The Lopsided Liberalized Mating Market

Women have a significant advantage in the Mating Marketplace. Here’s why.

Readership: All
Author’s Note: Cameron232 requested this post, which will sum up some Classic Manosphere Lore and includes some infographics from online dating websites.
Reader’s Note: I realize that the “visual attractiveness rating numbers” for women are generally a topic of nearly endless fascination and conversation in the sphere, and in general among men as well. This, however, is not the topic of this post, and is a sidelight. Leaving aside the specific “ratings” (which represent my own take on the issue as is fairly well-known) in terms of which “ratings” of women are in which “slice” above, and the issue of which “rating” or “band” a specific woman or type of women fits into, the general distribution of women in the SMP (and therefore indirectly in the MMP via “dating”), by general level of attractiveness, is generally as set forth here. We are planning to publish a separate post on the “ratings” questions, which will address in some detail the methodological, practical, and personal issues that the “ratings” question tends to raise in discussion. Readers are asked to defer a more detailed discussion of those issues for that post.
Length: 3,000 words
Reading Time: 10 minutes

Introduction

Finding a “great” mate has always been highly competitive, and thus very difficult. In a sense, it is the “great game” of the early years of adult life. In prior eras, the outcomes reached by individual people in that race differed greatly, but in general, most people did marry, due to many pressures that existed. These pressures to marry came from all angles, socially, religiously, culturally, economically, and from family. Because of these pressures, the average period of singleness was short lived and marriages were largely assortative. More attractive prospects couldn’t “hold out” and “test the water” indefinitely, because this was simply neither feasible nor tolerated for most of history, even until the relatively recent past of the mid-20th Century.

But during the 1955-1975 timeframe, there was a drastic change in the social and economic conditions that dramatically and decisively altered the mate market in significant ways.

The underlying reasons for this can be traced to an array of social shifts and technological developments during the critical period of the social revolution which took place between 1955 and 1975 which have together worked to remove many of the natural constraints that limited the full exercise of hypergamic mate selection. In his post, The Six Sirens of The Sexual Apocalypse (March 17, 2016), Chateau Heartiste set out a list of these factors defining the change:

  1. Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and, the de facto “fallback” contraceptive, abortion).
  2. Easy no-fault divorce on economic and other terms that are generally very favorable to women, irrespective of the marital economics, and unfavorable to men.
  3. Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio and relative income levels among younger generations is any indication).
  4. Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have created less incentives in favor of marriage for men and an greater incentives in favor of divorce for women.
  5. Penicillin and related antibiotics (reduced the cost of contracting STDs).
  6. Widely available hardcore pornography (decreased marginal participation rates of men in the SMP and MMP).

Since this post was written, this list has expanded to include others.

  • Equal Opportunity Legislation and The Tender Years Doctrine which created economic leverage and independence for women.
  • The centrality of sex in Western culture, and the widespread social acceptance of sexual liberation.
  • The predominance of Chivalrous norms, and other prevailing lore such as the “Soul Mate Myth” and “Friends First”, that places men under the sexual authority and the service of women.
  • Within the church, there is the flaccid “love and forgive” social atomosphere.
  • Social media and dating websites which employ the power of digital aggregation to provide women whoards of opportunities with men.
  • SMS and internet communications which are convenient and easy to hide and delete.

Most of these changes revolved around the fundamental goals Feminists have for social change.

To a great extent, the difference between the market that existed before that period and the one that has existed since then (and to a greater and greater degree the further removed temporally we get from that period) is that, under the “old” system, if you were like most people and didn’t get to have a “great” mate, you still mostly ended up in an “okay” situation, which was at least tolerable, at least most of the time, and quite a few people ended up in situations that were pleasant and happy despite not having an objectively “great” mate. And of course there were quite a few people “stuck” in crappy marriages, too — not as many as the feminists of today like to claim, but it also was non-zero. All this changed, and changed substantially, when the mating market was reformulated in the wake of sexual liberalization and female economic independence.

The Two Pillars of Female Power in the Mating Market

Among the factors listed above, sexual liberalization and female economic independence are the two outstanding changes responsible for the current mating market. Namely, the advent of (1) safe, legal, and reliably obtained abortion, (2) cheap, effective contraception, coupled with (3) the transformation of the economy in such a way that many new jobs were created which did not require or even place a premium on size or strength.

