Happy 4th of July

[mgill]

yet more evidence of why many men are even more doomed than they may be aware of when it comes to dating & relationships. even more brutal is that he used my height as an example showing that 95% of women will reject a 5'6 male based only on his lack of height alone.

"The things brought up in this video are going to be nothing more but simple, cold, hard, brutal and undeniable facts showing for men in current dating markets their success is almost entirely determined by their looks & genetics."

[youtube]YG1hH0Sh1Pw[/youtube]

 

[TheRealCallie]

Please tell me how a random guy whining on YouTube constitutes as "evidence"....

You know, if you bothered to look, you could likely find just as many telling you the opposite. But then again, that wouldn't serve your purpose, now would it. Those also wouldn't count as "evidence," I'm sure, because they don't agree with you. lol

Seriously, this isn't evidence, it's not fact, it's just one guy whining and making excuses.

 

[kaetic]

Wow... You got me. I totally thought this thread was about the 4th of July. Happy Holiday btw.

but just for ***** and giggles... I watched the video
1. 105 men to 100 women... the argument here I found kind of funny. "do you know why there are more men than women... blah blah blah" yes, pure chance. I remember reading an article in the 90's about how there weren't enough men for the women. And the only reason he gave for ruling any of the women out is "LOW QUALITY" What makes a woman low quality? Well, if she's a single mother, overweight or some other pathetic "reason". I'm not saying you have to be attracted to everyone, or that you can't have standards... but I did notice none of the men were ruled out as "LOW QUALITY" But that's the thing, right? It's not shallow when YOU do it. Not once was the possibility of homosexuality on either side mentioned. But I guess this is a hundred percent straight fantasy world... so whatever tips your turnip truck.

2. And again with the ******* height ********. I'm not saying that there aren't women out there that will instantly reject you for shallow reasons. Obviously there are men out there that will do that too. But not once does he mention the source of this survey, and statistics... are worthless without a source reference. But then he doesn't just stick to his non referenced statistics.. he adds in arbitrary numbers for women who "lied on the survey" or have a "strong disdain" for short men. This does not help his credibility as it seems HE IS JUST MAKING **** UP.

3. Women favor white men... cough, cough, cough ********. But back to his argument. More home made graphs with him mentioning a vague survey that he doesn't reference ANYWHERE.

4. Tinder... ok, so at least he mentioned where he was getting this information from... sort of. Top 50% of men on Tinder get all the likes or something. And I'd like to bring up point number 1 again where he automatically disqualified 40% of women calling them low quality. So... devil's advocate... men CAN'T be low quality? Maybe the bottom 50% had ****** photos, or wore wife beaters, or were groping some girls *** in their profile picture? We don't know, because again, while he mentions Tinder there is nothing that leads us to the actual data of this "survey" so we are left to "take his word for it".
EVEN if he's right, Tinder is not representative of ALL of the dating world.

5. "looks is the biggest indicator of men's dating success" On this lovely little chart, that AGAIN has no source reference, the numbers aren't even all that different. But the ******** is... "Everyone knows men care about a woman's looks"... Seriously. If you aren't catching the double standard lets also look at the personality comparison. Personality mattered more to women than to men, and money less to women than to men. But.. what matters? That women rated .03 higher on a scale of superficiality, that for all we know got shat out by this youtuber for likes and views.

6. women attribute good personality traits with men they already find attractive... quite possibly and I would bet men do it too. Though again okcupid is not representative of the entire dating world... and just mentioning the site name doesn't actually give anyone any real information about how to find these "studies" for themselves. This is really getting annoying as this guy has mentioned liking and subscribing several times but doesn't bother to put in any references? Not a great source Mgill.

7. women lie about how important looks are to them. (yes not what he said, but that is the point isn't it?) I about burned my eyes out on that one trying to read the fine print, hoping there was a reference to whatever study this was, but NOPE. It's just a restatement of number 5, worded slightly different (though with the same exact numbers? how did 2 studies have the EXACT same set of numbers?), with the added insinuation of "everyone knows men care about looks, but women shouldn't because... it's not fair?" oh and the really obvious "it's not that they care about looks more... it's that they LIED and said they didn't when they did." Switching up the argument a little bit to give the pillers a bit more victimhood, I suppose.

