>80/20 meme Do you retards actually believe this?

>>37485620
We don't "believe" this because that's the truth.

>>37485657
>We don't "believe" this because that's the truth.
>truth
[citation needed]

>>37485620
The only people who believe this are the virgins who think women are most attracted to the same traits men are attracted to

File: Okcupid Study Your Looks and Your Inbox.png (34KB, 525x425px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 525x425px

>>37485664
Look up the Okcupid study "Your Looks And Your Inbox."

I've typed this out so many times, I need to make a copypasta of it eventually. But the TL;DR is that women rated 80% of men as unattractive, where as men rated 45% of women as unattractive. This suggests that women are attracted to the top 20% of men, thus the 80/20 rule confirmed.

Now, here's the thing. This is a large sample size study from the most established dating website out there. If you want to rebuttal this, then give a study in return. Don't give me fallacies, don't give me anecdotal evidence, don't give me normie stretches of logic. Give me a half-decent study like this one.

>>37485620
How retarded are you to still reject this?

HUMANS ARE POLYGYNOUS

There is no fucking debate. It is ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FAST that humans are a POLYGYNOUS SPECIES.
Tell me if I'm wrong but there does not exist any great apes that are monogamous or promiscuous.

Why do leftists constantly deny science, especially biology?

>>37485723
Seems like women are much more likely to have an inflated view of themselves. Makes me glad to be a faggot

>>37485831
/poltards/ pls fuckoff.

>>37485723
Fucking women and their unrealistic standards.
Us men are way more down to earth when it comes rating the other sex attractiviness.
Why haven't we revolted yet?

tfw im the 20%.

It's actually true. I've gotten treated like I have a halo over my head all my life by almost all women and also by most men. It has made me feel unsure about whether people actually like me for who I am or if they are mostly hypnotized by the halo effect into imagining that I am more funny, cool, etc. I watch my less attractive male friends (they were average looking) get only minor female attention, but only when they had reached their twenties and only after getting fit. They were at best invisible to females. They weren't even human to them, they were just there. No negative, no positive feelings.

Watching all this shit from an early age has made me so cynical that I was unable to live the chad dream and rejected or ignored advances from girls, even girls I found attractive, because I felt like they were potentially monsters out to swallow me for my looks. The only few girls I have let into my heart (and my pants), I talked with online and mutually flirted with long before they saw my face.

Except for my girlfriend that I met online, I only socialize online now and I don't show how I look. I made the mistake of showing how I looked once in a chatgroup and in the end, it gave me enough trouble through the attention of drama generating succubi trying to attach themselves to me for me to not do it again.

I think quite a few top 30-35% sensitive girls have went through my feel in a genderflipped situation.

>>37486061
>tfw im the 20%.
>post about how my life is hard

bait/bait

>>37485879
Lol. I have barely been on /pol/ and am not involved I in the alt right in any way.
This is literally just biology, you cannot disprove this.

File: 1491673019598.jpg (400KB, 3268x553px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 3268x553px

>>37485620
Which is why this action need to come into play.

>>37485879
>he doesn't like the left he must be a full on nazi
>le back to /pol/ for being slightly to the right of me

>>37485831
>le left le right meme

you've been played by the jew. nice job, retard.

>>37486096
Agreed, I see that way too often. The one in this thread is actually the most egregious I've ever seen - simply believing in evolutionary biology somehow equates to being from /pol/. It's insane. What's next, believing that humans and monkeys are different species makes you a /pol/tard? Or maybe just "a speciest bigot." Normies need to be fucking purged from this board.

>>37486061
Oh if it isn't the rare "pattern recognition" Chad. Glad you've noticed what's been going on.

>>37486096
>he
I'm actually female.
>>37486089
>This is literally just biology, you cannot disprove this.
It's a theory like evolution is.

>>37486190
Are you literate? He was referring to me, nobody cares that you are female.

>"pigeons can fly."
>"pfft that's just a theory, like gravity!"

>>37486190
if you retards reply to this, youre retartad

i like the word retard

>>37486190
You are so fucking stupid you don't deserve any replies, I literally can't even

>it's just a theory, so it means nothing haha

You are worthless, you are the problem. Leave and never come back

>>37485831
>HUMANS ARE POLYGYNOUS
humans are made out of polygons?

>>37486315
>>37486349
>>37486352
So you bitter virgins feel good about yourselves ganging up on a female? It's not my fault you can't get laid. Like the top 20% of guys right? And YES evolution is a theory like your retarded 80/20 meme you created to feel better about being alone.

/rantover

>>37486401
>three anons reply to a post
>"So you bitter virgins feel good about yourselves ganging up on a female? "

female confirmed. reply away, boys.

>>37485723
>Not showing the other graph from the same source showing that women message the unattractive men more

>>37486401
>still hasn't made any arguments against the basic biological fact that great apes reproduce polygynously
women are literally incapable of debate, they just believe shit because everyone else does lol

>>37486488
>the basic biological fact that great apes reproduce polygynously
It's not a fact, it's a theory.

Also, if we all came from monkeys how comes there are still monkeys? How am I the stupid one again?

>>37486061
Suit LARPing faggot.
A real Chad wouldn't even consider going on this board.
I gotta admit, you're a really dedicated LARPer for writing such a long paragraph.
Now fuck off faggot, go bait /pol/ or something, they might still for for that crap.

>>37485620
Its funny that girls still try to act this way when they out number men. They are statistically worth less now. Men are now inherently more valuable. This is why there are so many single girls that stay single. They refuse to adapt to the world until their biological clock catches up with them and by them its to late for most of them.

>>37485723
The point of this was that women still message guys they say are unattractive and date them

your point is thusly rebutted directly

>>37486527
yeah? and your a misandric pig.

fyi there are much more men than women.

Serious question:
At what age does the pendulum swing back? When will it be that women are the ones that have to do an effort to get a man? I've heard that it's somewhere around 30 years old, when female looks start to fade and men start to make mad cash from their jobs. However I'm not sure whether this is a meme or not...

What you think?

>>37485831
Yes you are correct the very reason women moan and are more vocal is to attract other mates. Studies have even shown that they are more fertile with guys that fuck them after another guy fucks them. The problem with this though is we do not live in a society that supports this. Women THEMSELVES will have to change and be more receptive to it.

File: Untitled.png (70KB, 1658x854px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1658x854px

>>37486542
Incorrect As of the last count there is about 750000 more females than males in the united states and it is expected to grow past 1 million.

>>37486569
>Studies have even shown
Probably made up by men who hate women.

>>37486567
>At what age does the pendulum swing back?
I can't take the question seriously.. and no the pendulum doesn't swing back men have the power like always.

>>37486079
My life is much easier than that of a sub-20%. It's probably psychologically harder than a bluepilled 20% though, but those barely exist on this board and I generally don't like them because they don't understand or want to acknowledge their privilege and the twisted way it comes about, and usually they think they deserved it in some way.

>>37485620
It's a proven economic principle. It's your opinion against more than a century of research.

>>37486768
>It's your opinion against more than a century of research.
Show me the research then

>>37486768
>It's a proven economic principle. It's your opinion against more than a century of research.

Why does it go from men to women and not the other way?

Its not 80/20 meme, its more like "Women can always date up and dating across is settling for them"

>>37486601
> there is about 750000 more females than males
Yeah, but that's because women outlive men, so the excess women are all 70+.

File: 1477698974791.png (384KB, 505x506px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 505x506px

The truth is worse.
Make it so that a few girls have sex with every single guy. Feel free to exclude one on the bottom if it makes you feel better.

The reality is that there are a few chads, a lot of average guys, a lot of average girls, and a few mega sluts that have far more sexual partners than chads

>>37486961
>few mega sluts
>few
All women are sluts, but some are better at hiding it.

>>37485723
>messaging on okcupid
>fucking

You are very low in intellect if you think these are the same. The 80/20 is a meme. All your "proofs" are just unrelated desperate blogposts.

Mind telling us why you so desperately want something so retarded to be true? What is the advantage of believing in a meme instead of the truth?

>>37486768
Show this research and how it proves 20% of men are having 80% of women?

File: 1433712215244.jpg (52KB, 450x595px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 450x595px

Why are 20% of the women not getting 80% of the men

where is the proof or logic that it should only go one way?

80/20 means that 80% of men are having sex with 20% of women. Prove me wrong. You can't. Here is undeniable proof, and if you don't understand how it proves me right, you are stupid.

