Women outnumber men in colleges now 60 to 40.

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

you probably know of some anecdotal examples of rich, college educated women marrying mechanics. It does happen because women prioritize looks first, then status second. Both are important but looks are most immediete. So if a mechanic is hot he can and will get many women including rich college educated ones. If she brought a hot mechanic to her party her friends would be impressed and say you go girl. Not if it's an ugly mechanic though. And most mechanics are ugly. Why would a hot guy go into a profession that requires hard work when he can make much more money easily.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

I don't really know of anyone that I would consider rich. That's usually a term that I would reserve for people in the upper ends of the upper class. Mechanics can be attractive or repulsive, it just depends. Attraction is extremely subjective when dating seriously anyway. There's objective attractiveness, but individual attraction is a lot more diverse than that. That aside, you guys are potentially cucking yourselves over blanket generalizations. I know that the red pill can seem like some sort of incredible guideline that shines the light on all the dark spaces of interactions between men and women, but consider researching those behaviors on a personal level. Most of that stuff seems extremely subversive, and just designed to make men paranoid about everything. Maybe I'm just being naive about it, I don't know.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

it's not subjective

[–]Ponderer 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Maybe it's rude to point this out, but for the sake of this debate, the person you're responding to has never been in the shoes of a man trying to attract women.

I also strongly agree with you that attraction is not "extremely subjective". That take has always been incomprehensible to me; I don't see how anyone can say it with a straight face.

I think there's room for debate on to what degree attraction is objective. Maybe the statement "it's more subjective than you might think" could be valid. But "attraction is extremely subjective" is just... wrong. We need to stay grounded to reality here.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You're a woman?

[–]Ponderer 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

No, I'm a man. I meant the person Popper was responding to.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Who?

[–]Ponderer 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Basghetti

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

i doubt it's a woman, women don't post on sites like this. But it's a blue pilled guy in denial of which there are many.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

It's not rude at all. You could see why I wouldn't want to start up questions beginning my posts bringing my sex up though, yeah? It's not meant to be subversive or anything, just meant to get honest answers.

Anyhow, it's got to be subjective to some degree (maybe extremely was not the best adverb there) because people have "types" that they're attracted to. There's also the whole preference for details vs bigger picture thing, drawing associations from certain general appearances, etc. It seems like it would be something much more psychologically involved than just a base instinct to be attracted to like 4-5 key features. You guys were talking about blackpillers being demoralizing, but how could you not see this as being somewhat similar? It's almost like preemptively damning the ones that don't meet certain criteria to accepting that they're unlovable, and it doesn't make sense.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

black pill is reality. it's demoralizing but you can't deny it.

[–]Ponderer 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You guys were talking about blackpillers being demoralizing, but how could you not see this as being somewhat similar?

This is a good point, and I'm going to make a post about this.

It's almost like preemptively damning the ones that don't meet certain criteria to accepting that they're unlovable, and it doesn't make sense.

I think the accepted mainstream narrative is something like "looks don't matter at all when it comes to dating, human attraction is purely based on morality and has no superficial qualities whatsoever", which is totally insane and off-the-rails.

However, to counteract this, many people online adopt the position "looks are literally everything when it comes to dating, and if you don't have xyz qualities as a man then you are undatable", which (although our modern culture has certainly driven up the importance of looks) seems inaccurate. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.