Men v Women : Sexodus

[arus2001]

Still kind of funny seeing the whole "survival of the fittest" rationale some are employing about who really deserves what when the point of civilization and higher thinking strikes me as a hard counter to such natural laws. I mean, we (at least in the west) could trace part of this shit back to schooling and how athletics outshine academics, right? Or how we're all so desperate for new media to consume, but habitually shun programs to foster training in the arts because it's pretty damn easy to say there's no real world application. Or even shit like how one learns in a ghetto school relative to an affluent white neighborhood. But in the end, we know not everyone can be a pro athlete or has the smarts to be a doctor/scientist. Without the proverbial Plan B, C, D, or whatever, it feels more like youths are left to bumble into the future, and often with a heavy debt slapped onto their back as that college degree they picked up either wasn't what they wound up wanting to do or just deemed useless because some smug shits say so. Then what "art" they do get exposed is crap like Jersey Shore, The Bachelor, or whatever other inane media that just glorifies party culture and presenting totally unrealistic, if not outright staged, scenarios.

The hypothetical janitor that's so easy to mock does not only deserve a comfortable life, but the chance at a relationship if they so choose. They're still contributing to society no matter how insignificant or "easy" someone higher up the social pyramid may think their job is. It's why many feel minimum wages here are way too low while corporate big wigs get paid way too fucking much and go so far out of their way to make sure things stay that way. Dude could be the kindest, funniest motherfucker in the world, but holy hell, don't bring a janitor home to mother. Totes throwing your life away, sweetums. On the other hand, the unemployed shut-in, hikikimori, or whatever you wanna call them may not actually be useless to society. We just gotta do a way better job in helping them find their place. I know, "Not my problem!" right? Why? Too busy? Gotta work too much to make ends meet? Nobody ever helped you? Just an asshole? I guess some excuses are more valid than others, but it's just sad to see that with how far we've come as a species, we can see how far we actually haven't. A lack of dicks getting wet may be a symptom of all this, but I also won't so broadly label it a generational thing, either. Times have changed, people haven't so much. Or maybe more accurately, the idiot animal brains of some.

wtb Star Trek future Earth.

[Blubbartron]

You fucking nailed it, arus.

[Cantih]

Fucking thank you.

[Thunder]

The hypothetical janitor that's so easy to mock does not only deserve a comfortable life, but the chance at a relationship if they so choose. They're still contributing to society no matter how insignificant or "easy" someone higher up the social pyramid may think their job is. It's why many feel minimum wages here are way too low while corporate big wigs get paid way too fucking much and go so far out of their way to make sure things stay that way. Dude could be the kindest, funniest motherfucker in the world, but holy hell, don't bring a janitor home to mother. Totes throwing your life away, sweetums. On the other hand, the unemployed shut-in, hikikimori, or whatever you wanna call them may not actually be useless to society. We just gotta do a way better job in helping them find their place. I know, "Not my problem!" right? Why? Too busy? Gotta work too much to make ends meet? Nobody ever helped you? Just an asshole? I guess some excuses are more valid than others, but it's just sad to see that with how far we've come as a species, we can see how far we actually haven't. A lack of dicks getting wet may be a symptom of all this, but I also won't so broadly label it a generational thing, either. Times have changed, people haven't so much. Or maybe more accurately, the idiot animal brains of some.

wtb Star Trek future Earth.

Man, I feel like some people are treating what I posted as personal attacks. When I made the janitor comment it was ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY in relation to wealth acquisition since that's what I let myself derail into - my fault.

Let me clear it up. The janitor could be the kindest, funniest motherfucker and most girls would be lucky to have that. But that guy owns what he has and he's a great dude - he WANTS to be a janitor... nothing wrong with that picture you've painted. Everyone is equally valuable as human beings. You're preaching to the choir. The problem is the guy who's a janitor and then complains about not having a better job after 30 years of not doing anything about it.

