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.
This has been discussed to death on this forum, but for the sake of a reality check:
You said yourself the guys hustling a lot of women are not top-tier guys. You said they're just guys who are good at picking up women. Furthermore, who is "top tier" differs tremendously from woman to woman. Some women get all goofy over nerdy guys, or low-key, steady, provider types, while other women want the stereotypical Hollywood package: tall, "alpha" type. And other women are all over the spectrum in-between. One person's top tier is not even on another person's radar.
So...whatever.
No, I didn't. I said they're not necessarily the top-tier of attractiveness. And 10% is still a LOT of guys, accommodating the broad spectrum you're insisting about. It's like you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. All those things you said can be true at the same time as what I said earlier. I said that most women are going to sleep with the same 10% of guys, which is what the other 90% are lamenting (and what addressed the question I was answering). Those 10% don't have to be the most physically attractive, in fact, they probably aren't.
Paraphrasing the study from the other thread, the median woman is sleeping with twice as many people as the median man. But it's not like they're on an island of 10 people, this is a big world. These men can be nerds, providers, the Hollywood package, or anything else. What I ACTUALLY said was that the top-tier of attractiveness wasn't necessarily the same guys these women are choosing to sleep with (indicating that look are not, in fact, everything). And all of that was simply to answer a question from a few posts back.
I dont disagree but you were talking about different physical tastes which really isnt the case..at first site its mostly the same small group who are looked at as attractive
As far as personality women always use the worst case scenario examples personality for the good looking man to try to prove a point when that isnt the case always..If the good looking guy has a decent personality then hes gonna win out over the less attractive guys
It's just not true! There is not a group of men out there that all women universally regard as attractive. Attraction is in the eye of the beholder.
No, I didn't. I said they're not necessarily the top-tier of attractiveness. And 10% is still a LOT of guys, accommodating the broad spectrum you're insisting about. It's like you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. All those things you said can be true at the same time as what I said earlier. I said that most women are going to sleep with the same 10% of guys, which is what the other 90% are lamenting (and what addressed the question I was answering). Those 10% don't have to be the most physically attractive, in fact, they probably aren't.
Not at all. Just trying to clarify what "attractive" means, and how that affects the validity of some studies.
RE: the underlined--my point exactly. I don't think most women would sleep with the same 10% of guys, not at all. One woman's "hot" is another woman's "not". There's no accounting for taste.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 06-12-2014 at 01:35 PM..
It's just not true! There is not a group of men out there that all women universally regard as attractive. Attraction is in the eye of the beholder.
And attraction doesn't depend exclusively on the "eye" of the beholder. So much more enters into it, for many people. Attraction is also in the heart of the beholder, and the heart is a very complex thing.
Not at all. Just trying to clarify what "attractive" means, and how that affects the meaning of some studies.
RE: the underlined--my point exactly. I don't think most women would sleep with the same 10% of guys, not at all. One woman's "hot" is another woman's "not". There's no accounting for taste.
Something to consider that makes the math look fuzzier than it is: (and I'm replacing "sleep with" with "date" to avoid the inevitable "not all women just want sex" argument from people that don't read the whole post):
If a woman would date 2% of guys, and a different woman would date a totally different 3%, and a different woman would date a totally different 5%, they're all technically dating the "same 10% of guys", even though those guys might have nothing in common with one another. My original point was that there is a small (~10%) subset of men that the majority of women are dating. They fit all different categories of attractiveness; remember, this is 10% of ALL men. That's a lot of people. Per that study I quoted earlier:
Median male: x partners
Median female: 2x partners
"top 10% of men": 5x partners
So those "top 10% of men" are doing most of the dating, and having most of the sex (by partners, not by occurrences, obviously) By this point in the discussion, it's getting way off topic. But I was trying to clarify the difference between two things that may sound the same, but aren't:
1) Do the majority of women want to be with the same type of guy? No.
2) Do the majority of women want to be with the same 10% of men? Yes.