The simple and obvious reality is that when you take pregnancy and economic dependency out of the equation, together with the related social pressures that arose from these two base realities, women are by and large “freed up” from the necessity of mate selection, and therefore select mates on other attributes. Due to women’s pronounced hypergamic tendencies, this selection is primarily based on desire, which results in a very concentrated skew in female mate selection upwards — that is, directed at better-than-assortative men.

1967

The Nature of Applied Hypergamy in the Mating Market

A mating market which features far less temporal pressure to marry (and, indeed, features a fair amount of pressure to delay marrying) will feature an extended period of “dating”, which, since the period of the social revolution, has been the primary locus of pre-marital sex, and a high number of other no-strings or otherwise low commitment sexual encounters (yesterday’s “pick up ONS” and today’s app hookups). The reason a liberalized market plays out this way is because of the basic nature of men and women, i.e. applied hypergamy. The following image depicts how women strongly desire top men, while these men are quite willing to choose more than one woman, thereby creating a glut that destroys assortative mating.

Due to the generally higher male libido and perceived “sexual need” of men (not in every case, but enough generally so as to skew the entire market), any market that is primarily, or even substantially, about sex will feature much greater male demand expressed at all levels of the market than female demand, other than at the very top of the male side of the market due to the concentration of female demand there … so that in the rest of the market outside the top 10% (or so, now due to the tightening effect caused by the rise of swipe/phone dating apps and their intensified screening of men) of males, women are the “sellers”, and men are the “buyers”. This fundamental inequality in demand is why the world features such things as Instagram, and OnlyFans, and internet porn, and cam girls, and sugar babies, and all the rest as well — male demand substantially exceeds female demand, such that females are “sellers” and can, if they wish, literally charge men fairly easily as we have seen recently.

Very Few Men Can Satisfy Hypergamy

Another feature of human nature that plays into the mix and greatly exacerbates the glut is that men regard womens’ collective attractiveness by a normal distribution, whereas women tend to view most men as unattractive. This tendency is reflected in the following graph based on OK Cupid data, which illustrates the skew in perceived attractiveness between men and women, and how womens’ high attractiveness ratings are concentrated towards a very small group of men, as compared with how men tend to perceive attractiveness in women.

This means that very few men (currently estimated to be about 10%) are deemed by women to be attractive, and therefore can satisfy womens’ desire for expressed hypergamy. It should be well noted that this difference in perceived attractiveness is basically equivalent to sexual authority. The result is that only these men are “chosen” by women.

The Resulting Glut in the Mating Market

The following graphic displays well the change I am describing in this article and the impact on the SMP/MMP.

The left side is the way “dating and mating” are generally distributed (there always were outliers, but this was the general distribution) among males in a system where (1) unavoidable, not easily/safely/legally terminable pregnancy is generally the result of sex and (2) the economy did not provide a lot of jobs that could be done by women for the same, or better, economic remuneration as men. This kind of a system encourages assortative mating because there is timing pressure exerted on virtually all market participants, as explained above.

The right side shows how “dating and mating” are generally distributed among males in a system where (1) pregnancy is opt-in at the woman’s sole discretion and (2) the economy provides a plentiful amount of economic opportunities for women to earn as much as, if not more than, peer-aged men. This kind of a system encourages hypergamous skew in mating because there is much less timing pressure, until a later period, and market participants therefore feel free to optimize mate selection opportunities based on their actual market power apart from such pressures.

The distribution on the right side alters somewhat when women decide that they definitely want to marry (which in most places in the US appears to be in the late 20s, while in the larger urban metros it is now in the early 30s), such that the interest expressed towards the men begins to encompass the top 50-60% of men for the first time.

Caveats

Some may object that the mate market is not actually liberalized due to the current divorce regime in the United States, in particular, which in many ways remains punitive for men and beneficial for women. While it may be true that the *marriage* market itself has not been entirely liberalized due to the divorce regime experienced by men once they are married, it is nevertheless true that…

  1. The sexual market in which the marriage market is, for almost all participants, deeply embedded, has been almost totally liberalized in the sense of having the previously applicable “rules” removed from it.
  2. The overall pressure to marry is overall much less (for reasons discussed above), which results in more “holding out” for better-than-assortative mate pairings, predominantly among women, in the marriage market itself due to the prevalence of “dating” (which is fundamentally a vehicle of the sexual market) which, quite apart from divorce law, creates pressure on assortative pairings in the midrange of the attraction curve.
  3. The effect of the punitive divorce regime, due to its flipping of marriage from an economic necessity for women to an economic windfall for many of them, actually serves to amplify the other trends exerting pressure on the sexual and marital market places, all in the direction of more delay, holding out, and attempted hypergamous optimization.

