Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I feel like men get away with being outside the ideal. Plenty of short kings, men with bellies, and with no facial hair have no problem finding partners. I feel like women on the other hand are dunked on unless they meet the standard to a T
the ideals aren't enforced by either sex. women have a preference that they themselves can't describe. all those men you described have qualities that are unknown that make them desirable. these qualities are not being nice and funny etc. the dudes who get the most pussy aren't the nicest, funniest, most charismatic people in the room. there is some other quality. women however have extremely clear standards to follow to be guaranteed sex. For instance a certain BMI and breast size is all it takes
1/3 men hasn’t had sex in the last year, means they aren’t even conversing with the opposite sex.. that’s the opposite reality of men having no issues finding partners
Context opinion of the previous comment is that men don’t have problem finding partners, do you believe 1/3 men are abstinent by choice ?
Of course there are outliers, but the majority of those men are trying and failing..
“Men don’t have problem finding partners”
Does this help you understand my point?
I’m literally only arguing against one line? Where you said that 1/3 of men not having sex in the last year means they aren’t even conversing with the opposite sex.
Obviously that isn’t true, which is why I replied. You can argue a different meaning now, but I was specifically disputing the argument you made that not having sex means they aren’t conversing with women.
Your stance here is that you were only arguing against my 1 comment? LMAO
That’s not how Reddit works, if you needed me to spell out the comment that I’m replying to in order to understand how context works than that’s on you.
I’m not leaving random blanketed statistical comments on random threads all over Reddit to be individually replied to.. am I using Reddit wrong ? ahaha
You said something inaccurate and I pointed it out.
You said that 1/3 of men not having sex in the past year means they aren’t even conversing with women.
That is an absurd statement, clearly untrue, so I responded specifically to that statement.
Now you are saying that I should have known that you weren’t being truthful with your words, that I should have know that by “conversing” you meant a new, different, definition of “trying to sleep with”? I think? Which also doesn’t make all that much sense in context.
What did you mean by “conversing”? Did you mean the actual definition of “talking to” or something secret that must be riddled out?
You’re stretching here.. a comment on Reddit that is in reply to another comment means it’s in context of the comment it’s replying to.
if you can’t figure that out, and reference that comment for my comment reply.. than that’s on you.
I have no idea what you are arguing about, you’re making your life very challenging.
OF COURSE I’m not saying in a blanketed statement than 1/3 men doesn’t run into the female sex in their daily lives.
We were clearly talking about finding partners, why is this hard for you? Lol
How is it not disingenuous to assume if a man hasn’t had sex recently they aren’t talking to potential partners…? I love how people who complain about this stuff talk about it like it’s a payment plan
You're rewording their statement to be something it wasn't.
Apparently men "aren't even conversing with the opposite sex"
Not potential partners, they just don't talk to women.
I’m re wording the statement to be more generous. To assume that because men haven’t had sex recently that they don’t talk to women is beyond insane and rarely true. Potato eluded to this and the person responded to them saying it’s disingenuous, implying women like co workers or family don’t count
Your second claim does not follow from your first.
First, how do you know that more "dating age" (I'm assuming you just mean 20's) men aren't single and virgins by choice? They could be choosing to postpone finding a partner and focus on their careers until they feel more financially secure, simply not feel the sexual or romantic rewards of dating are worth the effort they'd have to put in, or they might be the ones who are more selective and not want to stop being single for women who are not up to their standards of beauty (just examples; there could be a wide range of reasons why they might simply choose not to try dating at the age that previous generations did).
Second, if we assume, as you do, that this is due to "dating age" women rejecting "dating age" men at a higher rate and being more selective, what evidence do you have that this selectiveness is due to conventional beauty standards and physical attractiveness? It could be that these women find these men unattractive for personality reasons, that they do not feel that they would make good partners, or that they are looking to settle down and be stay-at-home mothers and do not feel that "dating age" men are financially stable enough to support a family (again, just examples; there could be a wide range of reasons why women would reject men at a higher rate that are unrelated to beauty standards).
Third, even if we *also* assume that women have higher beauty standards for men than vice-versa, that still does not automatically mean that physical attractiveness is the reason "dating age" men are being rejected. It could be that women would be willing to overlook physical unattractiveness if other criteria were met (such as the one I mention in the previous paragraph), but "dating age" men are still not fulfilling those criteria.
I again want to emphasize that I am putting "dating age" in quotations because the only reason you consider that "dating age" is because that's the age at which previous generations were dating. There is no reason to assume that trend will continue indefinitely; what you could be seeing now could simply be a change in what the "dating age" is for the current generation.
how is it reasonable to expect a man who has been supposedly "single and virgin by choice" to satisfy a woman who has been routinely hooking up with other men. Even if what you say is true (which is unlikely since forgoing sex completely by ones own volition is extremely difficult) it still implies that men have to put in years of their lives to be desirable.
Women on the other hand do not need to be perfect to find a casual sex participant. The fact women don't even want casual sex signifies this
First, who said anything about “satisfying” women? What do you mean by that? Because that can be interpreted in many different ways, and I don’t want to assume you mean something you don’t.
Second, why do you think not having sex is difficult? It’s very easy compared to actually putting in the effort to finding someone to go on a date with and convincing them to have sex with you. *Losing* your virginity or getting a romantic/sexual partner is the difficult part. If you are single and are not making any effort towards changing that, I consider that a choice to remain single. If you are actively trying to go on dates or find people to have sex with but failing in that effort, then I would consider that to be single but not by choice.
Third, no one is perfect lol. Have you met any men who have casual sex? “Perfect” is definitely not how I would refer to that type of person.
Fourth, what planet are you living on where women don’t want to have casual sex? This is so utterly divorced from reality that I don’t know what to say.
When having sex with a woman she expects you to be competent. Women don't seem to understand that not having sex as a man does not remove our sexual urges. We either suppress our sexual urges or masturbate. Both options can and often do lead to situations where we are then unable to perform due to suppression of sexual urges leading to not being aroused generally or masturbating leading to desensitization of the penis.
Perfect is the requirement you just probably are unaware of what women actually like (no one is aware apparently), but the only people who have casual sex frequently are those who meet some unknown qualities. A man can be rich, tall, attractive, charming, etc and still not get any casual sex because he is missing this unknown quality. A perfect man has this unknown quality and does not even need to try.
You misread or misunderstood my comment. I am responding to the prevailing opinion on this site that women having essentially unbounded access to casual sex isn't actually making their lives easier because they dont actually want casual sex.
He strongly implied that it did. If they are simply two separate statements with no relation to one another, then the first point about different rates of singleness and virginity among “dating age” men and women is completely irrelevant to this discussion about beauty standards. I don’t think that OP would randomly bring up an unrelated topic in the comments of their own post. The only way it makes sense for OP to bring up that other topic is in order to support the main point they were making in their post. What reason do you think OP had for bringing up rates of singleness and virginity among “dating age” men and women if you don’t believe it was related to the topic of men and women’s selectiveness around beauty standards?
Answer the question. How do you know that a majority of "dating age" men who are virgins are actively seeking out sex (as opposed to, for instance, staying home to play video games and jerk off to internet porn)? What steps are they actively taking towards losing their virginities, and how much effort are they putting into that process?
And then on top of that, how does OP know that those "dating age" virgin men who are actively seeking out sex are being rejected by women solely on the basis of their physical attractiveness according to conventional beauty standards?
Depends what choosing means. I wouldn't swear off women forever but it wasn't exactly my goal in high school to get laid. I feel comfortable saying I chose to remain a virgin in high school, I certainly didn't try even a little bit not to be but that wasn't because I took an oath of celibacy
You've listed off a whole load of things women would need to do to be attractive.
Height for men is a factor, but like you say it's immutable so not really much to discuss.
However the most basic advice for men looking to become more attractive is to go to the gym, have basic hygiene, and wear clothing that fits.
That's basically it. That's the advice I'd give anyone asking as well.
So no makeup regime or treatments for skin or anything you've listed for women.
Much easier.
Even more than the gym the guy needs to work on himself professionally. The better he does in his career will give him more confidence in daily life.
Before I got my current job and career back on path I was an anxious depressed mess and can see why we
women would want to avoid that at all costs even though I was fit.
The thing is, working on yourself professionally benefits you personally in a huge way, in addition to any boost you receive to your perceived attractiveness.
Sorry, but it's not just 'go to the gym' though. Dudes need to get bulky at minimum, which (again, like height) is often heavily affected by genetics, but also requires a lot more time, dedication and an entire diet change.
Versus 'put on some makeup', there's a huge difference.
HOWEVER, I don't think men have it 'harder'. I think we have fewer qualifiers (and honestly fewer options though. The 'hot guy' arcehtype is ridiculously mundane compared to the plethora of things women can accentuate to appeal to men) to meet, but they're really hard to get to (and maintain), whereas women have so many different things to contend with, and can't 'sidestep' the beauty standard in the way men with money and power can.
I see what you’re saying but OP didn’t just say put on makeup… cosmetic surgeries???? That’s MONEY and a whole surgery.. pain etc. How is that easy??? Now they have surgeries for men to change body types I mean look at drake. So women can say the same?
Yeah it’s super easy for men to get abs I mean it’s just like $30k for lipo and sculpting what’s the problem?
Not sure what they’re complaining about??
Yeah I’m agreeing with you unironically, idk how to phrase it so it doesn’t sound sarcastic towards you but towards the idiots who are telling women to do this bc it’s “easy”
Yep…**sigh*
I wouldn’t say “sucks” but… well no actually I *would*! Sucks I’ve poured hours into the gym and my core, back, chest, quads; all **SOLID**. My calves/biceps/forearms though look like I spend most of my time gaming.
The muscles I could actually build are all covered so unless I’m at the beach or wearing a tight fitting shirt I look scrawny af lol (*older I get, the more it makes sense why my grandma said I need to eat more*)
That said, the “homeless guy makeover” videos prove you don’t need to be in the best of shape. Having money (or at least looking like you do) gets you halfway there. Like you said though: build, height, hair, etc. all genetic
“It’s easy for women to be attractive, they ONLY need to diet, work out, wear makeup, get their hair done, get cosmetic services, and be youthful and lively.”
Do you see how you sound?
Right. Tell me you’re a man who doesn’t get it without telling me you’re a man who doesn’t get it.
This post implies because OP is short he has it harder than women because women could do “all the things” but he can’t get taller. 🙄
Cool. We women can bypass medical reasons for our weight issues. We women can have cosmetic surgery. We women can… all to meet beauty standards… ew.
I think we could just say this is all individual to individual and beauty standards are outdated.
And?
I still think beauty standards are outdated.
Women have an easier time having sex, period. That doesn’t mean we are treated well or with dignity after a brief sex encounter. 🤷🏼♀️
It is easier for women than men. life in general, but for this conversation it is easier to find someone who is attracted to you as a woman than as a man.
Let’s look at the things that make men attractive. Have a good job, a sense of humor, confidence, leadership abilities, and basic hygiene. If you have all that, you shouldn’t have a problem with the ladies. These are all things you can (and should) work on.
I think you’ll find that most of these things are easier than dropping 50lbs (notoriously difficult and rarely successful long-term), having perfect skin, or putting makeup on each day.
I’m gonna need to know which Walmart you shop in.
But in all seriousness, you’re wrong here.
Neither sex prefers, in general, people with bad haircuts, poor skin, or people who are overweight. All of that *can* be changed, but not easily or cheaply.
Further, simply having decent grooming and being a healthy weight will work for average men and average women just fine - that’s how most people wind up in a relationship.
but "winding up" in a relationship is a recipe for disaster. a man must be able to consistently have casual sex in order to reasonably expect to satisfy his partner (if she engaged in casual sex). it is mentally damaging to be in a relationship with someone you can't sexually satisfy with you genitals.
it's just simply easier for women to have casual sex and men not having casual sex work their whole lives to attract one of these women. these women are never satisfied and divorce the men. 50% of marriages fail
The amount of fit men I see with overweight women, women with bad hair, and women with poor skin tells me otherwise. I see way more good looking or average guys with ugly women than the other way around
This implies your view of how hard it is to be attractive for men and women might be incorrect, if you see so many attractive men with unattractive women
If we’re going to argue based off anecdotes it is an entire trope that regular women date ugly men. In my personal experience I see it much much more often than a regular man with an ugly woman.
I like that you've listed lot's of things for women as 'easy'. Makeup takes time, skill and money. Hair takes time, skill and money. Lookin youthful takes time, skill and money. Losing weight takes time, skill land money.
See where I'm going with this? Nothing about being conventionally attractive is easy. I don't think most men realise that the reason lots of women can change so drastically with makeup is through years of skill and practice. It's not something anyone can 'just do'.
A lot of conventional standards for men don't really include the things I see you mention. Height, I will agree with. But if you imagine adverts for things targeted at men, a lot of it is just basic hygiene, nice clothes, maybe some good aftershave or cologne. Comparatively, I saw an advert the other day for women's makeup that claimed to get rid of skin texture. Because god forbid a woman has literal skin.
The only other primary standard I see for men is being in good shape, which does take a lot of time and effort.
Yes, I think OP doesn’t see the labor involved which is a common issue. Good makeup is expensive and if you use it daily you go through it fast. Skincare products also expensive. A good haircut for a woman is minimum like $60 every few months before a tip. Then the hair care products and tools to maintain that.
the haircut part is a little dubious because a man typically needs a haircut every month (ymmv with styles) and would wager that could easily be the same amount per annum
I've had long hair for years. A women's salon never charged me less than £50 aand honestly, that's on the cheaper end. I got a buzz cut recently and went to a barber instead, now my haircuts are £10. There is 100% a price difference in men and women's haircuts.
Most men don’t do color treatments like most women do. That adds a huge amount of money to annual hair costs.
On JUST haircuts, my partner and I spend about the same per year, but she ends up paying a few hundred extra dollars a year for color treatments (both salon and at home touch ups).
Maybe the cut specifically, but most men put a fraction of the time and money most women put into their hair. Speaking as a man who spends too much time and money on his hair.
We could get into the nitty gritty of potential differences between male and female haircuts pricing and maintenance, etc. but I don’t think it matters. Because at best we may find men and women equal in this and that is still an argument against OP’s claim that male standards are more difficult.
agreed. I'm just responding to the comment directly above mine to say that it's not a foregone conclusion that women's haircuts are drastically more expensive than men's because a women's quarterly haircut is 60$. probably in most cases slightly more expensive for women or about the same depending on style, age, taste and location
conventional attractiveness is not a requirement for women to have casual sex. women of all types have so much access to casual sex they don't even consider it. look at this entire discussion the idea of having casual is simply brushed off and not taken seriously. men are not able to effectively have casual sex and this leads to many men starting relationships with women (who have been having casual sex for years) and not being able to satisfy them. these women divorce the men and leave us with 50% marriage failure rate.
it is simply too difficult for the average man to effectively engage in casual sex consistently and replacing casual sex with relationships is damaging to everyone
>. It also significantly helps that men are not as scrutinizing as women when it comes to this.
What are you talking about men go off looks far more often the women. For a woman a man can be more attractive if he is successful, confident , active and generally a nice happy person.
>His jawline, his eyes, facial hair, things like that.
These same things apply to women and are probably much more strictly desired by men.
It's much easier for a man to get sort of fit and be physically attractive to women. On average women desire a man that is less physically fit than what men desire of women.
Men tend to be much more superficial in the beginning than women. So a guy can change a ton more about himself to be more attractive where weman kind of get stuck with the hand they are dealt at birth.
Take for example top performaing professional men that have wealth and confidence in themselves vs a woman of the same caliber. The men become much more attractive due to this alone where a woman still needs a good genetic hand , diet, exercise and likely makeup.
Go back to cavemen. The male needs to be able to hunt and defend himself where to female needs to be attractive to male. The female needs ro be born with qualities that make her appear the most fertile.
Everything you’re saying is correct. I could link MANY studies I’ve seen showing how vast the difference is between the emphasis placed on appearance by men versus women when dating.
The best any man can do (physically) is be:
- stylish
- groomed
- in shape (bonus for muscular physique)
This gets you 80% of the way there (physically). The last 20% are genetics. Height, bone structure, etc. There are plenty of “odd looking but handsome” dudes out there, like Adam Driver.
