This is a proper study dome by General Social Survey (GSS) that covers a few decades and not the usual broscience with whack methodology study numbers that usually get thrown around as "proof".
Study: https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-not-for-the-reasons-incels-claim
Salient : "the top 20% most promiscuous men account for about 60% of male sexual partnerings"
This essentially means that in a sample of 100 men and 100 women during a given year, 14 men have no sex and no women, 66 men grab 0.56 women each on average, and the last 20 men monopolize 55 of the 92 sexually active women for 2.76 partners each on average.
Check out the twitter of one of the authors for a more accurate graph: https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/992232558774620161
^He also gets all defensive in a hilarious manner from all the backlash.
Also noteworthy is that only 8% of women were sexless in 2016 while 14% of men were. LOL.
If you didn't believe Chad theory before, you can now; also more proof for the teachings of red pill.
One more very interesting observation that the article conveniently doesn't talk about to remain as politically correct as possible is the sexlessness within marriage rates, as observed from the graph:
In 2016, 0% of women were sexless in their marriage but 2% of men were sexless in their marriage in the past year.
Last time I checked every married woman had a husband. How the fuck is this statistic possible ? Oh yeah.... those poor bastards. I.e 2% of marriages the husband is denied sex for an entire year while the wife cheats at least once, but probably more than once.
Keep in mind, while the study is anonymous and taken in private, at least a mild form of the usual inflation rules apply; aka women under report and men over report.
In other words, most men are lucky to get laid at all in a given year, whereas the top 20% of men are having upwards of 3 sexual partners per year. On the flipside women have sexual abundance and are the choosers, most opting to share the top men rather than settle for a bottom 80%er. Let that sink in for a moment. We have statistical evidence of the what has been self-evident in the community from the start, which is...
When given the choice women would rather share an alpha with other women than settle for a beta they can have all to themselves.
If this doesn't explain how how preselection became thing, then nothing will.
>In 2016, 0\% of women were sexless in their marriage
Lol, poor cucks. If you are not getting it in you marriage, you know she is.
Crazy. If you were married in 2016, and didn't have sex with your wife, there's a 100% chance she cheated on you.
This is a faulty understanding of statistics. Sure, according to the data, in 2016 if you were married yet didn't have sex with your wife it's more likely than not that she cheated. However, this does not mean a "100% chance".
This is a faulty understanding of grouping logic
0% of wives went without sex and 2% of married men went without sex. Where is the sex coming from with those wives of the men that didn't have any sex at all?
Because 100% of women were not questioned.... and I can conceive of a situation where a woman was faithful for that year.
Yea, I can imagine a scenario too.
Unfortunately it involves her growing a horn out of her forehead, and shitting out rainbows.
Wait wait wait. Well maybe.
I don’t really get what’s going on here. You are using this as evidence of a few men dominating the sexual marketplace (which is certainly true) but the entire article is trying to argue against this.
A deeper reading also shows that the authors are moronic. They try to debunk the 20% of men having 80% of sex thing by saying that this is impossible because men would have to be banging multiple partners a day. Huh??? This isn’t true at all. A top guy could have sex with a few women at a time and not be bedding multiple per day if he is simply having sex more often than the women he is with, or if these women are taking time off between Chads. Duh! What an imbecile.
Then after he “debunks” it, he says it’s actually the top 20% getting only 60% of the sex. Haha what? First of all, like that’s so much better?? And second of all, so wouldn’t that mean according to his logic that Chad is bedding only 3 women per day instead of 4?
Then at the end his conclusion is just marriage is being delayed and that’s causing it? Dude that’s the symptom of the problem not the problem. Marriage is down because the median woman wants nothing to do with the median man, and because higher SMV guys don’t need to marry to have sex.
Fucking awful article.
I do think 20/60 sounds a bit more realistic than 20/80. Top guys don’t have much interest in the 20%-40% range of women. Those are wildabeasts. Most definitely have no problem pump and dumping average women in the 40-60% range though. Also the SMP is skewed... but come on it’s not skewed THAT badly.
A lot of researchers like this are purple-pill. The sort of see the writing on the wall, but they know that to keep their careers and grants, they need to sugar coat the red pill data with blue pill commentary.