I thought after explaining that "deserve" didn't mean someone's more of a human being than another I'd curb people getting upset@me. If a guy is out is ambitious/focused and doing more to get relationships, treat women better, treat themselves better, etc etc then they will OBVIOUSLY have more success with relationships than the guy not doing anything about it and never socializing. So that guy "deserves" it more than the guy not doing shit about it (Read again: that guy isn't an idiot or anything else bad UNLESS he's complaining about the situation when the solution is so simple. It's like he feels like he deserves shit after having done nothing to try and earn it). Idk what's so c r a z y about that

And damn man, we haven't even been discussing and your first response is "you dumb animal brain". But I know, "that wasn't@you". What's with people trying to put someone down in their first responses to someone else? I'm catching warnings about getting ad hominem'd, I'm disgusting, and an asshole idiot now.

[Zetanio]

I didn't notice that this was in Poopdeck, was expecting sex talk and pictures.

I am disappoint.

[arus2001]

If you legit have empathy, that's cool. I wasn't so much attacking you directly as I was the cumulative aspects that no doubt contribute to this "problem" even if the building blocks for it in Japan may be different than those here in the States.

Yet, I can't deny knowing people who think things like welfare or other social programs shouldn't exist, that every problem could be solved by just picking yourself up by the bootstraps, that we should indeed cull the weak, and whatever extremist, dare I say, inhuman perspective one could reference. We're not talking A Modest Proposal level of satire in eating babies, either. Right now, we've got Repubs fucking with abortion again and "big news" involves deflated footballs. Surely I'm not the only one realizing that social priorities are maybe a bit out of whack in our culture? Is it greed? Is it laziness? Is it because I won the genetic lottery and started balding in my mid-20's alongside developing scalp psoriasis? The bigger picture that I was really trying to paint was that there are so many reasons that entwine, many outside our control, that we shouldn't be OKAY with serving people shit sandwiches. If someone wants to revoke their rights in society via criminal activity, then that's their choice. Question, though, why does crime tend to be so high in impoverished areas?

My money's on greed doing the most damage to our modern world. And, uh, the answer to my last question isn't that poor people are greedy. Just in case it needed to be spelled out.

[Cantih]

I'm catching warnings about getting ad hominem'd, I'm disgusting, and an asshole idiot now.

Ever since the gamergate thread, you've been pushing redpill/pua thought patterns like you're getting paid for it.
You are free to do so, but note that the userbase here isn't that keen on the stuff.

[Thunder]

If you legit have empathy, that's cool. I wasn't so much attacking you directly as I was the cumulative aspects that no doubt contribute to this "problem" even if the building blocks for it in Japan may be different than those here in the States.

Yet, I can't deny knowing people who think things like welfare or other social programs shouldn't exist, that every problem could be solved by just picking yourself up by the bootstraps, that we should indeed cull the weak, and whatever extremist, dare I say, inhuman perspective one could reference. We're not talking A Modest Proposal level of satire in eating babies, either. Right now, we've got Repubs fucking with abortion again and "big news" involves deflated footballs. Surely I'm not the only one realizing that social priorities are maybe a bit out of whack in our culture? Is it greed? Is it laziness? Is it because I won the genetic lottery and started balding in my mid-20's alongside developing scalp psoriasis? The bigger picture that I was really trying to paint was that there are so many reasons that entwine, many outside our control, that we shouldn't be OKAY with serving people shit sandwiches. If someone wants to revoke their rights in society via criminal activity, then that's their choice. Question, though, why does crime tend to be so high in impoverished areas?

My money's on greed doing the most damage to our modern world. And, uh, the answer to my last question isn't that poor people are greedy. Just in case it needed to be spelled out.

Yeah, I dig it. I think welfare and the other social programs are great lol, and even that we could do more with them.. things aren't black and white - just because someone has a modicum of "conservative" thought patterns (like hard work correlates to success) doesn't mean they're full on tea party. I've always identified liberal, but the whole 2 side system is.. you know

Ever since the gamergate thread, you've been pushing redpill/pua thought patterns like you're getting paid for it.
You are free to do so, but note that the userbase here isn't that keen on the stuff.

