, you fucking dope, that is the point here. When robots believe PUA fuckwittery they give up. If they reject it, they can get laid.
Tell me again about my 'ideology', you fucking simp.
>Alpha/Beta/Chad/Stacey are HUMOROUS memes on a fucking kinder crayon blackboard
Hwy. Poindexter. Lt me quote from the OP
>"Enjoy, but never believe!"
See that? Since you are too retarded to get it, that means 'laugh at the memes, but never believe them'.
See?
The reason I mention the other shit is because YOU keep insisting that PUA bullshit is true.
Most guys here are fine and just having a giggle. My post is to warn about folks like you that actually believe this shit.
In other words - the only problem is you, poindexter

>>34749071

Oh and I'll add that much of the serious feminist literature going back to the first wave was very explicit on this - it wanted to eliminate any male power to maintain monogamy. Feminists have been writing for over a hundred years of the need for 'free love', and declared their hatred of marriage as the source of "patriarchy" and oppression of females. These same feminists weren't arguing for no relations with men - just no relations which obligated women in any way to loyalty.

Weren't you forced to read 'The Awakening' by Kate Chopin in highschool? Written by a woman and hailed by women and feminists at the time - it's the story of a woman who feels oppressed by her marriage (not a forced one) and her child, so she has an affair, but she's not even happy with that, so she drowns herself in sea of freedom.

File: butthurt report.jpg (57KB, 614x657px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 614x657px

>>34748816
>you have the sensibilities of a hystrionic baptist hellfire preacher who simply MUST believe in the reality of certain insane things
Project much?
My point is 'this shit is funny, but it is fake'
YOU are the one screaming in buttclenched fury that I *MUST* come up with scientific papers of perfect pedigree RIGHT NOW because you are RIGHT and i am WRONG!
In the meantime, I keep telling people what?
'Go out, search google, find out for yourself'.
This causes you to RAGE!
And that makes me laugh.
What happens if someone somewhere disagrees with you about how women choose a sex partner? Do you burst into flame?
You are raging over something you admit,
>Put up a survey, it would be far less than 20% of people here who'd know what chateua heartiste is.
but are furious, *furious*, when I say that about 33% of women have less than 3 sexual partners in their lifetime.
Why? Does it make you cry?

>>34748487
>If you honestly believe 'I am only 5'9" so I can't get a hot girl
No one believes that.
What we're saying is that it's harder. Even more so if you compound multiple disadvantages. A short balding poor ugly guy with mental health issues is gonna have a hell of a time making up for it. Some cases are so hard that it's virtually impossible. And how is that fair? People keep.telling you to just be confident, when the real reason is something uncontrollable that will make society reject you no matter what.

And you make it sound easy, oh we just have to gain personality, status and wealth? Imagine a genuinely autistic person spending his whole life trying to achieve this. Does he really deserve to be alone because he doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria of what a FUCKABLE male is? It's simply not realistic for everyone to completely change their personality to become lovable in society's eyes. Some of us truly are fucked from the start.

>>34748977
He must be doing something right. She's hotter than most celebrities gfs and Jonah is 5'6" and fucking obese

>>34748896
Was she richer when they met?
Yup.
Was she richer when they moved in together?
Yup
Was she richer when they married?
Yup
It has fluctuated, but when comparing net worth *and* their holdings in other enterprises she was worth 18.5 times as much when they met, mainly due to her stock holdings. This declined to being only worth 6 times as much when they divorced.
I rounded up. You got me

>>34748922
>why are you going so far to defend roasties whores
I'm not.
Hell, son, my point is - robots CAN get laid!

File: 4.webm (810KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

810KB, 640x480px

>>34749153

Dude, you're insane.

The reason I respond to you is because you're of the mentality of a typical male feminist OR more likely, from the way you've behaved - a sort of 'pol cuck', the type of guy who wants us to get married to a girl who's had her fun and go die fighting in another country to defend spooks (in actuality, gynarchy). I enjoy responding to people like you because the average robot can learn from what I post in response.

You did mention that you're in the military, isn't it possible that as a part in a machine that's built on using men up to make women's lives more luxurious (and my own, frankly - as a 10+ year NEET living off welfare in a country you help to make stable), that you've internalised spookery to the point that you're here on r9k fighting your own demons?

There is such a huge diversity of views here, and you haven't even remotely tapped the AVERAGE mentality of robots, you're just fighting phantoms.

It's 2am here so I really must head to bed. Have fun making the world safe for your NEET overlords like myself!