ABSOLUTELY! I’ve suspected this as the explanation for a long while, purple pill is the perfect name for this. Many reasons those who have swallowed the red pill must preach PURPLE PILL rhetoric. Ok though, those who know the truth can read between these lines.
TBH I've spent a lot of time with this part of the topic, it is my area of specialty here. I spent two years trying to debunk TRP before finally falling to its sword and eventually becoming an EC.
Truth of the matter is its a philosophical thing, TRP requires a small leap of faith.
With time, the evidence becomes overwhelming, but it's easy to lean on what you'd call skepticism. But at some point, you're actually just in denial.
I don't believe any of these guys are doing this on purpose. It's just that the reality is very grim and it requires a radical reevaluation of your life perspective that many men aren't willing to make.
It requires the destruction of the male conception of love, family, honor, loyalty etc.
And what you're left with was best described by another poster as Hobbesian anarchy.
This is one of two fundamental disputes between these camps which I'll write to shortly in an essay I'm still working on which traces the origin of this debate.
I think it is perhaps easier as an older man. For me, having observed so much of this in my life (not so much to me, but around me), I find myself rapidly accepting TRP.
It probably helps that I have been skeptical of feminism all my life. I just never imagined the destruction of society and culture it would wreak.
A lot of RP is simply 'common sense distilled from observations over time', which in times past was passed from father to son (and via classic literature), it's only quite recently that it has become 'uncommon'.
It's one of the primary reasons there is a cultural Marxist all out assault to remove fatherly and adult male influence from young mens' lives.
Yeah, the cognitive dissonance in that article is astounding. Blue-pill normies will twist their brain in knots trying to justify their unicorn beliefs, even when the evidence stares them in the face.
I don’t even know what that guy’s deal is. On the Twitter link he is telling people who are saying toxic masculinity that they are dumb so I don’t know if he’s full blue pill leftie. It’s just a bizarre article.
It's funny how this get clearest when you read the last, ending paragraph:
how the hell does spending more years in school and at home get alpha 20% the 60% of pussy?
Another thing is when he said that women civilize men, which seemed so PC to me. I doubt it's as simple as women civilizing men and probably more so the situation and responsibilities of being in a relationship and or having children. I feel like the same or similar effect would be produced if you got a couple of dogs or a high maintenance pet. Or just having a kid without the woman. Is it the woman that "makes the man better" or is it the situation. His inability to properly relay this really showed me that you don't exactly have to be that smart or logical to do statistical work.
That's a lie told the last half century.
Men civilize women.
How can I prove this. The Patriarchy being derided by feminist is the society structure created by the men who built society. Women who rebel against Muh Patriarchy tend to be unfit for anything other than a pump and dump, that is if they're even still attractive.
The fact 20% of men, the top 20%, nets 80% or even 60% of women is proof that women are running wild without forethought or foresight. This will either lead to the mainstream application of polygamy as the spinster numbers skyrocket or a doubling down on stupid as post wall insols refuse to settle for beta's, their last chance.
I feel sorry for the beta cucks they missed the best years of her life and get her when shes worn, used and heading down the desirable slope.
It's having children that civilise Men, having to think about the future and your legacy and the knowledge you pass on is a very stabilising factor.
Having children with assured paternity civilizes men.
Men are inherently civilized, the male sexual imperative is to regulate women's sexuality so we can know we have genuine children in whom to invest. Whereas, the hypergamous nature of female sexuality erodes and collapses advanced civilizatons that make the mistake that "women civilize men" or are "equal" or whatever.
If it were up to women the world would still be in the stone age. The only thing women care about is getting the best genes around and providing for the babies.
That's it.
Nothing else. Maybe that is civilization to you
“The median woman wants nothing to do with the median man” Hit the nail right on the head. Something that would take me a full paragraph to explain has just been succinctly delivered in one sentence.
Where do you get the 3 per day from? If I run the numbers on his "Chad must be doing 2-a-days for a substantial period" first of all those numbers can only be encounters, not partners, so not unreasonable at all in my opinion.
Secondly, there is a number of 60-100 encounters per YEAR given. Let's take 80, and sample 100 people:
Gives 8000 total encounters. 60% of those are divided under 20% of men, 4800 encounters among 20 men for an average of 240 a year. Easily feasible..
