Are there actually any statistics out there which support the claim in pic related?
> the majority of women goes for a chaddy elite of men
> chad fucks everyone while robots and dorks cry themselves to sleep and masturbate all thru their prime
I haven't found any studies myself. I have been looking.
>>26932827
kill yourselforginial desu
Probably not directly
Think of it like this though, if you got to choose between a bunch of things you'd pick the best one, right? I think most people would, men and women.
>>26932827
There are 2x as many female genes in you than male or sth like that. Genetics show that only 50% of men reproduced or sth like that, while almost all women reproduced. That is what free market gets you.
look at the arab world
>men allowed to marry as many times as they want
>no gfs, just wife (wives) or nothing
>all the rich and powerful men have literal harems
>average joe is very lucky he even gets his uncle's ugly daughter as a wife
most of them get nothing. like absolutely nothing. no gf, no fuck buddy, no fapping, no nothing.
sit there and be enveloped in sexual frustration. and that's why arabs are subhuman animals who can't control themselves around western women.
>>26932827
Why would Chad limit himself to only one woman?
>>26932915
Is that why so many guys are going gay and/or trap? Some kind of evolutionary reaction?
>>26932827
Who needs statistics when r9k just tells us how the world works.
I know whenever I go outside, I only ever see 10/10 male model Adonis billionare Chads walking around with crouds of ridiculously hot women chasing after them.
No average or normal guy has ever been known to have a girlfriend. Having a girlfriend in modern society is extremely unusual and very rarely seen.
The statements I have made cannot be argued with, because if you disagree with me then you are automatically a normie, and your opinion is therefore suspect and you should also leave this board and go back to facebook.
>>26932866
there's lots of studies and tinder/ dating site experiments that show quite clearly the message success rate for women being way, WAY better, but it's hard to find data on actual hookups
>>26932893
ofc but that doesn't mean pic related isn't true. i'm not saying men wouldn't go for hot grils if they had a chance
>>26932915
do you have any statistics to back that up?
i'm asking because intuitively and by my very limited second hand experience i'm inclined to believe it's true, but i had an argument about this with a friend earlier and i was wondering about the hard facts here
>>26932827
Think about it in terms of biology.
The woman's role is to find the best mate of those available with the best genes to ensure superior offspring.
The male's role is to spread his genes to as many women as possible, thus ensuring that he has many offspring. Contraception makes this "obsolete" in a way, but the primal urge is still there. This is why so many Chads have multiple women and women find it hard to not be attracted to them.
Ever wonder why we get hard at the sight of every attractive woman we see, while women don't reciprocate that to the average joe or smelly NEET?
>>26932827
There's the 80/20, but that usually applies to online dating
>>26932827
Think about it in terms of biology.
The woman's role is to find the best mate of those available with the best genes to ensure superior offspring.
The male's role is to spread his genes to as many women as possible, thus ensuring that he has many offspring. Contraception makes this "obsolete" in a way, but the primal urge is still there. This is why so many Chads have multiple women and women find it hard to not be attracted to them.
Ever wonder why we get hard at the sight of every attractive woman we see, while women don't reciprocate that to the average joe or stinky NEET? It's because of the aforementioned points.
We, as males, desire to spread our genes to as many females as possible. Females desire to seek out the best possible mate.
Not true. It's in fact the opposite if you're talking just looks. So many average looking males I know are hooked up with some decent looking women. It's just that they know how to treat your typical women, and you treat her with a tad of dominance, and not like a beta white knight.
Used to be a white knight myself, and a total awkward cuck. I was probably more robotic than most of you on here, as I couldn't even hold a conversation with my own family, and even my own parents at one point. Depressing shit. Thankfully, I just stopped giving a fuck what other people thought, then came out of a shell. 1 year later and I'm banging chicks left right and centre.
If you're a repulsively ugly male, then no character traits will help you unfortunately. Looks do help if you're a male, but it isn't the main issue like it is in a woman. Women rely on their beaut, and so does their social hierarchy. Hence why advertisement and porn is always women. They are objectified, their life relies on the features.
Change the Top 2 males in your picture and call them Good looking guy he isn't a cuck and Average guy who isn't a cuck. Call the third one a cuck, and the last one a Bernie supporter. Also, hook the ugly girls with the cuck.
>>26933086
What if you're relatively good looking, but are 5'6"? I live in Europe if that's a variable.
