What did women mean by this?

Your image even cites itself as going across multiple platforms? Can you not see that?

Maybe my book will answer it

>my image
Nah
It's OKCupid data.

This, outside of a few generally young women, women are less visually focused than men.
Most women(also men to a lesser extent) will start to find you and rate you as more attractive as they learn about other qualities(if you possess them).
Its just that most men who are very attractive are also good at or at least put on a show of being confident, well liked by others, probably has other skills.
Thats why tindr is an attractive mans game. Otherwise you have to put allot more time into making it clear that you are interesting(most of you whiny faggots are not to women).
Another example of this is impressing a womans friends, she doesnt want you to flirt with them and treat them like you want to sleep with them. If you can show that you are a good catch though and all her friends also think so, shell find you more attractive.
Not that men dont do that last thing, its just men generally have poor enough emotional intelligence to throw away things like that for the 1 women they have become obsessed by. Or just to get laid because they obsess about that so much.

BEGONE THOT

facts b

Don't mind helping.

Some adjunct reading

academic.oup.com/beheco/article/15/2/351/223934

>Thats why tindr is an attractive mans game
It's just Tinder, but way to out yourself.

>wrong user says it's tinder
>then other user says it's okcupid, which is the origin of the source, which they also cross referenced other sites

Correcting the wrong user. Maybe you should learn to read before you act so smug.

usually 1-3+matches queued up. I just auto like. Check now 265 matches. women message me first occasionally(also use bumble for this)
Ive seen the changes that happen with number of matches from when i lost round 20kg to be ottermode. Then back to higher weight now. +the differences with different kinds of pictures.
I aint mad about it. I wasnt very attractive, didnt have good pictures and had stopped dressing well.

You literally cannot read. Even if the original data in the image is okc having been cross referenced against other platforms assumes that the data remains constant.

Its not wrong and is pretty much true. Most of Veeky Forums takes the time to work on them selfs and look better but that average normie male is out of shape has no fashion sense and poor hygiene.

All you need to do is lift dress okay and shower and you could easily be the 3.0 up.

It means that 80% of women belong to 20% of men.

>not a single man is 4.1+/5
I know they're selective but shit man.

This.
Many males dont make an effort to look good.
Do a sport / workout / dont be fat. Dress nicely, and have good hygiene. There, you are now a over average.

Wrong.

>No lol it means they're selective as fuck. As gatekeepers to reproduction they have the right to be
This. It sucks if you're one of the men being discriminated against but it is what it is.

>Explain how it's sensible for the 'gatekeepers of reproduction' to think that 'objective' 8/10s (the top 20%) are actually 5/10s, and that almost no men are actually 8/10s aside from the most attractive people possible, let alone 9/10s or 10/10s.
Pic related basically sums it up. A minority of men have sex with the majority of women.

...

>dress okay and shower and you could easily be the 3.0 up
And that will get you a 2.0 woman. Not worth it.

>It sucks if you're one of the men being discriminated against but it is what it is

You aren't helpless. There are ways of climbing the dominance hierarchy. Attractiveness is only one of the many factors that determine your position in the dominance hierarchy.

>dominance hierarchy.
Are you one of those dudes who tries to AMOG every dude in every situation you can?

This is correct, but we also need to look at the fact that women rarely make mating decisions based solely on how a man looks unless they are in pure slutmode. Women are attracted to odd things like accents, status, humor, etc. So while this chart might be accurate as to how physically attractive they rate men, it doesn't mean they aren't fucking any of the men they rated as a 2/5. Just go outside and look at all the cute girls walking around with ugly or fat guys if you need proof.

finna wop a nigga on dem senpaitachi

>blaming women because your fat, smell like shit, and dress like a child
Sad

I'll be sure to find a free pdf online

>unless they are in pure slutmode.
And there's the thing.
Women literally change their preference twice a month.
Most dude's here want the slutmode, but often lack any of the traits required to give her giny tingles.
Slutmode is both the easiest and most difficult time to get laid by a woman.