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

>>37487089
That would imply robots are in the bottom 20% and not bottom 80%. So it's angrily denied.

>>37487089
becuase women pick who they have sex with, not men
mens demand for sex is greater so women being in control of the supply, only have sex with the best
it worked like this for billions of years in many sexually dimorphous social species

>>37486061
post face with either eyes blocked out or something else. i need to see it to believe it

>>37487105
It just makes no sene

If you are a robot who never leaves his house is not good looking has a shitty (or no) job, hates himself and has psychological issues and posts frogs on 4chan.... i think it's clear why that person is not getting laid

and it's not because 2 in 10 guys fuck all the girls

>>37486094
holy shit this made me bust up laughing

>>37487121
>mens demand for sex is greater so women being in control of the supply, only have sex with the best

Then why do I know so many fat losers who are married?

Why is it a fact that the vast majority if men find long term partners in our society if only 20% of men can find partners?

why is polygamy not a big thing in our society?

>>37487105
robots are most definitely in the bottom 20%, hell that's one person in five, that does not even make it rare or special

>>37485723
OK women may only rate 20% of men as physically attractive but women are much more likely than men to be attracted to personality or hobbies. Also women are more judgemental. Also women are more likely to be looking for "the one" and thus be pickier. Also that doesn't mean the 20% were all the same men.
All you've done is prove that women find fewer men physically attractive than vice versa. Your argument completely falls apart when you look outside for 5 seconds and see something completely different.

>>37487163
>Then why do I know so many fat losers who are married?
money, financial stability, literally the only reason a woman would marry a guy, hot or not, marriage is a fovor a man does a woman, also that woman likely spent her youth riding the cock train of the kinds of guys who beat up the fat guy growing up

>Why is it a fact that the vast majority if men find long term partners in our society if only 20% of men can find partners?
marriage essentially means she's not gonna have sex with you unless she feels she absolutely has to, ALSO DIVORCE RATES AND FAMILY COURT NIGGA
>why is polygamy not a big thing in our society?
it is ... it's called casual sex usually tho (or one night stand) ..... are you living under a rock? well i can't blame you ... all sorts of language mangling is done by the media to normalise female promiscuity

>>37487255
What has shaped your worldview to be so wrong? Have you not left the basement ever since you dropped out of high school?

>>37487255
>money, financial stability, literally the only reason a woman would marry a guy, hot or not, marriage is a fovor a man does a woman, also that woman likely spent her youth riding the cock train of the kinds of guys who beat up the fat guy growing up

no, the average guy making average wages or even who is broke winds up getting married, you are wrong

>>37487255
>marriage essentially means she's not gonna have sex with you unless she feels she absolutely has to, ALSO DIVORCE RATES AND FAMILY COURT NIGGA
wow

>>37487255
>>why is polygamy not a big thing in our society?
>it is ... it's called casual sex usually tho (or one night stand) ..... are you living under a rock? well i can't blame you ... all sorts of language mangling is done by the media to normalise female promiscuity

You are simply in denial that the vast majority of men wind up with partners, not just the rich or good looking

only huge losers wind up alone, not 80%

>>37487221
>personality
kek

>>37487255
fucking go outside, go to any public place where people gather, notice all the fat bald guys not wearing nice clothes holding hands with women

>>37487277
>What has shaped your worldview to be so wrong?
/r9k/

this place is toxic

>>37487099
I didn't see nothing about 80/20 theory about men and women.
But looked what I foun
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)

>>37487280
>no, the average guy making average wages
yes financial stability like i said
>speaking about the rate of marriage is mathematically meaningless without discount the rate of divorce from that, also divorce brings about family court and that brings about sweet dreams about jumping off of a bridge
> wind up with partners
the key word is "wind up" ... as in finnish last
afbb

>>37485620
I had 15yo sweet clean teen pussy yesterday, suppose she needs to be seriously damaged inside to get baited on lower tier dudes

>>37487352
>yes financial stability like i said

so any kind of stability? like average wages? like being a poorfag?

so there is basically no barrier to getting laid than having any kind of job?

again you are disregarding the fact that 80%+ of men find partners

how do you reconcile this fact with your beliefs?

>>37487277
>was obese growing up (force fed by psychotic single mom)
>girls hate me, guys beat me up
>college comes, get job, escape hell
>get /fit/ (okay /skinnyfat/)
>random women from my class say hi sometimes at college
>had gf, still a virgin(very hot but with lots of self esteem issues)
>i can confirm having a gf cuddle you is the best sentient experience in existence
>one day 2 chads (2 inches taller than me, built six pack abs) LITERALLY OUT OF NOWHERE get a rumor that she's single and hit her up on facebook
>breaks up with me over text
>end up dead drunk in the park at night having to fight off niggers with knives (nothing wrong about being black but these were literally criminal niggers)
>150ml gigantic mace can saves me
>this was 2 months ago, lots of other shitty stuff in between

File: Suspetercious.png (28KB, 169x169px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 169x169px

>>37485723
>believing the complete utter shithole known as online dating reflects how the world works as a whole

>>37487470
Did you fuck her or are you still a virgin?

>>37487443
average is not poor, that is not how averages work, kek
the main barrier is looks

divorce rates .... divorce rates ....
finding someone is meaningless if they pull your wallet out your ass and leave a hole so big a freight train can go through

>>37487500
still a virgin, i've said it in the post

>>37487514
go outside, go outside

you will see tons of fat bald guys driving shitty cars with women at their side

you are just wrong

and again, statistically speaking the vast majority of men wind up with long term relationships, you are wrong

>>37487527
>you are wrong
Why he's wrong ?
I don't understand, you're not developing anything but just saying "you're wrong".
Why he's wrong? I want to understand why the 80/20 isn't true

>>37487497
what people say online under anonymity is what they think in real life but are too afraid to say (women have social pressures on them to not appear shallow, but they are being dismantled rapidly, whatever is left of them, that is)

>>37487550
>anything
I mean nothing sorry

>>37487550
>Why he's wrong ?
Because he is saying 2 guys in 10 get all the girls and 8 guys in 10 wind up alone

and statistically that is patently false

>>37487582
>and statistically that is patently false
Show me the statistics then, please.

>>37487520
How long did you date? That's pathetic.

This is why monogamy existed

>>37487597
99% of men get laid. 80% are married at least once.

>>37487597
Do you have proof that 80% of men do not get laid?

>>37486483
Citation needed like the other anon said.
First I've heard of this.

>>37487620
>Do you have proof that 80% of men do not get laid?
Yes I need it.

>>37487582
we're talking about men who women want to have sex with
being married you are still alone if your wife doesnt like you, also lucking out and having sex with a drunk girl once in a blue moon still doesn't put you in the top 20%
there's like a myriad of guys who have very little to no experience with women, no woman counterpart to that .... also they tend to not say that they're virgins when surveyed for these studies ...

File: fembots.jpg (1MB, 1279x2679px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1279x2679px

the 80/20 meme is only half true. women only go for the top 20 but obviously there's not enough Chad's to go around so they settle.

Maybe there's just less attractive women in the world than attractive men.
I see average women coupled with more attractive men so often. Men that would be considered a hot ticket and could get a partner of a much higher level of attractiveness if they were gay.

>>37487597

As of 2006, 55.7% of Americans age 18 and over were married. According to the 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates

>>37487605
3 months or so
not having a place to fuck is kind of a thing since i live with my dad now
well, i guess those guys didn't have that problem
also she was a few months from hitting 18 (i'm 20) so potential jailbat + she was supposedly a virgin too
everything was great, i didn't feel the need to push it ... what an idiot i was

>>37487645
>we're talking about men who women want to have sex with
>being married you are still alone if your wife doesnt like you,

you have a fucked up world view

and it's in the face of overwhelming facts against your position

>>37487645
>there's like a myriad of guys who have very little to no experience with women,

NEVER HAVE I SEEN SUCH PROJECTING

>>37487670
No and yes. It's just that women are deemed "attractive" sooner than men.

>>37487645
>we're talking about men who women want to have sex with
Like he said
>>37487675
>As of 2006
Any stats from 2010 or + ?


55.7% of Americans age 18 and over were married.
>married
>America
How can we make generality if only a 'country' has been studied?
And the marriage isn't the question

According to the 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates

>>37487686
ok?

so being married automatically means your wife has't settled and you're having sex and everything is fine between you and she doesn't make you feel lonely?

divorce rates reflect how much women want to be in these marriages

>>37487666
>just lower your standards!
literally no point in even trying anymore

>>37487645
Sure you're a bitch who will not have sex with me and only want my money and fuck Chad on the side, but I'll still marry you!

