~ archived since 2018 ~

34% of women and 63% of men are single. Please explain how this does NOT mean multiple women are marrying/dating the same man at the same time?

February 22, 2023
16 upvotes

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/AllPillDebate.

/r/AllPillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title 34% of women and 63% of men are single. Please explain how this does NOT mean multiple women are marrying/dating the same man at the same time?
Author RatDontPanic
Upvotes 16
Comments 128
Date February 22, 2023 8:26 PM UTC (1 month ago)
Subreddit /r/AllPillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/AllPillDebate/34-of-women-and-63-of-men-are-single-please.1153724
https://theredarchive.com/post/1153724
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/119bf31/34_of_women_and_63_of_men_are_single_please/
Comments

[–]Grapestheanswer 18 points19 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

What the fuck are men even getting out of participating in this sick satanic society

[–]LainselBluePill 17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Survival. Nothing else

Most men aren't even living, they are just surviving. You should see how bummed out the people in my apartment complex look as they go back into their homes from yet another laborious wageslaving day going back to an empty apartment that they probably use 80% of their income to afford.

But hey, the doctors said it was "depression". Just take your SSRIs and stop complaining, inkwells :')

[–]ManWazoA short king with high ncount -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Fun. Being single and having casual sex is fun!

[–]Rammspieler 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure Chad will agree, since he is not in that percent.

[–]Grapestheanswer 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Surely i don't doubt that the guys mentioned in the op are not complaining 🤷‍♂️

[–]rantsincognito 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The only argument I have heard that even nearly makes sense is that the alternative would be Chads becoming warlords and all of us would be even more under their boot. So basically a protection racket.

But if we look back towards history is it really true that Chads were the ones winning? Was Genghis Khan a Chad? And if he was, why do women complain so much that he was a "rapist"? Why would Chad need to rape his harem?

[–]LainselBluePill 12 points13 points  (38 children) | Copy Link

These people talk about "female rights" like women were given rights last year. Women have had the same rights as men and were sexually liberated for decades now yet this level of celibacy and loneliness in men were unheard of. It's honestly just hypergamy + tech imo. It's a very very brutal combo

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] -1 points0 points  (37 children) | Copy Link

What does women's rights have to do with this? Are you saying we should take them away? So we can have a bunch of deadbedroom marriages of convenience?

[–]LainselBluePill 9 points10 points  (36 children) | Copy Link

Those articles talk about women having rights being the only cause. "Women are now free to pick their own partners". Yeah, and they were allowed to do so for decades

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] -2 points-1 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I see "women having rights" as stupid because a world where women have no rights is a world of empty marriages of convenience filled with dead bedrooms.

[–]LainselBluePill 6 points7 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Dude, I didn't say women shouldn't have rights. Things weren't this bad just 15 years ago. Didn't women have rights 15 years ago or did Tinder and Instagram give women rights?

Literally, it's just hypergamy + tech. There's never been an era in humanity where women have had the options they do today

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] -4 points-3 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Your point is irrelevant unless you explain what the solution is. Women gaining rights took time to get us to this condition. We didn't get here overnight. Once you understand that the obvious solution is to drag women back to the 1950s. But that doesn't work either because as I said we'd only wind up with relationships of convenience and dead bedrooms.

It's best to just adapt to what's happening now. We should be putting the same value on romantic relationships that women do - namely, less value.

[–]-banned- 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

I've got one, the government needs to regulate dating apps. Similarly to how they regulate social media, perhaps even more regulated. Evolution is slow, we're moving too fast. There are some pretty serious unintended consequences and the illusion of opportunity that dating apps offer is starting to have a huge effect.

There's a reason all the dating apps stopped sharing the findings of their studies a decade ago. They were showing how detrimental the apps were. The government should look into that.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

I've got one, the government needs to regulate dating apps.

ROTFLMAO oh my God I almost croaked from laughing so hard.

Wait, you're not serious are you?

[–]-banned- -1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

You have an actual response or you just gonna waste my time with your arrogance?

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

LOL at the idea of the government regulating dating apps hahahaha man you funny as fuck

[–]RinoaRita -2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Pick their partner vs pick no partners. Women couldn’t even get a credit card until the 70s. There were many ways a woman needed a man. So yeah for the most part women were free to pick their partners but not no partner. So they found their equivalent and matches were made.