I also note that it is possible to characterize the current mating market(s) as “scientifically subsidized”, rather than liberalized, because one of the main factors was, in fact, the removal, scientifically, of the main natural “check” on behavior in the market (i.e., female pregnancy), such that the resulting market is actually a “subsidized” one rather than a “liberalized” one. While I agree with the underlying point that the “natural check” has been removed, nevertheless I think this perspective obscures more than it explains, because the impact of the removal of that natural check was the near wholesale removal of all of the existing “rules” of the market and their replacement with one base rule. It seems to me that a change in the market that is characterized by the dramatic reduction in the number of rules applicable to market participants is clearly best viewed as a “liberalized” market, in terms of the end effect on the market participants, even if the underlying cause of that liberalization, or removal of rules, was, itself, a kind of science/technology-based removal of the “natural check” on market behavior which had led to the development of the various, overlapping, “rules” on participation in the mating market prior to the sexual revolutionary period.

Flexing for women, 2021

The New Power Distribution

Under the “new rules” market, the top men hold the most power (smallest in number for the demand related to them), followed by the top women, followed by the top half or so of women, followed by the next group of men (in most markets this used to be the group between the 60th and 80th percentiles, but with the rise of phone/swipe dating apps, women’s screening has become substantially more empowered, and therefore more stringent, such that in many markets this group is now stretching upwards so that it runs from the mid to upper 60 percentiles to the upper 80 percentiles of men), followed by the next 1/3 of the women, followed by the men between the 40 and 60-65 (mid-range men) percentile, followed by the remainder of the women, followed by the remainder of the men.

So like this (women are indicated in red):

  1. Top 10% of men (used to be top 15-20% before phone/swipe dating apps)
  2. Top women (9s, 10s for most men) … not close to 10%, more like 1-2%
  3. Rest of the Top 50% of women (5s-8s for most men)
  4. Men in percentile 65-90 (used to be men between 60 and 80)
  5. Next 30% of women (3s-4s for most men)
  6. Men in percentile 40-60-65
  7. Remainder of women (1s-2s for most men)
  8. Remainder of men (percentiles 1-39).

As you can see, there are more women towards the top of the power structure than men. This means that half of the women are more empowered than 80-90% of the men in the market … something which leads to alpha chasing (women are generally not attracted to men whom they know they have power over) and long droughts for the men below the top 10-20%, even if true “incels” are concentrated at the lower rungs. And even though only those men are truly “incels”, men are disadvantaged relative to women at all levels of the market apart from the very top … even at the bottom they are disadvantaged relative to women at the bottom.

Here’s another graph based on data from Tinder that shows why there is an imbalance in the power dynamic between men and women. This has been circulating around the Manosphere for a few years, but it still applies.

As you can see, the attraction ratio is far from linear. It is heavily skewed in favor of women.

Conclusions

The principal difference between the “old” mating market and the one we experience today is that the market has been liberalized, largely due to technological advances and economic changes. This “free market” allows market participants to engage in sexually liberal practices with very few rules, limited primarily by the extent of their value in the marketplace.

The bottom line is that when you remove pregnancy and economic dependency, the market becomes largely about sex and sexual desire. Again, this is so even in the MMP, due to the nature of “dating”, even if it is somewhat lessened because of the presence of other factors that play a stronger relative role in that market than they do in the SMP, where they play almost no role whatsoever. And any market that is substantially about sex and sexual desire will always favor women over men because men, on average and on the population level (that is, outliers aside), desire sex-qua-sex more than women do. Substantially more. Any market that is “liberalized” in such a way that it boils down to sexual desire will always disfavor men, barring strange scenarios like vast male shortages due to warfare and the like. A “liberalized” market for mating simply doesn’t work — for either men or women, generally, other than for the top men, who are better positioned than they have been for thousands of years, perhaps for all time to date.