Said by over 50% of men according to you.

>>37487221
I think women are just less honest than men generally. They cling to the idea that as a sex they're more intelligent and they don't factor I things like fit bodies and facial geometry when they choose a partner. They hear this and repeat it all their lives until they believe it themselves. Then when an ugly flabby guy talks to them and they don't get the tingles, it's hard to understand why and they just crack it up to something like "we just don't have chemistry".

File: 1493210880029.jpg (113KB, 1024x634px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x634px

>>37485723
>online dating
>reality

>>37487725
No, 99% of men are not desperate beta cucks like you. You are the tiny minority, the bottom 1% trash.

>>37487708
>Any stats from 2010 or + ?
That was as of the last census

but you are right since then 20percent of men get 80percent of all women

it's not just you personally that can't get sex because you are bottom 5%

i concede all points

>>37487666
thanks for the red pill Satan

>>37487750
if men knew what they were getting into, divorce rates would not be what they are

>>37487799
What are they getting into that they don't know of? Why is a manchild virgin like you an expert on marriage?

>>37487864
because it happened to father (whom i've hated until i met him because i was rased by my mother)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2636456/

>>37487864
also are you literally suggesting that men get into these things knowing full well that it will fail and that it will wreck them?

>>37486874
It does. 20 percent of men go for the top 80 Percent of women. Whereas the bottom 80 Percent of men go for the bottom 20 percent of women

>>37487976
Nice proof, jackass. You can't prove the opposite wrong. 80% of men are fucking 20% of girls. You cannot deny this.

>>37487924
I'm not, the bitter autistic virgin manchild is.

Serious question. Do robots still care about 3DPD in 2k15+8/4?

>>37485723
>posts chart
>can't read it correctly

File: image.jpg (87KB, 633x561px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 633x561px

Am I doing it right? Originalo commento senpai

>>37488070
Yeah, the bottom 80 of men and the bottom 20 of women

File: 76895456.jpg (155KB, 1000x998px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1000x998px

>>37485620
>Not posting the more accurate image

>>37488109
Yes. The Pareto distribution can be observed in many different fields.

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

>>37488076
i'm saying that they are naive and don't know what marriage results in for men

>>37485723
>online dating
this is how i know you are a virgin

>>37488315
It's very easy in this thread to tell who is a virgin and who is not.

>>37488293
While you, a manchild virgin, is not naive and knows a lot better what marriage means?

>>37488178
In other words, every man is having sex. Except you.

>>37488334
what does it matter who i am?
if i were divorced what would you say? i'm bitter cause not all women are like that?
marriage=failure .... numbers are clear

>>37488338
No 30 Perce my are not as all those 80 Percent of men compete for 20 percent of women

Cucks like to claim this is a "virgin projection", but what's going on here couldn't be further from the truth. Why is it upsetting them so much? Because it's threatening to them to consider that they too might be unwanted. Robots don't give a fuck, they already know they are permavirgin genetic trash. But revealing that most men are just betabux gnaws at deep insecurity in normalfag ideology: you are just a provider. Don't forget it.

The reason that "most guys" are nevertheless able to find some kind of LTR is because it has been literally enforced with real violence and social pressure for most of civilization. The imprint is still there. Historically, monogamous societies dominated other types. Since it worked, perpetuation of monogamy became codified and idealized. Betas feel a lot more motivated to do shit if they know they have pussy and family secured through their labor; this of course comes at the cost of limiting women's autonomy so that the "resource" of their vaginas is never scarce/never hoarded and betas don't get frustrated to the point of starting internal conflicts over women.

But, as we know, social adaptation and change occurs much more rapidly than actual human evolution. So everyone's drives are still in the stone ages. Men want to fuck anything, anywhere, any time. Who knows which day will be their last? Women want to fuck the alpha. It takes 9 months to raise a kid. You have the best chance of survival with the tallest, most genetically fit guy taking care of you. So when women regain autonomy and monogamy stops being strictly enforced/pressured... they go with their natural desires, which means fucking Chad. How do beta men still get laid? Well, it's not because women are clamoring to fuck them. It's because they want resources.

>>37488594
Like you said, it's nothing but permavirgin bitter projecting. So desperately wanting to believe a meme and wanting others to be as miserable.

No facts back up anything in your rant and you know it.

>>37485723
yeah but the upper quadrant of men are less likely to be on okcupid because they can pick up at clubs. so those numbers are shit

>>37486541

Only because they want their money, not sex.

>>37487221
>personality
>hobbies
>the one(chad)
kek

I believe it.

I know all sorts of delusional roasties who feel entitled to top-tier guys just because they have a vagina.

>>37487527
>you will see tons of fat bald guys driving shitty cars with women at their side

thats not the point of the 80/20 you nigs
its an atraction thing
implying they fuck pasionately

>go outside, go outside
last time i remember its easy for a women to get laid
legit she just has to ask anyone
while men have to compete
hence the 80/20
which i think is actualy even more severe 95/5

>>37487615
low iq neckbeard detected
IT DOESNT MEAN THAT ONLY 20% get laid EVER you stupid niggers
KEK

>>37485620

It's not a meme, and only a chad or fucking roastie would say that it is.

GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>37486190
>female
who gives a fuck, roastie?
>just a theory like evolution
confirmed for sucking chad's cock the whole time during biology class, otherwise you'd know that scientific theories are based on a ton of research and thought to be the general way of things, but still needs to be tested thoroughly again and again before it becomes a fact

9/10

>>37486522
haha how old are you, 16?

the reason monkeys are still around us is because humans most likely evolved from an advanced family of primate who under circumstances were forced to evolve in such a way that they could use tools, stand up on their own two feet, and gradually communicate

the reason other monkeys are still around is because their families were less evolved, and keep in mind the primate family has multiple different branches I.e. gorillas, apes, orangatutans, etc

Somewhat anecdotal but:

>If you talk to women from places like the Philippines, a very very large number of them are in LDR's with white betas, or actually married whites. Think about what this means for the average filipino male. If only 1 in 10 filipino women prefer to marry a European than a filipino male, that means 1 in 10 filipino males have very few options. But with young filipino girls, the number could easily be much higher. Many of them are virgins but seem to totally ignore filipino males.

>I've talked to hundreds of women and men about their sexual experience, and the universal trend is that the vast majority of males report maybe 1-2 partners, whereas only a minority of females report 1-2, average seems to be 4-6 by the time they're in their mid-20s, then you have a tiny number of males who have fucking HUGE numbers.

>This is a tricky one because there's a lot of dissimulation around this and its hard to wrap your head around - but HIV transmission rates show that 4 times as many white hetero females get diagnosed each year as white hetero males. Now transmission rates for HIV are quite low, a single woman would have to have sex with a single male maybe two hundred times to have a 100% chance of transmission. But they have 4 times the rate. If we assume that white hetero women are having sex with white hetero men, then transmission rates basically ensure that there should be roughly 1 hetero male to every 1 hetero female...but hetero women are 4 times more likely! Another way of conceptualising this is that if white hetero males and females only ever had a single partner their entire life, transmission rates of HIV would quickly reduce to about zero - instead we seem them vastly higher in females.

Rates are also hugely biased towards females in Africa. There are huge propaganda campaigns there, though, to claim that it's all men's fault - that "sugar daddies" are exploiting innocent young girls.

Why the fuck are females here? Jesus can we not be given one fucking space free of you?

>>37490272
they want to be the focus of all the attention on this board, since 90% of the robots here are male

it's the same way with MMOs; girls will play those and flaunt their gender around so they get tons of attention from all the 'silly nerdy boys'.

I think it's even worse than that.

>>37487325
Warnock's dilemma leads to online writers and publishers adopting more confrontational writing strategies in order to ensure that they will get a response.[4][5] However, this can also lead publishers to avoid producing the kind of content that might fail to generate comments due to its high quality.

>>37486401
>/rantover
holy fucking shit just slit yourself please

>>37485620
yes and no. women are only attracted to the top males but they will settle for lesser men if that is the best they can do. that is how evolution works and you should be thankful for female hypergamy because it gave males sexual selection pressures. sexual selection pressures are the mechanism of evolution.