Now it seems like women and even men are opting out of making a match. Men no longer need to put a ring on it so the ones that can attract a women aren’t going to commit until they actively choose to and women are deciding alone is better than just anyone /the best they can get.

[–]LainselBluePill 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm talking 90s to 2000s.

[–]BoxxyFoxxy -2 points-1 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Are you serious?

Slut shaming women is still VERY much a thing and a shitton of women were socialized to feel uncomfortable with sleeping around.

How tonedeaf does one have to be to think that men and women are equal today just because the law doesn’t forbid someone from being a woman?

[–]LainselBluePill -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're right, women and men aren't equal in society because women are 1000x more privileged.

[–]BoxxyFoxxy 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[–]inkvell3431 points [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link

Slutshaming only matters if you are, 1.) A slut and 2.) trying to settle down with a guy who does have a negative opinion on high body counts. Otherwise, literally, no one gives af about what other people do with their bodies in their own lives.

Here's two solutions you can take to not care about slutshaming:

1.) Get with other men who are sluts like you and have high bodycounts.

2.) Don't be a slut

Do whatever you want but don't you dare try gaslight and shame men who do have a negative opinion on high bodycounts, into accepting sluts and their lifestyle. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

[–]BoxxyFoxxy 0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

I literally married my first, you absolute degenerate.

You are more than welcome to not want to date a woman for whatever reason. You are NOT allowed to treat her like trash because she decides to lead her life the way she wants to, especially if you want to get away with it scot free, because someone is going to call you out on your bullshit.

You sure you’re straight? I can smell that you absolutely cannot stomach women thousands of miles away. Fucking disgusting.

[–]inkvell3431 points [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

I literally married my first, you absolute degenerate.

Lmao then why are you getting so toasty over girls who you are nothing like? 😂

You are more than welcome to not want to date a woman for whatever reason.

Cool ty 😊

You are NOT allowed to treat her like trash because she decides to lead her life the way she wants to, especially if you want to get away with it scot free, because someone is going to call you out on your bullshit.

Except I quite literally can lmao, I have freedom of speech and expression, so actually, I CAN treat any woman I feel like as "trash" if I feel like it. Also I really don't care about the people who call me out on the way I behave. I consider myself perfectly fine when it comes to behaving the way I do, and I consider everyone else who's not like me delusional to varying degrees. So the opinions of delusional people mean nothing to me. NA. TA. 🤗

You sure you’re straight? I can smell that you absolutely cannot stomach women thousands of miles away. Fucking disgusting.

Typical homophobic shaming by women whenever they get triggered 😂😂😂, can someone explain to me why do women use being gay as some kind of way to shame men they disagree with into silence. Btw I'm actually very comfortable and aware of my sexuality, so thanks for your concern. :) just cause my biology compels me to want to fuck women, doesn't mean it compels me to want to respect them. Remember that.

[–]BoxxyFoxxy 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

Freedom of speech only protects you from being legally prosecuted for the disgusting shit that you say. It doesn’t protect you from social consequences, such as me calling you out on your shit or women refusing to date you for treating them like scum.

You aren’t “disagreeing” here. You are being hateful. We’re not talking about our favorite food here. We’re talking about human beings and how you affect their mental wellbeing with your hateful shit. For the life of me, I can’t imagine that someone as hateful of women as you are can get any enjoyment from women. You’re probably gay and in denial or asexual. There’s just no way someone who hates women this much is capable of falling in love with a woman or finding her attractive.

[–]inkvell3431 points [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

It doesn’t protect you from social consequences, such as me calling you out on your shit or women refusing to date you for treating them like scum.

Muh social consequences. Lmao listen lady, money talks, your bullshit "Muh social consequences" walk. As long as one has enough money to clothe feed themselves and live in a shelter, and as long as someone's attractive enough to fuck women, everything else is luxury that I get to decide if I want for myself or not. From WHOM would I be suffering these "social consequences" from? A bunch of old blue haired feminist landwhales on Twitter with nothing else going for them? Like I care about the opinions of women that I'm not currently fucking. 😂

You aren’t “disagreeing” here. You are being hateful. We’re not talking about our favorite food here. We’re talking about human beings and how you affect their mental wellbeing with your hateful shit.