>>34748405
>only about 15% of first marriages end in divorce these days
I don't know about the rest but this a lie. Over 50% of first marriages ends in divorce.

>>34749323
Sorry forgot to add the point
"Over 50% of first marriages end in divorce in the first 3 years"

It is like this from the 2010s

>>34748405
>>34748441
>>34748487
>post example of very famous, high status dude with model
>WOW DUDE THIS PROVES HYPERGAMY ISNT REAL CANT YOU SEE THAT WOMEN DONT CARE ABOUT STATUS, MONEY OR LOOKS. JUST B YOURSELF ;)
Fuck off roastie/roastie-sympathizing scum.

>>34748947
>System designed only to pick up drunk sluts in bars
>Guys who created the system admits it really only applied to drunk American sluts in bars in big cities, and even then it doesn't work very well
>Morons like you think it is 'scientific' and 'applies to all women'
Yeah - you're an idiot

File: hypergamy2.jpg (253KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 700x467px

>>34748950
>yeah but seeing as the only way robots can get sex is through casual hookups
Says who?

>>34748987
>not primarily by PUA's at all - it was mostly MRA's and MGTOW types
the MRAs and MGTOW proudly admit all of their source ideology is PUAs.
Hurting yourself, moron
>the painful emotional experience of being told your whole life that you have 'male privilege'
Who the fuck are you talking about? 'Male privilege' is a fucking meme used by a few femtards. No one in real life talks like that

>>34748987
>Only a minority of guys were living anywhere near the level of the average female.
Total bullshit. You have no evidence that 'most women sleep with lots and lots of Chads' and science says you're full of shit. So far, all you've done is whine about how Molly never noticed you

>>34749572
every robot ever because they don't socialise

>>34749008
Here is some actual research, you lying mongoloid
>Since most users of porn are Men, and men want to see women, female porn stars get paid more because...?
>Since most fashion consumers are women most models are for women's clothing so female models get paid more because...?
>Most users of prostitution are straight men so female whores make more money because...?
All you have shown so far is that you are stone ignorant of sexual dynamics *and* capitalism.

File: hypergamy3.jpg (30KB, 600x347px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x347px

>>34749019
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'
Fear, pure and simple, makes them freeze

>>34749081
>stats on divorce, marriage, genetic analysis of parentage, epidemiological analysis,
>"Self reporting"
Never change, robots.

>>34749256
Oh.
You've read Stirner and aren't smart enough to get the joke.
That explains quite a bit.
>Good job going to bed, poindexter
Protip: out here in the Real World it is still a man's world, kid. Men control business, men control governments, make a shit ton more money.
>"Women graduate HS more! Women get more college degrees!"
Who fucking cares that they like to sit at desks? With all their degrees they still can't compete with men.
The problem isn't that women dominate anything, women just scare *you*.

>>34749323
>>34749341
Bullshit.
Divorce rates for first marriages were *never* above 40% and have been declining for 40+ years

You want science?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool

https://psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one-man-6d41445ae73d#.f7ku0mssv

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/through-history-more-women-have-reproduced-men-180952840/

http://www.livescience.com/47976-more-mothers-in-human-history.html

80/20 rule is proven

File: undateables marriage.jpg (60KB, 634x423px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 634x423px

>>34749529
>"Everything I don't like is an outlier"

>>34749716
Most of your "stats" are to do with sex, nit marriage or children.
All the sex "data" is completely reliant on the individuals telling the truth 100%. Never gonna happen. What motivation is there to do so?

>>34750055
>All the sex "data" is completely reliant on the individuals telling the truth 100%.
>genetic analysis of parentage, epidemiological analysis
Pick one

>>34749687
Defining us all as cowards is a very simplistic view.
Many robots here have mental issues. Some may have personality disorder, some anxiety or depression, yet others may be on the autism spectrum, or even schizoid.
All those disabilities have very different causes, effects, and treatments. Some will be in treatment their whole lives with no happy ending.

To call them all cowards is, in fact, cowardly.

Your projection betrays you. You refuse to empathise with the abnormals and give them advice that works for YOU. But you will never admit that your studies and advice are completely irrelevant to the outliers of the human experience aka us robots.

>>34750093
>>genetic analysis of parentage, epidemiological analysis
Oh, you mean like
>>34750019
?

Our own genetics proves you wrong. The majority of females fuck a minority of males. It's always been this way. You and I are children of sluts and Chads.