File: 0-aWz0dYzuUR7PO3dP.png (12KB, 381x313px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 381x313px

>>37487626
He literally gave the article to you in his post. Fucking retarded degenerate kill yourself

>>37485620
Humans are polygamous. But this trait can be controlled through Islam.
Accept Islam now and fix this problem. Islam says if you're horny all the time you should get married and fornication is wrong.

ITT: bitter virgin manchildren thinking they are normal males, the 80% that can't get laid.

>>37490556
Since only 20% of the top men reproduce, why doesn't this mean the genepool is improving since only attractive good genes are passed on?

>>37490548
>rich sheiks have 4 wives each
>meanwhile muslim robots blow themselves thinking they are gonna have 72 virgins in heaven

Yeah sure, islam is the solution.

>>37490556
we just said lesser males get laid as well but they are not the first choice and women will leave them for a better guy if they had the chance. women want to date up not down. get your facts right.

>>37490556
Fuck off you dumb roastie what are you even doing here?

>>37490598
there aren't many rich sheiks.
The fact that they have 4 wives isn't really impacting the number of women available for everyone else.
Terrorists are just responding to americas foreign policy and let's keep that out of this.

>>37490578
because we don't live in a Darwinian society with no heal care or no welfare. ugly attractive genes are surviving because of the welfare state. the ugly girls are extracting resources from the pretty girls with rich husbands with the welfare state.

>>37485620
>>37485723
Majority of men are just plain ugly.

They've never taken care of their body
>They eat shitty food
>They've never worked out in their entire life
>They're at "best" skinny fat
>Terrible attitudes and childish views

Majority of men are unattractive, that's just how it is.
If girls didn't work out, had no skin care routines, used no make up, and didn't have diets... They too would have a much higher rate of ugly.

>>37490578
>20% of men reproduce

A ridiculous claim easily proven false.

File: singles.png (117KB, 946x641px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 946x641px

>>37490651
do you know how human sexuality works?even in a perfect monogamy single males outnumber single females by a lot. First of all, due to human sex ratio, more males are born than females, and secondly female fertility has an expiry date, while the male one does not.
Males are doomed to be alone. There is no way around it.

>>37490711
>If girls didn't work out
but they dont
you`re speaking of a minority

>>37490729
Well, go on, then. Prove it false.

>>37486401
evolution is a fact because viruses are always adapting to vaccinations and that is evolution.

>>37487163
>why is polygamy not a big thing in our society?

because illegal to marry multiple wives.

>>37490744
Most who look good do, they'll at least regularly go outside for longer walks.

Islam is the solution to this problem. Just accept it. Being a virgin is a virtue in islam

>>37490888
yeah
but the majority isnt good looking

File: 100% Sad.jpg (46KB, 442x740px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 442x740px

>>37485832 >>37486015 >>37486483 >>37486541 >>37487058 >>37487221 >>37487497 >>37487765 >>37488103 >>37488315
Oh look, no one followed directions and provided a half-decent study in return. Are normies all illiterate, or just willingly ignorant?

>>37490209
1 in 10 philipino males is a tranny so who cares.

>>37490793
https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-principles-family-responsibilities-and-academic-work

Apparently 81% of men reproduce according to the first google hit. Your turn, prove that only 20% of men reproduce?

>>37491006
Why don't you talk the talk. You were given ample proof that 80/20 is a meme. On the other hand, you have never shown a single shred of evidence that your claim is true.

File: 94839472.jpg (7KB, 91x126px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 91x126px

>>37486522
so, if we all came from monkeys how comes there are still monkeys?
Epin bait

>>37491336
>1 in 10 philipino males is a tranny so who cares
life.... finds a way!

File: 1476907456486.png (759KB, 672x772px) Image search: [Google]

759KB, 672x772px

>>37491617
I think what he was saying was that 80/20 speaks more for attraction than reproductive chances, largely due to the codified monogamy >>37488594
spoke of earlier

>>37492647
only bitter virgins think that pareto principle works for attraction.

do people like how models look? yep. do they adjust to their environment to get sex? absolutely. there's no "top 20% XD XD XD" in attraction, people develop completely differently what they like based on what they can get. some people even become fags.

File: RedpillNoobs.jpg (100KB, 900x429px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 900x429px

Ye, don't you?

File: 1477964825732.jpg (320KB, 2000x1309px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 2000x1309px

>>37492748
I'm not here to champion my successes, nor to disavow, but ad hominem attacks on virgins isn't going to win you any points. As a person who spent the majority of their life not behind a monitor, I have noticed that, while not adhering to a strict 80/20 rule, many of the "theories" posted here are informed by experience. Just because the individuals that repost them haven't seen it firsthand doesn't negate an inequality built into reproduction that announces itself in most (if not all) social interaction

you have to face the fact that there are some for whom the standards cannot go low enough, and in erosion of monogamy, must always lose

>>37485620
yep, and us little dicked robots are at the bottom of the 80%

>>37492761
>tfw not muscular or relaxed and have a 5 inch needle dick
Should I just give up on pussy?

File: tfw wizard.png (433KB, 500x298px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 500x298px

>>37485620
>implying I care


3493839original

>>37492761
>he still believes in the made up "study"

>>37485620
>Do you retards actually believe this?

Regardless of what I believe -- isn't this what feminists wanted?

Didn't feminists want women to have "better" men to choose from?

And doesn't choosing the "better" men automatically mean that the "worse" men will be left out?

Feminism was never really about women -- it was all about changing men.

And what more efficient way to change men than to force them to compete for women, so that they would become amenable to women's demands?

I'm a female and I go for no one, meme disproven

>>37485723
What does this prove beyond the fact that female OKCupid users are unreasonably picky? Calling that study "half decent" and assuming it's findings can be applied to the general population is retarded.

File: pepe.png (188KB, 385x385px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 385x385px

I don't. I've long accepted my fate. Maybe if someone posts definite proof. Even then it does not make a difference though.

I just lost my virginity at 23 to a girl way out of my league. You don't have to be Chad you just have to not act like a bitch. If a sheltered weirdo like me can do it you faggots can.

>>37491637
I like how the exact opposite of this is correct. I gave a study, where as everyone else gave anecdotes and weak criticism. I'm the only one who actually used evidence, versus all the inane normies in this thread using fallacies.

I'm in the top 20% and still can't get laid because i have zero social skills and am shy around women. Guys that are more brave than me and actually try, but are less attractive than me, are doing way better. I see it all the time. Women still prefer guys like me though, but they'll settle.

Also being mid 20s a lot of chads are dropping like flies. Either they got married young, or their hairline failed them, or they gave up working out and became alcoholics.

>>37494948
do you have a big dick though?

>>37494887
Which study? Which proof? You're lying.

>>37494948
The complete opposite is true. Many men only become Chads in their mid 20s.

>>37486061
Dude, you sound like a really nice and intelligent person. Do you wanna be friends?

>>37495005
>Many men only become Chads in their mid 20s.
that's what I'm hoping for... is it possible to be a chad with a 5 inch dick?

File: 1468794570832.png (345KB, 576x592px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 576x592px

>>37494887
remember: It's not about accuracy; it's about appealing to emotion

anecdotal evidence will btfo statistics almost always. This is why the memes are so important. It doesn't matter how dead-on that image is, what matters is that it elicits a response and makes even it's critics take a second glance. So what if it's not a hard 80/20 Paretto rule that governs mate selection. All that matters is that some people will always be trampled underfoot and they now have a voice.

I, of course, don't think they're gonna change anything. But mission accomplished, awareness has been spread

amirite?

>>37495048
Of course it's possible. The definition of Chad is not a set list, rather just having enough positive qualities to offset the negative ones.

>>37488594
Man, this place is toxic

>>37494984

nope, 6.2 inches maybe 6.5 if I am super hard

>>37495005

bullshit. Chad is usually high school/college aged. The chad/stacy dynamic slowly dies out the older you get. Your typical male "chad" is a tall handsome white guy that's like 20 - 24

>>37488594

I want to fucking cry

WW3 please come and take this nightmare away

>>37495168
You are obviously a teenager or a NEET stuck in the high school mentality. Few men from 20 to 24 can be Chads, they are still mostly kids. At 25 and up men start getting their life together and become Chads. If you think a 20 year old guy has a prayer against a 28 year old guy when it comes to being Chad and getting girls, you're truly disconnected.

