Anonymous wrote:Uh, never.

Here's something I can't believe needs to be said:

If a man asks you out, he wants to sleep with you. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

He also will be interested in your thoughts. He'll be curious about your tastes in music, food, architecture, art, etc. But first and foremost he wants to be inside you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few will. But the world will bend over backwards telling women to give chances to unattractive guys.

50% of men find 50% of women to be "attractive" so why would any man ask out THIS (unattractive) girl when there is a different (ATTRACTIVE) girl standing 3 feet over there?
Meanwhile 80% of women find only 20% of men to be "attractive" so just do some basic math and you can see why the world tells women to adjust their standards.

Cite.

https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attraction-inequality-and-the-dating-economy/

"Yet another study, run by OkCupid on their huge datasets, found that women rate 80 percent of men as “worse-looking than medium,” and that this 80 percent “below-average” block received replies to messages only about 30 percent of the time or less. By contrast, men rate women as worse-looking than medium only about 50 percent of the time, and this 50 percent below-average block received message replies closer to 40 percent of the time or higher."

This only makes sense if you ignore the way women and men use online dating. Men will swipe right on EVERYONE, then they're picky once they see who matched with them. A swipe doesn't mean he was attracted. Whereas many women will swipe left on conventionally attractive men when their profile is noting more than "ay im tony wanna fuk?" It also doesn't account for bots and fakes.

Also, online dating doesn't give us evidence of anything outside of online dating. AND the study by OKC is old AF and forgets that OKC used a "star" system as a way of blocking. OCK also took down their own study because incels wouldn't stop misinterpreting it.

Overall when it comes to looks women are more generous than men are.

There were 2 different studies mentioned in the cited link. Both say the same thing. If OKC has stopped publishing this data, it is not because the facts have changed but rather to appease left wing media agenda for “gender equality” despite clear data evidence to the contrary.

You are confused about what “attraction” means. Remember that tingling inside your panties in the presence of a HAWT guy? That is attraction. What you call “women’s generosity” actually proves my point. Women often (usually) wind up dating guys they aren’t really attracted to (ie, 80% of the male population). But he is a good provider and super nice. No wonder 3 years in she’s lost all desire for sex: never really attracted in the first place.

Data that's misinterpreted is useless. Despite your incel screeching that doesn't change how the websites collected data and why you and other incels misinterpret it to fit your crazy agenda.

Show us where that data has been correctly (according to your view) interpreted. Citation, please.

The data, that is more than 10 years old, has been removed. Because people kept saying it was saying something it wasn't.

Anonymous wrote:A guy I dated once talked about doing "charity work." At first I didn't know what he meant, but it became clear he was referring to when he was between relationships and would hook up with unattractive women to fill the void.

He wasn't very nice. I didn't date him long.

Anonymous wrote:I feel terrible about it but I actually married a woman I wasn't very attracted to and ended up having kids with her. Intellectually, logically, the relationship made a ton of sense. She had lots of great attributes. Other people thought she was very attractive and in fact several times random friends were like, "dude how did you land her?" But I just was not physically attracted and the sex was not good. I don't think that's WHY we ended up divorcing, but it certainly would have made for an overall healthier relationship if the physical chemistry and desire to be intimate were there. I feel like an idiot looking back - why did I ever let the relationship continue and even progress to marriage. But it's just like this weird slippery slope thing where you get tangled into it. So stupid. Don't do what I did

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It took me a while to realize that what I thought was me not being shallow was really just me being afraid of rejection and going for low hanging fruit or accepting advances from any borderline attractive woman who made the first move. I've been much more deliberate about who I go out with now.

Wow, it’s really impressive that you matured and realized that you are truly worthy of only really attractive women, and not being shallow about looks was a failing on your part. Seems like you got some true wisdom there.
It’s really unbelievable the way men think, and this post is an example of that. Congrats to you on growing up and rejecting all the “borderline attractive women.”

Anonymous wrote:It took me a while to realize that what I thought was me not being shallow was really just me being afraid of rejection and going for low hanging fruit or accepting advances from any borderline attractive woman who made the first move. I've been much more deliberate about who I go out with now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few will. But the world will bend over backwards telling women to give chances to unattractive guys.

