Does it reflect worse on women or men that for a man to be considered exceptionally attractive by women, he must fulfill an all around laundry list of items, while for a woman to be exceptionally attractive literally all she has to do is not be too big of a slut and not be fat?
>>29732651
I'm not even trying to defend women but this is absolute bullshit. There are literally daily threads where robots bitch about girls having to be virgins. Not to mention there are tons of other dealbreaker besides being overweight or a slut. If a girl's was ugly enough you wouldn't date her.
The problem isn't standards, it's that most women want stupid things in a guy like fake confidence.
>>29732758
>guy has to be tall, rich, funny, cocky, extroverted, etc etc etc
>girl has to be a Virgin and not stuff her face with food
Yeah I know who has it harder
>>29732817
Look, I agree that women have it easier, but it's not that ridiculous. I know women that will do anything to please some piece of shit. You have to realize that women are generally stupid and don't know what they want. If they say he has to be 6 ft it's usually bullshit so long as you're taller than her you can lie and she won't even care. Also amusing women is easy once you build up the courage, they are boring as fuck so just introduce them to anything. Yes, women have it easy but men don't actually have to fit that criteria, they just have to make a woman believe they do.
