>There's plenty of fish in the sea! You just need to

How is this even biologically possible?

>>35089005
It's one of the facts of the sexual market place that is rarely discussed. There is indeed a surplus of young men relative to young women in the western world. In the USA we only start getting a surplus of women above age 35. Below that and it's a sausage fest. When you add in mostly young male immigration, combined with women preferring older men, a lot of young guys have to fight for scraps, or give up.

>>35089061
Something like 1.05 males are born for every female.

Combine that with a society that has a high standard of living and hasn't seen any major wars in the past half century and you get a lot of sausages.

>>35089061
Approximately 107 boys are born for every 100 girls. In past generations, men were much more likely to die through war or famine or accident, so it just about evened out. Additionally, immigrants are more often male than female.

While it's true that there are more women than men on earth, that's only because women have a longer life expectancy.

>>35089061
biologically your more likely to have a boy than a girl also women are more likely to say there in a relationship when there actually not

>>35089005
Some guys have two girlfriends.

My little wants to bring in another girl to our realtionship.

So I can see this sort of thing being possible, also I think lots of girls feel it might be shameful to admit to being single when they are just in casual relationships or something, I am not sure.

>>35089005
It looks like the really big blue circles in my state are for places with military bases or cities with lots of STEM jobs, so I guess that makes sense.

>>35089061
We evolved so that more boys are born than girls. Guys would die doing dangerous jobs, or fighting other tribes, and the surviving women could be impregnated by a smaller pool of men. Tribes where people produced more daughters than sons would lose those sons to tribes that produced more sons than daughters. So we evolved to produce more boys than girls at birth. When you add in cultural practices like infanticide and gender specific abortions in places such as China and India it makes it even worse.

>>35089061
uneducated and incarcerated men are not marriage material.

when you only look at people with bachelor's degrees, there are are more women than men.
http://labs.time.com/story/see-the-ratio-of-single-men-to-women-where-you-live/

>>35090370
>women with bachelors degrees
Who's standards are at that point "A man with something even better than a bachelor's degree"

>>35089133
>Some guys have two girlfriends.

Some guys have far more than two.
This plus the demographics makes me think male incels are probably very common.
The 80/20 thing may not be that far off from the truth.

Why do developed countries like the US allow male immigrants?

Shouldn't they only allow women?

What's the source for this chart? What's the overall total estimated difference between the number of single men and women nationwide? And are there numbers for cities other than NY and LA?

>>35089061
every chad is fucking 4 girls on the side

this is the ultimate redpill. this is why women's standards are so high and why men are willing to fuck anything that moves. because women are in high demand and low supply, so they are much more valuable.

>tfw you live in a pink bubble

>>35090672
http://jonathansoma.com/singles/#2/5/2/0

You can play around with the age ranges on it.

If you want official numbers you can check the census data for the age brackets gender breakdown.

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

>>35090546
The west has become gynocentric. They would never switch immigration to be mostly young single women because it would create more competition for women here.

>>35089061

It's not, this is a result of immigration. It's why mass immigration destroys nations and cultures, you get diluted and bred out.

>>35089061
women fucking older men,leaving young men

>>35089061
More single men is just 80/20 in action. Sexual liberation did this. This isn't just biologically POSSIBLE, it's biologically expected.

>>35090546
>Why do developed countries like the US allow male immigrants?
Because (((the people in charge))) aren't acting in the best interests of the US

>>35091021
Expanding on that, look at who benefits from leftist politics over the last 50 years. There are many ways you could have constructed a welfare state, but ours took the form where transfer payments resulted in women getting more out of the system than they contributed, while men get less than they paid in. So the left pushed for a system of redistribution that favored women.

Then look at what the left pushed for in the sexual marketplace. In the old system of marriage 1.0, women were pressured to marry young, sex outside of marriage was frowned upon, and divorce wasn't easy to get. This was actually a form of pussy redistribution, as each man had to pair up with a woman close to his level, taking her off the market, preventing a small group of top men from hording most of the women.

Marriage 2.0 is actually less egalitarian than the earlier form of marriage, and combined with women's hypergamous nature, eventually leads to the 80/20 distribution.