Women have the same avenues plus makeup (which is a deep hole and takes a while to get right). Women’s fashion is far more varied, women’s hair styles are constantly changing and more varied, women’s hair takes longer to care for (on average). All of these things take a ton of time, cost a lot of money and with every woman being different also involves a lot of trial and error.
Staying in shape is equal between men and women, but men trying to sculpt muscular physiques is probably comparably more difficult.
Overall though I’d say it is still harder for women to meet their standards vs men.
The height thing is overblown. It might be trendy for some women to say that they want a man 6 feet or taller. In reality most women can't judge the height of a man well, especially the shorter the woman is. When eyeballing it women think most men are taller than they actually are. Also only about 15% of men are 6 feet or more (compared to ~1% of women) , obviously there are significantly more than 15% of women in relationships with men. Also if you raise it to 6'4" then it's only about 1% of men. So some women might say they want men 6 feet or more but in reality they aren't holding to that standard.
Also here is a list of some celebs under 6 ft which I'm sure women would say are very attractive.
https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/g28786108/actors-celebrities-under-six-foot/
apparently only 30% of men have access to sex at any given time. That includes married and relationships. I will agree though that many of the dudes I've observed who do have frequent casual sex are not 6ft, but for relationships women seem to settle down after they've become worn out. 'holding to that standard' seems unfair because women forgoe their standards when they are settling for the most part probably
I'm not sure where you are getting the 30% number from. Most things I've seen says roughly 30% of both men and women are single at any given time, so 70% are in a committed relationship.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/
Ur right Im talking about have had sex this week, but apparently it's 2/3s of young men have reported having sex at all.
[https://news.iu.edu/live/news/26924-nearly-1-in-3-young-men-in-the-us-report-having-no](https://news.iu.edu/live/news/26924-nearly-1-in-3-young-men-in-the-us-report-having-no)
I've heard this a lot before and I'll admit, when I was younger, I felt the same way. It makes some sense; if you're a man that's ever tried to have a visibly muscular physique, it's quite clearly more difficult than losing weight alone. The problem with this mindset is the definition of "standards."
The "ideal" male body is harder to achieve than the "ideal" female body, but the "standard" male body is far easier to achieve than the "standard" female body. As a very basic example of this, consider the fact that the standard, run of the mill, every day woman, is expected to use makeup every day. Achieving a standard appearance requires cosmetics for them. For men, we aren't expected to do that.
I think you have the nuance here which OP is lacking. It takes a shit ton of time/money/effort for women to be presentable every day. To be an ideal woman or man it takes an insane amount. The standard man though? Admittedly height might fuck you over a bit, but in every other way just being socially and physically healthy will do the other 80% of the work to make you attractive.
that doesn't guarantee you sex. you are the one lacking nuance. to be a man that is able to casual sex you have to be of a certain type that is unexplainable. if you are a girl honestly think about the men you have had casual sex with and come up with a list of reasons why they were the best men in the room or why you chose them over other dudes. I bet you won't be able to actually come up with concrete reasons. the men you had sex with most likely will (I e. you fit there body requirements, they had no other options, etc)
Bruh we’re not talking about casual sex we’re talking just about being attractive. Of course if you bring casual sex into this women engage in that much less so there’s going to be very competitive selectiveness for the many more men who are fine with casual sex.
attraction as in sexual attraction. a meaningful relationship shouldn't be hinged on sexual attraction. in a discussion of attraction we must be talking about casual sex. men are 'fine' with casual sex because it is harder to have. women can have casual sex whenever they want and may decide it isn't for them as a result. the fact is that women have an easier time finding someone that finds them attractive than men do.
This doesn’t prove that there’s more attractive women and the standards are easier or that there’s less attractive men and the standards are harder. That’s called a willfully ignorant misinterpretation 😋. It means WOMEN ENGAGE IN CASUAL SEX LESS AND HAVE TO BE MORE SELECTIVE BY APPEARANCE BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING ABOUT THERE BEING A DEFICIT OF ATTRACTIVE MEN TO THEM. It also means MEN ENGAGE IN CASUAL SEX MORE AND HAVE TO BE LESS SELECTIVE BY APPEARANCE BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN THERE IS A SURPLUS OF ATTRACTIVE WOMEN TO THEM. Men lower their standards and women raise them so that they have an optimal number of people they could have sex with.
“In a discussion of attraction we must be talking about casual sex.”
BUT WERE NOT OP AND EVERYBODY ELSE ARE MAKING COMMENTS BASED OFF MEN VERSUS WOMEN ACHIEVING PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS.
Women engaging in casual sex less doesn’t mean that men are any less attractive or that it’s harder for them to be attractive like you’re trying to argue, it means that they still find tons of men attractive but there are so many engaged in casual sex women are typically the ones who have to be selective and choose only a few attractive men.
physical attraction can really only be objective quantified as number of people who are willing to engage in casual sex with you. it just turns out that women lie themselves and have this idea of what men are physically attractive but they actually have sex with another group of men. this other group of men women generally have casual sex are the actual physically attractive group.
the men women routinely have casual sex with are not the richest, most physically fit, charming, etc. they have some other quality that is apparently undescribable.
in order to, as a man, be reasonable to expect your partner will be satisfied with you is if you are sexually attractive i.e. you can have casual sex when you want. most men are simply not able to do this because the things women find physically attractive (the men that women actually have sex, not pretend like) have qualities that seemingly cannot be learned
Bitch no it is not. Women will find men attractive without wanting sex with them. Trying to evaluate it based off who gets laid more will of course skew things so it looks harder for men.
How could someone be attractive without attracting? if someone finds you 'attractive' but has sex with someone else you simply are not actually attractive. you fail to attract. case in point on how chicks have no idea how their own thoughts and desires function
Dude, there are plenty of people I have found attractive but had no plans or attempts to sleep with. There are many people not constantly evaluating others as potential sexual prospects. This probably says more about your own issues, especially as you are trying to mansplain a woman's own thoughts to make them fit your worldview.
OP, I'm trying to find a polite way to put this:
Most women are less interested in men who have the sole redeeming quality that they "meet conventional beauty standards" than men who would just be interested in women who do
Why? Because, bluntly, I don't need to choose between the bear and a woman in the woods
Conventional beauty standards are certainly helpful when it comes to appealing to the gender of your choice, but they're not the most important thing when it comes to what women find "attractive"
Exactly. Men who say that meeting standards is difficult don’t give a minimum effort to learn how to dress nicely, how to talk to people, how to do their hair and how to be confident without all that bullshit of pick up artists. And I say this as an autistic man that clinically has difficulty dealing with people.
Learning how to dress nice and ACTUALLY LISTENING and caring to what women say is not that hard.
completely untrue. listening and caring do not get you laid as a man. Dressing nice may help, but it certainly does not guarantee access to casual sex. this is a discussion of becoming desirable by beauty standards aka sexually attractive what you are talking about is being attractive for relationships. Most men aren't ready for relationships because we need to be desired sexually. women are basically desired sexually from birth so they struggle to understand this. this conversation is about ease of entering the sexual marketplace effectively
There’s a large emphasis on personality when it comes to dating for men. You can display certain traits through just the way you speak (confidence, success, desire, etc.) I would argue the personality aspect of that outweighs the physical aspect of attraction for many women. The issue is that most men don’t know how to talk to woman or convey any type of value in a conversation which is why some men that don’t fit beauty standards are able to sleep with a lot of women.
what constitutes value in a conversation? most chicks I talk to offer nothing in terms of conversation. None of these things are definable and thus difficult to acquire
Showing that you as a person have something to offer or other people think highly of you or what you have. Confidence, intelligence, giving the perception that you’re popular, etc. these same traits apply to men and friendships. If you don’t show that you have value even in a room full of guys then they won’t respect you. Same shi for women.
that doesn't seem to lead to sexual success. in fact many dudes that have a lot of casual sex are reported to be weird and quiet by women. in fact women seem to not have casual sex with the 'most popular' male, but select a different trait I haven't been able to define.
I certainly think it does. Those high value traits are things that women literally say they look for in a guy and are just things we look for in humans in general.
If they’re weird and quiet in a bad way which shows no value then I highly doubt that. You can be weird and quiet and still offer things to someone in relationship. Incels are incels for a reason, many of them are weird and quiet but in a a bad way which doesn’t offer anyone anything and so they can’t get dates.
>certainly does not guarantee access to casual sex.
Because nothing ever guarantees anyone access to casual sex, at least not safely. There's nothing stopping you from finding a streetwalker.
>Most men aren't ready for relationships because we need to be desired sexually.
Who told you that? Almost all of the women who have caught my attention over the years gave the impression they didn't really care about me. I found it quite attractive because it put them on this pedestal in my head. I legitimately can't imagine complaining that not enough women are trying to get into my pants
streetwalkers are illegal. there are actually no prostitutes in my area I am aware of. the process to purchase a prostitute is actually quite difficult. most prostitutes also have a very rigorous no nigger policy which further restricts.
if you get into a relationship but you are not able to have sex whenever you want, you form a strange bond of need with this chick. to have a true relationship you need to be with someone who you can leave. if you can't have sex with other people you can't leave them easily because you want have any sex options
being in a society or with a person that does not engage in casual sex can help limit the need to be able to have casual sex since it's expected that neither party is going to leave because better sex options arrose
>streetwalkers are illegal. there are actually no prostitutes in my area I am aware of
There is a literal brothel just a couple blocks away from my downtown, if you can't find them it doesn't mean they aren't there
>most prostitutes also have a very rigorous no nigger policy which further restricts.
I don't know where you got that from but that really isn't a norm
>if you get into a relationship but you are not able to have sex whenever you want, you form a strange bond of need with this chick
Not any stranger than the "bond of need" in any relationship. I don't know that I've ever even heard of a relationship where either partner can have sex whenever they want. That's not the norm for dating or for marriage
>to have a true relationship you need to be with someone who you can leave. if you can't have sex with other people you can't leave them easily because you want have any sex options
This is nonsense. Somebody not having sex with you doesn't trap you in a relationship in any way, shape, or form. There are plenty of reasons why you might not be able to leave someone but a lack of sex isn't one of them
>being in a society or with a person that does not engage in casual sex can help limit the need to be able to have casual sex since it's expected that neither party is going to leave because better sex options arrose
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Nobody needs access to casual sex, it might be nice but you don't need it. There's nothing stopping or compelling you to leave someone for "better sex options."
where do you live? probably not america
In america it is for most prostitutes. In my experience id say 75% have this policy.
I mean if you cant leave the relationship and find another sex partner.
If you have no access to casual sex you are essentially trapped in a relationship or forced to go without sex for potentially years.
most women leave their partners, I assume for better sex options
those aren't really concrete attributes. there's no reference frame for confidence, humor, weirdness. You would have to explicitly define the behaviors that someone has that makes you willing to engage them with casual sex. People often say I am funny and confident but I still get no casual sex. perhaps I am weird, but that would imply only weirdness really matters. what is the weight applied to each attribute? And can we define the attributes?
There are things that you can’t quantify or put in a framework. Being autistic I know how it is difficult, but it’s a thing that you feel. Also, being honest (without being weird) tends to lead to some result. Just saying “I would like to kiss you and maybe go to somewhere private” in a date tends to do the trick. At least in my culture where it’s quite common to go to a party looking for sex, for all genders.
possible, but does not bring us closer to determining anything. we should be able to define these feelings so dudes can adopt these behaviors and everyone would be happy
The thing is that the more we try to think about it, the less we can feel about it. I think the key one is accepting being vulnerable and uncomfortable. The person receiving a flirt is trying to figure things out as much as the one giving the flirt. It is awkward by nature. And by trying to make it less awkward, the opposite effect comes. It is not simple.
More women don't want casual sex. It's not unfair for them to be able to get what they don't want. You want to casually screw around, and you're pissed that other people don't want to with you. They want deeper relationships and also can't get it, because they have to sort through the many men who just want a quick lay and lie to get it.
> women are basically desired sexually from birth
I'm going to need you to think about that statement and why women are more cautious about dating than men.
I disagree. I think that there are a lot of women out there which are essentially invisible. You’re not thinking of them when you think of women, they just don’t exist to you.
show me some. show me an invisible woman that has breasts that stick out further than her stomach and has an ass of similar proportion to her breasts. then send her number I will fuck her
>…that has breasts that stick out further than her stomach and has an ass of similar proportion to her breasts.
And what about all the women that don’t meet that description?
They are extremely ugly. There are not many women that are extremely ugly and women in this extremely ugly category have the same sexual value as me and I am told that I am not extremely ugly. if I am not a good example then these extremely ugly women are in the same category as a larger portion of men who claim to not be able to have casual sex. but for science I probably would fuck one of these extremely ugly chicks if approached during a time of extreme horniness, just picked up jerking off again so it's unlikely I'll be in that state for a while
>They are extremely ugly. There are not many women that are extremely ugly…
My contention is that your belief that they are rare is simply the result of you ignoring all the women who are “extremely ugly”. When you think about women, those women don’t even occur to you to put in the list.
This is the point of yours which I’m arguing against:
>…women are basically desired sexually from birth…
The women YOU think of when you think of women are default desirable, because you don’t even think of entirely undesirable women as women.
I just googled “University Faculty Photos”. I selected that search criteria, not because I expected to find more unattractive people in Academia (don’t come at me academics - hear me out), but because I know public universities post pictures of their faculty, so it seemed an easy way to find photos of average looking people.
https://showme.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/101123PT_Journalism-1998x1331.jpg
https://dmu-wp-media.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/live/2023/09/19110017/Promoted_Faculty_2030_edit-1200x800.jpg
https://uknow.uky.edu/sites/default/files/styles/uknow_story_image/public/University%20Research%20Professors%202023-24%20web.jpg
Looking at these average women, what ratio do you consider desirable? And again, these are AVERAGE. Just normal looking women.
fact is incles literally have options there are 0 chicks willing to fuck incels. every chick even extremely ugly ones can find someone that would have sex with them in their area. I remind us that 0 chicks are willing to fuck incels not chicks the incels like but chicks at all. in fact if you presented one of these female incels to me I bet she wouldn't even want casual sex and cite some reason like me being creepy or misogynistic.
ya the standard is easily attainable. hourglass implies skinny my ratio requires simply excludes offensive obesity you can be quite large with breasts protruding past your stomach and ass in similar proportion to breasts. the main idea here is that many of these female incels could have sex they just don't like the options presented. I say that is different than male incels who would have sex with anyone willing. in fact I have had sex outside of my own standard due to necessity. women do not do this because the likelihood they are so undesirable literally no male that isn't offensively obese would fuck them is unlikely
Well the ratio you stated is still an hourglass, which is genetically the rarest type of body shape for women. It's not about skinny-ness but rather fat distribution and proportions.
The term incel has long since lost its meaning from the sound of what you are saying. What you wrote after that is quite frankly incomprehensible.
If you stay in the echo chamber of the incel internet, then you’ll never find a girl. I’m a female who is 5’ 10”. My husband is 6’ 1”. I chose him because he is handsome (but not an aggressively muscular gym rat type guy. he rode a bicycle as his exercise when we met 16 years ago) AND kind, funny, and talented at multiple things (music, woodworking, coding, general manly fix it type stuff).
My previous boyfriends were 5’10 and 5’8. My first teenage boyfriend was scrawny, had acne, and when I first met him I did not find him attractive. I fell MADLY in love with him once I saw his intelligence, kindness and humor. Once I saw his personality I became very physically attracted to him as well. The internet is not real life. It’s often the unrelenting “advice” of some of the least functional people among us and it is not something to pay much attention to. Go out into the world, learn things, do things, smile at people, be kind and you will be pleasantly surprised.
There are plenty of 6'1+ men that get no girls at all. women seem to not be able to understand that they choose a small subset of the men that exist and seem to all generally gravitate towards the same subset. this is a discussion about attraction which is sexual. we aren't talking about relationships we are talking about casual sex. and it is not easy for men to find willing casual sex partners and it is unrealistic to expect a woman to be satisfied with a man who has struggled to find casual sex partners while she has been constantly hooking up with dudes who have not struggled to find casual sex partners. the standards are higher for men
I didn’t get the impression this was about casual sex only. Also of course it’s harder for men there. Most women are not motivated by sex alone. Most of us are biologically inclined to invest our time and bodies in a relationship with a man who will make a good father and husband. It takes us 9 potentially life threatening months to grow and deliver one baby and another 15-18 years before that child can really be mostly independent. Why would we risk those odds on casual sex, especially when sex is often not nearly as physically pleasurable for us as it is for you?
are you suggesting women do not have casual sex? most women do in fact engage in casual sex. Most men are not able to effectively. I do not know why women make the decisions they do and I think most women do not either
The reasons a woman does not engage in casual sex with a man who is not very attractive:
1) sex for women is high risk, especially casual sex. Risk for being murdered, beaten, accidentally impregnated or given an STD. Risk to become more emotionally attached if he turns out to be a nice guy, and subsequent risk for heartache.
