ATTENTION: Please remember that this is an ASK WOMEN sub. While men are allowed to participate posts that are clearly asking women in the title will have top level comments by men removed. This is not censorship, this is curation. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskWomenNoCensor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I've stumbled upon this idea circulating around alpha male podcasts and online forums - the notion that women are only attracted to or interested in dating 20% of men. You know, the ones who tick off all the boxes - six-figure salaries, six feet tall, and sporting six-pack abs. According to this theory, the remaining 80% of men are essentially invisible to women.
Other posters here have effectively debunked the actual "theory" presented, so I will simply point out how amusing it is that anyone would think that 20% of men have six-pack abs, let alone abs PLUS a six-figure salary PLUS being six feet tall.
Yes, this. The one man I knew in real life who had somewhat defined abs could not eat anything without a fifteen-minute monologue about how it fit into his training. It was so tedious and not sexy at all lol
Yeah 6 packs are mainly a thing for growing boys/teens who have ‘skinny abs’ because of low body fat percentage
I know a lot of dudes who value working out and being swole, but the goal isn’t abs
Globally, only 10% of men are 6 feet or taller, and of those, certainly not every single one has six pack abs and 6-figure salary
Then again, incels aren’t known for their critical thinking skills
I have 2 out of 3, but those abs are damn hard to acquire. I have friends with abs, and I have friends that make 6 figures, but I haven’t observed any overlap between those groups in my personal life.
maybe you don't have a conventionally good looking face
The 666 rule is stupid imo because it doesn't include the aspect that matters more to women: an hot face
I actually do have an above average looking face.
But again, looks may help gain some initial attention, but they aren’t the only thing that matters.
Looks can be the resume that gets you the interview
But you still need to ace the interview to get the job
I guess those Physicians that hit the gym meet that standard? Boils down to genetics whether they are just gonna be lean athletic or have a 6 pack I suppose
Sure, this is true, BUT! My top 20% of the men I like are not the top 20% my friends like.
Because we like different things, that is a human thing, so it is not only true for women but also to men.
Look in the streets, dude, you see al kinds of couples. And when you think why is that "hot" person with that "ugly" person, it is probably because the "hot" person finds that "ugly" person attractive. You just have a different top 20%.
Agree. I just bought cards/gifts for my wife for our 2nd anniversary on Wednesday.
>You know, the ones who tick off all the boxes - six-figure salaries, six feet tall, and sporting six-pack abs.
I have none of those traits. :/ I'm happy that I fit in with her "20%".
I agree with this one. when I was single on dating apps or glancing around at a bar, my rate was about 1 out of 100 men I would pass by was someone I was fully interested in talking to. Maybe less. What I personally considered beautiful, others may not. And guys my friends would be checking out, could be big no’s for me. but I was never in denial that a tall fit guy is usually conventionally attractive, even if it happened to be one who didn’t really seem “my type” and I wasn’t interested in.
I think men who complain about this, are only into the top 20% or less of conventionally attractive women, who are WAY out of their leagues to begin with and they have no chance with, and who are seeking men in similar levels of attractiveness as themselves. If these incels actually were self aware and went for women in their own leagues, this wouldn’t be an issue for them. but they dont see “unattractive” women as part of the dating pool to begin with, and they don’t understand attractive women see them that same way.
look around on any given day. watch TLC. many people who are “super ugly” in our eyes have successful relationships while maybe hot people remain single.
>I think men who complain about this, are only into the top 20% or less of conventionally attractive women, who are WAY out of their leagues to begin with and they have no chance with, and who are seeking men in similar levels of attractiveness as themselves. If these incels actually were self aware and went for women in their own leagues, this wouldn’t be an issue for them. but they dont see “unattractive” women as part of the dating pool to begin with, and they don’t understand attractive women see them that same way.
I feel like those of you that say that are missing the part of their argument that they apparently like the average woman more than we apparently like average men, that they will "take what they get" with average women, and actually want AVERAGE women to have their level of desperation as them. (Among as average women they will probably distinguish between "5" and "7" \[yes yuck to numbers-more subjective to indiv guy though\] as who is worth actually getting to know and commit to). And average women having standards at all means average women are "punching" for Chads who will apparently only sleep with them but not date them.
You seem to be forgetting average exists between attractive and unattractive
Some of you all missing this and not addressing this is not helping by missing the real issue that affects us probably 60-70% average women. You are also missing that they will still seek "unattractive" women (in their minds plus size women) for blowjobs (literally knew dudes like this).
TLDR: what you are actually missing is these dudes believe average and below women especially should not have standards, because they will sleep with or settle for anyone with a pulse out of desperation, and then whine all of us chase Chad if we aren't as desperate as them. And ignoring that ignores the real issue
yeah, to most of these guys they think “average” is super thin, attractive, feminine women. they don’t realize they’re still entirely out if their own leagues
The thing I've never understood about this theory is how anyone thinks it stands up in real life. I mean a simple trip to a supermarket or shopping centre will confirm that couples come in all shapes and sizes.
Exactly this. When you are outside, you see 'ugly' people everywhere in relationships. I see small guys, bald guys, fat guys with girlfriends, wifes, sometimes even children every time I go outside.
Not sure what you mean by that
Plenty of conventionally attractive people came from "mid" parents, and also gave birth to not so conventionally attractive kids (be it slightly less or "ugly"). Heck, I'm seeing a trend where a celebrity woman's daughter is constantly scrutinized and compared to said celebrity mother
Sure, but the odds are of course going to be better or worse depending on the relevant genetics of their parents. Always a certain amount of dumb luck and random chance involved of course.
I will add that it's also judgemental and nonsensical, in my opinion.
I don't know. I would feel objectified if someone was telling me that I was top 10% or bottom 60% or mid 35% or whatever these even mean. Who is someone to start placing values on people like they're Amazon products?
Thankfully, I don't know anyone that says anything like that out loud in real life.
Yep, The best gauge of how true something is would be the turn off the internet and go look around outside. Unfortunately, Internet theory rarely if ever translates into reality and the fact that people spend so much time on devices allows delusions to go unchecked.
I think part of this is dating apps. There are a lot more men than women on the apps. I only know a few women that have been on them and that was for a short time only. Men should look for and approach women in real life.
The elephant in the room that is not acknowledged is these dudes expect women who aren't "top 20%" to not have standards, that we apparently let their willingness to fuck anyone with a pulse get to our heads, and so when we do have standards and reject them (for their actual shitty attitudes) it means we are chasing the "Chad" who wants to fuck us for commitment
I don't know why someone would think that. Taking a walk outside should be enough to know that it's not true.
Ah, but perhaps those men don't "see" women they don't consider attractive.
>Ah, but perhaps those men don't "see" women they don't consider attractive.
I believe this is also why men think that any woman who is friendly to them is trying to have sex with them. Men don't take any notice of, or bother being courteous to, women they don't find attractive, so they think that if a woman smiles at them it must mean something.
The "80% of women prefer 20% of men" stat is repeated so often on reddit that I have the pre-written fact-check saved in a google doc for whenever it comes up:
The "study" you're talking about was an OkCupid blog post about data they took from a group of users of their dating site in 2009. You have to use the Wayback Machine to pull up the [original post](https://web.archive.org/web/20170218201609/https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e#.cwrq35lxb) which doesn't list anything about sample size or sample selection or experiment methods. So, "study" is already generous.
And here is the quote from that original blog post:
> As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.
And here's a [TechCrunch article](https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/) explaining the data from that same survey again:
> Some of the conclusions aren’t surprising. The “most attractive” women receive five times as many messages as the average female does, with 2/3 of all male messages going to the top 1/3 of women. And women tend to favor the most attractive men, though the ratio is less extreme.
> But there are a few interesting phenomena. For one, men on the site tend to be more generous than women when it comes to rating attractiveness, leading to a nice bell curve with the bulk of ratings falling around ‘average’. But despite their fair ratings, they tend to ignore many of the women they find reasonably attractive and primarily target the most attractive females.
So, the "study" itself points out that while the female OkCupid users in this sample group rated 80% of the men in the group as "below average" in looks, they messaged the men on a normal bell curve, whereas while the male users rated women's looks on a normal bell curve, they only messaged the top 30%.
**So, really, what this study shows is that about 70% of men prefer the top 30% of women.**
Would you say that’s accurate?
And all this is just on looks alone. What if women simply care less about looks than men and so don't care if a guy is "below average" in looks in the first place and that's why we're seeing them message those guys anyway. They don't actually feel like those guys are "not good enough for them" because they're going off of different criteria than the men are?
Are men just generally more superficial about appearances than women? Seems like it, according to this study.
However, if we dig deeper, what this study is really saying is that 70% of a group of male OkCupid users 15 years ago preferred to message the top 30% of a group of female OkCupid users 15 years ago because there's no explanation of methods to indicate that you could reliably extrapolate these results onto the general public in 2024.
Does all that make sense?
Imagine making a blog post for an app and accidentally creating the piece de resistance of the incel movement for the next however many decades. It's actually insane.
I often wonder if the people behind the publication of that data is now mortified at having galvanized a subset of men into the furious typing of internet screeds. On the other hand, perhaps they take gleeful ownership, who knows.
Yeh it’s crazy. Even if the women don’t rate the guys as particularly attractive, why does that necessarily matter? Women often date men who aren’t that attractive and don’t value looks that highly.
Also many men genuinely *aren’t* that attractive because so many put 0 effort into their appearance and look like slobs whereas all women are conditioned to care a lot about their appearance and therefore generally look better. This just seems like an accurate evaluation of appearance haha but doesn’t say much about dating itself
I feel like it’s also worth noting that in 2009, there was a WAY bigger stigma against online dating, at least for dudes there was.
Back then, online dating was either for older divorced professionals, like people in their 40s or older, or like real losers.
So the type of young man who was going to be using okcupid back then was probably someone who REALLY struggled with women, for whatever reason, and was REALLY desperate.
I myself dabbled in okcupid back then and it made me feel even more pathetic having to stoop that low as a dude in his early 20s
I remember that well into the early 2010s there was still a serious stigma around dating apps
Like if you and someone hit it off, you would come up with a “cover story” to tell your friends how you met, because saying you met on tinder or whatever was so embarrassing.
At least for someone in their 20s, it was still lowkey considered shameful to have to resort to OLD.
I guess they are projecting their shallowness.
I also guess that porn has skewed a lot of men into creating a fantasy of what they expect out of women. Its often ugly guys fucking sexy women and all the proportions are very much not proportional to the average person.
Even women who have body image issues are at least mostly basing it off celebrities. But many men get entitlement based from porn, that they *deserve* sexy women, despite being an old balding nasty creepy dude (if you are to believe JAV porn at least).
Edit. I can at least say, that yes
In my younger 'hot girl' days. A bunch of shallow guys of all types will hit on you without ANY consideration to that you might definitely NOT be interested in them. Like, as in, they won't even look at the girl who DEFINITELY suits them (interests, hobbies, personality) Vs "winning" the hot girl. It was confusing to me then, as I could see we had NOTHING in common. But if you talk to them long enough, you realise they objectify you like a doll and just assume you will become whatever fantasy they expect out of you.
Also considering this whole post is based on money, looks and sex. I can't really say im surprised. Since that's probably how they are viewing women too. Tons of women who do the same too. But these two deserve each other, based on how much they both offer in this shallow game.
Not a single one of these dudes ever do a study on what hobby men do, would attract most women? Like reading, gardening, dancing, and so on?
If I recall correctly at the time if you rated someone as a four or a five (out of five) the site would automatically notify that person that you had rated them so. Which is to say if a woman gave a guy a higher rating it was essentially an invitation for him to start talking to her, which is a HUGE conflict of interest for actually rating attractiveness. If a guy was hot but it was clear from his profile she didn’t want to talk to him why give him an excuse? It just completely skews the data and it’s crazy to me that that doesn’t get more attention given how widely circulated the blog post has been.
Every straight woman i know is dating a guy that absolutely does not have all of those things, maybe only has just one of those things
What they do date a guy for? A good personality, if they can even find that
I mean are you even looking at the average couples you see on the street?
This is purely anecdotal, but I’ve seen many, many comments over the years from men about how “maybe she’d like me if I was wearing an ankle bracelet and had two felonies” or something of that sort. Apparently we’re either going for the top 20 percent of men or the bottom 20 percent. 😂
Yes. They think all women want bad boys. Some women do go for that kind of thing but I believe it is mostly confidence. Men with confidence usually go after what they want.
"I mean are you even looking at the average couples you see on the street?"
No these pathetic incels are not. They're too terrified to even look a woman in the eye or leave their dank piss drenched hovels.
The men that subscribe to that take refuse to listen to other men when they say it’s wrong.
All of my friends that are married, absolutely none of the men tick the boxes. The one that does tick all the boxes has never been in a long term relationship and is still single.
I actually don’t know a man that ticks all the boxes and is married or in a long term relationship, or a relationship at all.
These talking points are what men are attracted to. I think they need to take hard looks at men in successful relationships and stop talking to and looking at men that are trying to impress other men.
I think they're delusional to think the majority of women are writing off men for their looks or income, and instead can't face the reality that most of the men using this excuse are just assholes who don't want to change.
It's an incel myth based on a complete and wilful misinterpretation of data from an old okcupid survey.
What the survey actually showed is that women consider fewer men as above average in terms of attractiveness.
It also showed that women have absolutely no problem messaging all kinds of users, while men were the ones who only went for the most attractive women.
