# Does the 80-20 rule apply to men's dating success?



## ntamph (Apr 23, 2013)

There is a variation of the Pareto Principle that states that the top 80% of the most attractive women are sleeping with the top 20% of the most attractive men. Do you (I mean men only please) find this to be true from your observations of growing up and dating. Do a minority of men get most of the women?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

> Do a minority of men get most of the women?


Yes, but I think it is much more complicated. I think it's the women and men who are most desirable, which may well be that 80 - 20, who are/were dating the most. It likely has to do with self-esteem, financial security, future outlook, and social and religious ideologies.


----------



## SpinDaddy (Nov 12, 2012)

ntamph said:


> There is a variation of the Pareto Principle that states that the top 80% of the most attractive women are sleeping with the top 20% of the most attractive men. Do you (I mean men only please) find this to be true from your observations of growing up and dating. Do a minority of men get most of the women?


Regardless of how you define attractive yes. And keep in mind, “attractive” for a woman allows for a great deal of “self-improvement” for any given man who may perceive himself falling short in simple physical attributes.

But I think you need to refine your statement a bit to read “the top 80th percentile of attractive women would want to sleep with the top 20th percentile of attractive men”.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

No.

Not unless the 20% move every year. Social media and selfie narcissism have done wonders in documenting who does what to whom so... 

Pretty much unless the 20% move constantly or live in NYC or LA they will run out of 80% to hit on.


----------



## Ceegee (Sep 9, 2012)

Absolutely disagree.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

ntamph said:


> There is a variation of the Pareto Principle that states that the top 80% of the most attractive women are sleeping with the top 20% of the most attractive men. Do you (I mean men only please) find this to be true from your observations of growing up and dating. Do a minority of men get most of the women?


Are you talking about high school and maybe college years?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I think I have to agree with 2ntnuf. Sort of agree but it is more complex.

Growing up, I got more women than my entire group of friends and their extended network of friends combined.

There was a running joke with them about me sharing my women.

I never ran with the popular crowd so I don't know how the really popular guys or the jocks did.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

From what I have seen it has far less to do with looks than how much money or status a guy has. 

If you, as a guy, don't have money then you better either be funny or confident to get attractive women.


----------



## Moops (Sep 26, 2014)

I don't know about that. But I'd say more women prefer being alone than there are men who prefer being alone.

Lets say 90% of all men are intrested in women. I don't think 90% of all women are intrested in men, maybe more like 70%.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

ntamph said:


> There is a variation of the Pareto Principle that states that the top 80% of the most attractive women are sleeping with the top 20% of the most attractive men. Do you (I mean men only please) find this to be true from your observations of growing up and dating. Do a minority of men get most of the women?


ntamph...I know you said women can't answer but I'm going to anyway. You'll have to either just ignore me or be mad at me. 

But just by logic's sake...if the rule were true in the way you mean it, why wouldn't humans be evolved to be giant hulking He-Men by now? The "rule" states that 20% of men father 80% of babies...yet if women supposedly only chase after the top 20% of male specimens, why wouldn't there be 80% more babies who look like those 20% specimens?

If the 80/20 rule were true in the way they say it is, the selective breeding would have changed our bodies and we wouldn't have all this variety of body types and sizes. We'd all look like Hulk-sters and be at least 6 feet tall. Even the women of course, because 80% of them have Hulk-Daddies.

Where is the logic in this? The very nature of the "rule" means that it would make itself obvious in the generations full of the Hulk-Daddy's gene pool that results from it.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Love your avatar ntamph!:smthumbup:


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The rule was meant for dating - not fathering children.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

And, not all of them would have babies or get pregnant. And, the ones who don't get the top 20% would have to step down a notch and try the next highest 20% and on till all that want a man and can find one within their personal boundaries have done so.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

It may be true, but those top 20% men may have standards and not want a significant portion of the available 80%. That rejected group will settle for the better of the remaining men, and even some of those that get some of the 20% men will eventually run out of options and have to settle.


----------



## PreRaphaelite (Dec 15, 2012)

badsanta said:


> Hi Ntamph,
> 
> The 80-20 rule applies to everything in life, especially when it comes to women.
> 
> Take everything you know to be fact about women: 80% is false.


:rofl:


----------



## ankh (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: Re: Does the 80-20 rule apply to men's dating success?*



ntamph said:


> There is a variation of the Pareto Principle that states that the top 80% of the most attractive women are sleeping with the top 20% of the most attractive men. Do you (I mean men only please) find this to be true from your observations of growing up and dating. Do a minority of men get most of the women?


We need dating redistribution. This 80/20 thing just isn't fair . . . Call the waambulance!