3 a day is just an example based on their stupid notion that Chad must be having sex with multiple women per day if it’s 20/60. Meaning if his 3 women are having sex everyday it would be 3 times a day for him. I didn’t word it great, but the point stands. You can look at it like him having sex 3 times a week and each of his plates once a week also.
Was going to write my thoughts, but I saw your comment and it already sums it up everything. The article has some point that make no sense, and the final thesis mistakes the effect for the cause.
People who are upvoting this post (and I guess the OP himself) haven't read the article, if they did they wouldn't upvote it. It's beyond me that this thing has 400+ upvotes.
Yea this looks like a senior thesis or something. This is not serious research at all.
If you consider the fact that men will often exaggerate how much sex they have and women do the opposite the ratio could indeed be 20/80. Having said that, 20/60, as you said, isn't a huge difference and still shows that a lot of men aren't having sex.
Here is also a thing not considered. How easy it is for a women to have sex vs. a man. It is very daunting for a man without a girl to just find sex within the week month or year. Or even find a steady relationship. It is far easier for a woman. So the men not having sex are, also, likely not going on many dates and also not kissing etc. So measuring purely on sex is a mistake.
Lastly, as you pointed out. Using marriage as a proxy is quite foolish. Women are pushing off marriage not the other way around based on my experiences. The study makes the conclusion its men but there seems to be very little evidence its men not women.
That's wrong. Guys have almost not standards. They take what's there. Even a pretty high value guy will take an average piece if she's available & he's thirsty. A lot of guys have no standards.
>In 2016, 0\% of women were sexless in their marriage but 2\% of men were sexless in their marriage in the past year.
Last time I checked every married woman had a husband. How the fuck is this statistic possible ? Oh yeah.... those poor bastards. I.e 2\% of marriages the husband is denied sex for an entire year while the wife cheats at least once, but probably more than once
Shit... that is hard to read
This tracks to the bare minimum of 3% of kids not being fathered by the husband statistic. The reality is that it's probably much higher.
When I was in college one of my science classes mentioned a fiasco that happened I think in the UK in the late 70s where kids were supposed to find out their parent's blood types as part of the student's science/health class. This is when they were learning about blood types and how genetics work. They realized they had a problem when kids were finding out their dad's were not biologically related, which IIRC was up around 33%!
The "solution" was they pulled that section of the curriculum and stopped having kids ask their parents what their blood types were.
Maybe it was 3.3%? Even if every kid was illegitimate you wouldn't get a 33% illegitimate rate from blood typing. But even if it was only 3%, considering the low chance of an illegitimate kid being proven by blood typing, that'd be a fairly large number of implied illegitimate kids.
There's an unpublished study from the UK regarding the southeast of England and their findings were 30% of men were disqualified from being the father based solely on blood type testing.
The study is unpublished so we don't have any info on the methodology, but blood typing is fairly straightforward. The only reason we know about it is because it's been referenced in articles on the subject of paternity fraud.
I read somewhere that in the US it was around 10%
That's probably a more prevalent average than the 30% figures. I think we can all agree with the bare-bones low-end minimum being about 3%, a more likely mean somewhere around 10%, and the high-end being in the neighborhood of 30%.
I am sure there are societies, those in which polygamy is socially tolerated, 30% is perfectly reasonable if not too low. But for Western societies, 30% nationwide is still way too high. Maybe in certain neighborhoods of cities like NYC, but definitely not over large areas.
Here is the evidence.in 2018 make sure you are at least cheating on your LTR. 40% of women are prepared to do the female equivalent of rape on a man through cucking. It's zero sun gents
well not saying that what you say not true but i wouldn't trust such a small difference in percentage. this is the typical subject where people lie and i would take any number with a margin of at least 5%.
once again, not saying that people don't cheat, but thinking that that statstic **proves it** is a bit wrong.
I'd expect that some women in sexless marriages would not realise that it had been over a year since they last had sex with their husbands, while the husbands would be well aware.
It's an anonymous survey. No need to lie, and no incentive not to. Sure, some still will, but the data is collected from mass groups. In 2014, it was 60,000 people. The laws of large numbers tells us these are pretty reliable numbers, even if, as OP stated, women tend to lie down (no pun intended, bada bing), and men tend to lie up, when it comes to number of sexual encounters.
I've known plenty of people that lied when there was no reason to. Some people that's just the default state.
Personally, I think it's because they need to maintain appearances within themselves. As if admitting the truth might make them realize how shitty their behavior is.
