# Another Dating Study



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

There are times where The Red Pill/Manosphere is pretty crazy...but there are times where they absolutely nail it. This article falls under the latter. 









Analysis of 1.8 million online daters shows resource-acquisition ability boosts romantic interest


Using data from 1.8 million online-daters from 24 countries, a study published in Human Nature, has found that “resource-acquisition ability” or “competency” (as indicated by levels of education and income), increases levels of romantic interest received. Resource-acquisition ability improved...



www.psypost.org





Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

What I have ALWAYS found fascinating is the preoccupation with women denying this. Or ... insisting that they are attractive because of their own independence and success. Neither qualities that are attractive to men.


As my good friend Kevin Samuels says, "Men are success objects. Women are sex objects." Things get easier, not harder, when folks simply acknowledge that, rather than rail against it. I would be very curious to know if women who read those facts in the article nod and agree, or if those facts 'bother' them?

Social media would have one believe that we are in the sex, relationship, and dating apocalypse.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> There are times where The Red Pill/Manosphere is pretty crazy...but there are times where they absolutely nail it. This article falls under the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good read. I'm not an evolutionary thinker but I'm not surprised by the results. They mostly make sense. It falls pretty much in line with what Jordan Peterson has talked about on the subject and he just goes by the research and data as well. I think they might have left out just how much attention the really good looking men get but having resources or being able to convince women you are going somewhere is, and always has been, a primal attraction for women.

I do believe OLD is a kingmaker environment where a handful of men are harvesting whatever harems they can get away with.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Deejo said:


> What I have ALWAYS found fascinating is the preoccupation with women denying this. Or ... insisting that they are attractive because of their own independence and success. Neither qualities that are attractive to men.


Not just insistence, but rabid disagreement. 

Cognitive dissonance is a *****. 



Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Having been in the trenches of online dating for years, I can absolutely attest that it has gotten increasingly weirder. 

I have no issues with OLD. I absolutely recognize that MANY do. Between fake profiles, married people shopping around, etc.

It is scary and intimidating for people who likely NEVER had a deep dating history in the first place, or who had been married for the last 20 + years and find themselves once again in the sexual marketplace.

One of the core issues with OLD is a sense of false abundance, particularly for women. They get lots of attention ... that they don't want. So, they wait, for that magical profile that ticks all of their boxes to send a 'hello'. But that doesn't happen. Because as @ConanHub indicated, THAT guy is who ALL the women on the platform want ... so he's not sending hello's. He's getting them. And then like most of the women on the platform, that guy gets to choose who he's interested in. And to that guy, women are like potato chips. Can't have just one.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Deejo said:


> What I have ALWAYS found fascinating is the preoccupation with women denying this.


It isn't clear if the women you're speaking of are denying it about themselves personally or the gender as a group. Certainly there are examples of women selecting men who have less resource acquisition.


> Or ... insisting that they are attractive because of their own independence and success. Neither qualities that are attractive to men.


Here you seem to be speaking for men as a group, and I object to that.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

SpinyNorman said:


> It isn't clear if the women you're speaking of are denying it about themselves personally or the gender as a group. Certainly there are examples of women selecting men who have less resource acquisition.Here you seem to be speaking for men as a group, and I object to that.


Objection is okay. Generalizations are what they are, and never apply to 100% of a given population. 

That said, I would wager you are an exception in this regard. 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

There are so many different types of OLD sites now compared to 17-18 years ago when I was on them.
It's important to do some research, don't use free ones or international ones is my advise.

No real surprises in the article.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> Objection is okay. Generalizations are what they are, and never apply to 100% of a given population.
> 
> That said, I would wager you are an exception in this regard.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


I'm not even an example of generalizations and definitely in the exception group but generalizations are used for pretty solid reasons.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Deejo said:


> What I have ALWAYS found fascinating is the preoccupation with women denying this. Or ... insisting that they are attractive because of their own independence and success. Neither qualities that are attractive to men.
> 
> 
> As my good friend Kevin Samuels says, "Men are success objects. Women are sex objects." Things get easier, not harder, when folks simply acknowledge that, rather than rail against it. I would be very curious to know if women who read those facts in the article nod and agree, or if those facts 'bother' them?
> ...


Well I don't think there's a dating apocalypse, even my largely broke (although he does have a part time job) full time university student, 21 year old son, manages to get dates very easily enough even on Tinder and he's (as am I) shorter than my wife.

Yet what you're saying certainly isn't a universal experience, even if that is true for more people than not.

Although I haven't been on the market since my very late twenties. My wife (who was and is still aesthetically pleasing) earned more than I, and she knew that when she asked me out on our first date. Plus for the most part except for when she was on maternity leave all up for around two years, she has always earned plenty more than I. And it didn't stop her asking me to marry her either. And I have always got laid like tile, throughout our time together.

Of which I have been with other women (also the beautiful people), who also earned more than me, including another who wanted to marry me. In fact I have never lacked for attractive female suitors, who more often than not were also well employed with either academic and professional qualifications, or they were near the end of their academic studies while also employed.

Likewise in all of my time with different women I have only been dropped twice in my life, with all of the rest except for my current wife being let go by me. Of which the two who dropped me got back with me later on, until I decided to let them go as well (including my ex-wife). That's even when I didn't own a car (I did own a bicycle though), only had Year 11 of High School and on and on etc.

So though I am sure what's being promulgated in this instance is true for many people. There are also plenty of others like me, who this doesn't fit at all.

And on this idea that men aren't sex objects, I spent all of my twenties hooking up with and being asked out and offered sex very frequently by attractive and not so attractive women. Who all kept carrying on about how I had beautiful eyes an amazing smile and such a handsome face and on and on etc (I also used to be a very fit young man as well). Oh and there were men who also propositioned me quite keenly in certain venues as well. Even my ex-wife's first words to me, was her telling me how beautiful I was (and she was stunning herself). So the reality is some men are sex objects, and some women really do want men with handsome faces.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Personal said:


> Well I don't think there's a dating apocalypse, even my largely broke (although he does have a part time job) full time university student, 21 year old son, manages to get dates very easily enough even on Tinder and he's (as am I) shorter than my wife.
> 
> Yet what you're saying certainly isn't a universal experience, even if that is true for more people than not.
> 
> ...


So we've established neither you or your son is doing it right. Fortunately you are in the right place to learn how.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Agree with some of the points, when it comes to chemistry/attraction and considering a long term relationship.

That said, I’m not sure if men would be wise to ignore red flags though if they’re dating women who have zero ambition and/or are lazy. While that might not be what attracts men to women, it might become exhausting if you’re married to a woman who thinks it’s your job to do everything.

Some of the threads on here posted by men struggling in their marriages sound like those issues are greatly impacting them in a negative way.

But, in principle, I agree. Women that may “rabidly disagree” could be torn between societal pressures/feminist narratives and following what seems natural when it comes to relationships.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

SpinyNorman said:


> It isn't clear if the women you're speaking of are denying it about themselves personally or the gender as a group. Certainly there are examples of women selecting men who have less resource acquisition.Here you seem to be speaking for men as a group, and I object to that.


What I have unequivocally learned in my tenure interacting with the fairer sex is that the moment a data point or fact contradicts their 'feelings' about said data point or fact they will make a statement along the lines that you did above, or a variant of 'Not All Women Are Like That'.
Which of course, is undeniably true. But is neither accurate nor truly representative of the whole. 

SN, I'm a pretty open-handed, plain spoken guy. Are you disagreeing that most young, modern, western women conflate what they believe MEN should find attractive about them? Being strong, independent, educated, and employed are skills for success at life. They are not high interest indicators of sexual attraction for men. If anything, they are quite the opposite.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

SpinyNorman said:


> So we've established neither you or your son is doing it right. Fortunately you are in the right place to learn how.


There is nothing said about "doing it right"...or wrong. 



Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

SpinyNorman said:


> So we've established neither you or your son is doing it right. Fortunately you are in the right place to learn how.


Well if I ever get tired of enjoying a rich sex life, and want it to all come to an end. I'll start reading that sort of stuff, and take it to heart.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Personal said:


> Well I don't think there's a dating apocalypse, even my largely broke (although he does have a part time job) full time university student, 21 year old son, manages to get dates very easily enough even on Tinder and he's (as am I) shorter than my wife.
> 
> Yet what you're saying certainly isn't a universal experience, even if that is true for more people than not.
> 
> ...


@Personal ... you just proved the entire point. 
You ARE the 20% of guys all women want. 
You've only been dumped twice in your life. Got laid like tile in your 20's and in your marriage to your wife who makes more money than you.

I'm not saying that women don't want attractive guys. They do. 

My understanding is quite simply this. Regardless of gender. Attraction means that you possess something of 'value' to a potential partner. Could be looks, money, intellect, you front a band, you're an outstanding athlete, you make her laugh. They are all markers that indicate to a female that you possess something that most of your peers do not.
In the case of men being attracted to women, it is FAR more likely that he is going to be attracted to how she looks, than what school she went to or what job she has.

This isn't rocket surgery people ...

And I'll just point out for the benefit of the discussion; all borne out by the study @farsidejunky junky posted above, and all of the hundreds that have preceded it.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

While there are some good points, I doubt there are fathers on this site teaching their daughters to aim low in life, don’t bother with college or have too much ambition because you won’t attract men that way. 😌


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

SpinyNorman said:


> So we've established neither you or your son is doing it right. Fortunately you are in the right place to learn how.


LoL! "Doing it right." Isn't what the OP is about at all. It's just showing statistics about higher rates of women valuing resources in mate selection than men.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

*Deidre* said:


> While there are some good points, I doubt there are fathers on this site teaching their daughters to aim low in life, don’t bother with college or have too much ambition because you won’t attract men that way. 😌


It's not an either or situation.

I'm for young ladies developing themselves through education and profession while not neglecting their most fertile years if they are ever going to want a family.

The truth is though, that most women who have reached the top professionally had to sacrifice heavily when it came to starting a family.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I'm not absolutist about most of this stuff. I think trying to make it absolutist is part of the inherent problem. But to dismiss or ignore that there are clear and distinct factors for attraction between men and women, and that resources AREN'T a primary point of attraction for women seeking a long term mate just feels kind of silly.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

For the most part, I agree with your response to me, @Deejo. I just think it’s much more nuanced and flexible than what such articles proclaim.

That said I certainly disagree with the idea, that I am part of that mythical 20%. Since I’m very far from every woman’s cup of tea, as evidenced by my being turned down by plenty of women as well.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Deejo said:


> SN, I'm a pretty open-handed, plain spoken guy. Are you disagreeing that most young, modern, western women conflate what they believe MEN should find attractive about them?


I don't understand the question. Conflate it with what?


> Being strong, independent, educated, and employed are skills for success at life. They are not high interest indicators of sexual attraction for men. If anything, they are quite the opposite.


Really? All the stats I've read say the trend is, engineers are marrying engineers and doctors are marrying doctors.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

ConanHub said:


> LoL! "Doing it right." Isn't what the OP is about at all. It's just showing statistics about higher rates of women valuing resources in mate selection than men.


It was a sarcastic comment. I suspect the average woman has different priorities than the average man, but I am pushing back against exaggeration.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Personal said:


> For the most part, I agree with your response to me, @Deejo. I just think it’s much more nuanced and flexible than what such articles proclaim.
> 
> That said I certainly disagree with the idea, that I am part of that mythical 20%. Since I’m very far from every woman’s cup of tea, as evidenced by my being turned down by plenty of women as well.


Hope I've been around these parts long enough that folks know that I'm generally looking for discussion and discernment, as opposed to arguing for arguing sake. 