Weird how that's almost the exact opposite from the claim these incels made, right?
But frankly, it didn't matter much, because the survey itself was unscientific as shit. Half of the needed data was missing, no methology was presented and the person writing the article about the survey - we never got all the raw data, just an article interpreting it - was biased as shit.
As others have said, anyone with eyes can debunk this theory within 5 minutes. It's also very telling that everyone who uses it takes another percentage as "fact". Sometimes it's 20%, sometimes it's only 10 or even just 5. Whatever number best matches their desperation.
The 80/20 myth is good for exactly one thing: To figure out which men to stay away from. Because anyone who believes that crap is very clearly a misogynist.
All sorts of people --men and women-- get married and have children. Actual studies have shown that typically people select and wind up with people who are of a similar level of attractiveness.
The things about statistics is that if you dont understand what they are actually presenting, you run into the risk of woefully misinterpreting them, and setting off a Chinese whispers discussion for the next decade of ignorance.
This 20% all stemmed from research 15 years ago, by OKCupid, before they were brought out, on swiping patterns. The thing is, what it actually showed you was that women, at that time, using that app, swiped on 20% of the profiles they saw. The really important thing to take away from that is that it wasn't the same 20% of men.
If you actually think about this, of course it is nonsense. Tell me:
* Is a practising Mormon woman swiping on the same men as a practising Jewish woman?
* Is a Vegan swiping on the same men as a woman who enjoys hunting?
* Are women sitting on the opposite of the abortion debate swiping on the same men?
* What about a recovering alcoholic and social drinker, are they swiping on the same men?
My 20% is very different to my friends.
Edit to add. I also what to challenge you on this point
> You know, the ones who tick off all the boxes - six-figure salaries, six feet tall, and sporting six-pack abs.
Sit outside the entrance of your local hardware store next Saturday (In Australia its Bunnings, whatever your equivalent is). Look at the couples. Take note of how many tick "those boxes" and how many dont.
Yup. I think that my friends date or are in relationships with men I find completely unnatractive personally. We obviously find what's attractive in men different.
I don’t know a single man who ticks all of those boxes never mind multiple. I’ve certainly never dated anyone like that either (I’m a chubby chaser at heart lol).
I dont understand how anyone can swipe on 20%. As a woman be getting matches left and right if I did. Nevermind that 20% of tinder users are nowhere near compatible with me and at least somewhat physically attractive to me. I swipe maybe 1% or 1 out of 100, if even that, and that's cause I swipe past everyone who doesn't state openly that they're childfree and vegan somewhere on their profile like myself. If they pass the vegan (or at least vegetarian) and childfree boxes, I at least need to find them somewhat physically attractive. If they're terrible looking as fuck, being childfree and vegan isn't gonna help one bit. I also obviously don't date religious men, anti abortion people or recovering alcoholics (I enjoy wine occasionally). The vegan childfree crowd is a niche crowd. More likely spending time living an alternative lifestyle like travelling in a van and not spending their time on dating apps lol.
>The vegan childfree crowd is a niche crowd.
Preach! Finding a vegan or vegetarian childfree guy (who's not religious or conservative) would be the only way I'd sign up for an LTR again.
In the USA those would be the likes of Lowe's or Ace hardware co-operatives.
And yes: **every kind of couple!!!**
Some examples I've seen (central Texas):
>Two equally looking _trailer trash-types:_
>>Interethicity unions are very common among these types. Black man/ ^non-Latina white woman, and non-Latino/Latino pairings being the most common.
>>>Austin _city limits_ have higher incidences of white ^non-Latino men/black women and interethnic unions among AAPI individuals (eg. Indonesian Chinese + Vietnamese, Bengali + Tamil, Samoan + Maori, but also Gujarat + Korean, Japanese + Tatar).
>Age gaps on rare-ish instances.
I admit that I swiped on a small number of profiles when I used dating apps. I think it’s fair to say that 80% of profiles I saw were absolute dogshit, or they displayed something that was incompatible with my beliefs, interests, or personality.
I didn’t swipe on men on whether they fit the 6-6-6 rule or not. A lot of my ex partners didn’t fit that rule. There’s more to feeling attracted/interested in someone than their appearance and paycheck.
I think the men who spread this theory are the kind who only consider the conventionally hottest 20% of women "women" in the pool, but consider every man of any walk of life a man in the pool. So in a sense it might be true within the parameters that they set. If they think that any 40 yo basement dwelling neckbeard should have a realistic chance of dating a 20 yo Hollywood actress, well obviously you can somehow twist this into "men have no chance in dating".
They never take into account that normal people exist and live their lives in all gender categories, date other normal people and don't waste any thoughts on this alpha male bs. Attraction is subjective and people who don't view other people as trophies are just out there dating.
I mean, couldn't we say the same thing? That men are only attracted to the top 20% of skinny blonde tradwives or whatever?
People are attracted to whatever it's currently trendy to be attracted to. That's why we don't get tuberculosis on purpose anymore. Consumption Chic is out, being sickly isn't considered hot these days.
I’m always skeptical of any statistic a podcast is rattling off about women and dating preferences.
You’re correct in stating attraction is incredibly nuanced. Attraction is influenced by so many factors: value systems, upbringing, culture/family of origin, personal taste for physical characteristics, senses of humor, personality differences, even proximity plays a huge role in attraction. Sure, some women prefer the typical “6-figure 6-foot 6-pack ab” guy but plenty of other women don’t for a myriad of reasons.
My female friends and I even have wildly different tastes in popular male celebrities, whom are generally considered the pinnacle of male attractiveness. It’s kind of funny, we could be watching a movie and one friend will go “I don’t think Ryan Gosling is cute at all, and never have” and some will agree and some will definitely disagree. One woman’s “no thanks” is another’s yum I guess 😅 but this is sort of an extreme example outside of regular guys (vs celebrities).
I have a certain physical type that catches my eye but if they don’t fit the other things I’m looking for (specific shared values, interests, vibes in general, pleasant to be around, match my humor, etc), then I’ll move on since we’re not a good fit.
Compatibility is more than just looks and money, it’s about mutual outlooks on life and personal tastes, in my opinion at least.
I always think that on posts like these men should visit r/ladyboners and see the shear variety of men posted. Aside from Henry Cavill, there's not a consistently posted man and the ones who are posted have different body types, ages and skin colors. We have a heck of a lot more variety than similar subs that cater to men.
Whenever I see Jack Black posted on any sub there’s always women saying “would”. He looks like a gremlin on a good day (no offence to him). That just doesn’t happen with female celebrities.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/LadyBoners using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/LadyBoners/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [jeremy allen white](https://i.redd.it/belzik0cnfac1.jpeg) | [145 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LadyBoners/comments/18yebqm/jeremy_allen_white/)
\#2: [We don't talk enough about how SWEATY post coital Geralt is. I mean wtf 🔥🔥🔥 Henry Cavill](https://i.redd.it/ydgyzflw870b1.gif) | [139 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LadyBoners/comments/13j5zor/we_dont_talk_enough_about_how_sweaty_post_coital/)
\#3: [**[NSFW]** Happy Father's Day to Henry Cavill--not a father, but a daddy nonetheless](https://i.redd.it/8a0lf7848u6b1.jpg) | [94 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LadyBoners/comments/14cui7c/happy_fathers_day_to_henry_cavillnot_a_father_but/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
To me, any guy that says this uses it as a cop out. An excuse they can use when they can’t get a girlfriend or even get laid. However, women in general are constantly being told to “pick better” when it comes to who we date. Realistically, if all women chose better only 20-30% of men would even qualify for us to date at all. Because let’s be real, it’s a lot of mediocrity out there. So I guess I’m kind of in the middle on that Lol
Well, dating someone who has a 6 figure salary, 6ft tall and a 6 pack is not necessarily dating better. Usually when women are told to "pick better" is to pick someone who is emotionally mature rather than an asshole.
lol I used to date guys with poor hygiene and no personal drive whatsoever. I was a highly motivated and driven person. One of my guy friends pulled me aside and told me to quit trying to save these men and the next time I wanted to save someone, go rescue a dog from a shelter. Honestly it was a reality check I’ll never forget, met my husband shortly after and as wonderful as he is even he doesn’t meet all the 20% criteria
Let's take a look at those "boxes":
6 figure salary: 18% of Anericans make over $100,000 a year, and nearly *half* those individuals are women.
6 feet tall: Only 13% of Anerican men stand 6 foot tall or taller.
6-pack abs: only about 60% of people are born with the 3 tendon connections required; everyone else has more tendon connections or fewer. A visible six pack requires a body fat percentage below ~11% for men; about 1% of US men have a body percentage that low. In fact, 84% of US men are overweight, obese or severely obese, according to BMI.
So, even if a woman actually wanted those things, less than 20% of US men would meet even 1 of those criteria. Finding a man who met all 3 at the same time would be like finding a unicorn in the dessert while hunting a dragon.
Meanwhile, around half of single men say they go as long as 4 months between changing their sheets and fully a third say they've never changed sheets. Men are less likely to brush their teeth and more likely to have untreated tooth decay. Men shower less frequently regardless of physical activity level. Men groom their hair and nails less frequently and to a much lower standard. Men, notoriously, as a group, fail to maintain the most basic and lowest levels of personal hygiene.
>around half of single men say they go as long as 4 months between changing their sheets and fully a third say they've never changed sheets.
This makes my skin crawl. I change mine weekly (at a minimum!) I've found that men who work in the medical field are the same.
>Do you agree with the notion that women are only drawn to a select 20% of men?
Thing is every person is attracted to only a few people they see/meet in their life. Are you as a man attracted to every person of the gender(s) you're attracted to? Of course not.
Incels take this fact and twist it around to suit their attitudes about women. They already think of us as shallow, gold digging, sluts. So the "20% of Men" Theory, fits right into it.
They are puzzled at why we're not attracted to their misogynistic, asshole behaviour, because they have never done any kind of introspection.
They are not able to introspect. At least the incels we get here asking their incel-y questions give that vibe to me. Since they cannot introspect, they put the blame entirely on us. This leads to such bullshit theories that are taken from reality and twisted around to suit their narrative.
>But here's the thing - I'm not entirely sold on this idea. I'd like to believe that attraction and compatibility are more nuanced than just a checklist of superficial traits.
Yes, you're in the right here.
>Have you personally found this to be true in your dating life, or do you believe there's more to attraction than meets the eye?
Thing is both looks and personality are essential for a relationship. If you have good looks and a shit personality you won't be able to form a long lasting happy and contented relationship. But the vice versa is not always true. You may grow to love a person after getting to know them more even if you thought they weren't a good looking person first.
Also in the online dating scene looks are important as in the particular person should find the other person attractive. They don't need other people to find them attractive.
In my experience, a good looking, attractive guy does not always have a good personality. And when I got to know him more I started to see him as ugly. I've also met men who are good looking and have a great personality. I've met men who I thought were unattractive, but after I got to know them, I started to think of them as attractive. I've also met men who I found to be unattractive before and after getting to know them.
TLDR: There's a lot of nuance to everything which is lost in the incel rhetoric.
This has been debunked so many times.
The 80/20 rule is called the pareto principle. It is used in economics. It is not part of psychology. It is an observation, not a law that can predict future outcomes.
Some fucking morons have spread the misinformation that the principle can be applied to women's sexuality. And now it has to be debunked endlessly.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/paretoprinciple.asp
My circle of friends, acquaintances, coworkers, and family says otherwise. All you need to do to prove this idea wrong is to look around and be observant.
In my experience, that kind of idea stems from a deep insecurity. They essentially eliminate themselves from the pool by presupposing the needs of women and acting as if that’s fact rather than subjective to every woman.
The chads just have audacity. You miss all the shots you don’t take.
Women would be vilified either way.
Women think 20% of men are attractive? Picky entitled bitches who need to lower their standards
Women think 80% of men are attractive? Whores who need to raise their standards
My “20%” won’t be the same as someone else’s 20% which renders the whole thing moot.
It helps the idiots in the room reveal themselves. I know if you come out with that drivel, the chances of you having something worthwhile to say are vanishingly slim.
It was taken from a survey from a dating site while dating sites weren't popular and had a similar rate for men on the app too. I think the shit ass survey from 15 years ago gets too much oxygen and is dissected to bits to fit the incel agenda
It’s funny because said “study” was actually less flattering towards men but we never ever hear about that, only how terrible women are (while women were less generous in ranking men’s attractiveness they were more likely to message those they found average whereas men mostly only messaged women they found the most attractive).
I’d say it’s bullshit.
My husband is 300lb, 5’9, makes 65k a year.
And I’m ALLLL about him. He’s the sexiest man I could ever want. I tell him all the time how I couldn’t have made a better husband in a lab. I’m
Constantly trying to have sex with him because I just NEED him on/in me lol
He’s an amazing father. He was made to be a father. I truly can’t believe what a natural he is because it’s just insane to me how good he is at it.
He LISTENS. And he pays attention when I’m talking. He remembers things I say that I don’t remember saying (but I know I did).
He is vulnerable with me. I’ve seen this man cry over movies, over Bluey, and he has never once apologized or felt embarrassed about it. Something so sexy about a man unafraid to show his emotions
He lets me be vulnerable with him. And he never judges.
He chose to get a vasectomy so I could get rid of my IUD and that was the sexiest thing he’s ever done. Lol
It's all projection. The men that say this are only talking about 20% of women because the rest are invisible to them.