So in every way our society has become gynocentric.

File: lolistirner.png (8KB, 200x252px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x252px

>>35091122
>Ahbloo bloo the left is gynocentric!
So is the traditional conservative right, don't you try pull your partisan politics on me spook.

>>35091042
Wrong. Look at the census data

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

The birth rate is about 105 boys born for every 100 girls. We evolved this way because of male disposability and the need for excess men to die doing dangerous jobs like defending the tribe.

Of course immigration compounds the problem, making it worse, but there is still the underlying natural cause of the gender imbalance.

>>35091094

They are. What's best for the US is more cheap labor and slaves. The more men, the more taxpayers and ditch diggers.

It's not good for the citizens/people because now you and your kids have to compete with the immigrant and his kids. Mass immigration a benefits the government and big corporations. And they don't give a shit about society or demographics or anything else because they are multi-nationals that live in gates communities and are rich as fuck so they don't suffer under the immigrants.

>>35091094
What's this eighty twenty thing people keep laughing about?

>>35091146
If we still had the old tradcon form of marriage, and the social stigma attached to divorcees and bastards it wouldn't be gynocentric. Modern tradcons are faggots though, so there is no sense turning to them these days to solve the problem.

And I'm not against a welfare state, it just needs to be designed to benefit families instead of single mothers.

>>35091163

Women live longer and don't die as often so the ratio corrects itself. It's literally because of mass immigration. And I can gurantee you that 80% of all immigrants are males under 40.

>>35091178
>They are. What's best for the US is more cheap labor and slaves.
Wrong, that's what's best the the globalists. A country IS it's citizens, not it's government. If a government does not serve as a tool to act in the interests of it's citizens, it must be removed.

>>35089005
OH WOW. SAME THREAD POSTED FOR THE 500TH TIME.. I THOUGHT THIS BOARD WAS FOR ORIGINAL POSTS!!

We need a war to cull the number of males and free up the pussy.

>>35091200

You just agreed with me idiot. Get your brain checked.

>>35091191

pareto principle applied to sex
20% of men having 80% of the sex

>>35091191
In a truly free marketplace the pareto principle comes into play where for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

So for example:

>It is a common rule of thumb in business; e.g., "80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients.

Applied to the free sexual marketplace after the sexual revolution, and you get 20% of the men having sex with 80% of the women at some point. A recent Tinder study confirmed this as well.

>>35091220
And people think this is a new thing?

>>35091212

60% of guys aren't having sex anyway, it's literally excess labor. Your only value is your cheap labor and your tax money.

>>35091199
Yes, but there are more boys born than girls naturally, and the surplus of men still holds up until the mid 30's until enough die off that women overtake them in numbers.

So even if we stopped immigration, there would still be a surplus of young men to young women below age 35, with a surplus of old women to old men above age 35.

>>35091236
But this isn't because of the sexual revolution.

>>35091245
Not at all, in fact they claim (and it's backed up fairly well) that 80/20 or some similarly large split is how reproduction was in the pre-history era before civilizations and the concept of monogamy was enforced.

>>35090731
Correct. I am fucking 4 girls currently.

t. Chad

>>35091274
He didn't say it was, he said it's because of the "free sexual marketplace" that we RETURNED to after the sexual revolution.

>>35091283
>he fell for the 80/20 meme

Nah, it's just you not getting sex.

>>35091274
Yes it is you dingus. The sexual revolution sought to upend the social compact that had helped build our civilization for millenia, and return us to a more primitive state.

It's yet to be seen if we can maintain a modern civilization with a larger and larger swath of men being cut out of the possibility for marriage and reproduction.

My family pops out females like 1:4. If you go to a family reunion at least 80% of my blood relatives are female.

>>35091300
>it's a meme because it goes against my worldview that robots are just lazy ugly virgins and it's all their fault and women aren't hypergamous at all!
[Citation Needed]

>>35091283
I read that historically it was a 70/30 split.

>>35091307
No, historically 70percent of women have passed on their DNA, but only 30percent of men. This is most certainly not a new thing.

>>35091320
I believe it was historically (and this is going back to the emergence of homosapiens) that 80% of women have reproduced, whereas only 40% of men have.

