Because the online environment invites that type of behavior. This has been explained to you. You're that an average or below average man can't just throw a pic up on Tinder and get dates. Doesn't mean that virtually every woman will exclude him in other venues. Plus, at this point, online is appealing to a very specific and delusional female demographic.

if there's so much variation in what women like, why would this happen

if its the environment, why doesnt it work the same way in the opposite direction? Its the same environment, but men dont show the same cluster around the hottest women. Only women do that.

Boomers like you still think online is some niche thing, its not. Almost everyone whos trying to date in their 20s and 30s right now have at least tried it. half of relationships start online.

its extremely pervasive and common and not some niche thing

lmao, why do these threads always end up being so massive? There's really only so much to be said on this topic, you all must be endlessly talking in circles.

You can keep calling me a boomer when you're a total of six years younger than me if you want.

I know online is fairly common. Everyone knows men are innately more thirsty than women, which is why they act the way they do online. The convergence to this trend took place overtime btw. In the early days of tinder, average guys could do quite well.

So its not the environment, women are this way BY NATURE. hm. Glad we agree. Women also arent less thirsty, they are simply ONLY thirsty for a small subset of men.

Yes its gotten worse than it used to be because social media and culture in general has degraded things further. and inflated standards even further.

That's not what I said. By nature, females are more selective when it comes to purely raw physical attraction, which is the main trait emphasized on those apps. Since they're so overwhelmed with likes, they therefore tend to focuse on a subset of men.

When it comes to dating, there are other factors that play a role, and in the real world (and sometimes even online with a decent profile) average men can benefit from that.

Me too. He should be red, all things considered. ****** flooded in here with the incels and cried "harassment" when they got repeatedly negged.

Pussies here? Pussied IRL 100% lmao

Nows the part where you need to admit that raw physical attraction is a necessary component of a romantic/sexual relationship, and thus by nature only a subset men are qualified because women are so selective in that area.

I've never denied that passing the looks threshold is a necessary condition for dating, so it's a straw man. However, posters here are taking issue with your claim that the threshold applied on the apps carries over into the real world for average to slightly below average men, and that it's impossible for you to find a woman whose threshold you pass. Then the other factors become extremely important.

This has devolved into subtle semantics. Nobody here has said its IMPOSSIBLE. At very least I know I've acknowledged the existence of exceptions but everything I say ive made clear is meant as a general trend/rule.

And although you've technically never said 'looks dont matter at all' the things you've said are dismissive of just how brutal that threshold has become such that how incels like me feel is 100% justified. Basically, if you really believed and understood the looks threshold problem you wouldnt be arguuing with me about this. so the fact that you keep arguing makes me believe you dont get it or believe it

BBMG dropping Hiroshima Nagasaki Blackpill facts.

I think you’re talking about hypergamy, which is the theory that women typically select for the best man.

It’s been a while since I read into all of this chit but I believe the theory stems from the fact that pregnancy is EXPENSIVE for women, i.e. it takes 9 months of their lives, drains their resources, birth wrecks their bodies, and then they are saddled with a kid for the rest of their lives.

Because of this, they are choosy maters.

A man on the other hand could go out tonight and impregnate 5 women and disappear for good, avoiding almost any major consequences for his actions. I say almost cos I guess he could get an STD or something, but once again I think women are more vulnerable to that.

Anyway, what constitutes the “top man” changes from environment to environment. The top man in a war zone is different to the top man during peace time. The top man will be different from one culture to the next, or one tribe to the next, or one organisation to the next.

Environment is important because it sets the criteria for the top man.

Online dating is a highly reductive environment that strips away almost everything other than looks, so the top man on online dating is the most physically attractive man.

Getting a date as a manlet is like pulling teeth. You can’t even get single moms with 3 kids. Anyone disagreeing with bbmg itt os clueless srs.

I honestly don't argue with you regarding your own experiences, I argue due to the sweeping generalizations you make with respect to dating based on your experience.

My experience isnt that different. You either pass the threshold or you dont. Just cause i REALLY dont pass it doesnt make the situation that much better for guys that are closer but still dont.

His looks threshold concept is nonsense too tbh.

If you try to perceive attraction in an overly binary way then your understanding is flawed from the outset.

BBMG thinks in a very binary way thus he tries to make sense of everything through that lens.

Yes yes we get it.....you dont pass the threshold. And you dont want to work on any of the other variables to try to better your chances.
All good.

Whats next

Yeah, it's nonsense in the sense that he thinks there's this universal and unreasonable threshold that all females hold in all environments. I simply meant that there has to be some level of chemistry, which includes physical attraction, for dating to work.

I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Just read what I wrote.

I said the online dating environment is highly reductive and strips away almost everything other than looks.

That’s the truth of the matter, and I can’t be much clearer than that.

Note: I included the word “almost” in there for a reason, because you’re right, online dating is not ONLY looks, just mostly.

I actually have a useful tip for you. When you want to understand anything about dating, it often helps to think of jobs/employment. For everything that exists in dating there is usually an analogous equivilent in the job/employment world.

So, in this case, it’s perhaps helpful to think of an online dating profile as similar to submitting a CV for a job. Both are highly reductive and don’t really capture anything close to the full extent of the person, but these are the limits in place because it’s how the systems have been designed.

It is a LOOKS threshold. Other variables don't change the looks threshold.(outside of unrealistic levels of money or fame etc, irrelevant)

Again IN GENERAL there is a looks threshold that is generally really high that generally a lot of men currently can not meet.

You claim to agree with this and then at the same time constantly dismiss it

Yea don’t worry I know what you mean. I even know what BBMG means.

It’s true in the sense that most of us have what you might call instant turn offs. I have absolutely zero attraction to fat women and nothing they say or do can make me find them attractive.

No, I've never said I agree with this statement how you've phrased it. There has to be physical attraction, I never said (and don't believe) that the bar is so unreasonably high outside of online dating (and not always even on that platform) that the majority of men can't clear it. And even if they just barely clear it, those other variables we've all been talking about (personality, charisma, status, style, etc) can make a huge difference.

Eh, im not saying youre wrong but, women want a man that

1)Has resources

2)Is serious about a relationship

Older men are both those.

As I said plenty times before,

The simple truth is that I see ugly and average guys of all ages with a gf/wife and sometimes kids.

If you can't get laud, it's 100% you.

I’m not sure I agree.

I think there is something of a neutral zone. Meaning, women are not yet attracted to you but they also - and this is key - don’t find you unattractive either.

Outside of the rich and famous and the chads of this world, I think most men occupy this neutral zone in the eyes of most women.

What’s critical for most men is to eliminate as many of their wholly unattractive traits as much as they possibly can.

Roissy, one of legendary PUA/Game guys from way back when, had a concept he hilariously titled ‘fuk-up-avoidance-game’. The idea being that success with women was mostly about avoiding major fuk ups than it was about being super attractive / charismatic or whatever. I think he’s right.

I used to think this as well, and in some cases it still holds, but based on experience and anecdotes, I now think if you occupy this neutral zone it becomes easy for her to lose interest quick. But a guy can still pass the neutral zone without being a model which is what bbmg doesn't see.

Yea the neutral zone is not ideal. I think it comes into play moreso in slow burner situations, like at work where you see and interact with someone regularly.

But we live in a world where most people want instant gratification, or in this case, instant attraction. Yet another thing that online dating has encouraged and is probably not helping anything.