Who are these "top men"?

[Pompeii]

I've been hearing a lot lately about "top men" or guys who are at the top. Some people pretty much say that 20% of the men get 80% of the women or something along the lines of that. I'm no expert, but I believe that this is derived from the Pareto Principle which states that 20% of your resource base will contribute towards 80% of your results. Resource base meaning clients, results meaning income. Somehow, this has been extracted from the world of economics/business and placed (awkwardly) into the world of dating.

 

The idea in and of itself is quite confusing to me and quite vague. The reason being is that all of those who espouse this idea have failed to identify who the "20%" of men who are getting "80%" of the women are. I can imagine who some of these "top men" would be. Movie stars, CEOs, investment bankers, wealthy businessmen, millionaire musicians. Etc. Those men are more likely to get more women from their position of power, sure. But the people who push this idea make it seem like women are magnets that cannot resist the pull of one of these men, whatsoever.

 

Also, what defines someone into being part of this 20%? Is it looks? Is it fame? Is it social status? Is this 20% a global ranking or is it localized? Who are the rest of the 80% of men? Are they involuntarily celibate? Are they not getting the results they desire? Who are the remaining 20% of women? Are they unfit for relationships/sexual encounters? Why is it that large of a population?

 

I have two main problems with this 20/80 theory. 1: It's zero-sum. 2. It's mathematically incorrect. Zero-sum. One winner, bunch of losers. I highly doubt that there is one "winner" when it comes to the dating game. What is "winning" anyway? Is it getting that brunette bombshell that you've always wanted? Or is it getting someone who fits most of your attraction criteria? Most people don't lose when it comes to dating. They find someone they're attracted to for the time being. Like a lot of things, attraction has an expiration date. As long as you've found someone you like spending time with emotionally and physically, then I believe you have "won". If you don't "win", then there would be no such thing as long-term relationships.

 

The theory also ignores the Bell curve. Of course there are some men who will encounter the MOST results with women. These are guys who are genetically gifted and socially adept. Yes, there are a minority of them but I do not believe they scoop up all the girls. These guys are attractive to the MOST women but they won't necessarily be with all of them. What about the rest of the 80% are they just genetically inferior? Are they average? What about the success of about 40% of men in that latter 80? Do they experience results? According to the law of averages, they should. Then I guess the remainder of the 80% is a crapshoot between men who experience little to no success.

 

I've also noticed that the people who chant this theory like gospel tend not to consider themselves as part of the "elect". Why is that? Why put yourself down like that?

 

I personally don't believe in this theory for the aforementioned reasons but I welcome anyone to provide a counterpoint to my argument(s). If anyone has any sort of external sources or evidence that they would like to incorporate, please feel free to do so. I am genuinely curious about this and in creating my argument I may have overlooked some details.

[ThaWholigan]

I have nothing to add except that I wholly agree and it's not something that I have seen in my lifetime among my generation.

[HoneyBadgerDontCare]

I think the 80/20 Rule came from wealth distribution.

 

Some random person then applied it to dating. Then every guy that couldn't get girls took it and ran with it.

[IAmRobot]

I believe in the 80% - 20%.

 

However it's a lot easier to be in the 20% than you think.

 

Look around you. If you see yourself more successful with girls than the next 4 guys in line, then you're probably in the 20%.

 

Said all this i think it's a value based approach. i.e TOP 5% people can sleep with the BOTTOM 95%. TOP 50% can sleep with the BOTTOM 50% and so on and so forth.

Your value is based in a lot of things. Looks, Social skills, Wealth, Health, Confidence, Success, etc etc.

[StanMusial]

Hmmm. Well, this weekend, go to a bar or club or some social event where men and women are mingling, look for the guy who has a ring of 8 to 10 women surrounding him. He's one of the "top men". Now, observe his friends trying to get a word in edge-wise but more or less being ignored. They are not considered "top men".

[HoneyBadgerDontCare]

Hmmm. Well, this weekend, go to a bar or club or some social event where men and women are mingling, look for the guy who has a ring of 8 to 10 women surrounding him. He's one of the "top men". Now, observe his friends trying to get a word in edge-wise but more or less being ignored. They are not considered "top men".

 

I go to bars and clubs pretty often and I never this.

 

The only time I ever saw it was in the college setting and I was that guy (however, I put a lot of work into being that guy at the time).

 

But I guess when I go to bars and clubs, I'm usually more interested in meeting women than watching what everybody else is doing....so even if it is like this, it's never affected my results.

[Pompeii]

Said all this i think it's a value based approach. i.e TOP 5% people can sleep with the BOTTOM 95%. TOP 50% can sleep with the BOTTOM 50% and so on and so forth.

