I No Longer Think That Women Have it Easy in Dating (pregnancy, good looking)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, you are very wrong when it comes to OLD. Since women get swarmed with messages(assuming she is at least average in looks and weight), they get to pick and choose who they will respond to. They put more preference to the better looking guys than the average. If you are a hot looking guy on OLD and have social skills, you will be sleeping with a lot of women if that is your choice. Women definitely go for looks and then career for OLD. I've had success on OLD before but know I would have infinitely more options if I was handsome.
I've known women who didn't get any hits at all on OLD, and they were decent-looking. Nothing special, but not a turn-off, either. And there's someone who posts here who says she got zilch from OLD, even when she messaged dudes first. It's hard to believe, but I don't think these women are lying.
It's easy to look at the women who get hit on everywhere they go, and the women who get bombarded with messages (mostly sleazy ones), and take that as all women's experience. The women who don't attract attention, or not attention that leads anywhere, don't make headlines. They're kind of out-of-sight, out-of-mind. Unless you make an effort to talk to them and get to know them, which I do sometimes, if they catch my attention in other ways.
I honestly wish men like the OP would just shut the hell up and quit posting this kind of bs. Theres a few others who have done what he did too and it only makes them look stupid in my opinion. They go on these long winded lectures about how there are no good women out there and how its sooo hard for nice guys to date, and then when you get down to it, it actually turns out that theyve mindf**ed themselves into believing that because they arent attracted to any women who actually like their asses.
Well hell, if basic looking women like you, but you dont think they look good enough for your standards then there is no problem. You NEVER ACTUALLY HAD IT HARD AT DATING IN THE FIRST PLACE...you just didnt have sense enough to know that you may not be able to demand the partner you THINK you deserve. Thats on you. If there are no women who like you that you find attractive then thats your fault. You can call it lowering your standards or settling or whatever else all you want, but realistically, you must not be worth the model chick's time either if youre still frustrated that you only have basic chicks to choose from...and then you have the nerve to come here saying "Duh, I just realized womens dont got it easy in duh dating game, cause I jest rejected one" and act like youve made some dawning revelation..congrats, you rejected a nice woman who was kind enough to show you a little interest, and then basically just came to the conclusion that women dont like rejection either...well no sh*t sherlock, get real.
Basically 2/3 of men send messages to the 1/3 of the women (the women who are the best looking).
Something worth noting (warning, math incoming):
They go into more detail about it in the book, but it's important to note the discrepancy in how many messages each gender sends.
Quoting your message doesn't include the pic, but I'm referring to the "Male Messaging and Female Attractiveness" and "Number of Messages received vs Recpient's attractiveness" infographics.
The first one doesn't cite how many messages one receives, but rather what PERCENTAGE of messages they receive as compared to others. Even the LEAST attractive women come in at about 2-3%. The infographic doesn't supply the numbers, but the book does...."men send 20x as many messages as women" Suffice to say, 2-3% of 1000 is larger than 2-3% of 50.
This also applies to the 2nd infographic, where they use a multiplier, starting from "least attractive" as a baseline. So they note that the hottest guys get 10x as many messages as the ugliest guys, and the hottest women get 25x+ as many as the ugliest women.
So if there's 100 messages being sent to women, even the ugliest women are still going to get 2-3 of them.
Conversely, that would mean 5 messages are being sent to men at all, the ugliest of whom get 20% of them, or 1 message. On the other hand, the most attractive women get 17% of the messages, where the most attractive men get 1%.
What does that all mean?
It means that the least attractive women still get 2-3x as many messages as the least attractive men, and the most attractive women get 340x as many as the most attractive men.
Obviously, there's other things to consider there. But as much as I love those infographics, they don't tell a complete story. The editor indicated that some of the numbers "ruffled a few too many feathers" and so they opted not to blog about them.
They go into more detail about it in the book, but it's important to note the discrepancy in how many messages each gender sends.
Quoting your message doesn't include the pic, but I'm referring to the "Male Messaging and Female Attractiveness" and "Number of Messages received vs Recpient's attractiveness" infographics.
The first one doesn't cite how many messages one receives, but rather what PERCENTAGE of messages they receive as compared to others. Even the LEAST attractive women come in at about 2-3%. The infographic doesn't supply the numbers, but the book does...."men send 20x as many messages as women" Suffice to say, 2-3% of 1000 is larger than 2-3% of 50.
