How am I supposed to compete with this? I'm pretty sociable, but even if I were to just talk to women irl, then the only difference would be making them laugh, but the more I think about it the more it sounds like cope to me. I fear that whatever girl I end up with will just be with me because I'm funny and she doesn't want to be single. As soon as someone like picrel rolls around, she'll be gone.

>>33395451 (OP)
>sociable
>making them laugh
anon, you're already ahead of 80% of the competition
throw in:
>well groomed
>nice clothes
>good at planning fun/exciting dates
and you can do just FINE even though you don't look that good

>>33395475
>you're already ahead of 80% of the competition
I feel like the women don't really go for the bottom 80% of guys though, unless they have to, but I don't want to be settled for, so I just end up competing with all the abercrombie and fitch models again. None of the couples I know irl seem like they're crazy for each other, especially not the women except for the ones that are with good looking guys. That's the only time I ever see women be excited to be around their boyfriend.
>>well groomed
>nice clothes
>good at planning fun/exciting dates
assuming I don't do those already? I understand why you would say that given the singaporean fly-fishing forum we're on, but doing any of those things doesn't merit a second thought or acknowledgement if you're not a complete turboautist.

>>33395451 (OP)
LOL. Picrel looks like a bunch of scruffy, mystery meat halfwits.

>>33395533
That's some heavy duty cope if I've ever seen it

you cannot, these apps are designed to keep every man virgin until death - preferably by suicide before you can access your retirnement


If you ever want to talk to a woman what you need to do is quit your job and go to school for 2nd masters degree or another bachelor degree and this time put entire energy into socializing instead of self improvement

dating apps only exist to steal money from incels and create fake value for tech companies and lie to people that there's a way to speak outside of schools so that people dont quit their jobs en masse - its just a one giant scam to keep the only productive members of society (young men) content with working for absolutely no reason with no goal or chance to lose virginity instead of doing something unproductive for society but good for them which is leaving work in their peak productive years (30-50s) and taking that time to do something fun like partying and hooking up in school

>>33395475
No he isnt, he's already in the 100% of people who are not allowed to ever speak to women.
He wont get a chance to socialize with women so no making them laugh either - they dont even know he is well groomed, nice clothes and good at planning exciting dates because he wont get to speak to a woman at all.
He cannot do Fine, he CANNOT DO ANYGHING AT ALL until he comes back to school again, he wont get to speak any words to women at all until he's back in school corridors.

Right now there's billions of well groomed nice clothed good at planning dates incels who will die at 60 celibate without ever having had a chance to plan a date because they dont get to speak to women - him and every other 30 year old virgin is in this boat and it will stay this way until they quit their jobs and return to school.

>>33395451 (OP)
You're proper fucked if you think (all) women just float around from man to man like honeybees just because they look good.

9 times out of 10 that someone posts about LE CHAD it's because they're the ones who would immediately jump to another more attractive woman if they were stuck with their sub-par looksmatch.

After your first relationship - fuckin hell even after your first date - you'll realize that it's not all about looks. Looks make up not even half of attraction.

Also not to paint with too broad of a brush but anyone who looks like a super model (male or female) typically only gets by on their looks and only attracts other vapid superficial people. The average person with their head screwed on right isn't all that attracted to some slutty blond or zesty lips 5 o clock shadow man.

In fact, a lot of "hot" people tend to be completely autistic, except their autism is all about clothes and shoes and fashion and maybe a bit of normie sports.

>>33395642
hey schooler I met a new girl last week at a second hand store. are you gonna go back to school before 2030?

>>33395672
>hey schooler I met a new girl last week at a second hand store
No you didnt you retard, it was already explained to you multiple times you havent for years.
>are you gonna go back to school before 2030?
Idk, economy is fucking shit, I hope my family dies and then I probably could

>>33395451 (OP)
Dude only Theo and Josh are in their 20s, the rest are uncs. Besides they go to the gym every day and have been going for some time, which you can start doing too. As you can see they shave their body hair so they're insecure themselves and have made their appearance their whole personality.

The way these guys compete is by dating people within their same pool. They date women who go to the gym, they date people who listen to the same garbage music and watch the same garbage shows because they don't have time to search for stuff.

If you can't make women laugh it's because you have to manage the personal trauma that made you kill humor. That's the first step, knowing where you stand. You were unlucky, you're broken, well now that you're aware only you can figure out what to do with the materials left on you.

>>33395451 (OP)
Most dudes arent jacked, 6'2 ceos, most dudes also manage to find love and companionship from women despite what the black pilled chuds on this shithole basket weaving forum will tell you.

Hell, I'm nothing special and pulled the type of woman men dream of by being funny and showing her I care wherever I can. Love is hard work and when women see that you're in it for the long haul and not just a fling, the losers sort themselves out and the ones worth your time double down.

Be the best version of yourself, know your value, and don't be afraid to be honest about what you like, dislike, want or don't want. Don't put up a facade for girls, either they're going to like you or the wont and lying about who you are is just going to prolong that uncertainty.

>>33395690
>No you didnt you retard, it was already explained to you multiple times you havent for years.
Yeah I know you've been trying to gaslight and blackpill people for years all the while never following your own advice.

Meanwhile people are meeting girls, and guys, left and right. In school, after school, outside of school, online, in line at bars or concerts or sporting events, at book stores, record stores, gaming stores, gyms, dojos, dojangs, everywhere.

You're the only one limiting yourself.

