/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10661440
Women are sexual selectors, so it’s in their nature to choose the best man possible. Men are “seed spreaders” so they’re likely to take more of what they can get. These are generalizations of course, but on average it is true.

>Why do men go for all kinds of women
I'm just trying to nut

>while women only go for the top 20% of men?
See >>10661449

Imagine a village of 100 men and 100 women. A disease kills 90 people. Consider these two scenarios:
* 95 women die. Next year you can have a most 5 new born babies that grow the village
Alternatively,
* 95 men die. Next year you can still have 100 new babies.

Women have inherent worth, not proven worth. Women and children get saved, men get drafted to war.

Pregnancy costs a lot for women, 9 months of labour and potentially many years of having the main responsibility of taking care of the child. Hence they are very careful with genes they choose. Men on the other hand can fuck around and impregnate tons of sluts while not necessarily having to settle. To some extent this is what the Chads do. They impregnate several different women. The Chads cannot provide for all these kids, thus these single moms seek out beta cucks that can provide and help raise the child with them. Possibly they grant the beta cuck 1 additional child, but that means that the beta cuck got 1 offspring with his genes while the Chad got several. This explains why there are more childless men than childless women.

>>10661440

They don't and neither do men go for all kinds of women.

In modern society we have legal systems that make impregnating women cost more for men, like child support, conviction of rape and marriage divorce laws which makes it comfier for the woman if the man decides to leave her and the kids. In addition a woman can abort an unwanted pregnancy or use various contraceptives to prevent it in the first place. All of this has exacerberated the already existing edge that women has in reproduction.

Humans are naturally polygynous, a majority of the women go to the minority of men leaving many men mateless.

>>10661440

A man can have THOUSANDS of children but can never be sure any are really his.

A woman can have at most a few dozen children but is absolutely sure they are all hers.

A woman will select the best males she can find, a man will select as many women he can find.

>>10661440

Because the top 20% of men set the foundation to have most of the women.

>Hunter
>Food is provided by the most capable hunters. Women who do not want starve will go with the men of such tribes capable of providing the most food.

>War
>Villages get raided by the powerful who often rape/kidnap the women while the men are killed
>Castes
>Only the majority of women are allowed to marry up or become vassals to conceive the children of the upper echelons. Men at the bottom are often locked out by law. Only option is military which often leads to the former scenario of raiding villages.
>Capitalism
>Healthcare, land, education and assets are easily accessible by those with the most wealth. Women and their offspring will have an easier and productive life if they aim to mate/partner up with wealthy.

>>10661440
Why do you believe this myth spread by incels?

>>10661440

women think implicitly, that is, if they act picky and choosy, it must means that they are valuable (false equivalence)
the truth is a woman can't pick a male, she can only hope to be chosen by one (and her value is determined by the amount and strength of males that want to pick her)

>>10661635
I enjoy mocking incels as much as the next guy but let's not sit here and pretend like the Pareto principle is not a thing.

>>10661643
Pareto principle is a real thing. It does not apply to your incel fantasies.

>>10661650
It does apply. Not only does it have a biological mechanism (the same everyone has explained in this thread), but it is also what you can observe. I don't know about you but I'm still in college so I am in constant interaction with a high number of breeding age males and females (so large sample size) and I can literally see Pareto in action.

If you are willing to deny this then you are literally the extreme to the other side of incels, some kind of fucked in the head feminist.

>>10661661
>It does apply.

Nope. It can only be observed in online dating which is beyond useless when discussing the behavior of the general population in real life. You are spreading incel fairy tales.

>>10661671
Ok nice so you've never in your life been to a college party. Noted.

>>10661678
Congrats for falling back on unverifiable personal anecdotes when you lose an argument. :-)

Cite one study that makes an observation of dating patterns obeying the Pareto rule outside of online dating.

The modern age has stripped away many of the material and societal motivations that allowed men of lower social status to bargain their way into formal companionship, so what we're left with is a much more capitalistic and competitive sexual market where a disproportionate amount of sway is given to displays of fashionable status, wealth, and appearances. As a result, the bulk of men create an overwhelming demand for, let's say, the upper 60% of women, but the women provide nowhere near the same demand for men the upper 60% of men, meaning that women enjoy the privilege of a buyer's market where everyone is frantically trying to convince them that they're the ones who can provide them the best product, whether that's sex, pleasure, luxury, or all of the above, and women can rest easy knowing that if a man comes along who's anything less than nearly perfect in one or more key aspects, they can just sit back and wait for the next one to make an offer

>>10661678
I'm an utterly average male and I have absolutely no issues talking to / fucking utterly average females.

>>10661681
>unverifiable personal anecdotes
Literally go to a big party lol. "Unverifiable". "Personal". Ok incel.

>>10661687
>Just go make your own unverifiable personal anecdotes lol

Cite one study that makes an observation of dating patterns obeying the Pareto rule outside of online dating.

>ok incel

Thanks for admitting you’re a troll. Hidden.

>>10661479
Men get drafted to war because they are stronger.