I never posted in the gamergate thread.

Don't be so quick to label someone as X/Y, either. I've found another board (pua) that I'll sometimes post to and I get way more shit/trolling from the users there for ideas that are in direct conflict with their "userbase's ideology". We're not all just black & white and there aren't just two sides. I understand why you might think I'm 100% pua from the few posts about it in the feminism thread.. but that's just not true about me. You wont find me posting a lot of stuff that I know everybody would agree with here, either. Like social programs, for instance - because circle jerking about topics is a waste of everyone's time

I like and have liked discussing things here because there's less shit posting and hard-headedness. I'm here to challenge my own ideas/convictions with people I don't think I often get to talk to. It gets pretty stupid when it becomes more about people's feelings than their knowledge/information though

[Uzor]

Let me clear it up. The janitor could be the kindest, funniest motherfucker and most girls would be lucky to have that. But that guy owns what he has and he's a great dude - he WANTS to be a janitor... nothing wrong with that picture you've painted. Everyone is equally valuable as human beings. You're preaching to the choir. The problem is the guy who's a janitor and then complains about not having a better job after 30 years of not doing anything about it.

I thought after explaining that "deserve" didn't mean someone's more of a human being than another I'd curb people getting upset@me. If a guy is out is ambitious/focused and doing more to get relationships, treat women better, treat themselves better, etc etc then they will OBVIOUSLY have more success with relationships than the guy not doing anything about it and never socializing. So that guy "deserves" it more than the guy not doing shit about it (Read again: that guy isn't an idiot or anything else bad UNLESS he's complaining about the situation when the solution is so simple. It's like he feels like he deserves shit after having done nothing to try and earn it). Idk what's so c r a z y about that.

So a black guy with a PHD who was wrongfully convicted of a crime and now can't find a job other than as a janitor because no one is willing to hire him, WANTS to be a janitor?

Or that single mother working two jobs to make ends-meet and barely have time to cook for her children, wants to be poor and not do anything else with her life?

You're acting like humans are inheritor lazy and don't want to make the best out of life. Almost no one wakes up with the attitude of "Huh, I think I'm going to do my very worst today."

I can guarantee that there's almost no one (notice how I say almost no one) wants to be a lazy fuck. Most peoples want to make something of themselves. But not everyone can. It depends on many different factors. Someone might be bipolar, dyslexic, paraplegic, have cancer, be born in to the wrong family, be born in the wrong country, be depressed, or a myriad of other underlying factors. Just because someone isn't rich, doesn't mean they're lazy. They're most likely doing the best with what they were dealt. A lot of people who are rich, are rich because they got lucky. Of course there's a lot of rich people who have earned it through very hard work - there's no denying that - but claiming that just because you work as a janitor you don't want anything else out of life is ludicrous.

Yes, an average guy who actually try will do better than an average guy that don't - and that goes for relationships as well- but some people are born extremely ugly, and they will struggle a lot more to accomplish the same things as a very attractive person, just because of genetics, it's not his fault, it's not something the ugly guy did wrong. It's just bad luck. In the same way as someone born in to a poor family will struggle a lot more than someone born in to a rich family to do something with his life. Doesn't make the rich-born more deserving that the poor-born guy. He might work ten times harder to accomplish the same thing, and the still be overlooked for the same position just because the rich-born was born in to the right family and his parents have better contacts or a well-known last name. Or, you know, is white.

[wipers]

This is the worst dating advice I've ever read...and I've been to the Huff Post.

If you want women to like you earn more money. It is that simple.

[Thunder]

So a black guy with a PHD who was wrongfully convicted of a crime and now can't find a job other than as a janitor because no one is willing to hire him, WANTS to be a janitor?

