20% of men get 80% of women?

Post Reply New Topic

That's because a lot of people don't comprehend emergentism and fuzzy logic!

But you have a valid point. Even if the odds are not in your favour that doesn't mean all hope is lost.

Yep.

I dunno...that's a rather in depth analysis OP, and may be true. I personally don't care cos I'm not a typical female and I've no idea really what those typical females are doing (sometimes I may sound like I do but I'm really just an outside observer, how could I know for sure?). And I certainly don't want to try to become one else I might fall into a less desirable statistical category!

Not really misleading, just vague. "Get" could mean sleep with, date, be in a relationship with, marry, marry and divorce, the list probably goes on...

There's also a theory about the connection between polygyny (many wives) in Islam and, wait for it... terrorism. It's interesting because it factors in the 80/20 rule. After all, terrorism is about hate, hate is "solidified" anger, and anger stems from frustration. Which includes sexual frustration.

So let's say you have an Islamic society that allows polygyny. But prohibits polyandry (many husbands), which can give some lonely men a fighting chance. The top 20% of men immediately snag 80% of women as their wives. The second 20% of men reluctantly marry the last 20% of women. This leaves 60% of men without a mate. Which, over time, leads to intense sexual frustration. Because Islam also prohibits premarital sex, prostitution is not an option for those men. (As is traveling to countries where it's legal, if they can't afford it.) As those men become increasingly frustrated, their anger builds up. Soon enough, they start killing innocent people and blowing up buildings; the whole "Infidels!! !" thing is mainly a justification.

As oversimplified as it sounds, it's not without merit. After all, the Rodger Elliot killings happened out of sexual frustration. So who's to say that terrorist acts can't have a similar root cause. After all, the largely Christian Europe, which limits marriages to one man and one woman, had very low terrorism rates throughout its history. (With a possible exception of the Irish Republican Army demanding independence for Northern Ireland.)

Okcupid stats also show that female users find 80% of men unattractive, and as a general rule, one wouldn't sleep with someone unless they find them attractive.

Also....



Let's accept that, humans are like most mammals: females go for the alphas.

The alpha male thing does exist among humans, it is crystal clear in those dating app's stats, how can't you see it? Those above stats reflect millions of women.

But it's the 1-hubby-1wife monogamous culture (even in most muslim societies btw) which is forcing women to lower their standards, probably without even knowing it (due to lack of availability of top best looking guys).

It is not uncommon to see a woman who stays very stubborn about her high standards until she reaches mid 30s then she "settles" for someone average that she would have never settled for in her 20s (and she would switch some of her criteria like 'very handsome' with 'good personality').

And please stop saying "alpha male concept been debunked for wolves, alpha male and alpha female are father and mother": wolves and dogs were evolved in a way more egalitarian way than most species of primates: their gender roles are more egalitarian, their mating system is more egalitarian, even in physical strength are more equal...in everything (the sexual dimorphism is very minimal among wolves and dogs); "Alpha Male deniers" must remember that we are not canines, we are apes.

No questions what happened to Tarzan after he took of Kerchak's harem of gorillas or Simba and Nala's incest.

Guess what? All of the men I have seriously dated have been significantly less attractive than I was/am. And of the men I've casually dated (I'm including as a teenager here, too) only one or two were actually at the same level of attractiveness as I was, and none above.

I do not have high standards for physical attractiveness in the men I date. In fact, I'd be much less likely to want to date a very attractive man. I certainly would not date someone better looking than I am. It would be completely foolish to do so.

I never was interested in men for their money, either.

^ Which probably means that you find most men significantly unattractive.

Guess what? I don't think dating people while thinking of them as significantly less attractive that you would lead to a healthy and balanced relationship - I very highly doubt that.

So true. I once described such an event on Facebook like that, and people thought it was funny.

Courtship rituals usually have simple enough rules. The problem is that people are doing them automatically, and if your brain doesn't have those rules naturally, figuring it out and copying can be real hard. It's not even a given that it is a good idea to try to copy them.

Actually, the Discos remind me pretty much of the Animal Planet channel.

All of that makes sense to me. After all, attractiveness is not an important part of a functional long-term relationship, and many very attractive men will be less likely to commit to somebody long-term, and even if they did, they would be more likely to cheat and have affairs.

How is that relevant for serious, long-term relationships? I have no doubt that OkC stats are correct, but what they measure is who people want to sleep with, not who they want to have a long-term relationship with. I also think the 20/80 rule is true for one-night-stands, but it's not valid for long-term relationships because at least in the West, one man would typically marry one woman, so that makes it 50-50.

^^ The strictly Monogamous long-term relationships is an artificial product, it's governed by the marriage culture - and it's designed to hamper the women's natural tendencies in particular (ie. religions are harsher against female adultery).

The casual dating and hookup culture on the other hand, reflects far more the natural tendencies and the instincts of humans, and of the women's natural tendencies in particular; and we can clearly see in the stats of the dating sites that the natural tendency of women screams Alpha male.

If you observe around you, you would find many instances of 'women tend to want alpha males' - for example, take a look at the celeb fandoms.

Look back for example at the female fandom for Twilight's main character (Strong, attractive and resourceful) and Fifty Shades of Grey's character (Strong, attractive and resourceful again).... you never see a such intense fandom among males for a particular character/celeb, not at this scale and not even close.

I don't think it is an artificial product. It exists for a reason, and particularly because in the evolutionary past of humans, sleeping around and one-nights-stands didn't work out very well. Also, alpha males monopolizing multiple females isn't a great trait either, because it breeds violence among the males that are left-over, and I'm sure this wasn't common before cities and states started to form. Neurotypical humans have no natural inclination for anything else than serial-monogamy. Polyamory is a trait with an evolutionary history of neurodiversity, not typical humans.



It only reflects the NT partner preferences, and not how they need to compromise in order to get into meaningful long-term relationships.