I apologize if that hit home. It was directed at him, not you.

oh please, peon. again, you take this place far too seriously and it's pathetic and sad

The point of the graph was showing that women have zero self awareness with rating their own value.

Black Xinsdkfh didn't contribute anything to the argument, because I've already admitted that women are hypergamous and seek higher earners.

Women self reported that 80% of men are below average. Its mathematically impossible and most of them are going to die alone as alcoholics because of it.

The women I date are 6-7's. I have no realistic shortage of options I just laugh at the joke that our current dating market it.

I didnt call you names, I tried to make a substantive argument and dispell your misconception that the women's unfulfillably high looks-standard is holding you back.

A guy doesnt necessarily have to look good, but he has to bring something to the table if he wants dating success. I'm sure you can come up with something. However, pervasive misogynism will definitely kill off any chances you might otherwise have had. No woman, not even the fat, ugly and stupid ones, will put up with your "single moms are the source of everything that's wrong with society"-tirades or the caustic attitude of "if you're not interested in me, you're pricing yourself too high".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 14 2021 09:08pm

Does this stat come come from a scientific paper showcasing the population of women in general or is the sample extracted from a dating app/website.

No, you're just making up shit even though you don't know anything about my life.

I'll give you one more chance before I ex you forever.

Answer one question. Is it mathematically possible for 80% of men to be below average?



Both. Cross referenced over several platforms.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on May 14 2021 09:11pm

You lied about the 10% stat a couple months back and now you lie about this. It's an OKCupid study and the subset of women there doesn't by and large represent women in general.

Who says that the middle of the scale used in that chart has to be defined, or interpreted, as "the average"? There is no intrinsic reason why the numbers of that scale should represent a relative positioning rather than values on an absolute scale.


It's like... look at sports. Gymnasts or figure skaters are rated by the judges on a scale from 1 to 10 and in almost every competition, the top athletes get 9s and 10s while even the worst participants gets 6s and 7s. Does this mean that sports judges have sloppy standards because they rate the entire competition as being "above average"? Or does this rather reflect the fact that everyone at the Olympics or the WCs will indeed be one heck of an athlete and far above the performance level of all the amateurs?

It's a similar situation with these women and how they rate the pics of men on these dating platforms: the low ratings they give out do not show them to overrate their own value, they indicate that these male profile pics are largely not able to spark their interest, at least not on their own. Which, again, is perfectly normal.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 14 2021 09:21pm

Men rated women in a perfect normal distribution.

I'm blocking you.

And why should we expect women to rate men the same way? It's scientifically proven (see my post last page) that men and women have different conceptions of attractiveness and how various components of it are weighted.
It's foolish to expect these different conceptions and priorities to not translate into qualitatively different ratings.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 14 2021 09:32pm