70% of the Women go for 15% of the Men?

[Simon Phoenix]

Agreed. I was underestimating

 

That 95-99 percent of men have a much wider net cast than 15 percent.

[StayBeautiful]

If that same girl had the "hot" taken away from her description, I bet your ex would have dropped her a lot quicker.

 

Read what I said She wasn't hot. But she was the female equivalent of the "bad guy" and so he was obsessed, like so many people - male or female - are. And he never dropped her, she dumped him and he's still obsessed.

[Eternal Sunshine]

That 95-99 percent of men have a much wider net cast than 15 percent.

 

I don't see it. In my world, in all the couples that I see, woman is far more attractive then the man. Usually more successful too. If anyone settles, it's women. They are the ones who want marriage kids deal more so they lower their standards.

 

I am not one of those women. I am quite happy to wait for what I want, even if it means being single forever. And that's entirely my right

[Simon Phoenix]

Read what I said She wasn't hot. But she was the female equivalent of the "bad guy" and so he was obsessed, like so many people - male or female - are. And he never dropped her, she dumped him and he's still obsessed.

 

I need measurements to confirm said hotness. But assuming you're right about her lack of hotness (I have a hard time trusting females on this too), either she a) was great in the sack or b) your ex is a wuss. As a whole, males don't give a crap about the female "bad guy" at all -- bitchiness is usually a turn off and the guys who do like that don't date to date that long-term, at least the guys who aren't emasculated or wussy.

[StayBeautiful]

He was a wuss. I mean, like TOTALLY whipped. He was one of those guys who thought he'd never get another woman, so he just took it all.

[Simon Phoenix]

I don't see it. In my world, in all the couples that I see, woman is far more attractive then the man. Usually more successful too. If anyone settles, it's women. They are the ones who want marriage kids deal more so they lower their standards.

 

I am not one of those women. I am quite happy to wait for what I want, even if it means being single forever. And that's entirely my right

 

Once again, you really don't seem to grasp what I'm saying in the least. The top 15-20 percent of men thing isn't completely based on looks. Looks help, but I have said several times that other factors come into play. I really don't know why you are stuck on just the looks thing.

 

What I'm saying is that the majority of women are attracted to the minority of men DUE TO A VARIETY OF FACTORS, looks being a big one, but not necessarily the only one. Men, meanwhile, tend of have a much less rigid initial screening process.

 

Then again, maybe life is different on Pluto

[lissa90]

I think most people seem to be by passing that this is all subconscious..biological. Evolutionary psych strips everything back to the basics, very primal, survival of the fittest etc etc. Sure there are always exceptions but the fundamentals are still the same whether you agree with it or not. Read some journals or books about it and you'll get a better understanding. Science doesn't lie even if it does make for an unsettling read

[Eve]

Once again, you really don't seem to grasp what I'm saying in the least. The top 15-20 percent of men thing isn't completely based on looks. Looks help, but I have said several times that other factors come into play. I really don't know why you are stuck on just the looks thing.

 

What I'm saying is that the majority of women are attracted to the minority of men DUE TO A VARIETY OF FACTORS, looks being a big one, but not necessarily the only one. Men, meanwhile, tend of have a much less rigid initial screening process.

 

Then again, maybe life is different on Pluto

 

H'mm, I can relate that I am only attracted to a very small number of men. This is reduced down further person to person. Definitely way under 10% of men. H is similar though. Aside from perving at whichever woman is reading the weather, he does not find a lot of women who are seen to be attractive to be so. Still this is probably a greater number than what I would consider.

 

Extended further, aside from the moral implications this is probably why porn does not appeal to me. There is NO WAY I could fancy the men on offer So there is no compulsion for me to watch them having meaningless sex.

 

Is this what you mean?

 

Take care,

Eve x

[veggirl]

The only reason dateless dudes spout this **** is cause it makes them feel better. Oh I can't get a date but look I'm not a loser or jerk or socially retarded, no I am the majority!!!

 

Get a life!