I am certainly not saying that it isn't flexible or nuanced, and I'm not trying to convince you that you are part of some mythical Brad Pitt, boy band cabal that gets all the women. But based upon your own statements, I'm assuming that back in the day most, many, more than 3 ... women found you easy on the eyes, including the one that married you. And importantly, understanding that your experience was NOT the experience of most of your peers? I mean c'mon, do I really need to twist anyone's arm over the fact that there were guys in high school and college that got lots of play, and a larger portion of guys that didn't? I have six friends that I have known since grade school that never even went on a date until after college.

I can speak pretty knowledgeably about the online dating ecosystem. That was the point of reference for this study, and there have been many others. So that's what I will try to stick to.

The ONLY points of reference for a woman to have an indicator of interest in terms of attraction or getting to a date are your photographs and what you have to say about yourself. You are quite literally advertising yourself. 

So once again, and should be a surprise to no one, if you look like Bradley Cooper your profile is going to get way more hits and interest than if you look like Danny DeVito. However, make Bradley a pet-sitter and Danny a neurosurgeon and indicators of interest are likely going to shift a bit. 

One of the first questions women have asked me on dates is, "So what do you do for a living?" That's not just a curiosity question. It's a qualifying question. Helps her decide if there will be a second date.

I'm still not sure how this results of this study became contentious, but I suppose that is also part of my fascination.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Deejo said:


> As my good friend Kevin Samuels says, "Men are success objects. Women are sex objects." Things get easier, not harder, when folks simply acknowledge that, rather than rail against it.* I would be very curious to know if women who read those facts in the article nod and agree, or if those facts 'bother' them?*


My answer would be that my life experience is in conflict with the claims of the article.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

This is nothing new or striking. This is how it’s always been. 

I can remember my mom tell me over 40 years ago when I was a young teen that most women have absolutely no interest or attraction at all in most men but that most men will find most women at least acceptably attractive and that a man had to have a lot going for him in terms of looks, personality, smarts and financial success to not be completely invisible to women. 

What OLD has done is it has given us computer programs where we can measure actual data points and quantify what people have always known and what was simple conventional wisdom to our parents and grandparents.

Cont....


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

SpinyNorman said:


> I don't understand the question. Conflate it with what?Really? All the stats I've read say the trend is, engineers are marrying engineers and doctors are marrying doctors.


Still not sure how we ended up here ...
I'm saying that men and women have differing priorities when it comes to attraction and selecting a partner. The conflation is amongst women that believe because they are independent and successful, that will make them attractive to 'most' men. They aren't asking themselves what men want, they are framing their value from a female perspective. 

Are you saying that priorities of sexual attraction for men and women are the same? And if so, I am curious as to why?

Your statistics are correct. Because highly educated, successful women generally want a partner at their level of accomplishment, or higher ... not lower, except for Personal.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Red Sonja said:


> My answer would be that my life experience is in conflict with the claims of the article.


Go on ...


----------



## ccpowerslave (Nov 21, 2020)

Being a highly competent man with a lot of resources I find this is true. It’s even better if you have a cool job. It’s easy for someone to be boring and make money but if your job is also cool then it works that much more for you.

Note this is not with regards to OLD. I don’t know anything about that. But if you are tall and not fat and then also not stupid that ticks a lot of boxes, and then if you also have resources then bing bong.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I also have to say, that I admire the consistency of discord this topic raises. Has been the same since 09.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Red Sonja said:


> My answer would be that my life experience is in conflict with the claims of the article.


Mine as well but it was data about a large, nearly two million person, group and their preferences.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

ccpowerslave said:


> Being a highly competent man with a lot of resources I find this is true. It’s even better if you have a cool job. It’s easy for someone to be boring and make money but if your job is also cool then it works that much more for you.
> 
> Note this is not with regards to OLD. I don’t know anything about that. But if you are tall and not fat and then also not stupid that ticks a lot of boxes, and then if you also have resources then bing bong.



Bing Bong, indeed.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Cont...

And while the Red Pill community had made people like Rollo Tomassi and Jordan Peterson et al YouTube folk heroes, the things they say about online date is really no different than the real world.

In the real world, people only date, have sex with and marry a teentsy weentsy percentage of the people they encounter.

Humans really aren’t big breeders and actually have very few mates. The reason we are the dominant species is we’ve learned how to not be eaten by predators. It’s not because we spread our seed much comparitively to other species. 

Our cat bore 3 times more offspring last month than my wife and I have over 50 years. 

Even super humans like pro athletes, celebrities, porn stars and sex workers that may have sex with many hundred or even thousands of people, Still only have sex with a tiny percentage of the people they encounter throughout their lives. 

The Average Joe may have a dismal batting average on OLD, but is that really any different than if he walked down the street and started winking at and saying “hi” to random women?

Brad Pitt and Bradley Cooper and Zack Effron and Tom Brady would likely score a few chicks by doing that, but even their batting average would be quite low by just throwing out winks and hey-there’s to random women they encounter during daily life. 

For women it’s really not that much different.

A pretty girl walking down the street can get hundreds of stares, winks, nods, hey-there’s and people waving up to her trying to get with her.

This can go on from the time she grows boobies until she is wrinkled, round and gray. 

But yet out of all of those IOI’s and winks and approaches, she will statistically only have sex with a handful or couple of handfuls and will only marry one or two and likely only bear a few offspring.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

I think the thing that people think OLD will do is fundamentally change human dynamics and give them a better or at least different chance.

An average Joe playing video games in his mom’s basement thinks the pretty girl in the bikini will actually get with him because he sends a wink and says “hey there!”

Meanwhile, the pretty girl thinks that out of the hundreds of hits she’s getting a day on OLD, that one of them really is a Saudi prince that is in live with her from her bikini picture and is going to marry her and have her live in one of his palaces.

But at the end of the day, like the vast majority of her ancestors before her, she will end up getting with a handful to a couple handfuls of suitors during the course of her life and maybe marry 1-2 or maybe 3 and have a few-handful offspring.

And the dweeb in his mom’s basement will eventually realize life in the basement isn’t working for him so he gets out and gets a real job and learns to talk to girls and eventually finds some chick that will have him and at the end of he days he will have also hooked up with a handful or so of chicks and 1 or 2 marriages and fathered maybe a few offspring. 

OLD just makes people think it’s a game changer... but it really isn’t for most people.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Go on ...


I am an “outlier” in the statistical sense, that is what I am saying.

I am the highly educated, high earning female. I’ve had many boyfriends (a dozen or so of note) and 2 husbands (both Ex’s) in my 65 years of life. Looks-wise I would say I was a solid “8” until approximately age 45; these days I am a “handsome woman” 🤣 (as my father would say) mostly because I am very physically fit, much like @lifeistooshort.

Both husbands married me in part because I was “going places” professionally (their words), of course they did not admit this until later. In high school I dated older boys because I was an athlete playing a “man’s sport” and that was high school boy-repellant. In college I also dated older men because I was still an athlete playing a “man’s sport” and because of my major (engineering), also college boy-repellant. As a side note, I think being “too tall” was also a rejection factor when I was young as I was 6’2” tall in heels.

These days I have the 20 and 30 somethings wooing me. I can only assume it is because of the fact that I still look acceptable and because of the money these guys think I make/have. I don’t talk about money, however It’s easy for people to assume because of where I live and the businesses I own. Men, my own age are not interested because they are chasing after younger women.

I have never used OLD, looked at it briefly and decided it wasn’t for me.


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 10, 2011)

Deejo said:


> T*he conflation is amongst women that believe because they are independent and successful, that will make them attractive to 'most' men. They aren't asking themselves what men want, they are framing their value from a female perspective. *


I skimmed the study, didn't see this part.



> I'm still not sure how this results of this study became contentious, but I suppose that is also part of my fascination.


Honestly, it's because what is the outcome of pointing this out? What do you expect from this?

So much of it comes off as "See women, shut up and look pretty, that's what men like, men shut up and be pocketbooks, that's what women like," and the chafing comes from women don't like only being valued for their looks and men don't like only being valued for their ability to make money.


----------



## leftfield (Mar 29, 2016)

Deejo said:


> @Personal ... you just proved the entire point.
> You ARE the 20% of guys all women want.
> You've only been dumped twice in your life. Got laid like tile in your 20's and in your marriage to your wife who makes more money than you.
> 
> ...



Is rocket surgery a thing?


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Deejo said:


> Still not sure how we ended up here ...
> I'm saying that men and women have differing priorities when it comes to attraction and selecting a partner. The conflation is amongst women that believe because they are independent and successful, that will make them attractive to 'most' men. They aren't asking themselves what men want, they are framing their value from a female perspective.


Thanks for clarifying.


> Are you saying that priorities of sexual attraction for men and women are the same? And if so, I am curious as to why?


No, I suspect on average they are different. But I am pushing back against generalization and exaggeration.


> Your statistics are correct. Because highly educated, successful women generally want a partner at their level of accomplishment, or higher ... not lower, except for Personal.


But why do men w/ means settle for them? Why aren't they picking off the uneducated, unemployed and dependent women, and leaving these opposite-of-attractive women for the men w/ lesser means? Assuming you still support this statement:
"Being strong, independent, educated, and employed are skills for success at life. They are not high interest indicators of sexual attraction for men. If anything, they are quite the opposite. "


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

FrenchFry said:


> I skimmed the study, didn't see this part.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Correct. About the chafing.
The 'preference' will remain static nonetheless. Regardless of who likes what.

I don't have much in the way of expectations. I suppose I expect dissent, despite empirical, or anecdotal evidence otherwise. And it is the reasoning upon which the dissent, is based that generally has my interest.

And ... nice to see you, FF.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

FrenchFry said:


> I skimmed the study, didn't see this part.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is true.

That said, it is unfortunately more than just rhetoric.

ETA: Hypothetically speaking (as I am married), I don't like it any more than anyone else who isn't in the top 10% of men, to which I myself have never belonged.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Enigma32 (Jul 6, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> I skimmed the study, didn't see this part.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Better to accept reality for what it is and make the best of it. More productive than just chafing at the way the world works or especially arguing it like it will change because we want it to.


----------



## Enigma32 (Jul 6, 2020)

While topics like this always seem to trigger some folks, and everyone online always claims to be the exception to the rule, I think this kind of information needs to be shoved in people's faces anyway. A lot of single men and women both out there who have zero clue what the opposite sex finds appealing and they are completely lost when it comes to attracting someone. At least if they can understand basic statistics they can make use of this information and adjust their dating approach accordingly.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

leftfield said:


> Is rocket surgery a thing?


Absolutely! Russian style:


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Red Sonja said:


> I am an “outlier” in the statistical sense, that is what I am saying.
> 
> I am the highly educated, high earning female. I’ve had many boyfriends (a dozen or so of note) and 2 husbands (both Ex’s) in my 65 years of life. Looks-wise I would say I was a solid “8” until approximately age 45; these days I am a “handsome woman” 🤣 (as my father would say) mostly because I am very physically fit, much like @lifeistooshort.
> 
> ...


We tend to see the world through our own perspectives and tend to think others apply those preferences back on us. 

For many men, a woman’s educational and financial success may be a nice bonus. For some it doesn’t mean a thing one way or another. And for a few others it may be an actual detriment. 

But my point is to a woman, a man’s social economic status is usually critical criteria. There for it’s easy for women to think that her socio economic status is at least somewhat important to men as well. 

For some men it may be true. But for others it may not mean a single thing.

Same is true with athletic prowess and competitiveness. That is almost a universal attractant for women. 

For some men it may be a bonus as well but for others it doesn’t mean a thing. 

Your BFs and husband’s had their own reasons for getting with you. Those reasons may or may have had anything to do with the reasons you got with them.