Anger/denial phase. Once you've reached full acceptance, it won't phase you. Having hooked up with 3 (I think) married broads, and plenty more with BF's whilst still in my own anger phase unequivocally shows how the SMP really works. I know two of the three wives were in dead bedroom marriages. Better to be Chad than the cuck. Wouldn't do it again today, my prospects are abundant so need to poach or cut another guy's water, but man were those experiences instructive. YMMV.
I was more in reference to being in a sexless marriage, I literally cannot imagine what it would be like to go a year without having sex, even if it was starfish sex. I mean I understand its a cycle the husband is perpetuating, but damn...
Were you always able to pull this off? Are you a natural chad? What did you change if not.
Definitely not a natural chad. I'm a natural introvert, and can tend to overthink things.
I had intermittent and often situational success in my early life, but rarely with the attractive girls I really like. Worse still I had numerous bouts with wicked one-itis.
After a particularly difficult breakup, I discovered game & RP philosophy. After internalizing & working at it, my success went way up, though I still have challenges.
I was already into health & fitness, but before I focused on endurance sports. After finding the RP, I focused more on lifting, by really studying and applying exercise science and dialing in nutrition, and gained 20 lbs of muscle in about 4 years, despite being a classic hardgainer. I'm ripped now, and have more size, but still not truly swole.
The biggest single thing that helped was learning to identify and parry shit tests, and by extension naturally amping up my confidence and attitude. Assuming the sale helps massively.
Getting better at text game helped a lot as well.
I'm still working on developing myself professionally, and also getting better at approaching, opening, and the initial attraction part of the interaction.
Thank you for the reply. Very new to red pill so I haven’t studied shit test and game etc. looking forward to making some changes.
Best of luck to you. Remember to practice and apply what you've learned.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
See also Price's Law
Beta cucks get married too.
What shocked me is the statistic, not in this study, that at least a third of married men are not the biological parent of their children. The number might be higher but DNA labs refuse to release the proper numbers.
Out there are a lot of unknowing cucks
Dude I don’t know where you got 1/3 but I’m sorry that is false. It’s much lower than that for general population, and the rate of false paternity for married middle class people from... let’s call them “non-dysfunctional neighborhoods” is close to nil. Even if these women are cheating, they are on birth control the vast majority of the time and only coming off of it when the couple is trying to get pregnant.
Yep, this made me die a little inside.
Me too, there has to be something we can improve to boost us up. I’m lifting like a beast and it truly does help.
Studying Nursing had three of the girls in class bitch about how hard it is being single mother and how they still expect a 6'3" dude with a 6 figure salary and a six pack to settle on them. Western women are spoiled entitled little shits it absolutely boggles the mind just how quickly feminism has destroyed them.
Interesting. I had 2 so far, so all I need is to get 0.76 of a woman to sleep with me and I'll be a Chad for 2018.
Average female height is 5'4". At 0.76 of a woman you'll be needing a girl just a hair over four foot.
That’s how I like to do my math.
If you hook up with a fatty, just count it as two hookups.
Hat off to you for bending the rules of the universe to serve your goals, sir.
What! That should not count as two!! More like half!
Just hire one for something and pay her 76% of what a man would make.
Does a 300 pounder count as 2.5 women?
Yeah by these numbers, for 2018 I’m already a chaddy Chad. Nice!
I'm on 3, so essentially I'm Chad now? Lol I knew I've been getting better but to be playing in the big leagues already?
Turns out the big leagues aren't as big as I thought
What really struck me is that if you only bed 3 women in a year that puts you in the top 20%!!!That means the average guy is having much less sex than I thought.
The average dude fucks a woman every other year.
Thinking of it, this is actually consistent with what I know of most of my social groups
Shit -- guess my sex life the last few years wasn't quite as bad as I thought.
It’s really hard to believe, but I guess we all know some guys who are just hopeless. At the same time though, the stat is a bit misleading because there are gonna be a lot of top 20% dudes that have only been with one girl in a year because they are married or in a relationship- not sure if breaks that our or just looks at all guys. Also surveys are notoriously awful and yet all of the social sciences besides economics rely heavily on them.
The data is from currently unmarried 22-35 year olds during the period of one year. So its not all guys, its not including married men.
Ah. Well guys with girlfriends still I guess might be in there.