8. AGAIN restating number 5, with the exact same numbers, and saying "at least men are honest" But, oh, what is this? Men also rated personality higher than looks when they really care about looks more. I'm questioning two things here. What is the ******* issue if the argument is that people who date care about looks? And, how exactly would a study get the ratings for what you might prefer and then somehow read your mind to know what you REALLY prefer? I'll never know, because THERE ARE STILL NO REFERENCES.
But wait, there's more. Because men are so honest, and women are liars... innocent men end up friendzoned, being told by evil women that it's their personality that's to blame (out of the mouth of an illiterate youtuber) so they think that if they just hang around her more after she's already tried to let them down gently that somehow she'll change her mind. In other words, it's not ok to lie and tell some one that they look fine to spare their feelings, but it's totally cool to hang out under the pretense of friendship but really you just don't know how to take no for an answer. And should a guy reject a girl based on looks, it's cool because everyone knows guys care about looks, and the chick will just deal with it because she's not pretty enough, and she'll know, SHE'LL JUST KNOW.

9. babies stare at attractive faces 4x longer than unattractive ones... Seriously? We still get no references, but there is a familiar 80/20 statement, though it's not about women this time. Babies also stare at walls and ceilings for no apparent reason. And if you say got your nose, sometimes they cry because they really do think you stole their nose.

10. A man is over 6x more likely to become a CEO if they are 6' or taller... Pretty sure that's ********. There are a lot of factors that go into some one becoming a CEO, not the least of which is good old fashioned nepotism. I doubt height plays a deciding role in those cases. just grabbing random info and fudging the math (which again we don't know who all he counted, just fortune 500) until you get it to say what you want it to say doesn't make it fact.

Lesson being if you are going to compile a video of a list of statistics and then read them out loud to your audience (who I can only assume you believe are a bunch of imbeciles because of how much you repeat yourself), INCLUDE REFERENCES or they aren't very good arguing points.



I would have been kinder in my statements, but apparently that's dishonest and I should aim to be like a man and just say "**** your feelings".

 

[Sidewinder]

"ER... I'LL TAKE FIREWORKS FOR $500, ALEX!!!"  

Watched a pretty good fireworks display last night, hoping for another tonight... this little high desert burg splurges on stuff like fireworks, no phony ******** political virus & socialist plandemic shutting down OUR pyrotechnic displays, thank you very much.  

 

[Finished]

^ That's awesome that you have good fireworks there. I saw a really good one about four years ago. Many of the fireworks shows are cancelled over here. But, I wasn't planning on leaving my place to check them out anyway. A lot of people here must have traveled out of town too. I've heard very few personalized fireworks going off. Normally, even last year, it was 10 days of loud explosions between 10pm and 4am. Tonight will be the real test.

 

[mgill]

Wow... You got me. I totally thought this thread was about the 4th of July. Happy Holiday btw.

but just for ***** and giggles... I watched the video
1. 105 men to 100 women... the argument here I found kind of funny. "do you know why there are more men than women... blah blah blah" yes, pure chance. I remember reading an article in the 90's about how there weren't enough men for the women. And the only reason he gave for ruling any of the women out is "LOW QUALITY" What makes a woman low quality? Well, if she's a single mother, overweight or some other pathetic "reason". I'm not saying you have to be attracted to everyone, or that you can't have standards... but I did notice none of the men were ruled out as "LOW QUALITY" But that's the thing, right? It's not shallow when YOU do it. Not once was the possibility of homosexuality on either side mentioned. But I guess this is a hundred percent straight fantasy world... so whatever tips your turnip truck.

2. And again with the ******* height ********. I'm not saying that there aren't women out there that will instantly reject you for shallow reasons. Obviously there are men out there that will do that too. But not once does he mention the source of this survey, and statistics... are worthless without a source reference. But then he doesn't just stick to his non referenced statistics.. he adds in arbitrary numbers for women who "lied on the survey" or have a "strong disdain" for short men. This does not help his credibility as it seems HE IS JUST MAKING **** UP.

3. Women favor white men... cough, cough, cough ********. But back to his argument. More home made graphs with him mentioning a vague survey that he doesn't reference ANYWHERE.