In the long run this “new lack of rules” market based on sexual desire doesn’t actually serve the women market participants either, because they are increasingly left with relatively unattractive men as options for mates once they are finished exploiting the height of their own market power during their 20s and earlier 30s. This negative impact is something that most contemporary women don’t worry about until the mid-30s, and that’s just human nature — most humans of both sexes have terrible future time orientation innately unless it is forced on them by external constraints and/or social expectations and rules.

Related

This entry was posted in Attraction, Enduring Suffering, Female Power, Game Theory, Hypergamy, Internet Dating Sites, Male Power, Power, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV. Bookmark the permalink.

378 Responses to The Lopsided Liberalized Mating Market

  1. Scott says:

    The problem is that most men don’t want to put in the hard work.

    It’s also not how data points are normally distributed.

    Liked by 2 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      SCOTT,The true problem is I keep breaking the rules in a effed- up(As my 5’4” blonde gal-pal says) liberalized world,while getting my kix&trix(Not just for kids or silly rabbits anymore since the ’80s) in my own way as BRIAN also did in ’81!Heard the news today in the newspaper,It blew your mind at the light, right!?About I&ROLLO TOMASSI starting a ”SGT.PIBBS LONELY HEARTS CLUB” CALL-IN RADIO SHOW for lonely sexy 79 year old knockouts?Some super-sexy older hotties out there!Keep on breaking the rules with us, from the comfort of your home SCOTT!IT’S NICE TO LIVE IN A EASY WAY!GOOD TIMES LIKE THESE,KEEP IT GOING!It goes down nice&easy!Good times like these!Slow down these fast times ,whose baby is phobie cates as BROWNE sang!?P.S.I always thought dr.pepper was better than cocaine -cola or pepsi!JACKP.S.Someone told me, nurse fan-girls of the ole’GBFMtm have been causing trouble since they know I drink MR.PIBB & not DR.PEPPER this true?DEEPSTRENGTHP.S.I&RANDYNEWMAN love LA!See why I’m called professor now!?LEATHERFACEP.S.The saw is family like DALROCKIANS!All the girls sing ACHY BREAKY HEART!Sawing your heart apart!Oh woman,where you get that gun?A cop asked a 79 year old hottie, as babyface’s hands were tied as he also watched in 1970!Her lying ,cheating ways!I can’t get by dave’s Man-boobs!

      Like

      • Scott says:

        Phoebe Cates was super cute for sure but she has brown eyes. My wife has more of a Jennifer Connelly thing going. Briunette with ice blue eyes. I’m just saying.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Ame says:

    Oscar – “That’s why I keep asking, ‘who is your Lord. ‘”

    Artisanal Toad once phrased that question, “Whom do you fear?”

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      “Whom do you fear?”

      Toad’s supermodel, ninja wives who he raped into holy matrimony.

      Like

      • Ame says:

        Proverbs 9:10 “The fear of the Lord isthe beginning of wisdom,
        And the knowledge of the Holy One isunderstanding.”

        Proverbs 1:7 ”
        The fear of the Lord isthe beginning of knowledge,
        But fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

        Proverbs 14:16
        “In the fear of the Lordthere is strong confidence,
        And His children will have a place of refuge.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Ame, just goofing on Toad – guy was seriously strange.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ame says:

        hummm … i found him interesting. when i came into this whole manosphere, i had a ton of questions (as i always do … too many i’ve often been told!) and he patiently answered all of them. may not have always agreed with him, but he was respectful if my perspective could be backed up.

        Like

      • Ame says:

        that ‘whom do you fear’ came from a time when i found some old notes from a women’s bible study. so i sent them to him asking his opinion b/c they seemed pretty good to me. he totally shredded it – figuratively. when i asked him what he would recommend teaching women about marriage that was different, he replied beginning with, “Whom do you fear?”

        Like

    • Oscar says:

      @ Ame

      “Whom do you fear?”

      Excellent question. I was going there next, because the truth is that a man who fears God would tremble at the thought of screwing with His law.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ame says:

        I later went on to write a whole series on marriage for wives based off that. I decided to write the series because a friend of Oldest’s was getting married, and I wondered what would be good advice for her. I sent her each piece as I wrote it, and she was very appreciative.

        Like

  3. lastmod says:

    This is the disconnect and the slight of hand I am talking about, or have been……

    DS sates this

    “It’s not hard to become the top 10-20% of men”

    Then this a few sentences later

    “The problem is that most men don’t want to put in the hard work”

    Liked by 4 people

    • Heh, for anyone who actually is thinking about what I am trying to say rather than looking for “gotcha” statements, let me make it clear.

