The "statistic" that 80% of the women are fucking the top 20% of men is often thrown around here.
But you wanna know the truth? According to empirical studies, about 80% of single men will have casual sex in a given year, vs. about 20% of women.
That's right, eighty percent of the MEN are fucking 20% of the WOMEN.
That puts you in the bottom 20% of all men, by the way.
>>25096104
>people never lie
>frequency is never given
>frequency is never exaggerated or undersold
>Op is never a faggot that doesn't cite his sources
What a worthless fucking thread.
>>25096139
/thread
sa-gay
>>25096104
Cite your sources and studies, roastie
>>25096104
>about 80% of single men will have casual sex in a given year, vs. about 20% of women.
[citation needed]
[roastie detected]
Where's the source.
Also women often downplay their sex life's in surveys, while men exaggerate and boast
>>25096272
There is none because OP is a cuckold or a roastie.
>>25096104
Dirty Dumb Roastie Scum
>>25096104
>According to empirical studies
Such as?
>>25096104
This is actually the first time I've seen Goatse
After seeing the gore and shock shit posted on here, it's disappointing.
>>25097603
>According to empirical studies
This line just reeks of someone trying to pass off a bullshit claim as fact.
You could slap it in front of anything to make it sound more true.
According to empirical studies, you're a colossal shitwit with all the intellectual capacity of a wooden spoon.
>>25096104
The 80/20 rule doesn't exist and can't be applied to humans having sex with one another. First reason is that women who actually seek only sexual satisfaction and thus base their standards only to sexual characteristics comprise an extremely small group of the female sex. Second reason is that most women go after relationships, not sexual satisfaction, which means that sex is merely a means to an end, so by definition there's less promiscuity because relationships are mostly monogamous.
>>25097643
>tfw if you want a relationship you have to fuck guys and hope they develop feelings for you
>>25097643
This
girl here btw
All girls I know are just after monogamous relationships, we're not all sluts like you silly boys think teehee
I've spent weeks searching for a new boyfriend after breaking up with my old one a few days ago but I just can't find a nice guy to settle down with. I don't understand, I go out to clubs on tuesdays and saturdays and I get invited out over facebook to netflix with a few guy friends every now and then but I can't seem to get a good guy to stick around with me even though I'm going to all this effort.
>>25097659
>get pumped and dumped by Chad and complain that you can't find a good man
>blame men for your own poor decisions
>>25096104
Yeah alot of men will have one MAYBE two, some will have none, and some will get a massive ammount
This fits with most other surveys, and in my experience, it's almost certainly true.
Think about it. Most guys are trying to have one night stands. Most women aren't.
>>25097712
>robots thing they are "good men"
http://www.girlsaskguys.com/sexual-behavior/a22977-girls-on-tinder-do-smash-a-lot
teehee
>>25097776
No one here thinks they're a good guy or nice guy, we're saying that's what women say they want but go for the opposite.
We're just ugly assholes though so we lose either way.
>>25097776
>implying you'll ever actually find out
>implying you will only ever date men who are Chads or master manipulators that tell you what you want to hear and use your vanity against you in order to hit that pussy
>implying that you would ever know what a good man was because you're not a good woman and never will be
legbeard pls
I don't know about 80:20 but it's certainly skewed in women's favor.
When I was in college I left knowing absolutely shitloads of guys who not only never had a gf but had never been touched by a woman across the years they were there.
Meanwhile I don't think a single girl I ever met was a virgin after the first year and this was in a college with more women than men.
So therefore either there's a large amount of virgin women hiding somewhere or a small group of guys are getting a lot more action than the rest.
>>25096104
sounds about right, thanks for the information
>>25097691
Clubs are for casual sex
Netflix and fuck is casual sex
Then dont go do things that lead to casual sex
Go do something hobby related or something ya know, maybe find a nice guy with similar interests
>>25097793
Fucking whores. I fucking hate this society.
>>25096104
>women are compulsive liars, especially on surveys.
Being a slut is a good thing for a man and a bad thing for a woman. Of course men would prefer to say they have casual sex, and women wouldn't.
>>25097837
> I left knowing absolutely shitloads of guys who not only never had a gf but had never been touched by a woman across the years they were there.
Bias. Those were the people YOU hung around with, not a representative sample.
> I don't think a single girl I ever met was a virgin after the first year
Those were the kind of girls trying to hand around with guys like you mentioned.
>>25097877
So where are the large group of virgin girls to counter the large group of virgin guys I knew? If they weren't hanging around my group of friends I can guarantee you they were hanging around the group of gigaChads that were all the other guys.
