Women do not only go for Chads. That's silly.
I could tell you this from my perspective personally but you'd just scream bitch or whore or etc so I'll present it to you as logic.
Even among guys threre's disagreement on what makes a "10/10" girl. They all have different opinions. Why? Because beauty is subjective. But what does that mean for us? The preference of sexual partners, from an evolutionary perspective, evolved as a result of people who selected fitter mates providing their genes with better survivability and because of that, more chance to carry on to the next generations. We come at the end of that line.
Now I'm going to give you one concession, it's sad but it seems to me that a lot of studies really prove the idea that IN GENERAL women go for more "strong" guys to get pregs, then look for more "reliable" guys to provide for the children. That's just an evolutionary strategy; it's easier to find two men who provide different things and get one to invest in offspring that isn't his, than it is to find the perfect man who has both traits.
Let's say a girl is looking for her "strong" guy. Now let me use an analogy. She's actually looking for a box that's as red as possible. So she looks through lots of boxes, comparing how red they are. But there are two factors we see in play:
1. How red the boxes actually are relative to each other
2, and this is the key thing: how well the girl is able to judge between the redness of the boxes.
She might be really bad at judging red, and actually select a box that's blue, or green, or just not very red at all. Now apply this to mates. She may want the fittest guy, but what she has evolved to see as the fittest guy (subconsciously) will differ, and actually it can differ a lot. A girl might be "dysfunctional" by having very bad genes for determining mate fitness, so she selects a mate that isn't actually fit at all... like someone from /r9k/. She could feel instinctively that he's Chad.
What do you say to that?
The study ran by Okcupid proved that women rate 80% of males as unattractive.
Look up "Your Looks And Your Inbox" for proof.
>>27601905
I'd say nice try, dude.
>>27601905
I say it's bullshit and the only girls who are into robots are predators who want a man who is easily manipulated.
didn't read.
sage sage bloxblox
>>27601925
it's because women's taste in men are more diverse. an attractive man to one group of women may be judged as unattractive to other groups of women, while men generally find the same type of woman attractive (young, curvy, symmetrical face etc)
>>27601905
First half is just reinforcing "alpha fucks, beta bucks" we've been saying that since forever. nothing new.
Second half is just restating the fact that women go for Chads, with something about oh, they might not really be Chads, the women just think they are. A guy on /r9k/ isn't going to come off as Chad in any situation.
>>27601984
How do you come to that conclusion from that statistic? It implies the complete opposite. Women overall only find 20% of guys attractive.
Women don't need to find their mates attractive but they'll cheat in a heartbeat.
>>27601984
so all the women on okcupid are some kind of subset of women who just so happen to have a particular taste in men?
>>27601984
Women rate only 20% of males as attractive, where as men rate 60% of women as attractive.
This shows that men have more diverse tastes.
>>27601905
I say that at my best I'd probably be a reliable guy, but I'd rather be single than be some safe landing pad.
So really, it's the same either way
>>27601905
You're suggesting that women go for r9k-tier men exclusively by mistake.
>woman
>logic
Someone show this roast the charts
>>27601905
I think nearly all people on this board realize this in the back of their mind and are just trying to convince themselves otherwise.
>>27601905
>>27601905
I think that people just want to be loved in love and sometimes the relationship doesn't work out. Some women date more because pussy is in demand. Doesn't mean all women are after one night stands with some big guy, then they look to get married with some guy who has money.
it's not quite so cut and dry many women have standards and have very interesting characteristics they deem attractive in a person, certainly not so shallow as 'the big muscly fuckwad jock alphatype from highschool''
some do, some hate that nigger just as much as us (or worse)
>>27601905
>Women do not only go for Chads. That's silly.
You're right. They go for beta bux Barry when they need someone to fund their maternity fantasies and/or use for comfort and money
Nobody wants to be that guy unless you have cuck fantasies. Nobody wants to pay a mortgage and a car note for a girl and provide for a girl that fucked chads for the price for a 6pack
You honestly think you're offering good advice?
>>27601984
but... that's the opposite of how it works....
wat?
>>27601925
But that's online dating, where it's mostly loser guys.
>>27602158
>mostly loser guys
Any guy that isn't 6 feet, 6 figures and 6 inches is a loser to women.
>>27602124
that's ridiculous sour grapes. To assume some women are 'shallow' for wanting to have a family and get married to some guy.
You're asserting that they are all 'shallow' whores that are only doing it for the money?
It's a stupid dichotomy and i wish you guys would stahp.
it only applies to the most shitty 20% of women
>>27601905
ok you convinced me op whats your contact give me a chance
>>27602124
This is what frustrates me the most. My mom fucked a ton of musicians and shit before settling down with my dad and having 50 kids. I'm literally genetically predisposed towards being a beta provider, and it eats me up inside.
