"I asked people to rate, on a 1-10 scale, the attractiveness of various naked people.Women got much higher scores than men did. The 6/10 bin was full of normal-cute ladies and absolute ripped godlike chads. Seems unfair, but my hypothesis is: This is not a dating looksmatch, this is a casual sex looksmatch. The raw # distribution shows roughly equivalent likelihood of casual sex occurring before one party would turn it down."Another banger from Aella. She solved the mystery.
>>84588897who said anything about dating and casual sex?
>>84588897everyone knows about 80 20 already
>>84588897Op can I get your ageRaceFinancial incomeBecause why the fuck are you making these boring ass threads
>>84588897You shouldn't enter into committed relationships with women who wouldn't have casual sex with you. Such women likely aren't attracted to you, and are only doing so for other reasons. Yes, such a strategy screws over women who wouldn't have casual sex on principle, but it's what makes the most sense from game theoretic perspective for a guy. Besides, most of these women who wouldn't have casual sex on principle have very likely engaged in it in the past and/or supported other women engaging in it. So they share responsibility for this state of the dating market.
>>84588897women always unite against menmen put pussy on a pedestal so they never unite against womenso in the OPs scenario women will of course rate other women more favourably while being much harsher on men as it ultimately benefits themmen = try harder ur bradd pitt body won't cut itwomen = ur fat and beautiful (just like me!!) SLAYYYYYY QUEEN
>>84588917>Op can I get your age52>RaceIndian>Financial income$35,000 yearly>Because why the fuck are you making these boring ass threadsI'm a thinker slash intellectual involved in the Rationalist sphere
>>84588944>You shouldn't enter into committed relationships with women who wouldn't have casual sex with you. Such women likely aren't attracted to you, and are only doing so for other reasons. Yes, such a strategy screws over women who wouldn't have casual sex on principle, but it's what makes the most sense from game theoretic perspective for a guyI think this is very useless advice and I enjoy game theory since I am a Rationalist.However, what about the concern that the majority of men would not qualify for a casual sexual relationship? This study itself seems to suggest that casual sex is only available for a small minority of men, where objectively rare bodies are classified as mediocre by women in regards to the possibility of casual sex. Should a male 5 settle to a female 2 to ensure her sexual loyalty?
>>84588897>zero citationsdiscarded, genderwar schizos need not replyI'd rate myself lower than the guy on the left, but I've had (consensual, you sicko) sex with women hotter than the one on the left
>>84589003*guy on the righttypo
>>84588988>I think this is very useless adviceCare to give us any reasons why?>However, what about the concern that the majority of men would not qualify for a casual sexual relationship?Just have sex with whores or accept being celibate, then. Forget dating seriously. Alternatively, if you're fine dating a woman who doesn't love you, as most reasonable people would agree that love is predicated on actual sexual desire, then you're free to be a betabux or a cuck or whateverthefuck. It's a free country. Just know beforehand what it is you're singing up for and the potential consequences it would have. Also, know what it is you're potentially sacrificing.
>>84588962This. Women act like manipulative, dishonest kikes which is why I hate them. They overrate women and underrate men because it inflates their value while deflating men's value which allows them leverage to pull higher tier men than their fat gross pudgy bodies could otherwise do. The problem is women have little self-awareness and thus unironically start to believe their own bullshit that they can do better which is why they leave perfectly good men. In the end it screws over their own happiness because they're greedy little kikes that can't help themselves.Simps are also subhuman entities because they screw over every other man with their pathetic groveling hoping to earn a crumb of pussy.
Women simply have a lot better understanding about what beauty actually means, men are retarded and think it's all about muscles and nothing else.
>>84588962Men will also underrate the guy in that pic out of jealousy.
>>84588897Thanks for this quote, the source of which being a tweet I cannot view without signing in to xitter and presumably verifying their age, which is supposed to be a survey done by this rando with no information about it whatsoever? I can't even find it on her substack. Herbs
>>84588988>However, what about the concern that the majority of men would not qualify for a casual sexual relationship?>This study itself seems to suggest that casual sex is only available for a small minority of menYou've answered your own question. We're supposed to go extinct. This is all intentional.
>>84588897femcel with a doctorate on rating attractiveness objectively here. the woman on the left is a 6 and the man on the right is a 9. the reason for this is she is pear shaped and has some extra weight on her, she does not have features that make her way more attractive than the average woman but nothing is too disproportionate or ugly, so she is a 6. that man is almost perfect in terms of fitness, not too skinny, not too muscular. women adore this body type. but aella's survey is faulty because she asked straight men to rate men's bodies. the female ones were full of porn stars while the male ones were full of gross fat neckbeards and indians. i doubt many real women answered sincerely.
>>84588897Twink build is the current meta. Dude in the pic fell for the gym meme.