>>25097868
>tfw sexism
>>25097893
I only knew one virgin. The vast majority of girls had slept with two or three guys.
>>25097913
>The vast majority of girls had slept with two or three guys.
That seems about right seeing as guys expect sex in a relationship and you usually date a few people (seriously) throughout collage
>>25097868
Women like knowing a guy has fucked a lot of girls because that means he's desirable and therefore if he wants to fuck her she must be desirable too.
Or so the mental rollercoaster goes.
>>25097932
Or, right, maybe that's bullshit.
Maybe the reason why she has slept with lots of girls is because he knows how to flirt with women.
>>25097932
>Or so the mental rollercoaster goes.
>implying that doesnt make complete sense
>>25097993
If that was logical then men would want to fuck the trampiest slut's going.
>>25097899
>sexism
Pfft.. hardly. Think about it. A key that opens many locks is a master key. But a lock that can be opened by any key? Well, that's just a shitty lock.
>>25097861
Why the fuck did you actually respond to that shitheap of a post?
>>25098015
And how does that analogy apply to human beings, exactly?
>>25098015
>muh keys and locks psudoanalogy
>>25098006
No they wouldn't. Men's and women's roles in the mating game are reversed and so are their desires. If you fail to understand this you must be a literal 90 IQ subhuman.
>>25098039
That's pretty sexist brah
>>25098032
Because human beans are objects in the abstract scheme of life. "Hurrhurr, no! Humans are great and special!" Live the normie delusions.
>>25098048
I could say "A tunnel that has loads of trains go through it is a good tunnel, a train that spends all the time in a tunnel is useless and dirty". It makes as much sense.
>>25098048
Cool, so I guess walls are the same as locks now apparently since were making arbitrary connections
>>25097793
Women get to have as much sex as they want, then when they choose to they can get a beta to foot the bill for the rest of their lives.
Men get to suffer.
>>25098085
>men aren't the ones women are having sex with
yeah okay
>>25098080
>implying abstractions are arbitrary
>implying 'abstraction' is synonymous with arbitrary
Nice kek, matey. Must've scored some sweet grades in pre-school English 101 by taking what I said and then stating something which had nothing to do with what I said.
>>25098085
That's not how it works at all and you need to take a long, hard look at your life, buddy.
>>25098101
>implying I was talking about the arbitrary part and not the "thinking humans aren't objects" part
There is nothing complicated going on here. Most men have slightly higher sex drive than most women.
Both want to have sex. Both will have sex with attractive members of the opposite sex.
The percentage of attractive women is much higher than the percentage of attractive men.
That is partly because men put almost no effort into their appearance (because they assign less value to looking good than women do, ironically).
The average man is attracted to 50% of the female population at their age range, while the average woman is attracted to 20% of the male population at their preferred age range.
>>25098112
You dense mother fucker. Jesus Christ, do I really need to spell this out for you? Alright. Grab out your oxford dictionary and flip to page cuck. Because an object is defined as "a material thing that can be seen and touched". A human can, indeed, be seen and touched.
If you grab a person and amputate their arm.. would you consider the amputated arm a person or an object? It's an object. As is a person. Quite elevating organic life to a higher standard.
>>25098094
You're an idiot.
They are shared between a fewer number of men who pump and dump them.
>>25098143
That just doesn't happen, and it's laughable that you think it does.
>>25098094
Only 50 out of 300
>>25098102
> That's not how it works at all and you need to take a long, hard look at your life, buddy.
> you need to take a long, hard look at your life, buddy
The has to be a name for this fallacy!? How the fuck does telling me to look at my life qualify as an argument?
>>25098138
Quit*
REEEEE THIS POST IS ORIGINAL
>>25098148
see>>25097793
coxbloxroxniggershiggerwigger
>>25098138
Yeah, thats why I said that we might as well compare locks to walls since were making arbitrary analogies
because you know, walls are objects too
dipshit
>>25098157
> I am a student in sexology and we did a research in sexual behavior on Tinder.
Lol no. There's so much wrong with this 'study' I don't know where to start. If your sample place is a place where people go to fuck, you're going to have skewed results, idiot.
>>25098165
That guy be like "Humans are like rice! Because, uhh, abstract concept. And so vaginas are like potatoes, because you can touch a potato, so they are both objects! And that means men are like monster trucks. And so that proves my point that men are this way and women are that way. So there."