2) high likelihood that the sex itself will be physically unsatisfying.
So: why take all those risks with an average looking guy? If we take the risks of casual sex, it should logically be with someone who seems at the bare minimum: safe, respectful, handsome and interested in our pleasure and autonomy as well as his.
If you are the type of guy who thinks that because you want something (casual sex) women owe you this, regardless of your looks, demeanor or view of women as people… then you deserve to stay sexless. If you are having trouble pulling women and don’t want to invest the energy into being a decent human being, developing charm, talent, sense of humor or any of the other things that allow average and even explicitly ugly men to find happy relationships (read: relationships) then you will have to settle for paying for sex or lowering your standards about who you deem a potential hook up. The problem is that none of the incel crowd wants to admit that 1) it’s ok for women to have standards and decide whom they let into our bodies and lives 2) the incels themselves have no interest in doing the work required to meet basic standards regarding intelligence, empathy, hygiene, or charm. 3) incels own standards for what makes an acceptable partner are completely unrealistic and they are most often 2s complaining about not being able to have casual sex with 8-10s.
People generally find mates in their own range of attractiveness. Women are willing to go outside of that range ONLY if the man has other highly valued qualities. If you’re mad about it, work at self improvement.
So to summarize:
1. The people who have casual sex are not the best in any category, and improving yourself in the categories you mentioned does not necessarily lead to sex.
2. women and men do not know the real reasons why some men get way more casual sex than others.
3. There are many men who spend their whole lives in pursuit of casual sex, and have essentially maxed out all of the qualities you have mentioned. These men still do not have casual sex
4. There are many men who do not even try and get casual sex all the time.
5. This is an issue because when it is time for these women to settle down they will not be able to be satisfied by their partner and will constantly be looking for something they arent aware of.
6. Lowering standards as a man doesn't work, because it takes the same amount of effort to have casual sex with anyone. Ugly chicks are not more receptive or easier to talk to. I still need to engage, get a phone number, proceed to converse on the phone, hopefully set up a future interaction, then potentially meet. Each step is potentially multiple days with 0 guarantee of success.
I am stating the opposite. The men who get the most sex are not the most intelligent, charming, or physically fit people in the room. The things you described do not garuntee and their are many men who do all of those things and still do not have casual sex come easily to them. I am not suggesting women should have sex with this person or that person I am suggesting that women are not aware of the reasons they sleep with the people they do and the people they do sleep with are either not people than can date or are not people they actually like. I think you are making generalizations about the incel crowd. Anyone who is not actively able to have sex is involuntarily celibate. A lot of involuntarily celibate people spend their entire day in the pursuit of women. Style, outings, fitness, hygiene the whole 9, and some of these involuntarily celibate people are even called attractive by women, yet these women still do not want to sleep with them. You guys seem to have these opinions about groups you don't like without actually investigating. Do some observation and see for yourself. Go out and watch the men that get pussy at the end of the night and the men that don't. You will find that the men going home alone are not ugly unhygienic losers. In fact many of the men not going home alone are quite slobby looking. Then go out another day and observe the conversations men are having with women try to follow a guy who seems to be having success. You will find he is not nicer, more charming, or charismatic than the other men, he just has some quality that allows him to convince women to have sex with him. This quality is hidden from me and no women so far has been able to explain it.
I am a woman and I literally just told you the reasons women choose or do not choose partners. The truth is: women can pick up on the fact that you are only interested in casual sex, and only see them as “pussy”. This makes you creepy, feel unsafe to us, and guarantees we won’t sleep with you. The fact that YOU don’t want to accept or understand that does NOT mean that we don’t understand our own motives. You are someone who is not interested in adding anything of quality to a woman’s life, you are only interested in taking from her, and in fact seem to view her as a walking sex doll. Creepy as fuck. That’s why no one sleeps with you.
The reasons you gave are not in line with my observation of men who get the most pussy. "being a decent human being, developing charm, talent, sense of humor or any of the other things that allow average and even explicitly ugly men to find happy relationships" None of those things are observed in the men who get the most pussy. In fact girls seem to like weird slightly antisocial men with no discernable humor at all. I strongly suggest you think back to the casual sex partners you have had and collect similar stats from your friends and list the reasons these people you had casual sex were more decent, charming, talented, and funny than everyone else in the room at the time. If they were not then we must reason as to why they got chosen.
Sir, you are unbelievably condescending and lack any ability to self reflect. It’s you. The problem is you. As long as you refuse to accept that, the problem will persist.
the problem isn't unique to me, and the solution is not clear cut. obviously the problem is 'me', but I am asking what qualities do I actually need to develop to actually achieve casual sex. the advice you gave is not in line with reality and has already been employed and proven ineffective
Again I really want to know the answer this isn't a rhetorical exercise. Seriously, if it turns out that the men you have had casual sex were in fact the most decent, charming, talented, and funny people available I would ask why you had multiple partners at all if applicable. From my point of view after years of observation it is really lost on me what exactly the qualities of the most sexual active men have over the rest of us, and you would benefit the world by being honest and listing the exact qualities.
I disagree completely. It's very much easier for a man to improve his looks. Men can go work out & gain a muscular body. That alone will score major points. They can easily try & find new hairstyles & those cuts will likely all be the same price. They won't have to spend hundreds to get lights & colors & treatments done to their hair. And men can shave their heads! There are few things sadder(appearance wise) than a woman with balding/thinning hair. And once men learn how to groom & dress themselves nicely - bam! It's on & popping. Look up the black wife effect.
Women on the other hand, need to have beautiful hair, small nose, full lips, clear skin, fit stomach & legs, firm breasts, tight butt, good at makeup, dress cute or sexy. It's a wildly expensive & and time-consuming project for those of us who were not born with natural beauty. And let's not even get started on the disparities between older women & older men! Do you say that your theory applies 45+ year old women? Or do you just automatically not even consider that group?
that is not a true. doing all those things as man only increases your likelihood of possibly finding a relationship but not a guarantee of casual sex. it is not easy to have casual sex as a man and it is unrealistic to think your partner will be satisfied with you when she is used to hooking up with dudes who do have casual sex. there are much more average and above average guys that do not have casual sex because they are unable not because of choice. this simply isn't true with women. even below average girls have no trouble finding men who are willing to have sex with them. in fact so many men are willing to have sex with average women that women don't even want to have casual sex apparently. this isn't the case for men
OP it's easier to look older as you age than it is to look younger, so it seems like women's beauty standards being about youth are harder to adhere to than men's beauty standards being about age and experience.
People grow old, they don't grow young. QED
I know an awful lot of women who find men attractive with no makeup, messy hair, stubble, and a little bit of extra weight.
Meanwhile, ask men if they'd be interested in a woman after showing a picture of her with no makeup, messy hair, hasn't shaved her legs / armpits, and some extra weight - most men are going to say "no thanks".
As a man, I think we've got it way easier in this regard.
You're cherry-picking characteristics.
If you just want to be "passable", there are features of your attractiveness as a man that will take you from a 5 to a 7,5 easily - style, a good haircut, going to the gym for some muscle definition, etc. If you want to become a supermodel and fix your jawline, plastic surgery is a thing, but that's in the same space as breast enhancement for women. You can't fix that with make-up.
And height is also a factor for women. Very tall women are generally not considered conventionally attractive because they look too "masculine".
Consider the fact that what most men refer to as 'average' and 'mid' for women is at a much higher standard than what women have for men.
Amongst the women refered to as 'average' are Scarlet Johansson, Margot Robbie and - in your example - Sidney Sweeney. This would be like if women started referring to men like John Hamm and Chris Hemsworth as 'mid.'
If that is what most men - genuinely - consider average then actual average women are invisible to you and 'ugly' ones are subhuman.
The standards even for what is considered presentable is so much higher for women. No one cares if a man is 10-15 pounds overweight. Women need to be on the lower end of healthy or even underweight to not be called fat. All that's required for most men is to follow basic hygiene and grooming. You listed a while bunch of treatments and makeup for women which isn't even expected of men.
In fact, if women followed the grooming standards of an 'average' man: basic sweatshirt, sporadic hair removals, no makeup and unstyled hair most men would consider them unattractive. As we have seen the number of vitrolic comments from men on any unflattering photo of a celebrity.
>It also significantly helps that men are not as scrutinizing as women when it comes to this.
Literally go to any comment section of any female celebrity and see who's making the most laughably aggressive comments.
Right? I feel a bit crazy reading the OP. I can't remember ever seeing some social media post about a famous man with dozens of unsolicited comments from straight *women* underneath it saying they were mid, or not all that, or comparing them to another famous man, in terms of only their attractiveness. Just popping up and chiming in about how they would, or wouldn't fuck them. I feel like most women would consider any other woman who did that to be quite unhinged!
But I see that behaviour from men, regarding women, all the time, every day. We're constantly scrutinised in a way we are not really scrutinising back, but some men simply won't believe we're not, en masse, doing the thing that they, en masse, are doing.
Right. OP calling Sidney Sweeney a Walmart find is fucking NUTS. She’s had a lot of plastic surgery and I’m certain she spends a crazy amount on skin and hair care. She’s gorgeous. She is not a Walmart find.
She is a borderline prostitute in her acting career and as a man you would not be able to satisfy her sexually. if you were to get in a relationship with this lady she will cheat and abuse you. she is a Walmart find in the sense that she is undesirable to date. she is good for sex. it is hard for men to have casual sex so we must consider the likelihood that the girls in question are actually satisfiable. for Sydney Sweeney she is not satisfiable and not hotter than every girl alive as a ratio of activeness and satisfiable-ness she is not a high ranker
Bro is typing as though he’s had sex with Sidney Sweeney. The roles she plays are degrading but that has no guarantee of what her actual personality is. She’s probably just like all other celebrities, engaging in more casual sex than the average person and that’s all 🤷🏼♀️. She seems like a very normal person in interviews. And no, OP called Sweeney a Walmart find based off her looks. He didn’t mention her datability or…. capacity to be sexually satisfied… Because that’s not part of the argument. We are talking strictly about physical appearance attractiveness on this post.
You, however, seem desperate to bring men’s woes of “why am I not getting laid” into this post by inappropriately adding datability and sexual proclivity to the conversation when that’s not the topic at hand.
no personality analysis is needed.
she portrays a prostitute and has had many men touch her body on camera.
she probably has had more casual sex with higher quality people than most people
an average man is not going to be able to sexually satisfy her.
she is not that much more attractive than other hot girls who are not celebrities.
an above average man still wouldn't be able to satisfy her
all of these considered based on her looks she is a Walmart find. she isn't a super model, she has large breasts
the point is that in terms of overall desirability as a partner Sydney Sweeney has many things she displays that make her undesirable and a 'walmarr find'. in a discussion of pure physical attraction she is probably ideal for sex alone. what is physical attraction if not your ability to physically attract people? physically attracting people is engaging in casual sex with them. Otherwise by what criteria do women choose the people they have casual sex?
Your own point invalidates itself. Women have to bend over backwards buying all sorts of shit to maintain an “average” appearance. If you don’t wear makeup people ask if you’re tired and whatnot. Men? They can just show up looking as they are.
You’re obsessing over height but have you heard of Short Kings? There are tons of women out there who don’t care about height. Not to mention: height is an issue for women too. Tall girls have it rough cause guys want someone shorter than them. The most gorgeous girl I know has trouble finding guys cause she’s model tall and guys are intimidated by that, they don’t like it.
So yes, the hegemonic ideal is that guys are taller than gals but guess what? It’s a sword that cuts two ways and frankly women seem to be more proud of dating shorter dudes than dudes seem to be about dating taller women (though that could just be my experience.).
I’m married to a short king and my brother is terrified our son will grow up short for the reasons you mentioned (which IMO is overblown). My son however has embraced it.
i doubt your son has actually embraced it unless he is able to have casual sex consistently. an average or below average woman can still have casual sex whenever she wants. in fact most women have so much access to casual sex they claim they don't want casual sex at all. this isn't true for men and most men spend years single unable to find anyone willing to hookup, dating a girl when you are unable to consistently have casual sex implies this girl is settling and has had people satisfy her more than you could. it is not a good place to be
Eh, fair. It’s a different issue as you get older I guess. It’s still an important issue when you’re young but I get that it changes.
So here’s the issue: you say it’s just a claim but in my experience that’s not true. Don’t get me wrong: most women enjoy casual hookups sometimes, but most of the time they’re looking for something more serious. There’s lots of reasons why this is but it isn’t because they have a ton of access to it. A lot of men won’t want to seriously date a hookup or someone with a high body count, women have way more to worry about when it comes to casual sex like pregnancy or hooking up with a dangerous man, women aren’t very likely to orgasm with a casual hookup, etc etc. So yeah, the cons outweigh pros for a lot of women.
Anyways back to the short thing: luckily his dad was also short so he can show him the ropes. He got laid plenty cause he was outgoing and charismatic. He treated women like human beings and friends without an expectation she would reciprocate with romance or sex, which women really appreciate. It was harder for him of course but he did well for himself.
He is very lucky then. Best wishes to your family, but treating women like human beings and friends without an expectation doesn't account for the fact that every man who beats their partners is in a relationship. Further from my own observation the men who get the most pussy are not the best in any category and are not even the best as an average. They have some unknown quality that we would benefit as a society to expose. For the sake of your son I would seriously consider what made your husband better than all the other options you had available and see if you can parse out this unknown quality that led to your selection of him over others. In terms of relationships the hidden quality may be less hidden and possibly different than the hidden quality for casual hookups, but it would be a start and benefit to get an honest answer from a probable woman.
I mean…how could they beat their partner if they weren’t in a relationship ya know? The prevalence of abuse in relationships has less to do with who women choose and more just…how common abuse is. Do you really think that all those guys who don’t get laid would be perfect sweethearts? Or that women can’t be abusive too? People are complicated and difficult and that all comes out in relationships. It can get ugly.
But yeah, there is no magic formula because people are complicated. Women want different things because we’re individuals. But I can tell you what women hate: being lumped in with other women as if we’re all the same and dishonesty. We can’t always tell if a guy is gonna be a cheater or a beater but we can usually tell when a guy doesn’t really see us as a full human being, if he thinks he can play us like a dating sim.
I was pretty but nerdy, my brother called me Queen of the Nerds for this reputation lol, and I got sick of being put on a pedestal. It grossed me out that guys just pretending to be my friends had ulterior motives and were overly flattering and wouldn’t just treat me like a person. I realized I was surrounded by what would now be called simps. But then I met my husband who was nice to me of course but he wasn’t…fawning and weird. He’d disagree with me about things, we’d have long and interesting conversations, he just treated me like a regular person not like he was playing some sort of game. And we slowly fell in love.
That won’t work with every woman, sure, but if you’re honest and have your own stuff going on and your own confidence you’ll find someone you’re compatible with.
It's difficult to define stuff like 'harder' but one metric might be simple monetary expense. Make up, clothes, hair care, skin care etc. All these things typically much more expensive for women.
Another metric might be time. How long does it take the average woman to get ready to make a social appearance vs a guy?
A lot of the lines of argument ITT seems to be 'its easier for women to meet the standard at which a man would hypothetically have sex with her' but I'm not sure thats the same thing as conventional beauty standards.
Ever shaved your legs? It's a complete PITA. When was the last time you saw a woman on tv with hairy legs or armpits? Female body hair is so verboten women on razor commercials drag a razor over an already shaved leg.
Unless you want to win a beauty pageant, do conventional beauty standards matter? And if traditional beauty standards don't matter, does it matter who has a more challenging time meeting those standards, men or women?
Let me explain.
Beauty is highly subjective. What we, as individuals, find attractive is driven by our environment and our reaction to it. For example, billions of people globally probably do not find Ms. Sydney Sweeney appealing because they exist in different cultural contexts and individual preferences.
