While I don’t think every man has to be high status to get mates, high status men get lots of women. And some of these women will put up with sharing high status men with other women.
We all know women line up to bed down celebrities and athletes. That is not the life of ordinary men. If not for status, why do these women behave so and in such numbers?
Don’t confuse skanks with no self esteem with women.
I think this is important. Women who are all hung up on a checklist of what a top 10% man is are not really the women men would want to settle down with anyway.
Okay lets play the opposite card and see how ridiculous it sounds.
Women looking for men who are:
Short
Unattractive and poorly groomed
Feminine
Unsuccessful
Also, “some” is about half of this:
Let’s just use Tinder for an example
I actually just referred to women without differentiating anything amongst them.
Although it’s n=1, I know a woman who bedded down Derek Jeter for a night? A pharmacist, modestly-dressed woman, well-spoken and written. A skank? No.
The problem is that both checklists are vague and superficial.
I would say yes.
Even if she had only slept with one person and that was him?
75 million out of 8 billion.
I actually do see the points and in some respect agree. However, there are women who actually are hung up with a man’s pedigree who don’t have personality disorders. In fact, they’re just normal women who have certain characteristics that help land such high-status men.
As I’ve said in another thread, I have a second cousin who, when I was just a kid, I overheard say at my grandparent’s house, “I only want a doctor or lawyer.” Years later it all worked out and she married a dentist. I saw her for the first time in years two weeks ago. She has three well-adjusted kids and everything worked out just fine.
Second example: First cousin, executive at MTV, Amazon, and now Netflix. Her husband is a film director, a high-status man. They have two kids and everything is working out fine.
Where does this notion that women who seek high-status men are generally flawed come from?
Yes. I would question her morals. A one night stand with a side of herpes.
You’ve got a pretty serious Madonna/Whore complex dude.
In the name of a thread designated to help dead bedrooms - don’t let this M/W complex find it’s way into your marriage.
Women are usually somewhere between [Madonna] and [Whore], though a few could accurately be casted into either category.
My wife isn’t Catholic.
Can we keep this simple?
Who attracts more women? (I am not asking who attracts women. I am asking who attracts more.)
Pick one.
My point is that you casted the girl @BrickHead was speaking about into the ‘whore’ bucket based on one night of her life. There is no in-between, she’s either a good girl or a skank.
Beyond that, you casted all women who want to have sex with athletes and actors a skanks, which means most women are ‘whores’ to you.
Sometimes, your bullshit comes around to bite you in your own ass, Z.
I think you’re going back on [ignore]. Conversation with you is about as entertaining as watching paint dry, only much more annoying.
If they’re attracted to number 2, they’re skanks, apparently.
That actually is pretty interesting. A few data points surprise me, especially a drop in meeting through friends, but the rest makes sense. I would’ve assumed a sharper curve up in online meetings at the advent of apps vs a steady climb, but I’m also willing to bet this survey was somehow sent via the internet and carries unintended bias.
So the medium has changed, but not the underlying principles. I don’t really buy the “top 20%” thing though. The canned “pickup” game/pseudoscience has always tickled me funny. There are muscle whores for sure, money grabbers, status clingers and a mix of the above, but most women want to feel safe with their man, protected from outside threats, enjoy humor and the above qualities are nice to haves assuming there’s at least enough of a feeling that basic needs are met. It seems to me shallow hookups just got harder for some small town men, but not actual dating prospects. In any case, interactions have not changed, pools just got bigger. Like going from horse buggies to cars. Same shit though. And, most small town people are well aware of towns around them anyways. I’ve noticed they try to date outside the pool they’ve known forever.
You’re not flying to London on a red eye to meet a Tinder match. You have a local dating place with the ease of a Tinder button to casually scratch an itch when it hits. Basic principles haven’t changed. She still has to be attracted to you. If anything it’s probably easier now. Hit up a woman when she’s horny and she just may use you for your dick without caring about the rest. If anything has changed it’s the fact your phone automates this process for you, and keeps it fresh. We used to have to cultivate “little black books” and spend like $0.15 per text to keep it discreet.
It’s easier for men who are deemed ‘attractive’, to which the standards have not really changed (albeit expectations have risen on both sides, moreso the women than the men here).
The men deemed unattractive are left in the dust by these apps. I could try to find the data for you, but it is very seriously 80% of women pursuing 20% of men.
The 20% is subjective, but it is still mostly the same users.
I was raised Catholic. I like skanks.
I don’t like the lips, but Bezos is 60. She isn’t my cup of tea, but I think most 60 year old men wouldn’t rate her a 2/10, far higher. On average of course.
Not universally. Lesbians seem to be attracted to not those things. I’ve seen some hot women with a lesbian partners that are not conventionally attractive at all (for a woman or man).
I do agree on average these are attractive traits though.