I wonder how much confidence and pursuing plays into this tho. Like I would not consider myself to be in the top 20% of guys top 40% maybe but I’m not Chad by any means. That being said I’ve gotten 4 new kills this year and I’m expecting to get a few more. I’ve been pushing for it tho, sometimes I wouldn’t have had the confidence or self esteem to do before. In our blue pill society i feel like the reason most men get so little action might be because they don’t know how to get it
Most men I know these days are too passive to even try to sleep around. Many of them settle for relationship sex and many others settle for their right hands.
Game info is available to them. They're just too scared or lazy to learn and apply it.
Oh yeah. At 3 women a year on average, a chad can put 36 notches on his belt from 18-30. At 36 partners over lifetime, you are most definitely top 20%. And at 0.56 partners a year, the middle of the pack man is putting 6.72 or ~7 partners on his belt over his lifetime. A lot of other studies corroborate 7 partners as being the average for a North American male as well.
I’m at least ten times the average then. Another study showed male mean count at 6 and median count at 10 For lifetime partner count.
I think you mean mean 10 and median 6.
Wow that makes me top20%, but I don't feel top 20% at all, because I am fucking only 5s and 6s.
Average guys only has sex with ~11 women his entire lifetime. What did you expect? Get the basic facts straight so you have a realistic view of the world.
5% of men gets the top 20% of women also
I wonder how closely this correlates with income.
So does this mean only 92%ofWALT?
Nah, those other 8% would if they could. They're the omega females.
“I was celibate for one year”
what is omega females?
You asked for it...
https://i.imgur.com/HPwCRKL.jpg?1
Wtf 'on a journey to become fat'? How is this a thing?
its just durty bulking bro, wait till she cut
Someone would still fuck her.
I was having breakfast. Atleast put up a warning that I am going to see a fat woman
Wtf 'on a journey to become fat'? How is this even a thing?
The graph showing 22-35 year olds not having sex in last year suddenly spikes for men in about 2010. Why? The authors says delayed marriage. Bullshit, marriage has been delayed for years.
What else happened in around that time? Instagram launched 2010, Tinder 2012..
PornHub launched around mid 2007, getting traction in 2008. Coincidence ? Idk. The graph starts ascending in 2008. The acceleration is from 2010. We also had the lowest national employment in 2010 (due to 2008 crisis), Obama and his liberal policies came into office, and Instagram launched. Take your pick.
I pick recession. Hard to get laid when unemployed. And possibly depressed.
So, now the economy is better, has this situation changed? No if anything its gotten worse or better depending if you are in the top 20% or not.. incels on the rampage etc..
Yes, there was a lot of stuff going on around that time. I personally, think its the internet validation circus (Instagram/Tinder) that's driving this and as you say, the get out for men is free porn, thus taking away any incentive to improve.
That's a real good point. At this juncture, the first thing an employer looks at is your facebook page. If you give your name and number to a woman the first thing she's does is look for you on social media. As if that were a clear read on who a person is. But that's the sickness of our "cult of personality". Instagram and Twitter have probably made an impact on our culture in this way.
My advise to men today, is to set about their lives, purposefully excluding intimacy, lest they fall victim to some form of feminine conartistry. The modern western woman is raised to be dishonest and unapologetically materialistic. To expect them to behave any different is folly. Once a man has made himself into what he wants to be, (the house, the career, etc.) only then should he seek the type of woman that he wants to include in HIS life, and he should be uncompromising in this.
"Instagram and Twitter have probably made an impact on our culture in this way."
I think its a given at this point.
"Once a man has made himself into what he wants to be"
I agree, and this is what i have done. I can confirm, it is really the only way to go, for long term happiness, with or without women.
Moral of the story, do what it takes to get into the top 20% (really 10%)
If everyone does that, the standard just rises, and it comes down to innate difference out of people control. Also, what constitutes the top 20% changes over time.
But everyone isn't going to do that.
[permanently deleted]
There are spergs who are fit and on juice who can't get laid. However since hoping on cycle I will say - great results and I basically have to swat women away. And I don't look super amazing just a bigger dude
So you contradicted your first sentence by saying they have jad nothing but positives for you! Lmao
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. It's been good to me, however if you're autistic or weird, being jacked won't make up for the fact that you cannot talk to people.