 

Well yeah. If a person from the top 5% sleeps with someone other than a person considered in the top 5%, then naturally he has no other option but to sleep with someone in the bottom 95%. That's like a city being made of princes and paupers. If you're not a prince, you're a pauper. Visa-versa.

 

Too bad life isn't that simplistic or divided.

 

Hmmm. Well, this weekend, go to a bar or club or some social event where men and women are mingling, look for the guy who has a ring of 8 to 10 women surrounding him. He's one of the "top men". Now, observe his friends trying to get a word in edge-wise but more or less being ignored. They are not considered "top men".

 

 

I go to bars quite often and I also never see this. The only time that will occur if these girls are his friends and their friends. Maybe this happens in upper-crust Manhattan bars, but certainly not around here.

[sillyanswer]

I don't know where these imaginary men are supposed to find the hours in the day to have all this sex with all these imaginary women.

[StanMusial]

I go to bars quite often and I also never see this. The only time that will occur if these girls are his friends and their friends. Maybe this happens in upper-crust Manhattan bars, but certainly not around here.

 

I have seen it many times, in a variety of venues, and in the US and in Europe.

[tuxedo cat]

Even among the more popular guys there are very few who have universal appeal. People tend to be attracted to people of similar class/education, so that means the top guy in any given group will be different.

[IAmRobot]

I think the problem is people think of the 20% as being these Casanovas that **** a ton of girls.

 

On a math based approach. If numberOfGuys = numberOfGirls. And 20% of the guys each sleep with 4 different women (different from each other), then 20% of the guys sleep with 80% of the women.

 

I.e IMHO - if you've slept with more than 10 girls in your life you're probably on the top 20%.

[Esoteric Elf]

Something like this is too difficult to attach numbers to. The point here is that, as the author of We said, "there were some whose love was sought by many, and there were some whose love was sought by none." This is true. The 80/20 rule was probably just latched onto by those who recognized this, and wanted some quantitative value to attach to the claim.

[tuxedo cat]

I.e IMHO - if you've slept with more than 10 girls in your life you're probably on the top 20%.

 

10 seems like an average number for a guy? Most of the guys I know or have dated have been with at least ten women unless they married young or something. I guess it depends on location, though.

[StanMusial]

I.e IMHO - if you've slept with more than 10 girls in your life you're probably on the top 20%.

 

Hmmm... I don't know if I agree with this. Then again I'm 37 not 21....

[ThaWholigan]

All I can say is that most of the time I hear this top tier stuff, it's from men who believe this and use it as an excuse for their own inability to become attractive enough to date somewhat successfully. There are other guys who don't have this problem, but I suspect demographic has something to do with this.

 

In my own demographic, pretty much everybody dates - the "top" guys you could say get more pussy than others, but generally it's never a huge advantage.

[HoneyBadgerDontCare]

10 seems like an average number for a guy? Most of the guys I know or have dated have been with at least ten women unless they married young or something. I guess it depends on location, though.

 

Yeah, 10 seems very low to me for a guy....20ish seems about average to me.

 

But I'm from NYC. We're probably at the high end of that.

[HoneyBadgerDontCare]

All I can say is that most of the time I hear this top tier stuff, it's from men who believe this and use it as an excuse for their own inability to become attractive enough to date somewhat successfully. There are other guys who don't have this problem, but I suspect demographic has something to do with this.

 

In my own demographic, pretty much everybody dates - the "top" guys you could say get more pussy than others, but generally it's never a huge advantage.

 

And even that's usually because those guys put themselves out there more and do more behind the scenes work that they don't talk about.

[dasein]

IME it's not Pareto, but 90/10 or even higher, and often inaccurately stated as "20% of the men get all the women." The more accurate, useful proposition, is "In order for a man to attract women -easily- with equivalent effort the average woman expends attracting men, he needs to be either in the 90th percentile, or -perceived- as such by women in comparison to his immediate pool of competition." Slightly different and broader.

 

Who are they? Whoever the top 10% is in the pool, whether it's the quarterback of the football team, a "boss" or manager in any given workplace, a trust fund hippie at the rave, a professional, business owner or just a guy in a band. It is dependent on the pool and ratio of men to women, among other factors. The definition of "top men" will be vastly different in Austin than it is in LA or NYC.

 

IMO women are hypergamous, seeking to -mate- with (not necessarily marry, different dynamic) the highest quality man attainable, even far above her relative value in the pool, even if she has to share with other women, so long as it's not made blatantly obvious to her. Women will line up for the top prospects in their pool to the exclusion of almost all others in the pool.

 

Men are somewhat different, having a baseline expectation that varies based on the quality they have achieved in the past, and basically -any- woman above that baseline who is receptive is a mating prospect.

 

Potshot away!