      “It’s not hard to become the top 10-20% of men”

      The knowledge is there, and it’s been rehashed over and over in these parts. We know what women are attracted to and these are the same things that are developed living your mission for God being excellent in all areas of life. These things aren’t hard to understand or do.

      “The problem is that most men don’t want to put in the hard work”

      People don’t want to put in the effort to do (hard work for most, it seems) for their mission for God, lifting weights to gain muscle, have good charisma/social mastery, and so on. Despite knowing what women are attracted to they won’t do it anyway and complain about it.

      I think the disconnect for most people is life inertia. It’s seems difficult for most people to get started, but once you have build the habits it becomes a lot more effortless. I don’t “try” to act as a leader or masculine around my wife anymore. I just do it because I built that foundation.

      Maybe my wording wasn’t that great either cause I’m not proofreading all of my comments. Perhaps the last one should be worded: “The problem is that most men won’t want to put in the time to develop to become a man like that.” Doing it isn’t particularly “hard” in any way since we have the knowledge. It simply takes different measures to time to accumulate reliable changes. Lifting you see reliably changes in a couple months but it might take a year or two to really get a muscular physique. Social charisma like leading conversations and the like are a bit harder to quantify and so may take some men faster or slower depending on their ability to learn stuff and apply it.

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        Ah so its Game redux 5.0

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        How easy it is will depend on what a man has to over come.

        Like

      • @ SFC Ton

        How easy it is will depend on what a man has to over come.

        Sure, but then again men with mission and purpose can overcome a lot.

        Nick Vujicic was literally born with no limbs and now has a wife and 4 kids.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        extreme examples, on either end of the spectrum, make for crappy data points.

        Liked by 3 people

      • @ SFCTon

        extreme examples, on either end of the spectrum, make for crappy data points.

        Sure, I agree. But there are things we can learn from it.

        I find it hypocritical that most of the people here are harping on the fringe negative cases all the time. No, most men are not locked out of the dating or marriage market. I’ve posted on the statistics constantly which show that’s not the case.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        We’ll have to agree to disagree

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Concerning DS’s argument, there is something I want to point out in the last graph.

        If a man is under 80%, he only has access to women below 20%, which is not really appealing at all. But right at the 80% mark, and especially above 90%, the line flattens out. If a man is above 90%, he can get women above 40% and higher, which is much more appealing to a man.

        I experienced this when I was younger (early to mid-30s). I would estimate myself to be in the high 7 to mid-8 range at that time. I went to the gym once or twice a week and got into the habit of dressing sharp. I was also making fairly decent money by that time. I suddenly started getting IOIs everywhere I went, every day. Looking back, I am guessing that this was enough to push me over the 9 mark. I just pushed myself to climb up one rung on the SMV ladder, and it opened the door to a lot of opportunities, as shown in the blue “spear” at the top of the graph. This would not have worked if I was starting out as a 6 or lower. Another thing is that I was in Asia, where the market is different. So I can see that what DS is saying has some truth to it, but it’s only true for men in the 7-8 range who place themselves within a certain market.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lastmod says:

        So you were a model?

        Like

      • @ Jack

        If a man is under 80%, he only has access to women below 20%, which is not really appealing at all. But right at the 80% mark, and especially above 90%, the line flattens out. If a man is above 90%, he can get women above 40% and higher, which is much more appealing to a man.

        I experienced this when I was younger (early to mid-30s). I would estimate myself to be in the high 7 to mid-8 range at that time. I went to the gym once or twice a week and got into the habit of dressing sharp. I was also making fairly decent money by that time. I suddenly started getting IOIs everywhere I went, every day. Looking back, I am guessing that this was enough to push me over the 9 mark. I just pushed myself to climb up one rung on the SMV ladder, and it opened the door to a lot of opportunities, as shown in the blue “spear” at the top of the graph. This would not have worked if I was starting out as a 6 or lower. Another thing is that I was in Asia, where the market is different. So I can see that what DS is saying has some truth to it, but it’s only true for men in the 7-8 range who place themselves within a certain market.

        I disagree with the broad grouping.