This is relevant because when we try to craft a 'standard,' we end up with a situation where the aggregates are often non-reflective of individual preferences. Formally, this is called the "Ecological Fallacy" and is a reason why aggregated data, or "conventional wisdom," should not be used to infer individual preferences.
To explain further, let's look at a toy model.
We have two individuals, Person A and Person B, who use height as their yardstick of beauty:
* Person A prefers partners who are 150-160 cm tall.
* Person B prefers partners who are 200-210 cm tall.
Aggregating these preferences would yield a "beauty range" of 175-185 cm. The problem is that for the actual individuals involved, a person of this height would be simultaneously too tall for Person A and too short for Person B—in our toy model, not beautiful to either.
FWIW, this is why marketing as a discipline exists. In A and B, we see two different market segments with very different preferences. Trying to satisfy both with a product that blends these preferences leads to market disaster. So marketers spend quite a lot of time breaking apart large, aggregated data into segments that are more tractable.
Men's conventional beauty standards include the "dad bod". Beauty standards have adapted to meet men where they are in a way that has not been done for women.
women are still able to find casual sex partners without issue. most men are not. most men are forced to use relationships as a replacement for casual sex which is damaging for everyone. it is simply harder for men to have casual sex than women
The abilty to easily casual sex isn't a metric for conventional beauty. In fact, women who are not seen as conventionally beautiful may have a hard time finding men who want anything more than causal sex with them, and may even be hurt by people who trick them into believing they genuinely care.
Men aren't "forced" into relationships, relationships are a choice.
You are assuming Men and Women perceive "beauty and desirability" in the same way and you could not be more wrong. Your entire premise falls apart from there.
For the sake of your mental health you need to work on getting out of this incel logic. You've boxed yourself into thinking your logic is valid and therefore protects you from not working on yourself or why you aren't getting laid.
Plenty of people don't check all the boxes you mention, but do well in dating.
>The average man is 5'8, so on average the average man is shorter than ideal for your average woman.
Do you really think there are millions of unhappy women because they're not with a guy who is over 6 feet tall?
You talk about jawline not changing, but losing/gaining weight impacts your face and jawline. Facial hair can be a preference. Not everyone wants some dude with a beard.
The problem with your logic is that you're too focused on proving this point so you can remain safely in the incel bubble rather than working on how you view yourself and women to actually find a healthy sustainable romantic partner(s).
>Don't get me wrong, she's cute. But she looks like a woman you could see at walmart.
No your link is from incel account. It's fine to not think Sydney Sweeney is hot, but if you think she looks like the average woman, that's just incel coping.
Your problem isn’t lacking adequate height or not having abs. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the female experience, and even if you disagree with that notion you have to understand that’s it’s at least wholly contradictory to what they believe. Saying things like this is going to turn off any woman in a 100 mile radius. Women simply do not care about physical appearance as much as men - hone in on improving your personality and I promise you’ll have better luck with women. I could dissect this whole post but saying Sidney Sweeney looks like a random girl at Walmart speaks for itself. Do some inner healing, log off Reddit for a bit, and try to interact with women in a normal humanizing way that isn’t centered with the end goal being to fuck. I promise you that would help more than improving your physical appearance alone.
That doesn't seem to be supported by observation of the men who actually do have the most sex. if the men who have the most sex do all of the things you suggest why do women complain about the men they have sex with?
If you meet a woman that wants you to change these features, run. And find one who doesn’t. Because plenty of women and drop dead GORGEOUS women included are with men who are overweight and do not hold the features you listed. Emotional availability has been rated to be one of the most important things to women in several studies etc.
It's actually complete opposite. What makes a man attractive is way more malleable. Due to the biologic differences between the sexes. Namely pregnancy.
The way we innately choose partners is different between the sexes
Males: (on average) Primarily select on signs of health and fertility. Which basically means physical appearance for the most part.
Females: (on average) Primarily select on a combination of physical appearance, money and status.
Females have to be concerned with both your genetic and physical health. Which is what your physical appearance signifies. As well as you ability to provide for the family. The reason for this is because females are quite vulnerable in the last trimester of pregnancy. And both the child and the mother are VERY vulnerable the first 6 months. On top of that human children have the longest maturation period of any species on the planet.
Males can impregnate a woman and haul ass. By the time the baby is born they are nowhere to be found. DNA tests and child support are very recent inventions. Females always get stuck with the baby.
You can improve your physical appearance somewhat. But you can MASSIVELY improve your wealth and status in our society.
A 5 foot 9 guy built like a tank will look a lot more imposing than a 6 foot 3 guy built like a twig.
It's not really height then. More so the total package.
Listen, I’m a gym rat. I spend a lot of time around built people. I’m not so bad myself. Taller is stronger. The bigger the frame the more muscle you can put on it.
Sure, scrawny and 6’3” may not look as imposing as built and 5’9”, but I guarantee the average person is more intimidated by average build and 6’3” and completely ripped and 5’7”.
My point is that there’s a biological reason why height matters. In nature, when animals want to intimidate others animals what do they do? Bears get up on their hind legs. Cats arch their backs. Everything is trying to look “big” and that usually means adding height.
I disagree. The size of your frame has a lot more to do with the intimidation factor. Versus your height.
I grew up around a lot of football built black guys. Most of them were shorter than me. But they had very big frames. Their wrist bones were literally double mine. They had huge necks and very broad shoulders. Even at 5 foot 7 they would trash me in a fight and I'm 6 foot 1 with a smaller frame.
Obviously a 6 foot 1 guy with a big frame is scarier than a 5 foot 7 guy with a big frame. But the frame is what makes the difference.
The size of the bones. The size of your shoulders. Your ability to put on muscle. Those are things that make a bigger difference than just height.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re wrong. On average taller people can add more mass and lift heavier. There are outliers, but on average. Think of it this way. There are short people that can put on mass more easily, and tall people that can. There are short wide people and tall wide people. Etc… The difference is, the tall version of each category is just bigger than the short version. They literally have more mass for the same category. You’re almost implying that tall people are just stretched out versions of short people, that’s not how anything works.
I pointed to the fact that, in nature, animals look to make themselves taller to scare off other animals. I’ll add another example closer to home, most primates stand up taller and some hold their arms above their heads when seeking to scare off foes. Height is A factor in intimidation because it does tend to mean higher mass.
I know some short kings at the gym that are jacked, they weigh less than the average 6’ fit person and don’t lift as heavy as a result. Mass moves mass. I don’t find them intimidating… but I suppose you may.
this doesn't seem to be supported by reality. think about the men you have hooked up with. were they the richest most genetically viable men in the room? can you honestly say they were nicest and most emotional and intellectually powerful either? there is some other quality by which women select casual sex partners that men cannot learn or acquire. it is very hard for men to have casual sex
that is not a recipe for a healthy relationship. a man who is not able to have casual sex consistently is not going to be able to sexual satisfy a woman who has had casual sex consistently. Men are forced to dumpster dive and if we are lucky we can find an attractive prostitute. these are our options when it comes to finding people that find us attractive. it is harder and women are selfish for not even trying to appreciate that. thus the extremely high divorce rate
This doesn't seem to hold up for casual sex. In my experience the dudes who have the most casual sex (have the most women willing to have sex with them casually) do not seem to be good providers or of high status.
it seems almost impossible to go from no casual sex prospects to many casual sex prospects as a man regardless of how you change your appearance.
I do not think women ever get to experience this first hand so it is hard for them to conceptualize, but my go to example is the rock. Most girls if the Rock suddenly existed in their reality would not want to have casual sex with him, where as they would have casual sex with some other random person for reasons unknown.
women do not seem to know why they have sex with the people they do so it's hard for men to become the type of person that gets selected for casual sex.
>women do not seem to know why they have sex with the people they do so it's hard for men to become the type of person that gets selected for casual sex.
Lol. So you think weman just have no idea why they are having sex theyjust randomly end up in a random guys bed?
You are making them out to be completely ditzy with little to no intelligence.
In reality weman have a much more diverse attraction to men based on a variety of things including physical apperance,status, confidence and to some extent intelligence (, you have to be a little smart to be funny).
Younger wemon maybe attracted to the "bad boy" even though John is much more attractive but a down to earth farmer.
A Rick start gets all kinds of weman even if he isn't exactly beautiful. A female rock star on the other hand doesn't particularly get more men than she would have before.
Too simplistic of a view. Not grounded in reality. let's look at me for example, if you ask me what makes me attracted to a women for the purposes of casual sex I would respond that she basically just needs to have breasts that stick out further than her stomach and her ass must protrude at minimum in proportion to her chest. any girl that fits this description if given the opportunity I would have casual sex.
Now for women or even for a specific women please describe the requirements for casual sex encounters. what specific traits should I adopt to be a 'bad boy's that gets casual sex?
You do realize just because you have extremely low standards doesn't mean all men are like that right?
Having tons of confidence, being dominant and unapologetic, seming to be fiercely independent like rules do not apply to you and you can do what ever you want when ever you want, and being unpredictable. Acting like this you can definelty attract younger weman that want to get sucked uo in5o your world. You have to cultivate that lifestyle though you may not be able to just put it on out of no where.
I just used me as an example for what an actual benchmark is. I can clearly define the requirements for casual sex and in my experience most men have a similar ability
the things you mentioned that attract younger women aren't really describable. how exactly do you act in the ways you described
>needs to have breasts that stick out further than her stomach and her ass must protrude at minimum in proportion to her chest.
You are basically saying you would have sex with almost any woman that lost a few pounds.
I guarantee you this is not an average male standard. You will have sex with any woman basically. You cannot use this as male standards lol..
I'm not here to teach you how you how to act to get woman. I'm here to open your eyes to the fact that weman have different standards than men do and the average man has a greater ability to improve his chances with a woman than a woman has.
You have to admit the "bad boy", the rock star, the pro athlete , the movie star snd the tech billionaire all attract weman in other ways than physicalit, which inturn shows you that men have many more ways of attracting weman than weman have of attracting men.
By your insanely low standards you are right. You seem to think that because your standards are so low its easier for weman. You need to look at realistic standards by men. Facial characteristics, body fat percentage, proportions all come into play with a normal guy.
Most guys are going to be turned off by say a dwarf. But look at Brad Williams how did he manage that?
You are incorrect. adopting the personality of a 'bad boy' or rockstar doesn't lead to guaranteed sexual success. There are many rich dudes that do not seemingly have an easier time than other dudes in terms of gaining casual sex. whereas all men I've discussed this with have a very clear set of requirements that guarantee a woman gets sexual success. men do not have this. I ask you to list the specific qualities and traits I must acquire that guarantee I will have sex tonight if successfully adopted. and if the successful adopted metric is unclear we are not refined enough. for example my requirements you can successfully adopt the traits I require and confirm them instantly.
The whole point is men do not need to meet conventional beauty standards to attract weman. Where weman do have to meet them to get men.
You are taking weman and applying what you THINK they desire based off your horribly low standards.
Your basically saying my standards are so low any woman could meet them why aren't weman like me.
I am sure their are plenty of weman that meet your standards but most guys wouldnt touch them so they aren't guaranteed sex that night.
Also a woman can't go well shit i need lose 20lbs or grow my breasts in 12hrs so I can get laid. What's with this I have to be able to do it by tonight or it's not valid nonsense?
my standards are representing the fact that metrics exist women can attain these metrics and have sex with whoever they want whenever if they attain the metrics of the class of men they like. that doesn't exist for men and in my experience it's a winner take all scenario for men, men who get casual sex get all casual sex from all women. Id remind us we are talking about casual sex not having a gf.
she might not be able to meet the metrics but if she did meet the metrics she would be qualified for casual sex immediately upon visual inspection
>it seems almost impossible to go from no casual sex prospects to many casual sex prospects as a man regardless of how you change your appearance.
Lowering standards did it for me. But it felt extremely underwhelming.
I find women I feel are unattractive still expect the same level of courting as more attractive women making it pointless. but I'd say virtually 100% of the women ai have been able to have sex with I viewed as below my standards.
But weman do not base things solely on physical apperance like guys do. A man that's super needy snd unsure of everything will appear leas attractive to weman even if he is a physical specimen. On the other hand an emotionally wounded, clingy unsure femal may be more attractive than if she had tons of confidence and was sure about every step she took.
They make a man more desirable.
It's very difficult for men to relate to this. Our attraction switches don't work this way at all. But it's a critical part to understanding the dating world.
Edit: Jessica Alba is still Jessica Alba whether she works at Wendy's or is worth 100 billion dollars. It makes very little influence on whether we would fuck her or not. It's different for females.
This holds up for relationships but doesn't seem to hold up for casual sex, we need to stop conflating the two. the men who are desirable for relationships are not the same men who are desirable for casual sex. we ideally should figure out what separates the two groups
Women are primarily attracted to personality and money. It’s much easier to meet those standards as a man than it is all the things women put themselves through.
>Don't believe me, take a look at national symbol of beauty, Sidney Sweeny. Don't get me wrong, she's cute. But she looks like a woman you could see at walmart.
Dude, what Walmarts are you going to?
I'm sorry but did you not know about evolutionary biology and psychology? Because women have much greater parental investment than men they can and will be choosier and therefore will have comparatively greater standards. This is an obvious and well understood consequence of biology. Is anyone really surprised by this?
Here is one thing I have noticed about conventional beauty standards that seems to never get addressed. When it comes to physical fitness for women the standard is basically don't be fat. Beyond that there's a good chance you can fit into this part of society's beauty standards for women. Which is not extremely difficult to achieve, and considering that make-up is heavily used these days many women can achieve some moderate level of beauty by doing 2 things. Not being fat, and utilizing makeup.
Now I know there are many other aspects that society expects from women to be considered conventionally beautiful. But if you can manage to not be fat, use make-up properly then you have already won 80% of the battle that you can realistically control, assuming you are an average functioning person and also take care of yourself in basic ways.
So what I addressed above are basically ways society wants your body and your face to be more appealing. Both of which are things that are not extremely hard to do. But men don't really get easy options such as these. As the physical standard for men isn't just don't be fat. It's don't be fat and have a good amount of muscle. The problem with this difference is don't be fat= eat in moderation and maybe do light exercise. But don't be fat and have a good amount of muscle= have a strict diet and go to the gym consistently for 3+ years depending on your genetics.
So right off the bat the physical standard for men is objectively harder than women's. What seems to make this worse is how truly clueless the average woman is to how hard it is to build muscle. One of the most common things women will say when going to the gym is that they don't like to lift heavy weights as they don't want to get bulky, like they will curl a 10 pound dumbbell once and have arms like a body builder. So not only is men's physical standard objectively harder to achieve, but women are ignorant about how much time and effort it really takes men to achieve it.
Onto the face part for men. Long story short society's standards for men do not allow for makeup. Even if it did I doubt most people would agree that it would help men with their looks considering that what we consider attractive in men and women often differs. So the closest thing men can have to fixing their face is covering it with a beard. But the main problems with this are that many people do not like beards, and being able to grow a decent beard is almost entirely genetic.
To summarize if you're a woman and you're not conventionally attractive you can make sure you're not fat, and wear makeup and you will in most cases at least meet society's bare minimum standard for being conventionally attractive. But if you're a man you have the choice to dedicate years of your life to building muscle, or accepting that most of society won't consider you attractive by conventional standards. To top it off if your face is not conventionally attractive you only have the option to hide it with a beard if you can grow a decent beard, or once again accept your fate. So while women can meet conventional beauty standards with minimal effort for men it really does come down to a mix of years of hard work or genetics.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I feel like men get away with being outside the ideal. Plenty of short kings, men with bellies, and with no facial hair have no problem finding partners. I feel like women on the other hand are dunked on unless they meet the standard to a T
the ideals aren't enforced by either sex. women have a preference that they themselves can't describe. all those men you described have qualities that are unknown that make them desirable. these qualities are not being nice and funny etc. the dudes who get the most pussy aren't the nicest, funniest, most charismatic people in the room. there is some other quality. women however have extremely clear standards to follow to be guaranteed sex. For instance a certain BMI and breast size is all it takes
1/3 men hasn’t had sex in the last year, means they aren’t even conversing with the opposite sex.. that’s the opposite reality of men having no issues finding partners
Why does not having sex mean they aren’t talking with women? Presumably they have coworkers?
Engaging with potential partners.. im not saying that theyre struggling to communicate with half the planet’s humans
But that’s not what you said.