>>25098165
How's it arbitrary when I justified it with an abstraction, you dolt? It's as if you're unaware of most human reasoning comes from the abstract and is fronted as truth. And I have my personal truth as you have yours.
I take it you're a lock?
>>25098197
>"hurr.. I'm a fucking moron that doesn't understand this guy, so he must be saying men are like monster trucks!"
>>25098212
You're talking shit. That analogy is awful, and you trying to defend it is hilarious.
>>25098178
But that's exactly where you go to do an experiment on fucking, the place where people go to fuck. What the fuck is wrong with your head?
>>25098220
I'm not defending anything. I'm saying base truth and you're taking it as a defence. Oh, but wait, walls are the same as locks though, even without any analogy or even attempt of justification. Right? :^)
>>25098212
In what way is the male alike a key, when in the setting of sexual contact it has all the moving parts, as does the lock?
So making the analogy of women as keys who just stand there doing nothing and men having those moving parts is as apt.
So men who have a lot of sex are useless, while women are master keys.
>>25097659
Want to know how I know you never had a real father figure, or a decent mother for that matter, in your life?
Poor damaged roastie.
http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success
shut up
>>25098238
Because we're talking about society as a whole, not specifically the people who are looking for causal sex. Jesus Christ.
It's like if I polled a room full of nudists, and somehow my survey shows 100% of the USA are nudists. It's stupid.
>>25098241
How are locks like humans? The problem is, the analogy requires that you already believe in the idea that it's okay for men to sleep around, but not women, so when you try to break it down, it can't stand up to the most basic scrutiny.
>>25098263
They 'key' was the penis, not the man itself. As the penis is inserted (much like a 'key') into the woman's vagina (or, 'lock', which also moves when the key is present).
I've mostly been fucking with you under the charade of misogyny for the keks. But as a /lit/-fag too I couldn't help myself being presented such a saucy opportunity.
>>25098284
>It's like if I polled a room full of nudists, and somehow my survey shows 100% of the USA are nudists
It's more like going to the beach and counting people who wear clothes and those who don't
You'll get more accurate results on nudism than if you just counted people walking through a main street since you're going to the place they get naked
In other words, online dating stats help get more honest results compared to lies that other general surveys on the general population may give
>>25098307
>They 'key' was the penis, not the man itself. As the penis is inserted (much like a 'key') into the woman's vagina (or, 'lock', which also moves when the key is present).
Fuck me, we understand it, you idiot. We're just explaining why it makes no sense, and could easily be twisted to mean something else.
Fucking terrorist christ, you are thick.
>>25098330
Believe whatever you want, it's not scientific and you will not get a honest view of society there.
>>25098178
>muh annecdote trumps your statistics.
>>25098335
>and could easily be twisted to mean something else.
Yes, that is called fucking English. Why pose a question sarcastically and expect somebody to indefinitely understand it when sarcasm can't be translated through text alone? You fucking autist.
>>25098357
Nope, scientific methods trump a student's blog.
>>25098363
Oh, so you weren't wrong, you were sarcastic. That makes it all better, doesn't it?
>>25098284
> It's like if I polled a room full of nudists, and somehow my survey shows 100% of the USA are nudists.
False equivalence! There is no market in nudism, everyone has equal access to as much "nakedness" as they want.
Sex on the other hand is acquired in a market, so to find out who is getting their hands on the most product you do go to the market. The market where people sell and buy sex <=> The place where people go to fuck.
>That puts you in the bottom 20% of all men, by the way.
>all men
>researches surrounding these kinds of topics are formed around specific demographics regardless of the supposed statistics it reveals; PEOPLE WHO ARE INTO CASUAL SEX/HOOKUPS/ONE-NIGHT-STANDS
>robots interpret it as if it's about ALL people around the world
Seriously, you guys should consider doing journalism, they love such stupid sensation-seeking, fear-mongering, and agenda-focused assumptions; you'd fit right in.
I honestly don't care much about those people who are actively into casual sex or hook-ups, regardless of the supposed rate of men:women in it. If they like doing that, good for them.
I don't, nor am I looking for women in that demographic. As I'm outside that demographic, it doesn't affect me.
Avoid trying to find someone for a longterm relationship in the typical places where hooking up and casual sex are the dominant focus (i.e. typical bars, fucking TINDER, plenty of online dating sites, etc.), and you'll successfully avoid the grand majority of "sluts".
Of course, if casual sex is indeed your main objective, it's a different story.
Consider trying to make yourself appear to be in that top whatever% of men - like most men do looking for casual sex only - and your chances will go up a lot. Fake confidence, fake a "sexually attractive" personality, focus on representation, etc.