Not directly but the okcupid attractiveness appreciation stats show this. There's an amazing amount of men considered 'below average'. That would indicate that in women that desire loose relationships they gravitate towards the same males.
The okcupid for mens appreciation of women is much more evenly spread were it's clear that they form a bell curve. It's a much more accurate representation of what you'd expect to see in nature. Men's perception of beauty isn't demolished by media like women's are. Men's preferences may change but that just re-sorts the graph.
Men also don't place women far far high or far far low.
This isn't the original source but I think the overlay illustrates this clearly.
As for monogamous relationships I think women's perception change by media might contribute well to divorce rates. But that'd the some explaining to convey probably.
>>26932827
I remember reading somewhere that historically, 80% of women reproduce and 20% of men.
Can't remember where I read it though and now I'm repeating it like it's fact like a fucking retard.
>>26933209
http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success
still that's not that useful since i'm talking about the situation nowadays
>>26933201
>media
I think it's more likely to be how women can only reproduce with one person and men can reproduce with many. So they discriminate much more than men who practically don't have to discriminate. But it's true that if women see better looking men they change their standards because they judge by what's available. And historically we haven't had any type of 'far sight' so any face/body/wealth/social status you saw in a guy was available because he had to be local.
>>26932999
>do you have any statistics to back that up?
He is referring to DNA evidence that made the internet rounds around 2012. See, e.g., http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=2
Of course this probably owes more to the higher attrition rates among men than female sexual selection, so to what extent it's relevant to the Chad phenomenon is debatable.
>>26932971
In a way, they're the 49ers of today. Traveling in search of a better life, thousands of them hoping to strike gold
>>26933321
Yeah you're probably right. I think erotic fiction like 50 shades of grey or Twilight has a bigger impact than looks though.
Really would like to see how people in regions without that stuff would score here. On their own people though.
>>26933201
>It's a much more accurate representation of what you'd expect to see in nature.
>Men's perception of beauty isn't demolished by media like women's are.
Not necessarily. It could very well be the case that male beauty actually is right-skewed. We would need to compare how men rate men to how women rate men.
I know I certainly would rate most men as uggos.
>half an hour
>this not posted yet
Eesh.
Listen to this 'straya cunt drop some knowledge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vqRbScCIPU
>>26933174
>relatively
Then it depends on your character. I mean if you're pretty normal, you'll get laid. If you have the persona of someone like Nigel Farage or Donald Trump, you'd have lines of women queuing up for you. Women love attention, so that's why love based men because they're popular/established. It's like she see's you a king, so she want that queen crown. Bonus if you're good looking too.
>>26933390
>men are right skewed
I think you mean left (more uggo men than attractive). Do you mean that men don't get attractive until the higher end of a more objective scale (things like build, facial symmetry etc)?
And you're saying that the range of women is more evenly distributed because preferences are less intolerant to imperfections so they distribute more evenly? So an objective measure would be rather close.
That's what I think I was saying but maybe you need to elaborate for me.
>>26933424
See this >>26933201mega original post
>>26932893
I feel like men are much better at knowing if they have a chance or not and "settling."
There are a lot of girls who I would love to be with but I know I have NO shot.
>>26933390
>We would need to compare how men rate men to how women rate men.
This doesn't make sense. It assumes that female and male sexual attraction work in the same way and they don't women's sexuality is much more fluid than men's.
>>26933424
Do you have a link to that;?
Frttts
>>26933570
Skewness refers to the direction of the tail, not the bulge.
>Do you mean that men don't get attractive until the higher end of a more objective scale (things like build, facial symmetry etc)?
I don't want to argue as to what beauty is, because the argument I was mooting holds both ways. If beauty is the result of objective factors, then I wouldn't be surprised to find those factors exhibiting a right skew in men. I'm not saying that's definitely the case, but I'm saying there's no reason to expect the distribution to be normal, or to be the same as for women.
If beauty is purely subjective, then we know it exhibits such a skew, because women tell us that it does.
There is plenty of stars in the universe
>>26933276
Why do you think that evolution processes nowadays are so different reproduction-wise?
>>26933828
>even saved my filename
That's sweet, anon.
>>26933936
where is your trip?
>>26933853
it's not about what i think but being able to back it up with facts since i wanna convince my normie friend
>>26934022
I would start looking here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