[ThaWholigan]

The only reason dateless dudes spout this **** is cause it makes them feel better. Oh I can't get a date but look I'm not a loser or jerk or socially retarded, no I am the majority!!!

 

Get a life!

Agreed.......

[StayBeautiful]

It's women's fault. We WILL insist on only dating the nicest looking, or who are the funniest, or the most confident, or the most interesting men who are fun to be around and enjoy our company. You know, he doesn't have to all of those, but we're so demanding in wanting a couple of them.

 

We're basically just a bunch of jezebels. All men want is "hot", we should be more like them and not care what kind of people they are.

[Woggle]

Another Dumb evo psych thread. I consider astrology and phrenology to be more accurate sciences than evo psych.

[Imajerk17]

I hear this a lot in dating forums.

 

Do you think the maxim is true that the top 70% of women out there only go for the top 15% of the men and the only time a "regular" man can score a woman in the top 70% is when she's ready to "settle"? Adjust the percentages as necessary, but is something like this going on?

 

Given that well over 70% of people eventually marry, the math simply doesn't work out that way. Sorry dude.

[Mme. Chaucer]

You must've missed the part where he specified there's a window of opportunity there once she's ready to settle down aka either her ovaries are going insane or her skin is starting to wrinkle.

 

Or both.

 

Being ready to settle down and start a family is not usually caused by insane ovaries, but by reaching a certain level of maturity. Honest. And it's a positive place to be if one is ready to start a family.

 

People who choose to get into relationships because of skin wrinkles are not common, and those who would do that have serious issues. I've never met one, myself. And I know lots of people with wrinkles.

[Philosoraptor]

Guess that puts me in the top 15%

 

Good to see in the year or so I was gone from the site that the bitter whiny men still complain and make excuses, rather than changes that might actually make them desirable.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Curious how this level of maturity is virtually never reached before the 30 year 150+ pound mark.

 

The age of 30 is probably a reasonable benchmark to be approaching such a level of maturity. Maybe when you grow up yourself, you will be able to see this. You sound like a very young teenager, am I right?

 

150 pounds? What does that have to do with being ready to raise or start a family?

 

 

Yes yes, I know. You and 101% of the women you know or have ever been in direct or indirect contact with married aspiring accountants when they were 17-24.

 

Married accountants? 101%? Teenage girls? Are you mad, son? What does that even mean?

[Mme. Chaucer]

Good to see in the year or so I was gone from the site that the bitter whiny men still complain and make excuses, rather than changes that might actually make them desirable.

 

Sorry, but you seem to have returned during a vigorous bloom in this particular life form. Like bacteria.

[Mme. Chaucer]

The lessers get the leftovers. That's just how it is.

 

This is a convenient, though ultimately self defeating way of looking at things.

 

Basically you are saying that any girl who will have a thing to do with a guy like you is "lesser," and that you are the "leftovers."

 

Carry on. That kind of thinking is self fulfilling. Certainly the world is full of creepy and ugly (in their soul) people, and they do manage to find each other. You're setting yourself up nicely to remain in that camp.

[jma500]

Guess that puts me in the top 15%

 

Good to see in the year or so I was gone from the site that the bitter whiny men still complain and make excuses, rather than changes that might actually make them desirable.

 

Who cares? Let em complain and whine. While I wonder about the logic used to create this thread and wholely disagree with the premise, I understand where these guys are coming from. However, I do not complain or whine about these things. My philosophy is this: " life is what it is" if I find a girlfriend great if not oh well that's life. I will never blame the opposite sex. A lesson these other guys could learn from.

[serial muse]

Part of the theory is that the top 70% of women will marry a man they are marginally attracted to if at all, while having babies by a man in the top 15 - 20 % who looks enough like their husband.

 

It is not quite 70% of women who do that. However their is a kernel of truth to it.

 

One Out Of Ten People Weren't Fathered By The Man They Believe Is Dad - disinformation

 

This leads to the fact that men are very scared of a scenario where they end up raising another man's children.