4. Tinder... ok, so at least he mentioned where he was getting this information from... sort of. Top 50% of men on Tinder get all the likes or something. And I'd like to bring up point number 1 again where he automatically disqualified 40% of women calling them low quality. So... devil's advocate... men CAN'T be low quality? Maybe the bottom 50% had ****** photos, or wore wife beaters, or were groping some girls *** in their profile picture? We don't know, because again, while he mentions Tinder there is nothing that leads us to the actual data of this "survey" so we are left to "take his word for it".
EVEN if he's right, Tinder is not representative of ALL of the dating world.

5. "looks is the biggest indicator of men's dating success" On this lovely little chart, that AGAIN has no source reference, the numbers aren't even all that different. But the ******** is... "Everyone knows men care about a woman's looks"... Seriously. If you aren't catching the double standard lets also look at the personality comparison. Personality mattered more to women than to men, and money less to women than to men. But.. what matters? That women rated .03 higher on a scale of superficiality, that for all we know got shat out by this youtuber for likes and views.

6. women attribute good personality traits with men they already find attractive... quite possibly and I would bet men do it too. Though again okcupid is not representative of the entire dating world... and just mentioning the site name doesn't actually give anyone any real information about how to find these "studies" for themselves. This is really getting annoying as this guy has mentioned liking and subscribing several times but doesn't bother to put in any references? Not a great source Mgill.

7. women lie about how important looks are to them. (yes not what he said, but that is the point isn't it?) I about burned my eyes out on that one trying to read the fine print, hoping there was a reference to whatever study this was, but NOPE. It's just a restatement of number 5, worded slightly different (though with the same exact numbers? how did 2 studies have the EXACT same set of numbers?), with the added insinuation of "everyone knows men care about looks, but women shouldn't because... it's not fair?" oh and the really obvious "it's not that they care about looks more... it's that they LIED and said they didn't when they did." Switching up the argument a little bit to give the pillers a bit more victimhood, I suppose.

8. AGAIN restating number 5, with the exact same numbers, and saying "at least men are honest" But, oh, what is this? Men also rated personality higher than looks when they really care about looks more. I'm questioning two things here. What is the ******* issue if the argument is that people who date care about looks? And, how exactly would a study get the ratings for what you might prefer and then somehow read your mind to know what you REALLY prefer? I'll never know, because THERE ARE STILL NO REFERENCES.
But wait, there's more. Because men are so honest, and women are liars... innocent men end up friendzoned, being told by evil women that it's their personality that's to blame (out of the mouth of an illiterate youtuber) so they think that if they just hang around her more after she's already tried to let them down gently that somehow she'll change her mind. In other words, it's not ok to lie and tell some one that they look fine to spare their feelings, but it's totally cool to hang out under the pretense of friendship but really you just don't know how to take no for an answer. And should a guy reject a girl based on looks, it's cool because everyone knows guys care about looks, and the chick will just deal with it because she's not pretty enough, and she'll know, SHE'LL JUST KNOW.

9. babies stare at attractive faces 4x longer than unattractive ones... Seriously? We still get no references, but there is a familiar 80/20 statement, though it's not about women this time. Babies also stare at walls and ceilings for no apparent reason. And if you say got your nose, sometimes they cry because they really do think you stole their nose.

10. A man is over 6x more likely to become a CEO if they are 6' or taller... Pretty sure that's ********. There are a lot of factors that go into some one becoming a CEO, not the least of which is good old fashioned nepotism. I doubt height plays a deciding role in those cases. just grabbing random info and fudging the math (which again we don't know who all he counted, just fortune 500) until you get it to say what you want it to say doesn't make it fact.

Lesson being if you are going to compile a video of a list of statistics and then read them out loud to your audience (who I can only assume you believe are a bunch of imbeciles because of how much you repeat yourself), INCLUDE REFERENCES or they aren't very good arguing points.



I would have been kinder in my statements, but apparently that's dishonest and I should aim to be like a man and just say "**** your feelings".

i understand how looking at such uncomfortable truths can be so triggering but if you look at the video on youtube, all of the papers are linked under the heading "sources".  here is the paper which was used for the male height graph:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...s_in_suboptimal_pair_formation_for_both_sexes 

and here is an article about infants looking at attractive faces 80% of the time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3631018.stm

 

[mgill]

Please tell me how a random guy whining on YouTube constitutes as "evidence"....