>>33395451 (OP)
First of all, Josh is literally AI generated. Jack is a man all right but he is probably gay bro—same goes for Theo. Chris has special eyes while James and James are basically just Chad-wannabes. They're so cookie cutter that none of them seem like real human beings—sad. Come at dating being authentic and you're going to be ahead of them for anything that's not straight sex.

>>33395451 (OP)
>How am I supposed to compete with this?
If you want to play in that league you need the stats for it, that should be obvious right?

So either get very rich and lifemaxx, or play in a different league, those guys likely aren't looking at your looksmatch

>>33395809
>get very rich and lifemaxx
not this again

>>33395746
>Most dudes arent jacked, 6'2 ceos
women don't really want to be with most dudes though, it's just that their options are limited, hence why you constantly hear "all the good men are already taken". Which is not to say that you can manage to hold down a relationship as an average guy, but I don't think women are wired to stay with a guy like that if she's convinced she can do better. Monkey branching or whatever it's called.
>know your value
I do know my value and it's objectively not a good deal from the woman's perspective. This isn't coming from a place of self hate or anything, but "value" isn't an inherent thing, there is no cosmic scale that you can measure yourself on/weigh yourself against. Meaning value, in this context refers to game theory, economics, supply and demand type of value. Women are in no short supply of simps that will shower them with attention, so the only thing that's left are good looks. No, humor doesn't get you laid, I would know. I'm not giving up, I'm just starting to realize that maybe I should make peace with the fact that there is a sizeable chance that I die alone.

>>33395862
>women don't really want to be with most dudes though,
It's always someone who's been with more or less 0 women who's such an opinionated expert on le female behavior.

You. You're the ones obsessed with looks and Chads, not women.

>No, humor doesn't get you laid, I would know.
there's a difference between charming and a self-loathing clown.

>>33395804
>Ugh, these chads have NO personality and aren't interesting in any way
>Unlike me, a frequenter of 4chinz, who spends his days playing vidya and jacking off to chinese cartoons
>ALL these chads partake in are normal, well adjusted activities within a vibrant social life
>They're not anti-social losers like me

>>33395451 (OP)
Why not just cope and fool around with girls irl, maybe it isn’t actually a cope? Maybe the cope is you just don’t have the confidence to do exactly what every other normal person does.

>>33395451 (OP)
The most attractive people are usually terrible partners. They've been showered with attention all their lives and don't appreciate it or reciprocate. Granted, I've only been with a couple of "hot" girls but the experience was disappointing. Selfish in bed and parroting instagram-psychology bullshit all the time.

Mid girls are so much more fun to be around (aside from the excitement of a "hot" girl flirting with you at first). They're more down to earth, generally way funnier and will give more in bed, too.

If it's any consolation, a girl who ditches you for your pic rel will end up getting pumped and dumped. Those dudes have options and don't stick with just one girl. Attractive people have chaotic dating lives and their brains are fried.

Tl;dr, lean into the mid

>>33395881
I've had my fair share of flings and relationships, that doesn't change anything though. You can make basic observations without ever touching a woman the same way you can basically never be single and be oblivious to it because our experience is always coated in biases, different circumstances etc.
Obviously women don't obsess about looks and Chads, because they don't have to. The human brain determines who's attractive, along with various other visual traits, in a matter of milliseconds. They just pick out who looks best and is pleasant to be around and go for the next best option if the one they like is taken.
>there's a difference between charming and a self-loathing clown.
there is, but even then it really doesn't make much of a difference except that no-one really likes self deprecating cucks, regardless of gender. Being charming just shows that you have the basic social skills required to carry a conversation that doesn't drain the other party of energy. That's it. That's quite literally the bare minimum and that not even without going in tandem with everything else about you.

>>33395902
I did cope. I did fuck around. And I did find out. Confidence is a meme, it's just makeup for men. Getting a relationship is not hard. But more often than not, or pretty much always in my case, those relationships came to be because she was infatuated by confidence and humor, and stayed for however long she did because she just didn't want to be lonely. That's miserable. And from what I've seen with the people around me. All relationships are like that if the guy isn't good looking.

>>33395887
>>ALL these chads partake in are normal, well adjusted activities within a vibrant social life
NTA but you don't know that.

If you've spent a hot minute on /adv/ or /soc/ or /fit/ or even /r9k/ back in the day you'll find loads of guys who have perfectly emulated the Chad look - sometimes with the help of a bit of plastic surgery - and they're all completely and utterly autistic.

Usually 0 friends, can barely manage to make eye contact with people let alone understand the highly complicated and nuanced science-art of how to talk to women.

They just think that if they get another jaw-widening and cheek-sinking procedure then free gfs will just rain down upon them from the heavens.

>>33395921
Not every woman finds Chad attractive my guy.
A this rate, probably more zoomer men are attracted to Chad than women.

Do women generally prefer someone physically attractive vs someone who's physically repulsive? Yes, and so do men. If a girl likes you, she's not gonna dump you for a 7/10 in terms of looks just because you're a 6.5/10.

>>33395939
>All relationships are like that if the guy isn't good looking.
what grade are you in

>>33395939
You are just describing the immaturity crisis we find ourselves in. Women aren't growing up. They still think the same way about men in their mid twenties now like they did when they were teenagers. And then they trample and piss all over the dating market because that's what female immaturity looks like. Men go into their caves or whatever, but women go out and do damage, in turn, because a man wasn't there to teach her her or other peoples' worth. The internet has just magnified this effect on everyone, and now here we are after only a couple generations.