>>10661692
>Hidden
Imagine unironically getting this triggered. Incels are such snowflakes nowadays.

>>10661682

Mostly true the only thing I would disagree with is that women can "sit back" for a better deal. They still need to try in terms of placing themselves/location and optimizing their attractiveness (both physically and socially).

>>10661493
>Pregnancy costs a lot for women
Not really.
Maybe you want last 2 months of pregnancy away from work, and 6 months of maternal leave. Then you buy a babysitter until the child is 6 or 7, then you put the child into childgarden.

So if you make 2 kids, out of your 55 years of working, you will lose 1,5 years.

>>10661703
welcome to 1000 years of western culture giving females no agency. What you think that's going to completely disappear in two generations?

>>10661701
>Trying to use the insult used on you

Cite one study that makes an observation of dating patterns obeying the Pareto rule outside of online dating.

I await. Hidden.

This thread makes one laughable mistake.

Having sex has nothing to do with making children.

Sure, most of sexual pairs were between 10% of men and a woman.

But about 60% of men make children eventually.

>>10661707
This is too funny. A string of 1s and 0s on the internet managed to break your defenses. So weak, go shoot up a school Elliot.

>>10661713
>Having sex has nothing to do with making children.

>>10661713
>Having sex has nothing to do with making children.
Your existence makes one laughable mistake.

>>10661440
This is the way it has been since the Stone Age. Sex is a currency that males are biologically hardwired to obtain. The female provides the male with sex. In return, the male must provide something of value to the female. As a result, the female will generally seek to mate with the most successful male who will likely provide the most security to her and her future children.

>>10661440
Because if you're a man and you're also picky you don't get laid. Simple as that. Women on the other hand CAN be picky.

>>10661719
You’re trying to insult me now that you lost the argument. Really sad.

The incel is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him an incel and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

I will no longer reply to you until you cite a study that makes an observation of dating patterns obeying the Pareto rule outside of online dating. Bye, honey!

>>10661726
Wrong. Men would just rape the woman.

>>10661698
And so they can repopulate. But since they don’t do that anymore they might as well be drafted too

>>10661698
Drafting is illegal.

>Why do men go for all kinds of women
citation needed
>while women only go for the top 20% of men
How are we defining top 20%? Income, ""looks"", what factors? Talking about the top 20% is imprecise language because that can mean anything. We can all come up with some general description, but what this really suggests is that something like a top 20% "pick" is a holistic consideration on the side of the woman.

Anyway, why wouldn't you go for someone you think is in the top 20? I perceive my girlfriend to be very attractive as a partner (physically and emotionally), and she does the same for me. We've been dating for a few years now. Why is it so egregious that people shoot high? If you don't perceive yourself as very high, then you just work on yourself for a while (which really means to fix what you can in your hygiene and general build, and then learn to be comfortable in whatever makes you individual) while still shooting high.

Literally, the crime of "shooting high" is only a crime in the eyes of a subset of dudes who think they're being shortchanged because it's somehow owed to them that people lower their standards. I am by no means a "Chad" nor do I have this ridiculous checklist of arbitrary qualities, but I still shot high and got something out of it

>>10661713
>But about 60% of men make children eventually.
It's more than that in the UK & US, and presumably every other country.

>>10661728
>Because if you're a low status man and you're also picky, you don't get laid.
Ftfy
Chads get so much female attention that they can actively turn down sex and be no worse for wear

>>10661719
Cringe, just take the L you lost big time and you prove it with every post you make degenerating further into ad hominem

That’s just a big word for “makinng fun of people when you are losing an argument”

>>10661753
It really sounds like the women you hang around are in late high school to early university party girls. Why am I unsurprised that your view on dating is like this when the people you hang around generally operate on these basic principles? It's a big world out there, and in different social contexts and among different people, this does not generalize well.

>>10661732
No, it's called sexual selection and it's observed in many animal species

>>10661805
We also observe rape in many animal species, especially humans. There is no force whatsoever preventing a patriarchal society from raping their women at whim.

>>10661698
And expendable. By sheer numbers a military with women would have a huge advantage, the minimum requirements to battle aren't all that difficult and you could train them. It's just retarded as a big fuck up will mean it will take much more longer for your state to have more children.

>>10661732
>rape woman
>her brother finds out
>tells rest of tribe
>they raid our village
>all the men are killed
>the women raped and a few of them killed as well
at least you had sex

>>10661440

relict of an older societal organization.
if the sexes now share equal accountability for being in the workplace and can't retire, women will have to change their selection process if they want to have a cooperative partner to raise children with.
If they do not want a cooperative partner anymore, they will have to rely on taxation from the state, but this creates loads of issues in the long run if there's legislative equality enforced.

OP in modern times all women will entertain the possibilities of being with you even if you are average or below average lest you turn out to be wealthy, interesting, smart, funny, etc... that is until you prove to her that you are none of these things (they can detect this within minutes of speaking with you - it's called female intelligence) in which case she will display non-interest and you should move on...

