Quote: (11-30-2018 03:19 AM)corsega Wrote:
I think of the top 20% as 20% by opportunity, not by execution.
My laycount is 71, which puts me in the top couple percentile of men in the USA, but by no means am I in the top 20%. I'd say top 35%-40% depending on the city (I've compared myself to Tinder profiles to see for sure).
Many men have the ability to slay, but don't execute on it like I do. It still means they are higher "percentile" than me.
Here is the thing... you may be top 35% in raw looks... but you get laid better than most men because you have game. That matters.
I notice how frequently and vehemently feminists bitch about beauty standards and I sometimes wonder to myself how much of an impact they make on our attractions. As a society we generally focus on the often trivial trials and tribulations of females and generally don't give a shit about the situation of males. Women have fairly easy and socially acceptable ways to improve their attractiveness. I mean all they have to do is wear makeup and not be fat. How fucking hard is that? Yet, male standards of attractiveness border on insane. We get graded on so many things that cannot be changed. If you have small tits... get implants. If you are a short guy... you are fucked. You have a short dick... you are fucked. You want to fit the ideal male image... you pretty much have to be 2% bodyfat and do steriods.
The good thing is that many of these issues can be somewhat compensated for by having game. But my overall point here is that when you look at the 80/20 situation it seems Western women are significantly more hypergamous than other countries. My question to the forum is this. Do you think that American women for example have higher standards for male attractiveness because the media constantly feeds them images of men that are virtually unobtainable for average guys?