 

I'm sure it does, but there's a giant cause-effect leap in the argument here. Certainly there are women who cheat on their husbands and thus some of them get pregnant by men who aren't their husbands. But can we then automatically assume that this happens because they were "settling" when they got married?? No, we cannot, because we have no idea what was going on with them initially; we are assuming the worst to try to push a theory. And can we further assume that if they did "settle", it was because they originally wanted one of the so-called top 15% of men (whatever that even means exactly), rather than because they a)didn't want to get married at all; b)were in love with someone who might by these odd standards be classified as lower 70% but was unavailable; c)other??? I'm sorry, but I just don't see how anyone rational can make these giant leaps of logic to push this agenda with a straight face.

 

Sexual Infidelity: Nature or Nurture? - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

 

And this article actually suggests the opposite of the caveman DNA theory - that the underlying root of sex differences in jealousy (becoming more jealous of physical or emotional infidelity) is a social construct, not evolutionary. So...?

[Pompeii]

Some people take the term alpha too seriously. It doesn't mean grizzly, wild men who don't bathe or shave and eat raw meat with their bare hands.

 

Alphas are men who take charge. Who exude confidence. Are assertive. Keep a level head when problems arise. Obama does all of that and is most certainly alpha.

 

Alpha doesn't mean he has to go rambo and shoot up congress in bloody mayhem when they don't pass his bills. He has to work with people on both sides of the political spectrum. Compromising is by no means weak or "beta."

 

How does this pertain to dating? Most women want men who take charge. You hear it in the dating forum. You hear it in the sex forum. You hear it in the relationships forum.

 

Most women want men who lead. This has nothing to do with "aesthetics," like height or muscles, or money or whatever. We're talking masculine traits here.

 

Like I said in my first post, this does not lend itself to only one specific type of man. They come in a variety of shapes and sizes. What they all have in common are classically masculine traits.

 

I guess we'll agree to disagree. Obama has shown himself to be a VERY passive President, but definitely more active than Bush. I hate the terms "alpha" and "beta" because I don't believe that they exist. But if we are to use these terms, Obama is nothing but a "beta" in an "alpha" position. Again, so was Jimmy Carter.

 

I also disagree that "aesthetics" and status do not matter. Of course they do. They can easily tip the tide for any guy. They aren't the only thing but they can easily shift the balance. An aesthetic guy can easily get a short term fling but if he has a weak personality, the girl will leave. I've seen it many times. For many guys, that's all they need. Something short term.

[Pompeii]

Doctors lawyers alphas know looks dont bring

Women security does. Those guys are dating playboy

Playmates, swimsuit models and beauty queens

 

Doctors and lawyers aren't "alphas". A lot of doctors are "betas" as far as personality goes. You don't have to be an "alpha" to have money, people like Bill Gates and his Silicon Valley buddies showed and continue to show us that. Also, I wouldn't care to date those women, they'd only suck my money and be gone in a second if my company went under.

[therhythm]

Ok lets say that the statistic would be true....

 

A whining guy would read from it - Women are shallow and they are only attracted on guys with good looks.

 

An smart guy would read from it - I need to work on improving my self to be part of those 15%.

 

 

Really guys... we all like beautiful and we all like fun and exciting... just get real and work on making yourself attractive to women

[Pompeii]

What about the possibility that she was attracted to him? Oh yes, you did mention that.

 

Going out with someone to whom you're attracted is NOT "settling," my friend.

 

How many times have we told you jokers that many, many of us don't care so much about how handsome and hot a guy is; there are other things at play that cause us to fall for guys. No, we're not settling or mercifully giving those guys a chance.

 

WE GO OUT WITH THEM BECAUSE WE WANT TO.

 

Oh yeah? I'm pretty sure most women would want a guy like Ryan Gosling or Robert Pattisson. I'm also sure a lot of women want the most desirable guy on campus. The guy who has the total package - aesthetics, intelligence, status, and seemingly treats women well. I see girls for these types of guys all. the. time. but they can't have him, so they go for his friend who is "good enough". If a woman isn't really attracted to a man, she'll never respect him.

