is it true that 20% of man population fuck 80%. of women
Yes it is true. But all you have to do is enter the top 20% so no worries
No, it's just a dumb meme. Why are you so gullible?
>>29807284
no, it's based on statistics from some dating website
>>29807325
I've seen it. It's based on an anonymous post about some small number of people on Tinder. So it's idiotic for two reasons: the post itself has no indication that it's real because it's anonymous, just someone claiming to be a college student doing a study for their class, and because people use this thing about Tinder as though it describes the world as a whole. Try to use the slightest amount of critical thinking next time, dumbass.
>>29807325
it's like that on these sites because it's so easy for the girls on there
>>29807257
Probably true. I have fucked one woman. I'm 173cm for reference.
My slightly taller friends have fucked 5-6 women. My one objectively tall friend has fucked 10+ women.
The height charts here on 4chan are pretty accurate imho.
>>29807353
>>29807356
/r9k/ is officially reddit now
I don't think it's that stark, but in highschool we had one or two guys who pretty much ALL the girls would pursue. Then there were guys with girlfriends, but a whole lot of guys without any attention.
Then if you look at movie stars and rock stars, some of these guys sleep with literally hundreds of women. Even if those women go on to marry an average guy - how would you feel if you found our your wife had slept with someone like that?
If you look at certain places like the Philippines, it seems like hypergamy is alive even among filipino men... but on top of this you have filipino women pursuing white men. I may be wrong, but I'm guessing there are a whole lot of filipino men who have very low chances with women and this might explain the ladyboi thing.
![Sex-vs-height[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TQNbwKl.jpg "Sex-vs-height[1].jpg")
>>29807374
What, you mean this chart that indicates that 5'4 men have 10 sexual partners while 6'2 men have 12?
![virgins[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/ygecOsP.png "virgins[1].png")
>>29807421
Maybe if by 'a whole lot' you mean the ~1% of men who are still virgins by age 30.
>>29807463
No I meant those charts that show where the "manlet cutoff" is and what the "ideal height" for free pussy everywhere is etc. I don't know where 5'4 men would get ten sexual partners unless we're talking about anything goes, like whales and hookers.
So far all the men I met irl who were even shorter than me are completely fucked
>>29807481
I'm one of the 1-2% and I understand that it's rare to be a virgin over 30.
I was specifically talking in that sentence about highschool. Think about how that reflects on how their sexual lives will go on from there.
This issue is complex because not everyone pursues sex equally, many people will sleep with a handful of people, some with one person, some with tens of people, some with hundreds. In highschool though most of us wanted girlfriends\sex, and large numbers of guys weren't able to get them, while most of the girls seemed to have boyfriends or have hookups. That's just my experience and it fits with reality.
Reality is hypergamic. Women have more sexual value and they act on it.
Being able to say "I'm not a virgin" at 30 is meaningless.
>>29807517
Oh, so you're saying you were referring to the retarded memes people post on here, and not the actual science. Cool. Carry on.
>>29807374
The height chart from /r9k/ a few days ago showed that 5'6" is the best height for getting pussy while 6' are the most likely to be virgins. You're clearly doing something wrong, an outlier.
>>29807353
/r9k/ loves to extrapolate from Tinder. Especially to see what they want to see. That's why you get all these dumb memes about Chad being tall and getting pussy without trying.
>>29807517
I'm shorter than you and have fucked over 50 girls. You just have to not be a whiny autistic sperglord.
>>29807552
>retarded memes
I simply told you what I observed in my own social circle
>actual science
I know you want to believe, but where would a 158cm man get at least six sex partners, according to your chart? And what kind of "sex partners" are we talking? What country?
>>29807526
>Being able to say "I'm not a virgin" at 30 is meaningless.
No it isn't. It means you had sex. Your 'female hypergamy' meme is just that, a meme.
>>29807588
Short men get sex partners in the same places tall men get sex partners. This chart is about Americans.
What you memesters don't understand is that the reason you are virgins isn't your height, it's the fact that you don't try. You don't have friends, you don't take care of yourself, you don't talk to women, you don't ask women out. You just make excuses.
>>29807599
What on earth are you talking about?