On the left is a 10/10 male for me desu
http://youtu.be/1L_cAuEvmIA video very related
>>27601905
>What do you say to that?
i say, like every other armchair psychologist on 4chan you are full of crap and you have no idea what you're talking about
the problem we have on r9k is simple, no friends = no way to meet girls = low social status
>>27602183
im willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, how do i contact you? what type of guy are you looking for?
or are you just here to shill your dichotomy on us shit lords?
>OP's advice is more self-serving than helping anything
chasing after men based on good genetics for breeding is the most autistic thing i possibly think of and really borders on creepy for me.
when i hear all these appeals to biology, they just creep me out.
women creep me out because they actually think like this
>i need a tall, handsome, strong man to get me pregnant and give me good babies
that shit is creepy to me. like a symbiote looking for a host or something. the man has no agency or anything, he's just a pawn.
disgusting.
>>27602183
He didn't even say that. The word shallow wasn't even in that post. Are you that honestly that deluded?
How is it that hard to imagine that it would be hurtful for a woman to use you for money and not care about you at all?
>>27602183
>To assume some women are 'shallow' for wanting to have a family and get married to some guy.
Nobody said anything about shallow.
I just said that women fuck indie band members and felons in their 20s
and then they think they have the right to pair up with the guy who spent his 20s borderline incel and was probably studying/working his ass off in some STEM field
>>27601905
Stop trying to help these people OP. They want to be miserable and pathetic so let them.
>>27602158
>But that's online dating, where it's mostly loser guys.
By that logic it's mostly loser women as well. Which makes your point is irrelevant.
>>27602205
>tfw my hair is all fucked up like his
nice to know that girls like that kind of hair tbqh
>>27602297
Be proud anon it's pretty post punk
>>27602035
>>27602045
>>27602047
>>27602141
let's say there are ten groups of women who have ten different definitions of an attractive man. The one man that is attractive to one group is unattractive to the other groups. then there will be way more men deemed unattractive. while almost all groups of men will deem a type of woman with minor requirements attractive.
>>27602328
That would imply that they weren't the same men being rated as attractive. They were.
>>27602328
by this logic women on average should find all men equally attractive.
but the reality is that they find the top 20% of men 500% more attractive than the rest
>>27601905
I say that doesn't make any goddamn sense and reminds me of a schizophrenic street lady I met on public transit who thought she had a "mathematical philosophy for happiness."
>>27602406
this, op is basically an incoherent rant. women and logic don't mix
>>27601905
So...is my skinny femboy oneitis from here Chad because I like him? I'm confused, the first line of your post is "not all women go for chad"- it's just a matter of taste.
You're ignoring the social status component of female sexuality. Men have different preferences because they are functionally independent so they make their decisions on a bunch of factors. Women prioritize social status always and this status is much more of a trait of a true Chad than his muscles or jaw even though the latter contribute to the former.
>>27602328
So you start out with an assumption that attractiveness is uniformly distributed, and then proceed to extract information from this that implies that attractiveness is non-uniformly distributed.
I don't even know what to call a logical fallacy that's this terrible.
So women select partners based on who they perceive to be the fittest, but why do you always assume their conception of fitness is not formed using some kind of intelligence? That the conceptions are all some sort of "pre-programmed" instinctual thing?
If instincts are this rigid as people seem to think, it seems we should only be able feel fear over things that are part of the context in which our instincts evolved? Like wild animals, strange fruits and other humans, but it's not like that at all we can be afraid of all sorts of things if our intelligence sees them to be harmful, you don't think women can be attracted to all sorts of men if they somehow believe them to be fit for life?
>>27602587
So women select partners based on who they perceive to be the fittest, but why do you always assume their conception of fitness is not formed using some kind of intelligence? That the conceptions are all some sort of "pre-programmed" instinctual thing?
Because attractiveness is as pre-programmed in men as in women. I see no reason why evolution would make this different between the sexes.
>you don't think women can be attracted to all sorts of men if they somehow believe them to be fit for life?
If we start on the assumption that attractiveness can be fleeting and that the most attractive qualities are the best for a species' survival, that leads to the conclusion that if a woman finds a relatively unattractive man actually attractive, then it's likely that this attractiveness will disappear when she sees that he's an unfit mate.
>>27602670
forgot meme arrow
>>27601905
>Women do not only go for Chads. That's silly.
>crushing on a quiet, shy girl with no friends
>rejects me saying she doesn't want a relationship and afraid of them
>1.5 weeks later start going out with a 6'4" gymrat dude bro
Yeah sure.
>>27602158
Exactly. They aren't Chad.