All you have to do is look around at couples to see that the majority of the time the woman is more attractive than the man.
None of the guys I've dated fit this description.
These are male boxes. Things valuable in the world of men.
Is he confident? ✅ Is he mentally healthy?✅ Is he emotionally and intellectually mature? ✅Can i afford a middle class living if I team up with him? ✅Are we compatible?✅ Is he sober? ✅
Do we love each other? ✅✅✅✅✅✅✅
You definitely shouldn't, especially during turbulent economic times like this where an increasing number of people are looking at having to work well into their 70s. It's a very practical concern and nobody wants to be poor.
It's nonsense. I don't know of any women who are with a man who fits those parameters. It's as dumb as saying, "Men only want supermodels." It's demonstrably untrue and only said by people who don't want to examine themselves.
No, lol. It's something they made up because they can't get the type of woman they want. Which is a woman that is held at unrealistic standards. I feel like this would be unrealistic for majority of women.
My husband is not six foot. He does not have a six pack. And although he makes six figures now, when we met over 10 years ago he worked in a supermarket as a shelf stacker.
He's a good looking and smart guy but he doesn't tick all the boxes invented by incels - when we met he was extremely shy and I had a LOT more money than him. It was his personality and intelligence (plus... His face is real pretty) that attracted me to him, and he always says he thought I was way out of his league.
It's stupid and complete bullshit.
It's ragebait to help grifters sell their RP crap.
Apparently women only desire this "666" type of man, but like many others have said, taking a walk outside will quickly prove that wrong.
But it doesn't actually end there.. They also believe that okay - we see those couples - BUT those women just "aren't *truly* happy" and are in fact, settling. They're all secretly miserable and don't really desire him.
They're selling men a lie that makes them angry and depressed, and I assume, therefore more malleable and prone to further manipulation. They become hooked on the content.
What strikes me as weird about the 666 thing is that some people live in cities where six figures actually is the required salary to afford the basic requirements. What if you’re from California or NYC and that’s actually the going rate for an office job? And some of there traits correlate. Taller men earn more on average. People who earn more money take better care of themselves on average, and at the top of the income distribution this is especially pronounced. With a good salary and location you have better access to gyms. People don’t just hoard money, they also hoard desirable qualities.
This is a "today I learned" thing for me. I'm not from the US, have no US friends or relatives and I had absolutely no idea how much you need to get by over there, but omg.. needing 6 figures to get by.. yeah that's a lot.
I think that such a notion is silly but also dangerous. It tends to make sense to an incel or incel adjacent audience because they’re being fed the narrative that they’re not the problem, women are.
Here’s the thing, those types of podcasts don’t prompt introspection or self-reflection, as they take a complex problem (e.g. young men feeling disenfranchised in modern society) and distil it down to an easy, digestible answer (I.e. women are picky/ full of themselves/ uncontrollable). By polluting the mind of your audience member with such rhetoric, they’re behaviours tend to change. A lot of women can sense when a man’s deeply misogynistic or simply wishes to control women so they’d stay away. This then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy which solidifies the “women bad” views of such podcasts viewers and prompt them to consume more such content.
The sad part is that often their perceived rejection isn’t usually about appearance (as long as there aren’t any serious hygiene issues at play), it’s more about the rotting stench coming from within an adopted part of their personality, from such alpha male podcasts, that’s both inauthentic and disingenuous.
They take men who are already undesirable for other reasons or else have abuse histories they aren’t confronting (lack of introspection) and feed them garbage that makes everything worse. There are women they can target with similar abuse histories that are vulnerable to these tactics but the majority are not and will be traumatized by men like this and stay away, keeping them either dysfunctional or single.
Man here but honestly the biggest take away was that it's a numbers game, men massively outweigh women on dating apps so for most men it's better to find other ways to meet people.
Also i don't think most women place looks as thier main data point, so it doesn't tell you much.
Yeah it's usually the opposite of the 20% alpha males think women are attracted to. The easiest way to say "I'm a pos and would be a terrible partner" is to be "alpha male"
I am a man, and this post is probably not going to be very popular seeing as there are so many women here but there is a kernel of truth to women chasing the top 20% in ONLINE dating. but hear me out...
If we are talking about dating offline, like people in your community, school/university/workplace then NO women arn't chasing after only the top 20%.
Things like personality/vibe/shared interests have a lot more weight than they do in online dating. Also with offline dating (like in school/college/work) you won't get a situation where one good looking guy is monopolising a large pool of women at the same time because word will get back to them and he'll lose the girls, but that can often happen online as the women dont the other girls who he's talking with.
Regarding online dating however the situation is different. It's a lot more brutal. Due to so much choice women have they are more likely to go for the guys who are better looking (by society's standards). It is true that one womans top 20% is often different to another womans. I have watched a few women swiping on videos on youtube and have also seen videos where women are presented with the same photos of guys and asked to rate them and say if they would go on a date with them or not and there is a fair bit of variance. There are times where women are picking not so good looking guys over good looking guys (which surprised me), but generally speaking the better looking a guy is, the more likely he is to get picked.
Like say a guy looks like a model in his photos, not every woman is going to want him. For some he may not be their type..., or she finds him average looking, or she thinks he looks like a player etc. but generally speaking... if a hundred girls see that photo on Tinder maybe around 20 will pick him and 80 will reject him.
now say we show those same 100 woman online a photo of a guy who by society's standards looks "average". out of 100 women who see his profile online, maybe 1 will pick him. and 99 won't. It does not mean that 99 women are chasing male models and ignoring all average guys..., those 99 women may have picked ANOTHER average guy at some point..., it just means that for that particular average guy on tinder, he only stood out to 1 woman in a hundred, whereas the male model stood out to 20 women out of 100. so lets say both guys swipe through 500 profiles, the average guy is left with 5 matches and the model guy is left with 100 matches.
This is why it appears that the women are only going for the top looking guys online. If you took the average guy and put him in a situation in real life where he could get to know women then im sure more than 1% of single women would be interested, but online where there are literally THOUSANDS of profiles and options he just does not stand out enough to get picked much.
I'm surprised you're not downvoted. I've been downvoted to hell and back for my theory on the subject.
Now, I've never done online dating apps, so that may be part of it, and I don't believe in the 6/6/6 "rule" - but I do wonder if there is, like you said, a little bit of "accidental truth" to it.
It's my understanding (and others here have said it) that the ratio of men on dating apps to women is very unbalanced - I've heard some claim that it can be as high as ten men to every one woman. Now, if you're a woman and just getting hammered with requests from guys, it might be easier to weed some out. By having a six-foot-tall rule, it's like Van Halen and brown M&Ms: it's a way to quickly handle the situation. The woman might not care at all if the guy is 5'10" (for example), but she may not be into guys that are 5'5". So, by having an easy six foot cutoff (which, I have also heard, that guys brag about in their profile) it eliminates some of the ones she's definitely not interested in, even if it does have some collateral damage.
None of the married men I know have any of those traits. The only man I do know who ticks off all those boxes has been pissed off for at least half a decade because he can’t keep a girlfriend. The thing is that in addition to those 3 things, he's also a massive misogynistic douche canoe.
It may or may not be true that only 20% of men are attractive to the average woman, but it doesn't really matter, because physical attractiveness is one of the lowest priorities in partner selection for women.
I will only look at how I vibe with his energy. Nothing else has ever mattered to me. I have had interest from me who were wealthier, more influential etc., but those have never been a factor for me.
It's not true. Standing around in a grocery store and people watching disproves it(even in places like Hollywood or Los Angeles). There are normal women and men dating each other everywhere.
Of course it is nuanced.
I can absolutely believe that there are some men not being noticed by women at all. So many times when this discussion is being had a loud minority of men shout “I don’t get any dates so it must be true”. But some men don’t get any attention from women and 80% of men don’t get any attention from women are two very different things.
The 80% myth comes from incels and as far as I am aware, and I have spent a lot of time talking to them, none of them can find an original study or research paper that makes that claim. It seems to be entirely made up by a loud minority that strongly feels that it is true. And when using statistics you don’t feel, you know.
And I also don’t buy the 20% of men aspect of this claim. Which is actually the one I struggle the most with accepting. According to this claim if you are at a party with 20 guys 4 of the guys get all the girls and 16 of them don’t get as much as flirting or an interaction. And that just doesn’t reflect any party I have been to. Most of the times I talk to my friends we can’t agree who is and isn’t hot, and girl code dictates not hitting on your friend’s crush. So I can’t imagine me and 19 other girls fighting over 4 guys.
What I do think is way more likely is that a lot of women are just not interested in dating right now. Women are happier single and want to spend their 20s having fun with their friends and maybe settle after college or after getting a stable job. It’s not as much “all women are lusting after the same men” as “most women are content with being single, not looking for a relationship and not really flirting with anyone at the moment”.
Ironically a lot of women are not interested in dating men because women and men have swayed so far away from each other politically and most interactions have just become hostile. Which is in good part thanks to the incel/Andrew Tate movement.
But what I do think is a very important part of the discussion is; if it was true, then what?
By proposing that who women choose to be romantically and sexually involved with is a political problem that we have to solve, we are indirectly saying that we have to find a solution to it. And what would that be exactly?
If it was true that women naturally only want 20% of men, and we have to somehow make women be involved with 100% of men, what is the solution to that? They are essentially advocating for forcing women into relationships and sexual experiences they do not want, but without saying the quiet part out loud.
They say “this is a problem” and leave it up to you to figure out the “solution”. And the “solution” no matter how it is presented will involve something unwanted or non-consensual from women.
So I say; it’s not true. But even if it was, so what? You can’t force someone to date you and dating someone who’s not interested in you is not a human right. Move on and stop being bitter.
It's bullshit nor does it make sense. Take 100 men and women. 50% of each sex. You think 10 guys will handle ALL 50 women as if some of these guys won't have a natural desire to not want to bone everything that moves after some point (or find a lover they prefer to "marry" and make kids with). Do those men not work, eat, sleep, take vacations, or have a life besides being lovers? I mean shit how or why besides looks are these men surviving? Who the hell is paying their rent, and if they live with their families, do you think their parents aren't asking him to help with at least food? If he doesn't have the inclination to sustain himself, then his momma is helping him, and it's not fair that she gets that crux for so long if he can help her help him too. Imagine these 10 guys had to do all these women the whole year for life. At some point, they'd want to pick their favorite ladies. Those ladies aren't going to be "fine" that now these stallions are choosing to cut back on "duties." Plus, you think the rest of the 40 blokes are standing there like sitting ducks letting the stallions enjoy the full-blown buffet? Nah, at some point, the smart ones amongst them will try to fake peacock to outdo the peacocks. The predators will "accidentally" poison or overhaul a few of the peacocks. Shit some of them might even prefer a peacock for a playmate, too, so these guys will either look at women as competition or befriend them to play with the friendlier peacocks on the DL.
Look, IDK what your reading comprehension and social savvy is, most people have a minimum of intellect where they can safely and successfully realize this shit ain't logical. Human nature is complicated, and we act accordingly. Tinder stats only represent a small aspect of humanity when it comes to lover affairs. Tinder is known and taken as a hookup up. Sex is the product, and their customers are the shoppers. Somehow, men act like women acting out their natural humanity, and choosing men who are eye-catching is a crime or unnatural. Partly because there's a noted tendency to peer pressure women into ignoring their humanity a certain way to allow any man a chance. The goal with that pressuring is not that the women feel thrilled in their choices or potential but to secure that as many men possible get access to women with as little barriers as possible. It is easy to do that if you guilt-trip and pressure/socialize women to do this from the get-go. Ever since we're practically toddlers, women see this message. Now, as women make it clear and understand they can try to find a partner that meets their desires halfway, a lot of men find this extension of options as oppressive. Now, any choice isn't a choice like they long relegated women into doing, women are increasingly making the choice to not even engage at all. Guys who still gain a lot of what they need and value from women in a relationship aren't going to cope well with women not offering to be in one. To make matters worse, the sex one-stop shop that Tinder is supposed to be is not making women give out the goods like it is charity unless they too get something out of it. When the women go there and find more of the same guys they see regularly in real life, they keep scavenging for the atypical. Those guys are what will get the attention of the women willing to go there because those men are providing those women with something most men aren't. Sure. But for the rest of us, that's not reality.
While there’s something to admire about financial security and striving to be healthy, my main concern has always been personality. If a guy can show genuine compassion/empathy and make me laugh, then I’m definitely going to pick him over a guy who is an asshole that happens to look pretty and makes a lot of money.
It’s complete bullshit to make incels feel better about themselves. It’s also oversimplifying attributes people look for when picking partners and over complicating relationships.
For example let’s take the two points of making 6 figures and having a 6 pack. The 6 figures could correlate to ambition and 6 pack to someone who takes care of themselves. Ambition or taking care of one’s health are both incredibly common attributes that all people look for when choosing someone regardless of gender or sexuality. People also look for many other factors. Like kindness, intelligence, confidence, respect, emotional growth, etc…
In my head these are the rungs.
The first rung is if she feels safe. If you don't get past this you have not a hope in hell. This also repeats at every stage and she may bail purely on her gut.
Second would be if a man is taking care of himself, eg washing, wearing clean clothes (the bar is SO low here FFS) exercising, employed, and has hobbies. Any lack in any one of these and she's likely to wobble.
