However, getting yourself a dog and going for morning runs does get you approached by eligible women, so I guess it depends on the social context.
Women want men who are reliable, having a dog and exercising regularly signals reliability. This has nothing to do with kindness.
The biggest problem with incels is that they struggle with their life in general. Toxic guys with a well put together life doesn't have issues getting women, as you say just exercise regularly and keep a dog and have other such signals and women will come to you.
Who doesn’t want all of those traits? They’re the whole package. People have standards, and it seems so-called incels aren’t comfortable with that.
> Who doesn’t want all of those traits?
Sure, but we are talking about preferences, men prioritizes other traits even though they of course would like to have the perfect woman.
After a couple of unsuccessful committed relationships, people get their standards in place. It’s hard to imagine healthy adults want to date unreliable individuals romantically.
I don’t think it’s a gendered issue.
Ditzy women is a popular trope for a reason.
So sabotage themselves constantly and project that internalized anger into others.
Looks become less important if you know someone through work, or your friends set you up, or you meet at an activity.
Imagine a 1-10 scale for looks, personality, and chemistry, and imagine that a person has some minimum sum that they're looking for--say they want at least a 20 across these three categories. If dating sites give you an accurate read on looks to within 2 points, personality within 4 points, and chemistry within 6 points, then the fastest and most reliable strategy to achieve the 20 would be to filter first by looks on the dating app, then filter the other qualities in person where you can get a better measure.
Like, we could probably study dating websites and conclude that having a pleasant voice isn't high on most people's wish list, but I imagine a fair fraction won't keep dating someone if they find their voice grating.
From what I’ve heard, it came from a (flawed) study performed by some dating app. I don’t buy it.
Decades ago, I worked for a dating website - and it lined up with the reality in the ground based on what I saw, except the study actually seemed to be softpedaling the actual data.
And I saw the constants used to fudge the public numbers at the site I worked at, so dudes weren’t so depressed they ran away.
Something like FEMALE_COUNT_MULTIPLIER = 9 if I remember correctly.
Most sites even back then were using generated female profiles to fill things out; and bots to create some messages for male customers who were ‘not engaged enough’. None of that (or total numbers multiplication) was necessary for female members.
It seemed to get much worse after I left the industry - it was sleazy back then, and it seems to have gotten waaaay worse over time.
Not surprising really.