I try to find the elements of truth in any point of view I encounter, no matter how odious some aspects of it might be.

One problem I have with many male poster viewpoints I come across is that they are essentially asking modern women to change, on their own, who they are attracted to and how much attraction they feel. In my opinion, most people have only limited agency in this regard. There is certainly an evolved biological aspect to what females are attracted to, as well as an individual idiosyncratic dimension. But culture also plays a large role, if sometimes only as the lens through which these biological impulses are expressed.

So it makes me frustrated and even angry when many male points of view basically amount to: 'certain women should pair up with men they cannot feel attracted to just for the good of society'. That just seems unfair and wrong. And it leads to problems down the road, such as the cliche of the traditional henpecked husband whose nagging wife does not respect him and never sleeps with him.

To the extent that there is a disequilibrium between male and female attraction levels, especially at the lower ends of the respective SMV hierarchies, such a problem is only solved by wide-scale cultural change in my opinion. Even F. Robert Devlin in his (in)famous (in the manosphere) work 'Sexual Utopia in Power' made this crucial connection. He critically mentioned that, beginning with film, the ability of women to see handsome and successful movie stars to then compare their husbands to had a major impact in terms of making the average man less attractive to the average woman. He also mentioned that when men no longer had the cachet of having naturally superior experience in the outside world combined with greater wealth due to preferential hiring practices, this also made the average man less attractive to the average woman.

I do understand the argument that there is a distinction between raw female lust for, and overall attraction to, a man. Some women argue that women never found high status itself sexually attractive, but rather it just made a man attractive for a relationship under conditions of female economic dependence. I would argue that such an easy distinction is not true. Male status and competence do add to raw female sexual desire for a man. It is a complex equation, of course. Basic male physical beauty has always played a part as well.

I would also argue that the female situation is not symmetrical to the male. No doubt constant exposure to the most beautiful women on the world via the digital culture has also dampened the average male's attraction to the average female. But due to differing attraction and sexuality dynamics between the sexes, including a lack of hypergamy among men, the overall effect is not the same. Most average men can still find their female equivalent sufficiently attractive to have enthusiastic sex with them, as well as to want to pair up with them for child raising. That said, of course many cultural changes could improve things for men on this score as well.

So I am in no way advocating we necessarily try to roll back the clock to recreate the exact circumstances present in olden days that facilitated female attraction to average men. But I do argue that if we want to fix the current disequilibrium (one that seems to be growing) we will need cultural changes that facilitate greater female attraction to the average guy. You can't just ask women to magically change what they find desirable. Now, what forms these changes could take are up for discussion. Perhaps curtailing social media. Less scantily clad men and women on TV and movies and in magazines. Maybe men need to make a one-time, across the board adaptation to female emancipation by spending as much time as women do on both their appearance as well as domestic work, etc. But just saying the average woman should fuck the average guy, even when she doesn't find him attractive, shows a total lack of empathy for women and a basic lack of understanding for human psychology.