File: Only one in six males considered attractive.gif (49KB, 983x622px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 983x622px

>>37494989
...did you even read this thread? Google search "Okcupid Your Looks And Your Inbox" for the large sample size study they ran.
>>37495064
Surprisingly well said. Though I'm not a big fan of appealing to emotion, since that's what all the normies in this thread did (instead of providing a study of their own to contradict the Okcupid study) but you're right that just the seed planted of an idea can enlighten others.

Also, I can't stop laughing at the fact that I genuinely told all the normies how to refute my claim. I actually said "If you want to rebuttal this, then give a study in return. Don't give me fallacies, don't give me anecdotal evidence, don't give me normie stretches of logic. Give me a half-decent study like this one" Yet not a single normie followed those directions. Not one.

Pic related is just a study some random ran, so I won't use it in my argument, but it's just neat to consider how the results (only 16% of males are deemed attractive by women) correlate beautifully with the study Okcupid ran.

>>37495262

I think we have different opinions on what chad is. Just because you have your shit together does not make you a chad in my opinion, chad is chad because of god tier genetics. A 28 year old is not even into to same girls a 20 year old chad is into. 20 year old chad is fucking 17- 20 year old girls, high school early college. 28 year old career dipshit is dating 24 year old women that are out of college and looking for a husband.

File: 1496532000555.jpg (94KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1280x720px

I don't know about the specific number of 80/20 but the majority of women having sex with the best men is common sense. You don't need a study to confirm that, this is the case in the entire animal kingdom where this is applicable, humans are no exception. Almost all the other males fight for female attention and the losers always loser out.

Humans have set up this system where lesser males don't die but no matter how 'civilized' we become, we can't change the fact that there doesn't need to be as many men as there are. A single man can impregnate many women, no amount of societal advancement will change that. Nothing will change the fact that a woman can only get pregnant once a year essentially, carry only one child, and be completely at the whims of the male that impregnated her. Nothing will change that women have to be selective for their mates.

Nothing will change these things. Of course women go for the best men because they're biologically designed to do so.

The question isn't a matter of is the 80/20 rule true or not, the principle itself is true, we just don't know the specific number for sure.

>>37485620
>80/20 meme
>Do you retards actually believe this?

The notion that a tiny number of men experience sexual affection before going to the grave while the vast majority breathe their last without ever being touched is nonsense. The boogeyman, that distillation of our fears, takes many shapes and wears many horrible faces. This is just one of his myriad masks.

The thing about the monster hiding under the bed is that it can be dispelled the moment the child finds the courage to leave his comfortable place beneath the quilt and look in the dark places he assumes nightmares dwell. The moment he does so, he'll find there's nothing under the bed but dust.

If the unloved ventured from the gloomy places they're consigned to, they would be in the same position as the child who found there's no fiend in the dark. They would walk down the street, eat in the diner, and see that love isn't something reserved for the beautiful, the anointed elect. The lights have been switched on and, much to to the horror of the lonely, the vast majority are lovable. The fat man, the short man, the man none would consider Adonis still has a woman by his side.

One of the most terrible things about Hell is not that so few saved but that so few are damned. Gehenna would be almost bearable if there was a legion screaming alongside you as you burned; the fact that your voice is one of the few belonging to Hell's choir is what makes its so music so terrible.

We cling to our myths because they help us comprehend a chaotic world. Horrible as the boogeyman may be, he gives shape to our fears and anxieties. Looking at the world as it is, examining it under the noon's harsh light, the unlovable man grows frantic. He searches desperately for the devil responsible for his pain and becomes horrified that he can't find a single one to serve as a scapegoat.

Trembling, he turns around and at long last realizes that the only monster is the one staring back at him from the mirror.

File: 1469845286350.jpg (38KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x427px

>>37495400
>not a big fan of appealing to emotion
well, you better become one. I was trying to point out how uphill of a battle you face if you want to win with charts and graphs. My advice for promotion of this issue is to use victims of suicide due to sexual frustration (the better looking ones of course, no one likes the uglies)

if concern is raised it may help all people in this situation (even the uglies). The normie is an animal just like everybody else, and just like an animal they can be trained to do (or more appropriately believe) a thing. They may all of a sudden feel their hatred for these men turn to pity and eventually affection. The best part is they'll think it was their own idea!

like I said before, this is unlikely. Mostly because the men behind these movements are a mess of frustration that often gets misdirected

>>37495597
my liege!

>>37495400
Did you even read the responses to you? It was pointed out to you multiple times how your reasoning is weak and completely flawed. A survey of okcupid messaging does not in the slightest translate to the 80/20 meme. You were asked for proof that 20% of men have sex with 80% of women. You failed. You posted something completely unrelated and hoped no one would call you out on your bullshit.

>>37495450
Chad is someone successful in life and with women. Nobody is born a Chad. Chads are made, not born. You can say muh genetics all you like, but if you shut yourself in the basement and do nothing all day but fap to animu all day long you are no Chad.

File: 1491004086186.jpg (86KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 960x720px

>>37495717

You cannot be more wrong, its all genetics. You can work out, you can get a good respectful job, you can drive a bad ass car, it doesn't mean anything.

>>37495717
Mmm, no, pretty sure they're born having won the genetic lotto

>>37495717
But guys who have big dicks and are tall etc. are much less likely to act beta and shut themselves in the basement

>>37495750
>dat bulge
chad deserves all the pussy he can get

>>37495750
Nice argumentation. Oh wait, you only repeat bitter virgin memes.

>>37495753
>>37495781
What makes you think that? Plenty of robots have decent genetics but are failures because of their life choices. Meanwhile you have ugly or short or fat Chads getting mad pussy. How do you explain that?

>>37485620
It's pretty easy to disprove such a dumb idea, literally just go outside and see how pretty much everyone has a partner. It's actually quite depressing, really. I wish the 80/20 rule did exist, that way I could have an excuse. It sucks to see some ugly, unhygienic fat fuck with a gf while I'm single. What is wrong with me?

>>37488594
Normies dont belive me but hypergamy is real if you look at all the entitle career hags who think they deserve fucking billionaire chritian grey just because they are projecting their career success on to man. Men dont give a shit about your career they care about your youth and firtility because they dont want to have retarded babies with you if you are old.

>>37495753
>>37495450

>Women won't fuck me I want to kill myself I hate everyone reeeeee
>'Hey anon, maybe you should go and work out and improve yourself?'
>fuck no, it's all genetics, not my fault

you are retarded desu

File: MFW dealing with normie fallacies.jpg (110KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 768x768px

>>37495668
>You were asked for proof that 20% of men have sex with 80% of women.
Wrong. Read the OP again. He specifically says "80/20 meme." The Okcupid study suggests women only deem 20% of men as above-average attractiveness. Neither myself nor OP said anything about sex.

I know normies have no reading comprehension, but this is just egregious. I specifically said "attraction", not "sex" or "dating."

Also, I will never stop laughing at the fact that normies like you are still using fallacies like your inane strawman. Not a single normie followed my advice on how to rebuttal my claim. I wrote specific instructions, but of course normies will norm.

>>37495852

The vast majority of couples are ugly. Go out to a high end bar/club, who is getting the attention?

>>37495574
This. The 80/20 rule could be the 70/30 rule or even the 60/40 rule, all we know is there is in fact a rule.

File: 1495306288581.jpg (41KB, 516x343px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 516x343px

>>37495860

Who said I don't work out? I just fucking said you can hit the gym as hard as you want, its not going to fix your face or your height. Do you have any reading comprehension at all?

I thought the 80/20 thing was referring to the amount of women that reproduce with the amount of men, not date or marry.

It was because of some study where some scientists studied the genetics of people and found only 20% of men throughout history have reproduced.

It's obvious not dating related because women will date anybody that gives them what they want.

File: dubya lels.jpg (26KB, 500x328px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x328px

>>37495860
lifting wont cure autism

>>37495400
This image you posted anon, among the other studies you posted (I think, idk, ID's don't exist on this board for some dumb reason) only prove that females rate men low on a 10 point scale. This does not translate to sex, or anything really. It would be foolish to assume such a correlation. What you would need to establish first is that physical attractiveness=more sex.

Actually, that first image you posted seems to show the opposite. Women message ugly men MORE. But again, this doesn't prove anything really.

More research needed.