[StanMusial]

All I can say is that most of the time I hear this top tier stuff, it's from men who believe this and use it as an excuse for their own inability to become attractive enough to date somewhat successfully. There are other guys who don't have this problem, but I suspect demographic has something to do with this.

 

In my own demographic, pretty much everybody dates - the "top" guys you could say get more pussy than others, but generally it's never a huge advantage.

 

It's not an excuse. Even if you were in the top 20% in both looks and money there is always going to be someone better looking or richer.

[HoneyBadgerDontCare]

Yeah I'm saying among my peers of 20-22 yo

 

Yeah, I would say average for a guy in his 20s is around 20.

 

Of course, this is only based on my group of friends.

Edited March 14, 2013 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[HoneyBadgerDontCare]

IME it's not Pareto, but 90/10 or even higher, and often inaccurately stated as "20% of the men get all the women." The more accurate, useful proposition, is "In order for a man to attract women -easily- with equivalent effort the average woman expends attracting men, he needs to be either in the 90th percentile, or -perceived- as such by women in comparison to his immediate pool of competition." Slightly different and broader.

 

Who are they? Whoever the top 10% is in the pool, whether it's the quarterback of the football team, a "boss" or manager in any given workplace, a trust fund hippie at the rave, a professional, business owner or just a guy in a band. It is dependent on the pool and ratio of men to women, among other factors. The definition of "top men" will be vastly different in Austin than it is in LA or NYC.

 

IMO women are hypergamous, seeking to -mate- with (not necessarily marry, different dynamic) the highest quality man attainable, even far above her relative value in the pool, even if she has to share with other women, so long as it's not made blatantly obvious to her. Women will line up for the top prospects in their pool to the exclusion of almost all others in the pool.

 

Men are somewhat different, having a baseline expectation that varies based on the quality they have achieved in the past, and basically -any- woman above that baseline who is receptive is a mating prospect.

 

Potshot away!

 

mmm I don't know man.

 

I've lived in many place...traveled across the country and to many parts of the world completely alone and have routinely met, dated, and hooked up with many women along the way.

 

By your highlighted statement, I'm assuming that you're talking about the person with the highest authoritative position or the highest social status. In many cases, I certainly wasn't that guy, but still got the girl.

 

So, in my experience, I'd have to disagree with this (and, thus, disagree with the 80/20...90/10 rule).

[Pompeii]

IME it's not Pareto, but 90/10 or even higher, and often inaccurately stated as "20% of the men get all the women." The more accurate, useful proposition, is "In order for a man to attract women -easily- with equivalent effort the average woman expends attracting men, he needs to be either in the 90th percentile, or -perceived- as such by women in comparison to his immediate pool of competition." Slightly different and broader.

 

Who are they? Whoever the top 10% is in the pool, whether it's the quarterback of the football team, a "boss" or manager in any given workplace, a trust fund hippie at the rave, a professional, business owner or just a guy in a band. It is dependent on the pool and ratio of men to women, among other factors. The definition of "top men" will be vastly different in Austin than it is in LA or NYC.

 

IMO women are hypergamous, seeking to -mate- with (not necessarily marry, different dynamic) the highest quality man attainable, even far above her relative value in the pool, even if she has to share with other women, so long as it's not made blatantly obvious to her. Women will line up for the top prospects in their pool to the exclusion of almost all others in the pool.

 

Men are somewhat different, having a baseline expectation that varies based on the quality they have achieved in the past, and basically -any- woman above that baseline who is receptive is a mating prospect.

 

Potshot away!

 

This I can somewhat agree with. But what is the "average woman"? Do you mean "average" in terms of looks or in terms of general population? If it's the former, I highly doubt that the "average woman" attracts significant amounts of male attention. I don't know a lot of desperate guys so their baseline for what they require in a mate is much higher. I also do not believe that they are part of that 10% "elect".

 

I have also heard of hypergamy but I believe that both sexes exercise a hypergamy of sorts. For men, it's a variation of the "younger, hotter, tighter" convention or just because they want a new lay. For women, it's the search for an "alpha male". I know a friend who cheated on his girlfriend of four years because he wanted "new pussy". His girlfriend was quite attractive but the promise of variation made him do it. I believe most men at a base level want variety, even though they may deny it. That's why I don't think its a good idea to marry your first girlfriend. I do believe that the definition of what constitutes a "top man" is location-variable but I do believe that there are some common threads such as money, power, status, and access to sectioned-off resources. Even if a guy isn't an arty hipster Austinite, I still believe he can clean up if he has those in Austin.

 

I also do believe that a woman knows that a "top man" will be in demand, so she shouldn't be shocked that other women want to be with him too.