>competition
so smart people should rape and eliminate competition?

>manlets btfo yet again

Somebody post the graphic that showed the most women ended up massaging 2.5/5 males (6/10 in reality, just above average).

They dont change generally. Just like men if the right situation and person walks up to them and makes it clear they just want to fuck they might do it. If the right person for a relationship walks up then they may well go with that.

Guys do the same thing youll be thinking about what would it take for a women to
a) be worth sleeping with and keeping it at sex
b) a short relationship, nothing too serious
c) a serious relationship

Those arent strict boundaries, truth is though most men dont fit into category A very often unless the women is pretty unattractive as well.
plenty of attractive guys just fit into category B, then they men and women there just relationship hop

and relative market value too. if you live in a metro with a bunch of womyn and even finance and engineer womyn that could be making over 6 figures, you're chances go down ever more. women are independent so their true sexual colors are being show in the west.

ROASTED

>I remember some graphs with dna and stuff it and it showed that only 20% of men throughout history have mated
>20%
sure buddy

>You aren't helpless. There are ways of climbing the dominance hierarchy.
I agree with this.

>Attractiveness is only one of the many factors that determine your position in the dominance hierarchy.
I definitely agree with this as well. But! Attractiveness is pretty huge. Especially if you are younger and not yet in a position to leverage your education/skills/income to your advantage. Basically, I feel like the huge thing is status. That's why the high school jock gets pussy and that's why a Gordon Gecko analog has his pick of the litter later on. If you aren't good looking, you want to have status within your microcosm of society, whatever that may be. That's a huge part of SMV.

...

women's looks are more about genetics, men's looks are more about effort. Male average is so low because most men don't put in any effort into their appearance.

does anyone have the article showing %80 correlation between attractiveness and looking strong.

It’s easier for women to be petite/small. On average a man has to put in more work to not be a fucking Fatass

I know "just b urself and confident is a shitty meme but almost every girls I've been with that I asked why she was with me said they liked my confidence. I notice that I have these streaks where I'm feeling good and confident where I literally have woman coming up to me, that doesn't happen when I'm my usual self.

reminder this is how you deal with the roastie problem

>It’s easier for women to be petite/small. On average a man has to put in more work to not be a fucking Fatass
Eh, men have more muscle and muscle burns more calories. So, on average, men are going to have a greater TDEE than women.

What I do agree with is the obvious fact that men have a much higher standard of fitness to live up to than women. Men are supposed to be strong and that requires effort over the course of many years of training. Women just have to eat less and do cardio.

>had 162mg of alcohol in 100mg of blood
what? her blood was 150% alcohol

The first one is a thot getting an entire article in a magazine talking about what a dumbass she is and going "woe is me", kinda wierd to have a soppy diary entry as an article but she mentioned that she had a career with newspapers so she probably had engouh influence to force them to print her blog post.

The other articles are just about grills hurting themselves, and not others.

>her blood was 150% alcohol
you could also say
her alcohol was 30% blood

What? You are bad at math

...

This is a poor conflation but yeah absolutely and we do it today in nuanced ways. In the past we had eugenics. Further back we just ate and raped stupider competing primates.

Human intelligence is a gift. Abuse it.

We need eugenics to breed out all the bad male genes

That's what our intelligence is evolved for.

The problem is that most of these unattractive men eventually get a wife that settles for his beta bux and pass on their bad genes, dooming the next generation to suffer the same fate

>5s dont exist
8/10 is the new 10/10

In a total of 262mg of sample, there was 162mg of alcohol and 100mg of blood. So that's 162/262=0.61 blood alcohol concentration. In other words, 61% of the stuff flowing in her veins was alcohol.
For reference, the legal limit in most countries is around 0.05 (5%). At 15% you start puking. At 50% you have good chances to actually die.

