Men:>I don't want somebody who is deformed or obese (but someone else will)Women:>I demand a guy be in the top 2% of looks or else I don't see him as humanWomen and their white knights>these two are exactly the same
>>84663122>>84663122This image has been around so much that it's going mouldy hahaha. Men have low standards and women have high standards. A normal man would fuck a smelly woman but a normal woman wouldn't fuck a smelly man. Why does this cause you such anguish? It's supply and demand, dummy. If you had 10 women breaking down your door to be with you, why wouldn't you choose the best one?>>I demand a guy be in the top 2% of looks or else I don't see him as humanWhere on your image does it say this?
>>84663239>Where on your image does it say this?It literally shoes the most attractive men to women were only 2% of those rated
>>84663348NTA, but the graph actually shows that it's less than 2% (0%)
>>84663239>It's supply and demand, dummyActually it's just demand. There's a roughly equal supply of men and women, so the demand is the only thing that makes a difference.
>>84663239>let's dehumanize the dating process as much as possible and just approach it in economic terms and always strive for social profitYeah that's a great mentality that has helped society a lot, right? Fucking hell.
Women have strict standards because we have to incubate and you niggers can just jet. Duh. Are you dumb or just pretending to be dumb
>>84663631If that were actually true then women wouldn't let random niggers knock them up since they know full well those guys are not gonna stick around.
>>84663631>have strict Hitler-like physical standards>no standards for the things that actually matter
>>84663122I see this all the time yet in public I see attractive women with sub human men
>>84663680I agree they are dumb I'd never carry a baby (risk of male child LOL) much less unmarried. They just hope the dad will step up, stupid, should get locked down first. Just no love for themselves. Or hell they just want family to love and will settle for being a single mom. Sad. Women should have higher standards I do as a childfree woman.
>>84663721I understand why you don't want babies since you surgically removed your genitals.
OP is a lying gay psyopper. The accompanying graph gives you the actual full picture.
>>84663735You are just fishing for a redhead vagina pic and sorry but you aren't getting one my bf would get angry
>>84663631Not an argument, contraception exists.
>>84663756are you slow? all that shows is that both men and women message those they rate as unattractive disproportionally little and those they rate as attractive disproportionally much. the difference in the graphs is due to the difference in ratings. it's affirming op:s narrative.
>>84663777Contraception causes cancer with extended use or give horrible hormonal impacts. I personally can't use ANY of them just condoms. I have a sensitive body.
>>84663756This graph is fake and gay and proves nothing
>>84663792>I have a sensitive bodyYou're dysgenic and shouldn't breed
>>84663786This data was also from years ago and doesn't include the average age of women in the sample. Most of those mess are for free dates or because of height. Other studies show that very few men get messages on dating apps compared to women and also affirm the graph in OP.Bluepillers are lying fags
>>84663792>Contraception causes cancerIt doesn't.>give horrible hormonal impactsNot for the majority of users.>I personally can't use ANY of them just condomsOK sucks that you're in the minority for most methods but since you can still use condoms, the argument ultimately doesn't hold water. You're not an irrational animal having instinctive sex, you're a human who's perfectly capable of intentionally avoiding pregnancy.
>>84663952>you're a human who's perfectly capable of intentionally avoiding pregnancy.That's where you're wrong, sweaty. Foids aren't human and can't think rationally.
>>84663952Idk how to tell you this, but:https://bmjgroup.com/prolonged-use-of-desogestrel-pill-linked-to-small-increased-brain-tumour-risk/
>>84663239Because holes lie about it and then try to gaslight everyone about it and invert reality. Nigger
>>84664786Oh no, not a small increase of risk from the right chiral molecule one one single medication whose left-chiral version is still perfectly safe!
>>84663239>If you had 10 women breaking down your door to be with you, why wouldn't you choose the best one?because men don't have a female mindset, they would fuck all 10
>>84663239>Where on your image does it say this?Here we go again
>>84663721>(risk of male child LOL)Edgy
>>84664827>right chiral moleculeEnantiomer*. If you're going to larp as though you have a fucking clue, please use the correct terminology.>left-chiral version is still perfectly safe!The right enantiomer of thalidomide is safe in pregnancy. Just shut the fuck up.
>>84663122Yes, women are the enemy. I know.
>>84665078>EnantiomerUsing the term molecule is still perfectly valid mate, bringing up chirality doesn't restrict it to a single term. An enantiomer is a specific chiral version of a molecule. Same meaning, different words.>The right enantiomer of thalidomide is safe in pregnancyRelevance in this context? Did you read the article? It clearly states that levonorgestrel is safe. So just fucking use that instead nigger.
>>84663122>ancient meme picWhy autists insist attractiveness should fall on a bell curve? There's simply a certain minimum standard for men to be considered even slightly attractive, and majority of men fall below that. What is the point in grading the not-attractive men when the subject is attractiveness? It's not that these men are necessarily actively ugly, they are just invisible non-entities in the context of being objects of attraction. It's like saying "arrange these cats based on the length of their fur", and 80% of the cats are those bald plucked chicken ones with funny wrinkled faces. Yeah I guess you could take a magnifying glass and look through the bald cats skin to find some tiny hairs to grade them within themselves but what's the fucking point?
>>84665149>minimum standard for men to be considered even slightly attractive, >and majority of men fall below thatFucking retard.
>>84665265>my autism prevents me from grasping the point so I decide to nitpick semanticsSolid 80% of men are simply not attractive in slightest. How do you rate someone on the attractiveness scale when he utterly lacks any attractiveness? There is no bell curve on the male attractiveness, 80% of the guys rate "N/A".
>>84665333Women just aren't attracted to men. Gay men don't think like that.
>>84663122I want to see the same graph but also have women rate women and men rate men. I bet women rate each other like men rate women.
>>84663612It's useful for broad analysis. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. You need a non-economic metric for judging what is good, and you need an economic metric for judging how far reality is from what is good.
>>84665791>I bet women rate each other like men rate womenYes, because most women are above the point of "could plausibly feel attracted to this" so you can put her on the scale, unlike men. There are very little invisible, not-attractive women. I'd say only ones are 80+ year old grandmas. Not-attractive doesn't mean ugly, it means that this person does not register as something that could be admired aesthetically. There are lots of cool looking rocks in the world, but you don't look at every rock on the beach and go "nahh the earlier one was cooler". Vast majority of rocks just lie there, existing without ever been consciously looked at or even acknowledged they exist. Just like men.
>>84663122> It comes from their 2009 blog post "Your Looks and Your Inbox" by co-founder Christian Rudder (part of their OkTrends series). They analyzed millions of ratings where users rated others' profile photos on attractiveness (likely on a 1-5 or similar scale, binned here). The post was later taken down but is archived and widely referenced
>>84665333100% in the world are poor because I think you're not rich unless you're a quintillionaire.
>>84666000AllWomenAreLesbos
>>84666183I don't know how anyone can deny it at this point.
>>84663122The larger OkTrends post also included how "looks" impacted your "inbox"The normalized curves for message/response frequency are basically identical.I.e., a woman will date a looksmatch, but will tell herself she's dating someone beneath her.