>>34749189
>He must be doing something right

being rich and a celebrity is about the only thing he's doing right

>>34748405
okay Mr. Feingold, whatever you say

>>34750017
this is blatantly false

it's commonly sold to us that marriage is great as long as you're "prepared" citing that only 30% of marriages of high income earners and highly educated people will end in marriage. That 30% is what we're supposed to look to and say that those are the kind of chances we like. Divorce rates in people who haven't gotten their shit together are drastically higher.

>42 percent of marriages that took place between ages 15 and 46 ended in divorce by age 46
t. bureau of labor and statistics

there is no way first marriages only end in divorce 15% of the time

>>34750350
>end in marriage
divorce***

>>34748614

Just chiming in to clarify something about fuckboys.

Fuckboys are not "Alpha males". Even if I think the very use of the term alpha to describe human behavior is retarded as fuck and the very definition of a toxic internet meme that went too far, judging by the description of alpha that we throw around, to a woman, an alpha man is a provider, a man with an active sexual life showing women desire him as well as a stable position that shows a sense of responsibility and ressources to provide and high confidence that shows he wilk not let others step in the way of his ambitions. If he is chad attractive that's a bonus. All of those are qualities a decent woman will look for if she plans on spending life with the man and raise a family with. Keep in mind that where the data gets shady is that stats don't take into account that a person's life situation is susceptible to change. Tragedy may hinder a man's once fiery confidence, if he loses his job and cannot provide, this puts stress on both in the couple and test their commitment. Also, the way women perceive Alpha qualities may vary.

People obsess over these spook stories about divorce and commitment to the point they get too terrorized to even give themselves the chance to fail, but we're human, you are human, nobody is perfect and life can change from dream to nightnare for anyone and there is no way to predict it and limited ways to foresee tragedy. You have to stop comparing yourselves to what happens in other people's lives and realise any romantic approach for ANYONE is a dice throw. Eternal love and perfect commitment is a meme and never existed. You are either willing to try and fail until, maybe, you find a life partner or you don't, but it's your choice and nobody's fault. It's foolish to blame personal misery on how others behave in their own romantic life.

>>34750548
>>34748614
Now back to fuckboys. Fuckboys are tools, they are seen as objects to women. I have been a fuckboy and aside from having sex on occasiob with the same girl, you are treated like an object and treated like your feelings don't matter one bit. This is not fun. Having sex doesn't invalidate the status of being an object. The moment you show an iota of attachment they are gone forever. If fuckboys were alpha they'd keep these sluts for life and the sluts would be madly in love with them, but they are not. A fuckboy is used to fix an urge.

>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.

I told you this was bullshit yesterday. You are almost correct regarding alpha *wolves*, because wolves in the wild (though not in captivity) group together in families, not in groups of unrelated wolves that are all trying to gain dominance.

HOWEVER, the term alpha is still used to designate the highest rank animal by many scientists in many serious contexts. This is especially true for primates. Consider the following:

>Capuchin Monkeys
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21698660
>"... we analyzed: (1) whether the alpha male is the preferred male partner for females, ..."

>Baboons
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3433837/
>"... alpha males exhibited much higher stress hormone levels than second-ranking (beta) males ..."

>Mountain Gorillas
>http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/156853909x419992
>"As compared to previous studies, we found decreased behavioural reproductive monopolization by the alpha silverback."


There are tons of examples like this. Those look serious to me. Please note, I am not necessarily arguing that their are alpha and beta humans, but it's just up not true that scientists don't use the terms alpha and beta.

>>34750708
>implying scientists didn't become aware of people adopting the term and stopped using it because they felt they were not alpha enough if applying it to themselves

File: 1318297290934 (1).jpg (29KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 256x256px

>>34749562

Uhh I never got any say in this fucking system. Guess who VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES TO GO TO THESE BARS AND GET DRUNK AND MAKE A SITUATION WHERE ONLY PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS IS THE ONLY THING YOU CAN JUDGE?

Uhhh... WOMEN!

They're not getting super excited about chilling at the house playing vidya games or reading books or cooking a nice meal. Oh no. She's "bored" unless she's getting fucked up and smothered in attention from random sexually attractive people.

Women are given plenty of opportunities to no perpetuate this system and they still do every fucking day by their own choose.

You're the fucking dimwit roastie slut that can't responsibility for this. Bars and clubs would go out of business if girls stopped showing up there.

>>34750708

>Please note, I am not necessarily arguing that their are alpha and beta humans, but it's just up not true that scientists don't use the terms alpha and beta.