Unguided women tear down communities without even realizing it. It isn't so much to do with men being attractive and taking women from you. It's the woman not maturing and realizing how things actually work in reality, what her actual long term options are, and letting her pride keep her unhappy because she continuously conditions herself to never be content. The grass is always greener until it isn't. It sucks.

>>33395965
College.
>>33395957
Women have a way higher ingroup preference though. Along with being a hell of a lot less "tribal" for lack of a better word. Meaning they are desired more and have no real incentive to stick around when a better opportunity arises. You're right that a girl probably won't want to go through the entire relationship process over an incremental upgrade, but if she met someone that's significantly more handsome, funny, intelligent, rich or whatever, it would quite literally go against her biology to stay with me.

>>33395746
>Most dudes arent jacked, 6'2 ceos
Doesn't matter when most women are willing to share as long as the guy is hot enough.

>>33396005
>but if she met someone that's significantly more handsome, funny, intelligent, rich or whatever, it would quite literally go against her biology to stay with me.
no shit you're leaving your comfy gf if sidney sweeny or whomever is available too. that's the human condition

compete with what
they're all ugly and look like they're gay

>>33396000
Even if that were the case, that's still the status quo. It's not like you can wag your finger at them and hold up a rule book of relationships and demanding they act according to what you tell them a healthy relationship should look like. Even if they were collectively becoming immature, so what? What are you going to do about it? They did because they can and that's the way it is now. Barring a major societal event, or a critical mass of men changing the tides of relationship dynamics, that's the way things will be, because women have no real reason to change their ways, since if you are right, they get to have their cake and eat it too.

>>33395862
>you constantly hear "all the good men are already taken".
80/20 shit. they don't even try to hide it

>>33396014
No I wouldn't. If I'm with a girl, then she is good enough for me to ignore all other women for the rest of my life, otherwise I wouldn't be with her. Once I'm in a relationship I lock in and lean in with my entire body weight. No sense in pussy footing around and looking for better options.

>>33396010
also this.

>>33396005
>Women have a blah dee blah incel talking point #56
weren't you saying in your other post how you never got laid
>muh biology
now you're like a reverse radfem talking about how men have to go against their male biology when their male instinct is to rape everything with their male penis. male.

>>33396027
>80/20 shit.
incel talking point #75 which isn't even true at all, a complete fabrication.

these fools brainwashed themselves with incel memes since they were 15 or whatever and are completely oblivious as to why everyone else manages to get girls but not them

>>33396019
They do. That is how it is, and like you said, we can't instantly change it. If you can't compete in the sexual market then spend your time on something else. Let go of the anger from things you cannot fix.

>>33396034
why do you think women are biologically incapable of doing that?

>well uh according to the studies of Incel University the uhm

>>33396050
>weren't you saying in your other post how you never got laid
when did I say that?
>now you're like a reverse radfem talking about how men have to go against their male biology when their male instinct is to rape everything with their male penis.
when did I say any of that?

>>33396070
>when did I say that?
there:
>>33395862
>No, humor doesn't get you laid, I would know. I'm not giving up,
>when did I say any of that?
it's an analogy, genius. Appeal to biology pseudoscience.

>>33396069
I'm not even going to cite anything. That's a very basic observation you can make if you don't live under a rock. Sure, guys that aren't as attractive might have gfs, but they get nowhere near the attention and enthusiasm that guys get that are hot because of the mental gymnastics that need to be performed in order to justify being with someone they settled on. Because they can't get the "chad" and are now faced with the choice of either being alone or dating a second rate option. You really don't need social sciences to tell you that.

>>33396098
right, and Velma isn't going to get as much consideration as Stacie, either. again, that's just the human condition

>>33396098
answer the question: why do you think women are biologically unable to form emotional bonds with men?

>>33396084
I was saying that being funny doesn't get you laid, not that I never got laid. You can be funny and not be attractive to women and vice versa.
>Appeal to biology pseudoscience.
since when are clearly observable and documented patterns in basically all mammals' sexual behavior spanning however many million years considered pseudoscience?
What would you rather base your opinions on this matter on?

>>33396111
>since when are clearly observable and documented patterns in basically all mammals' sexual behavior spanning however many million years considered pseudoscience?
we're our own species my guy, and again you're gonna post "something something science observations" without actually posting anything.

It's a vague misunderstood appeal to biology only because it vaguely serves your argument. In the same way that radfems will say that all men are rapists because consent doesn't exist in the animal kingdom or whatever.

>>33396102
>that's just the human condition
Then you agree with me. So why all the long winded explanations when you're just going to loop back around to my point?
>>33396106
bad choice of words on my part. It's not two x chromosomes automatically produce a mental block that stops you from being monogamous 100% of the time, but generally, they are more flexible and non committal in their choice of men.
I'm too lazy to look it up now, but our female ancestors account for about double of our male ones in terms of genetic material. And historically, on average, only about 30%-40% of men ever reproduced vs 90% of women.

>>33396147
>And historically, on average, only about 30%-40% of men ever reproduced vs 90% of women.
Historically, women would be sold off to the highest bidder of the wealthiest families and be exchanged for 4 goats and some chickens, etc. They got to reproduce only because they were used as bargaining chips between families.

Most men would go off and die in some shitty war or inside of someone's chimney or the coal mines before they ever got to plap someone.

But by all means, keep on misinterpreting history as the justification for your distrust of women.