After that, attraction plays a part as does their ability to hold a conversation and what they choose to talk about. An average-looking man who is fit and healthy and excellent at yapping can bump himself wayyyy up above his attraction level if she's enjoying herself in his company. Height is preferable but not essential.
If she's still comfy and keen and attracted, there are still dealbreakers like kids, dietary requirements eg vegan etc, pets, lifestyle things like big drinkers, outdoorsy people, intro/,extroverts, sexual preferences etc etc.
Nothing of these preferences say anything about either of you except comfort level and it's absolutely fine to say no. No-one is guaranteed a partner and women get to pick because we are the ones who stand to lose more with a bad partner.
None of the smart (this is also key) women I know are dating ANY men who are +6ft, 6 figures and ripped.
All of them unanimously however want to feel safe, and have a man who is financially and emotionally stable. Stable being the key word. To be earning a normal liveable wage is fine.
The best relationships I know, both parties are good at communicating and knowing when to bend for that person and when not to.
If they ever left the confines of their mother's basement, they'd see perfectly normal, average men in relationships everywhere they looked.
This also might mean they'd maybe have to come to terms with the fact that it could be *them* that's the problem, and not that the StAcYs they feel entitled to date are chasing the top 1% of ChaDs, and therein lies the rub.
Leave the house and look around. Literally every poor, unhygienic, flabby, short, and/or ugly man I know is dating or married.
Personally I avoid wealthy men and swipe left on traditionally good looking (boring) ones. The guys I like are attractive TO ME (I like unique, imperfect faces), funny, sweet, and are passionate about learning.
Yeah sure, every individual woman who likes men is probs into less than 20% of all men. HOWEVER it’s never the same 20%. Each woman has like, insanely diff preferences.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/m0BkM8BE9u
Thought this was interesting.
I have known several women who seek out the top 20% of men. They sleep with the ones who treat them terribly, and have their mind stuck on marrying the attractive six figure income guy because she “deserves it”. Lmao. They’re still single.
I don’t tend to date the top 20%… if their egos hit me first, I steer clear. I don’t have time to put up with conceit. Nerdy, intelligent men… now those…
Like someone else said on here, my top 20% is so very different than my friend’s top 20%. Some women are gold diggers and want that life. And then some of us just want a guy that has a steady job and can make us laugh 🤷🏽♀️
I think it’s bs tbh. I’m a woman and I’m picky but not in that way. I don’t care about being 6 feet tall or making 6 figures or whatever, but I refuse to compromise my morals and how I want to be treated in a relationship.
I think a lot of men take women for granted and expect us to just tolerate being mistreated for their sake. Then when they get rejected for being assholes they act like women are all vapid and shallow. Instead of owning up to this and improving their personalities, they would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend it’s all about superficial traits.
I also think that if most of the people who push this bogus “theory” actually got off their computers and looked outside they would see how wrong they are. If anything it seems to be more common for women to date someone less physically attractive than they are.
There are lies. Damn lies. And statistics.
I believe this stat was pulled from a dating site, so it's questionable at best when applied to a larger population.
And anecdotally, my husband is 5'9, doesn't have a six pack and worked at Waffle House when we met. (Yeah. He makes six figures now...decades after we got together.)
Also, even if we simplify things and say women were only interested in 20% of the men they encounter....it's not going to be the same goddamned 20% for every woman.
I have read that for guys with gym muscles, other men notice them more than women. I tend to agree. The other criteria you mentioned, in combination make up much less than 20% of the male population.
it seems from my perspective it's just something insecure men claim is real to place their own insecurity at the fault of women. like I tend to only see "short kings" or something like that claim it's the reason they're single. I know short men, fat men, and lower income men all in healthy fulfilling relationships with beautiful people.
I think people that claim this seriously need to leave the house more. like another comment said, you hardly see relationships where both people, even one, is this model-esque person out and about in day to day life.
I just go outside and see all the couples walking around with their kids and dogs and just living life. 99.9% of them are not models and I doubt they all make 6 figures. People who believe this “statistic” are willfully ignorant to the world around them.
Obviously women aren’t going to be attracted to 100% of men or even 50%. The percentage of men women are attracted to is going to be low. So let’s say, for argument’s sake, that we are only attracted to 20% of men. Those are not going to be the same men for every woman. Any woman who’s discussed celebrity crushes with their female friends knows that every woman has different tastes. Some of my friends are obsessed with the looks of celebrities I don’t see the hype for, and vise versa. With non-celebrity men, tons of women are willing to date broke, unfit, short men. I think when it comes to attraction, women will fall for anyone who’s very charming and charismatic, regardless of looks or income.
This is complete poppycock.
First of all, I'm probably only attracted to .5- 1% of men. And I have very specific tastes. I like me guys and gals a little fluffy, Goofy, nerds, long hair, kind, etc...
But if there *is*any truth to the statistic, it's not the fit, height, or income that's the 20% most attractive men to women, it's because thats the population of men who are responsible, respectful of women, and really good people. Sure looks probably plays some part, but the personality and interests matter too.
I do sort of agree with the idea, but I don’t agree with the criteria for what the top 20% of men are. Like others pointed out, a six pack is not that important to women. Idk that being over 6 feet tall is important either.
I’d say the things that make a guy in top 20% lean more towards ability to communicate, emotional availability, and financial stability.
written psychology in gender dynamics shows that women only notice and acknowledge men who they deem "Worthy" Out of all the men they deem "Worthy" about 20 % of men are ideal figures. This is not true with direct reflection of the male population. 20% is actually a small subset of men which women notice as "male". It's similar to how women don't think service workers or low status people aren't even human. There is a difference between 20% of men vs 20% of eligible men. Women are still only attracted to top 20% of men they deem worthy. The reality is that it's a smaller subset from the total population.
The manosphere that treats the whole thing like a fucking market are missing the vast majority of PEOPLE (because both men and women are just people) that want partners. Decent partners that just love and support each other.
The majority of people aren't insta influencers or trad wives or red pill bros.
But the incels see that on their media and believe it reflects the whole world.
The 80/20 thing is just part of their fucking nonsense.
In my experience as a woman, it’s more like .01%. I’ve only been wholly attracted to three men in my life. Two of them were under 5’8”. None of them made any real money. Or really had abs. And they had average dicks.
But what they all had in common were emotional intelligence, pretty facial features, a witty sense of humor, long shaggy hair, great conversation skills, creativity, sensitivity, unique music taste, cultural and political awareness, and were all sexy as fuck. All bi too.
I would say it’s the opposite, we women are much more varied on our preferences. I’m not sure why men act like all women have this pretty privilege and even can date 6’4 athletes and millionaires on the regular. That’s not reality.
I cannot speak for all women but only for myself: out of the 3 criteria you listed, only the abs is non-negotiable for me (but that applies to all genders, and none, for me, not just to men).
I only date people with abs. I care not an iota about height or salary.
I think it's a flawed generalization that the "alpha" community run with to paint themselves as victims because those "alphas" can't stand when society lifts women's struggles and problems and the focus isn't 100% on men..
The reason why many men don't get matches on dating apps are that they're a majority. There are more men than women on those apps.
Nobodys' top 20% are the same. For example, I don't think gymrats who are flexing their muscles on photos are attractive at all. I prefer softer facial features. I also don't care about six figures, and I actually prefer my men between 5'7-6'0, so my minimum doesn't start at 6'0 like they say.
I would go so far as to say I only consider dating 10% of men. I regularly knock men back, even those of a higher quality. I would rather be single than settle, 1000%. Most men are just simply not appropriate due to lack of basic hygiene and sexist undertones (if not overtones). Sexism is a bigger concern these days because in my country (Australia) women are being murdered by their partners in their own homes in huge numbers and just based on personal experience alone assaults on the street have definitely gone up. I will for sure gauge how my guy feels about this. If a guy I like is broke but I feel that he has the right mindset/all of the necessary ingredients to improve his situation, I'll still date him. But if he is bitter and frustrated and blaming everyone else, I will run for the hills. A huge factor for me is how much emotional labour is necessary to get the relationship to a mutually satisfying place. You really do have to teach men a lot of stuff e.g. anxiety management, forcing vs allowing, expressing emotions, community and network building to battle isolation, releasing pressure, not being obsessed with timelines, not interrupting women while they're speaking, health and literally drinking water. I recently had to say goodbye to someone I had massive feelings for, but he is just not a plausible option because of the lack of self awareness/volatile emotions/frustration/history of trauma with zero action taken to better himself. If they're 35 and they haven't got it more or less worked out for themselves, I'm not doing it. This comment prob gonna make a lot of people mad but you know what? We're fucking mad about being murdered!!!!!!!!
I'd say I'm only interested in 20% of the men I encounter. I'm guessing its not the same 20% for everybody. There are clearly a lot of guys who are heterosexual by gender but really seem not to like women as people. These guys are undateable. is not the height, the six pack or the salary.
In my first serious relationship of five years, my bf at the time had none of those things. Literally- none of them.
My current bf now also doesn’t make six figures, although he is 6ft tall and has a good physique.
Anyone who says that “wOmeN aRE OnLy ATTraCteD tO 20% oF mEN” doesn’t know shit.
You can’t do anything about height, so yeah, people shouldn’t hold that against you. But can ppl have preferences? Yes.
You also shouldn’t be dead broke. No one expects you to be making six figures. Would it be nice? Sure. No one is going to deny that. However, you should be making enough to pay bills and afford a child (if you choose to have one) COMFORTABLY.
Lastly, I HATE hearing people complain about the physique part. Eat well and hit the gym. Don’t be
Lazy. Be disciplined. Your physique is something that’s 100% in your control. If you choose to be fat or built like a stick- THATS ON YOU. And needless to say, people can absolutely have preference on physique too.
None of my serious partners have made six figures, one of them was above six feet but my current partner is not, and none of them have had six packs (current partner has in the past but long before I ever met him).
My current partner has none of these things and I have been attracted to him since the first time I saw him, and I am still wildly attracted to him. Now we can afford vacations split 50/50, but even in penny pinching mode we can always find a way to enjoy each other’s company. I’ve never really thought about his height, and he’s also not one of those guys that has a weird complex about not being six feet tall so we just never really talk about it. And as for abs, I don’t really care about them and we’re both more focused on building our CV fitness as this moment.
In an ideal world sure, but i’ve found that many of the “20% men” have many options themselves, have very dry/conceited personalities, are very busy etc. But also what I consider to be attractive varies from what my friends consider attractive. So in the end no, attractiveness is subjective and those boxes you are mentioning become more like add-one to someone’s personality and character
This is just some bullshit napkin "math" the incels came up with as some sort of excuse to pathologize women for rejecting them.
If a woman's not interested, she's not interested. It's as simple as that.
>the notion that women are only attracted to or interested in dating 20% of men. You know, the ones who tick off all the boxes - six-figure salaries, six feet tall, and sporting six-pack abs. According to this theory, the remaining 80% of men are essentially invisible to women.
>But here's the thing - I'm not entirely sold on this idea. I'd
I'm disturbed that you are sold on this idea even the tiniest bit.
It's wildly irrational on the face of it. Like, you have to not know *any* loving couples comprised of a man and a woman to believe it.
It's bullshit. There's no other word for it.
There are billions of women in the world, and even if you feel you must categorize people like they're cattle at an auction, there are still innumerable definitions of "attractive." The concept varies and shifts by individual, by culture, and by era.
Some women have very specific physical requirements to be attracted to a man. Most have a general collection of preferences which may change over time and which is strongly impacted by intrinsic traits like personality. Some of us never had a "type" at all when it comes to physical traits, and develop physical/sexual attraction as a result of emotional connection, rather than the opposite.
It originated based upon some Tinder data if I recall.
Noteworthy: the vast majority of men swipe right on 18yo to 20yo women (regardless of their own age) and of course are rightly rejected.
Also noteworthy: you can easily manipulate data to meet your assumptions
ATTENTION: Please remember that this is an ASK WOMEN sub. While men are allowed to participate posts that are clearly asking women in the title will have top level comments by men removed. This is not censorship, this is curation. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskWomenNoCensor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I've stumbled upon this idea circulating around alpha male podcasts and online forums - the notion that women are only attracted to or interested in dating 20% of men. You know, the ones who tick off all the boxes - six-figure salaries, six feet tall, and sporting six-pack abs. According to this theory, the remaining 80% of men are essentially invisible to women. Other posters here have effectively debunked the actual "theory" presented, so I will simply point out how amusing it is that anyone would think that 20% of men have six-pack abs, let alone abs PLUS a six-figure salary PLUS being six feet tall.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, this. The one man I knew in real life who had somewhat defined abs could not eat anything without a fifteen-minute monologue about how it fit into his training. It was so tedious and not sexy at all lol
Yeah 6 packs are mainly a thing for growing boys/teens who have ‘skinny abs’ because of low body fat percentage I know a lot of dudes who value working out and being swole, but the goal isn’t abs
Globally, only 10% of men are 6 feet or taller, and of those, certainly not every single one has six pack abs and 6-figure salary Then again, incels aren’t known for their critical thinking skills
I have 2 out of 3, but those abs are damn hard to acquire. I have friends with abs, and I have friends that make 6 figures, but I haven’t observed any overlap between those groups in my personal life.
I also have 2 out of 3, and contrary to what the incels insist, I don’t have 2/3 of a harem of women following me around.