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 10, 2011)

Good to see you too!

The dissent because what you are asking for feels regressive and has little actionable items that aren't such.

The dissent is also more useful than the studies response on an individual level because I'm not looking for "Joe OLD,"

I'm looking for the guy who is looking for someone like me - and while putting a polish on who I am doesn't hurt, if I attract a person who is genuinely intimidated/turned off by factors that I control/like (ie education status), let's get them out of there. 

The regressive part comes in when you are asking (hypothetical) me to either not pursue education (because of male attraction) or downplay my success because of it. Same goes for men - it is pointless to complain about not wanting to be a pocketbook while trying to get with folks who only see you as such. 

I look at those who dissent as the actual guide - especially if those 20%ers are more like me than the aggregate. There is more insight to be gained from successful people who aren't the average than those who are.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Enigma32 said:


> While topics like this always seem to trigger some folks


While others calmly tamp down rhetoric


> , and everyone online always claims to be the exception to the rule, I think this kind of information needs to be shoved in people's faces anyway. A lot of single men and women both out there who have zero clue what the opposite sex finds appealing and they are completely lost when it comes to attracting someone. At least if they can understand basic statistics they can make use of this information and adjust their dating approach accordingly.


It is one thing to know what The Average Prospective Partner is like, and another to decide you want anything to do w/ him/her. Some of us aren't determined to be like everyone else, and for reasons I can't really explain, a few persist in visiting a site so into conformity.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

FrenchFry said:


> There is more insight to be gained from successful people who aren't the average than those who are.


Well I'm stealing this one.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

FrenchFry said:


> Good to see you too!
> 
> The dissent because what you are asking for feels regressive and has little actionable items that aren't such.
> 
> ...


While I observe trends and how people behave in general.

I can't agree more with this.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Red Sonja said:


> I am an “outlier” in the statistical sense, that is what I am saying.
> 
> I am the highly educated, high earning female. I’ve had many boyfriends (a dozen or so of note) and 2 husbands (both Ex’s) in my 65 years of life. Looks-wise I would say I was a solid “8” until approximately age 45; these days I am a “handsome woman” 🤣 (as my father would say) mostly because I am very physically fit, much like @lifeistooshort.
> 
> ...


Just seeing this. I appreciate your response.

I suppose I want to clarify something. I am not suggesting or intimating that women 'dumb' it down and play damsel in distress to attract a man. Not my point. Not my position.

And there quite simply are generalizations that are just plain true. Else they wouldn't be generalizations, they would be Bullsh!t.
I'm certainly not looking to call you out, or present you with a 'gotcha'. But most of what I read in your post aligns with what I was trying to convey, not very well apparently.
There are rafts of attraction preferences, qualifiers and disqualifiers. Some are more common and prevalent. That's really all I was getting at. That was what the data in the study suggests. If you are a guy, unemployed, with few prospects, and you look like a basset hound, but you are holding out the belief that you should be dating hot engineers, or underwear models; your expectations could use some readjusting.

Your sport of choice, your field of study, and your height were all disqualifiers for large segments of your potential dating candidates, despite being hot. 8 is hot. Hopefully on this we can all agree.
Obviously you had no problems dating. But it did generally mean a smaller and more select group of candidates. As you stated, generally older partners. You may see yourself as an outlier. I do not. You were still an 8. And I'd wager for those that pursued you, that qualifier was higher up the 'list' than the fact you were an engineering student.

Does that come across as disrespectful? Because it is not my intent. And if so, I will remove this post entirely.

I jumped into dating about a year after separating. It didn't go well. I then took a year off, and for all intents and purposes, studied how to date, and all of this 'attraction hooey'. When I returned to dating I made the discovery that none of it was 'hooey'. Suffice to say, I find this stuff fascinating.

I can tell you that in the online dating world lots of younger guys also go for older women. Either because they think they are an easy mark given their interest, or as you point out, believe they have money. I know this because I date those women. I'm still waiting for my own sugarmomma.

As @oldshirt pointed out earlier, none of this is really new at all. But ... the online dating ecosystem coalesces the behavior and data down to a lowest common denominator. And as evidenced, it is easily traceable. In OLD it is easy for someone to state they want a particular height, physical appearance, education level, earnings, political leaning, interests, whether or not they want kids, have kids etc. Nothing is wrong with any of it ... unless or until people start lamenting why they aren't matching with someone.

Speculation on my part, but I do wonder if less women participate in OLD simply because there is no need (they have suitors), or ... that it fundamentally puts them on a more equal field with their male counterparts. I've stated before, that the rejection rate is easily over 90%. This is also something the sites don't want people thinking about. Because it's pretty depressing. Unless one is comfortable with rejection


----------



## Enigma32 (Jul 6, 2020)

FrenchFry said:


> Good to see you too!
> 
> The dissent because what you are asking for feels regressive and has little actionable items that aren't such.
> 
> ...


I think there is some value in this line of thought if one is truly one of the more exceptional, 20%ers. That isn't most people though. Most people are your average Joe or Jane and their partner is likely someone on their same league.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

@Deejo, none of what you say is disrespectful, disagreeing does not equal disrespect, at least not in my view.

What I was trying to convey, in my post, is that contrary to popular belief/statistics I, as a _woman_, attracted 2 husbands who chose me for my earning potential (/ actual earnings). And, they both eventually made it clear that factor was an important criterion in their choice. My 2nd husband also admitted that I was prime “arm candy”  . Yes, I know, my picker is broken … that one was a piece of work.

Anyhow, the “woman picked for money” is an “outlier” occurrence in the widely accepted dating theory we are speaking of.

Personally, I never considered “ability to provide” in my decision to date a man. My primary criteria were physical attraction and good character and, I was fooled on the character part (at least) twice.


----------



## joannacroc (Dec 17, 2014)

Depressing, but somewhat in line with what I suspected. Dating isn't for me anymore. Women like me with average looks, education, and average intelligence (maybe average to above average intelligence if you're being generous) in my age range (40-45) attract few men in the age range we are usually interested in (40-45). Men my age want women in their 20s or 30s and care about hot, maybe not exclusively but definitely more than most other criteria. Which I get. But I am just not interested in guys in their 60s, or people in my age range who are looking for a hookup. So that pretty much leaves me on the shelf. I'm mostly fine with that. Some days it makes me a bit sad. But I can't really begrudge people for wanting what they want. And I would agree women care more about financial stability. While I love to care for and help people i love, I don't want to take care of someone else financially, especially raising a kid by myself. Viewed dispassionately, I am not a big draw based on these criteria either. I'm learning to be OK with that.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Thanks for that @Red Sonja. No disagreement from me.

I think there is a big difference between having a broken picker, and having the terms of the marital agreement being changed without your being notified. Kind of like when you discover the credit card you have used for years is suddenly charging you 30% rather than that teaser rate of 9%.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

This song has served me well in dating:
"Don't want to know about the usual thing
I never bother with the usual thing
...
And if I didn't think you were a little bit out there too
Now I just wouldn't bother with you"

-The Usual Thing, Marshall Crenshaw


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

joannacroc said:


> Depressing, but somewhat in line with what I suspected. Dating isn't for me anymore. Women like me with average looks, education, and average intelligence (maybe average to above average intelligence if you're being generous) in my age range (40-45) attract few men in the age range we are usually interested in (40-45). Men my age want women in their 20s or 30s and care about hot, maybe not exclusively but definitely more than most other criteria. Which I get. But I am just not interested in guys in their 60s, or people in my age range who are looking for a hookup. So that pretty much leaves me on the shelf. I'm mostly fine with that. Some days it makes me a bit sad. But I can't really begrudge people for wanting what they want. And I would agree women care more about financial stability. While I love to care for and help people i love, I don't want to take care of someone else financially, especially raising a kid by myself. Viewed dispassionately, I am not a big draw based on these criteria either. I'm learning to be OK with that.


If anything, I think people just need to be better educated? aware? of how the sexual marketplace works. I'm not sure what the right word is. But let's be clear. Your 'average' looking and average income 40 something year old guys 'wants' to be pulling younger, hotter, women. But I can assure you it is highly unlikely that he actually is. My position is pretty simple. If you want to date, you should date. Just make sure you know the terrain. The reality is MOST of us are average. There is what you want, and what you can actually get. The sexual marketplace definitely doesn't care about what someone thinks they 'deserve'.

And in contrast with all of the other generalities flying around, I'm 56, and I'm not looking to date 20 or 30 somethings. My partner is 55.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Red Sonja said:


> @Deejo, none of what you say is disrespectful, disagreeing does not equal disrespect, at least not in my view.
> 
> What I was trying to convey, in my post, is that contrary to popular belief/statistics I, as a _woman_, attracted 2 husbands who chose me for my earning potential (/ actual earnings). And, they both eventually made it clear that factor was an important criterion in their choice. My 2nd husband also admitted that I was prime “arm candy”  . Yes, I know, my picker is broken … that one was a piece of work.
> 
> ...


Just out of curiosity, how did their income compare to yours?

Did either of them make significantly less?


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

I read the linked article and then being a square, also checked-out (although skim-read) the published study. In the conclusion: 'We showed that greater resource-acquisition ability leads to more dating profile interest in data from more than 1.8 million people living in 24 nations who use the services of an international, online dating company. While both sexes received a boost in interest when they had more resource-acquisition ability, the increase was almost 2.5 times stronger in men than in women. And last, resource-acquisition ability tended to be slightly less important in richer countries with more women of reproductive age than men, and slightly more important in cultures with greater gender equality. Higher levels of unemployment also seemed to make resource-acquisition ability more important, but this effect was restricted to the amount of attention women’s profiles received. The relative primacy and robustness of sex differences suggest evolutionary models of mate choice may be more powerful than sociocultural ones when it comes to resource-acquisition ability.'

As the study notes, the context is interaction / attention within the online dating platform. It does make sense that 'competency' from the perspective of the study indicates social cues that could translate to opportunities for raising a family.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Anecdotally ....because this is TAM after all... and I just found some old but limited journal entries I made at the time that I met Batman, this study did have me reflecting more so even though I know absolutely squat about online dating or dating as an adult and therefore really isn't connected to the study at all. However, if you don't mind the indulgence, Batman and I initially shared a level of mutual attraction and interest through our personalities and voices first. As we started dating, it was attractive to me that he already lived independently; renting a flat while working. Perhaps basic-level stuff as an adult. Given our age then, such aspects were integrated with what he valued for himself and no doubt that wrapped up in part of the appeal of dating him and yes, underpinning that, as cold (or realistic) as it sounds, some kind of subconscious draw of his 'competence'.

I know that part of my appeal to him was my attitude and 'independence' related to the hobby that I had (and which was how we met) and from his perspective, that linked to me kind of standing out to him and the interest in getting to know me. We didn't know what one another looked like at that point. Granted, when we met in person, he didn't run the other way so we were off to a good start (and obviously nor did I, and so there was mutual physical attraction too). To add, he was confident in requesting to speak with me for that initial phone call which is how it all started; whereas others didn't make that request. Not that one needs to be all confident to speak with me or anything. Just saying he came across as self-assured in doing so.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I watch a lot of this gentleman's content. Because it illustrates a lot of what we are discussing here. Including generalities and wildly off-mark expectations. This is from this morning. Not a lot of middle ground here. Folks either appreciate it or despise it. He has trended towards women, because it is women that keep calling him. Some for input, some to let him know how much they don't like what he has to say. It's interesting stuff, often entertaining, sometimes sad.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> Just out of curiosity, how did their income compare to yours?
> 
> Did either of them make significantly less?