----------



## PreRaphaelite (Dec 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> ntamph...I know you said women can't answer but I'm going to anyway. You'll have to either just ignore me or be mad at me.
> 
> But just by logic's sake...if the rule were true in the way you mean it, why wouldn't humans be evolved to be giant hulking He-Men by now? The "rule" states that 20% of men father 80% of babies...yet if women supposedly only chase after the top 20% of male specimens, why wouldn't there be 80% more babies who look like those 20% specimens?
> 
> ...


Thank you Faithful Wife. 

Do folks here realize that the Pareto Principle is an economic one, in which this guy, Vilfred Pareto, observed that 80% of the land wealth in Italy was concentrated in the hands of 20% of the population? Or to expand it a little, 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes; so like, 80% of your sales is going to come from 20% of your clients?

That's it. But nooooooo. . . folks wanted to take this and apply it to everything, including, yes, mate selection. So it goes like this: if every person in a group is better off under one policy (that of the 20%), then that's a preferable social policy. And then, if every woman sees a greater advantage in mating with the "top 20%" of the males (whatever that means), it's preferable for everybody. 

Both are dead Wrong...

It's like saying, we're all better off being ruled by the top 20% of the filthy rich bastards around here (which has shrunk to the top 1%, since they own close to 80% of the wealth). Well I can't stand some of these f--ckers, and I'm sure there's plenty of women out there who given a choice, have a very different ideas about the "top 20%" of males and could probably care less.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The 80-20 applies in areas more than economics... I have seen numbers is product support (20% of defects cause 80% of the calls), health care, accidents...

It is a factor of the distribution (probability), not really the meaning.


----------



## ntamph (Apr 23, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> Love your avatar ntamph!:smthumbup:


:scratchhead:


----------



## syhoybenden (Feb 21, 2013)

From what I've seen it's more like 90-10.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> ntamph...I know you said women can't answer but I'm going to anyway. You'll have to either just ignore me or be mad at me.
> 
> But just by logic's sake...if the rule were true in the way you mean it, why wouldn't humans be evolved to be giant hulking He-Men by now? The "rule" states that 20% of men father 80% of babies...yet if women supposedly only chase after the top 20% of male specimens, why wouldn't there be 80% more babies who look like those 20% specimens?
> 
> ...


Men are bigger than women.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Sexual behavior is complex. There is a lot of social pressure to discourage promiscuity. In high school everyone knows who is sleeping with whom... except, I would bet that high school girls sneak in ONS with guys who have girlfriends. These guys cannot kiss and tell without a break up drama, so these teenage women can have sex with the select males. They are less likely to take the virginity of a nerdy guy with lower social status.

Once men and women leave home there aren't so many eyes on them.

I have a friend whose son was attractive to girls. Once he went to university he slept with many women. He did not have to have a girlfriend to get laid. My friend was worried that he was going to lose the ability to connect emotionally with women since he knew how to seduce and move on.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

The main reason that men experience a shortage of women is that 80% of them are chasing after the top 20% of women.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

ntamph said:


> :scratchhead:


It disappeared! It was George off of Seinfeld.

You didn't do that?


----------



## ntamph (Apr 23, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> It disappeared! It was George off of Seinfeld.
> 
> You didn't do that?


I've never had an avatar.


----------



## Moops (Sep 26, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> It disappeared! It was George off of Seinfeld.
> 
> You didn't do that?


Hi..........


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Moops said:


> Hi..........


LOL! Another reason not to get drunk! Sorry guys, had a bad night and drank too much!&#55357;&#56844;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

Wolf1974 said:


> From what I have seen it has far less to do with looks than how much money or status a guy has.
> 
> If you, as a guy, don't have money then you better either be funny or confident to get attractive women.


.....to sleep with you.

Most women will never go past that if you have no career or money.



Well.....the ones you would want anyways.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Good to hear that... I have an awesome career and I'm professional comedian grade funny... And supreme - and justified - self confidence. What could possibly go wrong?

In reality people with money and the like tend to have high standards as well so the 80% becomes 0.8% pretty quickly.


----------



## toonaive (Dec 13, 2012)

There is a rule? Where have I been? Wish I had known this a long time ago.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

DoF said:


> .....to sleep with you.
> 
> Most women will never go past that if you have no career or money.
> 
> ...


Well I don't have money or a fancy career and I have never had trouble geting relationships. I also don't date unattractive women :smthumbup: I think I'm funny  others think I'm confident. In any case it works for me


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

Wolf1974 said:


> Well I don't have money or a fancy career and I have never had trouble geting relationships. I also don't date unattractive women :smthumbup: I think I'm funny  others think I'm confident. In any case it works for me


There are plenty of down to earth/great women out there.

What I said doesn't apply to all.


----------