Perhaps the last several millenia where more men were guaranteed a wife and allowed to reproduced that it altered the ratio, and it might have been even more distorted in the pre-civilization period.

>>35091331
Read his post dumbass
>and return us to a more primitive state
He's not implying it's a recent thing to have 70/30, but that the sexual revolution was the recent EVENT that re-instated it

>>35091347
I have no qualms accepting that figure. It just seems patently absurd that people are blaming this on the sexual revolution.

>>35091331
You are counting all of human history back to when we were just basically pack animals, but what good is that when it wasn't how we built civilization?

What makes you think doing "what's natural" will work in a complex modern society?

>>35091356
But it's not a primitive state, either? Restrictions and morals regarding sex are fairly new, and not even practiced universally.

File: 1487344300286.jpg (31KB, 600x765px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x765px

>>35089005

>educate people on the nature of sex and why it feels good
>educate people on what is love and why sex relationships don't last
>inflate peoples' IQ and ego through propaganda

Boom. There's your solution.

>>35091376
>It just seems patently absurd that people are blaming this on the sexual revolution.
They're fucking not blaming it's EXISTENCE on the sexual revolution, they're blaming it's RE-EMERGENCE on the sexual revolution
For fucks sake anon do you have a double digit IQ of something?

gonna need a source on this
seems kinda bullshit, like some fucking dating website's statistics, where most women dont even sign up and using a dating website still considered a fucking joke

>>35091437

See this >>35090986

It even includes a link to the census data that proves there are more men than women in the US up until the 35-39 age brakcet

>>35091412
I understand that the sexual revolution is catching the blame for "re-emergence" of promiscuity, but the sexual revolution came about because of the pill. And if women are on the pill, no babies are born, no genes are passed.

>>35090731
This. I can't believe it took this long for someone to say the truth. Women no longer care for relationships, and would rather be Chad's side bitch, than a robots waifu.

>>35089061
Why you haven't taken the biggest redpill yet?

It's that during the prime mating age (between 15 and 35) there are 5% disparity between the number of men and women in EVERY single year. Only above 30 (when the roasties finish partying) the numbers are starting to equal out, and of course, above that, there are less and less men. Above like 80 and 90, there are 3 or 4 times more women than men.

And I'm not even finished here, because women don't usually get together with men who are the same age as them, so for the prime fuckable material of women (15-30) there are significantly more men (15-45) so if you are an average or below average guy in your 20's, chances that you'll find a younger girl who are not below your level is nearly zero.

So it's not "there's someone for everyone". More like "There's some guy for every girl who are young, and there's some 35+ roastie for every guy above 30".

Girls "magically" starting to be interested in guys above 30 isn't coming from just the wall or financial reasons or biological clock. It's because the numbers are even at that age.

Average guys in their 20's have the same chance of getting a partner as a 40 yo roastie. Possibly, but most likely will never be their dream partner, because it's settling for less.

>>35091590
Women hold the best hand when it comes to biology. They're the baby makers.

>>35089118
>also women are more likely to say there in a relationship when there actually not

Srsly?
Why?

>>35091463
>census data
who the fuck do you think even does the census? it isn't millenials or even any recent generation


this data is 5 years old, 5 years ago was a different time

>>35091590
And the only reason the numbers start shifting in men's favor later on in life is because other guys die off. Look at the discrepancy in male suicide compared to females.

>>35091647

because they're actually just some guy's side bitch, but they pretend it's a relationship

>>35091612
That's true but has nothing to do with what I said.
What I said is basically if EVERY woman would get together with a guy with the same age as her, ther would be 5% of guys who don't get ANY because there aren't enough women when they are young. I'm just saying even if we don't count anything, men still have the disadvantage in the dating market when it matters, because of the number of sexes.

>>35091665
Are you retarded? Every census shows more boy born than girls, and that surplus carries on up to early adulthood. In the past the surplus would usually die off in war, like WWII, but modern wars don't create anywhere close to the same casualties for us as past wars, so the surplus of men continues until enough die off by other means by their mid-30's.

>i-its brown people and liberal chads' fault that I can't get a date!

Wew, nice to see R9K hasn't changed since the last time I came here for some laughs.