First husband was an electrician (tradesman) and I don't remember exactly because it was 40+ years ago however I think we made about equal money in the beginning. I was just starting my career then it took off, I was making more than him by the time we divorced. That was a short marriage, 6 years.

With second husband (same profession as me), I was making 2X what he did from the time we met until about 15 years into the relationship. Then he quit his "day job" while we started a business (I had better health insurance through my work at the time); I supported us for about 2-3 years until our first business took off. At that point he was working at the first business while I started a second and a third ... by that time it was hard to tell who was making what because our income was business dividends and we were both pulling in customers to our businesses. That one was a long marriage, 30 years.

Huh, both husbands "went off" sex within 2 years of the wedding ... maybe the universe is trying to tell me something. Making more bank kills sexual attraction? IDK


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

SpinyNorman said:


> All the stats I've read say the trend is, engineers are marrying engineers and doctors are marrying doctors.


And occasionally some of them cross streams. 

Thinking of one of my wife’s nephews who is an engineer married to a medical doctor.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Red Sonja said:


> First husband was an electrician (tradesman) and I don't remember exactly because it was 40+ years ago however I think we made about equal money in the beginning. I was just starting my career then it took off, I was making more than him by the time we divorced. That was a short marriage, 6 years.
> 
> With second husband (same profession as me), I was making 2X what he did from the time we met until about 15 years into the relationship. Then he quit his "day job" while we started a business (I had better health insurance through my work at the time); I supported us for about 2-3 years until our first business took off. At that point he was working at the first business while I started a second and a third ... by that time it was hard to tell who was making what because our income was business dividends and we were both pulling in customers to our businesses. That one was a long marriage, 30 years.
> 
> Huh, both husbands "went off" sex within 2 years of the wedding ... maybe the universe is trying to tell me something. Making more bank kills sexual attraction? IDK


I'm laughing at the last sentence.😋

Thanks for the info.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Deejo said:


> Social media would have one believe that we are in the sex, relationship, and dating apocalypse.


Once you realize that most of the outrage boils down to the worst of men and the worst of women yelling and screaming at — and about — each other, it’s easy to dismiss a lot of it as ********.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Personal said:


> And occasionally some of them cross streams.
> 
> Thinking of one of my wife’s nephews who is an engineer married to a medical doctor.


Yes, it was faster to type it the way I did, but the more general trend is people are marrying within their educational and economic background.

If you go back to the 1950's or so when male doctors and businessmen largely didn't have female peers, a number of them married nurses and receptionists. I'm not saying that never happens any more, but more of them today marry peers.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

@Deejo I watched the video you posted. I get the premise that he's inferring the woman has unrealistic expectations of her standing in the dating market and what she wants to find. The 'rank' of physical attraction in terms of a scale from 1-10 does make my mind spin a little bit and isn't really something I'd heard referenced until coming to TAM. I mean, just based on my own physical appearance, if I were to compare myself to Nicole Murphy (as a likely 10) and Beyonce (as an 8 if going by that video), then I ought to be walking around with a paper bag over my head. However, as has been mentioned, most of us are 'average' and that is how I'd term myself likely as a conclusion that comes from comparison with those around me. And so the average of my peers and friends are either exceptionally good-looking  ...or not... yet I feel that collectively and with different physical features from one another, that we're typically 'average'. Whatever that means. Then again, in another setting we may be considered more or less physically appealing based on location and that particular dominant context of so-called beauty.

So then, speaking of just the physical, how do most ascertain their dating chances with another they also find physically appealing based on physical appearance particularly when such things are subjective. Does it occur through recognizing who they are both interested in and 'able' to attract? I view my husband and I as similarly paired in terms of physical attractiveness; yet how do I conclude that really? Maybe others might think he is 'better' looking, maybe others might think that I am... although more likely people have more important stuff to think about in their lives. And so, if the woman in the video thinks of herself as an 8 and in the same 'rank' as Beyonce, is that based on her level of confidence that is her reality; is it that she's deluded; or does it really come down to that it's all subjective? And then, if it is subjective, who is to say that one ought not to indicate interest of another that seems appealing with online dating platforms? Or is the point being made that people, or the woman in the video, is unrealistic in her self-perception of who she may be able to attract? What actually is the point being made - and if she had stuck around what 'help' do you think he would offer based on having viewed his other content? To add, I didn't perceive him as saying her weight was 'bad' rather just pointing out the reality that that was her weight and patterns. Much like this post, he certainly rambled on after she left the call. Based on that one video, I would question who his target audience is. I'm doubtful that it's women.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

^ I think I just gave myself a headache


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Huh. I read the article and what I got is that men don't have nearly as many options as women. So of course they can prefer whatever they want and if they can get it then good for them, bur they may not be able to.

But what we get on TAM is a lot of unhappy men who either can't get what they want or are in essentially a business arrangement because they used resources to attract a woman who has since either cut off sex or cheated.

So we women suggest you consider something beyond how hot she is because you might get better results. I don't see where that amounts to disagreement that economic status is probably more important to women.

As for us high earning women, it doesn't much matter what "men" as a group want. All I need is one guy that I like who likes what I offer....what other men want is their business. I'm under no illusion that my bf is actually attracted to my paycheck, though I do know that he appreciates that I'm not a train wreck.

I'm fairly certain my legs were the first thing he noticed about me and liked my appearance, and if I let said appreciate go my paycheck would not make up for it. Of course I like his appearance too and if he let it go his paycheck wouldn't make up for that. 
A benefit of paying my own bills is that I get to focus on what I enjoy and find attractive 😀


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

lifeistooshort said:


> I'm fairly certain my legs were the first thing he noticed about me and liked my appearance, and if I let said appreciate go my paycheck would not make up for it. Of course I like his appearance too and if he let it go his paycheck wouldn't make up for that.


Eh? I think you're saying if either of you let your appearance go then your paychecks wouldn't make up for it on either side... is that right?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> Huh. I read the article and what I got is that men don't have nearly as many options as women. So of course they can prefer whatever they want and if they can get it then good for them, bur they may not be able to.
> 
> But what we get on TAM is a lot of unhappy men who either can't get what they want or are in essentially a business arrangement because they used resources to attract a woman who has since either cut off sex or cheated.
> 
> ...


I've thought about different phases of life as well and do you think younger women, with less resources and no children yet, would have different interests than older women, who are far more accomplished and financially secure with children already?

I know my interests have changed in 30 years.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

I'm going to be fine, then... I have resource-acquisition abilities, lots of competencies and I'm very good looking on top of everything else. And I have all of my hair!


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Well, I never cared about a woman's success, but I do want a woman with a brain/wit otherwise how am I going to tolerate her? There's only so much IQ and EQ one can lose and I bore easily especially with dumb sh-ts 



Deejo said:


> Or ... insisting that they are attractive because of their own independence and success. Neither qualities that are attractive to men.


Even though I do not consider success as a quality I look for with women (nor do I want my success to be a quality sought after by a woman - F that! )
I do value independence, her own ambitions and goals in life. Not to mention a backbone to refuse to subjugate herself to a man. Like a bit of _STEEL_ if I want a woman by my side.

I also refuse to be seen as a bread basket and raise my daughter to not see men as such either.


----------



## GaLaxya (Sep 26, 2021)

Deejo said:


> What I have unequivocally learned in my tenure interacting with the fairer sex is that the moment a data point or fact contradicts their 'feelings' about said data point or fact they will make a statement along the lines that you did above, or a variant of 'Not All Women Are Like That'.
> Which of course, is undeniably true. But is neither accurate nor truly representative of the whole.
> 
> SN, I'm a pretty open-handed, plain spoken guy. Are you disagreeing that most young, modern, western women conflate what they believe MEN should find attractive about them? Being strong, independent, educated, and employed are skills for success at life. They are not high interest indicators of sexual attraction for men. If anything, they are quite the opposite.


Quantity isn't quality. Just because most men do or like something, doesn't mean it is something good.
It's the classic bell curve. The majority is avarage. Only 2% represent to the upper quality level. An other 2% makes the lowest quality niveau.

This means, only 2% of all men have the best taste when it comes to pick high quality women. The rest ist hunting for cheap meat.

Look, a lot of people all accross the world like and ear McDo***ds or other weird fast food. Only a mibority dislikes such things. Fast food is proven to be extremly bad for human health and partitally too artificial to be categorised as natural food.
Nevertheless, 90% of people eat that crap every day.
Why? because the avarage human isn't as fancy or great as he or she things he is and have no sense for what would be good for human evolution.

Only 2% of all humans are the best hunters with the best taste and their taste drastically differs from the average human being.

Hence, the majority (of men) isn't an indicator for the best quality or the most intelligent descision.

Men who choose weak women who have no ambition, will produce equally low quality offspring. Therefore, the most clever men go for clever ambitious women.

A men who only picks a women because of the way she looks isn't a good strategist. He isn't wise or has any depth. He is a shallow man.

If we want to strive as humans on the planet, men need to pick the clever and ambitous women and not the women who are like sheap.

I swear, if more men would be clever to understand that and would choose more wisely like women do, humanity would be 10x more intelligent and successful on earth then we are today.

Men are slowing down human evolution. Not all, but the majority does.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

GaLaxya said:


> Quantity isn't quality. Just because most men do or like something, doesn't mean it is something good.
> It's the classic bell curve. The majority is avarage. Only 2% represent to the upper quality level. An other 2% makes the lowest quality niveau.
> 
> This means, only 2% of all men have the best taste when it comes to pick high quality women. The rest ist hunting for cheap meat.
> ...


You spelt sheep wrong.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

That's the thing though, attraction is one thing, keeping attracted is another.

How does one stay attracted to a hottie if whenever she opens her mouth out comes the dumbest crap you can't even imagine


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

heartsbeating said:


> Eh? I think you're saying if either of you let your appearance go then your paychecks wouldn't make up for it on either side... is that right?


Yes.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Deejo said:


> My understanding is quite simply this. Regardless of gender. Attraction means that you possess something of 'value' to a potential partner. Could be looks, money, intellect, you front a band, you're an outstanding athlete, you make her laugh. They are all markers that indicate to a female that you possess something that most of your peers do not.
> *In the case of men being attracted to women, it is FAR more likely that he is going to be attracted to how she looks, than what school she went to or what job she has.*
> 
> This isn't rocket surgery people ...
> ...


I can say that I wanted in my wife's pants before I knew where she worked or went to school, lol. 

I would bet that the younger the person, the greater looks factor in. We were both very young when we started dating. I was 16 and she was just shy of 19. I wasn't mature enough to look much beyond appearance and whether we could have a good conversation. I doubt my McDonald's job or a skate board as my primary mode of transportation said I was a good economic catch, lol. Who knows though, maybe she read something into that. I think for her it was also appearance and maybe a sense I wouldn't screw her over like her ex did.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

GaLaxya said:


> Quantity isn't quality. Just because most men do or like something, doesn't mean it is something good.
> It's the classic bell curve. The majority is avarage. Only 2% represent to the upper quality level. An other 2% makes the lowest quality niveau.
> 
> This means, only 2% of all men have the best taste when it comes to pick high quality women. The rest ist hunting for cheap meat.
> ...


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

lifeistooshort said:


> But what we get on TAM is a lot of unhappy men who either can't get what they want or are in essentially a business arrangement because they used resources to attract a woman who has since either cut off sex or cheated.


I've noticed this too. If you bait your hook with chicken guts, don't expect to catch any trout.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> Huh. I read the article and what I got is that men don't have nearly as many options as women. So of course they can prefer whatever they want and if they can get it then good for them, bur they may not be able to.
> 
> But what we get on TAM is a lot of unhappy men who either can't get what they want or are in essentially a business arrangement because they used resources to attract a woman who has since either cut off sex or cheated.
> 
> ...


