Tfw the Chad meme is real

>Women also don't place as much importance on looks

I'm interested in how you derived that conclusion from the charts above, they seem to suggest the opposite

imagine having an ebay for women. except everything is free. thats tinder for women. they all start with trying to meet the best possible guy available.
eventually they gave it up becuase the majority of those super hot guys dont treat them well and theyre often put no effort in (because they dont need to) or are weird. the majority of userbase is the annoying highschool slut anyway. theyre literally living fleshlights and dont good for anything else.
when i go out irl i either see equally attractive couple, or where the girl is hotter. guy is hotter is really rare for me to see

Read Models by Mark Manson

>Women are generally right. The average man looks below 5 on a 10 point scale.
You seem to be breathing evidence that the researcher was correct:

>"The two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren't good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.

Now cycle back and read through your post, classic

>The average man looks below 5 on a 10 point scale.

That would suggest your scale is off, you're basically saying the average male does not look average.

i think he meant that there are a lot more people below average than above
like height. average is like 5'10 but 6'0 is around top 20%

>i think he meant that there are a lot more people below average than above

Which is wrong, the median is often very close to the mean unless you data that is extremely skewed to one of both extremes.

This is the case for example in income, where a small portion of the population ears a shitton of money so it pulls the average up unrealistically.

It is certainly not true for looks, and also not for height.

If it would be true for height it would suggest that we have Giants walking around that pull up the average even though more people are below average as you suggest. I hope you see how retarded your reasoning is.

>This is the case for example in income, where a small portion of the population ears a shitton of money so it pulls the average up unrealistically.

I think this is kinda true for looks. We have all these movie stars, celebrities, models, instagram models, generally really good looking people who screw our expectations. You see good looking people on ads, on TV, on social media all the time. Average and ugly people tend to stay in the background or just be unnoticed. We are the generation of socia media filled insecurity

>that pull up the average even though more people are below average as you suggest.
there are a lot more manlets than lanklets.

>there are a lot more manlets than lanklets.

Human height is normally distributed.

>generally really good looking people who screw our expectations
So take a look at the charts
It doesn't seem to screw the expectations of males

>there are a lot more manlets than lanklets.

If you define manlet as below average, and lanklet as above average, no you are wrong. Since the median (most observed height)is close to the average.

If you set some arbritary standard of manlet is

...

>incel call others coping
oh im laffing. your entire identity is a coping mechanism

TBF if I go on my local dating app there are approximately 7000 guys, around 1000 are over 6 feet tall.
There are 600 women.

you type like underage, go back to leddot. Brainlets out

And your point is?

Human height is normally distributed. There is no question about it, really.

>me
>coping
I am happily rotting thank you very much

yeah, and in that case 5000 guys are at 5'10" +-2", and another 1000 below 5'8" tall. It's a normal distribution, or atleast close to one

The average height isn't the manlet cutoff.

guys lie about their height all the time. often its not even conscious, they just think they are taller

no. there a lot of people wasting and throwing their life away by being a neet, doing drugs, being addicted to things.
youre miserable and try to bring everyone else down

No you're right, we shouldn't label someone who's average as average, that would be a crazy thing to do

It is true but the claim that women have "convinced themselves" that better men are justified for them is bullshit.
This isn't some social conditioning shit.

This is literally just female instinct and nature, their standards are higher, and obviously it all comes down to reproduction.

Men can fuck women and walk away with little consequences, but in reverse a woman is stuck with a child for at least 9 months.

So their standards are obviously going to be higher, its a much bigger investment.

Why the fuck do people not get this? Just because we use phones and wear clothes doesn't mean we're not still instinct driven animals

I'm 6'1.5" barefoot but I put 6'2" in my profile.
>DEVILISH

>still no matches

so, you're taking the "manlet cutoff" that we on Veeky Forums defined as 6' to point out the harsh truth that women only go for the top 20% of men? Your arguments are shit laddo, you're trying to justify the harsh Chad truth on an objective scale when it's just women that set unrealistic standards

This is very much possible.
Example: {100, 1, 2, 3}. Most numbers are far from the average.

>The average height isn't the manlet cutoff.
that's right, the manlet cutoff is situated 4" above average

Right, now explain how this is relevant to looks

Then why is the myth perpetuated that women are held to higher standards than men?

Give a girl 10 guys to rate.