>>10661740
>then you just work on yourself for a while (which really means to fix what you can in your hygiene and general build, and then learn to be comfortable in whatever makes you individual) while still shooting high.
I CAN'T BUILD MUSCLE

Seriously, how the fuck can I attract women when half of them are stronger than me

>>10661440
Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive.
No women should have to risk the dangers investing in childbirth to a weak, sub par man.
It's for the best.

>>10661731
Someone called, they want you back

Go lurk incels.co if you want sources, nobody is going to do it for you, and even if someone bothered you wouldn't read it.
Fucking plebbitors go back

>>10662178
have you tried building muscle?

>>10661705
From an evolutionary perspective

>>10662168
This. OP sounds like a special snowflake who had a "everyone gets a trophy!! :D" type of upbringing. Everyone has strengths and everyone has weaknesses. Work hard, play to your strengths and develop a fucking personality, and it's possible to make it despite having average appearance or lower.

>>10661671
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/21/11/2047/1147770
Shut the fuck up dumb bitch

>>10661732
Sure but I'm not sure it was all that important prehistorically
My logic is that species that are dependent on rape like ducks and such have means by which they weed out weaker males (such as hard to navigate vaginas)

>>10662224
Yes and I can't no matter what

>>10661440
who is this

The market price of pussy is all the proof you need for the Pareto principle. We are legitimately in a pussy bubble right now because 5/10s go for $200 an hour. 9/10s don’t even put out for real anymore and just blue ball betas on cam.

>inb4 the prostitution market isn’t a reliable measuring stick for the male/female social dynamic

It’s literally the best and most reliable one there is.

>>10661705
t. had a mother who did the bare minimum. There’s a lot more to being a good parent than what you outlined.

>>10661440
>Why do men go for all kinds of women while women only go for the top 20% of men?
because pussy is a precious commodity.
dick on the other hand...

Women are born with inherent high sexual value. However, men have to work to achieve their sexual value. So the woman will choose to reproduce with the man who has the best traits. It's a competition.

>>10661750

No. Most men alive today will never have children.

>>10661440
is this an edited picture? what the fuck is wrong with her face?

If women would go for the top 20% of men instead of the men that seem like the top 20% to them then the world would be a better place.

>>10662216
Not that anon but
>The burden of proof to my bullshit claims is in you
This new /pol/ adapted mentality is bringing a new low to an already low illogical crowd.

Unless you can provide an actual source to your claims, you are clinging on knee-jerk emotionak biases and are nothing but a mindless lip-piece.

>>10662479
>>10662269
Not pareto but an inequality nonetheless

> OP posts bogus "fact"
> /sci/ never asks for source
good times

>>10661440
The male gender has always been pragmatist while the female are picky and thus reduce mutation diversity.

>>10661493
This is bullshit because it implies women process pregnancy in such a logical manner which is not possible with their FEELS EQUALS REALS thought process. Women have no will they just act on instincts.

Women are less evolved than men. Fact. The Y chromosome is the part of the human genome that's evolving the fastest and it's going to bring humanity to the stars. I think this is going to turn around due to the mass sharing of information through the internet, as women operate in duplicity: they wear their hair long to cover their body, they change names at marriage, they wear makeup to disguise their looks. Now with all information out in the open, men are getting pickier about women and will only date and reproduce with the honest ones.

>>10662634
Women had to evolve to be dishonest, as men evolved to be egotistical. Honest women were killed in the tribal days for disagreeing with men, but now with modern civilization women can be honest and not get killed.

Because most men are immature. Biologically speaking, and for health reasons, a man shouldn't be busting more than 2 nuts a day. Maybe 3 if he's a well-bred well-fed nigger. A man should spend his day being a proper man. That means working to better his life or support his family most of the day, and then 2 nuts per day to the women he has chosen. And if that bitch decides to be a cheating whore and he finds out, if it's a boy it gets castrated and enslaved, so the man can further better his life to find better women, or if it's a girl it's another place to spread his seed, or a girl to sell. But a man has to plug into the game in the first place to win. So he shouldn't be too picky about his first woman, even if he is a top man, since the only place to go is up. Of course women never have trouble finding a mate, so they can afford to be picky.

Before anybody mentions that statistic that in ancient times 1 man reproduced for ever 15 women who reproduced, you should take into account that in ancient times, most men had fucked up genitals that died and couldn't make babies. Things like foreskin disorders, one wrong kick to the balls, etc. Also, in many cultures, a man should go to war before fucking a woman.

I can't remember the cunt's name, but there was a principle in regards to species with 2 sexes. He stated that if there were 2 sexes, one of them would end up bearing more of the weight in respect to reproduction. In our case, women bear that weight, which means that more work is required on their end to birth a child, which means that they will naturally be more picky because they can't afford to let any ol' rando bust in her walls. This biological fact leaks it's way into the fabric of our society, and voila, you're asking the question.

>>10662309
vera dijkmans

>>10661732
Empathy and the threat of retribution / ostracisation stop most.