I like women with a fat paycheck (takes note for his next life)... I thought I married a potential fat paycheck, but it went wrong... what I got was a slim paycheck and a fat wife in the end.


----------



## ccpowerslave (Nov 21, 2020)

I didn’t care about my wife’s earning potential at all really. I semi expected she would get pregnant and be a SAHM. 

What I did want is for her to be smart enough to hang around the murderer’s row people I have as friends and also in case of kids I didn’t want my kids to be dummies.

I think I would have a lot of issues with a woman who had no basic “numeracy” for lack of a better term. For me it’s like being able to read.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Deejo said:


> I'm not absolutist about most of this stuff. I think trying to make it absolutist is part of the inherent problem. But to dismiss or ignore that there are clear and distinct factors for attraction between men and women, and that resources AREN'T a primary point of attraction for women seeking a long term mate just feels kind of silly.


I agree with these findings.

Unfortunately, there aren't enough successful men in the dating world, so ladies often times, end up disappointed.

It becomes that _best pick of the litter_, choice.

Younger women fall for looks and chemistry, all too often.

And, making bad partner choices because better mate choices are scarce.
Being in the right place at the **right time to meet someone.

The old saying, _The good ones are, right away, snapped up, _comes to mind.

There is more of that ***Greater Fate* in mate making, than one would suppose.
Oh yeah.


_KB-_


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

lifeistooshort said:


> But what we get on TAM is a lot of unhappy men who either can't get what they want or are in essentially a business arrangement because they used resources to attract a woman who has since either cut off sex or cheated.


Which is rather quite silly 
That's why men should not advertise their resources at all, it will cut off a large proportion of women from the dating pool but it's worth it I'd say.



> As for us high earning women, it doesn't much matter what "men" as a group want. All I need is one guy that I like who likes what I offer....what other men want is their business. I'm under no illusion that my bf is actually attracted to my paycheck, though I do know that he appreciates that I'm not a train wreck.


 That makes me sad

My crush right now who I can in no way get involved with for professional reasons has her own business and home at a very young age, now that's impressive. She's a go getter and it is very attractive, makes the difference between 'ooo she's hot' and 'damn I have a crush'

She isn't a financial equal nor would I care if she is or isn't - but mentality/mindset - yes.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

SunCMars said:


> Younger women fall for looks and chemistry, all too often.


What's wrong with that? That should be how it is instead of hunting for mere resources.

Only addition to that should be compatibility - personality-wise.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

RandomDude said:


> Which is rather quite silly
> That's why men should not advertise their resources at all, it will cut off a large proportion of women from the dating pool but it's worth it I'd say.
> 
> 
> ...


What makes you sad?


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

There are also many women who don't care about "resources" and like intellectual men. They might not have a Ferrari, but being able to quote Hegel is rather attractive, I would say...


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

ccpowerslave said:


> What I did want is for her to be smart enough to hang around the murderer’s row people I have as friends and also in case of kids I didn’t want my kids to be dummies.
> I think I would have a lot of issues with a woman who had no basic “numeracy” for lack of a better term. For me it’s like being able to read.


EXACTLY! Who cares what she earns but to hell with marrying a bimbo!


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

lifeistooshort said:


> What makes you sad?


This part... 

_I'm under no illusion that my bf is actually attracted to my paycheck_

Maybe he is attracted beyond it, like how I am attracted to my crush.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> This part...
> 
> _I'm under no illusion that my bf is actually attracted to my paycheck_
> 
> Maybe he is attracted beyond it, like how I am attracted to my crush.


she said he liked her legs too...


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

In Absentia said:


> she said he liked her legs too...


Really?  

@lifeistooshort
Get him to vote on my thread in the men's lounge!


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

lifeistooshort said:


> Huh. I read the article and what I got is that men don't have nearly as many options as women. So of course they can prefer whatever they want and if they can get it then good for them, bur they may not be able to.
> 
> But what we get on TAM is a lot of unhappy men who either can't get what they want or are in essentially a business arrangement because they used resources to attract a woman who has since either cut off sex or cheated.
> 
> ...


Huh?

He noticed, your financial standing, believe me. 

Your positives, those stand-out legs of yours, were not overridden by any poor financial underpinnings.

He may have initially liked your leggy image, but your _total package_ was quickly assessed.

Don't kid yourself, or downplay his thoughts.

The fact that you are a good runner is great. 

But if your BF had to to carry you over the finish line in other major activities, no, that would not fly.

_Money talks, poop walks._



Lilith-


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

SunCMars said:


> Huh?
> 
> He noticed, your financial standing, believe me.
> 
> ...


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> Really?
> 
> @lifeistooshort
> Get him to vote on my thread in the men's lounge!


Yep!


----------



## ccpowerslave (Nov 21, 2020)

In Absentia said:


> There are also many women who don't care about "resources" and like intellectual men. They might not have a Ferrari, but being able to quote Hegel is rather attractive, I would say...


I think there are many facets. To some extent education is associated with social class regardless of money.

If you went to an Ivy League school in the US in a useless non-vocational major and work at a non-profit you can still fit in with higher social classes.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

heartsbeating said:


> @Deejo I watched the video you posted. I get the premise that he's inferring the woman has unrealistic expectations of her standing in the dating market and what she wants to find. The 'rank' of physical attraction in terms of a scale from 1-10 does make my mind spin a little bit and isn't really something I'd heard referenced until coming to TAM. I mean, just based on my own physical appearance, if I were to compare myself to Nicole Murphy (as a likely 10) and Beyonce (as an 8 if going by that video), then I ought to be walking around with a paper bag over my head. However, as has been mentioned, most of us are 'average' and that is how I'd term myself likely as a conclusion that comes from comparison with those around me. And so the average of my peers and friends are either exceptionally good-looking  ...or not... yet I feel that collectively and with different physical features from one another, that we're typically 'average'. Whatever that means. Then again, in another setting we may be considered more or less physically appealing based on location and that particular dominant context of so-called beauty.
> 
> So then, speaking of just the physical, how do most ascertain their dating chances with another they also find physically appealing based on physical appearance particularly when such things are subjective. Does it occur through recognizing who they are both interested in and 'able' to attract? I view my husband and I as similarly paired in terms of physical attractiveness; yet how do I conclude that really? Maybe others might think he is 'better' looking, maybe others might think that I am... although more likely people have more important stuff to think about in their lives. And so, if the woman in the video thinks of herself as an 8 and in the same 'rank' as Beyonce, is that based on her level of confidence that is her reality; is it that she's deluded; or does it really come down to that it's all subjective? And then, if it is subjective, who is to say that one ought not to indicate interest of another that seems appealing with online dating platforms? Or is the point being made that people, or the woman in the video, is unrealistic in her self-perception of who she may be able to attract? What actually is the point being made - and if she had stuck around what 'help' do you think he would offer based on having viewed his other content? To add, I didn't perceive him as saying her weight was 'bad' rather just pointing out the reality that that was her weight and patterns. Much like this post, he certainly rambled on after she left the call. Based on that one video, I would question who his target audience is. I'm doubtful that it's women.


@heartsbeating I watch a lot of Kevin Samuels for the dynamic. Although I'm not suggesting you do, but you'd need to watch more to get that sense. Overwhelmingly, his audience is women. And every single one of them that calls in, is very similar in dynamic and outcome to the one you watched. His stated focus, for those that choose to believe it or not, is to rebuild the African American community. He often alludes to the family issues faced in the African American community. 

Without a doubt, most people watch him because it is dramatic, and tends to stir strong opinions and emotions. People watch for drama, not wisdom.

At it's simplest, he consistently points out the contradictions, whether it's men or women, between what one wants, expects, or thinks they deserve by what is described as a 'high value partner', in contrast with what they actually bring to the table. Effectively he simply asks people, "Why would the partner you describe want to choose someone like you?"

And that is the part that holds my interest. 

Unwrap all of the drama and hyperbole, and it comes down to a tenet that I know I've shared here before, and have thought a great deal about.

'In order to attract a great partner, one should be a great partner'

And to that end, as has been commented on, usually involves similarities. I do not disagree at all with the belief that we generally end up partnered with people that are similar to us, in terms of looks, education, socio-economics, etc. 

I've stated many times in the past, I really don't have a dog in this fight any more. But the fight is still fascinating to observe, and discuss.

Most of us are not 8's. Many even bristle at the idea of being 'ranked'. Regardless ... we are. Whether we like it or not.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

RandomDude said:


> This part...
> 
> _I'm under no illusion that my bf is actually attracted to my paycheck_
> 
> Maybe he is attracted beyond it, like how I am attracted to my crush.


I meant that I know my paycheck isn't the main driver in my appeal to him, and I wouldn't want it to be. Not that he's unhappy with it.

He didn't even know what it was for a long time. He still doesn't know exactly but he knows what I do and what the salaries generally look like.

He likes how I look, my intellect, the fact that our interests align, and what kind of person I am. And I he likes that we have a lot of sex 😊


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

SpinyNorman said:


> I've noticed this too. If you bait your hook with chicken guts, don't expect to catch any trout.


I'll confess that I don't know what the metrics are now, but overwhelmingly, back in 08 through the mid-2000 teens those that found their way to this site were men. Interesting discussion point in and of itself.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

lifeistooshort said:


> I meant that I know my paycheck isn't the main driver in my appeal to him, and I wouldn't want it to be. Not that he's unhappy with it.
> He didn't even know what it was for a long time. He still doesn't know exactly but he knows what I do and what the salaries generally look like.
> *He likes how I look, my intellect, the fact that our interests align, and what kind of person I am. And I he likes that we have a lot of sex* 😊


Ah, I misunderstood 
The bolded is the important stuff! But still, can use his vote in my thread


----------



## ccpowerslave (Nov 21, 2020)

If you know what an actuary is and how hard it is to pass the test then to me that is a huge positive. My research group in grad school produced a lot of actuaries.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Deejo said:


> I'll confess that I don't know what the metrics are now, but overwhelmingly, back in 08 through the mid-2000 teens those that found their way to this site were men. Interesting discussion point in and of itself.


You're one of the few who knew me back 12 years ago lol
I wonder if I'm still the same


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

ccpowerslave said:


> I think there are many facets. To some extent education is associated with social class regardless of money.
> 
> If you went to an Ivy League school in the US in a useless non-vocational major and work at a non-profit you can still fit in with higher social classes.


Not sure that would work in the UK... people who go to private schools come mainly from rich families here, so they would be welcomed anyway. In terms of prestigious universities, like Oxford and Cambridge, if you come from a poor family, despite your degree, you have little chance of mixing with the higher social classes, where money and status count.

I'm happy with my degree, and I tend to prefer intelligence to money....


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Remember back in the day when we would spend hours arguing about this stuff? 😆 Ah, that was cute.

I didn't read the article or watch any of the videos, just read everyone's replies. (Hey @FrenchFry 🥰)

I guess my new stance is that apparently I'm an outlier so nothing I say ever fits well with what the articles say, and I'm accused of being deliberately obtuse if I try to say "yeah I don't think it's really like that". So instead I'll just accept that the articles could be right and I'm just such an outlier that I don't even see it for myself. 

My first criteria for dating anyone is that I am *physically* attracted to them. Next - they must be a decent person. Next - I must be mentally and emotionally attracted/connected to them. And lastly - they can't be so broke that they are trying to depend on me for money or live in a car, etc.

I've never dated (or married) a rich guy, have dated some broke guys but only back when we were both very young. Mostly I've dated guys who are somewhere around my own income/wealth level - usually theirs is a bit higher than mine. I guess I'm just not very ambitious about earning money and therefore don't see that quality as important in who I date either.