>we need to even further decrease the birth rate of white people

>61% of the stuff in her vains was alcohol
are you mentally habdicapped or just a troll?

Women don't judge men by looks the same way men. It's only natural that they rate most men as "meh" when the chemicals running through their brain tell them to.

I def pull girls out of my league. I'm fucking ugly. It can be done, you just hajve to be resiliant.

Make up should be illegal.

Pretty much this, men judge women only because of their looks, while women not so much, yes it matters, but other factors are very important too.

How many times you heard a guy he preffers funny or confident girls? Never.

i imagine it was a typo. They probably intended to type 100ml of blood, which would make sense

Holy fuck, I'm a computer science student and a lot of the people around me are "nerdy" types and every single one of them that reads any sort of online "alpha" shit instantly tries to apply it in every situation possible.

Have had this friend even start trying to mog everybody in the friends group and kept getting put "in their place" they just become annoying little fucks who try to one up everybody in petty shit and generally try to be a big pain in the ass to be around.

Pro tip. If you are "alpha" "intimidating" or command respect, you won't have to actively try to mog everybody around you, it'll just happen.

Most young western women are in birth control mode (on and off/ inconsistent dosing). Most have also been propagandized to their whole lives about how a man should be and many of them have piss poor examples in their own spineless fathers.

I'm not saying women are entirely picking the "wrong" guys, but their natural hormone balance and conscious mating choices are hit so strongly from so many angles these days that's it's no wonder they've got such inconsistent desires and jump from dick to dick. I don't think it would be this way if other factors were removed and nature was able to fully take over again.

Absolutely this. Top 20 percent of men get disproportionately more women. Makes life great for 20% of men, and makes life better for every single woman. So this system works well for 60% of the population and okay or poor for 40%. Seems like progress to me. Imagine if this was finance. If the top 20% of earners reproduced at a higher rate than the bottom 20% of earners, consistently, for generations, wouldn't the world be a better, smarter place?

>As gatekeepers to reproduction they have the right to be

by that logic men should have the right to rape them.

It means that women are disgusting shallow creatures rarely capable of existing outside of emotional/biological sway.

>using match.com as a source for anything
That's like saying /cgl/ or /b/ is a good sample to exemplify the entire human population. Ffs learn how to consume information properly people.

Who will raise the children? Chad can't afford five girlfriends and twenty kids. So single Mom will have to work. And who will raise her child?

I feel like raging, post the original?

This is the natural consequence. If women have the biological right to restrict reproduction, then men have the biological right to secure reproduction. If that requires violence, well, that's natural. We're all acting like animals now, right? So get your ficki ficki on, white man

Chad should convert to Mormonism or Islam, where you can only bed a woman if you can provide for the children you have with her. So many men can barely provide for themselves. NEETs, men who live at home, men who consume more than they produce for society in a year. What right to do these men have to procreate, and by extension, have sex at all? You don't need to be a millionaire, but you need to contribute. My ideal would be something like:

Top 10% of men get top 40% of women
Next 20% of men get next 30% of women
Next 30% percent of men get bottom 30% of women

Bottom 40% of men get no women. All women get someone. No man who is at least average is without a woman to procreate with. Great men get top rate women to have kids with. All women can create babies that are better than themselves. This is the best route for human progress.

You fundamentally misunderstand. Monogamy is eugenic because success is determined by factors such as intelligence and ability to provide for your children. Feminism is actually dysgenic in this sense; reproduction has little to do with intelligence and everything to do with how sexually attractive you are. So in the feminist wet-dream world that you describe everybody will be muscular, handsome, and have a huge dick, but also very stupid. Patriarchal cultures select for intelligence, strength, and ability, instead of looking pretty and having a long wang.

'Bad genetics' is all relative. If you wiped out all except the top 0.01% of genetics, then the Chads of today would turn into incels.

40% of men and 80% of women reproduced

>How many times you heard a guy he preffers funny or confident girls? Never.
I love funny and confident girls honestly. Obviously looks matter more, but a confident and /Or funny girl who also looks good is a fucking diamond.