        As I wrote in this post, attraction generally operates on distributions and statistics.

        https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2019/03/03/how-attraction-works-and-common-misconceptions/

        To summarize let’s say a man has a 5% success rate asking out women on dates. As he becomes more muscular, develops confidence, and so on that rate inches up higher and higher to say 8%, 10%, and so on. 9s and 10s might have a 50% success rate, but most men will never get there.

        Out of these “successes,” most are probably on the low end of spectrum to start. Let’s say mostly 3s and 4s. As the rate rises, some 5s are sprinked in, and then 6s and so on as the rates go up to 10, 15, 20%.

        Basically, you may have some larger chance asking out less attractive women, but you still have some smaller chance asking out more attractive women and these chances increase over time as you get more attractive.

        Additionally, one woman might be a 7 to most, 6 or 8 to some, and 5 to 9 to fewer. A general bell curve is a solid approximation for it. Generally, from what I’ve observed the same things happen to men. One man who is a 7 to most women might be a 6 or 8 to others, and to fewer a 5 or 9.

        I seem to have caught the beneficial side of this where I think my wife is a objectively more attractive than me by 2-3 points, but she thinks I’m handsome so it doesn’t really matter.

        There’s a lot of this type of thing in play where statistically if you’re a a 5 to most people, you can appear as a 7 to some women and some women that are say a 5 to most men can appear as a 7 to you.

        I think this is how assortive mating worked in the past. People generally thought they were getting a solid deal (e.g. their wife or husband was more attractive subjectively than they were objectively). Seems to work this way with people of similar features — they tend to be more subjectively attracted to them than someone would think objectively.

        Anyway, I’m probably going to stay out of these conversations from now on because everyone but probably Oscar and maybe Nova is too black pill for me.

        That’s why I’ve started dedicating most of my time to the RPC discord. Men that actually want to grow their mission for God and take advice and put it into action. These are the guys actually in the field dating and getting married (yes, there are several of each recently). Yes, a bunch of them married virgins. The ones that people say don’t exist.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        You certainly like calling the lower bunch lazy and not “wanting to put in the effort”

        That’s a broad accusation, and an unfair one…….I’m called out frequently here, and your charismatic dodging of this with “thinking about what I was trying to say” instead of using “gotcha” statements is lame, a cop-out for a man of your amazing ability, body, and solutions.

        You can’t admit a bets loser like me actually has been reading you and you frequently do this. You beleieve you have nothing to learn from anyone….you know it all. I called it out because the sphere has countless statements like this…..and I for one am sick of them.

        SO many have done the same with a very humble, powerful and simple faith of baby born in a manger…who grew up, who spoke truth, eternity and love….and justice. And righteousness……and so many of you have turned it into an staggering intellectual nightmare for so many.

        You don’t resonate with me DS and the countless men out there exactly because of your arrogant reply.

        This is how you talk to men like me and probably the lower 80%, and that is why you banned me. Fine. Your site. Your rules.

        You have no clue how hard I worked and countless million upon millions have done. Then you have the “balls” to say “ah men just don’t want to do the hard work”

        I could drop a four letter word with the word “you” after it…..but I won’t. A less polite man would

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @Jack,

        “If a man is under 80%, he only has access to women below 20%, which is not really appealing at all. But right at the 80% mark, and especially above 90%, the line flattens out. If a man is above 90%, he can get women above 40% and higher, which is much more appealing to a man.”

        I thought our interpretation of the 80/20 rule was that 20% of men receive 80% of female INTENT (not poon).

        I think your statement above is too pessimistic and not what I see in real life. Maybe you are correct if dating is limited to Tinder apps.

        Like

      • @ cameron232

        “If a man is under 80%, he only has access to women below 20%, which is not really appealing at all. But right at the 80% mark, and especially above 90%, the line flattens out. If a man is above 90%, he can get women above 40% and higher, which is much more appealing to a man.”

        I thought our interpretation of the 80/20 rule was that 20% of men receive 80% of female INTENT (not poon).

        I think your statement above is too pessimistic and not what I see in real life. Maybe you are correct if dating is limited to Tinder apps.

        I agree that it’s more along the lines of general intent. A woman may want the top 20%, but if she’s much lower on the attraction totem pole then she’ll deal with it.

        I had the actual numbers in a post somewhere on my blog within the past year or two. Don’t know which post it is specifically.

        It was something along the lines of Vox’s hierarchy in terms of average partners.

        http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/03/socio-sexual-hierarchy.html

        Top 10% or so got about 25-30% of the sex, next 20% got about 30%, next 20% got about 20%, and then the bottom 50% got about 30% of the sex.