My current guy who I've known for over 5 years now is 15 years younger than me, is in molecular biology, has the overall type of personality as Chidi from The Good Place, and the body of an Adonis (if Adonis was African and hung 😄). He is extremely modest and has no clue how hot he is (similar to Chidi). He is attracted to me physically for sure, but he would not be attracted at all if I wasn't smart enough to have lots of stimulating conversation with him. He makes a decent salary but sends most of his money to his family. I'm crazy for him.

For me though, if he didn't look good to me, none of the rest would matter. He could make 10 times whatever he makes now and if he wasn't attractive to me, I would still pass.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

RandomDude said:


> You're one of the few who knew me back 12 years ago lol
> I wonder if I'm still the same


The same in all the right ways @RandomDude.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> Remember back in the day when we would spend hours arguing about this stuff? 😆 Ah, that was cute.
> 
> I didn't read the article or watch any of the videos, just read everyone's replies. (Hey @FrenchFry 🥰)
> 
> ...


Knew if I posted long enough I'd draw you out ...

These conversations ramble all over the map as you are well aware.

All of this started by my indicating no surprise whatsoever regarding the data driven claims about what particular Indicators of Interest were in a sample of over 2 million people using online dating ... worldwide. And then maybe I said some other things intended to be generalizations rather than absolutes, but that seldom flies. 

I think it's safe to say ... and in fact has been said in this thread, that priorities of interest and attraction change across time and circumstance. For example, here is an easy one that I come across in profiles all the time; the woman or man, who has raised his family and is done on the kid front. They will explicitly point out that they are not interested in a partner that still has kids at home. I've spoken and dated plenty of women that will NOT date a man that has never been married or had kids. The point is, the qualifiers and disqualifiers in our 20's and 30's are likely to be very different in our 40's and 50's. And for those that have gotten it right; meaning those that are still engaged in loving, supportive, communicative, interdependent, fulfilling marriages, those people dwell in rare air. 

We'd likely all benefit if there were more of them contributing here.

But then again, you'll always have me.


----------



## gaius (Nov 5, 2020)

The study relies on first interactions during online dating, where only pictures and sometimes a small amount of information is offered. Of course women are going to gravitate toward money and men to looks when they have such little to go on, but that's only one of a few things that play into attraction. And not the most important.

If only I had a a nickel for every wealthy man and attractive women who have/had no clue about all the other stuff and can't keep the opposite sex interested, I'd have a lot of nickels.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Deejo said:


> @heartsbeating
> Most of us are not 8's. Many even bristle at the idea of being 'ranked'. Regardless ... we are. Whether we like it or not.


One man's eight is another man's two. 

Here, "woman's" is interchangeable with "man's".


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Deejo said:


> @heartsbeating I watch a lot of Kevin Samuels for the dynamic. Although I'm not suggesting you do, but you'd need to watch more to get that sense. Overwhelmingly, his audience is women. And every single one of them that calls in, is very similar in dynamic and outcome to the one you watched. His stated focus, for those that choose to believe it or not, is to rebuild the African American community. He often alludes to the family issues faced in the African American community.
> 
> Without a doubt, most people watch him because it is dramatic, and tends to stir strong opinions and emotions. People watch for drama, not wisdom.
> 
> ...


I've been studying Kevin Samuels since he broke on the scene with the "Your Average" video.

I'm just as convinced as you that he is working at improving his community and the statistics he mentions are definitely crisis levels with 3 out of 4 women never marrying and dying alone.

I was initially put off by him until I saw what he was dealing with and realized he is just using the same "marketing" type of value scale that the people (mostly women at this point) are using themselves to rate potential mates

I don't agree with (or maybe just don't understand) some of what he is saying.

I'm not a high value man, at least as he categorizes men, but I can't imagine "exercising my options" even if I was one.

I'm partially convinced he's trying to shine a light on the not so good side of marrying a man like that as well as display just how unreasonable it is for most women to pin their hopes on getting one, but he's pretty hard core about taking care of children and families and I can't disagree with his motivations there.

I do see him as an advocate for stronger families and the average man who has definitely been maligned, especially within his community.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

ConanHub said:


> I've been studying Kevin Samuels since he broke on the scene with the "Your Average" video.
> 
> I'm just as convinced as you that he is working at improving his community and the statistics he mentions are definitely crisis levels with 3 out of 4 women never marrying and dying alone.
> 
> ...


The "You're average at best" video definitely made me wince. She had no idea what she was in for at that time, and in contrast to many of the callers now, that woman seemed pretty reasonable. But I have to say, the consistency of behavior, circumstances and entitlement, is pretty astounding. 
The way I see it, and I'm not surprised if no one else does, is that when he says 'high value men exercise options' he is absolutely setting the expectation that even if these women land that imaginary, dream, dude, he's going to cheat on them. So ... is that really the kind of guy you want?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Deejo said:


> The way I see it, and I'm not surprised if no one else does, is that when he says 'high value men exercise options' he is absolutely setting the expectation that even if these women land that imaginary, dream, dude, he's going to cheat on them. So ... is that really the kind of guy you want?


I'm leaning this way too.

He's extremely blunt and no nonsense.

He doesn't try to "pretty" up average men or high value. He just deals in reality.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Deejo said:


> The "You're average at best" video definitely made me wince. She had no idea what she was in for at that time, and in contrast to many of the callers now, that woman seemed pretty reasonable. But I have to say, the consistency of behavior, circumstances and entitlement, is pretty astounding.
> The way I see it, and I'm not surprised if no one else does, is that when he says 'high value men exercise options' he is absolutely setting the expectation that even if these women land that imaginary, dream, dude, he's going to cheat on them. So ... is that really the kind of guy you want?


I watched that video for the first time and WOW. That showed clearly how delusional some people are.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

SpinyNorman said:


> One man's eight is another man's two.
> 
> Here, "woman's" is interchangeable with "man's".


I don't disagree with you. I suppose the thing I've been wondering in our exchanges is whether or not you believe the entire premise is BS, or if it is the language it is couched in? I don't read you as saying that generalizations for attraction or partner choice don't exist or can't be made. Is that an accurate assessment or no?


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Deejo said:


> I don't disagree with you. I suppose the thing I've been wondering in our exchanges is whether or not you believe the entire premise is BS, or if it is the language it is couched in? I don't read you as saying that generalizations for attraction or partner choice don't exist or can't be made. Is that an accurate assessment or no?


Not sure if I understand the question. I suspect women are more likely to consider a man's means/accomplishments/status, and men are more likely to consider a woman's appearance. 

When I buy shoes, I don't buy the most popular size and try to fit into them, I buy ones that fit and don't worry about the choices other people made.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

@Deejo thanks for your reply post.

With the ‘ranking’ I guess where I personally hit a stumbling block with the concept is that it’s subjective. If going off just a photo, and also whereby some may present ‘better’ in person, is mostly that it’s subjective. That is, it’s in the eye of the beholder. So how could one rank themselves to know their own ‘standing’ when it’s actually down to another’s perception and preferences rather than a fixed ranked number. If going by a ranked number of physical appeal, someone’s 3 could be another’s 8 and vice verse. Interested in your take.


----------



## ccpowerslave (Nov 21, 2020)

@heartsbeating you can crowdsource your physical rating on Reddit.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

I like this study better (Left for men, right for women):


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Deejo said:


> The same in all the right ways @RandomDude.


Ah that's good to hear 
Hope I have matured a bit though lol


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

I hadn’t finished reading all updated posts before posting again.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

ccpowerslave said:


> @heartsbeating you can crowdsource your physical rating on Reddit.


What is the world coming to.
A statement, not a question.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> Remember back in the day when we would spend hours arguing about this stuff? 😆 Ah, that was cute.


There hasn't been an alpha male thread in a while. I remember those being quite the thing for a time. It's good to see you and @FrenchFry post when you do.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Walking the dogs with Batman. There was a younger couple walking together ahead of us. I was taking in the surroundings and yes, somewhat 'people watching' as they looked cute holding hands and enjoying the area. She was of a 'bigger' size; I didn't really get to see her face. He looked like (albeit younger) Bradley Cooper in 'A Star is Born'. As he'd been mentioned here, I thought of this thread. And so, unrelated to them, I asked Batman if he thought couples generally paired in similar physical appearance and mentioned a couple we know as an example that I thought were. Without skipping a beat he replied, 'No. You're way out of my league.' I laughed and replied, 'Okay, playa...' Although that's not where I was going with the question, it made me laugh (and don't believe it but take it for the fun intention) that he navigated straight to that and I didn't bother continuing with it.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

heartsbeating said:


> @Deejo thanks for your reply post.
> 
> With the ‘ranking’ I guess where I personally hit a stumbling block with the concept is that it’s subjective. If going off just a photo, and also whereby some may present ‘better’ in person, is mostly that it’s subjective. That is, it’s in the eye of the beholder. So how could one rank themselves to know their own ‘standing’ when it’s actually down to another’s perception and preferences rather than a fixed ranked number. If going by a ranked number of physical appeal, someone’s 3 could be another’s 8 and vice verse. Interested in your take.


You are exactly correct. Nobody decides their own sex rank.
And it is all subjective and contextual. George Clooney likely has a pretty good sex rank amongst women aged 45 to 65. Show his picture to a bunch of twentysomething's and they'll wonder whose grandfather is that?

Here is another easy one, that captures the idea of sex rank pretty well, Pete Davidson . By virtually any metric ... not a strikingly handsome guy, has had some mental health struggles. But ... he has something the ladies like, a lot. So, he has a demonstrably high sex rank. Celebrities are low hanging fruit examples that nobody can directly relate to, but they illustrate the point pretty well. Kim Kardashian? To me? Not interested. I don't find her remotely attractive. But ... from a sexual marketplace perspective? That woman will only ever be single for exactly the number of minutes she chooses.
Our personal scale of attraction really has no impact on sex rank. It is quite literally like the stock market. People decide a stock is hot, for whatever reason, and it is ... whether their are others that approve of, or agree with it or not. And in the same fashion, it can go down.

Anyone that has never struggled with attention from the opposite sex, probably has an average to high sex rank. It's like a bell curve. Not a lot of 1 to 3's and 8 to 10's, and a whole lot of 4 to 7's.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

heartsbeating said:


> There hasn't been an alpha male thread in a while. I remember those being quite the thing for a time. It's good to see you and @FrenchFry post when you do.


That's because we spread the word that real Alpha's don't post on online marriage forums.

Besides, there is new lingo now. Sigma males are the new alphas. You may be pleased or dismayed to know that Batman is often held up as an example of a sigma male.

_Edited to add_
For the record, I don't make this stuff up, nor necessarily adhere to all of it. I observe and report ...


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

So we now need to learn new terminology?

I've seen sigma tossed around the manosphere on YouTube and just bypassed it every time.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Anyways, back to the Kevin Samuels video I'm watching about Lizzo and Cam...😎


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

SpinyNorman said:


> Not sure if I understand the question. I suspect women are more likely to consider a man's means/accomplishments/status, and men are more likely to consider a woman's appearance.
> 
> When I buy shoes, I don't buy the most popular size and try to fit into them, I buy ones that fit and don't worry about the choices other people made.


I think that is a perfectly reasonable analogy. All I'm saying is that someone then qualified that most other purchasers of shoes made the same choice you did, whether you saw it as popular or not.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Deejo said:


> That's because we spread the word that real Alpha's don't post on online marriage forums.
> 
> Besides, there is new lingo now. Sigma males are the new alphas. You may be pleased or dismayed to know that Batman is often held up as an example of a sigma male.
> 
> ...


