Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Surely the number of ugly-but-not-violent/requiring-a-nurse males and females is roughly equal? Can't the ugly dudes just find a nice homely girl and settle down?
No - women have more central tendency. Guys have more champs and way more chumps. Unattractiveness ain't just looks. It can be 'being a criminal shitbag', 'being a drug addict', 'being autistic', or any number of things that are more common for dudes.
There two have near zero effect on male attractiveness to women, even if it is extremely unattractive to some women.
More options
Context Copy link
So guys that are unattractive but not criminal shitbags should really clean up then, with all of the criminal shitbags out of the dating pool due to being in jail or whatnot?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is almost certainly not true actually. Females have a roughly standard distribution in most traits, where most are about average. Males have a bimodalish, flattened distribution, where most males are either above or below average. Because of this, there are more men at either extreme. The peaks of humanity, and the dregs of it, are something like 10:1 male:female.
I don't suppose you have a reference? This does not seem to match my experience, in terms of physical beauty at least.
Anyways wouldn't this distribution result in a surplus of '5' women having to settle for '1' men? (due to the '10' Chads scooping up all the 6+ ladies, leaving no studs for the median woman. not great for the ladies, but the ugly dudes should make out like bandits)
Honestly it's one of those things I read somewhere, but I don't have the source on me or the time to find it. I will note that it was for general quality on numerous metrics which extends beyond physical attraction.
As to your point, it would only be true in a case where:
Everyone must have a long-term partner
No two people can have the same partner.
Both of which are distinctly untrue. Just means more women will share the non-1s or end up alone. People, especially women, have standards, and won't just end up with trash because everyone else was taken. There's always the option of getting knocked up from a man a couple notches up and being a single mother.
A man who is actually a 1 in attractiveness is actually horrible, given that even a total uggo would still score above a 1 with nearly any redeemable qualities. Single motherhood is almost certainly preferable to even being in the same room as such a man, let alone interacting with him.
Can't really comment on the rest of your theory, but I don't think I've met even one person matching this description in my life, so it doesn't seem like a super-significant phenomenon. (I have met guys who one might think this would apply to, but they've always turned out to have some sort of girlfriend, sometimes multiples. Case in point)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Doesn't that leave 5 women with their pick of 5,6,7,8, and 9 men? I thought that was the entire Incel's Lament.
He's saying there are mostly only ones and tens though, while the chicks are more normally distributed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link