You know, if you bothered to look, you could likely find just as many telling you the opposite.  But then again, that wouldn't serve your purpose, now would it.  Those also wouldn't count as "evidence," I'm sure, because they don't agree with you. lol 

Seriously, this isn't evidence, it's not fact, it's just one guy whining and making excuses.

my only purpose is to expose the harsh truth and as i posted below, all of the references are linked in the video on youtube. i have yet to see a peer reviewed paper which concluded that a man's height & facial attractiveness are not of primary importance for women but if you know of any please feel free to share them.

also, take a look at the comment section below the video.  as of today there are 918 of them and 99% appear to agree with the video's conclusions so there seem to be many, many men who have had the exact same experience when it comes to complete failure in the dating scene due to inferior height & looks.

---

"ER... I'LL TAKE FIREWORKS FOR $500, ALEX!!!"  

Watched a pretty good fireworks display last night, hoping for another tonight... this little high desert burg splurges on stuff like fireworks, no phony ******** political virus & socialist plandemic shutting down OUR pyrotechnic displays, thank you very much.  

fireworks are horrible and should be banned.  the noise terrifies dogs & cats along with wild living animals.  the acrid smoke & paper/cardboard are environmentally polluting.  i will never understand how blowing something up can be considered as entertaining.

 

[kaetic]

I did look at the video and I did not see those. However, I see them now... so perhaps I overlooked it.

"Thus, ourstudy reveals how mutual mate choice can result in suboptimal pair formation for both sexes, high-lighting the importance of assessing the mate choice process in its entirety."

This is the conclusion made from your first paper.

And so there is a paper about the babies... great. Again, pretending that it has relevance to what you brought up. All it "proves" is that EVERYONE has preferences.

I do notice, that you didn't argue with anything that I had to say other than the lack of sources. Which I will admit, was my mistake. If I had more time I would look through all of them. But I just checked out the two that you listed.
What is the point of calling it "triggering"? Are you trying to say that I'm too "emotional" to see your point? Not the case. The video was really annoying, but the reply took an hour, because I was trying to consider your side. It just so happens that a lot of the argument, from the video, is ********. I wouldn't doubt if it doesn't match the study... just like the first one was cherrypicked to "prove a point."

And so far I haven't found anything to change my opinion of what the video (not the studies) was about. Which, in my opinion, was just to say that women are evil, superficial liars.

I will check them out later, but for now I've got to get back to the job that actually pays my bills.

 

[mgill]

I did look at the video and I did not see those. However, I see them now... so perhaps I overlooked it.

"Thus, ourstudy reveals how mutual mate choice can result in suboptimal pair formation for both sexes, high-lighting the importance of assessing the mate choice process in its entirety."

This is the conclusion made from your first paper.

And so there is a paper about the babies... great. Again, pretending that it has relevance to what you brought up. All it "proves" is that EVERYONE has preferences.

I do notice, that you didn't argue with anything that I had to say other than the lack of sources. Which I will admit, was my mistake. If I had more time I would look through all of them. But I just checked out the two that you listed.
What is the point of calling it "triggering"? Are you trying to say that I'm too "emotional" to see your point? Not the case. The video was really annoying, but the reply took an hour, because I was trying to consider your side. It just so happens that a lot of the argument, from the video, is ********. I wouldn't doubt if it doesn't match the study... just like the first one was cherrypicked to "prove a point."

And so far I haven't found anything to change my opinion of what the video (not the studies) was about. Which, in my opinion, was just to say that women are evil, superficial liars.

I will check them out later, but for now I've got to get back to the job that actually pays my bills.

i was not being insulting by the triggering comment so apolgize if you were offended by it. everyone does have their own preferences but when it comes to women, their preferences are in such a narrow band that only the top 20% or so of men fall into their field of interest. even if one denies this, as the video also shows 95% of likes go to 50% of men so those of us in the bottom 50% have to compete for the remaining 5% of women.  this study was only about OLD but since everyone has access to OLD, the IRL dating scene is not far off from this ratio either-hence the 80/20 rule is quite valid.

as far as you other objections WW clearly states when what he is saying is his opinion and where it is based on the referenced studies. i think the fact that so many average & below average men's experiences with women align with the conclusions in the video is proof enough of the accuracy.

the baby study for example shows that attraction starts at infancy and that it is largely an unconcious bias. how many short, ugly men do you see on the cover of magazines or staring in modern movies?  how many youtube & tik tok stars owe their success to their physical appearance? imo, it's kind of like living in abject poverty as i think that one would have to actually experience life as a short, bald, ugly male to truly have an appreciation as to how horrible it is to be one in the modern, digital dating age.