>>37495880
>Go to a place where people literally only go for hookups and one night stands
>HMM WHO'S GETTING THE ATTENTION THERE?
Well obviously the attractive people, that's the whole point of bar hopping. You go there to find someone to fuck and nothing more. And people usually like to fuck someone who is attractive. This isn't some kind of secret my dude

>>37496052
>robot hates when normies argue with anecdotes
>proceeds to argue with an anecdote
gj

File: 1469137801631-4.jpg (102KB, 704x1024px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 704x1024px

>>37495574
humans are an exception in that we are cognizant of this inequality and live looong lives in which we ruminate on failing our most important task. This is the fork in the road in which we can, and should feel obligated to, separate from greater animalia and provide for those less fortunate. We've already taken so many steps off the path of natural brutality i.e. homes, medicine, incubators, etc. It is a wonder why we don't also address sexual disenfranchisement with charity as opposed to ostracism

maybe we just haven't grown up enough

>>37496052

Exactly. The type of man women want to get fucked by, and the type of man they want to marry are 2 very different men. And that is why I want nothing to do with it all.

>>37495922
Why is your face and height something that prevents you from becoming Chad? Are you quazimodo tier and 4'6"?

>>37495922
I mean if you're butt-ugly, yeah. Good luck finding a gf.
If you're average looking and lift? You just turned yourself into a 6/10 from a 5/10. AT LEAST. If you have good muscle symmetry maybe even 7/10.

File: NZ.jpg (142KB, 1140x798px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1140x798px

>>37496169

Because chad is chad because of his perfect face, his strong frame and his height you moron. Everyone can improve themselves, but we all have different ceilings.

File: cc.jpg (90KB, 556x905px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 556x905px

>>37496185

a 6/10 in the eyes of a woman is the same as a 2/10. If you're sub 8/10, you are irrelevant to women under 30. A 6/10 male is also not getting a 6/10 female, he is going to have to date a 2 or a 3.

>>37496118
Well I'd argue that the type of woman a man wants to fuck and a man wants to marry are two very different women. You can say "Well *I* don't feel that way!" but most men (aka normalfags) have the same idea that women do. They want to fuck hot bitches but they don't want to marry a slut. So I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it isn't by any means an exclusive way of thinking to women.

>>37496239
>Well I'd argue that the type of woman a man wants to fuck and a man wants to marry are two very different women.

Women are all the same though. The girls that go out and have 1 night stands are not just "sluts", they're regular attractive girls that you sat next to in college. Regular girls are hooking up.

>>37495781
that's where you're wrong kid

>>37496231
>80/20
>[citation needed]
TWICE ORIGINALLY

>>37496191
Chad can be ugly
Chad can be short
Chad cannot be a basement-dwelling NEET

You're not Chad because of your own life choices.

>>37496279
(not true by the way)

If you're under the belief that women are all the exact same then you cannot have this conversation because you're assuming an illogical belief is true and sticking to it, making a logical discussion impossible. Nice meme

>>37496417

Kill yourself

>>37496448

How are women not all the same? I've actually interacted with them, often. They dress the same, they watch the same shows, they talk the same, they get drunk and have the same loud bitchy voice, they bring up the same topics, they're attracted to the same type guys, they have the same cheesey life outlook (eat, pray, love), they have the same political beliefs.

How are women not the same? At least where live.

>>37496231
>women don't like me because I'm 1/10, it's because women don't like anyone below 8/10

>>37496494
Go to bed, Stanley. You're spouting nonsense again.

>>37496417
lol no, the main components for being a chad are: Dick size, confidence, fit, and height

>>37485620

It's more like 90/50 desu

Bottom 50% of males are stuck with landwhales etc.

>>37496567
>robots can't even agree on what makes a chad
kek

>>37486601

Too bad the birth ratio of males to females is 105 males per 100 females.

This imbalance doesn't really balance itself out until those women reach the age of 40 by which time they look like a 70 year old's ballsack.

>>37496616
Everyone knows it's -Dick size, confidence, fit, and height. Some just don't want to admit it cos they can't get a bigger dick or grow taller

>>37490547
the only reason there are more messages going to the "unattractive" men is because the "highly attractive men" barely even exist as a category according to women. you'll notice that the "medium" men are only about 13% of men yet they get about 22% of messages. in reality they are probably pretty damn attractive considering how harsh these standards are. those first two data points are literally 57% of men so that's over half the male population that is getting well under half the messages.

>>37496712
Yeah, right.
*ahem*... [citation needed]
Anecdotal evidence wont do.

>>37496778
only a beta loser would disagree

>>37485620
>supported by several studies of both modern human behavior and biological past behavior

Why wouldn't you believe it? If you disagree, provide some counter evidence.

>>37485723
sure women only rate the top 20% as attractive on a dating app where they don't actually have the oppurtunity to bang them right in front of them. the picture implies that the top 20% of men ACTUALLY have sex with 80% of women which isn't true. Do you really think a 9/10 guy would bang a 3 woman? No. So the three woman will settle for a much lower man. Such is life. OKCupid isn't a perfect simulation of actual dating.

>>37496839
>he argues at normie-level
gg

>>37496616
Of course they don't. The only thing robots agree on is that Chad is "two or three traits I don't have, otherwise I'd be a total Chad".

Just accept the real definition: Chad is someone successful in life and with women. Anything else is hyperbole.

>>37496857
99% of men have sex with 99% of women. If you disagree, provide some counter evidence.

File: 1441380433996.png (65KB, 506x608px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 506x608px

>>37495597
>Trembling, he turns around and at long last realizes that the only monster is the one staring back at him from the mirror.
right in the feels. thanks.

>>37496944

Women NEVER fucking settle unless it is literally their only option (i.e. they've hit the wall after 15 years on the cock carousel). It's always the men who are told to lower their standards.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/11/woman-commits-suicide-because-she-was-unmarried-and-had-no-children-by-30-5058139/

>>37497363

You're the dumbass making unfounded assertions. The burden of proof is on YOU. Not that it matters, there's evidence that proves you wrong.

>>37497809
Why do angry virgin robots always post "proof" that is either completely unrelated, or a lone outlier example?

File: as4fd5a46sf.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

Imagine being so bored you have to argue on a wannabe anonymous moot loving site

>>37497837
>Between 12-14 percent of adults aged 20-24 have never had sex
>This number drops to around five percent for adults aged 25-29
>by age 44, only around 0.3 percent of adults report never having had the type of sex that could end in somebody getting pregnant.

The 80/20 meme BTFO in 10 seconds of googling. Your turn.

>>37497926

Gonna need an actual fucking source, faggot. I can make up numbers too.

>>37497926

How many of those stragglers lost their virginity to hookers, I wonder?

>>37487099
No you idiot.

80% of women are fucking the top 20% of men. The top 60% of men get to reproduce at some point or get a fair chance at it. While about the bottom 40% struggle to get a good number of partners

>>37497951
http://health.howstuffworks.com/sexual-health/sexuality/how-many-people-die-virgins-never-have-sex.htm

If you can't even do 10 seconds in google? Incidentally, that same link shows the 80/20 meme is true. If you're not a human but an elephant seal, that is.

>>37498085
Interesting claim. Got a source on that? An anon above tried to "prove" it with wikipedia links and a completely unrelated survey about OKCupid messaging and got BTFO.

>putting smilies in to add another layer of hopefully transparant divisiveness

Fucking genius OP I laughed

>>37498096
>Around 80 percent of male elephant seals never even get the chance to mate, but those 20 percent who do might inseminate up to 250 females in their lifetime.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/sexual-health/sexuality/how-many-people-die-virgins-never-have-sex.htm

Interesting, it appears as though the 80/20 rule applies to intelligent mammals like seals. I wonder if the 80/20 rule could apply to humans? If only there was an Okcupid study showing that women rate 80% of males as unattractive. Ah well, I guess we'll never know.

im 5'6 and have an hot athlete girlfriend, you're a retard if you believe this

File: shillin.jpg (47KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 499x499px

>>37485664

Reddit

you have to go back


fuck captcha

>>37486567
80/20 settles out around age 30 for women, yes. The problem is that the women who are still single at that age are road worn and usually single mothers. I am 33 and have lately been on the receiving end of more interest from women my age than ever before. These women are shit though. I have no interest in used goods with another man's bastards kids along for the ride.