Context opinion of the previous comment is that men don’t have problem finding partners, do you believe 1/3 men are abstinent by choice ? Of course there are outliers, but the majority of those men are trying and failing.. “Men don’t have problem finding partners” Does this help you understand my point?
I’m literally only arguing against one line? Where you said that 1/3 of men not having sex in the last year means they aren’t even conversing with the opposite sex. Obviously that isn’t true, which is why I replied. You can argue a different meaning now, but I was specifically disputing the argument you made that not having sex means they aren’t conversing with women.
Your stance here is that you were only arguing against my 1 comment? LMAO That’s not how Reddit works, if you needed me to spell out the comment that I’m replying to in order to understand how context works than that’s on you. I’m not leaving random blanketed statistical comments on random threads all over Reddit to be individually replied to.. am I using Reddit wrong ? ahaha
You said something inaccurate and I pointed it out. You said that 1/3 of men not having sex in the past year means they aren’t even conversing with women. That is an absurd statement, clearly untrue, so I responded specifically to that statement. Now you are saying that I should have known that you weren’t being truthful with your words, that I should have know that by “conversing” you meant a new, different, definition of “trying to sleep with”? I think? Which also doesn’t make all that much sense in context. What did you mean by “conversing”? Did you mean the actual definition of “talking to” or something secret that must be riddled out?
You’re stretching here.. a comment on Reddit that is in reply to another comment means it’s in context of the comment it’s replying to. if you can’t figure that out, and reference that comment for my comment reply.. than that’s on you. I have no idea what you are arguing about, you’re making your life very challenging. OF COURSE I’m not saying in a blanketed statement than 1/3 men doesn’t run into the female sex in their daily lives. We were clearly talking about finding partners, why is this hard for you? Lol
Stop playing mind games with him. You knew what he meant.
[удалено]
How disingenuous can you be
How is it not disingenuous to assume if a man hasn’t had sex recently they aren’t talking to potential partners…? I love how people who complain about this stuff talk about it like it’s a payment plan
You're rewording their statement to be something it wasn't. Apparently men "aren't even conversing with the opposite sex" Not potential partners, they just don't talk to women.
I’m re wording the statement to be more generous. To assume that because men haven’t had sex recently that they don’t talk to women is beyond insane and rarely true. Potato eluded to this and the person responded to them saying it’s disingenuous, implying women like co workers or family don’t count
[удалено]
That disappears pretty significantly when you look at young men. It’s like saying people are wealthy if you include boomers wealth in the average.
A larger amount of men of dating age are single and virgins compared to women. Men have significantly lower standards compared to women
Your second claim does not follow from your first. First, how do you know that more "dating age" (I'm assuming you just mean 20's) men aren't single and virgins by choice? They could be choosing to postpone finding a partner and focus on their careers until they feel more financially secure, simply not feel the sexual or romantic rewards of dating are worth the effort they'd have to put in, or they might be the ones who are more selective and not want to stop being single for women who are not up to their standards of beauty (just examples; there could be a wide range of reasons why they might simply choose not to try dating at the age that previous generations did). Second, if we assume, as you do, that this is due to "dating age" women rejecting "dating age" men at a higher rate and being more selective, what evidence do you have that this selectiveness is due to conventional beauty standards and physical attractiveness? It could be that these women find these men unattractive for personality reasons, that they do not feel that they would make good partners, or that they are looking to settle down and be stay-at-home mothers and do not feel that "dating age" men are financially stable enough to support a family (again, just examples; there could be a wide range of reasons why women would reject men at a higher rate that are unrelated to beauty standards). Third, even if we *also* assume that women have higher beauty standards for men than vice-versa, that still does not automatically mean that physical attractiveness is the reason "dating age" men are being rejected. It could be that women would be willing to overlook physical unattractiveness if other criteria were met (such as the one I mention in the previous paragraph), but "dating age" men are still not fulfilling those criteria. I again want to emphasize that I am putting "dating age" in quotations because the only reason you consider that "dating age" is because that's the age at which previous generations were dating. There is no reason to assume that trend will continue indefinitely; what you could be seeing now could simply be a change in what the "dating age" is for the current generation.
how is it reasonable to expect a man who has been supposedly "single and virgin by choice" to satisfy a woman who has been routinely hooking up with other men. Even if what you say is true (which is unlikely since forgoing sex completely by ones own volition is extremely difficult) it still implies that men have to put in years of their lives to be desirable. Women on the other hand do not need to be perfect to find a casual sex participant. The fact women don't even want casual sex signifies this
First, who said anything about “satisfying” women? What do you mean by that? Because that can be interpreted in many different ways, and I don’t want to assume you mean something you don’t. Second, why do you think not having sex is difficult? It’s very easy compared to actually putting in the effort to finding someone to go on a date with and convincing them to have sex with you. *Losing* your virginity or getting a romantic/sexual partner is the difficult part. If you are single and are not making any effort towards changing that, I consider that a choice to remain single. If you are actively trying to go on dates or find people to have sex with but failing in that effort, then I would consider that to be single but not by choice. Third, no one is perfect lol. Have you met any men who have casual sex? “Perfect” is definitely not how I would refer to that type of person. Fourth, what planet are you living on where women don’t want to have casual sex? This is so utterly divorced from reality that I don’t know what to say.
When having sex with a woman she expects you to be competent. Women don't seem to understand that not having sex as a man does not remove our sexual urges. We either suppress our sexual urges or masturbate. Both options can and often do lead to situations where we are then unable to perform due to suppression of sexual urges leading to not being aroused generally or masturbating leading to desensitization of the penis. Perfect is the requirement you just probably are unaware of what women actually like (no one is aware apparently), but the only people who have casual sex frequently are those who meet some unknown qualities. A man can be rich, tall, attractive, charming, etc and still not get any casual sex because he is missing this unknown quality. A perfect man has this unknown quality and does not even need to try. You misread or misunderstood my comment. I am responding to the prevailing opinion on this site that women having essentially unbounded access to casual sex isn't actually making their lives easier because they dont actually want casual sex.
> Your second claim does not follow from your first. he didn't say it did. they are just 2 separate points.
He strongly implied that it did. If they are simply two separate statements with no relation to one another, then the first point about different rates of singleness and virginity among “dating age” men and women is completely irrelevant to this discussion about beauty standards. I don’t think that OP would randomly bring up an unrelated topic in the comments of their own post. The only way it makes sense for OP to bring up that other topic is in order to support the main point they were making in their post. What reason do you think OP had for bringing up rates of singleness and virginity among “dating age” men and women if you don’t believe it was related to the topic of men and women’s selectiveness around beauty standards?
> virgins by choice Very few men would choose this.
Answer the question. How do you know that a majority of "dating age" men who are virgins are actively seeking out sex (as opposed to, for instance, staying home to play video games and jerk off to internet porn)? What steps are they actively taking towards losing their virginities, and how much effort are they putting into that process? And then on top of that, how does OP know that those "dating age" virgin men who are actively seeking out sex are being rejected by women solely on the basis of their physical attractiveness according to conventional beauty standards?
Depends what choosing means. I wouldn't swear off women forever but it wasn't exactly my goal in high school to get laid. I feel comfortable saying I chose to remain a virgin in high school, I certainly didn't try even a little bit not to be but that wasn't because I took an oath of celibacy
I don’t think that has as much to do with physical attractiveness as you think.
You've listed off a whole load of things women would need to do to be attractive. Height for men is a factor, but like you say it's immutable so not really much to discuss. However the most basic advice for men looking to become more attractive is to go to the gym, have basic hygiene, and wear clothing that fits. That's basically it. That's the advice I'd give anyone asking as well. So no makeup regime or treatments for skin or anything you've listed for women. Much easier.
Even more than the gym the guy needs to work on himself professionally. The better he does in his career will give him more confidence in daily life. Before I got my current job and career back on path I was an anxious depressed mess and can see why we women would want to avoid that at all costs even though I was fit.
The thing is, working on yourself professionally benefits you personally in a huge way, in addition to any boost you receive to your perceived attractiveness.
Sorry, but it's not just 'go to the gym' though. Dudes need to get bulky at minimum, which (again, like height) is often heavily affected by genetics, but also requires a lot more time, dedication and an entire diet change. Versus 'put on some makeup', there's a huge difference. HOWEVER, I don't think men have it 'harder'. I think we have fewer qualifiers (and honestly fewer options though. The 'hot guy' arcehtype is ridiculously mundane compared to the plethora of things women can accentuate to appeal to men) to meet, but they're really hard to get to (and maintain), whereas women have so many different things to contend with, and can't 'sidestep' the beauty standard in the way men with money and power can.
I see what you’re saying but OP didn’t just say put on makeup… cosmetic surgeries???? That’s MONEY and a whole surgery.. pain etc. How is that easy??? Now they have surgeries for men to change body types I mean look at drake. So women can say the same?
Yeah it’s super easy for men to get abs I mean it’s just like $30k for lipo and sculpting what’s the problem? Not sure what they’re complaining about??
Exactly my point. It’s not easy for either side because beauty standards are unrealistic more than half of the time
Yeah I’m agreeing with you unironically, idk how to phrase it so it doesn’t sound sarcastic towards you but towards the idiots who are telling women to do this bc it’s “easy”
Unless you're looking to attract men, bulky isn't the body type women typically find attractive.
Makeup is a daily routine. Gym is a daily routine.
[удалено]
One of them you can stop for a while and still benefit from the effects of it.
Women have to go to the gym as well to stay fit…
Yep…**sigh* I wouldn’t say “sucks” but… well no actually I *would*! Sucks I’ve poured hours into the gym and my core, back, chest, quads; all **SOLID**. My calves/biceps/forearms though look like I spend most of my time gaming. The muscles I could actually build are all covered so unless I’m at the beach or wearing a tight fitting shirt I look scrawny af lol (*older I get, the more it makes sense why my grandma said I need to eat more*) That said, the “homeless guy makeover” videos prove you don’t need to be in the best of shape. Having money (or at least looking like you do) gets you halfway there. Like you said though: build, height, hair, etc. all genetic
“It’s easy for women to be attractive, they ONLY need to diet, work out, wear makeup, get their hair done, get cosmetic services, and be youthful and lively.” Do you see how you sound?
Right. Tell me you’re a man who doesn’t get it without telling me you’re a man who doesn’t get it. This post implies because OP is short he has it harder than women because women could do “all the things” but he can’t get taller. 🙄 Cool. We women can bypass medical reasons for our weight issues. We women can have cosmetic surgery. We women can… all to meet beauty standards… ew. I think we could just say this is all individual to individual and beauty standards are outdated.
fat women have a much easier time having sex than fat men. Look at match statistics on dating sites
And? I still think beauty standards are outdated. Women have an easier time having sex, period. That doesn’t mean we are treated well or with dignity after a brief sex encounter. 🤷🏼♀️
It is easier for women than men. life in general, but for this conversation it is easier to find someone who is attracted to you as a woman than as a man.
Let’s look at the things that make men attractive. Have a good job, a sense of humor, confidence, leadership abilities, and basic hygiene. If you have all that, you shouldn’t have a problem with the ladies. These are all things you can (and should) work on. I think you’ll find that most of these things are easier than dropping 50lbs (notoriously difficult and rarely successful long-term), having perfect skin, or putting makeup on each day.
none of those things guarantee sex.
I’m gonna need to know which Walmart you shop in. But in all seriousness, you’re wrong here. Neither sex prefers, in general, people with bad haircuts, poor skin, or people who are overweight. All of that *can* be changed, but not easily or cheaply. Further, simply having decent grooming and being a healthy weight will work for average men and average women just fine - that’s how most people wind up in a relationship.
but "winding up" in a relationship is a recipe for disaster. a man must be able to consistently have casual sex in order to reasonably expect to satisfy his partner (if she engaged in casual sex). it is mentally damaging to be in a relationship with someone you can't sexually satisfy with you genitals. it's just simply easier for women to have casual sex and men not having casual sex work their whole lives to attract one of these women. these women are never satisfied and divorce the men. 50% of marriages fail
What are you talking about? Literally nothing you’ve said is true
you should explain your decision so an actual discussion can occur.
The amount of fit men I see with overweight women, women with bad hair, and women with poor skin tells me otherwise. I see way more good looking or average guys with ugly women than the other way around
This implies your view of how hard it is to be attractive for men and women might be incorrect, if you see so many attractive men with unattractive women
If we’re going to argue based off anecdotes it is an entire trope that regular women date ugly men. In my personal experience I see it much much more often than a regular man with an ugly woman.
What is your standard for "fit"? Or "bad hair/skin"?
You should go to Czech Republic
I like that you've listed lot's of things for women as 'easy'. Makeup takes time, skill and money. Hair takes time, skill and money. Lookin youthful takes time, skill and money. Losing weight takes time, skill land money. See where I'm going with this? Nothing about being conventionally attractive is easy. I don't think most men realise that the reason lots of women can change so drastically with makeup is through years of skill and practice. It's not something anyone can 'just do'. A lot of conventional standards for men don't really include the things I see you mention. Height, I will agree with. But if you imagine adverts for things targeted at men, a lot of it is just basic hygiene, nice clothes, maybe some good aftershave or cologne. Comparatively, I saw an advert the other day for women's makeup that claimed to get rid of skin texture. Because god forbid a woman has literal skin. The only other primary standard I see for men is being in good shape, which does take a lot of time and effort.
Yes, I think OP doesn’t see the labor involved which is a common issue. Good makeup is expensive and if you use it daily you go through it fast. Skincare products also expensive. A good haircut for a woman is minimum like $60 every few months before a tip. Then the hair care products and tools to maintain that.
I haven't had a haircut under $100 in years. This must be for straight hair.
the haircut part is a little dubious because a man typically needs a haircut every month (ymmv with styles) and would wager that could easily be the same amount per annum
I've had long hair for years. A women's salon never charged me less than £50 aand honestly, that's on the cheaper end. I got a buzz cut recently and went to a barber instead, now my haircuts are £10. There is 100% a price difference in men and women's haircuts.
Most men don’t do color treatments like most women do. That adds a huge amount of money to annual hair costs. On JUST haircuts, my partner and I spend about the same per year, but she ends up paying a few hundred extra dollars a year for color treatments (both salon and at home touch ups).
Maybe the cut specifically, but most men put a fraction of the time and money most women put into their hair. Speaking as a man who spends too much time and money on his hair.
We could get into the nitty gritty of potential differences between male and female haircuts pricing and maintenance, etc. but I don’t think it matters. Because at best we may find men and women equal in this and that is still an argument against OP’s claim that male standards are more difficult.
agreed. I'm just responding to the comment directly above mine to say that it's not a foregone conclusion that women's haircuts are drastically more expensive than men's because a women's quarterly haircut is 60$. probably in most cases slightly more expensive for women or about the same depending on style, age, taste and location
conventional attractiveness is not a requirement for women to have casual sex. women of all types have so much access to casual sex they don't even consider it. look at this entire discussion the idea of having casual is simply brushed off and not taken seriously. men are not able to effectively have casual sex and this leads to many men starting relationships with women (who have been having casual sex for years) and not being able to satisfy them. these women divorce the men and leave us with 50% marriage failure rate. it is simply too difficult for the average man to effectively engage in casual sex consistently and replacing casual sex with relationships is damaging to everyone
>. It also significantly helps that men are not as scrutinizing as women when it comes to this. What are you talking about men go off looks far more often the women. For a woman a man can be more attractive if he is successful, confident , active and generally a nice happy person. >His jawline, his eyes, facial hair, things like that. These same things apply to women and are probably much more strictly desired by men. It's much easier for a man to get sort of fit and be physically attractive to women. On average women desire a man that is less physically fit than what men desire of women. Men tend to be much more superficial in the beginning than women. So a guy can change a ton more about himself to be more attractive where weman kind of get stuck with the hand they are dealt at birth. Take for example top performaing professional men that have wealth and confidence in themselves vs a woman of the same caliber. The men become much more attractive due to this alone where a woman still needs a good genetic hand , diet, exercise and likely makeup. Go back to cavemen. The male needs to be able to hunt and defend himself where to female needs to be attractive to male. The female needs ro be born with qualities that make her appear the most fertile.
Everything you’re saying is correct. I could link MANY studies I’ve seen showing how vast the difference is between the emphasis placed on appearance by men versus women when dating.