>>33396146
>Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's ...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15491274/

Again, I'm too lazy to look up all the other stuff, but this covers the basic idea. And it doesn't take a leap of logic to understand this.
Women will always have a higher "value" than men. It doesn't take much to wrap your head around that fact that back during tribal warfare times and even later, when your tribe went to war as a man, you either lost or won, so only the strong survive. But women weren't killed a lot of the time, they were just under new leadership of new men now. And they have adapted to this over the course of history. Men were selected for strength and endurance and women for agreeableness, beauty, and compliance.
And now that the paradigm that made men "valuable" are no longer in place and women are completely independent, they have no real reason to choose some average joe. However there is still that primordial desire for dominance and strength that women were attracted to throughout history that still gets selected for in addition to all the things that are new.
Naturally not a lot of men will fit that bill and check all the boxes, leading to the 80-20 or whatever mismatch.
I don't place a value judgment on any of this. It is what it is, but you can't in good faith argue that that's not the case.

>>33396010
I've never met a single woman who's content to share their partner, doesn't matter how desirable they are. How many women do you know who share their CEO lovers?
>>33395862
>you constantly hear "all the good men are already taken"
In my experience this is usually them talking about a guy who
-isnt a drunk
-has a decent job
-is thoughtful/kind
-puts reasonable effort into their appearance
-doesn't have multiple babymamas
>"value" isn't an inherent thing
That's what makes it *your* value, know what kind of man you are, what you bring to the table and to the relationship.
>Women are in no short supply of simps that will shower them with attention
And a lot of men are fine with that, but you'll find that women tend to covet a man with goals, dreams and motivation; ie not a simp.
>No, humor doesn't get you laid, I would know.
Speak for yourself brother, it worked wonders for me before and still gets my wife acting up.
>I'm just starting to realize that maybe I should make peace with the fact that there is a sizeable chance that I die alone.
Unless you change your perspective on relationships and courting, I'm inclined to agree with you. You have to have confidence and a sprinkle of bravado to really do well with women in this day and age.

>>33396157
Right, because historic events are completely arbitrary and it might as well have been women who went to war and men who were sold for 4 goats. Don't you think there is a reason that people want to protect women and children first? Almost as if women were a more sought after commodity, weird.

>>33396178
>just be confident and take a shower
Right, how didn't I think of that. Thank you.

>>33396178
this is what I was talking about.
A guy like that wouldn't survive a day as a zoomer. All that whimsy and lala land shit will be wiped off of your face when faced with the reality that most people that are dating now have been disillusioned by the idea of romance that you got from watching whatever disney movie.

>>33396190
Cute reductive argument, cherry picking one piece of a post (especially one posted with the intent to help) because you don't have a response to any of the other good points really makes you look smart.

Good luck finding love with a mentality like that.

>>33395642
> The dating college scam.
Its not real

>>33396211
Sorry, but that's what your post boils down to. But if you want me to deconstruct it bit by bit, I can do that.
>-isnt a drunk
>-has a decent job
>-is thoughtful/kind
>-puts reasonable effort into their appearance
>-doesn't have multiple babymamas
i.e. not a degenerate and-or fuck up. That's like saying women like a guy who doesn't kick every dog he sees and doesn't push old women into oncoming traffic and think that they're giving solid advice.
>That's what makes it *your* value, know what kind of man you are, what you bring to the table and to the relationship.
I never said I didn't like myself. In fact I like my life and what I do, but the value I bring to a relationship isn't determined by me, so it's a moot point what I think about myself and thus not worth mentioning.
>Speak for yourself brother, it worked wonders for me before and still gets my wife acting up.
Ok, it's my experience against yours. Not much I can do with that. Making a woman laugh won't automatically make her want to sleep with your or date you.
>just be confident and click your heels every time your leave your house
right, so "just be confident"?
You assume that the bare minimum is all it takes to have a fulfilling relationship, or worse that I'm incapable of even doing that, which is why I didn't bother responding to you in length in the first place.

>>33396208
What is the age range of a zoomer to you?

>>33396237
2000-2012

>>33395642
Hello schooler.

>>33396234
>That's like saying women like a guy who doesn't kick every dog he sees
No, it's explicitly saying that women want a decent man with a good head on his shoulders, or in your own words >not a degenerate and-or fuck up
>but the value I bring to a relationship isn't determined by me
That's definitely one way to look at it, it's determined by the buyer not the seller, but using this analogy it's still your responsibility to sell yours and show off that value.
>Making a woman laugh won't automatically make her want to sleep with your or date you.
This is true, but it does increase your odds a LOT. Laughter is synonymous with fun, enjoying your time, and if you become synonymous with that then they'll enjoy their time *with you*; which is a damn good way to start a deeper connection.
>just be confident and click your heels every time your leave your house
>right, so "just be confident"?
Circling back to reductive here but I'll bite.
If YOU, the person in question, are not confident in your abilities, charm, looks or other endearing features, then you're not going to present them to the world. If you don't present them, they won't be seen, and if they're not seen then who's going to know about them? Yeah, you have to be confident. Most cliches are based on truth at some level.
>>33396253
By your own definitions I'm a zoomer, born in 2000.

