ok, its clear that dont you realize how picky women are when it comes to physical attraction.

You make excuses for online dating data and claim it only applies there

What is your excuse for the finding that in our most natural states we tended toward polygamy with most men not reproducing and most women all fuking the same guys in Harems?

What is your excuse for the finding that on current college campuses, NOT ONLINE, the same chit where top guys are fuking most of the women and real relationships are happening less and less?

What is your excuse for men reporting dating being just as difficult regardless of what they try and giving up?

im a manlet and ive had some hot quality women. unfortunately my drinking ruined it all. thats bullchit and most of you guys dont know what your talking about. misc has ruined your brains.this pathetic thread is starting to ruin my brain.

I never needed to but if you losers are so desperate, go to an appropiate concert with drugs YOU WILL GET LAID! 100% non negotiable.

ive seen fukers bribe sloots with coke or crack to suck Timmy's dick from south park. if you motherfukers are saying your worse than retarded Timmy than your a god damn liar. and before you come up with a retarded excuse your fuking wrong. do it. YOU WILL GET LAID! just gotta find the right concert festival whatever.

i was getting laid non stop with a bag a weed. imagine if you had the good stuff. fuking cry baby pussies. be a fuking man

the neutral zone means shes not attracted to you and its over.

You make conflicting statements. In some posts you literally write, "women all want the top men now," and leave it at that without any qualifications. If by "top" you just mean 50%, ok. And you definitely do think in absolutes. Even above you say that if a guy is in the neutral zone, "it's over." That sounds black and white. And it's why you get so much push back.

Want the top men doesn't mean never settle and demand the top men.

All women want the top guys. Some women settle.fewer are willing to settle than before and that's the problem.

Different women have different ideas about what the "top guy" even means. Stop extrapolating from your experience.

not PHYSICALLY which is a necessary component. Which is why online data shows THE SAME guys get almost all the likes.

Women generally like the SAME things PHYSICALLY which only a small subset of men have.

And that is why dating is fuked today, because IN GENERAL women are fighting over the same top men who can arouse them sexually.

shiet i gained 2lbs since this post FML

whores are on dating sites.
Jus lol at even going near those things.

No, in terms of physical attraction, if you just meet the threshold, you're fine. You're not fine maybe--and I think a lot of this nonsense from you is rooted in the fact that if you admit that you're an outlier, you can no longer externalize your problems. But I work near college campuses, and what you're saying isn't validated irl.

its validated in every single piece of data we have

its validated in the trends we're seeing with men reporting their frustrations(the Andrew tate/red pill/black pill/pass port bro explosion)

I dont know why you think im only talking about my own experience. its the experience of most men I know right now. Its the experience that will be reported if you literally go anywhere and ask a cross section of men.

You simply have blinders on and I have no fuking clue why

50% of relationships today start online.

It is a completely normal thing that is extremely common, its not just some subset of whores. All of women friends have tried them, some of them are wonderful people. Inb4 they're automatically whores for trying the same chit almost everyone has.

you people will say anything to deny reality

Let's try an experiment. What do you have going for you at all?

I can't think of anything honestly.

You say you own a home, but you don't, the bank owns it, which would be fine, except for that you're either gonna go back to work or lose the house. You're miserable with no job, I can only imagine how miserable you'll be with a job.

You say you have an Ivy League degree, in what? No one knows. But that degree had not helped you at all in life. It didn't help you make much money, and an arts degree from Harvard isn't worth anything, so.

And that's It, so even if a woman could work with your looks and height, there'd be nothing behind that. And that's why you'll continue to be single.

You see this? This is what subjugation looks like.

this issue is societal. its a lot more than just me.

Even most of these miscers agree I personally cant really do anything to make up for 5'3 except crazy money or fame.

But its not just me its a problem with modern dating in general. The dating experience for even average man has gotten unacceptably bad.

this except this lying idiot never went to an ivy league nor does he own a house. being a miserable kunt doesnt help either

Nah that’s your binary thinking at play, again.

You’re a liar. I know this because I actually spent some time reading the scientific literature on this stuff, and if you had actually read the literature as well, you would not believe the ridiculous chite that you do.

For example, there are gazillions of studies that have found that looks (or rather, “fertility markers”) matter less to women than they do for men, but that women value status and resources moreso than men.

This is one of the most well supported findings in the entire body of literature.

The truth is, your understanding is borne of your own biases combined with having cherry picked a handful of studies pertaining to online dating specifically.

My fuking god. Every BBMG thread hits at least a minimum of 10 pages.

again, this is a misunderstanding of 'instead of' and 'in addition to'.

Women are not rating men on a composite score and its ok if you're a 2 in looks if you're a 7 in money. Looks are a FILTER. If you dont pass the filter, nothing else matters.

again, outside of fame and a ton of money which are not realistic for most men anyway.

Decently looking men could be with way hotter girls than what they think is within their league. Sometimes we forget that for women, once looks pass a certain threshold women stop caring about any further improvement in looks for the most part, and other factors come into play like game, social status, wealth, communication and rapport etc.

It's also easy to think because woman don't approach you out of nowhere you must be less than average or unattractive. Not true, in fact you probably pass the looks test for a lot of woman but you have to generate attraction through interaction which will involve non-looks based factors from there.

Men are very visually stimulated sexually which is why we consume an absolute ass-load of porn. Women are sexually stimulated by how they are made to feel. It's why erotic vampire literature sells like hotcakes and stuff. If you can't make a woman feel anything you won't get laid even if you are good looking enough.



For incels and the typical miscer though, the sad reality is they just have a major proclivity for major fuk ups since most incels have got to be pretty autistic. It's just naturally not going to gel with the feeling/emotional approach to attraction that women deal in.

They're just going to effortlessly come across as awkward, weird, creepy and serial killer-ish.

Have you ever even been with a woman? I can imagine that you are almost certainly describing yourself here, while trying to act like those things don't apply to you (you're not fooling anyone).

WTF are you even on about?

It’s not a misunderstanding of anything. I’m merely stating an extremely well supported finding in the literature. One that you never bring up and continually ignore, probably because you have actually never read into this stuff.

Your reading comprehension is truly dire. I actually think that’s a major reason why you really struggle to understand most things.

I think a big problem that many men have is a tendency to project their own preferences/standards onto the opposite sex.

I think look-ism is so strong in the incel community for two reasons: 1) what I’ve just said above, i.e. projection, and 2) Incels look at a Chad and what do they see? His chadlyness, it’s literally in your face. Because of this, there’s a tendency to overly attribute success to Chad’s looks. More hidden / discrete factors, tend to go unnoticed and/or ignored.

Sadly autistic Chads are nigh on non-existent, but I wish they were more common because I think it would help highlight that looks are not doing as much of the work as a typical incel thinks.

The funny thing about BBMG is that if he was talking about men I would mostly be agreeing with him. Men are massively visual and looks are the most important thing to them by a country mile.

Last time I checked Marriage is declining in the US so much it doesn't even matter OP.

Men care almost exclusively about looks but they're much more fair in their judgement. Men rate women fairly around a bell curve while women rate 80% of men as physically unattractive.

Which again is why most female attention goes to the same men

Great.

My other tip for you would be to stop basing your entire understanding around match data from apps.

A match is just a match, that’s it. Meaningful data needs to be based around who women actually end up in sexual and romantic relationships with. That is what matters at the end of the day. You should look into more of the literature on that.

Everybody's going to the party have a real good time

Da, na na na na na na na na na na, uru

Dancing in the desert, blowing up the sunshine

Da, da na na na na na na na, uru

This just makes it worse, if most men can't even get a match how far are they from actually getting somewhere like actually dating?