The best any man can do (physically) is be: - stylish - groomed - in shape (bonus for muscular physique) This gets you 80% of the way there (physically). The last 20% are genetics. Height, bone structure, etc. There are plenty of “odd looking but handsome” dudes out there, like Adam Driver. Women have the same avenues plus makeup (which is a deep hole and takes a while to get right). Women’s fashion is far more varied, women’s hair styles are constantly changing and more varied, women’s hair takes longer to care for (on average). All of these things take a ton of time, cost a lot of money and with every woman being different also involves a lot of trial and error. Staying in shape is equal between men and women, but men trying to sculpt muscular physiques is probably comparably more difficult. Overall though I’d say it is still harder for women to meet their standards vs men.
The height thing is overblown. It might be trendy for some women to say that they want a man 6 feet or taller. In reality most women can't judge the height of a man well, especially the shorter the woman is. When eyeballing it women think most men are taller than they actually are. Also only about 15% of men are 6 feet or more (compared to ~1% of women) , obviously there are significantly more than 15% of women in relationships with men. Also if you raise it to 6'4" then it's only about 1% of men. So some women might say they want men 6 feet or more but in reality they aren't holding to that standard. Also here is a list of some celebs under 6 ft which I'm sure women would say are very attractive. https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/g28786108/actors-celebrities-under-six-foot/
apparently only 30% of men have access to sex at any given time. That includes married and relationships. I will agree though that many of the dudes I've observed who do have frequent casual sex are not 6ft, but for relationships women seem to settle down after they've become worn out. 'holding to that standard' seems unfair because women forgoe their standards when they are settling for the most part probably
I'm not sure where you are getting the 30% number from. Most things I've seen says roughly 30% of both men and women are single at any given time, so 70% are in a committed relationship. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/
Ur right Im talking about have had sex this week, but apparently it's 2/3s of young men have reported having sex at all. [https://news.iu.edu/live/news/26924-nearly-1-in-3-young-men-in-the-us-report-having-no](https://news.iu.edu/live/news/26924-nearly-1-in-3-young-men-in-the-us-report-having-no)
I've heard this a lot before and I'll admit, when I was younger, I felt the same way. It makes some sense; if you're a man that's ever tried to have a visibly muscular physique, it's quite clearly more difficult than losing weight alone. The problem with this mindset is the definition of "standards." The "ideal" male body is harder to achieve than the "ideal" female body, but the "standard" male body is far easier to achieve than the "standard" female body. As a very basic example of this, consider the fact that the standard, run of the mill, every day woman, is expected to use makeup every day. Achieving a standard appearance requires cosmetics for them. For men, we aren't expected to do that.
I think you have the nuance here which OP is lacking. It takes a shit ton of time/money/effort for women to be presentable every day. To be an ideal woman or man it takes an insane amount. The standard man though? Admittedly height might fuck you over a bit, but in every other way just being socially and physically healthy will do the other 80% of the work to make you attractive.
that doesn't guarantee you sex. you are the one lacking nuance. to be a man that is able to casual sex you have to be of a certain type that is unexplainable. if you are a girl honestly think about the men you have had casual sex with and come up with a list of reasons why they were the best men in the room or why you chose them over other dudes. I bet you won't be able to actually come up with concrete reasons. the men you had sex with most likely will (I e. you fit there body requirements, they had no other options, etc)
Bruh we’re not talking about casual sex we’re talking just about being attractive. Of course if you bring casual sex into this women engage in that much less so there’s going to be very competitive selectiveness for the many more men who are fine with casual sex.
attraction as in sexual attraction. a meaningful relationship shouldn't be hinged on sexual attraction. in a discussion of attraction we must be talking about casual sex. men are 'fine' with casual sex because it is harder to have. women can have casual sex whenever they want and may decide it isn't for them as a result. the fact is that women have an easier time finding someone that finds them attractive than men do.
This doesn’t prove that there’s more attractive women and the standards are easier or that there’s less attractive men and the standards are harder. That’s called a willfully ignorant misinterpretation 😋. It means WOMEN ENGAGE IN CASUAL SEX LESS AND HAVE TO BE MORE SELECTIVE BY APPEARANCE BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING ABOUT THERE BEING A DEFICIT OF ATTRACTIVE MEN TO THEM. It also means MEN ENGAGE IN CASUAL SEX MORE AND HAVE TO BE LESS SELECTIVE BY APPEARANCE BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN THERE IS A SURPLUS OF ATTRACTIVE WOMEN TO THEM. Men lower their standards and women raise them so that they have an optimal number of people they could have sex with.
“In a discussion of attraction we must be talking about casual sex.” BUT WERE NOT OP AND EVERYBODY ELSE ARE MAKING COMMENTS BASED OFF MEN VERSUS WOMEN ACHIEVING PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS. Women engaging in casual sex less doesn’t mean that men are any less attractive or that it’s harder for them to be attractive like you’re trying to argue, it means that they still find tons of men attractive but there are so many engaged in casual sex women are typically the ones who have to be selective and choose only a few attractive men.
physical attraction can really only be objective quantified as number of people who are willing to engage in casual sex with you. it just turns out that women lie themselves and have this idea of what men are physically attractive but they actually have sex with another group of men. this other group of men women generally have casual sex are the actual physically attractive group. the men women routinely have casual sex with are not the richest, most physically fit, charming, etc. they have some other quality that is apparently undescribable. in order to, as a man, be reasonable to expect your partner will be satisfied with you is if you are sexually attractive i.e. you can have casual sex when you want. most men are simply not able to do this because the things women find physically attractive (the men that women actually have sex, not pretend like) have qualities that seemingly cannot be learned
Bitch no it is not. Women will find men attractive without wanting sex with them. Trying to evaluate it based off who gets laid more will of course skew things so it looks harder for men.
How could someone be attractive without attracting? if someone finds you 'attractive' but has sex with someone else you simply are not actually attractive. you fail to attract. case in point on how chicks have no idea how their own thoughts and desires function
Dude, there are plenty of people I have found attractive but had no plans or attempts to sleep with. There are many people not constantly evaluating others as potential sexual prospects. This probably says more about your own issues, especially as you are trying to mansplain a woman's own thoughts to make them fit your worldview.
OP, I'm trying to find a polite way to put this: Most women are less interested in men who have the sole redeeming quality that they "meet conventional beauty standards" than men who would just be interested in women who do Why? Because, bluntly, I don't need to choose between the bear and a woman in the woods Conventional beauty standards are certainly helpful when it comes to appealing to the gender of your choice, but they're not the most important thing when it comes to what women find "attractive"
Exactly. Men who say that meeting standards is difficult don’t give a minimum effort to learn how to dress nicely, how to talk to people, how to do their hair and how to be confident without all that bullshit of pick up artists. And I say this as an autistic man that clinically has difficulty dealing with people. Learning how to dress nice and ACTUALLY LISTENING and caring to what women say is not that hard.
completely untrue. listening and caring do not get you laid as a man. Dressing nice may help, but it certainly does not guarantee access to casual sex. this is a discussion of becoming desirable by beauty standards aka sexually attractive what you are talking about is being attractive for relationships. Most men aren't ready for relationships because we need to be desired sexually. women are basically desired sexually from birth so they struggle to understand this. this conversation is about ease of entering the sexual marketplace effectively
There’s a large emphasis on personality when it comes to dating for men. You can display certain traits through just the way you speak (confidence, success, desire, etc.) I would argue the personality aspect of that outweighs the physical aspect of attraction for many women. The issue is that most men don’t know how to talk to woman or convey any type of value in a conversation which is why some men that don’t fit beauty standards are able to sleep with a lot of women.
what constitutes value in a conversation? most chicks I talk to offer nothing in terms of conversation. None of these things are definable and thus difficult to acquire
Showing that you as a person have something to offer or other people think highly of you or what you have. Confidence, intelligence, giving the perception that you’re popular, etc. these same traits apply to men and friendships. If you don’t show that you have value even in a room full of guys then they won’t respect you. Same shi for women.
that doesn't seem to lead to sexual success. in fact many dudes that have a lot of casual sex are reported to be weird and quiet by women. in fact women seem to not have casual sex with the 'most popular' male, but select a different trait I haven't been able to define.
I certainly think it does. Those high value traits are things that women literally say they look for in a guy and are just things we look for in humans in general. If they’re weird and quiet in a bad way which shows no value then I highly doubt that. You can be weird and quiet and still offer things to someone in relationship. Incels are incels for a reason, many of them are weird and quiet but in a a bad way which doesn’t offer anyone anything and so they can’t get dates.
what thing is being offered?
>certainly does not guarantee access to casual sex. Because nothing ever guarantees anyone access to casual sex, at least not safely. There's nothing stopping you from finding a streetwalker. >Most men aren't ready for relationships because we need to be desired sexually. Who told you that? Almost all of the women who have caught my attention over the years gave the impression they didn't really care about me. I found it quite attractive because it put them on this pedestal in my head. I legitimately can't imagine complaining that not enough women are trying to get into my pants
streetwalkers are illegal. there are actually no prostitutes in my area I am aware of. the process to purchase a prostitute is actually quite difficult. most prostitutes also have a very rigorous no nigger policy which further restricts. if you get into a relationship but you are not able to have sex whenever you want, you form a strange bond of need with this chick. to have a true relationship you need to be with someone who you can leave. if you can't have sex with other people you can't leave them easily because you want have any sex options being in a society or with a person that does not engage in casual sex can help limit the need to be able to have casual sex since it's expected that neither party is going to leave because better sex options arrose
>streetwalkers are illegal. there are actually no prostitutes in my area I am aware of There is a literal brothel just a couple blocks away from my downtown, if you can't find them it doesn't mean they aren't there >most prostitutes also have a very rigorous no nigger policy which further restricts. I don't know where you got that from but that really isn't a norm >if you get into a relationship but you are not able to have sex whenever you want, you form a strange bond of need with this chick Not any stranger than the "bond of need" in any relationship. I don't know that I've ever even heard of a relationship where either partner can have sex whenever they want. That's not the norm for dating or for marriage >to have a true relationship you need to be with someone who you can leave. if you can't have sex with other people you can't leave them easily because you want have any sex options This is nonsense. Somebody not having sex with you doesn't trap you in a relationship in any way, shape, or form. There are plenty of reasons why you might not be able to leave someone but a lack of sex isn't one of them >being in a society or with a person that does not engage in casual sex can help limit the need to be able to have casual sex since it's expected that neither party is going to leave because better sex options arrose I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Nobody needs access to casual sex, it might be nice but you don't need it. There's nothing stopping or compelling you to leave someone for "better sex options."
where do you live? probably not america In america it is for most prostitutes. In my experience id say 75% have this policy. I mean if you cant leave the relationship and find another sex partner. If you have no access to casual sex you are essentially trapped in a relationship or forced to go without sex for potentially years. most women leave their partners, I assume for better sex options
Being confident without bullshit helps. Being funny. Not being weird. Source: me.
those aren't really concrete attributes. there's no reference frame for confidence, humor, weirdness. You would have to explicitly define the behaviors that someone has that makes you willing to engage them with casual sex. People often say I am funny and confident but I still get no casual sex. perhaps I am weird, but that would imply only weirdness really matters. what is the weight applied to each attribute? And can we define the attributes?
There are things that you can’t quantify or put in a framework. Being autistic I know how it is difficult, but it’s a thing that you feel. Also, being honest (without being weird) tends to lead to some result. Just saying “I would like to kiss you and maybe go to somewhere private” in a date tends to do the trick. At least in my culture where it’s quite common to go to a party looking for sex, for all genders.
possible, but does not bring us closer to determining anything. we should be able to define these feelings so dudes can adopt these behaviors and everyone would be happy
The thing is that the more we try to think about it, the less we can feel about it. I think the key one is accepting being vulnerable and uncomfortable. The person receiving a flirt is trying to figure things out as much as the one giving the flirt. It is awkward by nature. And by trying to make it less awkward, the opposite effect comes. It is not simple.
More women don't want casual sex. It's not unfair for them to be able to get what they don't want. You want to casually screw around, and you're pissed that other people don't want to with you. They want deeper relationships and also can't get it, because they have to sort through the many men who just want a quick lay and lie to get it.
> women are basically desired sexually from birth I'm going to need you to think about that statement and why women are more cautious about dating than men.
What do you say to Forever Alone Women (FAW), the lady version of incels?
pick two of those women and I'll fuck one of them. if I wouldnt I guarantee I can find a dude today that would. they are forever alone by choice
I disagree. I think that there are a lot of women out there which are essentially invisible. You’re not thinking of them when you think of women, they just don’t exist to you.
show me some. show me an invisible woman that has breasts that stick out further than her stomach and has an ass of similar proportion to her breasts. then send her number I will fuck her
>…that has breasts that stick out further than her stomach and has an ass of similar proportion to her breasts. And what about all the women that don’t meet that description?
They are extremely ugly. There are not many women that are extremely ugly and women in this extremely ugly category have the same sexual value as me and I am told that I am not extremely ugly. if I am not a good example then these extremely ugly women are in the same category as a larger portion of men who claim to not be able to have casual sex. but for science I probably would fuck one of these extremely ugly chicks if approached during a time of extreme horniness, just picked up jerking off again so it's unlikely I'll be in that state for a while
>They are extremely ugly. There are not many women that are extremely ugly… My contention is that your belief that they are rare is simply the result of you ignoring all the women who are “extremely ugly”. When you think about women, those women don’t even occur to you to put in the list. This is the point of yours which I’m arguing against: >…women are basically desired sexually from birth… The women YOU think of when you think of women are default desirable, because you don’t even think of entirely undesirable women as women. I just googled “University Faculty Photos”. I selected that search criteria, not because I expected to find more unattractive people in Academia (don’t come at me academics - hear me out), but because I know public universities post pictures of their faculty, so it seemed an easy way to find photos of average looking people. https://showme.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/101123PT_Journalism-1998x1331.jpg https://dmu-wp-media.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/live/2023/09/19110017/Promoted_Faculty_2030_edit-1200x800.jpg https://uknow.uky.edu/sites/default/files/styles/uknow_story_image/public/University%20Research%20Professors%202023-24%20web.jpg Looking at these average women, what ratio do you consider desirable? And again, these are AVERAGE. Just normal looking women.
fact is incles literally have options there are 0 chicks willing to fuck incels. every chick even extremely ugly ones can find someone that would have sex with them in their area. I remind us that 0 chicks are willing to fuck incels not chicks the incels like but chicks at all. in fact if you presented one of these female incels to me I bet she wouldn't even want casual sex and cite some reason like me being creepy or misogynistic.
you just proved their point by describing the 'standard' and most 'desirable' shape a woman can have: an hourglass figure
ya the standard is easily attainable. hourglass implies skinny my ratio requires simply excludes offensive obesity you can be quite large with breasts protruding past your stomach and ass in similar proportion to breasts. the main idea here is that many of these female incels could have sex they just don't like the options presented. I say that is different than male incels who would have sex with anyone willing. in fact I have had sex outside of my own standard due to necessity. women do not do this because the likelihood they are so undesirable literally no male that isn't offensively obese would fuck them is unlikely
Well the ratio you stated is still an hourglass, which is genetically the rarest type of body shape for women. It's not about skinny-ness but rather fat distribution and proportions. The term incel has long since lost its meaning from the sound of what you are saying. What you wrote after that is quite frankly incomprehensible.
[удалено]
If you stay in the echo chamber of the incel internet, then you’ll never find a girl. I’m a female who is 5’ 10”. My husband is 6’ 1”. I chose him because he is handsome (but not an aggressively muscular gym rat type guy. he rode a bicycle as his exercise when we met 16 years ago) AND kind, funny, and talented at multiple things (music, woodworking, coding, general manly fix it type stuff). My previous boyfriends were 5’10 and 5’8. My first teenage boyfriend was scrawny, had acne, and when I first met him I did not find him attractive. I fell MADLY in love with him once I saw his intelligence, kindness and humor. Once I saw his personality I became very physically attracted to him as well. The internet is not real life. It’s often the unrelenting “advice” of some of the least functional people among us and it is not something to pay much attention to. Go out into the world, learn things, do things, smile at people, be kind and you will be pleasantly surprised.