That's me.
Like I have a juiced physique and an over the top body, but in my mind I can't even approach woman lol.
Even I fuck up when I have been approached by them.
Nah that's not really true. If you're jacked as fuck you can walk into a club and just find a receptive girl and pull. If you're jacked and tall and handsome, they'll come over to you. At least in NYC. But this place is basically pussy heaven so maybe not the same elsewhere.
I am 25 I am planning on getting on getting on gear when I am 35. Any long term side effects besides awesome gainz and women touching your ass?
A ton if you don't do it right hair loss your dick not working b**** tits high cholesterol high blood pressure.... You got a lot of Google research to do my friend
If you have male pattern baldness, steroids are a no-go.
Curse my genetics.
Juat shave it and accept the baldness man. Think about it, right now your a normal bald dude, or you can be a jacked bald dude
Well at this point I could still save it and get a hair transplant. I’d look really ugly as a totally bald guy...
Yeah, not everyone will be able to get there, the point is to rise as much as possible, and never fucking stop
This should drive it through for you. The article literally says:
In other words: "Of course top 20% of men don't have 80% of the sex, that would be ridiculous!. They have 60% of all the sex!"
I can't understand how they actually think they've proven the argument wrong.
looked at more microscopically among a set of 100 men and 100 women. 20 men are banging 50 to 60 of those girls (2.5 to 3 partners). Leaving the remaining 80 suckers only 40 to 50 women to choose from. Does this not mean that 30 to 40 men are shit out of luck? I think it does for 1) the bottom 50 to 40% are less attractive and 2) there has to be some of them not getting any at all, particularly when those women at the bottom will hold out for the chance with the top 20%. The article was written in BLOG FGS.
That article funny. Essentially, it implies that ugly people just need to get married if they want sex. However, finding a marriage partner is a problem when you're ugly. It's a good thing that the article completely avoids the issue of physical attractiveness, as if it's actually irrelevant to finding a partner.
Of course they avoid it, otherwise socially acceptable narratives/platitudes like "Just Be Yourself" will start getting questioned.
Men will exaggerate their number, I bet at least 30% of the virgins will pretend to not be a virgin, I wouldn’t be surprised if the number is closer to 18-22%. The opposite is true for women, they want to pretend to be innocent. Although this effect is much less widespread, so I assume that 8% is only off by maybe 0.5%-1%.
+1
Remember that this data doesn't tell us the attractiveness of the partners....so the skew could be even greater than the numbers suggest: the guys banging the most chicks might ALSO be banging the hottest ones.
This 20% dominating 60% makes me feel kind of guilty.
Don't ever feel guilty for having success. Don't be less than who you are, or are capable of, to make someone else feel good about themselves.
Don’t extend a nicety to someone who wouldn’t do the same if your positions were flipped.
You might feel sorry for having a girl show interest in you over her beta boyfriend... but people are assholes, and you can bet he would make the selfish choice if your positions were swapped.
Feels good to be part of the 20%
It really doesn't take that much to beat the 80% either
Just be born at least average and work at yourself. RIP the rest of us.
Better to be the guy that she cheats with than cheats on.
Aw yeah I'm at 3 this year, guess I'm a Chad.
Oh wait they won't text me back. Fuck.
When I fuck fat girls I count them as 2 people.
I like the theory, that would boost my lifetime total up into the 20s
Chubby chasers don’t tally up their n counts when they brag to each other. They compare total mass of females bedded. Bonus points for cracked bed frames.
Do I get to be chad if I'm always banging my LTR?
Yes, but so do the other guys who bang your ltr all the time.
I think the perception that Stacie’s are having more promiscuous sex is a result of the truth simply getting out... the secret simply used to be well kept
I once read an article about a HS biology teacher who taught his students how to test their blood type. I think he must've been the biggest rascal on the planet because he told the kids to go home an ask their parents what THEIR blood type was and, LO & BEHOLD, about 30% of the students reported their fathers had a blood type that was incompatible with their own!! So, at least 30% of the women in that town had been fukk'n somebody besides Dad! Then there were those women who'd been fukk'n some guy whose blood type was compatible with her husbands. Add in the number of women who'd fukk'ed the heater repairman but then didn't get pregnant and what do you have?!
Holy shit, I posted nearly the same thing up above, which was relayed to me via a college class I had several years ago.