>>33396380
you didn't disagree with me though. None of what you said is the hall mark of what would make a man desirable. That's just basic sociability. You act like I'm some social ingrate incapable of conducting myself.
>No, it's explicitly saying that women want a decent man with a good head on his shoulders
yeah, that's the bare minimum. That's what I said. That doesn't make you eligible, nor does it make you stand out or get you a foot in the door. That is expected.
>it's still your responsibility to sell yours and show off that value.
I always hate that salesman analogy, because by that logic it would be in my best interest to con, cheat and lie about my "value" in order to sell myself. You're basically saying the best strategy is to cheat the girl I'm with out of a better life by convincing her that spending her time with me is a better investment than guys that have a lot more going for them. Respectfully, I would rather throw myself in a woodchipper than to play these rat-tactic mindgames.
>This is true, but it does increase your odds a LOT. Laughter is synonymous with fun, enjoying your time, and if you become synonymous with that then they'll enjoy their time *with you*; which is a damn good way to start a deeper connection.
You can have a deep connection, have a good time and all that without wanting to fuck the other person or be romantically involved with them.
>Yeah, you have to be confident.
there's nothing reductive about it, that's verbatim what you said. And even then it's the same as you other points, being confident either comes with the territory of being a normal, healthy,well adjusted human being, in which case it serves only as the bare minimum and won't do anything, or in the form of the sociopathic salesman approach where you couldn't give two shits about whether or not you have the firepower to back up your sales pitch as long as you get the girl.

>>33396171
>>Four experiments
OH MY HECKIN SCIENCE
>Again, I'm too lazy to defend my own ideology
yeah man cool
>leading to the 80-20 or whatever
complete and utter fabrication
>but you can't in good faith argue
brother you can't even argue period

>>33396182
that has nothing to do with this pretense that all women are psychopaths who will or would immediately dump their partner because the next guy makes a dollar more a year or his meme jaw is one millimeter wider or whatever else.

>>33396460
>You act like I'm some social ingrate incapable of conducting myself.
I think what you say and how you've said it on here has done that all on its own. It doesn't matter what kind of advice, analogy or analysis I can offer you because you've already pre-determined that whatever I say is wrong to you. Your problem isn't with society, it's with your own preconceptions and responses to those ideas, from the brief window of you I've been able to see on this thread, that's what I can say comfortably. There's no point in me responding to you here, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

Good luck I guess.

>>33396487
You were the one arguing about pseudoscience. I gave you a source and now you're complaining again. I gave you a detailed explanation and yet you didn't dispute any of it. I can bring the horse to water, but if you can't even address a single point I've made without turning it into a strawman, then there's nothing I can do.
>that has nothing to do with this pretense that all women are psychopaths who will or would immediately dump their partner because the next guy makes a dollar more a year or his meme jaw is one millimeter wider or whatever else.
case in point.

>>33396518
4 experiments is not conclusive proof of anything my friend.
>I gave you a detailed explanation
where? You wrote your own personal interpretation based on incel nonsense like the 80/20 rule.

Take a second and actually google that, if you will. It has n o t h i n g to do with relationships. or dating or sex.

>>33396516
I never said that what you believed was wrong. I was just trying to put into perspective what you said and how it doesn't follow logically and doesn't line up with what I've seen irl.
I'm not trying to categorically disagree with you for the sake of it, that's pathetic behavior done by people who want to wallow in their own misery and arguing online helps them cement their position at the bottom of the barrel by throwing a bunch of nonexistent gatchas at the other anons to go "ha see, I told you".
I don't want that, but you're line of thinking just doesn't make sense to me. Despite what you might think, I'm not a defeatist and I agree with a lot of what you said, but that simply isn't sufficient.

>>33395451 (OP)
>How am I supposed to compete with this?
You don't. You either revolt like a man with a pair to build a bright future for your sons with other like minded men who're sick & tired of the gynocracy-degeneracy led by the Chad-Foid duopoly, or you rot like the giga doomer types and literally watch your own genes get eradicated by these parasites from the genepool.
And for the love of god, plz don't assume that you must resort to violence to revolt. Read up literature on revolutions to see how revolutions worked

>>33396538
the results of that paper are a universally accepted fact that is backed up by many many more papers like this and quite frankly is common knowledge amongst virtually every culture, at any time, ever. That was just one example out of many.
Besides you probably misunderstanding what the 80/20 is even referring to in this context, it only really turns into an incel talking point if taken as a self-referrential dogma as opposed to a simple statistical fact without any judgment attached to it. Whether or not it's actually 80/20 is I guess up for debate, but based on simple reasoning it doesn't take much to at the very least acknowledge that there are far fewer men that are deemed "desirable" then there are women. How does that not make sense to you?

>>33395642
Holy shit it's der schooler, welcome back dude I missed you.

>>33396584
>quite frankly is common knowledge
argumentative fallacy, it's not common knowledge when you had to dig out a random study with 4 experiments that barely backs up your larger point.

>80/20 rule
since you didn't google it, it's called the Pareto principle and isn't something that written in stone and it was based on economics.

all these fuckin words to justify why you can't get a gf

>>33395451 (OP)
do women even like that 'chad' face? is there any basedence on this? I know men think they do, but do they really?

>>33396584
>acknowledge that there are far fewer men that are deemed "desirable" then there are women.

If I was gay, or even bicurious or whatever, I wouldn't want to fuck the majority of men either.

Men are inherently not attractive.

>>33395642
>>33395690
schooler are you on some meds now why do you give up schoolposting after only 2 or 3 posts

tell us about the meatwalls again

>>33396221
of course it is real

>>33396833
its summer so i daydrink more often and i fall asleep faster - terrible for money saving but mood improved

making women laugh is the surest way to get into their panties, you are being stupid
very fucking stupid

>>33396967
>drinking
are you sure you're the original schooler

>>33395451 (OP)
I dont look close to any of those on tinder and I did alright.
Just play the damn game.

>>33396667
You're just baiting at this point.