"OMG, BILLY WONT LET ME FUCK AN ENDLESS AMOUNT CHADS THROUGH MY 20S AND THEN SETTLE DOWN WITH HIM WHEN I'M A RAN THROUGH, POST WALL WHORE AT 30! WAHHHHH! 😭😭😭😭"

I am absolutely honored to give such women this mental anguish. Thank you for noticing my work.🥹🥹🥹🤗🤗🤗

For the life of me, I can’t imagine that someone as hateful of women as you are can get any enjoyment from women.

Depends on what kind of women we are talking about, I mean, women aren't all the same... right? If they are zero/ low n count (virgins preferably) and have the same views on sex like me, then yeah, I'll care about who they are outside of their pussies.

But if they are high n count sluts, then I'll only care about their pussies, because clearly that's only thing they got going for them. 😂😂😂

You’re probably gay and in denial or asexual. There’s just no way someone who hates women this much is capable of falling in love with a woman or finding her attractive.

More homophobic shaming lmao 🙄🙄🙄😂😂😂 Lol I swear to God, women are secretly more homophobic then men are or will ever be. That being said, you're absolutely right, I couldn't fall in love with a majority, seeing as a majority of women are worthy of "lOvE" to begin with. 🤭

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW janitor // in genes we trust 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

you are not calm enough to make this comeback work

[–]BoxxyFoxxy 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I love how you spend half the comment claiming that my opinion means less than nothing to me ans the other half of the comment acting all offended and standing up against “homophobia”.

I’m glad you’re an incel. You deserve it.

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW janitor // in genes we trust 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

ngl if you treat women like trash and you strike first you are giving them a justification to go apeshit on you which they can and will do

you might want to reconsider

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW janitor // in genes we trust -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

i wish men stood up for incels and men sent their own way like you do for sluts the world would be a much better place

[–]sebasTLCQG 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Only in some 3rd world countries and islamic countries.

You even have wahmen policians now thinking they can twerk with no accountability while it goes public.

[–]Antisocial_NihilistRedPill 5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You also need to consider that these are self reported statistics.

Men tend to exaggerate the number of partners they've had, while women tend to lie/downplay their number of sex partners.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 13 points14 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

So if men are exaggerating their numbers then it's actually worse for men than we realize?

[–]Antisocial_NihilistRedPill 8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

That's the implication of what I said, yep.

The real statistics are probably way worse. But since that's not verifiable we just have to go with what we have.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We're headed toward a retirement crisis of ruinous proportions if that is true.

[–]BitsAndBobs304 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

also applies to virginity rates and number of men and women who havent had sex in last year

[–]inkvell981 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Unironically those percentages basically match up with human ancestry 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/9839/do-we-have-more-female-than-male-ancestors#:~:text=concluded%20that%20among%20the%20ancestors,female%20and%2033%25%20male.%22

"Jason Wilder and his colleagues ... concluded that among the ancestors of today's human population, women outnumbered men about two to one." He then states this means that "humanity's ancestors were about 67% female and 33% male."

[–]BitsAndBobs304 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

One of the great tragedies of nature.

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 4 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

34% of 18-29 year old women are single.

17% for 30-49, 30% for 50-64, 39% for 65+

63% of men 18-29 years old are single.

For men, this drops to a whopping 25% for men in 30-49, 28% 50-64, 25% 65+,

This shows us women are dating older men. If you add all the % together and take into account the population of people in those age groups, there’s an extra 4% of women who are dating men who are cheating on them.

[–]noonereadsthisstuff[🍰] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The most logical explanation, unless you want to believe that one third of men age 18-29 are in polyamorous relationships.

The 4% could be explained by sone men & women have different definitions of what 'single' & 'dating' are or just dating people who are outside of whatever catchment area they used.

[–]keitaitonekoko#8 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

31-49 women are still more likely to be paired up than men their age
though, i highly doubt +50 year olds are dating 20 year olds commonly, which anyone with their eyes can see is not the case.

i personally think it's just a combinarion of it being a shitty self reported sample and what guys and girls consider single is not the same.