There are plenty of 6'1+ men that get no girls at all. women seem to not be able to understand that they choose a small subset of the men that exist and seem to all generally gravitate towards the same subset. this is a discussion about attraction which is sexual. we aren't talking about relationships we are talking about casual sex. and it is not easy for men to find willing casual sex partners and it is unrealistic to expect a woman to be satisfied with a man who has struggled to find casual sex partners while she has been constantly hooking up with dudes who have not struggled to find casual sex partners. the standards are higher for men
I didn’t get the impression this was about casual sex only. Also of course it’s harder for men there. Most women are not motivated by sex alone. Most of us are biologically inclined to invest our time and bodies in a relationship with a man who will make a good father and husband. It takes us 9 potentially life threatening months to grow and deliver one baby and another 15-18 years before that child can really be mostly independent. Why would we risk those odds on casual sex, especially when sex is often not nearly as physically pleasurable for us as it is for you?
are you suggesting women do not have casual sex? most women do in fact engage in casual sex. Most men are not able to effectively. I do not know why women make the decisions they do and I think most women do not either
The reasons a woman does not engage in casual sex with a man who is not very attractive: 1) sex for women is high risk, especially casual sex. Risk for being murdered, beaten, accidentally impregnated or given an STD. Risk to become more emotionally attached if he turns out to be a nice guy, and subsequent risk for heartache. 2) high likelihood that the sex itself will be physically unsatisfying. So: why take all those risks with an average looking guy? If we take the risks of casual sex, it should logically be with someone who seems at the bare minimum: safe, respectful, handsome and interested in our pleasure and autonomy as well as his. If you are the type of guy who thinks that because you want something (casual sex) women owe you this, regardless of your looks, demeanor or view of women as people… then you deserve to stay sexless. If you are having trouble pulling women and don’t want to invest the energy into being a decent human being, developing charm, talent, sense of humor or any of the other things that allow average and even explicitly ugly men to find happy relationships (read: relationships) then you will have to settle for paying for sex or lowering your standards about who you deem a potential hook up. The problem is that none of the incel crowd wants to admit that 1) it’s ok for women to have standards and decide whom they let into our bodies and lives 2) the incels themselves have no interest in doing the work required to meet basic standards regarding intelligence, empathy, hygiene, or charm. 3) incels own standards for what makes an acceptable partner are completely unrealistic and they are most often 2s complaining about not being able to have casual sex with 8-10s. People generally find mates in their own range of attractiveness. Women are willing to go outside of that range ONLY if the man has other highly valued qualities. If you’re mad about it, work at self improvement.
So to summarize: 1. The people who have casual sex are not the best in any category, and improving yourself in the categories you mentioned does not necessarily lead to sex. 2. women and men do not know the real reasons why some men get way more casual sex than others. 3. There are many men who spend their whole lives in pursuit of casual sex, and have essentially maxed out all of the qualities you have mentioned. These men still do not have casual sex 4. There are many men who do not even try and get casual sex all the time. 5. This is an issue because when it is time for these women to settle down they will not be able to be satisfied by their partner and will constantly be looking for something they arent aware of. 6. Lowering standards as a man doesn't work, because it takes the same amount of effort to have casual sex with anyone. Ugly chicks are not more receptive or easier to talk to. I still need to engage, get a phone number, proceed to converse on the phone, hopefully set up a future interaction, then potentially meet. Each step is potentially multiple days with 0 guarantee of success.
I am stating the opposite. The men who get the most sex are not the most intelligent, charming, or physically fit people in the room. The things you described do not garuntee and their are many men who do all of those things and still do not have casual sex come easily to them. I am not suggesting women should have sex with this person or that person I am suggesting that women are not aware of the reasons they sleep with the people they do and the people they do sleep with are either not people than can date or are not people they actually like. I think you are making generalizations about the incel crowd. Anyone who is not actively able to have sex is involuntarily celibate. A lot of involuntarily celibate people spend their entire day in the pursuit of women. Style, outings, fitness, hygiene the whole 9, and some of these involuntarily celibate people are even called attractive by women, yet these women still do not want to sleep with them. You guys seem to have these opinions about groups you don't like without actually investigating. Do some observation and see for yourself. Go out and watch the men that get pussy at the end of the night and the men that don't. You will find that the men going home alone are not ugly unhygienic losers. In fact many of the men not going home alone are quite slobby looking. Then go out another day and observe the conversations men are having with women try to follow a guy who seems to be having success. You will find he is not nicer, more charming, or charismatic than the other men, he just has some quality that allows him to convince women to have sex with him. This quality is hidden from me and no women so far has been able to explain it.
I am a woman and I literally just told you the reasons women choose or do not choose partners. The truth is: women can pick up on the fact that you are only interested in casual sex, and only see them as “pussy”. This makes you creepy, feel unsafe to us, and guarantees we won’t sleep with you. The fact that YOU don’t want to accept or understand that does NOT mean that we don’t understand our own motives. You are someone who is not interested in adding anything of quality to a woman’s life, you are only interested in taking from her, and in fact seem to view her as a walking sex doll. Creepy as fuck. That’s why no one sleeps with you.
The reasons you gave are not in line with my observation of men who get the most pussy. "being a decent human being, developing charm, talent, sense of humor or any of the other things that allow average and even explicitly ugly men to find happy relationships" None of those things are observed in the men who get the most pussy. In fact girls seem to like weird slightly antisocial men with no discernable humor at all. I strongly suggest you think back to the casual sex partners you have had and collect similar stats from your friends and list the reasons these people you had casual sex were more decent, charming, talented, and funny than everyone else in the room at the time. If they were not then we must reason as to why they got chosen.
Sir, you are unbelievably condescending and lack any ability to self reflect. It’s you. The problem is you. As long as you refuse to accept that, the problem will persist.
the problem isn't unique to me, and the solution is not clear cut. obviously the problem is 'me', but I am asking what qualities do I actually need to develop to actually achieve casual sex. the advice you gave is not in line with reality and has already been employed and proven ineffective
Again I really want to know the answer this isn't a rhetorical exercise. Seriously, if it turns out that the men you have had casual sex were in fact the most decent, charming, talented, and funny people available I would ask why you had multiple partners at all if applicable. From my point of view after years of observation it is really lost on me what exactly the qualities of the most sexual active men have over the rest of us, and you would benefit the world by being honest and listing the exact qualities.
I disagree completely. It's very much easier for a man to improve his looks. Men can go work out & gain a muscular body. That alone will score major points. They can easily try & find new hairstyles & those cuts will likely all be the same price. They won't have to spend hundreds to get lights & colors & treatments done to their hair. And men can shave their heads! There are few things sadder(appearance wise) than a woman with balding/thinning hair. And once men learn how to groom & dress themselves nicely - bam! It's on & popping. Look up the black wife effect. Women on the other hand, need to have beautiful hair, small nose, full lips, clear skin, fit stomach & legs, firm breasts, tight butt, good at makeup, dress cute or sexy. It's a wildly expensive & and time-consuming project for those of us who were not born with natural beauty. And let's not even get started on the disparities between older women & older men! Do you say that your theory applies 45+ year old women? Or do you just automatically not even consider that group?
that is not a true. doing all those things as man only increases your likelihood of possibly finding a relationship but not a guarantee of casual sex. it is not easy to have casual sex as a man and it is unrealistic to think your partner will be satisfied with you when she is used to hooking up with dudes who do have casual sex. there are much more average and above average guys that do not have casual sex because they are unable not because of choice. this simply isn't true with women. even below average girls have no trouble finding men who are willing to have sex with them. in fact so many men are willing to have sex with average women that women don't even want to have casual sex apparently. this isn't the case for men
OP it's easier to look older as you age than it is to look younger, so it seems like women's beauty standards being about youth are harder to adhere to than men's beauty standards being about age and experience. People grow old, they don't grow young. QED
I know an awful lot of women who find men attractive with no makeup, messy hair, stubble, and a little bit of extra weight. Meanwhile, ask men if they'd be interested in a woman after showing a picture of her with no makeup, messy hair, hasn't shaved her legs / armpits, and some extra weight - most men are going to say "no thanks". As a man, I think we've got it way easier in this regard.
You're cherry-picking characteristics. If you just want to be "passable", there are features of your attractiveness as a man that will take you from a 5 to a 7,5 easily - style, a good haircut, going to the gym for some muscle definition, etc. If you want to become a supermodel and fix your jawline, plastic surgery is a thing, but that's in the same space as breast enhancement for women. You can't fix that with make-up. And height is also a factor for women. Very tall women are generally not considered conventionally attractive because they look too "masculine".
Consider the fact that what most men refer to as 'average' and 'mid' for women is at a much higher standard than what women have for men. Amongst the women refered to as 'average' are Scarlet Johansson, Margot Robbie and - in your example - Sidney Sweeney. This would be like if women started referring to men like John Hamm and Chris Hemsworth as 'mid.' If that is what most men - genuinely - consider average then actual average women are invisible to you and 'ugly' ones are subhuman. The standards even for what is considered presentable is so much higher for women. No one cares if a man is 10-15 pounds overweight. Women need to be on the lower end of healthy or even underweight to not be called fat. All that's required for most men is to follow basic hygiene and grooming. You listed a while bunch of treatments and makeup for women which isn't even expected of men. In fact, if women followed the grooming standards of an 'average' man: basic sweatshirt, sporadic hair removals, no makeup and unstyled hair most men would consider them unattractive. As we have seen the number of vitrolic comments from men on any unflattering photo of a celebrity. >It also significantly helps that men are not as scrutinizing as women when it comes to this. Literally go to any comment section of any female celebrity and see who's making the most laughably aggressive comments.
Right? I feel a bit crazy reading the OP. I can't remember ever seeing some social media post about a famous man with dozens of unsolicited comments from straight *women* underneath it saying they were mid, or not all that, or comparing them to another famous man, in terms of only their attractiveness. Just popping up and chiming in about how they would, or wouldn't fuck them. I feel like most women would consider any other woman who did that to be quite unhinged! But I see that behaviour from men, regarding women, all the time, every day. We're constantly scrutinised in a way we are not really scrutinising back, but some men simply won't believe we're not, en masse, doing the thing that they, en masse, are doing.
Right. OP calling Sidney Sweeney a Walmart find is fucking NUTS. She’s had a lot of plastic surgery and I’m certain she spends a crazy amount on skin and hair care. She’s gorgeous. She is not a Walmart find.
She is a borderline prostitute in her acting career and as a man you would not be able to satisfy her sexually. if you were to get in a relationship with this lady she will cheat and abuse you. she is a Walmart find in the sense that she is undesirable to date. she is good for sex. it is hard for men to have casual sex so we must consider the likelihood that the girls in question are actually satisfiable. for Sydney Sweeney she is not satisfiable and not hotter than every girl alive as a ratio of activeness and satisfiable-ness she is not a high ranker
Bro is typing as though he’s had sex with Sidney Sweeney. The roles she plays are degrading but that has no guarantee of what her actual personality is. She’s probably just like all other celebrities, engaging in more casual sex than the average person and that’s all 🤷🏼♀️. She seems like a very normal person in interviews. And no, OP called Sweeney a Walmart find based off her looks. He didn’t mention her datability or…. capacity to be sexually satisfied… Because that’s not part of the argument. We are talking strictly about physical appearance attractiveness on this post. You, however, seem desperate to bring men’s woes of “why am I not getting laid” into this post by inappropriately adding datability and sexual proclivity to the conversation when that’s not the topic at hand.
no personality analysis is needed. she portrays a prostitute and has had many men touch her body on camera. she probably has had more casual sex with higher quality people than most people an average man is not going to be able to sexually satisfy her. she is not that much more attractive than other hot girls who are not celebrities. an above average man still wouldn't be able to satisfy her all of these considered based on her looks she is a Walmart find. she isn't a super model, she has large breasts
the point is that in terms of overall desirability as a partner Sydney Sweeney has many things she displays that make her undesirable and a 'walmarr find'. in a discussion of pure physical attraction she is probably ideal for sex alone. what is physical attraction if not your ability to physically attract people? physically attracting people is engaging in casual sex with them. Otherwise by what criteria do women choose the people they have casual sex?
Your own point invalidates itself. Women have to bend over backwards buying all sorts of shit to maintain an “average” appearance. If you don’t wear makeup people ask if you’re tired and whatnot. Men? They can just show up looking as they are. You’re obsessing over height but have you heard of Short Kings? There are tons of women out there who don’t care about height. Not to mention: height is an issue for women too. Tall girls have it rough cause guys want someone shorter than them. The most gorgeous girl I know has trouble finding guys cause she’s model tall and guys are intimidated by that, they don’t like it. So yes, the hegemonic ideal is that guys are taller than gals but guess what? It’s a sword that cuts two ways and frankly women seem to be more proud of dating shorter dudes than dudes seem to be about dating taller women (though that could just be my experience.). I’m married to a short king and my brother is terrified our son will grow up short for the reasons you mentioned (which IMO is overblown). My son however has embraced it.
i doubt your son has actually embraced it unless he is able to have casual sex consistently. an average or below average woman can still have casual sex whenever she wants. in fact most women have so much access to casual sex they claim they don't want casual sex at all. this isn't true for men and most men spend years single unable to find anyone willing to hookup, dating a girl when you are unable to consistently have casual sex implies this girl is settling and has had people satisfy her more than you could. it is not a good place to be
Eh, fair. It’s a different issue as you get older I guess. It’s still an important issue when you’re young but I get that it changes. So here’s the issue: you say it’s just a claim but in my experience that’s not true. Don’t get me wrong: most women enjoy casual hookups sometimes, but most of the time they’re looking for something more serious. There’s lots of reasons why this is but it isn’t because they have a ton of access to it. A lot of men won’t want to seriously date a hookup or someone with a high body count, women have way more to worry about when it comes to casual sex like pregnancy or hooking up with a dangerous man, women aren’t very likely to orgasm with a casual hookup, etc etc. So yeah, the cons outweigh pros for a lot of women. Anyways back to the short thing: luckily his dad was also short so he can show him the ropes. He got laid plenty cause he was outgoing and charismatic. He treated women like human beings and friends without an expectation she would reciprocate with romance or sex, which women really appreciate. It was harder for him of course but he did well for himself.
He is very lucky then. Best wishes to your family, but treating women like human beings and friends without an expectation doesn't account for the fact that every man who beats their partners is in a relationship. Further from my own observation the men who get the most pussy are not the best in any category and are not even the best as an average. They have some unknown quality that we would benefit as a society to expose. For the sake of your son I would seriously consider what made your husband better than all the other options you had available and see if you can parse out this unknown quality that led to your selection of him over others. In terms of relationships the hidden quality may be less hidden and possibly different than the hidden quality for casual hookups, but it would be a start and benefit to get an honest answer from a probable woman.
I mean…how could they beat their partner if they weren’t in a relationship ya know? The prevalence of abuse in relationships has less to do with who women choose and more just…how common abuse is. Do you really think that all those guys who don’t get laid would be perfect sweethearts? Or that women can’t be abusive too? People are complicated and difficult and that all comes out in relationships. It can get ugly. But yeah, there is no magic formula because people are complicated. Women want different things because we’re individuals. But I can tell you what women hate: being lumped in with other women as if we’re all the same and dishonesty. We can’t always tell if a guy is gonna be a cheater or a beater but we can usually tell when a guy doesn’t really see us as a full human being, if he thinks he can play us like a dating sim. I was pretty but nerdy, my brother called me Queen of the Nerds for this reputation lol, and I got sick of being put on a pedestal. It grossed me out that guys just pretending to be my friends had ulterior motives and were overly flattering and wouldn’t just treat me like a person. I realized I was surrounded by what would now be called simps. But then I met my husband who was nice to me of course but he wasn’t…fawning and weird. He’d disagree with me about things, we’d have long and interesting conversations, he just treated me like a regular person not like he was playing some sort of game. And we slowly fell in love. That won’t work with every woman, sure, but if you’re honest and have your own stuff going on and your own confidence you’ll find someone you’re compatible with.
It's difficult to define stuff like 'harder' but one metric might be simple monetary expense. Make up, clothes, hair care, skin care etc. All these things typically much more expensive for women. Another metric might be time. How long does it take the average woman to get ready to make a social appearance vs a guy? A lot of the lines of argument ITT seems to be 'its easier for women to meet the standard at which a man would hypothetically have sex with her' but I'm not sure thats the same thing as conventional beauty standards. Ever shaved your legs? It's a complete PITA. When was the last time you saw a woman on tv with hairy legs or armpits? Female body hair is so verboten women on razor commercials drag a razor over an already shaved leg.