I'm with @ConanHub ...there's new terminology to learn?

Well, the term 'alpha male' did get briefly raised between _my Batman_ and I not too long ago. He was sharing about a work thing and flippantly used the term 'alpha male' to describe someone in the group. And that led to 'stylus-scratch on the record' noise for me. As I paused, looked to him and said, 'You do know you're an alpha, right?' He said he wasn't. We discussed our interpretation of the term. To him it denoted negative qualities and aggression and lacking care for others. Whereas I interpret it about not fearing confrontation, assertiveness, self-reliance type of stuff. Then I provided examples of how he's navigated certain work scenarios, and typically he leads the leaders and from a place of calm and integrity, and how that all points to the traits wrapped up in my perception of the term; including that he challenged and navigated the very guy that he had mentioned in the first place. Anyway.... perhaps a topic for another thread at some point if those ever come back into fashion.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

ConanHub said:


> So we now need to learn new terminology?
> 
> I've seen sigma tossed around the manosphere on YouTube and just bypassed it every time.


Nope. We really don't. I shake my head at lot of it. It's marketing primarily.
But for those able to separate the wheat from the chaff, there can be some valuable tools to learn.
The words 'Red Pill' used to send @Faithful Wife into a blind rage.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

heartsbeating said:


> I'm with @ConanHub ...there's new terminology to learn?
> 
> Well, the term 'alpha male' did get briefly raised between _my Batman_ and I not too long ago. He was sharing about a work thing and flippantly used the term 'alpha male' to describe someone in the group. And that led to 'stylus-scratch on the record' noise for me. As I paused, looked to him and said, 'You do know you're an alpha, right?' He said he wasn't. We discussed our interpretation of the term. To him it denoted negative qualities and aggression and lacking care for others. Whereas I interpret it about not fearing confrontation, assertiveness, self-reliance type of stuff. Then I provided examples of how he's navigated certain work scenarios, and typically he leads the leaders and from a place of calm and integrity, and how that all points to the traits wrapped up in my perception of the term; including that he challenged and navigated the very guy that he had mentioned in the first place. Anyway.... perhaps a topic for another thread at some point if those ever come back into fashion.


Always happy to discuss it. Seldom these days feel compelled to defend it. It simply 'is'. There are leaders and there are loudmouth's. Alpha can be both complimentary and derogatory. Pretty apparent which model you married.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

ConanHub said:


> So we now need to learn new terminology?
> 
> I've seen sigma tossed around the manosphere on YouTube and just bypassed it every time.


Lol I googled and it IS a thing lol


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

RandomDude said:


> Lol I googled and it IS a thing lol
> 
> View attachment 86016


Outside the pyramid looks pretty good actually.😎


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

ConanHub said:


> Outside the pyramid looks pretty good actually.😎












So I thought I was the introverted Omega all this time, but I was Sigma  

They just never understood such a specimen until now lol


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

RandomDude said:


> Lol I googled and it IS a thing lol
> 
> View attachment 86016


So sigma's are MGTOW?

Yeah...not even going to try to keep up. 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

gaius said:


> The study relies on first interactions during online dating, where only pictures and sometimes a small amount of information is offered. Of course women are going to gravitate toward money and men to looks when they have such little to go on, but that's only one of a few things that play into attraction. And not the most important.
> 
> If only I had a a nickel for every wealthy man and attractive women who have/had no clue about all the other stuff and can't keep the opposite sex interested, I'd have a lot of nickels.


I agree. I've always thought that the Achilles heel of OLD is the fact that it can come down to a shopping experience where people wonder if they can do better and can shop for exactly what they want. As a result people pass on others that might make them happy for the idea of a fantasy.

When you meet IRL you form a human connection and might really like someone you'd pass online because without said human connection you'd wonder if you could do better.

I know more and more people are meeting online and I'm happy for everyone who is successful. I do think we need to be careful with studies done on the online community because this human connection is lacking.

Then throw in the scams. I know a guy right now who is in his late 50's and looking for a comparably aged woman online. But he keeps getting spammed with bots using pictures of very attractive women and IMO it moves his expectations so he has trouble connecting with the real ones because they don’t quite measure up. He's at least smart enough to know they're fakes but the spamming combined with lack of human connection makes it an extra difficult environment on top of how hard it already is to meet someone.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

farsidejunky said:


> So sigma's are MGTOW?
> 
> Yeah...not even going to try to keep up.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


Ack MGTOW? If that's the case nah I reject the Sigma title too then lol 😆


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

farsidejunky said:


> So sigma's are MGTOW?
> 
> Yeah...not even going to try to keep up.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


Speculative on my part, but I suspect the descriptor originated from someone out of MGTOW, because that moniker tends to have a very negative connotation.

Kind of like how 'pickup' morphed into 'game' and 'redpill'


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

lifeistooshort said:


> I agree. I've always thought that the Achilles heel of OLD is the fact that it can come down to a shopping experience where people wonder if they can do better and can shop for exactly what they want. As a result people pass on others that might make them happy for the idea of a fantasy.
> 
> When you meet IRL you form a human connection and might really like someone you'd pass online because without said human connection you'd wonder if you could do better.
> 
> ...


I've actually thought many times about throwing up a guide for online dating in the 'After Divorce' forum, given the longevity of the 'Singles' thread.

Participating in OLD is absolutely like learning a new sport or skill. I get that people want it to be straightforward and easy, and for the young'uns, it is. For the college and urban hipster crowd, I'd argue OLD is the default method of meeting partners. But particularly for people just coming out of 20+ years of marriage, and finding themselves wanting to get back in the game, it is a strange land.

Frankly I'm shocked at the number of scammers that are even on the pay to play sites like Match.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

farsidejunky said:


> There are times where The Red Pill/Manosphere is pretty crazy...but there are times where they absolutely nail it. This article falls under the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is nothing surprising here. It's online dating... So of course it's going to reflect the shallowness of judging someone based on a picture and profile information. 

My experience has been that when people meet in real life, through real shared interests, acquaintances, work, etc, they are much less shallow. 

Think about it... When you have nothing else to go off of, what are people going to judge others on? Until people meet each other in real life, they don't even think of them as people. They are just a face and a bio.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Deejo said:


> @Personal ... you just proved the entire point.
> You ARE the 20% of guys all women want.
> You've only been dumped twice in your life. Got laid like tile in your 20's and in your marriage to your wife who makes more money than you.
> 
> ...


I would also like to point out that @Personal's experiences involve people that met him in real life. Im also in that 20% in that I have only ever been dumped once(in highschool), and that was because I didn't want to have sex with the girl that dumped me. It was kinda funny, because she spread rumors that I was gay until some of my other ex's got together and "shared notes"...

I have NEVER had to worry about finding partners. I have tried online dating a couple times, and found that people are incredibly shallow in a dating app that otherwise wouldn't be shallow in real life. I have had people ask me out after meeting me in person that had passed on my dating profile several times. 

I don't blame them for it, it's just how things go in dating apps. It ends up reducing a person to a shopping list. Kinda like browsing a book store for new books... We all judge the books by its cover, unless we have read reviews or otherwise know something more about it. 

For dating profiles, if you want female attention, just give the impression that you probably make more money than they do and that you will probably dump them for being boring. That alone will get you a surprising amount of attention. That alone isn't enough to keep a relationship going, but that's not what online dating profiles are for... They are just the cover of the book. 

If anyone doesn't think they judge books by it's cover, they are deluded. We ALL do it. 

When you meet someone in real life, you are already reading the book.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

As'laDain said:


> I would also like to point out that @Personal's experiences involve people that met him in real life. Im also in that 20% in that I have only ever been dumped once(in highschool), and that was because I didn't want to have sex with the girl that dumped me. It was kinda funny, because she spread rumors that I was gay until some of my other ex's got together and "shared notes"...
> 
> I have NEVER had to worry about finding partners. I have tried online dating a couple times, and found that people are incredibly shallow in a dating app that otherwise wouldn't be shallow in real life. I have had people ask me out after meeting me in person that had passed on my dating profile several times.
> 
> ...


I've talked about, and advised upon online dating with both men and women. I always try to condense the nonsense. People will go on and on, about profile content, photos, messaging, when do I give my phone number, running the gauntlet of text and phone call qualifiers. It's all busy work. The goal of online dating is pretty simple. Meet a person ... for real, on a date. And then decide if you want to have another date. All of the busy-work evaporates once it comes down to meeting that person. And that is when you get to determine if the product is up to the marketing.

Minds made up. I'm going to put up that OLD thread.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Meeting people offline is no longer the same when everyone's still wearing a mask 

There's also a very bad vibe of distancing/inapproachability brought about by the pandemic.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> Meeting people offline is no longer the same when everyone's still wearing a mask
> 
> There's also a very bad vibe of distancing/inapproachability brought about by the pandemic.


Do you ever stop? 😳😂


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

minimalME said:


> Do you ever stop? 😳😂


I'll stop when I'm no longer being tortured on a nearly daily basis at work! 😓


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

RandomDude said:


> Meeting people offline is no longer the same when everyone's still wearing a mask
> 
> There's also a very bad vibe of distancing/inapproachability brought about by the pandemic.


I actually haven't seen much of a difference in that regard, but I tend to meet people through shared interests, so the ice is already broken, so to speak. 

It's easy to get to know someone when you already have something to talk about.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

As'laDain said:


> I actually haven't seen much of a difference in that regard, but I tend to meet people through shared interests, so the ice is already broken, so to speak.
> 
> It's easy to get to know someone when you already have something to talk about.


Most of my hobbies involve just me, and even if I do meet people organically in the process I'm never attracted to them.

I met my last ex organically randomly while she was in the lobby on my way to a meeting. I'm very picky, so when the opportunities do present themselves I have no problems approaching them.

It doesn't work when they all wearing masks 😑
Yeah, I'm one of the 'shallow' ones...


----------



## so_sweet (10 mo ago)

Deejo said:


> What I have ALWAYS found fascinating is the preoccupation with women denying this. Or ... insisting that they are attractive because of their own independence and success. Neither qualities that are attractive to men.
> 
> 
> As my good friend Kevin Samuels says, "Men are success objects. Women are sex objects." Things get easier, not harder, when folks simply acknowledge that, rather than rail against it. I would be very curious to know if women who read those facts in the article nod and agree, or if those facts 'bother' them?
> ...


I'm late to the game in this thread (and I haven't read all of the comments), but why would anyone disagree that "Men are success objects. Women are sex objects" when it comes to initially attracting someone? 

If men disagree, then put "will explain later" in the box about career in your dating profile and let the ladies decide if you're cute enough to not even possibly have a job. 

If women disagree, then put a photo of your university degree instead of a photo of yourself in your dating profle. 

The things that make initial attraction are different than the things that make a good relationship. 

Obviously, things are different when we're talking long term relationships/marriage. For example, My husband was initially attracted to me based on looks alone because unfortunately my brain wasn't hanging out when he first saw me and no degree or diploma was taped to my forehead. But as time went on, he still thought I was attractive in the physical sense but also in every other way too.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

I can't figure out if Sigmas are just introverted Alphas, or people with Antisocial Personality Disorder.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> I can't figure out if Sigmas are just introverted Alphas, or people with Antisocial Personality Disorder.


Yes


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> I can't figure out if Sigmas are just introverted Alphas, or people with Antisocial Personality Disorder.


I read about, and observe a lot of this stuff. I don't think I'd argue that there are absolutely male traits and behavior modeling that fall outside of the overly simplified alpha/beta distinction. Honestly, it needs to be simple. Because, most people are neither smart nor terribly curious. Muddying the waters even more, NO man maintains absolute traits of those labels 100% of the time anyway. It's a spectrum. It shifts. Importantly? It's supposed to.