50% of men find 50% of women to be "attractive" so why would any man ask out THIS (unattractive) girl when there is a different (ATTRACTIVE) girl standing 3 feet over there?
Meanwhile 80% of women find only 20% of men to be "attractive" so just do some basic math and you can see why the world tells women to adjust their standards.

Cite.

https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attraction-inequality-and-the-dating-economy/

"Yet another study, run by OkCupid on their huge datasets, found that women rate 80 percent of men as “worse-looking than medium,” and that this 80 percent “below-average” block received replies to messages only about 30 percent of the time or less. By contrast, men rate women as worse-looking than medium only about 50 percent of the time, and this 50 percent below-average block received message replies closer to 40 percent of the time or higher."

This only makes sense if you ignore the way women and men use online dating. Men will swipe right on EVERYONE, then they're picky once they see who matched with them. A swipe doesn't mean he was attracted. Whereas many women will swipe left on conventionally attractive men when their profile is noting more than "ay im tony wanna fuk?" It also doesn't account for bots and fakes.

Also, online dating doesn't give us evidence of anything outside of online dating. AND the study by OKC is old AF and forgets that OKC used a "star" system as a way of blocking. OCK also took down their own study because incels wouldn't stop misinterpreting it.

Overall when it comes to looks women are more generous than men are.

There were 2 different studies mentioned in the cited link. Both say the same thing. If OKC has stopped publishing this data, it is not because the facts have changed but rather to appease left wing media agenda for “gender equality” despite clear data evidence to the contrary.

You are confused about what “attraction” means. Remember that tingling inside your panties in the presence of a HAWT guy? That is attraction. What you call “women’s generosity” actually proves my point. Women often (usually) wind up dating guys they aren’t really attracted to (ie, 80% of the male population). But he is a good provider and super nice. No wonder 3 years in she’s lost all desire for sex: never really attracted in the first place.

Data that's misinterpreted is useless. Despite your incel screeching that doesn't change how the websites collected data and why you and other incels misinterpret it to fit your crazy agenda.

Show us where that data has been correctly (according to your view) interpreted. Citation, please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few will. But the world will bend over backwards telling women to give chances to unattractive guys.

50% of men find 50% of women to be "attractive" so why would any man ask out THIS (unattractive) girl when there is a different (ATTRACTIVE) girl standing 3 feet over there?
Meanwhile 80% of women find only 20% of men to be "attractive" so just do some basic math and you can see why the world tells women to adjust their standards.

Cite.

https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attraction-inequality-and-the-dating-economy/

"Yet another study, run by OkCupid on their huge datasets, found that women rate 80 percent of men as “worse-looking than medium,” and that this 80 percent “below-average” block received replies to messages only about 30 percent of the time or less. By contrast, men rate women as worse-looking than medium only about 50 percent of the time, and this 50 percent below-average block received message replies closer to 40 percent of the time or higher."

This only makes sense if you ignore the way women and men use online dating. Men will swipe right on EVERYONE, then they're picky once they see who matched with them. A swipe doesn't mean he was attracted. Whereas many women will swipe left on conventionally attractive men when their profile is noting more than "ay im tony wanna fuk?" It also doesn't account for bots and fakes.

Also, online dating doesn't give us evidence of anything outside of online dating. AND the study by OKC is old AF and forgets that OKC used a "star" system as a way of blocking. OCK also took down their own study because incels wouldn't stop misinterpreting it.

Overall when it comes to looks women are more generous than men are.

There were 2 different studies mentioned in the cited link. Both say the same thing. If OKC has stopped publishing this data, it is not because the facts have changed but rather to appease left wing media agenda for “gender equality” despite clear data evidence to the contrary.

You are confused about what “attraction” means. Remember that tingling inside your panties in the presence of a HAWT guy? That is attraction. What you call “women’s generosity” actually proves my point. Women often (usually) wind up dating guys they aren’t really attracted to (ie, 80% of the male population). But he is a good provider and super nice. No wonder 3 years in she’s lost all desire for sex: never really attracted in the first place.