>>33395451 (OP)
Ignore everything I say, because it's not like I've had much success with any of this. But in general you're gonna be leagues ahead if what you say about being sociable is true and you actually talk to women irl instead of dating apps. The connection is much stronger form the getgo

>>33396667
I've had girlfriends in the past, that's not what I'm talking about here.
>random study
I'll tell you what, if you find one that contradicts the one I showed you, I'll concede.
But if you cared to read it a little bit, or even just google the subject matter, you'd find out that women have a significantly higher in-group preference. 5:1 in fact. Meaning that women have a higher "value" based on game theory and supply and demand. But you should know that since you're such an economics expert.
And if you were to apply that in the dating market you'll find that women will have a lot more chances vying for the top % of guys than settling with someone that they, or the rest of society would consider their "match". Neither good nor bad obviously, just the way it is. But denying it is retarded.

>>33397340
>But if you cared to read it a little bit, or even just google the subject matter, you'd find out that women have a significantly higher in-group preference. 5:1 in fact. Meaning that women have a higher "value" based on game theory and supply and demand. But you should know that since you're such an economics expert.
and what does that have to do with women being unable to form emotional connections with men?

The entire premise of this nonsense is that your gf will leave you for a guy who's only marginally better than you - therefore there is no point in trying to date women.

>>33396171
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15491274/
>Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?
did you post the wrong link

>>33395451 (OP)
>How am I supposed to compete with this?
You don't. Comparison is the thief of joy. You're supposed to do your best every day, chill the fuck out, and if you've done things to be a slightly above average person and not make yourself a neurotic pessimistic fag a good girl will eventually show up. If they don't, it obviously doesn't matter except now you're just a better version of yourself (oh no how horrorfying)

>>33397366
I never said women can't form emotional connections to men, nor did I say that it's pointless to date women. Even mentioning that my gf might leave if a chad came around was partly hyperbole (even though the difference would be more than marginal).
I'm saying that whatever woman I end up with will have likely settled and if not, if presented with the choice between me and a literal chad, sticking with me would be the objectively worse choice. Given that emotional connections can always be formed with other people, but attraction is pretty much fixed.

>>33397413
>You're supposed to do your best every day
implying I didn't/don't already do that?

>>33397473
>if presented with the choice between me and a literal chad, sticking with me would be the objectively worse choice.
imagine being upset at hypothetical scenarios you invented for yourself

and if you were given this magical genie's wish of being able to choose between your average mid gf and some Female Chad, you wouldn't also be "settling" for your gf?

>attraction
again, physicality isn't even half of attraction.

>>33395451 (OP)
I mean, some of those guys aren't even attractive to me. Theo looks visually good, but he's posing on Tinder with his shirt off, which is enough said. No thanks. I'd be more inclined to like James because the "kiwi fruit" thing is cute, and his photo is hobby related rather than just some random selfie (or thirst trap.) Jack looks too much like John Cena.

Anyways, not every girl is gonna leave a man for the next hot piece of meat that rolls around the block. If they do, that's nasty and they're not a good, dateworthy person anyways. Guys do the same thing to girls, too, and the advice we get is always "he's a piece of shit, then, find a better guy"

I'd rather date a more average-looking guy that acts nice, is funny, treats me well, is responsible, versus some hot guy. A lot of the guys that look like your pic (that I've met) can be a bit douchy or egotistical or "fuckboy," sometimes. Average guys tend to be more down to earth. I know that's a generalization, but I do sometimes see those guys and think "oo, hot," but then my next thought is "their attitude could be trash, though." I don't tend to have that second thought about someone's personality/attitude if they simply look average.

You also mentioned being "infatuated by humor and confidence" in another post. The same thing happens with the guys in the pic, except women get infatuated by their looks and then break up with them all the same, when the novelty wears off. Same deal, just looks instead of personality.

>>33397492
Just got to the thread. That's good though, keep it up.

>>33397530
>if you were given this magical genie's wish of being able to choose between your average mid gf and some Female Chad, you wouldn't also be "settling" for your gf?
no, I wouldn't. I said this before, but if I'm with a girl then my choice is locked in for life, unless something happens. I don't care about girls who are prettier, because any girl I choose will have already gone through my filter of being pretty enough and have a personality to spend the rest of my life with. I don't think women are as committed when it comes to long term decision making like that. I don't think the vast majority of women have the "lock in" gene.
>again, physicality isn't even half of attraction.
Not really, but even if it wasn't, looks aren't the only immutable characteristic.
>>33397658
I'm getting to the point where I have the option to hyperfocus on what I want to do in live and sacrifice spending time and energy on a relationship, or keep a window open in case a girl comes around, but in turn sacrifice time and energy I could have used to pursue my goals.

>>33395451 (OP)
Because you presumably have a personality other than your looks, and it's not hard to beat "generic fuckboy on dating app". Unless, of course, you're another fuckboy on a dating app, minus the looks.

>>33397752
Not to sound too mean but at a glance it sounds to me like you're overthinking things. Do what you want to do. If a girl shows up who is worth your time, you'd know, and you can throttle back.

>>33397587
>I'd rather date a more average-looking guy that acts nice, is funny, treats me well, is responsible, versus some hot guy.
what prevents the hot guy from acting nice though? Did you meet good looking guys through dating apps? Because that would explain the arrogance. Not to shut down your experience, but most of guys that I know that look like the picrel in OP are genuine people that are pleasant to be around.
Also what you're describing is basically settling, which is my point. The inverse of what you said would be like if your bf said "Yeah, I would have liked to go with a hot girl, but those are usually high maintenance, so I picked a mid girl instead" when talking about you.
>women get infatuated by their looks and then break up with them all the same, when the novelty wears off
Not from my experience. All the good looking guys in my social circle have the happiest and longest lasting relationships out of everyone else. The way their gfs look at them and treat them is also vastly different than how they act around "normal" guys.