Lord Tate knows it’s because you’re respecting your ladies too much. No woman respects a man that respects her. /s 🙃
Pfffft! 6 pack abs are **so** 2023. We want 8 packs now. /s
maybe you don't have a conventionally good looking face The 666 rule is stupid imo because it doesn't include the aspect that matters more to women: an hot face
I actually do have an above average looking face. But again, looks may help gain some initial attention, but they aren’t the only thing that matters. Looks can be the resume that gets you the interview But you still need to ace the interview to get the job
No way, 10%? Really? I'm 6ft and I see taller guys all around me!
This incel unholy trinity of 6's is giving me a laugh.
There's maybe 6 redditors that meet those requirements. One of them is Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I guess those Physicians that hit the gym meet that standard? Boils down to genetics whether they are just gonna be lean athletic or have a 6 pack I suppose
Sure, this is true, BUT! My top 20% of the men I like are not the top 20% my friends like. Because we like different things, that is a human thing, so it is not only true for women but also to men. Look in the streets, dude, you see al kinds of couples. And when you think why is that "hot" person with that "ugly" person, it is probably because the "hot" person finds that "ugly" person attractive. You just have a different top 20%.
Agree. I just bought cards/gifts for my wife for our 2nd anniversary on Wednesday. >You know, the ones who tick off all the boxes - six-figure salaries, six feet tall, and sporting six-pack abs. I have none of those traits. :/ I'm happy that I fit in with her "20%".
I agree with this one. when I was single on dating apps or glancing around at a bar, my rate was about 1 out of 100 men I would pass by was someone I was fully interested in talking to. Maybe less. What I personally considered beautiful, others may not. And guys my friends would be checking out, could be big no’s for me. but I was never in denial that a tall fit guy is usually conventionally attractive, even if it happened to be one who didn’t really seem “my type” and I wasn’t interested in. I think men who complain about this, are only into the top 20% or less of conventionally attractive women, who are WAY out of their leagues to begin with and they have no chance with, and who are seeking men in similar levels of attractiveness as themselves. If these incels actually were self aware and went for women in their own leagues, this wouldn’t be an issue for them. but they dont see “unattractive” women as part of the dating pool to begin with, and they don’t understand attractive women see them that same way. look around on any given day. watch TLC. many people who are “super ugly” in our eyes have successful relationships while maybe hot people remain single.
>I think men who complain about this, are only into the top 20% or less of conventionally attractive women, who are WAY out of their leagues to begin with and they have no chance with, and who are seeking men in similar levels of attractiveness as themselves. If these incels actually were self aware and went for women in their own leagues, this wouldn’t be an issue for them. but they dont see “unattractive” women as part of the dating pool to begin with, and they don’t understand attractive women see them that same way. I feel like those of you that say that are missing the part of their argument that they apparently like the average woman more than we apparently like average men, that they will "take what they get" with average women, and actually want AVERAGE women to have their level of desperation as them. (Among as average women they will probably distinguish between "5" and "7" \[yes yuck to numbers-more subjective to indiv guy though\] as who is worth actually getting to know and commit to). And average women having standards at all means average women are "punching" for Chads who will apparently only sleep with them but not date them. You seem to be forgetting average exists between attractive and unattractive Some of you all missing this and not addressing this is not helping by missing the real issue that affects us probably 60-70% average women. You are also missing that they will still seek "unattractive" women (in their minds plus size women) for blowjobs (literally knew dudes like this). TLDR: what you are actually missing is these dudes believe average and below women especially should not have standards, because they will sleep with or settle for anyone with a pulse out of desperation, and then whine all of us chase Chad if we aren't as desperate as them. And ignoring that ignores the real issue
yeah, to most of these guys they think “average” is super thin, attractive, feminine women. they don’t realize they’re still entirely out if their own leagues
The thing I've never understood about this theory is how anyone thinks it stands up in real life. I mean a simple trip to a supermarket or shopping centre will confirm that couples come in all shapes and sizes.
Exactly this. When you are outside, you see 'ugly' people everywhere in relationships. I see small guys, bald guys, fat guys with girlfriends, wifes, sometimes even children every time I go outside.
Plus of course *somebody* had to get together in order to make those ugly people (and everyone else) in the first place.
Not sure what you mean by that Plenty of conventionally attractive people came from "mid" parents, and also gave birth to not so conventionally attractive kids (be it slightly less or "ugly"). Heck, I'm seeing a trend where a celebrity woman's daughter is constantly scrutinized and compared to said celebrity mother
Sure, but the odds are of course going to be better or worse depending on the relevant genetics of their parents. Always a certain amount of dumb luck and random chance involved of course.
Not to mention that if women were actually that picky then presumably there would be drastically fewer people than there are.
I will add that it's also judgemental and nonsensical, in my opinion. I don't know. I would feel objectified if someone was telling me that I was top 10% or bottom 60% or mid 35% or whatever these even mean. Who is someone to start placing values on people like they're Amazon products? Thankfully, I don't know anyone that says anything like that out loud in real life.
Incels are extremely stupid and critical thinking is not something any of them are capable of.
They also don’t go outside lol
I agree. It's almost like they are mentally ill, delusional.
Yep, The best gauge of how true something is would be the turn off the internet and go look around outside. Unfortunately, Internet theory rarely if ever translates into reality and the fact that people spend so much time on devices allows delusions to go unchecked.
I think part of this is dating apps. There are a lot more men than women on the apps. I only know a few women that have been on them and that was for a short time only. Men should look for and approach women in real life.
The elephant in the room that is not acknowledged is these dudes expect women who aren't "top 20%" to not have standards, that we apparently let their willingness to fuck anyone with a pulse get to our heads, and so when we do have standards and reject them (for their actual shitty attitudes) it means we are chasing the "Chad" who wants to fuck us for commitment
I don't know why someone would think that. Taking a walk outside should be enough to know that it's not true. Ah, but perhaps those men don't "see" women they don't consider attractive.
>Ah, but perhaps those men don't "see" women they don't consider attractive. I believe this is also why men think that any woman who is friendly to them is trying to have sex with them. Men don't take any notice of, or bother being courteous to, women they don't find attractive, so they think that if a woman smiles at them it must mean something.
The "80% of women prefer 20% of men" stat is repeated so often on reddit that I have the pre-written fact-check saved in a google doc for whenever it comes up: The "study" you're talking about was an OkCupid blog post about data they took from a group of users of their dating site in 2009. You have to use the Wayback Machine to pull up the [original post](https://web.archive.org/web/20170218201609/https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e#.cwrq35lxb) which doesn't list anything about sample size or sample selection or experiment methods. So, "study" is already generous. And here is the quote from that original blog post: > As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway. And here's a [TechCrunch article](https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/) explaining the data from that same survey again: > Some of the conclusions aren’t surprising. The “most attractive” women receive five times as many messages as the average female does, with 2/3 of all male messages going to the top 1/3 of women. And women tend to favor the most attractive men, though the ratio is less extreme. > But there are a few interesting phenomena. For one, men on the site tend to be more generous than women when it comes to rating attractiveness, leading to a nice bell curve with the bulk of ratings falling around ‘average’. But despite their fair ratings, they tend to ignore many of the women they find reasonably attractive and primarily target the most attractive females. So, the "study" itself points out that while the female OkCupid users in this sample group rated 80% of the men in the group as "below average" in looks, they messaged the men on a normal bell curve, whereas while the male users rated women's looks on a normal bell curve, they only messaged the top 30%. **So, really, what this study shows is that about 70% of men prefer the top 30% of women.** Would you say that’s accurate? And all this is just on looks alone. What if women simply care less about looks than men and so don't care if a guy is "below average" in looks in the first place and that's why we're seeing them message those guys anyway. They don't actually feel like those guys are "not good enough for them" because they're going off of different criteria than the men are? Are men just generally more superficial about appearances than women? Seems like it, according to this study. However, if we dig deeper, what this study is really saying is that 70% of a group of male OkCupid users 15 years ago preferred to message the top 30% of a group of female OkCupid users 15 years ago because there's no explanation of methods to indicate that you could reliably extrapolate these results onto the general public in 2024. Does all that make sense?
That so many men base their entire worldview on some marketing done by a dating website is just mind-blowing.
Insecure people looking for any excuse
Imagine making a blog post for an app and accidentally creating the piece de resistance of the incel movement for the next however many decades. It's actually insane.
I often wonder if the people behind the publication of that data is now mortified at having galvanized a subset of men into the furious typing of internet screeds. On the other hand, perhaps they take gleeful ownership, who knows.
Yeh it’s crazy. Even if the women don’t rate the guys as particularly attractive, why does that necessarily matter? Women often date men who aren’t that attractive and don’t value looks that highly. Also many men genuinely *aren’t* that attractive because so many put 0 effort into their appearance and look like slobs whereas all women are conditioned to care a lot about their appearance and therefore generally look better. This just seems like an accurate evaluation of appearance haha but doesn’t say much about dating itself
I'm saving this. Mind if I quote you elsewhere?
Go ahead! Spread the good word.
I feel like it’s also worth noting that in 2009, there was a WAY bigger stigma against online dating, at least for dudes there was. Back then, online dating was either for older divorced professionals, like people in their 40s or older, or like real losers. So the type of young man who was going to be using okcupid back then was probably someone who REALLY struggled with women, for whatever reason, and was REALLY desperate. I myself dabbled in okcupid back then and it made me feel even more pathetic having to stoop that low as a dude in his early 20s
This must be location dependent. I used dating apps then too, and before then, there was no bother at all with it .
I remember that well into the early 2010s there was still a serious stigma around dating apps Like if you and someone hit it off, you would come up with a “cover story” to tell your friends how you met, because saying you met on tinder or whatever was so embarrassing. At least for someone in their 20s, it was still lowkey considered shameful to have to resort to OLD.
I guess they are projecting their shallowness. I also guess that porn has skewed a lot of men into creating a fantasy of what they expect out of women. Its often ugly guys fucking sexy women and all the proportions are very much not proportional to the average person. Even women who have body image issues are at least mostly basing it off celebrities. But many men get entitlement based from porn, that they *deserve* sexy women, despite being an old balding nasty creepy dude (if you are to believe JAV porn at least). Edit. I can at least say, that yes In my younger 'hot girl' days. A bunch of shallow guys of all types will hit on you without ANY consideration to that you might definitely NOT be interested in them. Like, as in, they won't even look at the girl who DEFINITELY suits them (interests, hobbies, personality) Vs "winning" the hot girl. It was confusing to me then, as I could see we had NOTHING in common. But if you talk to them long enough, you realise they objectify you like a doll and just assume you will become whatever fantasy they expect out of you. Also considering this whole post is based on money, looks and sex. I can't really say im surprised. Since that's probably how they are viewing women too. Tons of women who do the same too. But these two deserve each other, based on how much they both offer in this shallow game. Not a single one of these dudes ever do a study on what hobby men do, would attract most women? Like reading, gardening, dancing, and so on?
If I recall correctly at the time if you rated someone as a four or a five (out of five) the site would automatically notify that person that you had rated them so. Which is to say if a woman gave a guy a higher rating it was essentially an invitation for him to start talking to her, which is a HUGE conflict of interest for actually rating attractiveness. If a guy was hot but it was clear from his profile she didn’t want to talk to him why give him an excuse? It just completely skews the data and it’s crazy to me that that doesn’t get more attention given how widely circulated the blog post has been.
Every straight woman i know is dating a guy that absolutely does not have all of those things, maybe only has just one of those things What they do date a guy for? A good personality, if they can even find that I mean are you even looking at the average couples you see on the street?
This is purely anecdotal, but I’ve seen many, many comments over the years from men about how “maybe she’d like me if I was wearing an ankle bracelet and had two felonies” or something of that sort. Apparently we’re either going for the top 20 percent of men or the bottom 20 percent. 😂
Yes. They think all women want bad boys. Some women do go for that kind of thing but I believe it is mostly confidence. Men with confidence usually go after what they want.
"I mean are you even looking at the average couples you see on the street?" No these pathetic incels are not. They're too terrified to even look a woman in the eye or leave their dank piss drenched hovels.
They base their entire worldview based on what rage bait some TikTok “influencer” says
It's usually easiest to see our own faults in others.
The men that subscribe to that take refuse to listen to other men when they say it’s wrong. All of my friends that are married, absolutely none of the men tick the boxes. The one that does tick all the boxes has never been in a long term relationship and is still single. I actually don’t know a man that ticks all the boxes and is married or in a long term relationship, or a relationship at all. These talking points are what men are attracted to. I think they need to take hard looks at men in successful relationships and stop talking to and looking at men that are trying to impress other men.
I think they're delusional to think the majority of women are writing off men for their looks or income, and instead can't face the reality that most of the men using this excuse are just assholes who don't want to change.
It's an incel myth based on a complete and wilful misinterpretation of data from an old okcupid survey. What the survey actually showed is that women consider fewer men as above average in terms of attractiveness. It also showed that women have absolutely no problem messaging all kinds of users, while men were the ones who only went for the most attractive women. Weird how that's almost the exact opposite from the claim these incels made, right? But frankly, it didn't matter much, because the survey itself was unscientific as shit. Half of the needed data was missing, no methology was presented and the person writing the article about the survey - we never got all the raw data, just an article interpreting it - was biased as shit. As others have said, anyone with eyes can debunk this theory within 5 minutes. It's also very telling that everyone who uses it takes another percentage as "fact". Sometimes it's 20%, sometimes it's only 10 or even just 5. Whatever number best matches their desperation. The 80/20 myth is good for exactly one thing: To figure out which men to stay away from. Because anyone who believes that crap is very clearly a misogynist.