I assume most robots aren't though, as the biggest feel here tends to be >tfwnogf still, rather than >tfwnowomentofuckcasually.
This thread is full of retards.
The lock/key analogy is perfectly fine, because women create the reproductive bottleneck because basically sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. No need for arguing about "parts" or whatsoever, read a fucking book. Even "the selfish gene" which should be a must read for anyone who thinks he has something valuable to say on this topic agrees with this.
>>25097659
>R O A S T I E
I'm an asexual guy, i'm not horrendously ugly, and as much as girls throw around the meme "I just want a guy to cuddle and doesn't just want sex", I always get left behind, you know why? Because girls do care about sex, and while you may not want it every day, there are people like me who will always be left out.
>QQing about life being on easymode
>Fucking semendemons
>>25098380
I said the question YOU posed was sarcasm and then went on a tangent of 'we understand it, you idiot'. You call me thick and then proceed to be thicker than the land-whale you probably are, blubberpuss.
Did I hurt your ovaries?
>>25098366
Produce a scientific study that disproves the 80/20 rule then.
>>25098394
Maybe, right, if people can't understand what you're saying, maybe you should work on your English skills.
>>25098397
http://www.library.armstrong.edu/eres/docs/eres/PSYC3100-1_KRAFT/310022KraCDC%20Sexual%20Behavior%20Survey%202002.pdf
That was incredibly easy.
>>25096104
>That's right, eighty percent of the MEN are fucking 20% of the WOMEN.
Then who is fucking the remaining 80% of women?
>>25098402
Or perhaps you're not well learned in English enough to understand what I'm saying so should work on your English skills. Wonderful how the conversational switch can be pulled both ways here.
>mfw I'm majoring in English
>>25098397
>Produce a scientific study disproving Santa
The truth is, actual scientists have real shit to do. Which is why you get social scientist cucks pushing the feminist agenda with the study previously linked.
Can just see thousands of middle class female students sharing it with "You go girllllsss"
>>25098389
It IS the current year and all
>>25098426
> mfw I already majored in English
> mfw my job involves writing for a mass audience every single day
lol, fuck off babe.
>>25098452
I wasn't saying that as a means of justifying I'm well learned enough in English. I posed how the conversational switch could be pulled either way. So go jack off in a circle elsewhere, lock-chan.
>>25098425
OH SHIT
OP BTFO
>>25098474
Good luck with the job hunt after uni, it's scary out there.
Especially if you're shit.
>>25098488
I live in a country where you get paid to be a NEET anyway. If I don't get a job, I can always spend my time correcting autistic plebeians like yourself.
There isn't too much hard data for casual sex statistics, but the best place to go for any sexual statistics is the center for disease control
>http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf
>Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth
From table 1; Number of opposite-sex sexual partners in the past 12 months for females
Age range 20-24
Never had sex: 12.3%
Didn't have sex within the last 12 months: 4.7%
1 partner: 57.8%
2 partners: 14.1%
3 partners: 5.1%
4+ partners: 4.6%
Compared with males age range 20-24 (Table 2)
Never had sex: 14.3%
Didn't have sex within the last 12 months: 5.9%
1 partner: 49.8%
2 partners: 12.2%
3 partners: 6.8%
4+ partners: 9.5%
So let's take having 2 or more partners within the past 12 months as "casual sex"
Going by this, the casual sex rate is 23.8% for women and 28.5% for men
Pretty similar for males and females, but it makes sense.
Looks like OP has been debunked.
>>25098422
First of all that study is a bit old, thus a bit skewed in terms of showing how a completely liberal sexual market without societal constrains would work (which is difficult to reseach at any point).
Second, have you heard about that statistics joke where two hunters try to shoot a deer and one misses two feet to the left and the other two feet to the right and the statistician yells "you got it"? That's basically why this study - which wasn't intended to be about that topic anyway - is useless to prove your point. Because when a man has sex, obviously a woman has sex too and of course statistically everything ends up being even. That doesn't show anything about the inner dynamics. It is well researched that the 80/20 rule is true.
see >>25098271
>>25098521
Watch this be ignored because it doesn't agree with how they want to pretend everything is
>>25097814
I'm attractive and a nice guy, but I'll only date a virgin who is willing to wait a while before having sex. I'm not willing to have sex with someone I don't deeply care about, much less lose my virginity.
>>25097659
This mindset is what makes women fucking retarded
>>25097861
How can you be so dumb that you actually thought that was a legit post?