[TheBigQuestion]

I'm risking coming off as sexist here, but I think some women (not all!) aren't entirely honest in discussions such as this. They give the answers they think we want to hear and not necessarily what they actually feel. What women think they should want and what actually gets them going aren't always the same thing. For some women, they're never the same thing, at least when they are younger.

 

It's the same as those women saying they want the "nice guy who will be sweet to them" and end up going for the edgy a--hole 9 times out of 10 because he brings challenge, adventure and he's bold. Then they complain when that a--hole acts like an a--hole, often to the nice guy who would treat them like a princess. A lot of those same women also complain that there are no guys out there that want them when single because they conveniently don't count the many guys who they don't see as desirable because they are too nice, or too something else negative.

 

I'm not bagging on these women for being attracted to what they are attracted to. Want what you want, but don't say one thing and do another and certainly don't complain about the very factors that make your engine rev. If it wasn't for the complaining, I don't think most men would have issues with the selection process of many of these women. I wouldn't.

 

Anyway, back to the point. Every group of five or more guys that I've been involved with, from high school to college to varying points of adulthood, has one guy who can pick up women effortlessly, while the other four usually have degrees of success varying from completely hopeless to occasionally fruitful, but generally a less than 25 percent success rate.

 

The Casanova of the group seamlessly engages women of all heights, weights, races, occupations, beliefs and they all just eat it up. Heck, the first place I lived post-college the Casanova of our group had an assembly line of women. College girls (I think a high schooler might have been mixed in for effect), milfs, married women, single women, didn't matter. One night we were out and two girls he was hooking up with simultaneously were on the dance floor together eyeing him. The rest of us were sitting there laughing, getting ready for the blowout that was bound to happen. But that smooth son of a gun was able to sweettalk them, moving from one to the other, making out with each of them with the other in sight. It was amazing.

 

Now the non-Casanovas of the group can have girlfriends, many of them do from time to time. But those same girlfriends tend to find the Casanova charming as **** and each of the non-Casanovas in the back recesses of the mind fear that their girlfriend might be into the Casanova. They also are wary bringing sisters, female cousins, etc., around that type of guy because they know his powers. And I'd say that these guys make up 15-20 percent of the male population, with varying degrees of success in that upper echelon. I have no idea what the percentage of women digging these men are, but I'd bet it's well over 50 percent. And I think most men reading this can relate to what I'm talking about to some degree.

 

As for me, I've never been one of the top 15-20 percent and likely never will be. I do notice that interest from females comes in waves for me. If I'm dating someone, it's a hell of a lot easier to get attention from other women even if I don't actually say I'm in a relationship. If I've recently had success with a woman, be it a number, a few dates, sex, etc., other women tend to pick up on that and give me more attention. It's like you all have ESP or something -- or maybe it's just a credit to women's intuition and females having a superior ability to read body language.

 

Cliffs: I respectfully disagree with the women who are so easy to dismiss this dynamic. My personal observations from my teenage, college and adult years bear this dynamic out, though I will say that the percentages might be off. But the majority of women seem to be drawn to the minority of men, and there's nothing wrong with that necessarily. The dynamic fits in terms of evolutionary factors.

 

I'm sad to say that I'm not surprised that this post didn't receive much attention. It's probably due to its length, which is unfortunate, because you managed to give a balanced, reasonable perspective that gives credence to all competing views expressed in this thread so far, without insulting other posters or making unascertainable claims about their personal lives.

 

I've definitely noticed the phenomenon you're describing. There are definitely a small percentage of men who, either by nature, practice, or a combination of both, have no trouble generating sexual and/or romantic interest in a remarkably large number of women. Recognizing that this dynamic exists is not incompatible with the fact that the great majority of people find long-term romantic partners. Sure, most men will have sex from time to time, end up in relationships, and get married. However, most men will not have the option of being admired by, casually date, or sleep with 5-6 women at a time. That seems to be something that only a small percentage of men are able to do with any consistency.