        It’s not as bleak as people are making things out to be.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Random Angeleno says:

    This reply from Deti got lost upthread and I think it’s important enough to bring it back and partially quote it so everyone gets the message even if they don’t agree with it.

    Deti began that post with:
    The last thing I’ll add is that what keeps the “balance of power” needle moved a little in my favor is the unspoken threatpoint I had to create.

    In other words, Deti used “dread” openly to rescue his marriage and still implies it years later. But the conduct he threatened her with is not considered Christian.

    I believe Deep Strength has written about this. Perhaps others too. Maybe a good future post would be to collect these into some comprehensive series. How much dread can a Christian man apply and still remain in the faith? If a woman is like Sharkly’s ex, what then?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Good thoughts. Probably something we should address in the “conundrum” series.

      Like

    • thedeti says:

      In other words, Deti used “dread” openly to rescue his marriage and still implies it years later. But the conduct he threatened her with is not considered Christian.

      I realize I’m not being called on to defend that statement. I’ll just point out that I did what I thought I had to do for my children’s futures. I’ll stand before God and answer for it someday. Whatever He decides is what He decides.

      In the short term it would have been easier to leave. Most men probably would have. Marriages have been blown sky high over less. But those marriages were not mine, and my marriage is not theirs. I guess I cared more about my kids than I did about myself or Mrs. deti at the time. That’s probably what I’ll tell God (as if He doesn’t know that already).

      God this is painful to remember. I think I’ll need to leave this for a bit.

      Liked by 5 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        I realize I’m not being called on to defend that statement. I’ll just point out that I did what I thought I had to do for my children’s futures. I’ll stand before God and answer for it someday. Whatever He decides is what He decides.
        …..

        Legit

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ame says:

        I realize I’m not being called on to defend that statement. I’ll just point out that I did what I thought I had to do for my children’s futures. I’ll stand before God and answer for it someday. Whatever He decides is what He decides.

        haven’t yet read the comments leading to this … but that’s some heavy dose of reality right there, Deti. it’s always easier from the outside than it is from the inside. and it’s always painful to look back. i’m learning to be kind to my younger self. we do the best we can with what we’ve got. (never have figured out how to fully do Ton’s, “don’t let that sh*t take up space in your brain.” 😉 , but i am working on it 🙂 )

        In the short term it would have been easier to leave. Most men probably would have. Marriages have been blown sky high over less. But those marriages were not mine, and my marriage is not theirs. I guess I cared more about my kids than I did about myself or Mrs. deti at the time. That’s probably what I’ll tell God (as if He doesn’t know that already).

        that’s always hard to articulate … the depth of what it was, the gravity of what it was, and how foundationally it changed us.

        i hope that one day, when they’re grown, at least one of your then-adult-kids will come to you and say, “Thanks, Dad. I see how life could have been different and worse, but it wasn’t because of what you did.” my girls have said that to me many times in various forms, and i’m always very grateful and humbled.

        Liked by 3 people

  5. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    I like them big&I like them small!Shes a saint!Shes a sinner!ROUGH STUFF!He lights the night sky!WE BURN THE NIGHT!100%serious here!You know LASTMOD I was like you a few months ago unsure of where I’m going next!Not about if god(of the new&old testaments) is true or not (I have never doubted that since I could first think&remember stuff!)!Latest reason since oct,2018?The ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM:The 2100+year old analouge computer that prove CHARLES DARWIN stuff {or international business machines big blue claims}?I always distrusted soceity!Thats what I recommend to all male&female(Not just men!)How I know most people were bad news since age 2 before NO.9 got shot on dec.8th 1980!?Extended family of paternal aunts fighting over land that had been in my family since the 1830’s!Yes that’s how old-school I ‘am!I have never had a problem with a girl otherwise except afew not ready for prime-time nurses at my PHYSICAL REHAB ficility you know about night nurses at such places right?Day time ready for pictures,night/morning ones ready for fights!If I knew somebody about to go into nursing home I would tell them get everything done before visiting hours over or you’ll wish you did!I have always been a loner!Hence my love of MICHAEL SAVE&sidekick TEDDY THE TOYPOODLE(You ever see him blasting ”AM I EVIL” by METALLICA in SANFRANSICKO?)He did this once while gabby was mayor!, remember that time he told gabby he would’nt ruin his reputation by mentioning seeing him at a NON-SAME-SEX WEDDING?Remember people besmirching MGTOW OG BENNY HILL (as a queer or a womanizer depending on the day?) or ALFRED from south hampton if your hip(Like paul hipp!)?He not BILL MAHER(LATE-STAGE,MINZ-HATER!) as INNOCENTBYSTANDERINBOSTON would say was true MGTOW!He had tons of money!Never married!And never bought a home in london!That standard back then or today withTONZ of money?MANOWARtm, I hear are planning on doing a musical called HAIL TO ENGLAND!WE WILL KILL& DIE ON THIS HILL!&BENNY HILL MIDDLE-FINGER SALUTES ALTERNAIVE COMEDIAN BEN ELTON{With his pop-music comp shows!}!This is for the feminist-churchians of U.K. CHARITY run by megan merkel&kate middleton!You must know BEN ELTON was the concerned feminist that got HILL cancelled in 1986 right?Then he died in 1992 at age 68 while watching the TELLY!P.S.Why ANTENNATV stop showing ALFIE love?Ben elton got that shut down too?This last comment until next JACK,SCOTT or NOVASEEKER article goes up!