[–]Wirlix00BlackPill -2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol 😂 who cares about what people above 65 years are dating. They are completely irrelevant to dating statics or any kind or research. Are you using that to say that women are dating middle aged aged guys? 😂 😂 That's a complete red pill delusion. Cope in it's purest form. Get real dude.

[–]platinirismsBlackPill 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I never shared my opinion about anything, just the facts.

OP is right, there are multiple women dating the same men at the same time, 4% of them to be exact.

[–]puririnpa 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Anectodally speaking and looking at the marriage stats which has a large sample than this, this is not the case,well it is, but it is for 2-4 year age gaps which might screw it a little.

Women's single rates are also lower than men's until +65,so i realistically don't think this is the common case.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

That does make sense. u/purinpa?

[–]puririnpa 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It would make sense with small age gaps at like 2-5 (let's say 28 year olds dated 32 or whatever, shave off %20 by this) but considering that 30-49 year old women are still less single than men at the same range, this doesn't fully match up to say everyone is dating +10 year old gaps with the data we have.

A more realistic explanation is that there's literally more young men than women+what women consider as single vs what men consider it is different, anectodally i don't see +10 age gaps often,but i see 2 to 4 often.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A more realistic explanation is that there's literally more young men than women+what women consider as single vs what men consider it is different, anectodally i don't see +10 age gaps often,but i see 2 to 4 often.

That is a possibility. Not sure what the population statistics are like regarding young men and women tho.

[–]LolaLazuliLapis 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, actually there was a study that shows that women were exaggerating their relationship status. Men would report single unless they were legally married and not separated, but women would say they were not single even if they were just dating a man.

[–]keitaitonekoko#8 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

31-49 women are still more likely to be paired up than men their age though, i highly doubt +50 year olds are dating 20 year olds commonly.

i personally believe its just shitty self reported data and that what girls and guys consider single are different things.

there are many contradicting data like one that showed young women were having less sex than young men, single=/=celibate.

[–]Pilling_it 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's self reported.

A woman could definitely say she's taken while in a casual relationship with a man that will write down single.

Very different meaning for each.

[–]infinitofluxo 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Maybe these statistics are made with data from their own declarations? So it would mean more men consider themselves single/are looking for relationships and more women are not open to relationships and don't consider themselves single even though they technically are.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Huh, well that could be true.

[–]LolaLazuliLapis 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

that's exactly the case. women will report that they are married even when not while men will report single even if they have been cohabitating for a decade basically qualifying for a common law marriage.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Which would contrast the narrative of men bragging about higher body counts than they have and women understating their body counts.

[–]LolaLazuliLapis 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

no it wouldn't. asking someone how many people they have slept with and if they are in a relationship are two very different questions.

A woman can easily downplay her body count and still consider herself married whilst a man can inflate his body count and not consider anything short of an actual marriage license as confirmation that he is not single.

I honestly don't know how you came to such a conclusion.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

no it wouldn't. asking someone how many people they have slept with and if they are in a relationship are two very different questions.

Fundamentally they're not all that different - they can both easily be falsified.

[–]ExpressionLeather438 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

While it’s definitely possibly, anyone who’s in college knows that most guys in their early 20s are single and aren’t getting any action. I sound like one of those manosphere guys when I say it but it’s the sad truth. Tbh I don’t even know how it’s possible since most girls I know seem to be dating some guy or just got out of a relationship.

[–]puririnpa 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I think you're putting too much weight on self reported data with a not large enough sample

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Is there a better report that contradicts this?

[–]puririnpa 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Not a ''better' ' one but one report said young women were having less sex than young men in 2021

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Woah. Got a link to that one?

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW janitor // in genes we trust 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

to give koko#6 credit where credit is due: GSS 2021

[–]-banned- 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Less sexual partners, not less sex. Which would make sense, because they're in relationships.

[–]TelephonicRugPeddler 0 points1 point  (19 children) | Copy Link

That’s exactly what it means, I’ve lived this life and so did my roommates in NYC. We’d usually have 2-3 women in our cycle at any point in time.

Men are probably less like to claim themselves as taken when causally dating a woman.

But yes, most women are dating the same handful of lucky men. The only people who need convincing of this are le Reddit simps so you’re pissing in the wind bro.