The problem is that the other 40% of the population is basically what keeps society going. A system where a top 20% man can get any woman, but not every woman, would be ideal for society as a whole.

it means women rate men better. if the best rating a man can possibly achieve is a 4.0 then by definition any rating over 2.5 is already pretty great.

If you divide the highest female rating by the highest male rating we get an attraction coefficient of ~1.25 so to transfer women perception ratings into a scale a typical male would understand you have to multiply ratings by that coefficient. Which means a rating of 2.5 would mean you are a 3.125 on the male scale.

Also this is derived from online dating which is irrelevant if we are talking about the real world here.

If you really think that women favor looks over brains, you're coping, and probably not as smart as you think. IQ and things like height and facial symmetry that are usually associated with being attractive are highly correlated. You're making the faulty assumption that being muscular, handsome, and having a huge dick are inversely correlated with intelligence, and I don't really buy that premise; all evidence points to the opposite being true (except for dick size). Monogomy is dysgenic because it allows men who would otherwise be excluded from the gene pool to pass on their weak, bad genes. Polygamy is eugenic because access to sex with women is a more limited resource reserved only for the men with the ability to procure it. How do you procure it in polygamous societies? By being a producer, by contributing to society. In monogamy, non-producers get to have kids at the same rate as producers. In polygamy, producers have more kids, and non-producers get shut out. There is no reason to argue against polygamy unless you're a NEET or an unproductive man.

>trying to argue that a society where 80% of men have no incentive to achieve our contribute is the best

Holy cope, batman.
Just admit techology is going to ruin the human species and that we will all collapse

>>The problem is that the other 40% of the population is basically what keeps society going

Shouldn't you be at a Bernie Sanders rally?

What the fuck are you talking about
The 80% of men who are not Chad are the doctors, engineers, businessmen and blue collars who allow you to sit in your comfy chair at home and shitpost all day. Obviously Chad contributes too, but 20% of men can't keep society going, and God knows most women don't do shit for it either.

They don’t have the right but everyone has a choice in life. Raping women is beta as fuck.

>woman
>selective
lol

if you have money or you are mainstream you can have the woman you want

>How do you procure it in polygamous societies? By being a producer, by contributing to society. In monogamy, non-producers get to have kids at the same rate as producers. In polygamy, producers have more kids, and non-producers get shut out.
That is all wrong. If that were true, engineers, for example, would be known as manwhores. In a polygamous society where women don't need men for resources, the top 20% of men in terms of attractiveness get to fuck copious amounts of women, while the rest might get a wife if they're lucky and get a good job.

The opportunity to have access to women is the ultimate incentive. Why do men build bridges Lemon? Why do we fly planes? Why did we put a man on the moon? We want to get laid.

Chad is more likely to be a doctor than a random non-Chad. You think height/face/frame is a meme? It's not. And height and face are both positively correlated with high IQ. Go walk through a law office some time. You will see a disproportionately number of attractive people. Go to a campus with a dedicated building for the med school. Hang out with a punch of PhD students. It's not the Big Bang Theory out there. It's people who want to excel in their field, and it's people who want to excel in general, and that includes appearances. Doesn't mean they're all attractive, but high achievers are more attractive than average.

In polygamous societies, the productive men ARE the man whores, or at leas they're the ones getting all the women. See, Muslims and Mormons for example.

I agree that successful people are usually more attractive, BUT they'd still be attractive if they were waiters and general losers. This is anecdotal, but I'm an engineering student, and most of my friends have some sort of science or medical education, and most of our engineering department, as well as the biology department is basically the whole 'soyboy' stereotype going around. Although over half the engineering girls are cute (we only have like 8 of them though). The highest concentration of attractive people by far is in finance related fields.

Also judging by your response to I think you and I are talking about different types of polygamous societies. I'm talking about something more akin to tribal times, rather than Islam.