The difference between those two statements is subtle, but important...highlighted in what I bolded above.
Does that make the other 90% of men unhappy? Obviously, and that's why you hear the complaining. But that's their problem. If they felt so inclined, people could change themselves to become more attractive to the other gender. Because of what the differences between men and women find attractive, one could even argue that this process is EASIER for men than women.
Something to consider that makes the math look fuzzier than it is: (and I'm replacing "sleep with" with "date" to avoid the inevitable "not all women just want sex" argument from people that don't read the whole post):
If a woman would date 2% of guys, and a different woman would date a totally different 3%, and a different woman would date a totally different 5%, they're all technically dating the "same 10% of guys", even though those guys might have nothing in common with one another. My original point was that there is a small (~10%) subset of men that the majority of women are dating. They fit all different categories of attractiveness; remember, this is 10% of ALL men. That's a lot of people. Per that study I quoted earlier:
Median male: x partners
Median female: 2x partners
"top 10% of men": 5x partners
So those "top 10% of men" are doing most of the dating, and having most of the sex (by partners, not by occurrences, obviously) By this point in the discussion, it's getting way off topic. But I was trying to clarify the difference between two things that may sound the same, but aren't:
1) Do the majority of women want to be with the same type of guy? No.
2) Do the majority of women want to be with the same 10% of men? Yes.
The difference between those two statements is subtle, but important...highlighted in what I bolded above.
Does that make the other 90% of men unhappy? Obviously, and that's why you hear the complaining. But that's their problem. If they felt so inclined, people could change themselves to become more attractive to the other gender. Because of what the differences between men and women find attractive, one could even argue that this process is EASIER for men than women.
I don't buy that it's something as sad as 10%. There aren't THAT many more women than men on this planet.
I'd say it's more like 50/50.
Which doesn't mean the lower 50 never get dates. Just means they get far less than the other 50. And of course, there's going to be a percentage of both that either get way more or way less.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I don't buy that it's something as sad as 10%. There aren't THAT many more women than men on this planet.
I'd say it's more like 50/50.
Which doesn't mean the lower 50 never get dates. Just means they get far less than the other 50. And of course, there's going to be a percentage of both that either get way more or way less.
There was a significant drop off in the data for men after 10%. It was done using OLD profiles, but it was, in fact, 10% You don't need to have more women than men to get that number, if the men at the "top" are dating multiple women, which they often are.
The median for the general populace dictated that the "average" woman had twice as much "success" as the "average" man, and that the "top 10% of men" had 5 times as much. You could be talking dating, sex, whatever....but the distribution was actually skewed 10% for men at the top, where it was almost totally even for women.
Edit: as you said, this doesn't mean that the other 90% of men aren't getting dates, it just means that it's SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the 10%, in a far more skewed distribution than it was for women (which, as mentioned, was generally equal). It also means that those 10% are rather...."busy".
There was a significant drop off in the data for men after 10%. It was done using OLD profiles, but it was, in fact, 10% You don't need to have more women than men to get that number, if the men at the "top" are dating multiple women, which they often are.
The median for the general populace dictated that the "average" woman had twice as much "success" as the "average" man, and that the "top 10% of men" had 5 times as much. You could be talking dating, sex, whatever....but the distribution was actually skewed 10% for men at the top, where it was almost totally even for women.
Edit: as you said, this doesn't mean that the other 90% of men aren't getting dates, it just means that it's SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the 10%, in a far more skewed distribution than it was for women (which, as mentioned, was generally equal). It also means that those 10% are rather...."busy".
Let me be clear here. Is this just about who gets the most play?
Or is it about finding a stable relationship?
Because if it's the former, I agree with that 10% number.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Let me be clear here. Is this just about who gets the most play?
Or is it about finding a stable relationship?
Because if it's the former, I agree with that 10% number.
It's play, dating, and the "pursuit" of relationships (first dates, messaging in OLD, etc.). Obviously, it can't apply to stable relationships...I don't think enough men could pull that off!
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.