Hypergamy in the sense of "women prefer to choose the best looking\most successful guys, etc" is obvious to anyone who bothers to look. Are you even male? A man has to make effort to get with a woman, even ugly women barely have to do anything. Create an account on okcupid as yourself, then create it for a female you know with average looks - she'll get hundreds of responses and this is just online.
The reality is that women have higher sexual value. This is biological and consistent even with other mammalian species where males pursue sex, in fact it's practically universal to any species with sex!
A man who's lost his virginity at 30 could easily have lost it to a prostitute, a fat girl he has no interest in, a used-up girl who then disposed of him and moved on, etc. It's meaningless because by 30 the prime years are over.
Why are you trying to lie about this reality to men? Either you're a woman or you're a male who simply doesn't want to deal with reality.
>>29807656
You just keep posting your memes while I post actual science. It's cool.
A man has to put in effort to get with women, yes. But that doesn't mean that men can't get women. They just have to fucking try. That's what this board doesn't understand. Also, dating websites do not represent broader reality.
>>29807655
Anon
Thank you for your harsh, but true criticism
I'm a KHV but I am actively working on improving myself and being the best man I can be
We're all gonna make it
>>29807707
I was KHV until age 23. Now I have a GF of four years. That's what happens when you put some work into your life; you get what you want.
>dating websites
Those are fucking garbage and the only thing any of the stats including the racial preference stats say is that those dating websites are garbage.
>>29807655
>the fact that you don't try
I'll give you that. The one gf I had in my life practically threw herself at me and all I did was not stop her. I don't know what she saw in me and I still have no idea how to approach girls. My other "problem" is that I have a legit fetish for big tits so I don't even look at most girls I meet, even though I get a moderate amount of attention on campus. I insist that the tall guys get to have their pick though, that's simply what I keep seeing. I don't know how much effort they put in, I just see them with different girls all the time.
>>29807692
You're posting graphs and then insisting that your interpretation of them is the only correct one while you're apparently mentally blind to very obvious realities.
You use the fact that most people have lost their virginity by 30 as evidence that there's no hypergamy. But we'd need evidence of actual numbers of people slept with to have any say on that. A male who loses his virginity at 25 is not the same as a male who lost his virginity at 16 and slept with hundreds of women since then.
I'd suggest that you're emotionally invested in repressing any awareness of the high degree of sexual power that women have. You're trying to sell a bullshit idea that "guys just need to try" to lose their virginity - when this isn't even the main issue for most men. Most men want a RELATIONSHIP and LOVE as well as sex. The fact that men have to put in so much effort just to get the slightest bit of attention is evidence of hypergamy. You're fighting reality here.
Dating websites are a good example, and they're predicated on the same lie you're promoting - they present themselves as places where men and women can meet, while attempting to supress knowledge of the reality - that they're sausage fests where women feed their egos by getting lots of attention and rejecting guys.
Try the experiment. I've done it myself. My female friend had hundreds of responses with a practically empty profile. I had very few, and the few responses I got required a lot of energy on my half if I'd wanted to pursue.
>>29807763
You see what you want to see. That's all. If you got better at approaching women you could probably get with a big breasted one, although honestly that's a pretty dumb criterion.
>>29807788
I posted a graph on number of people slept with, you imbecile. It suggests that men have 10-12 partners regardless of height. Moreover, the CDC has statistics showing that the median number of sexual partners for 25-44 year olds is 7 for men and 4 for women. This means that the average man has MORE sex than the average woman.
YOU are fighting reality. I post real statistics while you post anecdotes and bullshit that goes on in dating websites, which again, do not represent reality as a whole. If you want a relationship then go out, meet people, get friends, and ask women out. It's not fucking rocket science. You just need to not be an utter failure.
I will grant you that men need to put in more effort than women because we are expected to ask women out. But it is not the unreasonable bullshit that gets posted here, like how only Chad gets anyone worthwhile.
>>29807763
Thanks for reminding me of last weekend.
>have date with qt
>she's about 5'2", slim, with huge boobs
>also smart and nice, have great time
>kiss at end of date, plan next one
>get text next day "sorry Anon, I don't think I'm ready for a relationship now"
fuuuuuuuu
>>29807934
>I posted a graph on number of people slept with, you imbecile. It suggests that men have 10-12 partners regardless of height.