Make yourself more competitive and join us.

[–]inkvell981 points [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Make yourself more competitive and join us.

"Just be born with good genes bro"

[–]TelephonicRugPeddler 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I was a 5’9 brown guy living in New York god damn City, how top tier do you think I am?

I plastic surgeried, filler, instagrammed, and gymmaxxed. If you haven’t done all the above then you can’t say it’s over.

[–]inkvell981 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Good, I'm a brown guy too. I plan on plastic surgery maxxing/filler maxxing when I can but I'm too poor to right now, plus I'm in school as well. That being said I am still saving up most of my current income for surgeries anyway.

[–]TelephonicRugPeddler 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Good. My life changed after I fixed my jaw, nose, ears, mid face, and eye area through a combo of invasive surgeries and fillers. And I didn’t start to get any results until 3 years into my journey of looksmaxxing.

You have time if you’re still in school, that’s when I started (at 22, actually, I was in the army from 18-22). So no results until 25 but wow was the 3 years of work worth it.

Don’t neglect Instagram and max it out. Fraud things if you need to, the idea is to make yourself look somewhat interesting or classy.

Wheat Waffles has a checklist video on looksmaxxing. Check it out and make you’re doing every single one.

[–]inkvell981 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm already 24 going on 25 next month 😂😂😂, I caught on to plastic surgery thing at the wrong time and wrong place, when I was in the military at 22. Before I thought I was already decent looking enough, I just had to gymmaxx and ascend. Safe to say, "there is no gym for your pheno" 😂😂😂. So now I've been going to school since last year for my hvac certificate, and then I'm going to work 2-3 years and save up most of my money then get all my surgeries.

Say, I'm actually really happy to read you got all those procedures done because I plan on doing all that shit 🤣🤣🤣. I'm just really worried about the eye area part tbh, I'm afraid of doing anything "invasive" around my eyes, but I want to because I have terribly curry bug eyes. What did you get for your eye area?

[–]TelephonicRugPeddler 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hahaha same here. I was the cringe Private hardo who thought being in the army made me more attractive.

Not even remotely true btw, I just turned 28 and actively date 19-25 year olds. Even 30s can still get you quality women in their 20s. I strongly disagree with wheat waffles on the age thing.

I got under eye fillers and slight eyelid surgery to correct outer droop. I have very slight UEE so didn’t correct it. There’s a surgery for virtually everything so I’m sure you can find one.

I also overseasmaxxed and got my surgeries in Colombia and Mexico. You can get a top-rated, American-educated and certified surgeons there for 50%+ less than the worst rated surgeon in the US. I understand most people aren’t open to this but it’s an option, I took the risk and it was worth it as long as you DYOR.

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW janitor // in genes we trust 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

let me guess, while you did all this shit your girls were mcdonald's eaters

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Make yourself more competitive and join us.

If I was single I would decline that strategy. It wouldn't land me any kind of woman that I'd want to be around. Any woman you have to compete for is one who will inevitably either destroy you mentally or just dump you for someone better.

There are worse things in life than being lonely.

[–]TelephonicRugPeddler 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don’t mean get into a direct, conscious competition with your local Chad to win a single woman over, cartoon style.

I mean make yourself more physically attractive so that you can compete with other men in the dating pool for women in a broad sense.

Which is all dating is, a competition, and yes the tall white rich guy will beat out of the short smelly brown homeless man, even though they aren’t consciously competing with one another.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I mean make yourself more physically attractive so that you can compete with other men in the dating pool for women in a broad sense.

I've dated women successfully while fat and forever brown. But I was never homeless or smelly. I'm also not 6'2.

[–]TelephonicRugPeddler 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Then my post wasn’t directed towards you but rather towards men who feel entirely excluded from the dating market.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The tall rich white guy won't beat out the tall rich black / Asian guy either. Tall rich men will beat out men who are not. The problem is all they're getting are superficial women who want a status symbol. Their relationships will deteriorate and inevitably explode in their faces because it isn't based on love.