Easy example: Will Smith. Go back to young Will Smith, with his celebrity, charm, and forging his own stellar success. An A list and likeable movie star for years and years. Alpha.
Will Smith now, today. Post slapping Chris Rock. Not in control of his emotions. Seen as being 'emasculated' by his wife who flaunted the fact they had an 'open' marriage. A wife that seems to neither like, appreciate, nor respect him. His social stock and career are in freefall. All because he believed he was supposed to do something, because his spouse was made the butt of a mild joke. Beta.

Actor Tom Hardy: Just fine if you have heard of him or not. Notoriously difficult to work with. Could give a F if you like him or not. Nobody knows who's he dating, if he likes dating, if he's straight or gay. Almost never shows up on media radar, and could give F all about his status as a celebrity or what he is 'expected' to do as a celebrity. Distributors no longer even ask him to do press junkets, which are normal part and parcel of marketing a film.
He's not interested in telling anyone else what they should or shouldn't be doing, and does not respond well to being told what he should or shouldn't be doing. He knows what he's doing.

Should anyone have interest in getting a notion of the actor himself and how he operates, I suggest watching the movie "Bronson". Tom Hardy qualifies as Sigma.


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

Deejo said:


> Celebrities are low hanging fruit examples that nobody can directly relate to, but they illustrate the point pretty well. Kim Kardashian? To me? Not interested. I don't find her remotely attractive.


Maybe you don't feel as extreme as I do, but KK makes me want to vomit.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

drencrom said:


> Maybe you don't feel as extreme as I do, but KK makes me want to vomit.


I saw KK, and I immediately thought Krispy Kreme. 😂


----------



## drencrom (Jul 1, 2021)

minimalME said:


> I saw KK, and I immediately thought Krispy Kreme. 😂


I think Ding Dongs


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

Deejo said:


> I read about, and observe a lot of this stuff. I don't think I'd argue that there are absolutely male traits and behavior modeling that fall outside of the overly simplified alpha/beta distinction. Honestly, it needs to be simple. Because, most people are neither smart nor terribly curious.


I would argue if a subject is too hard for a given audience, the very, very very last thing you want to do is dumb it down until they feel they understand it.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

SpinyNorman said:


> I would argue if a subject is too hard for a given audience, the very, very very last thing you want to do is dumb it down until they feel they understand it.


I'm with you. This is exactly why we have TikTok.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

I'm late to this discussion but you'll get no argument from me. Maybe it's because I'm in an older demographic of single people but it doesn't change as we get older- men will always chase young women regardless of their financial stability and women will select for financial stability. 

There is one phenomena that I'm seeing more of within my specific demographic of women - successful, financially independent women over 40 with grown kids. I don't wish to trigger anyone but suffice it to say, it is not something most people here would appreciate.


----------



## leftfield (Mar 29, 2016)

Lila said:


> I'm late to this discussion but you'll get no argument from me. Maybe it's because I'm in an older demographic of single people but it doesn't change as we get older- men will always chase young women regardless of their financial stability and women will select for financial stability.
> 
> There is one phenomena that I'm seeing more of within my specific demographic of women - successful, financially independent women over 40 with grown kids. I don't wish to trigger anyone but suffice it to say, it is not something most people here would appreciate.


My guess is they are deciding to take care of each other.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lila said:


> I'm late to this discussion but you'll get no argument from me. Maybe it's because I'm in an older demographic of single people but it doesn't change as we get older- men will always chase young women regardless of their financial stability and women will select for financial stability.
> 
> There is one phenomena that I'm seeing more of within my specific demographic of women - successful, financially independent women over 40 with grown kids. I don't wish to trigger anyone but suffice it to say, it is not something most people here would appreciate.


OLD is one of those things where it seems like on the overall, you can find lots of data that supports "how things usually go" for this or that demographic. But when you talk to individuals, it almost seems like we all have such a uniquely individual experience, we can't even relate to each other. 

I've known so many extremely attractive and cool people who don't have any luck on OLD, and then I've known some people who have great luck on there and I'm like, huh? Them? Why not my cool attractive friends having luck?

I finally did realize though that no one else's experience was going to change my own, so to stop comparing or trying out things that "work" for other people because they won't necessarily work for me. There is something very individual about the whole thing, so much so that you need to have your own strategies.

I also stopped saying things like "oh that's not true, that has never happened to me, I have dated OLD for a long time so therefore I know something about it blah blah blah". Because I realize now that it just isn't the type of experience that anyone can speak on for anyone else.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

leftfield said:


> My guess is they are deciding to take care of each other.


You can say that. To hear them talk about it, if they have to settle for casual/non-committed relationships, they are going to pick the best option available to them; marital status is irrelevant. 

I'm not sure if it's me but I am sensing more loneliness and desperation amongst single people. I don't want to think of what comes next. 




Faithful Wife said:


> I also stopped saying things like "oh that's not true, that has never happened to me, I have dated OLD for a long time so therefore I know something about it blah blah blah". Because I realize now that it just isn't the type of experience that anyone can speak on for anyone else.


That's true. I should have started my post with "in my experience" because it truly is or that of my social circle.


----------



## 2&out (Apr 16, 2015)

There is one phenomena that I'm seeing more of within my specific demographic of women - successful, financially independent women over 40 with grown kids. I don't wish to trigger anyone but suffice it to say, it is not something most people here would appreciate.
[/QUOTE]

I'm going to take a stab at this Lila. There are women that are like undesirable men like me... who aren't really interested in your feelings, inner desires, to know your _soul_. They primarily only want to look good with the men they are with, be entertained having some fun and some decent primarily self satisfaction sex. Build a future with ?? Run/dump. 

Am I far off ?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> OLD is one of those things where it seems like on the overall, you can find lots of data that supports "how things usually go" for this or that demographic. But when you talk to individuals, it almost seems like we all have such a uniquely individual experience, we can't even relate to each other.
> 
> I've known so many extremely attractive and cool people who don't have any luck on OLD, and then I've known some people who have great luck on there and I'm like, huh? Them? Why not my cool attractive friends having luck?
> 
> ...


Yeah but ... 'how things usually go' is exactly the point of data collection. May not be any individuals specific experience, but it tends to sum up the overall experience of most. Which is what drives these studies in the first place. We're human. We have to tinker with, and analyze well, everything.

At first blush it may seem like peoples experiences are circumstantial, specific and unique, but ask questions with purpose, and those differences tend to evaporate.

I'm presuming you and I approach this whole thing from different perspectives. But your example doesn't surprise me at all. I don't find it at all unusual that attractive, cool, people aren't successful at online dating. It is increasingly diminishing returns. What are we constituting as 'having luck?'. If they are being noticed and contacted by lots of interested parties, I certainly wouldn't qualify that as, 'no luck'. Just means nobody interests them. If they are highly attractive, and they are doing the reaching out and not getting any response, I'd wager odds are good that whomever they are reaching out to presumes they are being catfished or scammed. I wrote about that in another post when I was 'liked' by a profile where the photos were of Paulina Porizkova. I paid it no mind. And in the end, it just might have been her after all. I'm only using that to illustrate my point above, I'm not highlighting that I missed my shot with a super model. Ok, maybe I'm highlighting that a little bit.

Lila responded in another dating thread about her very attractive friend who gets no end of attention and dates ... but she remains single. 
You can be cool and attractive, but when it comes down to it, if you aren't offering what 'most' people want, or you aren't getting what you want in terms of date prospects or outcomes is that a failure of the dating ecosystem you are operating in, or is it a failure on how you are operating in the dating system?

We absolutely agree that you need to have 'strategies' and there are lots and lots of strategies available to be scrutinized, and taken for a spin. I had that very experience when I started my adventures in dating back in 2011. Use what gets you the results you are looking for, toss out the rest. No?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

2&out said:


> I'm going to take a stab at this Lila. There are women that are like undesirable men like me... who aren't really interested in your feelings, inner desires, to know your _soul_. They primarily only want to look good with the men they are with, be entertained having some fun and some decent primarily self satisfaction sex. Build a future with ?? Run/dump.


I don't think that's it. It's a result of what the findings of the study indicated and the scarcity of similarly minded/capable men (comparatively) available to these women.


----------



## ccpowerslave (Nov 21, 2020)

minimalME said:


> I saw KK, and I immediately thought Krispy Kreme. 😂


I thought Kerry King (Slayer guitar player).


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Yeah but ... 'how things usually go' is exactly the point of data collection. May not be any individuals specific experience, but it tends to sum up the overall experience of most. Which is what drives these studies in the first place. We're human. We have to tinker with, and analyze well, everything.
> 
> At first blush it may seem like peoples experiences are circumstantial, specific and unique, but ask questions with purpose, and those differences tend to evaporate.


I guess what I was getting at is that if a person is going to OLD, and they read those stats and articles and advice, etc, and they find themselves not having the same experience as "most" people do, then they should maybe try some different approaches or tactics more based on what is actually working for them. Even if it goes against the advice that works for "most". Or maybe do something like try the opposite of what they have been trying to see if there is any difference.

I feel like I've had enough good and bad experiences OLD to know what is working for me, and it doesn't directly line up with most of the advice. It was more of a try, fail, try something else, a little better success, try something else, oops that was not it, try something else, ooohhh this time it is working for me! Now keep doing that.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I guess what I was getting at is that if a person is going to OLD, and they read those stats and articles and advice, etc, and they find themselves not having the same experience as "most" people do, then they should maybe try some different approaches or tactics more based on what is actually working for them. Even if it goes against the advice that works for "most". Or maybe do something like try the opposite of what they have been trying to see if there is any difference.
> 
> I feel like I've had enough good and bad experiences OLD to know what is working for me, and it doesn't directly line up with most of the advice. It was more of a try, fail, try something else, a little better success, try something else, oops that was not it, try something else, ooohhh this time it is working for me! Now keep doing that.


Question:. What do you mean by "try something else"? Can you give an example?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lila said:


> Question:. What do you mean by "try something else"? Can you give an example?


Sure....like if your bio is fairly wordy and detailed, try a more succinct one. Or if it's short, try a longer one.

Try new pics that are quite a bit different than the ones you have currently. Have a friend take some of you, or pay someone to take some good ones (obviously not head shots but good pictures).

If you have been chatting a lot leading up to a date and they ghost or somehow it turns out crappy, try limiting the chatting before a date. (For me there's a fine line between too much and not enough texting before a date). Or if dates go wrong with no lead up texts, try sticking to the text conversation for longer before agreeing to meet.

If you have had bad luck with people who you think are "your type", try picking someone who doesn't really seem like your type as much (just make sure you are still attracted to them).

Another thing that seems to create matches is to delete (or hide) your account for a week or two at a time (or longer) and then turn it back on. This makes you a "new user" as far as the app is concerned and they push "new" profiles out more than older ones.

Also I think we all should definitely have our friends check our pics and bio and give their feedback. Although sometimes it is really hard to be honest so who knows if they will tell us the truth or not, but ask them anyway.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

ccpowerslave said:


> I thought Kerry King (Slayer guitar player).


You have offended KK Downing! (Judas Priest guitar player)


----------



## BruceBanner (May 6, 2018)

farsidejunky said:


> There are times where The Red Pill/Manosphere is pretty crazy...but there are times where they absolutely nail it. This article falls under the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Was this not obvious? They should research something less obvious.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

BruceBanner said:


> Was this not obvious? They should research something less obvious.


That depends largely on the philosophy of the recipient of said information. 

In this instance, it wasn't intended to preach to the choir.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------