>>37485879

>pls no biology
>living up to the leftist stereotypes

Get off 4chan this place is for free argument you contribute nothing

I dont see how the okcupid study proves the 80/20 meme
The meme is about actual sexual contact while the study only deals with percieved attractiveness. So while it might prove that the 80/20 rule (roughly) applies to the hookup scene we have to remember everyone settles at some point. And since poligamy isn't a wide spread occurance and because it takes two to tango i'd have to conclude that most men and women will eventually lose their virginity if the wish to do so. The problem actually arises when bitter incels on the internet see these memes and take them to heart thus starting a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. I.e. "I'll never get laid so I won't even try!"
That's all I can be bothered typing out desu

>>37498122
I pulled the 60/40 out of my ass although its probably close to being right.

The 80/20 rule, that is correct. Its hypergamy dude, you know the sexual revolution. Where tons of men have become disenfranchised by a lie built upon the idea that women are not hypergamous or that their sex stratedgy is AF/BB

>Being this blue pilled on 4chan

D-do you need to go back?

>>37486061

Describe your looks pls

>>37485723

Copied your entire post and image saved. Thanks anon.

This thread is proof of how many roasties and roastie aplogists have invaded this board. What a fucking shit show.

File: pepemaga.jpg (313KB, 609x600px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 609x600px

>>37486401

>confirms 80/20 rule in post
>then calls 80/20 a stupid meme

Haha roasties you try but your little minds are inconsistent and illogical you betray yourselves everytime

>>37486522

Because we're a particular species of APES not monkeys. What's your theory then smartiepants

>>37498141
>posts fact from article, but not the one easily disproving the 80/20 meme
>continue to clamor his okcupid meme post that was BTFO repeatedly before

>>37487163

This about sex not beta partners. Every whore eventually picks a beta to serve her for 80 years because Chad REJECTS them.

File: Female Privilege.png (118KB, 1481x686px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1481x686px

>>37498244
I'm honored, thank you my robot brethren. Keep spreading the word and fighting the good fight against the filthy normies. I'm still amazed Okcupid was honest enough to publish that data, usually companies downplay any evidence of hypergamy or inflated female standards. There's also pic related for redpilling normies on female advantages in the job market.

>>37498551
How do you know this? Memes of bitter virgin manchildren is not a reliable source, you know.

Everyone is not having sex. Only the top 20% can just go out and casually fuck women. Yes joe average will lose his virginity, he will have sex too but far less frequent with lower quality women, and he has to bring commitment, a job, a bank account and more to the table. Chad just brings his cock.

>>37498485
>that was BTFO repeatedly before
I'm sorry, where in this thread did someone post a half-decent study disproving the Okcupid study? Serious question, not being sarcastic.

File: youfuckingidiot.png (22KB, 804x743px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 804x743px

>>37487527
>>37487221
>>37487295

This is about sex not 'partnership'. Obviously 20% of the men aren't married to 80% of women you dense retards

>>37486615

pic related

>>37498662
OP was repeatedly asked by multiple posters how the OKCupid story claiming that women rank most men not attractive, results in concluding that 20% of men have sex with 80% of women. He obviously could not answer, and instead just kept sperging.

>>37495138

Then leave you faggot

originally, get the fuck out this place is not for normie sheeple

>>37498636
Wishful thinking based on projections of a bitter virgin manchild: the post.

I do not need the OKcupid graphs or study to show me reality, I know its true from personal experience. Nothing changes from when you're a kid in school and all the popular guys get the attention from girls while the rest get nothing or scraps.

>>37498199

It reveals facts about the nature of female mate preference and selection. And it IS the females of our species who ultimately decide who gets sex.

>>37498755
Are you completely illiterate? See this post. >>37495866

>He obviously could not answer
You obviously can not read.

File: angryangry.jpg (80KB, 1333x900px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1333x900px

>>37496299

GO BACK TO PLEBBIT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>37496557

Mods, I command you to BAN ROASTIES OFF THIS BOARD WHY THE FUCK ARE RETARDED WOMEN HERE

>>37498205

When it comes to successful reproduction, more than half of all men have failed. Mitochondrial DNA studies have proven this conclusively. Only about 40% of all men who have ever lived have successfully passed on their genes. The figure for women is something like 80%.

>>37498662
You don't necessarily need studies to disprove other studies
In your case you are arriving at a false conclusion. Percieved attractiveness does not directly coincide with how much sex people are having. Humans are free to lover or heighten their standards and there arent laws that say ugly people can't fuck good lucking people.
I would also like to hear from you what EXACTLY the 80/20 ratio applies to
Is it casual sex, dating, marriages...? You seem to imply that only 20% of men will ever have casual sex because women "control the supply". You're forgetting that by this logic men control the demand and are free to simply say no. Like I said above, just because two people find each other attractive it doesnt mean they have to fuck. Unless you really believe a 4/10 can walk up to some 8/10 chad in a bar and just start fucking him?
>>37498829
Nah lad men can just as well say fuck you Stacy and go to some not-so-pretty girl for a quick fuck

>>37497363

See the fourth damn post >>37485723 you illiterate roast

>>37498890
>Percieved attractiveness does not directly coincide with how much sex people are having.
Neither I nor OP said it did. Once again, see this post. >>37495866

>>37498182

I feel likewise. The very first time I friendzoned a woman was when I was about 30, and it was precisely because she was a fat, used up single mother. I feel sorry for the poor beta she settled down with.

>>37498122

No he didn't. He won the thread and triggered the roasties and the numales into trying their best to deny it. Like you are.

>>37498145

If you're still in high school kek. The Chad only get taller in college hehe

>>37495574
But it does not apply to reproduction? It applies to having sex? We don't practice polygamy in the western world, this relation of polygyny leads to men becoming naturally inclined to aggression, and a human beings aggression is too dangerous a thing to keep around unlike an animals since they have just their body and no tools. Monogamy also ensures a more full support from a parent, which is something humans need, especially in modern society.
The entire animal kingdom doesn't follow this, it's in species who don't need much care when young that this applies, and as I said humans are the opposite.

>>37498887
Sweet jesus, thats pretty incredible. 40%..I thought 60% was low

>>37498890
>Nah lad women can just as well say fuck you and go to some other guy for a quick fuck

FTFY faggot. You're a confirmed blue-pill retard as you are clearly blind to how gynocentric human society is, especially these days.

File: Life Difficulty Selection.jpg (106KB, 1400x721px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1400x721px

>>37498943
I just think it's hilarious how I actually wrote the exact instructions to rebuttal my argument, and no one bothered to follow the simple directions.
>Now, here's the thing. This is a large sample size study from the most established dating website out there. If you want to rebuttal this, then give a study in return. Don't give me fallacies, don't give me anecdotal evidence, don't give me normie stretches of logic. Give me a half-decent study like this one.
Can you guess what I got from the sixteen normie (you)'s? Fallacies, anecdotal evidence, and normie stretches of logic. Normies genuinely lack any form of deductive reasoning.

>>37486567

>At what age does the pendulum swing back? When will it be that women are the ones that have to do an effort to get a man?

Never. Women never have to make any fucking effort.

>>37498916
So then what's the whole point ?? You're just mad that 20% don't find you attractive? How fucking superficial and narcissistic are you that this bothers you so much? I'm happy then to concede that the 80/20 meme is true. Explain then to me what consequences this has on society or just you.

>>37499002
>We don't practice polygamy in the western world
You're under the illusion that women seek your permission when they mate with the best men.

>>37498890

>Percieved attractiveness does not directly coincide with how much sex people are having.

In all the threads I've seen on the subject, this has to be the single dumbest fucking thing I have ever fucking read.

>>37499082
>You're just mad that 20% don't find you attractive?

Dude holy fuck, youre still getting this wrong. Its 80% of women fucking top 20% of men

The top 20 get all the pleasures of a man with a fulfilled sex life.. as in casual sex. As in multiple partners, where emotional involvement is negated

>>37499088
This. Women getting pregnant by one man and being supported by another is a common circumstance these days whether the guy knows it or not.

>>37490578
No. A lot of roasties will still look for a beta provider after they have ridden the cock carousel for a decade or so and there are more than enough of them out there that would love to """settle down""" with a used up roastie. I put that in quotes because most likely she will still cheat or the good goy progressive husband will even agree to an open relationship.

>>37499192

This is basically the norm in nigger communities in the US now.

>>37485723

Is this an actual statistical study or just some data mining and junk stats put on a graph?

>>37499082
>How fucking superficial and narcissistic are you
Let me get this straight. I posted statistics showing how imbalanced the dating system is, and how it theoretically causes outcasted males to suffer in loneliness, misery and rejection. How does that make me "superficial" and "narcissistic"? I don't follow your logic.