 

[Minus]

Site

Video

 

[M_also_lonely]

Yes, a random guy telling this on YouTube does count as evidence because what he says is a repeated experience of millions of men.
I didn't watch the video, but I know what its about. I know every word and message of it.

And not to be rude, I do not take women's opinions on this specific one seriously. I am really really sorry. By this, I do not mean that their opinions are 'inferior' but rather, not oriented to what the male is really concerned about.
What they say is completely opposite from what they themselves do. Reason being, they do things as per the female nature, and when talking to a male about this, try to present their view that aligns with the male's perspective.

This creates confusion. The female got attracted to this guy, she invested herself, but the guy didn't give back. He wasn't kind to her. He left her. So this is what she tells you. So you be nice. But when you do, she isn't attracted to you. She travels to a different town just to sleep with that guy, but doesn't even reply to your, "How was your day?" Have you not seen this? What answer do the women have for this?

Well, she did not tell you what got her attracted initially. Because it is largely unconscious to her. That part is just skipped. 
They will always tell you how you should be this really nice person, full of love and honesty and kindness, etc. And how a woman will see that in you, etc.

But then you look at the partner(/s) they had, have completely opposite characteristics than they claim.

If you approach someone with a genuine smile with all the positive emotions in your mind, she will most likely reject you. But if you are the opposite, she will even pay your fines even after you are divorced. I have seen that. And you have seen that too, I CAN BET.

An alleged misogynist once made a very interesting observation, "When it comes to dating, don't listen to what women say they want, look at what got them laid. Both will be the exact opposite."

So far, multiple women from this forum have told me that a woman who has had past relationships will not give their fullest. They only told this because this question was asked in a different context. If you ask them right away, "Will you love me less because of your past?" They will refuse. You just have to catch them off guard to get the truth.
I again, don't mean to be rude, but me and almost all men here, have seen this contradiction ALL THE TIME.

I will address the original concern in the next post.

 

[TheRealCallie]

And again, we have another person claiming that women can't understand men, but men know everything about women and how and what they think.

Seriously, STOP thinking you know that all women are evil liars. It's only making your life worse....but then again, I'm sure it's probably easier to blame everyone else than to look at your negative *** attitude and think that a big portion of the problem might be within yourself. Very few women are likely to want a guy who thinks they are evil, malicious, lying *******.....

 

[kaetic]

Yes, a random guy telling this on YouTube does count as evidence because what he says is a repeated experience of millions of men.
I didn't watch the video, but I know what its about. I know every word and message of it.

And not to be rude, I do not take women's opinions on this specific one seriously. I am really really sorry. By this, I do not mean that their opinions are 'inferior' but rather, not oriented to what the male is really concerned about.
What they say is completely opposite from what they themselves do. Reason being, they do things as per the female nature, and when talking to a male about this, try to present their view that aligns with the male's perspective.

This creates confusion. The female got attracted to this guy, she invested herself, but the guy didn't give back. He wasn't kind to her. He left her. So this is what she tells you. So you be nice. But when you do, she isn't attracted to you. She travels to a different town just to sleep with that guy, but doesn't even reply to your, "How was your day?" Have you not seen this? What answer do the women have for this?

Well, she did not tell you what got her attracted initially. Because it is largely unconscious to her. That part is just skipped. 
They will always tell you how you should be this really nice person, full of love and honesty and kindness, etc. And how a woman will see that in you, etc.

But then you look at the partner(/s) they had, have completely opposite characteristics than they claim.

If you approach someone with a genuine smile with all the positive emotions in your mind, she will most likely reject you. But if you are the opposite, she will even pay your fines even after you are divorced. I have seen that. And you have seen that too, I CAN BET.

An alleged misogynist once made a very interesting observation, "When it comes to dating, don't listen to what women say they want, look at what got them laid. Both will be the exact opposite."