I'll give you good odds that 9 of them get ratings 2-4 and one guy will get 8-9. They see things in black and white, there are no shades of grey for them.

because 2/10 women want chad too

The majority of males are not made to procreate. Biology gave woman high standards for the survival of quality dna.

Which again implies that the scale they use is off.

Why would you give something an average rating that is above average and something that is average a below average rating?

Feminism, and the fact that there is heavy competition for Chad from other females.

i mean you can look at things objectively but in the end, women the ones who decide men attractiveness
i see a lot of uggos with hot gfs so i wouldnt worry much though

yep, men are where nature experiments, thus more retards and more geniuses, women is where nature plays it safe

>implying women can judge properly what is "quality dna" given our current civilizational progress

they're still stuck with archaic standards, hence they won't find someone with an e.g. 99th IQ attractive

Am I misunderstanding that second graph or is chad (most attractive (5)) recieving hardly any messages from females?

How would that make sense if women want a better looking partner?

>implying filling society with socially retarded 99th IQ people would be a good idea

Simple, it originates in the fact that women are valued more for their looks by men, than women value men for their looks.

Like others have mentioned, if women only liked 20% of men then most men would never get married, but most do, women ARE less shallow in terms of looks than men, they just want you to be rich and confident instead.

Whereas for women, men don't care much other than they look good and they're loyal.

Women are mainly valued for their looks while men are valued for their character.

the chart has nothing to do with messages, it represents which % of women/men get a rating from 1-5

Intelligence is just one factor.
They wouldn't find Chad attractive either if he was a drooling vegetable.

Judging a males position in the male hierarchy isn't hard. Just like his psysical attractiveness.

percentile*

and no, but throwing more into the gene pool to create more 120-130 fast-thinking people would be a benefit

blue line says "female -> male message distribution"

Look at the blue line as a proportion of the dotted line. The 4.5/10 gets six times as many messages as the 0/10.

This is where a lot of divorces and stuff happen though.
Women lower their standards for a 'comfortable relationship', but they will be aware of it and cheat fairly quickly.

Ofcourse not all women, but as a general norm.

yes. A 7/10 man marrying a 7/10 woman will likely end up in divorce because she will feel above his league after the initial honeymoon phase.

Exactly. She will feel over time she deserves better and crave for chad.

incel delusions

look at divorce statistics

you cant just pull out a number of your ass and use it as an argument.
time has changed, there is no world war and we are not in a post-war phase either. 30s is the new 20s, everybody is attending to college now, its harder to get your own flat, car, and financial ability to have a kid.
i see this "women marry at 30 for a betabux" all the time but people forget that you dont marry someone the day you met him. many times theyve been together for years before or were focusing on career or something else before.
statistics is for weak minded people to justify their own failures and stop seeing themselves and other people as induviduals

daily reminder that a woman can make up to 1 baby a year if she's lucky THEREFORE it is in her best interests to get the BEST POSSIBLE DNA for the kid i.e. 7+/10 males.

- A man can make 100, 200, 500, 1000 babies a year. Hell maybe even more if he can shoot 6x a day, who knows. The only thing he needs is a long line of willing women. THEREFORE it is in his best interests to impregnate as MUCH women as possible.

- If a woman is promiscuous, it means she is either bad at judging a man's worth/DNA or her reproductive system is messed up, therefore she is low worth. If she has a low partner count it means she is judging very selectively who gets to pump their DNA in her, therefore she has high worth.

- Conversely, if a man can't get any women, or only low quality warpigs w/effort, it means they have judged him and decided his DNA is trash, therefore he is low worth. If a man is fucking 300 women a year, it means that they have all decided that his DNA is top-shelf and want some, therefore he is high-worth.

-----
There you go, from this basic law, you can extrapolate the principles of female hypergamy/male polygamy, the 80/20 rule, Briffault's law, the much-loathed by feminists 'lock and key' analogy, the seemingly arbitrary rules of traditional marriage (hint: they're not arbitrary), female preselection, etc. Once you understand this shit, it ALL makes sense.

>evo psych
Whoops, you're retarded! If this was actually the case then men wouldn't care about attractive markers in females since we can fuck as much as we want anyways.

Also, why the fuck aren't these threads deleted?