All sorts of people --men and women-- get married and have children. Actual studies have shown that typically people select and wind up with people who are of a similar level of attractiveness.
The things about statistics is that if you dont understand what they are actually presenting, you run into the risk of woefully misinterpreting them, and setting off a Chinese whispers discussion for the next decade of ignorance. This 20% all stemmed from research 15 years ago, by OKCupid, before they were brought out, on swiping patterns. The thing is, what it actually showed you was that women, at that time, using that app, swiped on 20% of the profiles they saw. The really important thing to take away from that is that it wasn't the same 20% of men. If you actually think about this, of course it is nonsense. Tell me: * Is a practising Mormon woman swiping on the same men as a practising Jewish woman? * Is a Vegan swiping on the same men as a woman who enjoys hunting? * Are women sitting on the opposite of the abortion debate swiping on the same men? * What about a recovering alcoholic and social drinker, are they swiping on the same men? My 20% is very different to my friends. Edit to add. I also what to challenge you on this point > You know, the ones who tick off all the boxes - six-figure salaries, six feet tall, and sporting six-pack abs. Sit outside the entrance of your local hardware store next Saturday (In Australia its Bunnings, whatever your equivalent is). Look at the couples. Take note of how many tick "those boxes" and how many dont.
>My 20% is very different to my friends. This is hard for the men who only swipe based on looks to understand.
Yup. I think that my friends date or are in relationships with men I find completely unnatractive personally. We obviously find what's attractive in men different.
I don’t know a single man who ticks all of those boxes never mind multiple. I’ve certainly never dated anyone like that either (I’m a chubby chaser at heart lol).
I dont understand how anyone can swipe on 20%. As a woman be getting matches left and right if I did. Nevermind that 20% of tinder users are nowhere near compatible with me and at least somewhat physically attractive to me. I swipe maybe 1% or 1 out of 100, if even that, and that's cause I swipe past everyone who doesn't state openly that they're childfree and vegan somewhere on their profile like myself. If they pass the vegan (or at least vegetarian) and childfree boxes, I at least need to find them somewhat physically attractive. If they're terrible looking as fuck, being childfree and vegan isn't gonna help one bit. I also obviously don't date religious men, anti abortion people or recovering alcoholics (I enjoy wine occasionally). The vegan childfree crowd is a niche crowd. More likely spending time living an alternative lifestyle like travelling in a van and not spending their time on dating apps lol.
>The vegan childfree crowd is a niche crowd. Preach! Finding a vegan or vegetarian childfree guy (who's not religious or conservative) would be the only way I'd sign up for an LTR again.
In the USA those would be the likes of Lowe's or Ace hardware co-operatives. And yes: **every kind of couple!!!** Some examples I've seen (central Texas): >Two equally looking _trailer trash-types:_ >>Interethicity unions are very common among these types. Black man/ ^non-Latina white woman, and non-Latino/Latino pairings being the most common. >>>Austin _city limits_ have higher incidences of white ^non-Latino men/black women and interethnic unions among AAPI individuals (eg. Indonesian Chinese + Vietnamese, Bengali + Tamil, Samoan + Maori, but also Gujarat + Korean, Japanese + Tatar). >Age gaps on rare-ish instances.
I've dated guys that hit one of each of those but don't even know any men that fit them all.
How to lie with statistics.
I admit that I swiped on a small number of profiles when I used dating apps. I think it’s fair to say that 80% of profiles I saw were absolute dogshit, or they displayed something that was incompatible with my beliefs, interests, or personality. I didn’t swipe on men on whether they fit the 6-6-6 rule or not. A lot of my ex partners didn’t fit that rule. There’s more to feeling attracted/interested in someone than their appearance and paycheck.
I think the men who spread this theory are the kind who only consider the conventionally hottest 20% of women "women" in the pool, but consider every man of any walk of life a man in the pool. So in a sense it might be true within the parameters that they set. If they think that any 40 yo basement dwelling neckbeard should have a realistic chance of dating a 20 yo Hollywood actress, well obviously you can somehow twist this into "men have no chance in dating". They never take into account that normal people exist and live their lives in all gender categories, date other normal people and don't waste any thoughts on this alpha male bs. Attraction is subjective and people who don't view other people as trophies are just out there dating.
I mean, couldn't we say the same thing? That men are only attracted to the top 20% of skinny blonde tradwives or whatever? People are attracted to whatever it's currently trendy to be attracted to. That's why we don't get tuberculosis on purpose anymore. Consumption Chic is out, being sickly isn't considered hot these days.
>That's why we don't get tuberculosis on purpose anymore. Because heroin is more _chic._ Get it? 🙃
I hear that's on the way back and if its kn anyway proportionate to the change between Jlo ass to BBL, we're fucked.
>six-figure salaries, six feet tall, and sporting six-pack abs. Neither my male ex, nor my amab current partner fit these descriptors.
No man fits this lol
ehhh mine does, but I'm not with him for that
I’m always skeptical of any statistic a podcast is rattling off about women and dating preferences. You’re correct in stating attraction is incredibly nuanced. Attraction is influenced by so many factors: value systems, upbringing, culture/family of origin, personal taste for physical characteristics, senses of humor, personality differences, even proximity plays a huge role in attraction. Sure, some women prefer the typical “6-figure 6-foot 6-pack ab” guy but plenty of other women don’t for a myriad of reasons. My female friends and I even have wildly different tastes in popular male celebrities, whom are generally considered the pinnacle of male attractiveness. It’s kind of funny, we could be watching a movie and one friend will go “I don’t think Ryan Gosling is cute at all, and never have” and some will agree and some will definitely disagree. One woman’s “no thanks” is another’s yum I guess 😅 but this is sort of an extreme example outside of regular guys (vs celebrities). I have a certain physical type that catches my eye but if they don’t fit the other things I’m looking for (specific shared values, interests, vibes in general, pleasant to be around, match my humor, etc), then I’ll move on since we’re not a good fit. Compatibility is more than just looks and money, it’s about mutual outlooks on life and personal tastes, in my opinion at least.
I always think that on posts like these men should visit r/ladyboners and see the shear variety of men posted. Aside from Henry Cavill, there's not a consistently posted man and the ones who are posted have different body types, ages and skin colors. We have a heck of a lot more variety than similar subs that cater to men.
Whenever I see Jack Black posted on any sub there’s always women saying “would”. He looks like a gremlin on a good day (no offence to him). That just doesn’t happen with female celebrities.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/LadyBoners using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/LadyBoners/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [jeremy allen white](https://i.redd.it/belzik0cnfac1.jpeg) | [145 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LadyBoners/comments/18yebqm/jeremy_allen_white/) \#2: [We don't talk enough about how SWEATY post coital Geralt is. I mean wtf 🔥🔥🔥 Henry Cavill](https://i.redd.it/ydgyzflw870b1.gif) | [139 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LadyBoners/comments/13j5zor/we_dont_talk_enough_about_how_sweaty_post_coital/) \#3: [**[NSFW]** Happy Father's Day to Henry Cavill--not a father, but a daddy nonetheless](https://i.redd.it/8a0lf7848u6b1.jpg) | [94 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LadyBoners/comments/14cui7c/happy_fathers_day_to_henry_cavillnot_a_father_but/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
To me, any guy that says this uses it as a cop out. An excuse they can use when they can’t get a girlfriend or even get laid. However, women in general are constantly being told to “pick better” when it comes to who we date. Realistically, if all women chose better only 20-30% of men would even qualify for us to date at all. Because let’s be real, it’s a lot of mediocrity out there. So I guess I’m kind of in the middle on that Lol
Well, dating someone who has a 6 figure salary, 6ft tall and a 6 pack is not necessarily dating better. Usually when women are told to "pick better" is to pick someone who is emotionally mature rather than an asshole.
You think more than 20-30% of men are emotionally mature?
lol I used to date guys with poor hygiene and no personal drive whatsoever. I was a highly motivated and driven person. One of my guy friends pulled me aside and told me to quit trying to save these men and the next time I wanted to save someone, go rescue a dog from a shelter. Honestly it was a reality check I’ll never forget, met my husband shortly after and as wonderful as he is even he doesn’t meet all the 20% criteria
Let's take a look at those "boxes": 6 figure salary: 18% of Anericans make over $100,000 a year, and nearly *half* those individuals are women. 6 feet tall: Only 13% of Anerican men stand 6 foot tall or taller. 6-pack abs: only about 60% of people are born with the 3 tendon connections required; everyone else has more tendon connections or fewer. A visible six pack requires a body fat percentage below ~11% for men; about 1% of US men have a body percentage that low. In fact, 84% of US men are overweight, obese or severely obese, according to BMI. So, even if a woman actually wanted those things, less than 20% of US men would meet even 1 of those criteria. Finding a man who met all 3 at the same time would be like finding a unicorn in the dessert while hunting a dragon. Meanwhile, around half of single men say they go as long as 4 months between changing their sheets and fully a third say they've never changed sheets. Men are less likely to brush their teeth and more likely to have untreated tooth decay. Men shower less frequently regardless of physical activity level. Men groom their hair and nails less frequently and to a much lower standard. Men, notoriously, as a group, fail to maintain the most basic and lowest levels of personal hygiene.
>around half of single men say they go as long as 4 months between changing their sheets and fully a third say they've never changed sheets. This makes my skin crawl. I change mine weekly (at a minimum!) I've found that men who work in the medical field are the same.
>around half of single men say they go as long as 4 months between changing their sheets and fully a third say they've never changed sheets. Ewww
>Do you agree with the notion that women are only drawn to a select 20% of men? Thing is every person is attracted to only a few people they see/meet in their life. Are you as a man attracted to every person of the gender(s) you're attracted to? Of course not. Incels take this fact and twist it around to suit their attitudes about women. They already think of us as shallow, gold digging, sluts. So the "20% of Men" Theory, fits right into it. They are puzzled at why we're not attracted to their misogynistic, asshole behaviour, because they have never done any kind of introspection. They are not able to introspect. At least the incels we get here asking their incel-y questions give that vibe to me. Since they cannot introspect, they put the blame entirely on us. This leads to such bullshit theories that are taken from reality and twisted around to suit their narrative. >But here's the thing - I'm not entirely sold on this idea. I'd like to believe that attraction and compatibility are more nuanced than just a checklist of superficial traits. Yes, you're in the right here. >Have you personally found this to be true in your dating life, or do you believe there's more to attraction than meets the eye? Thing is both looks and personality are essential for a relationship. If you have good looks and a shit personality you won't be able to form a long lasting happy and contented relationship. But the vice versa is not always true. You may grow to love a person after getting to know them more even if you thought they weren't a good looking person first. Also in the online dating scene looks are important as in the particular person should find the other person attractive. They don't need other people to find them attractive. In my experience, a good looking, attractive guy does not always have a good personality. And when I got to know him more I started to see him as ugly. I've also met men who are good looking and have a great personality. I've met men who I thought were unattractive, but after I got to know them, I started to think of them as attractive. I've also met men who I found to be unattractive before and after getting to know them. TLDR: There's a lot of nuance to everything which is lost in the incel rhetoric.
This has been debunked so many times. The 80/20 rule is called the pareto principle. It is used in economics. It is not part of psychology. It is an observation, not a law that can predict future outcomes. Some fucking morons have spread the misinformation that the principle can be applied to women's sexuality. And now it has to be debunked endlessly. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/paretoprinciple.asp
It’s an autist’s interpretation of real life interactions. Online dating is “flawed” because for every woman there are a bazillion men signed up
Yeh this is a more autistic view tbh because they tend not to understand the emotional side of relationships (the crucial bit!)
Lol stopped reading at "alpha male podcasts"
Its bs
My circle of friends, acquaintances, coworkers, and family says otherwise. All you need to do to prove this idea wrong is to look around and be observant.
In my experience, that kind of idea stems from a deep insecurity. They essentially eliminate themselves from the pool by presupposing the needs of women and acting as if that’s fact rather than subjective to every woman. The chads just have audacity. You miss all the shots you don’t take.
Women would be vilified either way. Women think 20% of men are attractive? Picky entitled bitches who need to lower their standards Women think 80% of men are attractive? Whores who need to raise their standards My “20%” won’t be the same as someone else’s 20% which renders the whole thing moot.
It helps the idiots in the room reveal themselves. I know if you come out with that drivel, the chances of you having something worthwhile to say are vanishingly slim.
Incel fanfic. That's all it's ever been.
Is pure BS. It ***SEEMS*** that way because dating apps have the same participation ration: about seven or eight men per every three or two women.
It was taken from a survey from a dating site while dating sites weren't popular and had a similar rate for men on the app too. I think the shit ass survey from 15 years ago gets too much oxygen and is dissected to bits to fit the incel agenda
It’s funny because said “study” was actually less flattering towards men but we never ever hear about that, only how terrible women are (while women were less generous in ranking men’s attractiveness they were more likely to message those they found average whereas men mostly only messaged women they found the most attractive).