I don't get that conclusion from the graph, and how is this possible? Are you autistic? You're looking at graphs from the CDC and assuming that this "science" outweighs the evidence that literally every male by the time he's 14 or so has acquired - that he will have to work for sex, that he'll have to put in vast amounts of emotional and physical energy for sex and\or relationships, and that women are the pursued, that there is competition for women at any level.
The CDC stats on sexual partners that I've seen were only ever gathered through VERBAL SURVEYS, these are entirely unreliable. I've talked with multiple friends who remember taking surveys on sexual partner numbers when we were younger (it's common in schools), and we all agreed that we made up our numbers, either out of humour or embarrassment.
I'll continue...
Of course
It must be true if people from 4chan said so
don't you believe those experts about girls, sex, relationships etc.?
>>29807934
...Continuing
You're also confused about something. SOME men have plenty of sex. Take male homosexuals. These guys have RADICALLY more sex than heterosexual males, so much so that the CDC itself admits that homosexuality is a "core driver" of several STD's. Likewise when it comes to heterosexuals, SOME men have LOTS of sex - this doesn't help a male who has very little sex. Hypergamy is an undeniable reality. Are you a virgin yourself? How much contact to you have with actual women and society??
Anyone who looks around can see that the AVERAGE male gets far less sex than the AVERAGE female. The males who are getting lots of sex might make it LOOK like "men" are getting more sex, but they're just having sex with other men! Or they're movie stars! Look at AIDS, which is a very hard to transmit disease - once you exclude homosexual males and look only at heterosexuals, heterosexual women are about 4 times more likely to contract AIDS than heterosexual males!
You agree that men have to put in more effort, but it's far more than just asking women out and risking rejection. We have to put in effort because of massive amounts of competition around for women who hold ALL the sexual power in the age-ranges that really matter.
>like how only Chad gets anyone worthwhile
The point is that women ALWAYS have the choice and opportunity to move onto a Chad should one come along, even if you manage to win a woman for a short time. Hypergamy is a reality that men have to deal with, trying to pretend it doesn't exist disempowers men. Get fucked.
>>29808051
In the first graph I posted, 5'4'' men have 10 sexual partners and 6'2'' men have 12. Extreme outliers have different numbers.
It all comes down to you making excuses. If you were not a total failure, if you had friends, some basic job prospects, and actually asked out women once in a while, you'd have a GF. Instead you'd rather sit around on 4chan whining about how men have to put in more work. Boo hoo. Go fuck yourself. If you wanted happiness you could achieve it. What you want is to wallow in your misery. Well, you found the right place for it.
>>29808078
Actually, the average male gets more sex than the average female. That's what these statistics show. "Anyone who looks around" can be deluded into believing what they want to believe because it suits their narrative and because their "looking around" does not represent the country as a whole.
>>29808078
I've been with my GF for four years. I'm not worried about her running off with some Chad. It's a fucking retarded fantasy. She is too invested in our relationship. She's not going to give a shit if some random guy more good-looking and charismatic than I am tries to hit on her, because she's not an imbecile. She knows that she has something great with me and that the guy hitting on her is probably a douchebag. If anything, in our particular relationship, she would probably be more worried about my leaving her.
>>29808096
>In the first graph I posted, 5'4'' men have 10 sexual partners and 6'2'' men have 12. Extreme outliers have different numbers.
I'm 180cm. I've had zero sexual partners. Can you see how this stat might be misleading?
>It all comes down to you making excuses. If you were not a total failure, if you had friends, some basic job prospects, and actually asked out women once in a while, you'd have a GF. Instead you'd rather sit around on 4chan whining about how men have to put in more work. Boo hoo. Go fuck yourself. If you wanted happiness you could achieve it. What you want is to wallow in your misery. Well, you found the right place for it.
Not at all. Firstly, I'm happy with myself and happy to remain a virgin. Secondly, you're just doing the typical normie thing of coming here are promoting lies and misinformation, trying to "counter" the red-pill because you yourself have little understanding of reality, and you think you're helping us - but what you're doing is encouraging male disposability and sacrifice towards empty goals. Effort lost is important to those who've lost that energy and effort. A man who's done everything to get with a woman only to be disposed of doesn't necessarily feel like the sacrifice was worth it, neither does a man who's put everything in for a wife who takes half his stuff.
>Actually, the average male gets more sex than the average female.