>>37485620
When it comes to casual sex, it's not a meme.
When it comes to long term relationships, I don't want to waste my time, money and energy on satisfying a whore who'd fuck a fuckboy the very night they look at him and make me wait for a couple of weeks or days before she lets me fuck her.
Fuck that shit.
I'll much rather fap, smoke weed and play WoW all day long.

>>37499246

Yes it's an actual study. One which has been successfully reproduced on multiple platforms.

Women are superficial cunts with unrealistic standards.

>>37499157
OK then 80 percent
Right so it fucking is about sex. You're pissed you can't have casual, no-questions-asked sex.
>>37499247
You suffer because you can't have sex whenever you please? Just get into a long-term relationship based on something more than appearances if its that bad for you

>>37499256

Yeah, most women will settle for long term relationships with less attractive men if they make enough money, but they're not attracted to those guys anyway. It's barely different than prostitution, except the sex is much less reliable with marriage and it comes with a lot of extra downsides and risks.

>>37499343
>OK then 80 percent
>Right so it fucking is about sex. You're pissed you can't have casual, no-questions-asked sex.

If you can't have casual, no-questions-asked sex, then you're not attractive to women, and there's no purpose in even trying unless you want a gold digger.

Of course it doesn't apply as much to MARRIAGE. Like I said earlier ITT, the type of man a woman wants PLEASURE from, and the type of man she wants marriage/commitment/human ATM machine from are 2 very different men.

Short term casual sex = hottest guy possible
Long term = average guy with good job

>>37499343
>You suffer because you can't have sex whenever you please?
This is the fifth time in this thread I've had to point out that I said "attraction", not "sex". But yes, outcasted males suffer because they spend decades completely alone and rejected, missing out on affection, positive reinforcement, oxytocin and other limbic system improvements, and meaningful relationships. For outcasted males, I'd imagine sex is likely on the bottom of the list. For normies though, sex is of course always at the top of the list.

>>37499395
my point exactly
fuck women

>>37497884
underrated

i dont want to be original

File: 1449175209201.jpg (65KB, 416x700px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 416x700px

>>37495597
Do you want to drive robots to suicide? We know deep underneath that nobody is to blame but us, that we are the few "unlovable" ones. But at least leave us some solace by blaming the world and society instead of ourselves

>>37485620

Chad bounces from woman to woman while an average guy only sleeps with 3 women his whole life. Women average 10 partners in a lifetime. A few of those are Chads pumping and dumping her. So a Chad fucks all women and then the betas scrounge around and hope that a used woman will take interest in him. Bottom 40% of men never marry.

I don't actually think 20% of men have sex with 80% with women
But I'm pretty sure 20% of men take 80% of young girl virginities

I love these threads. Purely by virtue of getting laid regularly the losers who inhabit this board will INSIST I'm in the top 20% of men without me even having to do or say anything else.
:)

>>37500000
Show me the GET

>>37500037
You literally don't matter in this discussion.

It's like we're tenured professors sitting around a table having an intellectual discussion when suddenly a bird splatters itself on the window. We're startled at first, then we get back to our intellectual pursuits and the memory of the bird fades away a few seconds later. All that remains is an insignificant splatter of shit and blood on the glass.

You're the shitbird here.

>>37500037

>Purely by virtue of getting laid regularly the losers who inhabit this board will INSIST I'm in the top 20% of men

Its like you haven't read the thread at all.

>>37500037

No, you're the beta that gets with women after Chad had his way with them. 90% of men have sex at some point. Men have an average of 3 partners in their whole life. Women average 10. Do the math. Chad fucks a shit ton and some men get none. Add on to that that only 60% of men ever get married.

What annoys me is when people lie and say it's not true. The statistics don't lie.

>>37487428
yeah well when I was like 8 I ate out the neighbor girl and she sucked my dick and ate my ass.

>tfw I didnt even know what sex was or what was going on
>that was also my last sexual contact and I think that fucked me up mentally but I don't remember who initiated it

>>37500159
>It's like we're tenured professors sitting around a table having an intellectual discussion
>He thinks permavirgin nerds sitting in a basement shitposting on /r9k/ about >tfw no gf is akin to tenured professors having an intellectual discussion
hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaahhahahahahaha

>You're the shitbird here
>shitbird
lol who says this? wtf dude don't say that again.

>>37500220
Why would I read 316 posts of losers arguing about 80/20?

>>37500224
I've had more than 3 "partners". Stay upset though.

>>37499743
>an average guy only sleeps with 3 women his whole life.
>Women average 10 partners in a lifetime.
Why does this thread have to keep degenerating into requests of "source"? You make a claim like that, you need to prove it. Especially since the numbers that everyone knows are not at all close to what you claim.

>>37500224
>90% of men have sex at some point.
Over 99% actually. Stop lying.

>>37500159
How are raging autistic virgin manchildren like tenured professors when it comes to sex and relationships? Tenured professors have decades of experience in their field and countless publications.

>>37498096
holy fuck, 25% of Japanese men are virgins at 30? Why is this?

File: outstanding.gif (972KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

972KB, 500x281px

>>37500224
>tfw you're in the 10% that'll never have sex

>>37500504
More like the 1%. Or even 0.1%.

>>37500428
A combination of things. Societal pressure, being a beta not being judged worthy of marriage, waiting for his pure virgin waifu, being drained of sexual desires due to insane requirements of being dedicated to work.

>>37500367
And how much of that is the result of hookers or pity sex?

>>37500428
That number really doesn't shock me. You've got a combination of hikikomori (NEETs who literally never leave their bedroom) and so-called "Grass-eaters" (kinda like MGTOW).

>>37499395
and they will cuck you with a big dicked chad anyway

>>37500578
No studies I have found show that. Especially hard to define is "pity sex". Why do you even care anyway? Is your definition of sex "missionary for the purpose of procreation with wife" ? You qt virgin loving waifu faggots are so delusional.

>>37490711
Skin care, makeup, and dieting, are all extremely easy.

>>37500725
Wouldn't be a normie post without a strawman. Do us a favour and fuck off.

>>37500725
It's pretty fucking obvious dude, guys who can't get pussy eventually settle to paying a hooker to lose their v

File: 1487220519428.jpg (118KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 768x1024px

>>37500526
Ouch, stop shaming me

This is /r9k/, I don't want people to know I'm a virgin at 32
Then I'd get made fun of

>>37486094
>thinking that virtually everyone fucked and had kids pre-sexual revolution

there have always been a vast number of unwanted people who never breed

>>37497926
Everyone in this thread is forgetting that there is still a 20% of women that the bottom 80% of men are fighting for. Also there are once in a life time events where these bottom 80 of men have sex but its nothing compared to what the top 20 has. I've never had a girl friend I'm 23 and I had sex one time 3 years ago as a one night stand. A total fluke. I'm a virgin in all but name.

>>37486061
this is me EXACTLY. i have girls constantly flirting with me at work and i dont even have a life to speak of. i pretty much ignore them and have become an internet edgelord to reconcile with the fact that people only like me for my looks in real life. my best friend is a 35 year old woman i met playing world of warcraft. we talked for months before she knew what i looked like. everyone else is shit.

>>37501072
This. I don't know how why this retard think that failing to reproduce is literally a 0.1% tier anomaly.

http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

>Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today's human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

>I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

>Another crucial point. The danger of having no children is only one side of the male coin. Every child has a biological mother and father, and so if there were only half as many fathers as mothers among our ancestors, then some of those fathers had lots of children.

>For many men, there would be few chances to reproduce and so they had to be ready for every sexual opportunity. If a man said "not today, I have a headache," he might miss his only chance.

This literal APA address backs up some of the seemingly baseless claims in >>37488594

>>37501232
>Oh woe is me. I have such a surplus of affection in my life it somehow sucks.

Fucking kys.

>>37501154
Holy shit I'd kill myself if I only had sex once three years ago. Three years is forever. After losing my virginity at 17 the longest I had to wait was 9 months. Ever since then it's only been a couple of weeks max. Sucks to be you dude

>>37498887
Whenever people say this they are deceiving people away from the fact that this statistic comes from the hunter-gatherer days of human civilization. If you look at post agricultural revolution society much much more men passed on their genes. Without men, women would be living in the stone age and it seems based on roastie arguments I've been seeing lately that's exactly what they want.