There was this study which resulted that in Europe/Asia/Africa for every 1,5/1,4/1,6 women only 1 man reproduced. I can't find it right now, but the number are close to that.
Which doesn't have nothing do to with how much people have sex for fun only
The two funniest parts were the Snopes level of "fact checking" "It's not that the top 20% get 80% they only get 60%, ergo it's false"
And the "0% of married Women are incel while 2% of married Men are"
Just a reminder if you ever want evidence of what it's like, make a tinder with Male model pics and see what you get.
Also make one as a hot girl and see how they have infinitely more options than guys do.
I find it difficult to believe only 14% of men had no sex in a given year. Or maybe I'm less promiscuous than highly religious people
Seems a bit low to me actually. Think about how pathetic the bottom 14% of men are. The thing that shocks me is how few women you need to fuck to be a top guy. I seriously doubt that it’s only three a year.
3 a year makes sense to me. I don't know many people who have that much. Average decent guy will have a few months relationship and then maybe another short relationship
It's probably way higher, like 30 - 40%. Everyone lies about their sex life, even if this is anonymous. Truth is in the meta data. If they had the condom purchase data of each single male, that would tell the truth.
" In 2016, 0\% of women were sexless in their marriage but 2\% of men were sexless in their marriage in the past year.
Last time I checked every married woman had a husband. How the fuck is this statistic possible ? Oh yeah.... those poor bastards."
That's an atomic-level truth bomb right there. Cheers.
I would also guess that 1% of men dominate more than 40% (like, more than 30 partners a year when not in persuit of a LTR)
So as a rule of thumb, if you haven't had sex with your wife in the past year, she IS cheating on you.
Where do I find a 0.56% woman?
Wonder how this would look like if it was real numbers vs statistical decimal points. Anyone had sex with 2.76 women?
Real world example: You bed 11 women in 4 years. Averages 2.75 per year. Close enough. These are averages of a large number of people, everybody's individual average will be different.
I get that.
My point is that how many men are actually getting sex. Because you can't have sex with 0.56 of a woman. Is this author concluding that those 66 men are not having any sex at all?
In my country Id be fucking chad already if I had the logistic to bang them all. Fuck. I will be moving in my own appartment soon. Pussy festival is comming soon.
I thought it was more like 80%
Only 14% men were sexless?
Only if you consider duty sex that is rationed to Betas in LTRs/Marriages equivalent to validational sex Top 20% Men get from women.
One new woman every two years... no wonder most guys cant stand up for themselves after the girlfriend threatens to take the box away. Its like water in a desert to most. What a pathetic reality.
Yar parents fought to get rid of the patriarchy, they wanted sexual liberation ... and decades later we have inceldom.
Also, I think that much more men are sexless... at least judging by my observations.
This statistic also does not give any indication of quality of a lay. I'd rather quality over quantity, I see no point of mindlessly trying to fuck every girl out there and wasting heaps of time on that. There's more to life gentlemen. Go build a business or something. Women are just a form of entertainment which should be consumed in moderation.
moral of the story: don't be an incel, work to be in that top 20% it's more attainable than you think
That last quote you threw in, by the way is wrong and feminist bullshit.
Men actually underreport. Women just underreport more. The “braggart male is bad for science” meme is feminist social conditioning.
Source: several long term studies where they ask about recent and past behavior.
Keep in mind that this is self-reported data, and men usually over-report, while women under-report, even in anonymous studies. I suspect it to be higher.
The 0% 2% thing is just statistical reference, considering sample size its not impossible for it to happen
70% of men dominate the buffet
If you can’t make the top 20% unless you’re MGTOW you better make damn sure you’re not the bottom 14%.
The middle 66% with their 0.56 mates is the majority of the boyfriend and girlfriend couples.
Out of curiosity, does anyone have the numbers for what top% of women sleep with the most amount of dudes?
I agree on the general 20% of men get 80% of women rule, but i wonder what the ratio is for women
Its a good question... I wonder if it actually flips.. the 9 and 10's don't need sex for validation, so can afford to be picky.. its probably the 5, 6 and 7's sleeping with the most men..
that's what I would have thought based on my own experience. 5's to 8's are usually the easiest chicks to sleep with
I certainly agree with this: NO DOUBT a wonderful woman has a positive effect on a man. The problem is finding her, and keeping her, and if she chooses to stay wonderful
And the observation that women have an awful habit of despising contented men
Very interesting piece of research. The author drops red pill bombs but covers his results with blue pill interpretations, possibly out of fear of being labeled "sexist".