Once again, you clearly ignored what I said. Did you see me mention about homosexual men and have on average they have significantly more sex than heterosexual men or women?? We're talking many many times the number of partners... doesn't this have an overall effect on the 'average' number of partners? This is where it's obvious you don't even appreciate high-school level stats.
>>29808151
Holy fucking shit. Do you really not know what a median is? Why are you accusing me of not understanding statistics if you legitimately are fucking confused about what a median is? Look it up on Wikipedia or your favorite math website, understand that the whole point of the statistic is that it IGNORES outliers, and come back when you have a fucking brain.
>>29808149
It's funny that you say this when around 5 years is considered to be the "critical point" in long term relationships because so many of them fall apart around this time. But hey, it can't possibly happen to you, right?
>>29808149
Ok, well lets assume that's true and that she's really loyal and would never do such a thing. You're a lucky guy then and congratulations and I wish you the very best. This doesn't help other guys, though. What matters to other men is how women in general can and do behave.
Your 'faith' in her isn't something unique. Many many guys have believed that their partners were different, but it doesn't always work out, does it? Many guys come back here and complain that they previously believed they were with someone special, but things changed.
I've talked to women myself who have been married their whole lives but decided to basically divorce from their husbands late in life. These women didn't have much to lose, but the men did - the men lost basically a life's worth of effort and work and money and emotional energy, only to be disposed of. This happens so often that in Japan they have a name for it (I can't recall it right now, someone else might mention it), basically - woman marries a workhorse, lives with him till he's all worked out and then gets rid of him.
So men have a lot to lose. Stop encouraging male disposability.
>>29808179
Where did you mention median?
>>29807273
Why doesn't everybody enter the top 20%???? Problem solved.
>>29808179
Not him but average=/= median. Unless you count homosexuality it is physically impossible for the average man to have more sex than the average woman. Because average is mean, not median.
You're not using the terminology correctly at all.
>>29808149
>5 years later
>"I don't understand! Why did she leave me?"
kek
>>29807325
But the problem is dating sites are full of autistic loser men, and regular women. It doesn't represent real life whatsoever.
In natural state, yeah it's pretty true. In modern society it's not but with sexual revolution were getting closer to it by day.
It has been studied that during human history 80% of women have had offspring while it's only 40% for men. That's a bit skewed because most people have lived during the times that we have restricted female sexuality and supported shit like marriage so women don't go fucking around only the alphas and society doesn't fall because the rest of men inevitably start fucking shit up.
>>29807588
He would probably go out and talk to women. It's not hard to get laid
>>29807788
Dating websites are full of desperate 4/10 and below men. They are not representative of anything. Of course average women would get more messages.
>>29808051
The average male isn't lazy and puts in effort. What's your issue exactly? That you're lazy?
>>29807257
I wouldn't go that far but it is true that women find 80% of men to be physically unattractive. And no, that does not even mean average. That means sub-fucking-par.
>>29808197
It could, but if my relationship ends, it's far more likely going to be because I leave my GF than because she finds some Chad. That's just an /r9k/ fantasy.
>>29808078
Men can marry up too. You're arguing nonsense
>>29808208
Women in general can and do behave perfectly normally. Look up some statistics on cheating. I know you won't! Men and women cheat at relatively low rates (~10-15%) and men cheat more than women. B-b-but what about Chad stealing all the GFs!?
>>29808342
>on okcupid
Dating sites are for losers. This totally makes sense
>>29808277
>regular women
LOL no there is just as many loser women on the sites
>>29808208
I mentioned median when I noted the CDC stats, and also, although I did not mention it, the height chart I posted is also a median, not a mean. It's really a safe assumption that any sort of chart along these lines is going to be looking at medians, because anyone who's spent the smallest amount of time reading scientific papers of this sort knows that medians are used because they ignore outliers.
If my GF breaks up with me, I do not lose a lifetime of work or whatever bullshit. I have experience, confidence, and am perfectly able to find another one.
Reminder that 80% of women and 75% males reproduce in modern western societies desu.
>>29808369
Nah it's women who don't have time to meet guys, and for undesirable guys,
>>29808369
Don't respond to shitposting, anon.
>>29808223
Median is a TYPE of average, and the word 'average' often refers to the median, rather than the mean, especially in papers studying this sort of thing.