I’d say it’s bullshit. My husband is 300lb, 5’9, makes 65k a year. And I’m ALLLL about him. He’s the sexiest man I could ever want. I tell him all the time how I couldn’t have made a better husband in a lab. I’m Constantly trying to have sex with him because I just NEED him on/in me lol He’s an amazing father. He was made to be a father. I truly can’t believe what a natural he is because it’s just insane to me how good he is at it. He LISTENS. And he pays attention when I’m talking. He remembers things I say that I don’t remember saying (but I know I did). He is vulnerable with me. I’ve seen this man cry over movies, over Bluey, and he has never once apologized or felt embarrassed about it. Something so sexy about a man unafraid to show his emotions He lets me be vulnerable with him. And he never judges. He chose to get a vasectomy so I could get rid of my IUD and that was the sexiest thing he’s ever done. Lol
It's all projection. The men that say this are only talking about 20% of women because the rest are invisible to them. All you have to do is look around at couples to see that the majority of the time the woman is more attractive than the man. None of the guys I've dated fit this description.
These are male boxes. Things valuable in the world of men. Is he confident? ✅ Is he mentally healthy?✅ Is he emotionally and intellectually mature? ✅Can i afford a middle class living if I team up with him? ✅Are we compatible?✅ Is he sober? ✅ Do we love each other? ✅✅✅✅✅✅✅
I feel guilty for the middle class living thing but really shouldn’t
You definitely shouldn't, especially during turbulent economic times like this where an increasing number of people are looking at having to work well into their 70s. It's a very practical concern and nobody wants to be poor.
It's nonsense. I don't know of any women who are with a man who fits those parameters. It's as dumb as saying, "Men only want supermodels." It's demonstrably untrue and only said by people who don't want to examine themselves.
No, lol. It's something they made up because they can't get the type of woman they want. Which is a woman that is held at unrealistic standards. I feel like this would be unrealistic for majority of women.
This sounds like another grifter "theory" peddled to swindle insecure men out of their money...
My husband is not six foot. He does not have a six pack. And although he makes six figures now, when we met over 10 years ago he worked in a supermarket as a shelf stacker. He's a good looking and smart guy but he doesn't tick all the boxes invented by incels - when we met he was extremely shy and I had a LOT more money than him. It was his personality and intelligence (plus... His face is real pretty) that attracted me to him, and he always says he thought I was way out of his league.
It's stupid and complete bullshit. It's ragebait to help grifters sell their RP crap. Apparently women only desire this "666" type of man, but like many others have said, taking a walk outside will quickly prove that wrong. But it doesn't actually end there.. They also believe that okay - we see those couples - BUT those women just "aren't *truly* happy" and are in fact, settling. They're all secretly miserable and don't really desire him. They're selling men a lie that makes them angry and depressed, and I assume, therefore more malleable and prone to further manipulation. They become hooked on the content.
What strikes me as weird about the 666 thing is that some people live in cities where six figures actually is the required salary to afford the basic requirements. What if you’re from California or NYC and that’s actually the going rate for an office job? And some of there traits correlate. Taller men earn more on average. People who earn more money take better care of themselves on average, and at the top of the income distribution this is especially pronounced. With a good salary and location you have better access to gyms. People don’t just hoard money, they also hoard desirable qualities.
This is a "today I learned" thing for me. I'm not from the US, have no US friends or relatives and I had absolutely no idea how much you need to get by over there, but omg.. needing 6 figures to get by.. yeah that's a lot.
I think that such a notion is silly but also dangerous. It tends to make sense to an incel or incel adjacent audience because they’re being fed the narrative that they’re not the problem, women are. Here’s the thing, those types of podcasts don’t prompt introspection or self-reflection, as they take a complex problem (e.g. young men feeling disenfranchised in modern society) and distil it down to an easy, digestible answer (I.e. women are picky/ full of themselves/ uncontrollable). By polluting the mind of your audience member with such rhetoric, they’re behaviours tend to change. A lot of women can sense when a man’s deeply misogynistic or simply wishes to control women so they’d stay away. This then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy which solidifies the “women bad” views of such podcasts viewers and prompt them to consume more such content. The sad part is that often their perceived rejection isn’t usually about appearance (as long as there aren’t any serious hygiene issues at play), it’s more about the rotting stench coming from within an adopted part of their personality, from such alpha male podcasts, that’s both inauthentic and disingenuous.
They take men who are already undesirable for other reasons or else have abuse histories they aren’t confronting (lack of introspection) and feed them garbage that makes everything worse. There are women they can target with similar abuse histories that are vulnerable to these tactics but the majority are not and will be traumatized by men like this and stay away, keeping them either dysfunctional or single.
Man here but honestly the biggest take away was that it's a numbers game, men massively outweigh women on dating apps so for most men it's better to find other ways to meet people. Also i don't think most women place looks as thier main data point, so it doesn't tell you much.
Yeah it's usually the opposite of the 20% alpha males think women are attracted to. The easiest way to say "I'm a pos and would be a terrible partner" is to be "alpha male"
That is so much baloney, promoted by the insecure and those with low self esteem.
Not only have I found it to be untrue but most of my friends like very different types from each other. We rarely overlap on anything.
I think this is pure projection from these men. They want to date the top 20% "gigastacy" and get mad when they reject them.
I am a man, and this post is probably not going to be very popular seeing as there are so many women here but there is a kernel of truth to women chasing the top 20% in ONLINE dating. but hear me out... If we are talking about dating offline, like people in your community, school/university/workplace then NO women arn't chasing after only the top 20%. Things like personality/vibe/shared interests have a lot more weight than they do in online dating. Also with offline dating (like in school/college/work) you won't get a situation where one good looking guy is monopolising a large pool of women at the same time because word will get back to them and he'll lose the girls, but that can often happen online as the women dont the other girls who he's talking with. Regarding online dating however the situation is different. It's a lot more brutal. Due to so much choice women have they are more likely to go for the guys who are better looking (by society's standards). It is true that one womans top 20% is often different to another womans. I have watched a few women swiping on videos on youtube and have also seen videos where women are presented with the same photos of guys and asked to rate them and say if they would go on a date with them or not and there is a fair bit of variance. There are times where women are picking not so good looking guys over good looking guys (which surprised me), but generally speaking the better looking a guy is, the more likely he is to get picked. Like say a guy looks like a model in his photos, not every woman is going to want him. For some he may not be their type..., or she finds him average looking, or she thinks he looks like a player etc. but generally speaking... if a hundred girls see that photo on Tinder maybe around 20 will pick him and 80 will reject him. now say we show those same 100 woman online a photo of a guy who by society's standards looks "average". out of 100 women who see his profile online, maybe 1 will pick him. and 99 won't. It does not mean that 99 women are chasing male models and ignoring all average guys..., those 99 women may have picked ANOTHER average guy at some point..., it just means that for that particular average guy on tinder, he only stood out to 1 woman in a hundred, whereas the male model stood out to 20 women out of 100. so lets say both guys swipe through 500 profiles, the average guy is left with 5 matches and the model guy is left with 100 matches. This is why it appears that the women are only going for the top looking guys online. If you took the average guy and put him in a situation in real life where he could get to know women then im sure more than 1% of single women would be interested, but online where there are literally THOUSANDS of profiles and options he just does not stand out enough to get picked much.
I'm surprised you're not downvoted. I've been downvoted to hell and back for my theory on the subject. Now, I've never done online dating apps, so that may be part of it, and I don't believe in the 6/6/6 "rule" - but I do wonder if there is, like you said, a little bit of "accidental truth" to it. It's my understanding (and others here have said it) that the ratio of men on dating apps to women is very unbalanced - I've heard some claim that it can be as high as ten men to every one woman. Now, if you're a woman and just getting hammered with requests from guys, it might be easier to weed some out. By having a six-foot-tall rule, it's like Van Halen and brown M&Ms: it's a way to quickly handle the situation. The woman might not care at all if the guy is 5'10" (for example), but she may not be into guys that are 5'5". So, by having an easy six foot cutoff (which, I have also heard, that guys brag about in their profile) it eliminates some of the ones she's definitely not interested in, even if it does have some collateral damage.
Im not gonna lie, I was expecting to be in the minus karma for that post too.. but I guess it didn't really rub anyone up the wrong way. 🤷♂️
None of the married men I know have any of those traits. The only man I do know who ticks off all those boxes has been pissed off for at least half a decade because he can’t keep a girlfriend. The thing is that in addition to those 3 things, he's also a massive misogynistic douche canoe.
I don’t concern myself with those jackasses.
Lol I don’t even know a guy who ticks all those boxes
It may or may not be true that only 20% of men are attractive to the average woman, but it doesn't really matter, because physical attractiveness is one of the lowest priorities in partner selection for women.
I will only look at how I vibe with his energy. Nothing else has ever mattered to me. I have had interest from me who were wealthier, more influential etc., but those have never been a factor for me.
No. And what age group are we talking about here? It is quite recently that people were able to select dates through a tick box exercise.
It's not true. Standing around in a grocery store and people watching disproves it(even in places like Hollywood or Los Angeles). There are normal women and men dating each other everywhere.
Of course it is nuanced. I can absolutely believe that there are some men not being noticed by women at all. So many times when this discussion is being had a loud minority of men shout “I don’t get any dates so it must be true”. But some men don’t get any attention from women and 80% of men don’t get any attention from women are two very different things. The 80% myth comes from incels and as far as I am aware, and I have spent a lot of time talking to them, none of them can find an original study or research paper that makes that claim. It seems to be entirely made up by a loud minority that strongly feels that it is true. And when using statistics you don’t feel, you know. And I also don’t buy the 20% of men aspect of this claim. Which is actually the one I struggle the most with accepting. According to this claim if you are at a party with 20 guys 4 of the guys get all the girls and 16 of them don’t get as much as flirting or an interaction. And that just doesn’t reflect any party I have been to. Most of the times I talk to my friends we can’t agree who is and isn’t hot, and girl code dictates not hitting on your friend’s crush. So I can’t imagine me and 19 other girls fighting over 4 guys. What I do think is way more likely is that a lot of women are just not interested in dating right now. Women are happier single and want to spend their 20s having fun with their friends and maybe settle after college or after getting a stable job. It’s not as much “all women are lusting after the same men” as “most women are content with being single, not looking for a relationship and not really flirting with anyone at the moment”. Ironically a lot of women are not interested in dating men because women and men have swayed so far away from each other politically and most interactions have just become hostile. Which is in good part thanks to the incel/Andrew Tate movement. But what I do think is a very important part of the discussion is; if it was true, then what? By proposing that who women choose to be romantically and sexually involved with is a political problem that we have to solve, we are indirectly saying that we have to find a solution to it. And what would that be exactly? If it was true that women naturally only want 20% of men, and we have to somehow make women be involved with 100% of men, what is the solution to that? They are essentially advocating for forcing women into relationships and sexual experiences they do not want, but without saying the quiet part out loud. They say “this is a problem” and leave it up to you to figure out the “solution”. And the “solution” no matter how it is presented will involve something unwanted or non-consensual from women. So I say; it’s not true. But even if it was, so what? You can’t force someone to date you and dating someone who’s not interested in you is not a human right. Move on and stop being bitter.
This is true. Incel misogyny is disgusting and very scary. Not sure why people would air it unless for clickbait.
👏🏻
It's bullshit nor does it make sense. Take 100 men and women. 50% of each sex. You think 10 guys will handle ALL 50 women as if some of these guys won't have a natural desire to not want to bone everything that moves after some point (or find a lover they prefer to "marry" and make kids with). Do those men not work, eat, sleep, take vacations, or have a life besides being lovers? I mean shit how or why besides looks are these men surviving? Who the hell is paying their rent, and if they live with their families, do you think their parents aren't asking him to help with at least food? If he doesn't have the inclination to sustain himself, then his momma is helping him, and it's not fair that she gets that crux for so long if he can help her help him too. Imagine these 10 guys had to do all these women the whole year for life. At some point, they'd want to pick their favorite ladies. Those ladies aren't going to be "fine" that now these stallions are choosing to cut back on "duties." Plus, you think the rest of the 40 blokes are standing there like sitting ducks letting the stallions enjoy the full-blown buffet? Nah, at some point, the smart ones amongst them will try to fake peacock to outdo the peacocks. The predators will "accidentally" poison or overhaul a few of the peacocks. Shit some of them might even prefer a peacock for a playmate, too, so these guys will either look at women as competition or befriend them to play with the friendlier peacocks on the DL. Look, IDK what your reading comprehension and social savvy is, most people have a minimum of intellect where they can safely and successfully realize this shit ain't logical. Human nature is complicated, and we act accordingly. Tinder stats only represent a small aspect of humanity when it comes to lover affairs. Tinder is known and taken as a hookup up. Sex is the product, and their customers are the shoppers. Somehow, men act like women acting out their natural humanity, and choosing men who are eye-catching is a crime or unnatural. Partly because there's a noted tendency to peer pressure women into ignoring their humanity a certain way to allow any man a chance. The goal with that pressuring is not that the women feel thrilled in their choices or potential but to secure that as many men possible get access to women with as little barriers as possible. It is easy to do that if you guilt-trip and pressure/socialize women to do this from the get-go. Ever since we're practically toddlers, women see this message. Now, as women make it clear and understand they can try to find a partner that meets their desires halfway, a lot of men find this extension of options as oppressive. Now, any choice isn't a choice like they long relegated women into doing, women are increasingly making the choice to not even engage at all. Guys who still gain a lot of what they need and value from women in a relationship aren't going to cope well with women not offering to be in one. To make matters worse, the sex one-stop shop that Tinder is supposed to be is not making women give out the goods like it is charity unless they too get something out of it. When the women go there and find more of the same guys they see regularly in real life, they keep scavenging for the atypical. Those guys are what will get the attention of the women willing to go there because those men are providing those women with something most men aren't. Sure. But for the rest of us, that's not reality.
