Hacker News Reader

The ratios are insane. 9 desperate men for every 1 woman is the UK ratio. No "normal blokes" are getting laid in that scenario. And that's nothing new. You're 40 like me so I imagine you've been to a bar or a club. This ritual has been played out for a century. Same experiment, exactly the same results. The only variations are alcohol, drugs and mood lighting to help the Average Joe.

The problem isn't women. It's that you're competing for sex with a tiny pool of women in a contest on assets you do not have. [If you are, as many are who espouse these feelings] you're not involuntarily celibate, you're voluntarily picking a contest you cannot win.

The vast majority of women don't join these things, they meet people in their day-to-day lives.

I can barely imagine the damage you've done to yourself by throwing yourself on the stack for two thirds of your life, but you've got to see that even if you do occasionally luck out, it's not a platform for finding a life.

I luckily still manage because of height and talking ability, but I have seen the standards change drastically in the last 10 years.

Not trying to date from bars or dance clubs is obvious. Which previously meant men and women would date from work and social circle. Well, now at least half of women are dating exclusively from online dating, and picking out of their league because it's more anonymous. And even girls that don't date online exclusively, tried it a few times and again, landed with guys that would never commit.

It's basically poisoning the well.

Barely a quarter of women have ever used an app and retention is dire. 50% bounce after the first experience, 10% leave a year for meaningful relationships, and the rest —those that aren't sex workers and bots promoting sex workers— get to fill their boots. This tallies with why apps are a 9:1 sausagefest.

And I might suggest that the standards you've seen changing might correlate with your own age and your own shifting standards.

If those women are your idea of poison, remind yourself that you're choosing to drink from this tiny minority of self-selecting women. I don't think it's fair to blame them or the well owner for your proclivities.

Barely a quarter of women.... Most of which would be already partnered well before the takeoff of these apps. Come on, atleast look up the right age range and right demographic.

I found a 2017 (!) study that said 40% of non married people found their current partner online. Now factor in that online dating often leads to shorter term interactions for exactly the reasons I discussed, it's clear that over 50% of 18-35% women have used online dating.

I personally have seen the change. When I was young, almost no women did online dating. 20 years later, you would really be hard pressed to find a woman that hasn't tried it. And the reason most stop is because they get burned. That burning leaves a scar, and that's what I mentioned also.

Well at least average Joe doesn't get to pay for the pursuit of others happiness aka his her non relationship via taxes and social services. That would be bitter.

It's a miracle it's not a widespread civil war out there.

Porn has definitely had the same impact on what men like. Before the internet we were overrating local women just the same.

Lots of guys I know don't want to believe it, but there are a ton of lonely women out there that will fix themselves up for you just as you will for her. It's a matter of being willing to put in the work. People are not products on a shelf and they will change. It's up to you and your partner to guide that process for each other. You don't even have to commit to get that. Just be good friends.

> Porn has definitely had the same impact on what men like.

Maybe, but I seriously doubt it has an impact on what men actually do.

Men aren't going "That woman is a 6; no way I'm sleeping with her" while women are saying "I know what I'm worth, because I dated[1] a top-5% man".

It's always been the case that 80% of the women are chasing 5% of the men. Having the pool expanded by online-dating just means that even more women in absolute numbers have unrealistic expectations.

[1] They didn't date them, they slept with them, couldn't get them to commit, and don't realise why they couldn't get them to commit.

I think they do, don't they? The whole "why didn't he call?", "all guys are pigs" trope isn't that new.

> Maybe, but I seriously doubt it has an impact on what men actually do.

You're right not all men have changed. It changed what the "top" men do to be accepted by women. Porn had a huge impact on women.

> Men aren't going "That woman is a 6; no way I'm sleeping with her"

Women who are a 6+ now know that most men would sleep with them. That doesn't resolve their loneliness nor feed their ambitions or help them grow. Really at the end of the day they just want a halfway good reason for the sex beyond basic attraction. Relationship depends on how good that reason was and whether it led to a deeper bond. Long term relationship depends on whether the situation is sustainable.

> Women who are a 6+ now know that most men would sleep with them.

Women who are a solid 6 think that they are a solid 8 (assuming an even distribution in attractiveness from 1 - 10). This is because, as you said, they know (not suspect) that most men would sleep with them, so in their mind, if 80% of men find them good enough to sleep with, then they're an 8/10.

Even women in the 4 and below category are constantly having to decline male propositions, hence they overrate their desirability, not realising that 8/10 horny males would rather have sex with a women who's a 3 or a 2 than no sex at all.

> No guy in the top 5%, and especially not an athlete, is going to settle down with a 6.

Citation needed.

> Yet afterwards, that 6 isn't very likely to settle for a 6 male.

Citation needed.

Also, this whole "ranking attractiveness on a linear scale" thing needs to die.

If you lined up 100 women, or men, it wouldn't take a genius to shuffle them into an overall attractiveness order with certain ones on the left and certain ones on the right. Most people are able to estimate someone's overall score on this scale.

I think the 'ignoring that there are discernable differences between people' thing needs to die.

I'm sorry, but there is no universal "scale". Measures of attractiveness vary across time, between cultures, and from person to person. (And can also shift dramatically depending on how well you know someone.)

For more information, see this video essay: https://youtu.be/X53ZSxkQ3Ho

When people hand out overall scores, it's done from a more universal metric. And if not, atleast within your circle.

Being too far out of your circle is only going to lower the perceived score. So yes, if Pro Baseball player might sleep with a girl that is an 8 in the Punk Rock club world, but to him she's a 6-7 because he doesn't value that stuff.

For a guy, ease raises a girls score temporarily. For a woman, perceived value raises a score temporarily.

If you asked 100 people, literally everyone would agree Arnold Schwarzenegger is more attractive than Danny Devito. For people in the middle it's a bit more subjective but there are people that are more or less attractive.

> I think the 'ignoring that there are discernable differences between people' thing needs to die.

Maybe having a connection with someone? Does that mean anything to you?

Of course it does. But wouldn't you want to have a connection with a 7 instead of a 4?

So, never?