Pompeii Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 I'm talking about YOU guys who DO know it exists. You are all throwing yourselves under the bus in your eager scramble to find excuses not to be dating. If you don't want to date, because, for example, it would interfere with mastery, that's fine. It has nothing to do with 20 % of guys. I couldn't give a flying **** what the other saps do with this theory. I'M using it to explain patterns I see frequently. Regardless, I'm not going to sit here and blow smoke up anyone's ass pretending we all have the same chance and that something like this doesn't exist. Or maybe pompeii is right and I inhabit a social network exclusively made up of don juans and I am next You possibly could. You make it seem like all your friends get laid all the time with no problems.
thefooloftheyear Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 (edited) I am sorry, but any woman who sleeps with a man who is seeing other people isn't the smartest. Not unless she is doing it knowing that they will never truly be together. What if she didnt know and he never informed her? Is she still stupid? A man leading a woman on to THINK they are together, again, is not a FWB, but an a-hole leading a woman on. What if he was under the impression she considered it a FWB just like he did? If thats the case, he's not an azzhole, they both are just guilty of not laying the groundrules of the relationship. I want to add that any guy who says they had a FWB for a longtime would be a redflag. Mine didn't last longer than a month or so, it is a temporary thing. If I heard a guy say he had one longer, I would do some serious digging as to why. Point is, without a line of communication and understanding, one can easily be duped...Man or woman...Happens every day... TFY Edited July 30, 2013 by thefooloftheyear 1
Emilia Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Well, like I have intimated, I don't really believe in a "top 20". Its merely convenience. As I've started paying more attention to what men and women find attractive I've noticed the importance of popularity and social approval so I'm believing in top 20 more. Certainly for those with sheep mentality. The number of LS women that rate a guy's worth based on the number of options he has speaks for itself. An example: one of the single girls in the office yesterday complained that the new guy she was set up with was her height exactly (she is quite tall) and she googled celebrity females that were in relationship with shorter men. Not because she found him unattractive but because she felt it was expected of her to date taller, that it was a 'girls' thing' as she put it. But either way, I think the women's desire for such men is a highly exaggerated phenomenon by men who don't feel like they measure up to these particular men. And also how many of them do desire such men - there are a significant number but not as much as being touted. Guys make it sound like these are the only guys on the planet who are remotely sexually attractive and I think that's retarded . Though it is also true that this particular guy isn't that attractive as she is smart enough to know she isn't that attractive herself and realises she wouldn't have a chance with someone hot.
supaflyz Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 I wish I had a fwb.... I don't know too many people that are fwb. Although I have been on an online dating site and found out that there are a lot of women who are into fwb.
supaflyz Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Tell me about it. I was in college for 8 years! I never heard of this. I know it exist though. Must be some secret society these students are participating in lol. I think casual sex is definitely more common than I thought. I've been reading stuff about "the hookup culture" and stuff like that recently, and it's shocking. Apparently anyone who went to college in the past 20 years knows about the hookup culture. I went for 5 years and never even heard about it. Of course, I might have just had a sheltered upbringing...
