Anti-woke leftist looking for a place with less brain-rot.

submitted by [deleted] from self.Introductions

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GConly 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

women are getting more and more picky,

I've been studying sexual behaviour in young people, it's effectively the same in college kids now as it was in the sixties. The only real difference is the age of marriage. And those prone to promiscuity use dating apps more instead of partying to pick up.

Average at at virginity loss is still 17. Modal number of sex partners is still 2.

If you want to pull that 80% of men are unattractive out, that's because that number came from still photos (OkCupid) and women give a large part of their ratings of attractiveness to things like speech, movement, status etc that you can't get from stills.

If you chase up the rest of that OkCupid data, the women messaged the guys pretty fairly. The guys however just all messaged the top 10% of the women.

In the flesh ratings still skew slightly in women's favour, but not by much. There's a speed dating study that shows the ratings. It's pretty even.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/X3jz5mriJeWi2uLdF/how-subjective-is-attractiveness

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Whaaa...? No way. Men cast a wide net, women are picky. I've seen young men swipe through Tinder, it's yes/yes/yes/yes/yes/yes/yes and then check the ones who match. It's the 80/20 rule, 80% of the women are only interested in 20% of the men.

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The OkCupid stats that idea came from don't support that.

Although I suppose if you're only looking for casual sex on Tindr that's probably true.