So far, multiple women from this forum have told me that a woman who has had past relationships will not give their fullest. They only told this because this question was asked in a different context. If you ask them right away, "Will you love me less because of your past?" They will refuse. You just have to catch them off guard to get the truth.
I again, don't mean to be rude, but me and almost all men here, have seen this contradiction ALL THE TIME.

I will address the original concern in the next post.

I'm guessing this was a personal experience?

This response is not just for you. And I take no offense to what may very well be a cultural bias, or at least an emotional one. No offense intended, but personal experiences color our viewpoints. It's part of how stereotypes are formed. A few people do something with negative or positive implications and people look for the commonality and assign it to the whole of whatever group they find.

I'm not saying there aren't people out there both male and female that will use people. Probably a lot more than I'm thinking. I'm just not following how this youtube video is so believable, apparently. Because to me it sounds like crap. The only thing it's proved is that both sexes care about looks, how much/to what degree each individual does I don't believe is covered by these studies. Just because babies have a preference from birth doesn't mean that those tastes don't evolve/change with time and experience. Both of you mentioned dishonesty in female words vs actions. And I'm not even going to argue that, I can't. People, male or female, lie. Sometimes they don't even know they're doing it. But to generalize and say ALL women lie about what matters to them... again this is not covered by the studies mgill presented. Nor is it proven by anecdotal evidence, no offense but that has been said to me many times before.

He's taking studies based on OLD which accounts for 39% of the way couples have met (easily googleable) and then narrows it down by platform studies...
This is not accurate. Basically he's saying 95% of the likes go to 50% of the guys on Tinder. Again we don't know the exact situations there. But Tinder accounts for roughly a third of the online dating market... so 1/3 of 39% of couples meet on Tinder... that leave's a lot of other options. And according to this site's data https://www.businessofapps.com/data/tinder-statistics/ There seems to be a little disparity on whether 15% of the app falls in the 18-29 year range (which is what this site claims) or if like Tinder says it's closer to 50% fall in the 18-25 year range... (marketing technique? creative counting? either way it's worth noting) On top of that the userbase is 72% male to 28% female... How is this an accurate representation of the dating world?

I honestly wasn't even going to respond again to this... it's a waste of time, people this invested don't change their minds.

Specifically to you though, I'm sorry you experienced that. People suck. I don't know what you mean by women not giving their fullest if it's not their first relationship... but I do lack experience with relationships, so maybe I'm just not going to get that part. I assume you're talking about how past experiences can change us, maybe jade us to the new ones... and while we may remain open to the positive that baggage still remains. Is this at all close?

 

[ardour]

But then you look at the partner(/s) they had, have completely opposite characteristics than they claim.

There's an obvious disconnect between stated values and actual choices. 

I had a stupid crush on a coworker a few years ago; I would Google her name for a  couple of years after she left (ashamed to say).  This was someone who, according to her blog, was afraid of men, and very introverted. One day  I came across a facebook post where she'd been given a writers award. In the comments  was  "can't do plot or dialogue, what's going  on?" ,  "I would never be jealous of my semi alliterate wife"  - that was her now husband. This was what he had to say about the mother of his child.  The man she married.

Kindness and empathy are held aloft as important qualities but subconsciously they factor behind more basic urges/needs (like attraction to masculinity) and in many cases they don't matter at all.

Someone on ALL a long time ago pointed this out; men who are very "attentive" are often like that because of their own self-esteem problems. It can draining for women when men focus all their attention on them. But the guys who don't do this are often at the other extreme. Given the choice women go for the latter.

 

[theablekingathelstan]

yet more evidence of why many men are even more doomed than they may be aware of when it comes to dating & relationships. even more brutal is that he used my height as an example showing that 95% of women will reject a 5'6 male based only on his lack of height alone.

"The things brought up in this video are going to be nothing more but simple, cold, hard, brutal and undeniable facts showing for men in current dating markets their success is almost entirely determined by their looks & genetics."

[youtube]YG1hH0Sh1Pw[/youtube]

It's the way it's always been.

 

[theablekingathelstan]

what's is that wtching these kinds of youtube vids is damaging your mental health, seemingly.
what we expose ourselves too often has a toll on us. I'm not even being snarky, but genuinely wanting to help you.

i think we're born in this world with given tools, assets, and drawbacks, and we just have to muddle through the best we can.