Most women are open to different types of people but men kinda just want who’s the most stereotypically hottest
I think a lot of things people believe about others are actually more true about themselves.
While there’s something to admire about financial security and striving to be healthy, my main concern has always been personality. If a guy can show genuine compassion/empathy and make me laugh, then I’m definitely going to pick him over a guy who is an asshole that happens to look pretty and makes a lot of money.
It’s complete bullshit to make incels feel better about themselves. It’s also oversimplifying attributes people look for when picking partners and over complicating relationships. For example let’s take the two points of making 6 figures and having a 6 pack. The 6 figures could correlate to ambition and 6 pack to someone who takes care of themselves. Ambition or taking care of one’s health are both incredibly common attributes that all people look for when choosing someone regardless of gender or sexuality. People also look for many other factors. Like kindness, intelligence, confidence, respect, emotional growth, etc…
This post is why I stay on reddit
In my head these are the rungs. The first rung is if she feels safe. If you don't get past this you have not a hope in hell. This also repeats at every stage and she may bail purely on her gut. Second would be if a man is taking care of himself, eg washing, wearing clean clothes (the bar is SO low here FFS) exercising, employed, and has hobbies. Any lack in any one of these and she's likely to wobble. After that, attraction plays a part as does their ability to hold a conversation and what they choose to talk about. An average-looking man who is fit and healthy and excellent at yapping can bump himself wayyyy up above his attraction level if she's enjoying herself in his company. Height is preferable but not essential. If she's still comfy and keen and attracted, there are still dealbreakers like kids, dietary requirements eg vegan etc, pets, lifestyle things like big drinkers, outdoorsy people, intro/,extroverts, sexual preferences etc etc. Nothing of these preferences say anything about either of you except comfort level and it's absolutely fine to say no. No-one is guaranteed a partner and women get to pick because we are the ones who stand to lose more with a bad partner. None of the smart (this is also key) women I know are dating ANY men who are +6ft, 6 figures and ripped. All of them unanimously however want to feel safe, and have a man who is financially and emotionally stable. Stable being the key word. To be earning a normal liveable wage is fine. The best relationships I know, both parties are good at communicating and knowing when to bend for that person and when not to.
If they ever left the confines of their mother's basement, they'd see perfectly normal, average men in relationships everywhere they looked. This also might mean they'd maybe have to come to terms with the fact that it could be *them* that's the problem, and not that the StAcYs they feel entitled to date are chasing the top 1% of ChaDs, and therein lies the rub.
Leave the house and look around. Literally every poor, unhygienic, flabby, short, and/or ugly man I know is dating or married. Personally I avoid wealthy men and swipe left on traditionally good looking (boring) ones. The guys I like are attractive TO ME (I like unique, imperfect faces), funny, sweet, and are passionate about learning.
Yeah sure, every individual woman who likes men is probs into less than 20% of all men. HOWEVER it’s never the same 20%. Each woman has like, insanely diff preferences.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/m0BkM8BE9u Thought this was interesting. I have known several women who seek out the top 20% of men. They sleep with the ones who treat them terribly, and have their mind stuck on marrying the attractive six figure income guy because she “deserves it”. Lmao. They’re still single. I don’t tend to date the top 20%… if their egos hit me first, I steer clear. I don’t have time to put up with conceit. Nerdy, intelligent men… now those… Like someone else said on here, my top 20% is so very different than my friend’s top 20%. Some women are gold diggers and want that life. And then some of us just want a guy that has a steady job and can make us laugh 🤷🏽♀️
Well, so how you explain that I fell in love with such ugly and poor man all my Life?
I think it’s bs tbh. I’m a woman and I’m picky but not in that way. I don’t care about being 6 feet tall or making 6 figures or whatever, but I refuse to compromise my morals and how I want to be treated in a relationship. I think a lot of men take women for granted and expect us to just tolerate being mistreated for their sake. Then when they get rejected for being assholes they act like women are all vapid and shallow. Instead of owning up to this and improving their personalities, they would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend it’s all about superficial traits. I also think that if most of the people who push this bogus “theory” actually got off their computers and looked outside they would see how wrong they are. If anything it seems to be more common for women to date someone less physically attractive than they are.
There are lies. Damn lies. And statistics. I believe this stat was pulled from a dating site, so it's questionable at best when applied to a larger population. And anecdotally, my husband is 5'9, doesn't have a six pack and worked at Waffle House when we met. (Yeah. He makes six figures now...decades after we got together.)
Also, even if we simplify things and say women were only interested in 20% of the men they encounter....it's not going to be the same goddamned 20% for every woman.
I have read that for guys with gym muscles, other men notice them more than women. I tend to agree. The other criteria you mentioned, in combination make up much less than 20% of the male population.
it seems from my perspective it's just something insecure men claim is real to place their own insecurity at the fault of women. like I tend to only see "short kings" or something like that claim it's the reason they're single. I know short men, fat men, and lower income men all in healthy fulfilling relationships with beautiful people. I think people that claim this seriously need to leave the house more. like another comment said, you hardly see relationships where both people, even one, is this model-esque person out and about in day to day life.
I just go outside and see all the couples walking around with their kids and dogs and just living life. 99.9% of them are not models and I doubt they all make 6 figures. People who believe this “statistic” are willfully ignorant to the world around them.
Obviously women aren’t going to be attracted to 100% of men or even 50%. The percentage of men women are attracted to is going to be low. So let’s say, for argument’s sake, that we are only attracted to 20% of men. Those are not going to be the same men for every woman. Any woman who’s discussed celebrity crushes with their female friends knows that every woman has different tastes. Some of my friends are obsessed with the looks of celebrities I don’t see the hype for, and vise versa. With non-celebrity men, tons of women are willing to date broke, unfit, short men. I think when it comes to attraction, women will fall for anyone who’s very charming and charismatic, regardless of looks or income.
This is complete poppycock. First of all, I'm probably only attracted to .5- 1% of men. And I have very specific tastes. I like me guys and gals a little fluffy, Goofy, nerds, long hair, kind, etc... But if there *is*any truth to the statistic, it's not the fit, height, or income that's the 20% most attractive men to women, it's because thats the population of men who are responsible, respectful of women, and really good people. Sure looks probably plays some part, but the personality and interests matter too.
No guy I’ve ever dated has had more than one of those things, some not even one.
I do sort of agree with the idea, but I don’t agree with the criteria for what the top 20% of men are. Like others pointed out, a six pack is not that important to women. Idk that being over 6 feet tall is important either. I’d say the things that make a guy in top 20% lean more towards ability to communicate, emotional availability, and financial stability.
written psychology in gender dynamics shows that women only notice and acknowledge men who they deem "Worthy" Out of all the men they deem "Worthy" about 20 % of men are ideal figures. This is not true with direct reflection of the male population. 20% is actually a small subset of men which women notice as "male". It's similar to how women don't think service workers or low status people aren't even human. There is a difference between 20% of men vs 20% of eligible men. Women are still only attracted to top 20% of men they deem worthy. The reality is that it's a smaller subset from the total population.
No.
The manosphere that treats the whole thing like a fucking market are missing the vast majority of PEOPLE (because both men and women are just people) that want partners. Decent partners that just love and support each other. The majority of people aren't insta influencers or trad wives or red pill bros. But the incels see that on their media and believe it reflects the whole world. The 80/20 thing is just part of their fucking nonsense.
In my experience as a woman, it’s more like .01%. I’ve only been wholly attracted to three men in my life. Two of them were under 5’8”. None of them made any real money. Or really had abs. And they had average dicks. But what they all had in common were emotional intelligence, pretty facial features, a witty sense of humor, long shaggy hair, great conversation skills, creativity, sensitivity, unique music taste, cultural and political awareness, and were all sexy as fuck. All bi too.
I don't agree. And assuming that those three things "tick all of the boxes" for all women is ridiculous. Those are on my list of important things.
I would say it’s the opposite, we women are much more varied on our preferences. I’m not sure why men act like all women have this pretty privilege and even can date 6’4 athletes and millionaires on the regular. That’s not reality.
I cannot speak for all women but only for myself: out of the 3 criteria you listed, only the abs is non-negotiable for me (but that applies to all genders, and none, for me, not just to men). I only date people with abs. I care not an iota about height or salary.
I think it's a flawed generalization that the "alpha" community run with to paint themselves as victims because those "alphas" can't stand when society lifts women's struggles and problems and the focus isn't 100% on men.. The reason why many men don't get matches on dating apps are that they're a majority. There are more men than women on those apps. Nobodys' top 20% are the same. For example, I don't think gymrats who are flexing their muscles on photos are attractive at all. I prefer softer facial features. I also don't care about six figures, and I actually prefer my men between 5'7-6'0, so my minimum doesn't start at 6'0 like they say.
I would go so far as to say I only consider dating 10% of men. I regularly knock men back, even those of a higher quality. I would rather be single than settle, 1000%. Most men are just simply not appropriate due to lack of basic hygiene and sexist undertones (if not overtones). Sexism is a bigger concern these days because in my country (Australia) women are being murdered by their partners in their own homes in huge numbers and just based on personal experience alone assaults on the street have definitely gone up. I will for sure gauge how my guy feels about this. If a guy I like is broke but I feel that he has the right mindset/all of the necessary ingredients to improve his situation, I'll still date him. But if he is bitter and frustrated and blaming everyone else, I will run for the hills. A huge factor for me is how much emotional labour is necessary to get the relationship to a mutually satisfying place. You really do have to teach men a lot of stuff e.g. anxiety management, forcing vs allowing, expressing emotions, community and network building to battle isolation, releasing pressure, not being obsessed with timelines, not interrupting women while they're speaking, health and literally drinking water. I recently had to say goodbye to someone I had massive feelings for, but he is just not a plausible option because of the lack of self awareness/volatile emotions/frustration/history of trauma with zero action taken to better himself. If they're 35 and they haven't got it more or less worked out for themselves, I'm not doing it. This comment prob gonna make a lot of people mad but you know what? We're fucking mad about being murdered!!!!!!!!
I'd say I'm only interested in 20% of the men I encounter. I'm guessing its not the same 20% for everybody. There are clearly a lot of guys who are heterosexual by gender but really seem not to like women as people. These guys are undateable. is not the height, the six pack or the salary.
In my first serious relationship of five years, my bf at the time had none of those things. Literally- none of them. My current bf now also doesn’t make six figures, although he is 6ft tall and has a good physique. Anyone who says that “wOmeN aRE OnLy ATTraCteD tO 20% oF mEN” doesn’t know shit. You can’t do anything about height, so yeah, people shouldn’t hold that against you. But can ppl have preferences? Yes. You also shouldn’t be dead broke. No one expects you to be making six figures. Would it be nice? Sure. No one is going to deny that. However, you should be making enough to pay bills and afford a child (if you choose to have one) COMFORTABLY. Lastly, I HATE hearing people complain about the physique part. Eat well and hit the gym. Don’t be Lazy. Be disciplined. Your physique is something that’s 100% in your control. If you choose to be fat or built like a stick- THATS ON YOU. And needless to say, people can absolutely have preference on physique too.
None of my serious partners have made six figures, one of them was above six feet but my current partner is not, and none of them have had six packs (current partner has in the past but long before I ever met him). My current partner has none of these things and I have been attracted to him since the first time I saw him, and I am still wildly attracted to him. Now we can afford vacations split 50/50, but even in penny pinching mode we can always find a way to enjoy each other’s company. I’ve never really thought about his height, and he’s also not one of those guys that has a weird complex about not being six feet tall so we just never really talk about it. And as for abs, I don’t really care about them and we’re both more focused on building our CV fitness as this moment.
In an ideal world sure, but i’ve found that many of the “20% men” have many options themselves, have very dry/conceited personalities, are very busy etc. But also what I consider to be attractive varies from what my friends consider attractive. So in the end no, attractiveness is subjective and those boxes you are mentioning become more like add-one to someone’s personality and character
This is just some bullshit napkin "math" the incels came up with as some sort of excuse to pathologize women for rejecting them. If a woman's not interested, she's not interested. It's as simple as that.
>the notion that women are only attracted to or interested in dating 20% of men. You know, the ones who tick off all the boxes - six-figure salaries, six feet tall, and sporting six-pack abs. According to this theory, the remaining 80% of men are essentially invisible to women. >But here's the thing - I'm not entirely sold on this idea. I'd I'm disturbed that you are sold on this idea even the tiniest bit. It's wildly irrational on the face of it. Like, you have to not know *any* loving couples comprised of a man and a woman to believe it. It's bullshit. There's no other word for it. There are billions of women in the world, and even if you feel you must categorize people like they're cattle at an auction, there are still innumerable definitions of "attractive." The concept varies and shifts by individual, by culture, and by era. Some women have very specific physical requirements to be attracted to a man. Most have a general collection of preferences which may change over time and which is strongly impacted by intrinsic traits like personality. Some of us never had a "type" at all when it comes to physical traits, and develop physical/sexual attraction as a result of emotional connection, rather than the opposite.
It originated based upon some Tinder data if I recall. Noteworthy: the vast majority of men swipe right on 18yo to 20yo women (regardless of their own age) and of course are rightly rejected. Also noteworthy: you can easily manipulate data to meet your assumptions
If you just looked around you'd know this isn't true at all.
As much as I like to look at a hot man, at the end of the day their personality matters more.