>>29808382
>thinks comparing it to other websites is a control
This is fucking sad dude. Look how hard you try to make yourself a victim for being a virgin. If you put in this much effort with a woman you'd have a gf.
I like to think of it like this:
If every guy was spontaneously replaced with a copy of myself and women were only able to choose between identical copies of me, the statistics would be 100% of men fucking 0% of women. The quality of the guys is more important than the quantity. At least in terms of big picture percentages, from the female's point of view they can have both.
>>29808355
>man is the pursuer and woman is pursued
>but men can marry up too
yeah ok
>>29808368
This isn't 2005. Dating sites are normal, literally losers are the only ones that aren't on tinder. Guess what, tinder shows the exact same thing.
>>29807257
It's exaggeration, but it's true that a minority of men fuck most of the women.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t966lVrHEzo&feature=youtu.be&t=58m36s
>>29808377
More like 60% nowadays.
>>29808406
That's stupid and you're stupid which is probably why you're a virgin.
>>29808410
Those two things don't contradict each other.
>>29808444
I already knew I was stupid, didn't need to get trips to prove it.
>>29807934
24-44 yr olds is a bullshit range. Women's looks go down the drain and they're desperate to fuck around 35 yrs old. I'm starting to see that now that I'm 29, so many likes on OKC and tinder from like 31+yr old women. The real question is in the 18-30 age range and I'm sure women dominate. Further more these statistics are self reported and girls always lie about this kind of stuff so it's useless data as far as I'm concerned, just go outside and you'll see the reality.
>>29808324
>Dating websites are full of desperate 4/10 and below men.
Why are there so many desperate men at 4/10 and below?? Oh, that's right, hypergamy! Honestly, the women on those sites are often worse than many of the men, and yet they're the ones who get to pick and choose (in my experience they don't even want to do that, it's mostly an ego-boost).
>Of course average women would get more messages.
Average woman gets many many times as many responses as an average man. It's simple.
>>29808331
>The average male isn't lazy and puts in effort. What's your issue exactly? That you're lazy?
Right, men have to put in effort, women don't. This is because women have basically all the sexual power. Hypergamy.
>>29808362
>Look up some statistics on cheating. I know you won't! Men and women cheat at relatively low rates (~10-15%) and men cheat more than women.
What is cheating but a highly immoral, hurting form of lying?? So what type of religious faith do you hold in science that you believe "statistics" on such a thing can be relied on? This is a big part of your problem, that you can't even consider the limits of knowledge and science. Nobody who cheats can really be expected to honestly report on it in any manner. You're also apparently ignorant of the obvious biases involved in the framing of such an issue. Women typically do not have to "cheat", because they hold all the sexual power. Women are far more likely to practice "serial monogamy" - I've seen this myself several times, a girl decides she's 'fighting' with her boyfriend and they break up or separate, but she has another guy that she's more interested in lined right up. Even if she didn't have such a guy, she'd generally quickly be able to get one, because WOMEN have the sexual power! If you can't appreciate the way this affects the issue of 'cheating', you're a moron. I wasn't even talking about cheating in my post, I was talking about this position of weakness in the relationship.
>>29808444
Marriage statistics don't mean shit tho. Many women are desperate to have kids and will settle.
>>29808479
I wasn't talking about marriage statistics.
>>29808415
Tinder is a lot of loser guys too, and also isn't a dating site.
>>29808490
Tinder has the whole population except for the biggest losers. And it's literally internet dating.
>>29808459
No, they're desperate because they are creeps
Women don't have the sexual power. Men do. We pursue women. I don't see why you'd have a problem with that.
>>29808449
Why would a woman want an inferior man when she gets offers from superior men?
How exactly is an inferior man supposed to trade up unless he manages to get lucky/they fall in 'love'?
>>29808511
Jesus Christ aren't you a stupid fuck.
>>29808501
It's for hookups bro.
>>29808512
He puts in effort.
You have this really creepy idea that women have lists of who is better than who. It's very autistic
>>29808523
It's still a date if you fuck on the first date and never see again.
>>29808520
>I don't want to put in effort so I'll call you stupid
Sorry the real world offends you so much
>>29808533
>You have this really creepy idea that women have lists of who is better than who.
Someone has never talked to women I see.
