For example in the sub-sections topics, "Isn't Attractiveness/Desirability Subjective?" and "So what traits can be seen as attractive/desirable?" I am trying to address these subjects as these are common criticisms of my community (for genuinely good men - monogamous or non-monogamous - with attractive, virtuous and desirable traits who can still fall short in the dating world). However, I am thinking of adding some resources into the discussion, for example Bateman's principle which he discussed in the 1948 study intra-sexual drosophilia (superior, in my opinion to the idea of the Pareto's principle working in biology that often gets referred to but has never been empirically verified, as far as I am aware).

I think as a community however, we still need to explore our body of knowledge further in regards to these studies because it is too easy for our detractors to hand-wave away some of this evidence, for example:

More than 60 years later, Bateman's principle has received considerable attention. Sutherland argued that males' higher variance in reproductive success may result from random mating and coincidence. Hubbell and Johnson suggested that variance in reproductive success can be greatly influenced by the time and allocations of mating. In 2005, Gowaty and Hubbell suggested that mating tendencies are subject to change depending on certain strategies. They argued that there are cases in which males can be more selective than females, whereas Bateman suggested that his paradigm would be “almost universal” among sexually reproducing species. Critics proposed that females might be more subject to sexual selection than males, but not in all circumstances.[2]

Experimental and statistical criticisms followed. Until approximately a decade ago, critics of Bateman’s model focused on his experimental design. In recent years, they have shifted attention to the actual experimental and statistical calculations Bateman published throughout his trials. Birkhead wrote a 2000 review arguing that since Bateman’s experiments lasted only three to four days, the female fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, may not have needed to mate repeatedly, as it can store sperm for up to four days; if Bateman had used a species in which females had to copulate more often to fertilize their eggs, the results might have been different. Snyder and Gowaty conducted the first in-depth analysis of the data in Bateman’s 1948 paper. They found sampling biases, mathematical errors, and selective presentation of data.[3]

A 2012 review by Zuleyma Tang-Martínez concluded that various empirical and theoretical studies, especially Gowaty's reproduction of Bateman's original experiment, pose a major challenge to Bateman's conclusions, and that Bateman's principle should be considered an unproven hypothesis in need of further reexamination.[4] According to Tang-Martínez, "modern data simply don't support most of Bateman's and Trivers's predictions and assumptions."[1]

Having said that,

A 2016 review confirmed Darwinian sex roles across the animal kingdom, concluding that "sexual selection, as captured by standard Bateman metrics, is indeed stronger in males than in females and that it is evolutionarily tied to sex biases in parental care and sexual dimorphism."[5]

(From Wikipedia article on Bateman's principle).

Another study is the Clark-Hatfield one (1989) - gender differences in receptivity to casual sex offers:

According to cultural stereotypes, men are more eager for sex than women; women are more likely to set limits on such activity. In this paper, we review the work of theorists who have argued in favour of this proposition and review the interview and correlational data which support this contention. Finally, we report two experimental tests of this hypothesis.

Clark & Hatfield discovered,

In both studies, we found then that men and women responded as traditionalists would expect them to. Men readily accepted a sexual invitation. Women were extremely reluctant to do so.

Suggesting that the dating game is indeed more difficult for men on the whole. However again this is an outdated study with criticisms from modern feminists and counter-studies, etc. which is why it's necessary I feel, for the community of Good Men to work towards a cohesive body of citations that are relatively easy to access and can be efficiently used to counter the claims of our detractors who want to derail us.

Basically what I am trying to show is that Good Men in the same social league as women - as covered by the traits in the section for "So what traits can be seen as attractive/desirable?" - can indeed get rejected and fall behind in dating during their twenties. Eventually I want to touch on the topic of disenfranchisement for post-wall Good Men who have been rejected and what their struggles/feelings are, especially towards the post-wall Good Women who pose the Big Question.

I mention this here because I think these are important subjects for us to discuss, since feminists seem to want to derail our arguments by arguing either that

  1. Good Men are "punching above their league"
  2. or that when we refute this by saying we have the attractive/desirable qualities to justifiably be courting women in the social leagues that we already are, it is retorted that "attraction is ultimately subjective", therefore we are not ones to say what league we are belong to in the first place

This leads to the Big Question, because then when women in the same social leagues as men are rejecting us and using the two justifications mentioned above, it can indeed lead to the kind of disenfranchisement I mentioned in the earlier paragraph (where post-wall Good Men who have been rejected and what their struggles/feelings are, especially towards the post-wall Good Women who pose the Big Question).

This is the reason why I think it is important for us as a community to address those concerns and I want to do this myself in the topics, "Isn't Attractiveness/Desirability Subjective?" and "So what traits can be seen as attractive/desirable?" but with a better more well-resourced argument. I want to do this, hopefully, without making the clarification unbearably long or complicated as it does need to be accessible to visitors on the page though. Perhaps in the future I will invest some more time into a thorough wiki page that delves into these topics at greater length since they are so huge. But for now, I want to keep things as short/simple as I can get away with (if that's possible).