    Like

  6. Ame says:

    Don’t have time to read all the comments, but I enjoy being a part of the group and learning from all y’all.

    It’s so hard as parents, isn’t it, to want to be able to help our children navigate this world and avoid all the pain. May God give us His wisdom, discretion, discernment, and knowledge; may He use us in the best interests of our children’s lives despite ourselves, and may they be and become all HE designed and created them to be and become before the foundation of the world.

    Liked by 6 people

  7. Pingback: Time frames for body recomposition | Christianity and masculinity

  8. redpillboomer says:

    SFC Ton stated, “I wonder how hard covid drove up those numbers? Personal observation tells me on line dating is dying. Dating is dying, on line dating is dying along with it.”
    Intuition tells me this is correct, but all you hear about is the proliferation and widespread use of these Apps. I got on one of these Apps just to check it out, my own personal research so I could see for myself what all the fuss was about. A good number of my single friends, male and female, use them and I know them by the names they use: Tinder, Bumble, Match, etc. After checking this one App out, admittedly it might have been an unusually narrow one-Christian Mingle, I was struck at the number of people on there, and what appeared to be very little activity that amounted to much of anything at all. Conversations seemed short and really went nowhere significant, then most would end abruptly just as they were getting started; occurred as kind of weird to me. Some of the women complained that they were back on it after an earlier unsuccessful go at it, and they were willing to reluctantly give it one more try. Idk, it just seemed to me, again intuitively, that there was a depressed spirit threaded throughout the entire site, depressed like in resigned and cynical. I decided after that one App experience, my personal research was complete and I’d just go with whatever you all said about the Apps without having to see for myself. Anyone care to elaborate and maybe enlighten me a bit? Was my one experience unusual, or does this fit the general description of what these ‘dating’ apps are really like?

    Like

  9. lastmod says:

    DS just discovered a new thing called “dischord” everyone! Even though people have been using it for many years.

    He is working with men who want to grow and improve themselves……what he means is “pat ourselves on the back and talk about how awesome we are”

    He uses “negging” 101 on his fellow men “ah this place is too blackpill”

    He cannot stand ANYONE disagreeing with him. The future of the church everyone……where only certain percenatages of men will be allowed and who can only bench so much in so miuch time…and if he doesn’t like your mission in life concerning God, he’ll SPEAK for God and tell you what you mission should be.

    Like

  10. Lexet Blog says:

    The hyper majority of lawyers I know are not married to other lawyers. Those who are are power couples, which is another animal. Most of those couples end up divorced (attorneys have about a 90% divorce rate) and the guys will then remarry “down”

    Same with doctors.

    Being in the professional world and dating sucks. Many predatory women who just see dollar signs. Lots of men date their colleagues because they aren’t threatened by them (you won’t get taken to the cleaners in the event of a divorce, because both are earners).

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: The Sexual Market IS the Marriage Market | Σ Frame

  12. Pingback: The Christian Conundrum | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: On the Turning Away | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: The Relinquished Life | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Can You Be Red-Pilled and Christian? | Stage In The Sky

  16. Pingback: The Demise of the Christian Life Script | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s