Or that single mother working two jobs to make ends-meet and barely have time to cook for her children, wants to be poor and not do anything else with her life?

You're acting like humans are inheritor lazy and don't want to make the best out of life. Almost no one wakes up with the attitude of "Huh, I think I'm going to do my very worst today."

I can guarantee that there's almost no one (notice how I say almost no one) wants to be a lazy fuck. Most peoples want to make something of themselves. But not everyone can. It depends on many different factors. Someone might be bipolar, dyslexic, paraplegic, have cancer, be born in to the wrong family, be born in the wrong country, be depressed, or a myriad of other underlying factors. Just because someone isn't rich, doesn't mean they're lazy. They're most likely doing the best with what they were dealt. A lot of people who are rich, are rich because they got lucky. Of course there's a lot of rich people who have earned it through very hard work - there's no denying that - but claiming that just because you work as a janitor you don't want anything else out of life is ludicrous.

Yes, an average guy who actually try will do better than an average guy that don't - and that goes for relationships as well- but some people are born extremely ugly, and they will struggle a lot more to accomplish the same things as a very attractive person, just because of genetics, it's not his fault, it's not something the ugly guy did wrong. It's just bad luck. In the same way as someone born in to a poor family will struggle a lot more than someone born in to a rich family to do something with his life. Doesn't make the rich-born more deserving that the poor-born guy. He might work ten times harder to accomplish the same thing, and the still be overlooked for the same position just because the rich-born was born in to the right family and his parents have better contacts or a well-known last name. Or, you know, is white.

I am so done with this straw-manning lol. I literally caught more justifiable shit from the feminism thread because those ideas were out there - this is just about making up the things I say. Bolded is you literally straw manning the hell out of me because I do not think that. This has always been towards the guys who do nothing to try and get relationships and say it's ALL women's fault (like the OP articles & some posts in here).

I was talking the "cool guy" janitor that I quoted in arus's post, btw and it was @janitors are just as valuable as human beings as the PHD guy since his post was implying I thought they didn't "deserve" relationships. Not the black guy PHD who had a bad draw in life. It's so ridiculous because someone already hit me with the "people have unfortunate turns in life" a few pages back and yeah man.... again.... it sucks and I think there should be social structures in place that help them. But we both know the people saying "it's all women's fault" are not being racially discriminated against, have cancer, or whatever else

So all those guys in here&article that say it's women's fault are all butt ass ugly or equally unfortunate and should get some kind of social handout? Like, force people to have relationships with them? The government should come in and force some number of women to have relationships with them? Is that what you're saying?
^ that's straw man and it's as ridiculous as you telling me I think all people are lazy, the black PHD WANTS to be a janitor because he's being racially discriminated against, or the single mother who has a tough as shit life isn't trying hard enough to land a promotion.

[Blubbartron]

Nah Thunder, I think the problem is either that you're so detached from reality that you don't realize not everyone can be a "winner" in life, or so wrapped up in yourself that you simply don't care as long as you are one of the lucky few that are "winning".

The point of all of this is not to guarantee that everyone get a relationship, but to guarantee that everyone gets a fair shake at a relationship. As it stands, people of average attractiveness don't have one. I'm sure most people are aware about how women rated 80% of men as "below average" in looks. That's just physical attractiveness, and it shows how high the expectations are for men. I'm not aware of any studies being done that try to examine women's subconscious (or conscious) thoughts on how much income a man makes is "enough", but I'd be willing to bet you're gonna end up with a similar situation where an absurd number of men aren't making enough money to be "deserving" of a relationship by the average woman.

What we need to do is reset expectations of both sexes. Women are doing a fairly good job of that by attacking all the magazines that photoshop women into completely unrealistic standards. Men, on the other hand, suck ass at setting expectations. This is especially problematic given the fact that women are going to be instinctively sexually choosy for biological reasons. When the average woman is rejecting 80% of guys as "not good enough", the problem isn't men not trying hard enough - it's women expecting too much. The general discouragement about the entire concept of searching for a mate then becomes immediately obvious.

