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 am genuinely curious where this 20%/80% claim comes from, as I keep reading it on CD. Is there a study?
Whenever I read about this "20% of men get 80% of women" thing, I have to think of a study conducted by OKCupid, on attractiveness and message patterns.
It found that women rate 80% of men below average on attractiveness. However, women still message with below average-looking guys anyway.
Men seem to be a more generous when it comes to rating women's attractiveness - it follows more of a bell curve. However, when it comes to actual messaging, 2/3 of male messages are going to the top 1/3 of women. Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends
The 80/20 thing most likely comes from the Pareto Distribution. This is something that is often repeated in nature. It has been found to be prevalent in wealth distribution (80% of the wealth is owned by 20% of the population), crime (80% of crimes are committed by the same 20%), and in many other areas.
I'm not sure if there was ever a study done on dating, but this is likely why these numbers are so prevalent in this discussion.
I know, crazy, baffling and subversive. But just humor me. What if?
I hear so much on here about how women shouldn't think we're wonderful, valuable, deserving and so on. I wonder why the possibility that we ARE those things, and not just walking boobs that deliver sex, do dishes and add a second income is simply not entertained by some individuals.
In a dating context it means most men have no value because they get nowhere with most women in the dating world (80/20 again).
It's about a high percentage of women expecting to get one of the top males which distorts the dating game. The top males will sleep with a lot of them as well (to further distort it) but they'll only commit to the best women.
In a dating context it means most men have no value because they get nowhere with most women in the dating world (80/20 again).
It's about a high percentage of women expecting to get one of the top males which distorts the dating game. The top males will sleep with a lot of them as well (to further distort it) but they'll only commit to the best women.
But since a majority of men DO wind up with a partner (per marriage statistics, and that's just actual marriages; obviously there are men in relationships considerably in addition to just the married people - men aren't either married or simply not dating and that's it), this isn't true, period.
Average, regular men. Not "just the top 20% of men" or whatever non-supported silliness.
So what's distorted here is the POV, not "the dating game."
Neither do men commit "only to the top females"...look around you. Look in your own family. Out and about in public. Among your friends. On your Facebook page. Literally anywhere. And then try to tell us with a straight face that the majority of people you see everywhere, and have seen all your life who have a committed partner are the "top 20% of men" and "the top women" and everyone else is in either a seminary or a convent.
So I still don't see backup for the objection here, as its significance is only in people's heads and does not play out in real life. It's a mythological view leaned on by some in order to allow them to be inappropriately angry at women in particular and life in general and is a victim mentality that relies on deliberately not seeing facts literally In one's own face in order to maintain.
But since a majority of men DO wind up with a partner (per marriage statistics, and that's just actual marriages; .
Because if women want to get married they eventually have to settle for someone who will marry them.
The dating world and OLD is different as it's created a sweet shop mentality for even average women and if you're in a sweet shop you want the sweets you like best.
Because if women want to get married they eventually have to settle for someone who will marry them.
The dating world and OLD is different as it's created a sweet shop mentality for even average women and if you're in a sweet shop you want the sweets you like best.
Oh no no no, wait now...
Remember it was YOU who put forth this 80/20 rule and spoke of ONLY "top" men being able to get women and ONLY the "best" women being able to get "a commitment."
No matter whom these men and women get, even if they're settling (per your unsupported assertion here), you yourself have just disproved your own theory.
Because one way or another the AVERAGE men are "getting" women and the AVERAGE women are "getting commitment."
So there you have it.
As for "the dating world (being different from) OLD," nope. OLD IS the dating world, an increasing though already very significant portion of how people actually do meet nowadays.
So...while running around in circles trying to support your victim mentality you've actually just proven yourself wrong.
Why not stop being a victim and start seeing reality - that most people are average (hence the term "average") - not horrible trolls someone has to "settle with," but average, and most wind up hooked up including those who do OLD? And that all this foot-stomping is not only silly, but it furthers and perpetuates this "woe is me" mentality that isn't helping anybody - least of all the guys espousing it?
How many guys can even get 30 dates within a reasonable amount of time?
I had a lengthy post on a previous thread about how, for men, online dating necessarily yields lower-quality results than offline dating.
And to illusrate that point - I can easily find 30 different single moms, fat girls, and hairdressers to date me. I have about that many in my tinder list right now.
The issue is, I don't really want or need 30 unattractive women. For every 30 unattractive women I can find online, I can barely get the time of day from a good-looking one.
And by "good looking" I'm not exactly referring to supermodels -- I am referring to the sort of women I can get dates from by approaching them in-person and getting to know them in a social setting.
I had a lengthy post on a previous thread about how, for men, online dating necessarily yields lower-quality results than offline dating.
And to illusrate that point - I can easily find 30 different single moms, fat girls, and hairdressers to date me. I have about that many in my tinder list right now.
The issue is, I don't really want or need 30 unattractive women. For every 30 unattractive women I can find online, I can barely get the time of day from a good-looking one.
And by "good looking" I'm not exactly referring to supermodels -- I am referring to the sort of women I can get dates from by approaching them in-person and getting to know them in a social setting.
This being the case, why is it that other men aren't simply doing the same, hence evening out that OLD ratio a little?
I'm assuming you feel your experience translates to the next man's experience? Then surely they've noticed how much more success they have "analog dating" than OLD...That makes it VERY weird and rather perplexing that they continue to try with OLD.
Why do you suppose this is?
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.