>>35091300
>getting sex.
most degenerate way of referring to sex i've heard in a while

>>35091669
Not just that. Suicide, homicide, just the general life expectancy is much lower for men. I'd imagine if the dating market would be still active above 80, women in their 80's could start a board just like r9k and cry all day for "tfw no bf" and they would have every right to do so.

>>35091722

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

Hypergamy run amok will be the downfall of western civilization. We will eventually be replaced by more patriarchal cultures that outbreed us.

>>35091696
That's all well and good, what I'm saying is the 80/20, 70/30 figure is nothing new, and the sexual revolution had nothing to do with its "re-emergence" because widely available contraception, abortion, and medical advancements to combat the spread of STDs was the catalyst of sexual liberation. "Blaming" the sexual revolution is patently absurd.

Men always had a disadvantage because women have wombs and therefore have a higher status.

>>35091753
I even think you can say homicide is ultimately from guys trying to get sex.

> Guys see that women prefer tough guys with money.
> Have no legitimate skills to get money
> Turn to crime
> Get killed

File: goliath-gargoyles-27.3.jpg (9KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 210x240px

Post yfw the "only the top %40 percent of men reproduce" meme is coming true

>tfw you actually see some educational information on /r9k/

damn it's been a while

File: Screenshot_2017-02-18-17-48-48-1.png (392KB, 782x844px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 782x844px

>>35091789
>mfw only the top forty percent reproduce

>>35091775
Well it's new in terms of women are allowed to deviate to that figure. I also think that if given the chance, even in the middle ages, women would go only for the rich and powerful, but then civilization would've died off because the peasants wouldn't have worked or reproduced so rich people would also starve to death.

Nowadays morality allows women to fuck whomever they want and don't settle for anyone if they don't want to but STILL reproduce with Chad and raise their kids with the state's support.

I don't know how the 80/20 translates to bearing children nowadays but I'd gladly see a nationwide mandatory paternity test and census of how many guys are raising their own kid.

>>35089061
>date multiple guys
>say you are single

>>35089061
This sample is probably from a dating site, which has more men than women because men are more likely to use them.

There are more young men than women in the world, but this graph is very cherry- picked and an extreme representation.

>>35091850
>playing the field
>try it sometime

>>35091520
Fucking hate this fact so much.
>Reference from Wikipedia
>Eighty-five percent of the women indicated that "As my status increases, my pool of acceptable partners decreases" (p. 246). In contrast, 90% of men felt that "As my status increases, my pool of acceptable partners increases" (p. 246).
Just fuck my shit up sempai.

>>35091839
I think it's pretty well known that rich/powerful men have regularly "slummed" it and bred with peasants/slaves.

>>35091912
You're quite a sensitive lad aren't you

>>35091236
>A recent Tinder study confirmed this as well.
you mean a recent blogpost by a site trying to sell you MRA books and other materials.

>>35091520
>women don't want to be loving waifus of an autistic angry sperglord manchild NEET
>stupid bitches all of them

>>35091935
If a "study" confirms robot beliefs it doesn't need to be factual or have sources.

>>35091928
Dude I just want to find a girlfriend who I can wife while the rest of society just wants casual sex, I am doomed to fail until i'm 30+. i'm almost 22, 50 years ago I would have been married by now and I still can't find anyone.

>>35091954
Nah, fifty years ago you'd probably be in the same boat, but complaining to a bartender rather than anons. That is, unless you know some skill/trade that would make you an acceptable mate.

>>35089005
>average of about 60 unmatched men per 1000 singles

so about 6% on average, which is uncoincidentally very close to the birth rates of males vs females. lel at how dire the graphic makes it look.

>>35091954
Aren't you a special snowflake. I'm sure 50 years ago every girl would have dreamed of being with you. And today girls are too stupid to understand how great you are.

>>35092009
It is dire, because it's 6% for every year of age. Also younger men have to compete with older (30+) established men with wealth and status too.

File: 006.jpg (563KB, 1200x1668px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 1200x1668px

>You will never magically get transported to a world where gender roles are reversed

Just go out and get laid you pussies

You're never going to find a girl sitting here and complaining