[hey]

But we both know the people saying "it's all women's fault" are not being racially discriminated against, have cancer, or whatever else

I would imagine it is a pretty diverse group who think that way.

As it stands, people of average attractiveness don't have one. I'm sure most people are aware about how women rated 80% of men as "below average" in looks. That's just physical attractiveness, and it shows how high the expectations are for men.

Huh? How did you reach that conclusion? It clearly shows that although women have a distorted view of what is average, they do not care anywhere near as much as men about looks. They are perfectly happy to give men who they perceive to be below average a chance. On the other hand, men rate more fairly, but also set the bar higher.

[Charismatic]

They are perfectly happy to give men who they perceive to be below average a chance. On the other hand, men rate more fairly, but also set the bar higher.

This week we will confront an unfortunate truth of online dating: no matter how much time you spend polishing your profile, honing your IM banter, and perfecting your message introductions, it’s your picture that matters most.

The above featured users have graciously agreed to let me post their pictures, so please don’t make them regret it. Funnily enough, I had to write about a dozen beautiful female users before anyone would even get back to me. Life imitates blog!

OK.
(I could keep going, but I decided to just stop right there since I think those two quotes alone perfectly illustrate that your statement is misleading)

That blog post also doesn't really address the fact that women don't generally tend to pursue guys on those sites pretty much at all. Its far more rare for a woman to initiate contact and when 80% of men are considered to be below average, its hard NOT to respond to a below average person when you reply to someone.

[hey]

OK.
(I could keep going, but I decided to just stop right there since I think those two quotes alone perfectly illustrate that your statement is misleading)

That blog post also doesn't really address the fact that women don't generally tend to pursue guys on those sites pretty much at all. Its far more rare for a woman to initiate contact and when 80% of men are considered to be below average, its hard NOT to respond to a below average person when you reply to someone.

Idk, i think this explains it pretty well.

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/your_look...e-Multiple.png

Not to say looks do not matter, but they matter less for men than for women. The most attractive women get A LOT more messages than the least attractive women, but that trend is much less significant for men.

[Blubbartron]

Yes, looks matter less for women, but the point is the discrepancy between reality and their opinions. That's why I immediately followed up that link with my comment (an obvious assumption due to the lack of data) regarding the likelihood that such a discrepancy exists when it comes to women judging the "success" and ability to provide of their potential mates.

[Charismatic]

Idk, i think this explains it pretty well.

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/your_look...e-Multiple.png

Not to say looks do not matter, but they matter less for men than for women. The most attractive women get A LOT more messages than the least attractive women, but that trend is much less significant for men.

It really doesn't explain it because it doesn't take into account that these 80% unattractive men are the ones primarily doing the messaging... seeking what they want whereas the females are generally only replying.
With their expectations, they have little choice but to reply to males they consider to be below average.

I would be willing to bet quite a bit of money that if women were the primary ones initiating the exchanges, that graph would look very different.

[Blubbartron]

It really doesn't explain it because it doesn't take into account that these 80% unattractive men are the ones primarily doing the messaging... seeking what they want whereas the females are generally only replying.
With their expectations, they have little choice but to reply to males they consider to be below average.

I would be willing to bet quite a bit of money that if women were the primary ones initiating the exchanges, that graph would look very different.

I think you misunderstood the graphs Chari - the data is specifically for the initiating user, by sex. The graph does show that women will still initiate conversation even with men they consider to be ugly. The fact that men initiate much, much more often isn't really relevant, even as a normalization technique.

[Charismatic]

What I'm trying to say, unsuccessfully, is that these women are already the outliers. (Because the vast majority of women do not initiate)
This isn't exactly the full picture.

[Byrthnoth]

It also normalizes to the lowest number of responses for each gender. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the female curve is much higher than the male curve in terms of raw numbers.