>>29808533
But by putting in effort he is no longer that inferior man.
He isn't ''trading up', hes upping his own worth.
>>29808535
Lol! If you say so. I wouldn't say 25 texts, 2 dicks pics, and fucking in my car is a date.
>>29808533
Not lying I once keylogged some girls, this was at an "elite" highschool in Melbourne, Australia, and the girls were literally sharing a list of guys who they were rating. Wasn't even a secret, really. It was shared between about 40 girls.
>>29808551
No, he's not. He's trying to meet women.
>>29808562
>high school
>real life
Oh geez. And you went on to be a serial killer I assume?
>>29808563
So, you're telling me that if an average man goes to gym and gets buff (or financial equivalent, whatever) he isn't increasing his worth to be attractive to more worthy partner but is in fact worth the same as the average man and trading up?
next thing you'll tell me that microsoft now and back when it was created are same worth the exact same amount.
>>29808571
Nice arguments, faggot. Just admit that you're wrong and stupid.
>>29808562
Literally what all adult women talk about 90% of the time.
>chad is soooo dreamy
>yeah mike is good too, i'd definitely go out with her
>anon? ewwwwww
The fuck is that if not a list?
>>29808353
So basically you're saying that you're dating down so that she wouldn't be able to get with anyone better than you.
Fair enough I suppose, still bullshit that men need to drop their standards straight off a cliff to get a loyal gril
>>29808149
Bro. If you cheated on her, would she forgive you? Because if she's that invested, you can be hitting pussy on the side for free.
>>29808533
Holy shit, you've literally never ever ever spoken to women before
EVERY single woman on the planet has a mental list that they use to compare men with
>>29807732
It's an exponential thing though. Like I'm just inventing numbers atm but pretty much for each year you're a virgin after 21, your chances drop by probably around 10%.
For lower-status men, sex a life-goal that requires literally decades of forward planning, hard work, and a dash of luck.
For high-status men men it's a recreational activity.
>>29808694
And status is something you create, not what you were born with.
>>29808767
Some are, some aren't.
>>29807353
>>29807325
You're thinking of a different one. There was an official study released from Okcupid showing that women consider 80% of males as unattractive, where as men consider only 40% of females as attractive.
This equates to, in my opinion, proof that 60% of women get to enjoy dating and happiness, where as only the top 20% of men get to enjoy dating and happiness.
The study is called "Your Looks And Your Inbox" if you'd like to google it.
>>29808935
>men consider only 40% of females as attractive.
I'm sorry, I meant to say "men consider only 40% of females as unattractive." God damn I need coffee.
>>29808935
>This equates to
Are you a fucking moron? You jumped to the conclusion that 80% of males will never get married or even get a date.
>>29808988
>You jumped to the conclusion that 80% of males will never get married or even get a date.
That is not the equation I jumped to, you are incorrect.
>>29808935
It doesn't prove shit, because it's based on a picture alone. I have a really hard time finding guys attractive based on just a picture, it's a combo of looks and personality that are attractive
>>29807257
>>29807257
No, it is bullshit. There is only a very tiny minority of guys that don't get laid regularly.
You must really be a sad cuck to care about how many sexual partners a person has
If you are not going to play the game by stacy's rule which is basically
>have a decent personality
>have money
>be fit with a big dick
Then just stop with all this shit, cause this women are whores/slurts/subhuman/disgusting is what brings them here and make these dumb bait threads
>>29809100
>You must really be a sad cuck to care about how many sexual partners a person has
are you le cheerios man? :^)
>>29809157
According to this chart, the maximum possible score for marriage happiness is 54 so you can sleep with up to ten people without suffering a significant drop because it will still be 41+. The only noticeable drop is between 0 and 1, and then another after 10.
>>29809157
Study done by the Abstinence for Jesus committee. No matter how hard you tell yourself, you're an incel. Not a virgin by choice.
>>29807463
>only goes down to 4'10"
If the female line continues with the same trend downward, the key to getting a non-slut woman might be to find an extremely short one.
>>29809028
Interestingly OkCupid also did a study asking women to rate attractiveness and personality. Guess what, women always rate attractive men as having good personality and ugly guys as having bad personality.
Now fuck off slut.
it should be
rules of nature :)
>>29809243
So, do you think there is a correlation between being ugly and bitter?
