Men Are Now More Likely to Be Single Than Women. It's Not a Good Sign
- Thread starter Low End Derrick
- Start date
They're reversing the causes though.
Bring broke, living at home and miserable -> single
The way the article reads is if you're single you will be broke , living at home and miserable which as a single man with his own spot is false
Having your shyt together opens up the option of relationships not the reverse.
I don't know how men en masse don't understand that if the bolded is empirically true for you. AKA you can't pull while broke/on the come up/in building, you're not in that 20% truly/by nature/with looks and or natural charisma. You've essentially bought your way there, and the broad wants to be in your situation, not be with you the individual in a vacuum.
Now if dudes get that and they want to level up to make sex easier, have at it. But if you're looking for that deep genuine connection of 2 independent individuals forging together because of mutual interest/viewpoints/attraction "leveling up" doesn't do much to help that. You'll be able to mold a life partner because of the leverage you have but that isn't really appealing in my opinion I'm tryna mold my children not my wife/life partner. Unfortunately the older I get the more I realize just how many women NEED guidance
Hungerpain
Banned
Then who is it a representation of?
Thats like saying the NBA isn't a representation of Basketball players.
This is an understated fact, I have a couple where I was their first but I had to read their body language/movements, and breathing to get them their, and they're
"Wow, I've never came from penetration/just penetration, etc" and mentally I think, because most dudes don't care to figure out how to get you off because that's YOUR JOB."
If I like a chick looks, and or personality enough to want to fukk her again, I'll fukk her good. If I don't she gets B- dikk, sometimes C+
King
The black man is always targeted.
Some men are. Not most. Not all. Those are the ones who aren’t dealing with the issues most men face.
You have things in reverse.
Exactly, Obviously not every girl is on Only Fans but every kind of girl is on there. It's sorta like a chick stripping in College again not every girl not even most but a significant minority have.
Again it's the mentality Most chicks know someone that did something strange for some change, It's a thing and most women won't call a chick out for it (until they get mad) It's like a lot of dudes who grew up the the hood sold some weed or know someone who did and don't judge them for that.
The thing is if Men knew how common it was or that the chick that they're trying to kick it to engaged in "sex work" it would make them look at them different.
Actually6Foot3
Veteran
addressing the first part here.
There's short term and long term SMV. What you described is short term SMV which is great for flings and easy lays. The SMV for long term relationships is a little different. A man "on the come up" is ofnlowerr value than an established man. It just is what it is.
Long term:
Money and status go above just pure looks. A chic like Beyonce might lust after the jocks in her youth but a nikka whose "worked his way up" like Jay Z who by all accounts is not up there in looks
the Jay Zs can leverage their money and success in the long term.The article itself references more the long term aspects of relationships not short term flings. And the reality is if you aren't born with it(height, race, beard, etc) you will have to work for it. Some men are fortunate enough to be born and work to raise their short term SMV and have the status and resources to succeed in the long term. Those are the true top 20% Personally I think men come out ahead since women do not have this luxury. Looks dominate the shirt term and long term SMV for women. Men have other means of being more desirable outside of hitting the genetic lottery.
It actually frustrates otherwise unattractive women that men don't care about their money and status when considering a long term partner.
Also source:
Interesting read
Sexual Market Value: A Practical Analysis - Power Dynamics
Ayo wtf is up with all this pie charts and shytaddressing the first part here.
There's short term and long term SMV. What you described is short term SMV which is great for flings and easy lays. The SMV for long term relationships is a little different. A man "on the come up" is ofnlowerr value than an established man. It just is what it is.
Long term:
Money and status go above just pure looks. A chic like Beyonce might lust after the jocks in her youth but a nikka whose "worked his way up" like Jay Z who by all accounts is not up there in looks
The article itself references more the long term aspects of relationships not short term flings. And the reality is if you aren't born with it(height, race, beard, etc) you will have to work for it. Some men are fortunate enough to be born and work to raise their short term SMV and have the status and resources to succeed in the long term. Those are the true top 20% Personally I think men come out ahead since women do not have this luxury. Looks dominate the shirt term and long term SMV for women. Men have other means of being more desirable outside of hitting the genetic lottery.
It actually frustrates otherwise unattractive women that men don't care about their money and status when considering a long term partner.
Also source:
Interesting read
Sexual Market Value: A Practical Analysis - Power Dynamics
Actually6Foot3
Veteran
Ayo wtf is up with all this pie charts and shyt
addressing the first part here.
There's short term and long term SMV. What you described is short term SMV which is great for flings and easy lays. The SMV for long term relationships is a little different. A man "on the come up" is ofnlowerr value than an established man. It just is what it is.
Long term:
Money and status go above just pure looks. A chic like Beyonce might lust after the jocks in her youth but a nikka whose "worked his way up" like Jay Z who by all accounts is not up there in looks
The article itself references more the long term aspects of relationships not short term flings. And the reality is if you aren't born with it(height, race, beard, etc) you will have to work for it. Some men are fortunate enough to be born and work to raise their short term SMV and have the status and resources to succeed in the long term. Those are the true top 20% Personally I think men come out ahead since women do not have this luxury. Looks dominate the shirt term and long term SMV for women. Men have other means of being more desirable outside of hitting the genetic lottery.
It actually frustrates otherwise unattractive women that men don't care about their money and status when considering a long term partner.
Also source:
Interesting read
Sexual Market Value: A Practical Analysis - Power Dynamics
Breh I know this, but I appreciate a good quantifiable breakdown. I just have different labels. I call "short term sexual market value" sexual market value and I call "long term sexual market value" relationship market value.
I know by nature women are all golddiggers to some degree, for their own security and the security of potential seeds, women are just OD with it now imo.
To your point the short term for women is true desire, they always let dudes their physically attracted to hit faster even when they know there's no chance of anything serious, and women readily admit this if you get them talking/to open up. The men they make wait are the ones they want something serious from. Imo it's ass backwards but all the women say the exact same thing "it's a matter of perspective and from the male perspective it doesn't make sense to you"
I personally think the above bolded is BS and there lies the danger of being long term viable while not being short term viable. I see flings those quick "attractive male" fukks women have as impulse/instinct/basal desire. To ignore desire in the face in favor delayed gratification in the form of a male with good to high relationship value is a tradeoff. A tradeoff is a compromise, and the fact desire aka want (closely tied to emotion) is being given away it becomes more of a sacrifice and ignoring impulse for greater good takes discipline. And frankly a growing amount modern western women don't have that. I blame simps, societal coddling and more for that, but in our scenario if you have little sex market value but high relationship value, you're a prime candidate for a divorce when she can't stay the course.
Be that through her giving to physical desire (cheating), or her giving into mental/emotional desire (wanting more than you can possibly offer) you're a lick
My point was if you're not both you're always at a disadvantage, but if you're only relationship material it's more or less over in terms of genuine fulfillment. in a relationship unless you want to lie to yourself
I've always said this why most shouldn't marry, they don't genuinely like the other person, they wouldn't like the other person under different financial circumstance, or if they lock down high ranking person. So they're ready to bail once shyt gets real (looks fall off, finances get tighter, you in close quarters with the other person continously and the more you learn the less you like)
I'm not going to read through this whole thread because its 1 am but I'm just done trying at this point. I feel like it hurts me a lot more to pursue someone and get burnt then it does to just be single and mind my business
Low End Derrick
Veteran
Ayo wtf is up with all this pie charts and shyt
You know a thread done took a SERIOUS turn when the pie charts start coming out
IVS
Superstar
I've completely divested. Good luck to everybody tho. Bout to level up again and watch the world burn from my high place.