Statistics show you the general norm within a group of people. That doesn't mean individuals cannot act differently from that norm, but when talking about that group in general, the numbers don't lie.

betacel delusions

Just observe if you recognize the patterns that are being outlined in these kinds of threads. If you dont, good on you. If you do, oh well, I guess its time for some introspection

statistics show trends. divorce statistics should make you go "maybe i shouldnt marry someone from a sudden rush and wait until i make sure we are both ready to settle down and are compatible with each other" not "80/20 BETABUX CHAD INCEL ROTTING LMAO LACHOWSKI FACE HEIGHT FRAME"

Your biology argument would only work if the 'trash quality DNA' herd would be culled by natural selection. Which, due to modern medicine, is not the case.
Even the literal killer genes find their ways back into the population due to our ability to keep people alive.

>THEREFORE it is in his best interests to impregnate as MUCH women as possible
>i have no actual scientific evidence for any of my hypotheses other than their own internal logic
which explains why men fuck everything that moves instead of preferring the most attractive women possible and tending towards monogamy, right? the sooner you incel dumbfucks realize that evo psych is a pseudo science the sooner you might have a chance of getting laid

theyre just obsessed with casual sex because they dont have it.
there is a reason why actors, millionaires and fashion models get married even though they could fuck multiple different people a week.
these guys put their entire self-worth into getting casual sex, the rest is just mental gymnastics

Honestly like, why the fuck do you guys care.

What are you going to do with this information? Hate women while also being upset they wont sleep with you?
Curse the world because you were born with a dick no one wants to suck?

Tbh that girl is pretty good looking without makeup too

>THEREFORE it is in his best interests to impregnate as MUCH women as possible.
Not really, considering both the child, the father and the mother benefit in terms of fitness from having the father around. I don't know why idiots continue to peddle this nonsense considering it's thoroughly debunked by millennia of monogamy/minor polygamy in literally every human society since the dawn of recorded history.

Far from an incel.
Do you think average guys wouldnt like to fuck top tier girls all day long? They fuck warpigs because they are the only ones who let them.

pic related, PSL photoshopped an actual pig's nose onto this already hideous excuse for a human being. Man lined up to fuck her. And not even the bottom of the barrel guys, some were even non-disfigured. Ugly men will fuck anything if they can keep it secret

>Whoops, you're retarded!
Nope
>If this was actually the case then men wouldn't care about attractive markers in females since we can fuck as much as we want anyways.
Wrong. While men in their youth desire to impregnate as many females as possible (the first strategy), in later life they desire to attempt the other strategy, to have less children but to raise them very well. For this reason we want a woman of good qualities in personality.

But more than that we're humans, complex social animals, so of course we want partners who we like personally as much as looks, the amount just differs between men and women

Christ it's so simply but you dummies think in the last few thousand years we've suddenly transcended beyond our basic instincts.

Hilarious how coping losers always flock to these threads telling how

...

>Do you think average guys wouldnt like to fuck top tier girls all day long?
They would, which disproves your hypothesis. If men were inclined to have as much sex as possible, they wouldn't have standards for whom to have sex with.

>While men in their youth desire to impregnate as many females as possible
Then why do they prefer beautiful women?

>in later life they desire to attempt the other strategy
Another baseless claim; if this type of behavior was genetically pre-determined it would take place after puberty and persist, not ebb and flow based on some arbitrary age you pulled out of your ass. You literally do not have any fucking idea what you are talking about.

much bullshit this all is. Just like the guys who constantly run around telling people how little of a fuck they give about how they are perceived by others
Chances are, they care an awful lot. Just like confidence crew who never tires of spouting their inane nonsense in these threads. If you are so confident about this whole farce, why do you waste your time in these threads?
Its to protect your frail little ego from the harsh reality you deep down know is the truth
Humans are superficial, get that into your brain. Its not the only determining factor, but its importance is being downplayed constantly

no one would fuck this girl irl, youre literally retarded. you really dont have any male friends you could talk about stuff with?

>They would, which disproves your hypothesis. If men were inclined to have as much sex as possible, they wouldn't have standards for whom to have sex with.
They cant, so they settle for less. Its called a compromise and the fact of the matter is, a frail balding little man with an unfortunate face cant get laid with every girl he desires
Naturally, they go down with their standards until they are left with pig nose tier women

come on, don't be retarded, she is ok but even in the "before" makeup photo she still has that unnatural hair color which would subtract some points if she had instead her natural, dull color

you probably have a redhead fetish that doesn't let you see clearly what's in front of your eyes