Revolver Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 How do you reconcile those women who desire the top 20% but can only get the other "many guys"...? Should the "many guys" be ok with being settled for...? This is a good point. The theory applies more to going after then it does Actually getting. For example many people attempt to win the Lotto but the vast majority fail. Not every woman can pull a guy in the "top 20 percent"(well duh its simple math lol)so most would have to settle in that scenario
Revolver Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Well, it seems like a valid theory because it always seems like out of every male social circle, there is one guy who gets laid an astronomical amount while a majority of guys in the group find a lucky acorn now and then or have a girlfriend and then you have a few guys who never get laid. My social circle(s) are certainly like this. I know quite a few "Don Juans" and "Casanovas" and then I know a few regular guys who experience frequent dry spells and then I know guys who don't get laid at all. Apparently, my experiences aren't abnormal because dozens of guys on here and dozens of guys I know at home and in college report similar occurrences. So when you come up with this Pareto theory in relation to dating, it doesn't seem too farfetched. It's not perfect but I believe it explains quite a bit of the things that I and other guys have experienced. Of course, if your social circle is made entirely of "Don Juans" and "Casanovas", then this phenomenon will be invisible to you. It will seem like ludicrous because you all get laid at the same amount more or less. Anyone who doesn't get laid or doesn't get girlfriends will seem like they are an outlier. Can't you say the same for a female social circle though? I mean you never see a group of females where they all have no troubles with men and all gets tons of Attention. It's usually one girl who gets hit on a ten then the others not so much 2
fortyninethousand322 Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 That whole "top 20%" myth is a boon to any guy who ignores it. While the rest of the Internet guys are sitting around moaning about how they're in the "bottom 80%" and no girls will give them the time of day, the guy who's not buying into it at all is sowing his wild oats happily. The "20%" is like most things, in that it contains a kernel of truth underneath all the exaggeration. About 10% of men will be dating more than one woman who is monogamous with them. In other words the woman is only dating him but he is dating another woman. For example a married man with a girlfriend on the side, or a guy cheating on his girlfriend with another woman. Something like that. For the under 40 crowd that causes some demographic issues. 105 men for 100 women. Subtract the roughly 5% or both genders who are homosexual, and you have 100 men (roughly rounded up from 99.75) for every 95 women. If 10% of men are dating 2 women, that skews the demographics to 90 men for every 75 women. That leaves roughly 17% of men without a partner until some of the men start passing away after 40 (which is when the demographics start skewing in favor of more women than men). But, then again, single, never married men die off early than their male counterparts so, maybe not. Instead of saying they're in the 80%, perpetually single men should bemoan the fact that they're in the 17%. Because that's statistically more accurate.
fortyninethousand322 Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 They're perpetually moaning guys. And maybe if they weren't, they could alter their place in the statistics. Which I reject. Even if there is some validity to them. Because, throughout my life, if I'd believed any of what I'd read about what percentage of whatever type of person was able to accomplish whatever thing, and how that is all other peoples' fault, and life's not fair, and there's nothing I can do about it - I would be sitting in a basement watching t.v. for the past decades. Crap like this only serves to help people have an excuse to stay in a rut. It's a bit chicken and egg I think. Which came first, the complaining or the involuntary celibacy? I don't know. I think there's a difference between giving someone an excuse and refusing to give false hope. Many men would be better off focusing on something else in their lives other than dating and women. Perhaps the statistics will help nudge some in the right direction.
Pompeii Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 These "statistics" don't have to be an excuse for "moaning". They are simply explaining things that were already there. 2
sweetkiwi Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 These "statistics" don't have to be an excuse for "moaning". They are simply explaining things that were already there. And yet it is your ACTIVE or PASSIVE choice to be part of the statistics. 2
fortyninethousand322 Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 These "statistics" don't have to be an excuse for "moaning". They are simply explaining things that were already there. Exactly. For example: 100% of people who jump off a tall building flapping their arms in an attempt to fly like a bird, end up failing to do so. 100% also end up with injuries, most of them fatal. But, don't let that stop you from trying to defy the statistics, right?
sweetkiwi Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Exactly. For example: 100% of people who jump off a tall building flapping their arms in an attempt to fly like a bird, end up failing to do so. 100% also end up with injuries, most of them fatal. But, don't let that stop you from trying to defy the statistics, right? Mmmmm not at all. Maybe dating is like a suicide attempt to you but it doesn't need to be.... 3
bentleychic Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 I only know of one, but that doesn't mean people aren't just quiet about it.
fortyninethousand322 Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 That's a lame example. If you let statistics stop you, zero heroin addicts would recover, zero patients who underwent a risky procedure for an illness would recover, no women would be doctors much less presidential candidates - or black men, either - no book would ever be published, etc. etc. etc. And a person can be capable of "defying statistics" and still not jump off a building flapping their arms. It's not even defying statistics, anyway. It's going for what you want out of life and being ready to take the consequences. And, ideally, going ahead with trying for what you want out of life in spite of the knocks WE ALL receive. I swear, if I paid attention to statistics like some of you guys do, I would have become completely paralyzed a long time ago. Seriously. First of all, being addicted to drugs is also a lame comparison. It is very difficult to lead a productive, accomplished, even happy life while strung out on narcotics. You can however lead a very productive and happy life without romance or sex. Mother Theresa did it, Isaac Newton did it, Queen Elizabeth I, etc. Of course, statistics shouldn't stop you from trying if that's what you want to do. But, there are many men who should put their focus on other things in life. I wouldn't encourage a 5'2" guy to put all his energy and focus into a basketball career for example, and some guys I would not encourage their dreams of finding true love or whatever Disney princess fairy tale. If you find it, that's great, but don't concentrate too much on it.