However, there are two points that haven't been addressed either by the author or by the commenters in this post:
Being a man who sleeps with a lot of women doesn't necessarily mean that you are of high SMV (aka a Chad). I'm referring of course to the very ordinary case of men of average or low SMV who sleep with even lower SMV girls (that is, very unattractive ones) all the time. In other words, they are Chads in their own "field" but not even close to a Chad overall. Those guys may have 3-digit N-counts and definitely skew the results of the research.
The existence of extremely promiscuous women, with 3-digit N-counts as well. Those women can't have slept only with Chads in their life as Chads are not always easy to find. So, they've surely banged with betas and average SMV guys a lot, causing also the modest increase of the latter's low N-counts. Extremely promiscuous women skew the result of the research, too.
Do you think Chads are only knocking down 2.76 girls a year? Dude that's a week for me. Can't call a guy a Chad unless he is always smashing. I'd venture to say that the top 20% get even more than that. I would say that it's closer to 80%.
I can show my work by just looking at my social circle and work friends. If I take a sample size of nine other dudes I know, two or three of us are knocking down most of the women (at least 80%). The other ones are lucky to get one, if any. Most guys I know don't smash, or when they do it's like one girl that year and she is probably a 6 at best. Most people aren't even trying at life. Lift and learn game gents, or have your genes erased from existence.
Unless you're impregnating these girls, genetic extinction isn't really a factor. Also, the likelihood you have a unique gene that isn't shared by hundreds of thousands, or millions of others, is almost zero. In order to have even 0.1% of your genes erased from existence, you'd need to kill billions of people. To erase all your genes, you'd need to kill all life, as you share a majority of your genes with plants.
Beyond the scope. Pass your genes on or be erased.
You're gonna die, either way,
k mate. Know that others would rather sleep from time to time or enjoy other things in life.
You would trade your life for mine, I guarantee it.
Only losers would, banging hotties is cool, but there is more to life.
Don't assume he is banging hotties.
My guess is that he looked at dudes who are married and have a gf and lumped them in with all dudes. They are only fucking one girl a year (or if they are cheating, probably still self reporting one girl a year). That will drag the average down hard.
I'm still a virgin and I'm cool with it. I look like a total chad by the way. Slim, athletic, ect.
You’re not matching your appearance with your behavior then. If you’re attractive start being an asshole. Experiment. You’ll get laid.
He’s “slim.” So...he does not look like Chad, despite what he says. Skinny guys are always trying to tell you how girls prefer slim more than muscular. Often they call it “swimmer’s build.”
so clint eastwood couldnt be a chad?
when you have shit ton of stuff going on for you being shredded is not needed
A chad is not slim or athletic. He's fucking swole, or at least big.
Chad is a state of mind. Swole helps, but confidence trumps all.
Pure nonsense, it's a state of mind. It probably helps for Tinder and stuff to be bigger, but he can have a 'normal' body and still slay with in real game
Who. Cares. Seriously. It’s not healthy to focus on crap like this. If you are living optimally, and your shit is on point, bullshit stats are irrelevant. And if shit like this actually motivates you more than the desire to live a great life does, you’re really fucked.
Uh, have you read the the paper proper? "Many incels quote a rule of thumb that 20\% of men have 80\% of the sex. Is this true?" Next paragraph. "It turns out, the answer is no."
Yeah, the answer is 60% not 80%. Fuggin' incels can't math.
I laughed at how the author thinks this changes anything.
Ha ha I know. He is so adamant that things are actually ok because it’s only 60%. So the bottom 80% of men pursuing the bottom 20% of women would be a massive societal problem, but the bottom 80% of men pursuing the bottom 40% of women means nothing to see here? What a clown.
He also implies that people who assumed 80% were morons. 80% is actually a really close guess for just going off observations with no data. People that had this insight should be lauded not chastised for being slightly off.
Being in that top 20% isnt as awesome as it is portrayed here. Sure i could get Sex with 5-6 Girls when ever i wanted but its fuckIng dangerous . One Slip up and you are in the shit. Also the hotter a girl the more Drama