There is a school of thought here that goes, "forget about age, demographics, expected income per age, this and that... you can still get women if you put yourself out there."

Another that goes, "if you're 30+, look only for single mothers and cougars, etc. Women in their 20s will look at you if you're making 100k per year or more, otherwise forget it."

In other words there's one school of thought that's very organic, it's about individuals and compatibility, it puts little importance on markers of status, expectations per age group, things like that.

There's another school of thought that does the opposite, it assesses objective value and decides what chances you have with women, then tells you which age group of women you have access to, tells you what you can and cannot have, and so on. In backing up its statements, it uses 2 methods.. the first method being evolutionary psychology "it's all about status and leadership potential" kind of thing. The second method they use is backing up the statements with studies. Lists of demographics, educated women avoiding undereducated men, the effects of income level, the pool of single women per age group, this, that, and the other thing. It is hard to defeat when someone arguing this can back up their statements.

The 2 schools of thought do not meet in the middle, usually. Which is correct? If the second one is correct, that means disabled men have essentially zero prospects for anything. That's not what I want to hear. I don't want to hear, "if you're a 30+ loser, go for the women no other men want" essentially. I never said I'm seeking hot women--I can't stand their shallow "social-climbing" methods anyway--I'm just interested in women on my level of looks, I'm just average or a little below. And socially quirky also, otherwise, no compatibility. Why should that be so impossible? I've had folks tell me even that, is way too much to ask.