 

Regardless, I still don't believe in the 80/20, 90/10, 95/5, whatever principle. There are guys who do extremely well with women, there are guys who do somewhat well, and guys who don't do well at all. A person with a lot of those aforementioned resources will make him a person in the upper echelons of society, but that doesn't mean he will pull lots of women. He may attract different quality women compared to others but I do not believe he has a supreme advantage.

 

I believe we are starting to chip away the marble to arrive to some type of starting ground here.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Pompeii

[Pompeii]

I.e IMHO - if you've slept with more than 10 girls in your life you're probably on the top 20%.

 

10 women in a lifetime is nothing. That would mean the vast majority of men sleep with 5-7 women in their life which again, is nothing. I highly doubt that is true.

[dasein]

I don't know where these imaginary men are supposed to find the hours in the day to have all this sex with all these imaginary women.

 

The women give them money too, so they have more time for sexin! Pimpnosis is a powerful force.

 

I have a friend, who at one time, was in a rooster/harem/rockstar type relationship with X women, most of relatively high quality (not crackies or psychos, students and women with jobs), for some time (I know what X represents but you wouldn't believe it). Many of these women would come to his house, blow him, and then leave. In and out in ten minutes. Some of them had their BFs drop them off, blow my friend (their study partner ) and then come pick them up later. I was a houseguest while this was going on, am a bit more discerning, or could have easily participated. If two were there, he would get them to go down on each other, watch, and then do him. Even if they weren't gay, they did this, and didn't bat an eyelash.

 

What blew my mind in this scenario was the women didn't want anything other than to -blow- my friend for the most part, few of them even asked about dating or a relationship, and he wasn't really giving anything in return other than access to his wingwang, which is nothing out of the ordinary sizewise. He is better than average looking, but no Adonis, not rich, not famous, not adult friend find he met all these women out, not in a swinger club, not a pimp, not even a college grad, charismatic but no Svengali. Was a complete eye opener for me. He kept it quiet, and probably wouldn't have ever told me if I hadn't been visiting. Later found out that another friend, similarly situated, had the same kind of deal going on, a third to a lesser degree, but still several women, with no expectations of him.

 

The first guy grew out of it or got tired of it, but still has an address book literally full of these women. He's been in my house before, last year, and can call these women at -all hours- of the night or day, and with just a few calls, will get one to come to him, at 3 AM, give him a BJ and leave soon after.

 

He must have some kind of female catnip tasting dick or something. Was just a few of the datapoints that led me to the conclusions reached in my previous post.

[Feelin Frisky]

It's very tough to become a top man if you aren't lucky. It's been said a million times by people that "I'd rather be lucky than smart". I myself have been in the right places at the right times to envision business concepts that could have made me fabulously wealthy and famous, and I am still sitting on some that are still there to be fulfilled. But I was born into semi-poverty and the first of eight children born in rapid succession. My dad was a nobody who worked three jobs and knew no one. My mom's family had no connections, no wealth. I ried to go to college but I had to pay for everything. It was too much. And I had to quit and work. But even at that a degree from the college I did go to would be seen as low on some national totem pole--nothing like some sleep-away university. I eventually went back but hated it. I would up in art school at NYC's School of Visual Arts. I had no talent for art creation but I had an affinity for understanding production, for technology, for writing scripts for videos. I also got swept up in the UN and became a credentialed journalist where I was able to envision new technology applications that would change the world. I wrote proposals and business plans and ran around Central Park every day thinkig that I'm gonna make it to being somebody.

 

But finding anyone to put their own credibility on the line for you is the hardest part. They all want you to have a Phd. and Dr. in front of your name. It doesn't matter if your knowledge and vision is world leading and what you are brilliant at isn't even taught yet. There is what is called "conventional wisdom" out there which people follow where they think there is a formula that lasts forever. But things happen to require new conventional wisdom in which older conventional wisdom becomes the actual enemy of progress. Holding it all together and selling your message is possible if you have enough money and time to stay at it. I was attracting other journalists and media writers as friends and getting a lot of complements like "I knew you were going to be somebody". But then you can find yourself sabotaged by one or two enemies who just don't like you. In my case it was feminists who just hated me because I was male. I lost my Manhattan residence because the money went and wound up having to let go of those visions. I even went back to school and got certified in CAD but the drag of knowing you have a billion dollar baby you're sitting on makes putting up with shi+ jobs and stupid people hell. No one explained to me when I was little that someday I would start having epiphanies and could be a superstar in some fashion. I was only told to be safe--get a safe job. That's the message a poor person gives their child. A rich person tells their child to believe in themselves, be ready for risk. And they endow their kids with the money to get those damn Ps, Hs and Ds. Everyone born healthy has a window to success, but not everyone is shown when or where it will open or when it's time to jump through it. Top people are often illusions. Very, very lucky ones.