>>29807353
This claim has been around before tinder even existed.
>>29809277
Probably. Definitely not that big.
>>29809157
Pulling some charts and numbers out your ass doesn't help your argument, you say that you don't care about women or not into trying to be whatever it is they expect, but when you ask questions like
>why does chad have more sexual partners than me the robot
You set yourself up to be not only laughed at for your lack of the ability to get puss, but you make yourself look like a sad cuck because another man is fucking the woman you wish you could fuck
And so I'll reiterate my point, play the game by stacy's rules until you manage to bag one or don't play the game at all and go to a prostitute if you just want pussu and attention
Robots are supposed to be smart but you guys are good at making yourselves look really fucking stupid
>>29807463
Look at the whiskers you moron
>>29809157
>effects of sexual promiscuity on std infections re: non-martial sex partners
>3.6 have only ever had sex with their wife/husband
>they willingly married someone who was festering with an std because they were so lonely
>peak omega achieved
>>29808767
No they haven't put any consious effort into it. It's mostly that their genes and circumstances as kids led to them getting good social lifes and that just automatically led to social status as grown ups.
>>29809344
>Pulling some charts and numbers out your ass
that implies they were made up. did you see the sources at the bottom of the image?
>>29809738
That is the most idiotic thing I have read on /r9k/ today. There is no such thing as a Chad who was born as one and had not done any effort in his life foe anything and still gets all women wanting his cock. He doesn't exist. He's the imaginary boogeyman to give you an excuse to not try.
Everyone needs to make an effort to succeed. Including Chads to get girls.
>>29809883
Normal people get friends in school naturally and then the friends just hang out for fun. Kids don't work on finding friends and they normally just do what's fun, they don't make conscious plans for working on their relationships with their friends.
>>29807257
yes and don't you forget it subhuman
>>29807257
It's just nature
The best genes win, for billions of years this has always been the case, it won't change just cause you're a "nice guy" or whatever, if you're ugly you've already failed, if you have shitty genes you have already failed. That's life.
>>29809938
So wait, you're saying "normal" means the top 20%?
>>29809938
Normal people take care of their appearance, their social life, and so on. They don't mope in the basement all day getting fat and whining about tfwnogf.
>>29809883
80% of women don't make any effort and still get laid and all that validation. How can't some lucky enough male get all that?
>>29810045
Yeah cause it's second nature to normies
They don't make an effort to do those things, that's just how they are
>>29808511
Of course they have the sexual power, that's why men are the ones who pursue not the other way around. Women are the gatekeepers to sex they are the choosers.
>>29810111
What's preventing you from losing weight, taking a shower, and going outside the basement?
>>29810079
I can't make any sense of your post. Yes, girls can get laid relatively easily if they want to and lower their standards enough. Then again, so can most guys.
>>29810136
That's like saying "what's stopping an ugly person from being attractive"
Or "what's stopping a retarded person from being intelligent"
>>29810136
Many drawbacks. Mental disorders, physical disabilities, family issues and all that.
>>29810149
Not really. Only 20% of men can get laid with the same ease as 80% of women.
>>29810172
That 20/80 meme is fucking stupid. A lot more than 20% of guys can get laid easily enough. You're just trying to fool yourself into thinking you are in the 80%. No, you are in the bottom 5%.
>>29810427
This place is proof of that "meme".
>>29810440
Robots aren't 80 or 20 or even 5 percent. More like the lowest 1% in desirability.
>>29810458
That's what a women or very delusioned person would say. But even most women being as unqualified as the average robot still get validaded.
Think about it, the average women is shallower than a robot and yet have a better social life for the sake of her outer appearance.
>>29810509
Robots are usually angry, negative, and extremely lazy. They expect that a girl would jump into their lap without them making the slightest effort.
>>29810683
Probably because they get frustrated that the rules are so different for men.
A 25 year old woman who is completely unemployed, only has a high school education, and lives with her parents is still gonna have men lining up to date her without issue. That's absolutely not the case at all of a man in the same situation.
>>29810045
That stuff gets different results for different people.
The most important parts (that are also what determines results from such effort) is the social skills that they got for free thanks to their genes and circumstances.
>>29810683
No, that's incorrect.
>>29808388
In bell curves, yes.