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW janitor // in genes we trust 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

i thought you were white jfl

[–]LolaLazuliLapis 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

so women are shallow if we want the best possible partners? that makes no sense. wanting health, attractiveness (personality and physical), and financial stability in a partner is bare minimum.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes women like that are shallow. What happens if your health and good looks suddenly go to shit and a COVID she-recession knocks you out of your job? Not all of you women are financially stable, attractive or in great health, but all post-Tinder era women demand this in men while many are not bringing the same thing to the table.

Also I notice you didn't add 'decent' to that equation. Plenty of thugs have great personalities to cover it all up. And before you say decent is the bare minimum let's not forget Donald Trump has had three wives.

What you want is a flashy man who is arm candy and a status symbol. That's not love, that's objectification.

In any case I found a good wife who is entrepreneurially adept and not a submissive homemaker and I didn't have to cater to the demands of women like you. Hell we met when we were dirt fucking poor and I was coming back from a serious illness. I did bring personality and decency to the table, though. Thank God I didn't qualify for a woman like you!

[–]LolaLazuliLapis 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yikes. Why should someone that's not financially stable have to date someone who is also struggling? That's not being shallow, that's being realistic.

And I said attractive personality instead of decent because being kind and having upstanding character is a given. You also have to not bore to death. Sure there are plenty of women who are superficial and only care about money, but for me both are requirements. Why is that an issue for you?

I also don't know why you assume things would go terribly wrong if my hypothetical partner were to get sick. Men are far more likely to leave their wives in this scenario. Nice try though. Also, I'll never be a housewife. I don't know why you assumed such.

You say you didn't qualify to date me, so which part were you missing? Were you ugly? (can be overcome with personality and fitness. I'm not asking for a supermodel.). Were you broke? (I don't think broke people should be focused on dating regardless of gender. There are more pressing matters at hand.). Was your personality unattractive? (Very subjective, but therapy, improv classes, etc can help with that).

I'm sorry if you think having those standards are shallow, but I'm not looking to take on dead weight in a relationship. If a man doesn't add to my life, then why would I be interested?

And why is it so wrong to have such standards? Does every woman have to date potential?

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yikes. Why should someone that's not financially stable have to date someone who is also struggling? That's not being shallow, that's being realistic.

Great gold digger thinking right there.

And I said attractive personality instead of decent because being kind and having upstanding character is a given.

Tell that to Donald Trump and many other men like him.

You also have to not bore to death. Sure there are plenty of women who are superficial and only care about money, but for me both are requirements. Why is that an issue for you?

It's part of a bigger issue - you want perfection. How much perfection do you offer in return?

I also don't know why you assume things would go terribly wrong if my hypothetical partner were to get sick. Men are far more likely to leave their wives in this scenario. Nice try though.

ROTFLMAO it turns out you're wrong, the researchers who came up with that study even retracted it. Oops.

Also, I'll never be a housewife. I don't know why you assumed such.

Means nothing to me, I never wanted one.

You say you didn't qualify to date me, so which part were you missing? Were you ugly? (can be overcome with personality and fitness. I'm not asking for a supermodel.). Were you broke? (I don't think broke people should be focused on dating regardless of gender. There are more pressing matters at hand.). Was your personality unattractive? (Very subjective, but therapy, improv classes, etc can help with that).

My wife thinks I'm okay in those areas.

And why is it so wrong to have such standards? Does every woman have to date potential?

Whatever. You can have those superficial standards. Men don't have to want to date you because of it. This is not ever going to lead to a loving relationship, that is all.

[–]LolaLazuliLapis 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

None of what I said implies I want perfection. I'm not asking for a billionaire supermodel Nobel Peace prize winner.

And how is requiring stability gold digging? Like what? Why would I date a man who doesn't have that?

I'm not perfect either, but I'm not destitute, a slob, or a horrible person (subjective, I know lol). Why can't I ask for the same without men acting like I'm unreasonable? Even if I am unreasonable, so what? I'll die alone before I settle. You'd probably say I would be in the wrong for settling too. Damned if I do or don't.

As you said, it doesn't matter. What one man can't/won't do another one will. And if not, I'll be perfectly satisfied with my life knowing I didn't waver an inch on the conditions a man must meet in order for me to give him my time, energy, body, and womb. Modern women can choose partners freely and now wanting financial stability which was a hard requirement/expectation for men in the past is golddigging. bffr💀

[–]James_Cruse 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Women are over-stating or exaggerating the level of their romantic relationships - which is typical of women.