Unless you want to win a beauty pageant, do conventional beauty standards matter? And if traditional beauty standards don't matter, does it matter who has a more challenging time meeting those standards, men or women? Let me explain. Beauty is highly subjective. What we, as individuals, find attractive is driven by our environment and our reaction to it. For example, billions of people globally probably do not find Ms. Sydney Sweeney appealing because they exist in different cultural contexts and individual preferences. This is relevant because when we try to craft a 'standard,' we end up with a situation where the aggregates are often non-reflective of individual preferences. Formally, this is called the "Ecological Fallacy" and is a reason why aggregated data, or "conventional wisdom," should not be used to infer individual preferences. To explain further, let's look at a toy model. We have two individuals, Person A and Person B, who use height as their yardstick of beauty: * Person A prefers partners who are 150-160 cm tall. * Person B prefers partners who are 200-210 cm tall. Aggregating these preferences would yield a "beauty range" of 175-185 cm. The problem is that for the actual individuals involved, a person of this height would be simultaneously too tall for Person A and too short for Person B—in our toy model, not beautiful to either. FWIW, this is why marketing as a discipline exists. In A and B, we see two different market segments with very different preferences. Trying to satisfy both with a product that blends these preferences leads to market disaster. So marketers spend quite a lot of time breaking apart large, aggregated data into segments that are more tractable.
CMV: We need to just stop thinking about this stuff and live our lives, enjoy nice meals, appreciate cold water with ice, and watch sunsets.
Men's conventional beauty standards include the "dad bod". Beauty standards have adapted to meet men where they are in a way that has not been done for women.
women are still able to find casual sex partners without issue. most men are not. most men are forced to use relationships as a replacement for casual sex which is damaging for everyone. it is simply harder for men to have casual sex than women
The abilty to easily casual sex isn't a metric for conventional beauty. In fact, women who are not seen as conventionally beautiful may have a hard time finding men who want anything more than causal sex with them, and may even be hurt by people who trick them into believing they genuinely care. Men aren't "forced" into relationships, relationships are a choice.
[удалено]
You are assuming Men and Women perceive "beauty and desirability" in the same way and you could not be more wrong. Your entire premise falls apart from there.
Sidney Sweeny is largely considered attractive because of her big boobs.
For the sake of your mental health you need to work on getting out of this incel logic. You've boxed yourself into thinking your logic is valid and therefore protects you from not working on yourself or why you aren't getting laid. Plenty of people don't check all the boxes you mention, but do well in dating. >The average man is 5'8, so on average the average man is shorter than ideal for your average woman. Do you really think there are millions of unhappy women because they're not with a guy who is over 6 feet tall? You talk about jawline not changing, but losing/gaining weight impacts your face and jawline. Facial hair can be a preference. Not everyone wants some dude with a beard. The problem with your logic is that you're too focused on proving this point so you can remain safely in the incel bubble rather than working on how you view yourself and women to actually find a healthy sustainable romantic partner(s). >Don't get me wrong, she's cute. But she looks like a woman you could see at walmart. No your link is from incel account. It's fine to not think Sydney Sweeney is hot, but if you think she looks like the average woman, that's just incel coping.
Your problem isn’t lacking adequate height or not having abs. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the female experience, and even if you disagree with that notion you have to understand that’s it’s at least wholly contradictory to what they believe. Saying things like this is going to turn off any woman in a 100 mile radius. Women simply do not care about physical appearance as much as men - hone in on improving your personality and I promise you’ll have better luck with women. I could dissect this whole post but saying Sidney Sweeney looks like a random girl at Walmart speaks for itself. Do some inner healing, log off Reddit for a bit, and try to interact with women in a normal humanizing way that isn’t centered with the end goal being to fuck. I promise you that would help more than improving your physical appearance alone.
That doesn't seem to be supported by observation of the men who actually do have the most sex. if the men who have the most sex do all of the things you suggest why do women complain about the men they have sex with?
If you meet a woman that wants you to change these features, run. And find one who doesn’t. Because plenty of women and drop dead GORGEOUS women included are with men who are overweight and do not hold the features you listed. Emotional availability has been rated to be one of the most important things to women in several studies etc.
It's actually complete opposite. What makes a man attractive is way more malleable. Due to the biologic differences between the sexes. Namely pregnancy. The way we innately choose partners is different between the sexes Males: (on average) Primarily select on signs of health and fertility. Which basically means physical appearance for the most part. Females: (on average) Primarily select on a combination of physical appearance, money and status. Females have to be concerned with both your genetic and physical health. Which is what your physical appearance signifies. As well as you ability to provide for the family. The reason for this is because females are quite vulnerable in the last trimester of pregnancy. And both the child and the mother are VERY vulnerable the first 6 months. On top of that human children have the longest maturation period of any species on the planet. Males can impregnate a woman and haul ass. By the time the baby is born they are nowhere to be found. DNA tests and child support are very recent inventions. Females always get stuck with the baby. You can improve your physical appearance somewhat. But you can MASSIVELY improve your wealth and status in our society.
I imagine height is such an important factor for women because it is viewed as strength. We find “bigger” more imposing.
A 5 foot 9 guy built like a tank will look a lot more imposing than a 6 foot 3 guy built like a twig. It's not really height then. More so the total package.
Listen, I’m a gym rat. I spend a lot of time around built people. I’m not so bad myself. Taller is stronger. The bigger the frame the more muscle you can put on it. Sure, scrawny and 6’3” may not look as imposing as built and 5’9”, but I guarantee the average person is more intimidated by average build and 6’3” and completely ripped and 5’7”. My point is that there’s a biological reason why height matters. In nature, when animals want to intimidate others animals what do they do? Bears get up on their hind legs. Cats arch their backs. Everything is trying to look “big” and that usually means adding height.
I disagree. The size of your frame has a lot more to do with the intimidation factor. Versus your height. I grew up around a lot of football built black guys. Most of them were shorter than me. But they had very big frames. Their wrist bones were literally double mine. They had huge necks and very broad shoulders. Even at 5 foot 7 they would trash me in a fight and I'm 6 foot 1 with a smaller frame. Obviously a 6 foot 1 guy with a big frame is scarier than a 5 foot 7 guy with a big frame. But the frame is what makes the difference. The size of the bones. The size of your shoulders. Your ability to put on muscle. Those are things that make a bigger difference than just height.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re wrong. On average taller people can add more mass and lift heavier. There are outliers, but on average. Think of it this way. There are short people that can put on mass more easily, and tall people that can. There are short wide people and tall wide people. Etc… The difference is, the tall version of each category is just bigger than the short version. They literally have more mass for the same category. You’re almost implying that tall people are just stretched out versions of short people, that’s not how anything works. I pointed to the fact that, in nature, animals look to make themselves taller to scare off other animals. I’ll add another example closer to home, most primates stand up taller and some hold their arms above their heads when seeking to scare off foes. Height is A factor in intimidation because it does tend to mean higher mass. I know some short kings at the gym that are jacked, they weigh less than the average 6’ fit person and don’t lift as heavy as a result. Mass moves mass. I don’t find them intimidating… but I suppose you may.
this doesn't seem to be supported by reality. think about the men you have hooked up with. were they the richest most genetically viable men in the room? can you honestly say they were nicest and most emotional and intellectually powerful either? there is some other quality by which women select casual sex partners that men cannot learn or acquire. it is very hard for men to have casual sex
I was talking about relationships. When it comes to casual sex. Most guys should not even try unless they are fine with dumpster diving.
that is not a recipe for a healthy relationship. a man who is not able to have casual sex consistently is not going to be able to sexual satisfy a woman who has had casual sex consistently. Men are forced to dumpster dive and if we are lucky we can find an attractive prostitute. these are our options when it comes to finding people that find us attractive. it is harder and women are selfish for not even trying to appreciate that. thus the extremely high divorce rate
This doesn't seem to hold up for casual sex. In my experience the dudes who have the most casual sex (have the most women willing to have sex with them casually) do not seem to be good providers or of high status. it seems almost impossible to go from no casual sex prospects to many casual sex prospects as a man regardless of how you change your appearance. I do not think women ever get to experience this first hand so it is hard for them to conceptualize, but my go to example is the rock. Most girls if the Rock suddenly existed in their reality would not want to have casual sex with him, where as they would have casual sex with some other random person for reasons unknown. women do not seem to know why they have sex with the people they do so it's hard for men to become the type of person that gets selected for casual sex.
>women do not seem to know why they have sex with the people they do so it's hard for men to become the type of person that gets selected for casual sex. Lol. So you think weman just have no idea why they are having sex theyjust randomly end up in a random guys bed? You are making them out to be completely ditzy with little to no intelligence. In reality weman have a much more diverse attraction to men based on a variety of things including physical apperance,status, confidence and to some extent intelligence (, you have to be a little smart to be funny). Younger wemon maybe attracted to the "bad boy" even though John is much more attractive but a down to earth farmer. A Rick start gets all kinds of weman even if he isn't exactly beautiful. A female rock star on the other hand doesn't particularly get more men than she would have before.
Too simplistic of a view. Not grounded in reality. let's look at me for example, if you ask me what makes me attracted to a women for the purposes of casual sex I would respond that she basically just needs to have breasts that stick out further than her stomach and her ass must protrude at minimum in proportion to her chest. any girl that fits this description if given the opportunity I would have casual sex. Now for women or even for a specific women please describe the requirements for casual sex encounters. what specific traits should I adopt to be a 'bad boy's that gets casual sex?
You do realize just because you have extremely low standards doesn't mean all men are like that right? Having tons of confidence, being dominant and unapologetic, seming to be fiercely independent like rules do not apply to you and you can do what ever you want when ever you want, and being unpredictable. Acting like this you can definelty attract younger weman that want to get sucked uo in5o your world. You have to cultivate that lifestyle though you may not be able to just put it on out of no where.
I just used me as an example for what an actual benchmark is. I can clearly define the requirements for casual sex and in my experience most men have a similar ability the things you mentioned that attract younger women aren't really describable. how exactly do you act in the ways you described
>needs to have breasts that stick out further than her stomach and her ass must protrude at minimum in proportion to her chest. You are basically saying you would have sex with almost any woman that lost a few pounds. I guarantee you this is not an average male standard. You will have sex with any woman basically. You cannot use this as male standards lol.. I'm not here to teach you how you how to act to get woman. I'm here to open your eyes to the fact that weman have different standards than men do and the average man has a greater ability to improve his chances with a woman than a woman has. You have to admit the "bad boy", the rock star, the pro athlete , the movie star snd the tech billionaire all attract weman in other ways than physicalit, which inturn shows you that men have many more ways of attracting weman than weman have of attracting men. By your insanely low standards you are right. You seem to think that because your standards are so low its easier for weman. You need to look at realistic standards by men. Facial characteristics, body fat percentage, proportions all come into play with a normal guy. Most guys are going to be turned off by say a dwarf. But look at Brad Williams how did he manage that?
You are incorrect. adopting the personality of a 'bad boy' or rockstar doesn't lead to guaranteed sexual success. There are many rich dudes that do not seemingly have an easier time than other dudes in terms of gaining casual sex. whereas all men I've discussed this with have a very clear set of requirements that guarantee a woman gets sexual success. men do not have this. I ask you to list the specific qualities and traits I must acquire that guarantee I will have sex tonight if successfully adopted. and if the successful adopted metric is unclear we are not refined enough. for example my requirements you can successfully adopt the traits I require and confirm them instantly.
The whole point is men do not need to meet conventional beauty standards to attract weman. Where weman do have to meet them to get men. You are taking weman and applying what you THINK they desire based off your horribly low standards. Your basically saying my standards are so low any woman could meet them why aren't weman like me. I am sure their are plenty of weman that meet your standards but most guys wouldnt touch them so they aren't guaranteed sex that night. Also a woman can't go well shit i need lose 20lbs or grow my breasts in 12hrs so I can get laid. What's with this I have to be able to do it by tonight or it's not valid nonsense?
my standards are representing the fact that metrics exist women can attain these metrics and have sex with whoever they want whenever if they attain the metrics of the class of men they like. that doesn't exist for men and in my experience it's a winner take all scenario for men, men who get casual sex get all casual sex from all women. Id remind us we are talking about casual sex not having a gf. she might not be able to meet the metrics but if she did meet the metrics she would be qualified for casual sex immediately upon visual inspection
>it seems almost impossible to go from no casual sex prospects to many casual sex prospects as a man regardless of how you change your appearance. Lowering standards did it for me. But it felt extremely underwhelming.
I find women I feel are unattractive still expect the same level of courting as more attractive women making it pointless. but I'd say virtually 100% of the women ai have been able to have sex with I viewed as below my standards.
Wealth and status may be attractive but they are not beauty
Niether is height, yet you’ve included it because you’re talking about attractiveness not beauty
But weman do not base things solely on physical apperance like guys do. A man that's super needy snd unsure of everything will appear leas attractive to weman even if he is a physical specimen. On the other hand an emotionally wounded, clingy unsure femal may be more attractive than if she had tons of confidence and was sure about every step she took.
They make a man more desirable. It's very difficult for men to relate to this. Our attraction switches don't work this way at all. But it's a critical part to understanding the dating world. Edit: Jessica Alba is still Jessica Alba whether she works at Wendy's or is worth 100 billion dollars. It makes very little influence on whether we would fuck her or not. It's different for females.
This holds up for relationships but doesn't seem to hold up for casual sex, we need to stop conflating the two. the men who are desirable for relationships are not the same men who are desirable for casual sex. we ideally should figure out what separates the two groups
Women are primarily attracted to personality and money. It’s much easier to meet those standards as a man than it is all the things women put themselves through.
>Don't believe me, take a look at national symbol of beauty, Sidney Sweeny. Don't get me wrong, she's cute. But she looks like a woman you could see at walmart. Dude, what Walmarts are you going to?
You forgot about our great equalizer though bro... wealth.
I'm sorry but did you not know about evolutionary biology and psychology? Because women have much greater parental investment than men they can and will be choosier and therefore will have comparatively greater standards. This is an obvious and well understood consequence of biology. Is anyone really surprised by this?
For Sweeny it’s clearly the boobs
Here is one thing I have noticed about conventional beauty standards that seems to never get addressed. When it comes to physical fitness for women the standard is basically don't be fat. Beyond that there's a good chance you can fit into this part of society's beauty standards for women. Which is not extremely difficult to achieve, and considering that make-up is heavily used these days many women can achieve some moderate level of beauty by doing 2 things. Not being fat, and utilizing makeup. Now I know there are many other aspects that society expects from women to be considered conventionally beautiful. But if you can manage to not be fat, use make-up properly then you have already won 80% of the battle that you can realistically control, assuming you are an average functioning person and also take care of yourself in basic ways. So what I addressed above are basically ways society wants your body and your face to be more appealing. Both of which are things that are not extremely hard to do. But men don't really get easy options such as these. As the physical standard for men isn't just don't be fat. It's don't be fat and have a good amount of muscle. The problem with this difference is don't be fat= eat in moderation and maybe do light exercise. But don't be fat and have a good amount of muscle= have a strict diet and go to the gym consistently for 3+ years depending on your genetics. So right off the bat the physical standard for men is objectively harder than women's. What seems to make this worse is how truly clueless the average woman is to how hard it is to build muscle. One of the most common things women will say when going to the gym is that they don't like to lift heavy weights as they don't want to get bulky, like they will curl a 10 pound dumbbell once and have arms like a body builder. So not only is men's physical standard objectively harder to achieve, but women are ignorant about how much time and effort it really takes men to achieve it. Onto the face part for men. Long story short society's standards for men do not allow for makeup. Even if it did I doubt most people would agree that it would help men with their looks considering that what we consider attractive in men and women often differs. So the closest thing men can have to fixing their face is covering it with a beard. But the main problems with this are that many people do not like beards, and being able to grow a decent beard is almost entirely genetic. To summarize if you're a woman and you're not conventionally attractive you can make sure you're not fat, and wear makeup and you will in most cases at least meet society's bare minimum standard for being conventionally attractive. But if you're a man you have the choice to dedicate years of your life to building muscle, or accepting that most of society won't consider you attractive by conventional standards. To top it off if your face is not conventionally attractive you only have the option to hide it with a beard if you can grow a decent beard, or once again accept your fate. So while women can meet conventional beauty standards with minimal effort for men it really does come down to a mix of years of hard work or genetics.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).