Pompeii Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 And yet it is your ACTIVE or PASSIVE choice to be part of the statistics. Everyone is part of "statistics", even if they don't want to be. Only hippies, the Flat Earth Society, and delusional people don't believe in statistics.
sweetkiwi Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Everyone is part of "statistics", even if they don't want to be. Only hippies, the Flat Earth Society, and delusional people don't believe in statistics. Oh, maybe I just don't remember when the "statistics" people came around to interview everyone on planet earth. Musta been drunk Tuesday. 3
Author MrTurk Posted July 30, 2013 Author Posted July 30, 2013 I swear, if I paid attention to statistics like some of you guys do, I would have become completely paralyzed a long time ago. Seriously. You and fortyninethousand322 are talking about two totally different aspects to the same topic. And thats usually whats goes on here....trying to out argue each other with apple and orange comparisons. I understand what forthyninethousand322 means....which is that many people do not like to be part of statistics, even though its a concrete fact that they are. People like to "think" that they are different than everyone else....that they dont fit that mold....but sorry....we all fit cookie cutter molds in one way or another.
DannyMason Posted July 31, 2013 Posted July 31, 2013 One fact in favor of the "Top 20% Theory" or whatever you call it is the disparity between the average number of sexual partners and the median number of sex partners enjoyed by a man over his lifetime. The median number of men's sexual partners in the US is between 6 and 9 while the average is more like 20. This implies that a small minority of men are super-promiscuous, raising the average while most men stay in the single digit range. Of course, that being said, the average guy is still getting laid and LoveShack's population of permasingle adult virgins (like myself ) are truly anomalous regardless of the 20% theory. 1
Pompeii Posted July 31, 2013 Posted July 31, 2013 (edited) Really, men in college with free sex from women everywhere (because peer pressure...all the girls do it) want relationships? Esp. ones under the age of 25? Yeah right. Youre too optimistic about the male sex This is annoying because most people assume all guys get girls thrown at them in college when this is simply not the case. A small amount of guys get to live the "Animal House" experience of rotating women while most guys are either in relationships or get thrown a bone once in a while in the form of a desireless, semi-drunken hookup. Not only that, but most guys lie when they talk about how they hooked up with "X amount of bitches" last weekend. No, men in college don't get "free sex from women everywhere", at least you don't unless you're an exceptional guy. Many women still won't have sex with you unless you have some form of high social status if you go to a small to medium sized school on the smaller end or you look aesthetically elite. There's not that many guys out in college who are getting sex regularly from a wide wave of enthusiastic participants. There are a lot of guys who are just struggling to meet a girl they won't be considered another friend by. How do I know? I know swaths of these guys. A lot of girls simply have zero sexual interest in a majority of the male population and view them as asexual. These poor women are getting pressured from the guys who have many options, not the virtually invisible normal guys. I know a few men who are successful with women who I currently go to college with and those who graduated many years ago. They have never lacked female attention from all sorts of backgrounds and manipulate that attention accordingly. The rest of us usually have to submit an application and hope that it will get reviewed and that we'll get an interview sometime down the line. What baffles me still is the inability of people such as Chaucer to give up the ghost and admit that this has some semblance of truth. Even people like Emilia admits that there is some underlying validity to it. Edited July 31, 2013 by Pompeii 1
fortyninethousand322 Posted July 31, 2013 Posted July 31, 2013 Really, men in college with free sex from women everywhere (because peer pressure...all the girls do it) want relationships? Esp. ones under the age of 25? Yeah right. Youre too optimistic about the male sex I was in college for 5 years. I never got offered free sex. Hell, I never even got offered a free kiss (for the record I'm still kissless). Either what you're saying is a big exaggeration or I'm an even bigger loser than I ever thought possible. Which, by the way is a huge accomplishment... 1
Pompeii Posted July 31, 2013 Posted July 31, 2013 This is pretty much an attempt to dismiss the experiences of myself and multiple other men who have chimed in who have friends who are apart of this elusive "20th percentile" as delusional. And no, it has nothing to do with "statistics", universal attractiveness, inability to get laid, or any other red herrings either. I have grilled my friends who get laid with women about how they are so successful. Out of 20 something guys all of them said a variation of "if the girl didn't perceive me as being more socially valuable than her then I simply wouldn't have been with so many girls" or "if I wasn't aesthetic or if I didn't have more status".