Meaning: the bulk of women saying they’re “in a relationship”; the men they say they’re in a relationship with don’t agree with this. Meaning, those women THINK their relationship is MORE serious than it actually is.

Women overestimate their relationship partners and men overestimate their sexual partners - that’s the nature of men and women in surveys and in life.

Therefore, women are lying ALOT about their relationships to conserve their own self-esteem and to appear more successful in life - as relationships is one of the most important aspects of a woman’s life, like sex is to men.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is all well within the realm of believability.

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW janitor // in genes we trust 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

this reminds me of how women in mrsdrgreeistan all act like they are millionaire stacies married to chad billionaires then you look at their ig's and realize that the more bitter they sound the bigger a loser they are behind the screen

[–]RinoaRita 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The survey seems so say it’s people in their 20s? Maybe women are hooking up with older men?

[–]House-MDMA 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In the next age range ( up to 49) there was still more women dating than men, the ratio is just decreased, so I'm sure some are dating older men but that's definitely not the whole picture. Only thing I can think of is soft harems / lots of women would rather share a hvm than be saddled with a faithful beta ( obviously the women hope that the hvm will have her as their only girl eventually).

[–]noonereadsthisstuff[🍰] -1 points0 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Most young men are single. Most young women are not.

young

[–]keitaitonekoko#8 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

the average age gap is about 2-4 years so this doesn't match up, and women at any age are more likely to report being paired up than men witht he exception of +65 group so it's not specific to 18-30 group.

the key in this title is that single=/=celibate for men.

[–]noonereadsthisstuff[🍰] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Im not sure what the point you're trying to make is

[–]keitaitonekoko#8 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

that the age gap reasoning doesn't really match the stats we have.

[–]noonereadsthisstuff[🍰] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Why not?

[–]keitaitonekoko#8 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

because the stat we have average age gap is about 2-3 years which is not enough to make a good difference in the data, and even if it did, the data for 31-49 group still reports more singledom among men of this age group than women of this age group, how come older women aren't having any trouble if half of young women are dating older? the number only really flips among the +65 group, which is lol. realistically +65 is not the competition for young men.

[–]noonereadsthisstuff[🍰] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

https://www.psycom.net/relationships/age-difference-in-relationships#:~:text=In%20Western%20countries%2C%20about%208,%25%20of%20female%2Dfemale%20relationships.&text=And%2C%20in%20any%20case%2C%20experts,age%20difference%20does%20not%20exist.

 In Western countries, about 8% of male-female couples have an age gap of 10 years or more, rising to 25% in male-male unions and 15% of female-female relationships.

[–]keitaitonekoko#8 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

%8 in heterosexual groups is not enough to make a %30 difference or close to it, you're not really challenging my point.

%25 in male-male unions is irrevelant to who women are dating, obviously.

[–]noonereadsthisstuff[🍰] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

It doesnt have to be 10 years, it just has to be enough to push some women into the next age group up, and some men into dating the next age group down.

If you add all these dats sets together the difference is only 4% between men and women.

[–]donttagme7 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

it would have a possible effect, but it won't have more than %10-%15 diference of effect if i'm being generous for the 18-30 age group, like, do you think merely 28 ish year olds dating 32 year olds is enough to count for the data?

[–]EviessVeralan -5 points-4 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Its because youre wrong. The real number is 32/51 female vs male single status. Any disparity can be explained by the fact that women tend to like men who are older then them.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

In other words those older men are dating more than one woman at a time. Of course more women are bi or lesbian, too.

[–]EviessVeralan -1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

There are a grand total of zero studies that back up this out of touch worldview.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] -1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

There are a grand total of zero that deny it.

The numbers in this study indicate it is a factor. You can't rule that out.

[–]EviessVeralan -1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes i can because there are no stats that prove that polygamy is prevalent in the west

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Except there's tons of Facebook groups by women dedicated to shaming men for dating other women at the same time.

[–]EviessVeralan -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Women shaming men for being crappy people and other women dating these men later doesnt magically mean we live in a polygamous society.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

ROTFLMAO nice intentional play at not getting the point. These Facebook groups are about women who are quite often simultaneously dating the same dude, not just men who were assholes to one woman and then dated another.