It's not too far of a leap in logic to say that the same concepts we see in nature apply to humans. We share our genes with those creatures, what's not to say we share some of the instincts and subconcious programming too?

That's why we use the concept. It's not as strictly defined as it is in some species but it's definitely still there and effecting us.

>>34750207
The majority of anxiety disorders are treated with behavioral therapy; it is, in the end, pathological fear.
Same with about 90% of depression.
And you are being overly broad!
Most robots are very self-aware and react positively to the truth. The post was about guys like poindexter, who will scream and cry rather than admit that they have a real chance at improving themselves.
I don't think all robots are cowards, but I am certain some are

>>34750272
Discussion of what happened 8k years ago when 80% of men died of violence has very little to do with today, or you'd be making cave paintings, not posting on an Etruscan cave painting board

>>34750298
So you think that maybe if you are short and chunky being funny and charming might get you a 7/10?
'Cuz that happens every day Outside

>>34750303
>You can get laid
>Dirty Jew
pick one, loser

I feel like everything OP is saying is inconsistent with the reality I'm familiar with, but maybe my perspective is inherently distorted because I live in fucking Portland, Oregon.

>>34750350
That 42% is for all marriages, including second and third+
A large number of divorced people remarry and the failure rate of 2nd_ marriages keeps going up.
That is how the "50% of all marriages end in divorce" stuff started. Sure! 80% of third marriages end in divorce, granted.
But a shit ton of first marriages last
>mixing apples and oranges and not noticing, tsk.

>>34750794
>This guy thinks all women in the world go to urban pickup bars, get drunk, and sleep around
How robust do you think the train system is, genius?

>>34751092
>Oregon has the second highest divorce rate in the nation
>Portland has the highest divorce rate in Oregon
>Sociological analysis out of Oklahoma State U showed of the largest 25 cities in America Portland easily had the highest rate of divorce
>Portland tops surveys in women who self-identify as 'feminist'
>Portland has a very high rate of abortion and out of wedlock births
Wow.
Portland sound like Hell

>>34750794

It's everyone, not just women.

>women are not down for playing vidya.

Yes they are, it depends on the context. First time I had sex it was with a girl I invited over to play vidya. Obviously it was a ruse to get invited so we could fuck, but we still play vidya together without any romantic affinities. I was her fuckboy for a while and got tired of being treated like shit. She's not exactly the best example against women not being whore (although, in my entire romantic life she is the only one I've been romantically involved with who had fuckboys), but I still use her as an example that it's a lie to say that women only care about sex and attention. Granted I will give you a point: Women live attention and it's part of their base personality. The intensity varies from one girl to another, but everyone likes sex, everyonw tries to get laid and getting laid always involve some bullshitting one way or another. Women are not exclusively guilty of this.

Of course people who go out in a setting where people go to get laid will not exactly show crystal clear sincerity and prove to you they are actually super cool gamer people down to chill or whatever. You accuse women of behavior that is not exactly that much of a problem as long as both are willing to partake in non-commitment casual sex and nobody's feelings are being played with. In a context of flirting, people approach each other in a sexual way. Deal with it, it has never been a problem. If you hate that shit, do like me when I got tired of this shit, just don't go pick up bar sluts.

>>34751201
Yeah, it needs to be fucking cleansed. I just came here for college, but I want to get the fuck out now.

>>34750837
Well my problem is that the can't really be used for humans in the same way scientists use them for other apes. Our societies are too complex to give each person a rank, and even if you could, many "high ranking" human do not derive their authority from aggression, but from wealth, tradition, etc.

Maybe it has some use, but PUAs shouldn't use the terms just to add a scientific veneer to their theories.

Reminder to hide all cuckoldry propaganda threads.

>>34751237

>Maybe it has some use, but PUAs shouldn't use the terms just to add a scientific veneer to their theories.

If it helps with understanding and analyzing reality than it's doing the job probably. I agree it's too broad an idea to apply to humans, but it's also an easy idea to simplify things. It's easier to say "alpha" than to list off a bunch of traits and cultural positions that seem guaranteed to attract females.

File: 1428740582032.jpg (42KB, 542x670px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 542x670px

>>34751123
>>34751213


I live in Louisiana. That's all I've ever seen my entire fucking life. Girls don't give a flying shit about anything other than getting fucked up in the bars and clubs.

Video games are "for dorks" remember?

I think you kids were born in the fucking 90s and have idea what it was like having to hide your hobbies because girls would instantly reject you over it. I'm talking about REAL girls too, not the ones you meet online which /r9k/ seems to believe are the only girls in the world. It's still present with everyone I know my age. They can't talk about certain things with girls around because girls don't like those things... Men who actually get laid.

And you forgot the reason I even brought that up, because that anon was saying MEN invented this system of bars and clubs and getting drunk and getting fucked. No, that's all on women. That's what they prefer. Take it up with them.

>>34750298
Compare to other celebrities gfs. Daniel Radcliffe for example. Similar height, much more attractive face and body yet his gf is nowhere near that girl's level. So what is Jonah doing differently?

File: smug.jpg (10KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x250px

>>34748441
>[4chan keeps blocking direct links as spam]

>>34751404

I don't think it's healthy to stick to what you've seen in your past. The fact that being a nerd is not seen as a social handicap is actually a good thing.

Also I don't know how it is to you and your friends or if you are grossly exaggerating, but ever since I started owning my personality as an awkward nerd, I've had less and less problems with making friends and getting laid.

For example, last weekend I was at a house party. I get there and there's this super turbo nerd dude who brought his linux emulator machine thing full of games and emulators and for the first third of the night I played old genedis games with a bunch of dudes while the girls were hanging in the corner talking among themselves. eventually I just stopped playing vidya and went to hang with the girls instead. None of them gave any of the guys shit for playing vidya and I spent the rezt of the night flirting with one girl and, eventually, we all grouped to play card games.

I perfectly understand where you're coming from and yes, there are still people out there who judge nerds, but it's not the late eighties anymore, things have changed and if your friends are in a social circle that shames them for nerdy behavior, maybe they should change their circle. It's all about who you hang with and how you carry yourself. You a nerd? own that shit. Don't back out of showing it to people.

>women's fault

Again, false, it's everyone who play this game's fault. It's a mutual agreement bteween all men and women hanging out in this context.

I've lived the bar life and picking up bar sluts. The solution is simple: Do not participate if it disgust you. Bars are not even the best way to get laid.

>>34751404
>anon was saying MEN invented this system of bars and clubs and getting drunk and getting fucked.
No, you mongoloid, I said PUAs' systems only work in bars and clubs.
Your issue is that you're retarded.
>Girls don't give a flying shit about anything other than getting fucked up in the bars and clubs
Have a lot of experience with a wide range of women, then, do ya'?
>

>>34748405
I know robots don't like to hear this, but personality has a lot to play in this. I know average looking guys that have hot girlfriends and very good looking guys who can't get laid because they're weird.

>>34751948
>For example, last weekend I was at a house party.

God Damn it this board is dead.

File: 1458807391886.png (249KB, 336x356px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 336x356px

I want to believe there are good, kind women out there but there are two issues with that

1. of all the women I've ever encountered and talked to, I've never once met a girl whom I could call "good and kind"
2. even if such women existed, why would they want a piece of shit like me?

>>34748405
>Over 1/3rd of women have a lifetime sexual partner count of less than 3

No shit, they probably interviewed women of all ages. Any woman older than 35 or so grew up before hookup culture became rampant.

Same thing with the 10% promiscuous shit you are throwing out, that was true up until about the mid 90's. That's when pop culture did a major shift.

Look at early 90's, even on "edgy" shows like Married with Children, which featured slutty characters, the slut was still shamed and shown as something negative.

Then you switch to something like Friends in the late 90's, where all of the characters are portrayed as wholesome, lovable people...and yet the women each sleep with probably 10+ guys throughout the series and regularly have sex with men they just met.

Compare how edgy Madonna was in the 80's for wearing revealing clothing and singing about sex, vs someone like Ariana Grande today who wears half as much, sings songs about getting fucked so hard she can't walk straight, and isn't even considered controversial, that's just how girls are expected to act today.

It's incredibly common for college aged girls to have 20+ partners, and they don't even consider themselves slutty, because they just compare themselves to the girl with over 100.

Survey women under 30 only and you'll get massively different results than what OP is presenting.

>>34752584
Yup.
Short, fat guys can get laid.
Tall thing guys can struggle.
Some women are cruel and shallow
Some women are thoughtful and kind.
Laugh and kid around, but don't think memes are real

>>34753580
>why would they want a piece of shit like me?
Why don't you change?

>>34754007
I am trying. But I can't change who I am fundamentally. I can get fit, dress well, force myself to be sociable, but I can't fix the person I am.

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

98KB, 576x768px

>>34753754
>Any woman older than 35 or so grew up before hookup culture became rampant.
FFS are you retarded!
>1950 - swinger culture began
>1960's the sexual revolution started and was in full bloom with women promoting Free Love
>1970's - promiscuity was so high you could sign up for wife swapping parties at library bulletin boards
Fuck, son, its like you don't know a fucking thing about what you are talking about!
The median age a girl lost her virginity in 1975 was 15 years 9 months and that is when half as many women went to college
In 2016 the median age a girl lost her virginity was 17 years 10 months.
The median went up 2 years in 2 generations! That means it is about to where it was in 1947 when they started taking these measurements!
Boomers were fucking all the time but the media was in the grip of their parents and controlled by different laws because *broadcast TV*, you moron!
It is like you're saying 1950's swinger clubs didn't exist because Old Time Radio never mentioned orgies.

>>34754021
What, like your mental attitude?
Sure you can. It takes time and patience, but people can and do change

>>34754121
>1950 - swinger culture began
>1960's the sexual revolution started and was in full bloom with women promoting Free Love
>1970's - promiscuity was so high you could sign up for wife swapping parties at library bulletin boards

Yes, and those times were where the "10% of women highly promiscuous" stat from OP came from. Those weren't the norm, they were the sluts.

You apparently didn't read my post. Sluts have always existed, but they used to be shamed. Now they are common, encouraged even.

>>34754142
My personality. I'm just not a likeable or good person in general.

>>34754385
No, I read it
Still retarded.
>Median age of virginity loss is going UP
>You think this means young women are more promiscuous
See? Retarded.
>Women over the age of 35 = 12% are 'very promiscuous'
>Women aged 20-24 = 7% are 'very promiscuous'
>You think modern women are sluttier
See?
You're retarded.
I also love how poindexter and others say 'women will lie about partners' AND also think 'women aren't ashamed of partner counts anymore'.
Which is it?
also, see
>>34748523

>>34754413
You think you can't change that?
Why wouldn't you be able to?

>>34748405
Ultimately, I'll believe what I want to believe. And I believe redpill shit because I need an enemy in this war that is my life.

>>34754494
How am I supposed to change the person I am?
I'm selfish, cowardly and emotionally weak.

>>34748405
>being so insecure and tiny dicked you make a post like this

>>34754558
Lift and you might grow some testicles

>>34754578
I'm getting fit already
Doesn't change much

>>34753580
>Admits to being a piece of shit
>still thinks it's the other person who is the asshole in every interaction

Really forces your cranium to activate

>>34754604
I don't behave like an asshole with other people.

File: jioint.jpg (13KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 225x225px

>>34748405

What is this supposed to change about my opinion? These low divorce rates are among 25+ women who are college educated. Like a college educated woman with few patterns would marry me.

Alright, scurry along little faggot

>>34754631
Why didn't you go to college?

>>34754510
That is perfectly fine.

>>34754558
Work on courage first. Start taking small riss at first and build a habit of courage. Tell the truth, too - moral courage leads to physical courage.

>>34754570
>"Hey, guys, you can get laid!"
>"Wow, you're insecure"
fucking robots, man.

>>34754631
They are also among women that are virgins at marriage, women with a devout religious belief, and women married to men who are financially secure.
Get in line

>>34749687

I have a theory. Anytimes someones reasoning can be summed up as.

>Your opinion is wrong because you have negative traits.

That person is full of shit.

>>34755533
Good thing no one said that, then, isn't it?

File: 2a3.jpg (16KB, 600x397px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x397px

>>34748556
But he did post all of his sources, can you even read?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFnJMPQow7A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVB3ypWVu14

it doesnt matter if there is no cock carousel you speak of. if you're not a model or filthy rich with status then you dont have a chance with women.

>>34748405
WRONG

http://www.girlsaskguys.com/sexual-behavior/a22977-girls-on-tinder-do-smash-a-lot

now KYS

>>34751948
>Bars are not even the best way to get laid.
What is the best way to get laid?

>>34752584
>personality has a lot to play in this

WE KNOW

But how do you fix a broken personality? That's the hard question that no one wants to answer. "Be confident" doesn't cut it.

>>34753754
>Ariana Grande today who wears half as much, sings songs about getting fucked so hard she can't walk straight
Waaaaait a second, which song is this?

>>34756974
Girls that use tinder are minimal even if 1 million women use it compare that to 300 million people+.

File: 1475901969196.jpg (49KB, 480x371px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 480x371px

>>34748936
found (you), Anon
maybe enlighten all of these here retards as to the truth of the matter and why exactly they're retarded toobeeonnest