>>27601905
>She might be really bad at judging red, and actually select a box that's blue, or green, or just not very red at all. Now apply this to mates. She may want the fittest guy, but what she has evolved to see as the fittest guy (subconsciously) will differ, and actually it can differ a lot. A girl might be "dysfunctional" by having very bad genes for determining mate fitness, so she selects a mate that isn't actually fit at all... like someone from /r9k/. She could feel instinctively that he's Chad.
Good thing she has a lot of female friends who can help her with that judgement. People live in society which can provide guidance. Was a nice try though.
>>27602695
>hanging out with girl a lot
>we fuck but it's nothing serious
>try to make it something real but she doesn't want a relationship
>one month later she ends it and is in a relationship
Even when you fuck them, you're not safe from chad
>>27602756
>"oh Chad you are so much bigger than my last bf!"
>"he was like, *this* tiny (shows curled pinky)"
>both giggle in the bed covered in sweat and other bodily fluids
>>27602787
>*bursts into room with naked penis flailing*
That is a lie! My penis is huge! Behold! Behold!
>>27602670
But across the world different races look wildly different. Personally I have changed my idea about what's attractive a lot over the years, it's because my physiognomy interpretation(everyone believes in physiognomy subconsciously) has changed.
I think how someone is viewed by the world, by society is the most important thing in how women view natural fitness. But there are women who hate society, who believe society itself isn't naturally fit. Then picking the fittest man in societies view, might contradict the survival perspective.
>>27601905
I didn't read your tl;dr post but hurr durr women actuelley love all boys world is sunshine and roses heuerheurhuer
Fuck off idiot
>>27602587
>but why do you always assume their conception of fitness is not formed using some kind of intelligence? That the conceptions are all some sort of "pre-programmed" instinctual thing?
"Intelligence" and consciousness more generally are just emergent properties. People (like you) have a really, really bad habit of ascribing free will and "intelligence" to what are just animal instincts. There's nothing remotely special about human beings in this regard.
You should read Haidt's book the Righteous Mind, he explains how morality is basically ingrained and hardwired from birth and that people try to justify their behaviour with fanciful high-minded reasoning when in reality they just feel it.
>>27603331
I don't associate this with free will at all.
It's just trying to figure out how thorough or how specific biological, instinctual programming is. As the example, you can be afraid, feel fear of anything you believe might harm you, no matter how far removed from any natural kind of environment for you it is. How much can intelligence(not free will) alter your behavior as opposed to your instinctual biological programming. I think a lot of people just credit the programming with way too much, too specific and thorough influence on behavior.
>>27602047
Yeah no, you should go out more often and see what kind of guys have girlfriends. I've seen literal troglodytes with down syndrome with 8/10 girls.
>>27604347
Wow girls are so open-minded and generous, I guess they must be great judges of character after all. Thanks anon
The 80/20 thing that's been mentioned in this thread is a well known fact. We have twice the number of female ancestors as male. All this implies a Pareto distribution, where a small number of men get most of the women. This isn't really up for debate, just a fact of humanity. Women are among the pickiest female mammals.
Obviously there are outliers but this is the average. From what I've heard, women also tend to be attracted to ambition above all else, so there might be hope for me after all, but let's just say it isn't easy.
Women listen to each other too much as well.
I mean, you tell me, fembots. How many men do you find attractive on dating sites? Probably not a lot. You probably receive many more messages than you send out.
>>27601905
>From an evolutionary perspective
Yeah, we live in a civilized society. Unless you live in Africa then your argument belongs in the trash.
>A girl might be
You also might win the lottery if you chose a really obvious pattern. The odds are so fucking small for "a girl might" compared to winning the lottery with autistic numbers chosen that the odds are negligible, irrelevant, and insignificant. That's what I say to that.
I'm really disappointed that people took this teen girl/tranny's bait so easily
unless this is another stealth women hate thread, which I can get behind that
>>27601984
lrn2statistics faggot
>>27602158
from what I've seen here are the "loser guys"
>have a stable job
>practice good hygiene
>major flaw is small social circle or lack of social skills
compared to the women on online dating which are
>whores who want to cheat
>single moms who want a provider
>morbidly obese girls
>girls with hideously ugly faces
>christmas cakes, not in the good way
guys on online dating usually have 10x the real world value compared to the women on there, but the format is so gyno-centric that women think they're higher value than the guys they're seeing
>Women do not only go for Chads. That's silly.
that's true. the ugliest, laziest, meanest and most vile ~20% have to settle for a guy who ONLY look like Chad, or ONLY makes money like Chad.
the remaining 80% don't need to compromise, and essentially retire the moment they get knocked up/married. unfulfilled in any area? divorce, cry rape, cheat on beta husband and he'll still pay for all your everything... literally can't lose.