>>33397752
>but if I'm with a girl then my choice is locked in for life, unless something happens.
you're emotionally dependent my dude, how are you gonna decided that "this is my woman forever" after two dates or something?
>I don't think women are as committed when it comes to long term decision making like that. I don't think the vast majority of women have the "lock in" gene.
Yeah you don't think that, clearly.
Kinda strange that you can decided at the drop of a hat that a girl is your life partner 4ever and in the back (or very front) of your mind you're like "oh this retarded life form with a gene missing could never connect to me the way I do to her"

hey maybe that's why you have a hard time with women, because you have an innate distrust of them and view them as inferior

has nothing to do with chad and looks or human history

>>33397757
I don't know why so many people assume that those guys are generic fuckboys and are toxic or something. That line of thinking sounds like cope to me. "They're good looking, so they can't be cool and fun to be around, otherwise I wouldn't have a chance". They look like normal, well adjusted people to me.
>>33397763
>Do what you want to do
I am, but I have only so much time.
>and you can throttle back.
not really. I don't want to go into detail, but if I go then that's it, I'm in it.

>>33397803
Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I never said that I know a girl inside and out after two dates, nor that women are inferior.

>>33397828
>so they can't be cool and fun to be around,

One guy is just sitting in his car.

What is it about any of these dudes that screams "cool and fun to be around"?

Obviously if we saw their bios we could make better judgements about that, but from the pictures alone none of them seem like they would be obvious buckets of fun.

>They look like normal, well adjusted people to me.
They seem like attractive men, but you don't know what sort of crazy nonsense they might be up to. Attractive people can be autistic and/or mentally ill as well.

>>33397828
>I am, but I have only so much time.
Then you better spend it wisely on doing things you want to do and will pay you back later.
>not really. I don't want to go into detail, but if I go then that's it, I'm in it.
You can always throttle back. I don't need details to know that there is nothing so permanent that this is true. If you actually care about someone or something you will always be able to make the time for it.

>>33397852
> I never said that I know a girl inside and out after two dates,
how many dates then? How long does it take you to go "this is the one for life" with 100% certainty like you said you do. Also, curious as to how many times you went "okay, THIS is the one for life this time"
>nor that women are inferior.
lol you just said they're missing a gene that makes them unable to commit to a relationship unlike you.

>>33397866
I didn't say that they were cool, just that they look normal. But you categorically made the call that they're generic fuckboys. Based on what?
You could arguably make a judgement call about the guys that frequent this site and collectively file them as smelly loser incels, but that's not necessarily true, is it?
>Attractive people can be autistic and/or mentally ill as well.
True, but you can say that about anybody, regardless of how attractive they are. But they ARE attractive, which you can use as basis for an educated guess that they probably had a easier time socializing and making friends, getting jobs, finding relationships etc. which led to them having more opportunities to learn how to become someone that other people want to be around.

>>33397885
>and will pay you back later.
Didn't you imply that good women showing up wasn't a certainty?
>If you actually care about someone you will always be able to make the time for it.
I don't even know who that someone is, or if they even exist. Why would I take a gamble on something like that when I could just focus on the things that I already have that make me happy and go all in? I really dislike dilly dallying and meandering like that.
>>33397886
>how many dates then? How long does it take you to go "this is the one for life" with 100% certainty like you said you do
idk, depends on the girl and the circumstances.
>Also, curious as to how many times you went "okay, THIS is the one for life this time"
once I got past the nothing burger that is vapid middle school "relationships", it's been ride or die with every girl I've ever dated.
I don't see the point in having a gf if I'm not ready to take it all the way.
>lol you just said they're missing a gene that makes them unable to commit to a relationship unlike you.
that was more of a figure of speech. There is no such thing as a "lock in" gene. But I'm starting to think that you misinterpret me on purpose.

>>33397948
>I don't even know who that someone is, or if they even exist.
You're overthinking things again. This train of thought is useless and neurotic.

>>33397828
>I don't know why so many people assume that those guys are generic fuckboys
Because they're on "dating" AKA hookup apps, retard. It's not their looks alone. It's what they're doing.

>>33397948
>I really dislike dilly dallying and meandering like that.
And yet here you are on 4chan

>>33397960
What do you mean?
>>33397969
by that definition, everyone that uses a dating app is either a slut or a fuckboy, no exceptions.
>>33397970
believe it or not, I don't even go here all that often anymore.

>>33397995
It's not a definition; it's a heuristic. Most people who use dating apps are promiscuous. Dating apps cater to the promiscuous.

>>33398001
4chinz caters to autistic incels, so would it be safe to assume you're an autistic incel?
In which case you wouldn't be against me discarding your opinion based upon this assumption about you.

>>33397794
In my experience, I've known women who tire of their hot bf and dump him when the "omg, he's so hot!" wears off and they start getting annoyed at small things, behaviour, etc.

But that's not your experience. We can both view the world through the distortion of our experience, or we can just say that not everyone is going to date the same, and we'll find partners eventually. If they care a ton about looks, oh well. Not everyone does. Not every hot guy has an ego, you're right. Not every girl lusts after hot guys exclusively, though, either. It's "your experience" in the same way hot guys potentially being a little ego-y is my experience, but that's not always the case. As you said, most of those guys you know are very nice, pleasant people, and I've just had a bit of a bad run.