This also applies to the 2nd infographic, where they use a multiplier, starting from "least attractive" as a baseline. So they note that the hottest guys get 10x as many messages as the ugliest guys, and the hottest women get 25x+ as many as the ugliest women.
So if there's 100 messages being sent to women, even the ugliest women are still going to get 2-3 of them.
Conversely, that would mean 5 messages are being sent to men at all, the ugliest of whom get 20% of them, or 1 message. On the other hand, the most attractive women get 17% of the messages, where the most attractive men get 1%.
What does that all mean?
It means that the least attractive women still get 2-3x as many messages as the least attractive men, and the most attractive women get 340x as many as the most attractive men.
Obviously, there's other things to consider there. But as much as I love those infographics, they don't tell a complete story. The editor indicated that painting a truer picture "ruffled a few too many feathers".
But what does all this mean in the end, other than giving the unhappy people more excuse to whine and complain and look for any reason other than themselves to be at fault in their lack of dating success?
If we all agreed that women have it easier, then what? Other than smug and self-satisfied, what does it get the perpetually dateless guy? Absolutely nothing.
But what does all this mean in the end, other than giving the unhappy people more excuse to whine and complain and look for any reason other than themselves to be at fault in their lack of dating success?
If we all agreed that women have it easier, then what? Other than smug and self-satisfied, what does it get the perpetually dateless guy? Absolutely nothing.
Well, yeah. That's exactly right, and a whole different can of worms. Some things are just lopsided crap. We can do something about it, adapt to it, or whine. (or some combination of those things).
We all know what level of real life effectiveness the three will have, but sometimes, for some people...they just need to let it out. I've done it myself. Too much of it isn't going to get anybody anywhere, but if it helps someone move on to a better step, I'm not going to stop them.
What we see all too often (around here and in real life) is that people would rather not move on to a better step. For them, I have no sympathy.
I think it's a bit harsh to say he is rotten inside.... I would guess it's the opposite. Insecurity is masked and coped with by avoiding any interaction which could confirm the low sense of self. The person has trouble internalizing all the positive feedback to combat the negative inner voice (the defeatist attitude). Ironically, the solution is to believe the good stuff people tell him, not to belittle it and continue to be inhibited out of fear.
I don't see anything I'd call narcissism (and boy does that word get tossed around a lot nowadays). There is likely some displacement (don't know if that's the right term) of his avoidance of dating to be a matter of others not being good enough instead of it being him. Even his fears may center on others hurting him somehow (just a guess...no idea what they are) instead of the real fear that he may actually not be good enough.
Like I said, the solution is to build real self-esteem, not the coping mechanisms which can look like arrogance (and certainly be a turn-off).
I wouldn't call that "rotten on the inside", but certainly "inner work" needs to be done. It's more akin to someone who may have great physical features but who grooms poorly.
Men and women in the dating world remind me of young people looking for work after graduation.
Men put in 100 applications but only get two or three callbacks and perhaps one or two interviews. Women put in 20 applications, get 15 callbacks and about 10 interviews. However, both are still looking for a job (partner in life).
Why can't all these "average" men and women find each other and get together? Probably because each side thinks it can do better...
Men and women in the dating world remind me of young people looking for work after graduation.
Men put in 100 applications but only get two or three callbacks and perhaps one or two interviews. Women put in 20 applications, get 15 callbacks and about 10 interviews. However, both are still looking for a job (partner in life).
Why can't all these "average" men and women find each other and get together? Probably because each side thinks it can do better...
Good analogy and great question to end your comment.
Men and women in the dating world remind me of young people looking for work after graduation.
Men put in 100 applications but only get two or three callbacks and perhaps one or two interviews. Women put in 20 applications, get 15 callbacks and about 10 interviews. However, both are still looking for a job (partner in life).
Why can't all these "average" men and women find each other and get together? Probably because each side thinks it can do better...
I decided to ask my mom, sister's, and aunt's how easy do they have it. They were very blunt with me. They said It's easy for women to have sex whenever they choose. But getting a decent man for a committed relationship is very tough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope the OP takes this to heart.