Data that's misinterpreted is useless. Despite your incel screeching that doesn't change how the websites collected data and why you and other incels misinterpret it to fit your crazy agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few will. But the world will bend over backwards telling women to give chances to unattractive guys.

50% of men find 50% of women to be "attractive" so why would any man ask out THIS (unattractive) girl when there is a different (ATTRACTIVE) girl standing 3 feet over there?
Meanwhile 80% of women find only 20% of men to be "attractive" so just do some basic math and you can see why the world tells women to adjust their standards.

Cite.

https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attraction-inequality-and-the-dating-economy/

"Yet another study, run by OkCupid on their huge datasets, found that women rate 80 percent of men as “worse-looking than medium,” and that this 80 percent “below-average” block received replies to messages only about 30 percent of the time or less. By contrast, men rate women as worse-looking than medium only about 50 percent of the time, and this 50 percent below-average block received message replies closer to 40 percent of the time or higher."

This only makes sense if you ignore the way women and men use online dating. Men will swipe right on EVERYONE, then they're picky once they see who matched with them. A swipe doesn't mean he was attracted. Whereas many women will swipe left on conventionally attractive men when their profile is noting more than "ay im tony wanna fuk?" It also doesn't account for bots and fakes.

Also, online dating doesn't give us evidence of anything outside of online dating. AND the study by OKC is old AF and forgets that OKC used a "star" system as a way of blocking. OCK also took down their own study because incels wouldn't stop misinterpreting it.

Overall when it comes to looks women are more generous than men are.

There were 2 different studies mentioned in the cited link. Both say the same thing. If OKC has stopped publishing this data, it is not because the facts have changed but rather to appease left wing media agenda for “gender equality” despite clear data evidence to the contrary.

You are confused about what “attraction” means. Remember that tingling inside your panties in the presence of a HAWT guy? That is attraction. What you call “women’s generosity” actually proves my point. Women often (usually) wind up dating guys they aren’t really attracted to (ie, 80% of the male population). But he is a good provider and super nice. No wonder 3 years in she’s lost all desire for sex: never really attracted in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn’t initially attracted to my now wife but we were friends for a few years and over time the attraction grew. She was cute in a girl next door way but in my early 20’s I was interested in hotter women. But she was really smart, fun and warm. So I wasn’t physically attracted to her early on but it definitely changed over time. After many years I’m still very attracted to her physically.

Do you think this is different though? You were attracted to "hotter" women when you younger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few will. But the world will bend over backwards telling women to give chances to unattractive guys.

50% of men find 50% of women to be "attractive" so why would any man ask out THIS (unattractive) girl when there is a different (ATTRACTIVE) girl standing 3 feet over there?
Meanwhile 80% of women find only 20% of men to be "attractive" so just do some basic math and you can see why the world tells women to adjust their standards.

Cite.

https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attraction-inequality-and-the-dating-economy/

"Yet another study, run by OkCupid on their huge datasets, found that women rate 80 percent of men as “worse-looking than medium,” and that this 80 percent “below-average” block received replies to messages only about 30 percent of the time or less. By contrast, men rate women as worse-looking than medium only about 50 percent of the time, and this 50 percent below-average block received message replies closer to 40 percent of the time or higher."

This only makes sense if you ignore the way women and men use online dating. Men will swipe right on EVERYONE, then they're picky once they see who matched with them. A swipe doesn't mean he was attracted. Whereas many women will swipe left on conventionally attractive men when their profile is noting more than "ay im tony wanna fuk?" It also doesn't account for bots and fakes.

Also, online dating doesn't give us evidence of anything outside of online dating. AND the study by OKC is old AF and forgets that OKC used a "star" system as a way of blocking. OCK also took down their own study because incels wouldn't stop misinterpreting it.

Overall when it comes to looks women are more generous than men are.

Anonymous wrote:I wasn’t initially attracted to my now wife but we were friends for a few years and over time the attraction grew. She was cute in a girl next door way but in my early 20’s I was interested in hotter women. But she was really smart, fun and warm. So I wasn’t physically attracted to her early on but it definitely changed over time. After many years I’m still very attracted to her physically.