ThaWholigan Posted July 31, 2013 Posted July 31, 2013 I was in college for 5 years. I never got offered free sex. Hell, I never even got offered a free kiss (for the record I'm still kissless). Either what you're saying is a big exaggeration or I'm an even bigger loser than I ever thought possible. Which, by the way is a huge accomplishment... They're both wrong - just leave it at that . In UK, college isn't a sex-fest, but there isn't a harem reserved for the few either. 2
Pompeii Posted July 31, 2013 Posted July 31, 2013 I was in college for 5 years. I never got offered free sex. Hell, I never even got offered a free kiss (for the record I'm still kissless). Either what you're saying is a big exaggeration or I'm an even bigger loser than I ever thought possible. Which, by the way is a huge accomplishment... Most guys don't get offered free anything. Don't listen to her bull****. As a male, you pretty much don't get offered "free sex" unless you're part of that "elite". If you do get offered sex as an average guy, most women will expect something to go along with it - i.e. a relationship. That's why as a guy, it is important to disqualify yourself as boyfriend/husband material early on. The guys who get the best deals on things are the guys who have established themselves as "suitable for hookups/sexual needs only". I know a lot of guys who disqualify themselves as boyfriend material either through looks "oh he's too hot for me" or through actions "oh he's too reckless/uncaring/too much of an *******". When a woman says you're "husband material" that is probably one of the most backhanded insults you can get as a man. Pretty much saying "you're not hot for me to lust over but you're good enough to provide for me". Screw that. You're aesthetic, right? You work out, right? I seriously don't see how you fail to get girls. You must have severe social anxiety or you just are too introverted. I know a lot of guys who are as socially in tune as a dead corpse yet they get girls because they are aesthetic. They can't keep them but that's a different story.
Leigh 87 Posted July 31, 2013 Posted July 31, 2013 Y'all must either be jaded or had bad experiences with FWBs. That situation above was a user who got caught and lied to save face. He knew damn well it wasn't a fwb. I've had a lot over the years. They work perfectly provided both parties stick to the rules. It's a sex relationship without breakup drama. FWB are the safest and most respectable way, I feel, to enjoy being sexual In between relationships. You only have one person to enjoy the sex with, rather than going around and sleeping with multiple people. Plus they know what you like in bed, after a while. I find it quiet insulting how people assume that a FWB is a way of saying " I do not think very highly of you and there is something about you that is not good enough for me to consider you relationship material. But lets have sex!" It is not about not being "good enough". You can be very attracted to a person and think very highly of them and love being around them, yet not feel that "it" factor that drives you towards a relationship. You know... Some people realise that it takes a LONG time, to find the right person to enter into a relationship with! I, for one, am NOT looking. I never look for partners. So, while I happily live my life single, I see not reason to go without occasional sex. Sex is a natural function that human beings have enjoyed for centuries. And much much longer.... Why is it seen as a bad thing when two people think " well, I would like to enjoy being sexual while I wait for the right, special person to come along" I have a FWB and we both really like each other, as people! We just do not have that "it" factor that is making us fall in love. We are HIGHLY attracted to each other though, he respects me as a person and me him. I really, really like my FWB! He is funny and makes me laugh. He does not think of me as a woman he uses for sex because I am not good enough for a relationship.... We just lack that factor that makes two people fall in love with prolonged contact. We DO really like each other, as friends! We are genuinely friends outside the sex part. We are both using each other to enjoy sex, while we both really like to hang out in the process. It takes us both A LOT to feel THAT strongly about a person, to consider dating them seriously. We both avoid relationships unless someone REALLY special comes along. The fact we are not that "someone special" to each other does not mean we do not think highly of each other..... Since MOST people will not make us want to date them. ...Stop knocking FWB. It is just two people enjoying sex, which is a natural thing for both men and women to enjoy. The fact it is outside a loving relationship is not a bad thing. If it is not your thing then don't look down on others just because we operate differently to you in this one area of life: sex and relationships.
Recommended Posts