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW janitor // in genes we trust 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

later

he meant something more along the lines of "simultaneously", "concurrently", "meanwhile", "in parallel", "in tandem" unless you are a theoretical physicist and you know special relativity

[–]EviessVeralan 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The link he posted showed a group where women slammed shitty dudes they've dated. The idea that sll of these women were in harems for these guys isnt substantiated.

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW janitor // in genes we trust 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

i Concede ✋

[–]no_bling_just_dingself-aware MSTOW janitor // in genes we trust 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EviessVeralan 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Its possible womens tendency towards being Bisexual more than men can also be a factor. Either was though the stats still dont point to a large scale adoption of polygamy in the west.

[–]-banned- 0 points1 point  (21 children) | Copy Link

Probably because you conveniently left out the word "young" in that title. Those percentages are specific to the 20-30 age group, women are just dating older men. If victimization is truly happening we wouldn't need to change the title.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (19 children) | Copy Link

Young/20-30, like in their prime fertile years. The years that count the most. And I never mentioned any kind of victimization, that's your straw man.

[–]-banned- 0 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy Link

They're still dating men during those years. They're just dating older men, above 30.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

But wait aren't women disgusted by older men? I read it in all the feminist subs lol

[–]-banned- 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Idk why you'd generalize women by the feminist subs, those people are the most extreme of all of them.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I was being facetious.

[–]-banned- 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Ah gotcha, hard to tell when people are serious about their crazy opinions on this site. You wouldn't believe some of the conversations I've had, people are so angry and they don't even know why anymore. Echo chambers radicalizing people left and right.

[–]RatDontPanicAverage Unfrustrated Chump[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah that's why I left the men's rights movement. They're just as bad as the feminists.

[–]-banned- 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I believe it

[–]keitaitonekoko#8 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

the average age gap is about 2-4 years so this doesn't match up, and women at any age are more likely to report being paired up than men witht he exception of +65 group so it's not specific to 18-30 group.

the key in this title is that single=/=celibate for men.

[–]-banned- 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

What does being celibate have to do with this study about being single?

Pew research actually did a study on sex lives. They were trying to find out how it was possible for men to be having more sex than women, on average. They found that men's numbers are skewed by a few men having very high numbers and those same men exaggerating. If you control for those inaccuracies the numbers are pretty much equal.

[–]keitaitonekoko#8 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

basically, huge age gaps aren't common enough to skew the data by %30, and even if they were, women at age 31-49 are still more likely to be paired up at men at the same age, so it doesn't even match our sample, you would expect older women to have problems if half of younger women were dating older men, no?

what i'm suggesting is that women with fuckbuddies might report being in relationships, while men with fuckbuddies will call it ''single''

regardless, average age gap according to general studies is 2-3 years and shrinking.

[–]-banned- 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Older women do have problems. Around the age of 60 it flips, and much more women are single than men. It's just that they don't care, single women stop dating as they get older. The article does a pretty good job at explaining where the discrepancies are.

[–]keitaitonekoko#8 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

i adressed the +65 group, it's highly unrealistic that even with women who prefer older men, you would see them dating 65+ year olds, but if you look at the 31-49 sample, you see that men are still more likely to be single than women of this group so women age 31-49 aren't effected.

i suspect one reason this flips around is that men at +65 group simply die faster, while more males under 50 exist.

[–]-banned- 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Idk seems much more likely to me that the large difference in percentage is due women under 65 dating men over 65, the same trend as we see throughout all the age groups.

[–]keitaitonekoko#8 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

i mean, one can see with their eyes that 65 year old men dating 20 year old women is very, very uncommon.

and we also have data on the average age gap of relationships, it is about 2-4 years and there is a trend of it further shrinking.

that being said, there are more women older than 50, while there are more men under 50 statistically, simply because men die younger than women.

i suspect the actual reasoning is that most men who got laid through fuck buddies or casual dating are still likely to report being single, while the women are not

[–]keitaitonekoko#8 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

there's still more single men than women in the 31-49 category, so i don't think this is the case, i highly dounnt +50 is dating 20 year olds.

personally think it's just a combinarion of it being a shitty selfreported sample and what guys and girls consider single is not the same.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter