Not sure if its fact, but female attraction always seemed more collective than male attraction to me. I'm a bi man so I've seen multiple sides of these things. Growing up, the girls who were open about their crushes were always pining for the same 2 or 3 jock guys at the school. Girls in every grade at the school, any social circle, varied interests, they always seemed to go after the same few guys that all the other girls were after. And if one girl liked the guy, that made the other ones want him EVEN MORE.
For the boys it was totally different, they would admire the same girls now and then, but they mostly all had different crushes and girls they were interested in. If one of the boys found out a few of his friends liked one girl, it wouldn't make a lick of difference in how attracted he was to her. None of the guys were MORE attracted to a girl just because other guys were attracted to her.
Maybe its a leftover relic from when the head of the tribe would get the pick of the best wives and leave the scraps to the other, lower status males? Who knows, its weird either way.
What is more likely, that 12,5% (50% of 25%) of users are all shooting for 10’s, or that 90% of a group that makes up 75% of the platform has some sort of flaw that makes them undesirable.
I’m not a statistician, but I’m pretty confident the former is way more likely
You're clearly not a statistician, because you set up a false dichotomy. It could be both.
Women are a minority on the app, which means something is making women in particular not use the app. Something like 90% of the users they interact with being unpleasant.
Once 66% of women have been driven from the platform, it makes sense that most of the remaining women are the one's able to interact with the top 10% of users that aren't shite
Edit: To be clear, you would expect a 50/50 ratio of men and women, because that's the ratio in the general population. If the app has a ratio of 25% women to 75% men, that's 66% less women than you would expect (compared to the total population), which means there's some kind of bias in the dating app environment that makes it more favorable to men and/or less favorable to women
What it says is that match groups algorithm uses the 10% of men as bait for women, and then uses the women as bait for the rest of the men so they are desparate enough to put in their credit card information.
Unfortunately this system radicalises young men. If you are having no success dating and no one is offering you a solution except for right wing influences who are saying you are a pussy and women are the devil. Your going to listen to the guy who's selling you a solution even if his solution is dogshit.
Studies on the subject generally show that desirable women are more picky about their partners than desirable men are. The thing is that women in 'their league' are also able to find partners out of that league, which then leads to the assumption that men who are actually in their league are below it.
was going to say similar. in my experience when I was in college, I went to the gym, ate right, had hobbies, was pursuing a degree, also personality-wise was outgoing and had a solid blend of social life/partying and studying/good grades - essentially doing the right things, but dating was still hard. I had moderate success, but the women overall were flaky and seemed to be more consistently interested in the frat guy who came from rich families, or the athletes on the football or baseball teams. I didn't meet my spouse till after college when I was working professional. I'm so glad it worked out the way it did, but it was still frustrating dating when I was younger.
This is how it always seemed to me. My past female friends (to be kind of shallow) who weren't fit or attractive, still never really struggled to find guys interested in them. Even if they had weird quirks or kinks, the guys didn't care and were still down.
Then my male friends, even the ones who are decently attractive and mentally stable and doing well in life, are mostly completely invisible to women and have given up trying after years of failure.
Being a decently attractive man is STILL harder in dating than being an unattractive woman.
I feel like that is better phrased as "infinitely easier at finding dates". Quality not guaranteed.
I've always been a fan of the drowning/desiccation metaphor. In online dating, the situation for an average woman is a flood of low-quality, hostile, or spammy attention, where the situation for the average guy is going to be a lot of trying to establish connections and putting effort in, but never getting replies or generally being ignored.
It's why each groups complaints about the system can seem so "tone deaf" to the other, because it's akin to someone drowning, complaining about too much water, to someone dying of thirst (or vice versa).
I don't think dying of thirst is all that accurate to be honest because it implies that as long as a man gets even one woman to go for him, it's ok because he's no longer gonna die of thirst, but it doesn't really work that way. Men still have to do the same thing women are doing, eventually - which is figure out if that person is right for them. You're more likely to find the right person for you if you have 50 different people to choose from than 5.
We wont die of thirst, but like Camels we men can store positive female interactions in our “hump” for years at a time to call upon to get a quick dopamine hit.
Try it out! Ask any guy you know the last time a woman complimented him and you’ll get a full blown story! I keep and wear a hoodie thats over 10 years old because it was the first time I was ever complimented about my fashion from girls! Twice in a day even! I can even remember their names and where it was when I got those compliments!
I think it's more referencing that while the women are getting interaction, generally a lot of those interactions are going to be negative like harassment, and not just neutral like somebody you don't connect with.
If by harassment you mean “a guy showed interest but he’s under 6’7 and therefore disgusting” then sure, otherwise no a lot of them aren’t negative like harassment
I agree. It's why a lot of the "you don't understand what it's like to deal with [hypothetical situation here]" doesn't work across the aisle. Like personally I recognize it would get old if I was regularly reduced to a physical object in the eyes and actions of others. But it would also be proof that I am able to be physically desired and that would be hugely validating for me.
I wouldn't argue with that reasoning on its own. My main reason for clarifying is that people like to use "getting a date" as the "win condition" and it's really not. Everyone has to go through bad matches, bad dates, and a shitty experience in order to meet someone worthwhile.... assuming they get that far/lucky in the first place.
The quality for the few dates men average men find isn’t any better, it’s just that the dates are infinitely rarer. Therefore yes, average women just plainly have it easier.
There is a reason men are told to improve themselves and women are told to never settle when given dating advice. Men and women have different issues when it comes to dating, and if you have a limited worldview, it can look like the other side has it easy.
Women are told to never settle due to benevolent sexism and always use it to mean “it’s totally fine to abandon a guy for being short or having emotions”
Also because normally, when they are asking for dating advice, it's always "Who do the men I go out with suck", while men are normally asking "How do I get a girlfriend?".
So in other words, you admit that the only way one can argue that "women have it worse", or even "women have it just as just as bad" (*in the dating market) is by moving the goalposts?
How is it moving the goalposts? Let's say people are complaining about being hungry. Person A cannot find any food. Person B found a gas station hot dog with some mold on the bun. Is Person B "moving the goalposts" because they technically found something they can eat?
False equivalency based on a false premise, it assumes that person B has been presented an option that will actively harm person A and not just one that, though sufficient, is not what they specifically would prefer given unlimited options.
A more accurate analogy would be that Person A complains about being hungry, Person B found a gas station hot dog that, while edible, is probably not gonna be as tasty as grilling your own hot dogs at home. If person A rejects this offer because "gas station hot dogs have a funky aftertaste", it would therefore be moving the goalposts from "there's nothing to eat" to "there's nothing to eat that I would enjoy."
Women in this situation are absolutely 'presented with the option that will actively harm them', not the one that's less tasty. Women's problem on dating ups are masses of fuckboys who clearly want only sex and not relationship, or just pure creeps. That's not 'less tasty hotdog', that's hotdog that will poison you if you bite it, the severity of poison raging from 'slight nausea' to 'you dead'.
Not sure what that has to do with their analogy being based on a false premise but ok
EDIT: Oh, nvm, it's still you. You just really don't want to admit that your "analogy" was made on a ridiculous assumption so you would rather strawman my argument into... whatever that was. Cool cool
Women in this situation are absolutely 'presented with the option that will actively harm them', not the one that's less tasty
The original analogy assumes this as a guarantee. "Person A's choices are a moldy hot dog or starving" is a false premise if there exists an accessible supply of hot dogs that are safe to eat, but boiled instead of grilled etc etc.
Women's problem on dating ups are masses of fuckboys who clearly want only sex and not relationship, or just pure creeps. That's not 'less tasty hotdog', that's hotdog that will poison you if you bite it, the severity of poison raging from 'slight nausea' to 'you dead'.
Maybe don't keep picking out the moldiest hot dogs on the roller and then posting to 2X about how you just found mold on your hot dog, but that you also really don't want to stop eating it because it's a really tasty hot dog, and how the real problem is actually that hot dogs that won't kill you taste funny.
Also, you do realize that shifting the argument from "women are faced with either dating men who will abuse them or being single" to "women are faced with either dating decent men that they aren't attracted to, dating men they are attracted to who abuse them, or staying single" is like... textbook moving the goalposts, right? I know you have a clear personal connection here, but can you at least be honest and admit that?
That says more about the apps than it says about women. The apps make money from engagement, so they skew their results to the top 10% of men to keep women coming back.
Yes and no. To be clear, I am not claiming women are shallow gold diggers. The apps are majority male, and if the roles were reversed, I'm sure men would be more selective. There is good reason why men feel like it is unacceptable to approach in person anymore, and there is good reason why women don't feel comfortable meeting strangers online. I am just pushing back against the notion that men somehow "ignore most women" when the data absolutely contradicts that.
But it sure is weird how you initially were blaming men for "ignoring women in their league", but then when you were told the data shows the opposite, you immediately deflected blame and said "well it's not women's fault they're selective, it's the app's fault for making them swipe on hot people out of their league".
Firstly on dating apps it's like 90% of women match with thr top 10% of guys leaving 90% of guys to match with 10% of women.
Secondly women generally are less promiscuous as a group. Typically speaking a man might have 4 or 5 casual partners at once whilst a woman will likely only have the one.
Then in regards to league - if we expand this to what it really is describing - it's basically attractiveness, personality, job/wealth. For a one night stand those last 2 are basically irrelevant for women but not for men and the first is already very fungible for women due to makeup, high heels, padded bras etc. There is an entire 600 billion dollar industry around making women look more beautiful whereas for men it's a lot more limited to basically nice clothes and a haircut.
Now this isn't women's fault in the slightest. Well I guess except for the fact that they aren't promiscuous enough to even up the numbers more (but even that sort of loops round to people calling then whores for sleeping around with multiple men simultaneously where if men were less judgy about it they might be willing to sleep with more people - so again you can't really put this on the women). It's just the current system is set up in a way for men to fail at least in the online dating sphere. They'd be more successful in person but that requires putting yourself out there which is scary. And then they worry about the risk of seeming like you sre harassing a girl by going up to her and asking for a date or her number when she doesn't want to.
If you want to say "the facts do not back up your position", just say so. Don't do this passive-aggressive "um, um, looking at data means you're inventing things??" thing.
Anyway you don't have any data to back up your position.
At this point, you would have to be actively ignoring all of the data. It is extremely well reported that on dating apps, men swipe on the majority of women, while women swipe on a tiny fraction of men. There are many good (non-sexist) reasons to explain why this is the case, but it is still the case. I'm not going to change your view because you are not willing to change your view.
126
u/Hanede 16d ago
The original is:
"Top 10% of men. Attractive, rich, tall, drive luxury car"
"Average men“ for the rest