Again, we can both be stubborn and stick to the narrative of "I experience XYZ, therefore that's true and always the case 100% of the time," or eventually we will meet girls who don't care about looks as much as you think they do, or guys who aren't overinflated

>>33398058
Caring about looks isn't a bad thing. A lot, if not all visual traits that would make someone attractive are essentially just indicators of good health/development/genetics. Being overinflated is categorically bad however. Correct me if I'm wrong, but women who don't care about looks either have low self esteem, or are afraid of getting slut shamed for voicing sexual attraction and desire, which they likely have been taught since a very young age.
Wanting a guy not to be an asshole is not a big ask, but wanting a girl to disregard basic and instinctual visual pattern recognition for you is entirely different.

>>33398136
I mean "caring about looks" in the overly picky way. "omg, he's not 6ft," "omg, she doesn't look like a perfect model." Obviously it's normal to a degree, but I'm talking about people who exclusively choose some ideal person modelled to high expectations, rather than average people.

Y'know what I mean? Like, excessively particular? Of course we all want to date people that we like the look of, but I've definitely liked people who aren't "model hot" before. They still look nice to me, even if they aren't perfect. One guy was 5'2, and I know that's a thing a lot of men cry about as being the end of the world, but it's.. not

>>33397948
>it's been ride or die with every girl I've ever dated.
>I don't see the point in having a gf if I'm not ready to take it all the way.
the point of having a gf and dating is to get to know these girls better before you immediately start hearing wedding bells and then act surprised when they break up with you 3 weeks later

>that was more of a figure of speech. There is no such thing as a "lock in" gene. But I'm starting to think that you misinterpret me on purpose.
figure of speech or not you're still saying women aren't able to commit, they are.
It's just that you're the one who's coming on a little way too strong

>>33398205
Adding to this, I also know women who find some guys super hot, and I don't understand their type at all or even find them not attractive, so that can differ wildly per person. I've personally not found some conventionally attractive "model" men attractive at all, too.

>>33398012
>4chinz caters to autistic incels
Not really, but that doesn't stop people from insulting anyone they disagree with. Don't know why you're so asshurt over the simple observation.

>>33398205
>>33398223
Well, to be fair, being over 6ft is a fairly basic requirement compared to being a literal model.
In any case, that's not really what I was referring to. I meant attractive as in, the guy is good looking to you beyond whatever the minimum threshold for initial attraction would be by a not insignificant amount.
You're right that everyone has different tastes, but I found that there will generally be a standard that's basically universally agreed upon where most girls would go "yeah, he's hot", regardless of what their usual type is. Especially because these "types" don't mean much in the first place given how many women will just settle anyways or date outside their type.
>>33398219
It usually takes a lot longer than three weeks to get to know a person. And stop assuming shit and strawmaning every one of my points.

>>33397995
>What do you mean?
You don't know what overthinking is?

It's always fascinating to see threads like this where OP reveals themselves to be some kind deranged weirdo.

>>33398407
Are any of us NOT deranged weirdos?

>>33398407
what did I say that was out of pocket?
>>33398370
I do, but I don't understand what part I am supposed to be overthinking.

>>33395840
most of the guy's in OP pic are lying about their age

>>33395451 (OP)
Nice

>>33395451 (OP)
So I made a woman's profile on Tinder a while back just to see who was around, and it was really shocking. There was maybe 30-40 absolute chads before I started getting to more normal looking guys. But the thing is, I live in a small town in an isolated rural area, there are very few people around these parts who I have never seen. These guys I am seeing do not exist, there are not men like that living here. I don't mean they are fake profiles, I could see from the pictures that they were taken locally in many cases. But these men are taking a massive amount of care to get pictures that make them look good. They'll use pictures 10 years old, filtered and edited pics, misleading angles, etc. I'm not very good looking but if I really carefully selected the best pics of me, I would be able to seem good looking. I didn't realize men were this gay honestly, I thought guys just put up a few lazy pics and if women like it then they like it. But no, men are just as womanly as women with this shit.

None of this information helps you at all, because women are too stupid to realize shit like this.

>>33395451 (OP)
LMAO what's that third pic xd

>>33395451 (OP)
>kiwi fruit living in maidenhead
mfw I used to be exactly this wtf
anyway these are all massive homos you fucking imbecile, you aren't competing against them. they are competing for YOU

>>33403879
they are all gay men and it's insane that most of this thread hasn't figured it out
one of them literally calls himself a fruit

>>33404178
>>33404179
I think the point OP made is that if any guy that looked like that were to take interest in his girlfriend and had a good personality and humor to go with it, his gf would very likely just start dating them instead.
I'm sure there are plenty of guys that look like that that aren't gay.

>>33398476
>what did I say that was out of pocket?
You dared to say that looks matter and implied women would choose the better looking man

>>33395642
I’d settle for a white mtf but even they think they are high value.

>>33395512
>I feel like the women don't really go for the bottom 80%
They do. Just look outside. 80% of men aren't single.

>>33404718
You're right, it would be closer to 60%, maybe 70% in modern days, based on DNA records that is. But I'd argue that a not insignificant portion of women in relationships with the mid guys are with them because the alternative is being single and probably also broke, so they make do. The phenomena is so common that there is an entire trope around women being dissatisfied with boring and plain faced looking husbands, quietly wishing Chad would come and sweep them off their feet.

>>33395451 (OP)
You don't, you avoid them and meet women in person, never on the internet.