There is the phenomenon of the 30k-millionaire, i.e. the guy who barely gets by but who pretends to be a big spender. If you have ever been to an expensive club and seen four or five guys sharing a table with exactly one bottle, that is the kind of guy I am talking about. They want to partake in a lifestyle they cannot afford, and they do not want to admit to themselves that they do not fit into the crowd they would like to be part of. A baller would order a few bottles for $500 each all by himself. The 30k-millionaire needs a few of his friends to chip in just so that they can afford one bottle for the whole night.
Let’s assume a woman is so unobservant that she cannot distinguish between a pretender and a wealthy guy. She walks past the dentist who does not wear flashy clothes, and straight into the arms of some guido who spends more than he makes, and then some. That guy is now happy because his supposed money got him the girl. But what is he supposed to do afterwards? There is a limit to the amount of money he can borrow from the bank, so the charade will fall apart sooner rather than later.
While it is easy to mock people who fit that stereotype, it is not at all uncommon that people spend way above their means. In the country I live in, for instance, the vast number of people live paycheck to paycheck. In your country, it’s probably the same, and if you doubt it, then maybe look up statistics that show the median amount of money people in your country have saved. It will be a surprisingly low number.
Yet, despite the obvious futility of that kind of lifestyle, living above one’s means seems to have an almost irresistible appeal. A particularly egregious example I recently learned about is about a young guy still in his teens. He has a net worth of a few hundred bucks at most, but he was so overjoyed when he got a date that he spent 200 bucks on it. In the end, he got nothing in return. However, even if that woman would have wanted to see him again, he would very quickly have run out of money. Basic arithmetic is a powerful tool. Yet, certainly some people on the left are quick to decry it as a “tool of oppression” if not an “enabler or racism”. However, how hard can it be for those people to realize the folly of their actions?
Did you like this article? Excellent! If you want to support what I am doing, then please consider buying my excellent books, the latest of which are Sleazy Stories II and Meditation Without Bullshit or donating to the upkeep of this site. If you want tailored advice, I am available for one-on-one consultation sessions.
What’s people’s take on the so-named “FIRE” community, i.e. Financial Independence Retire Early? Typically, the community espouses saving lots, investing in the stock market (e.g. index funds)…then live off of your nest egg, drawing down 4% per year. So if you have $1M, that means you draw down “safely” $40K a year, assuming your capital grows by at least 4% yearly with compound interest.
Is it a pipe dream? That said, if you can find a lady who is frugal, financially aware (or intelligent) and fuck-able…well, that’d be the type of lady to get!
It’s a pipe dream, because your draw money is consistent, but the returns of the stock market aren’t.
There are literally millions of variations to “stable passive income”, and I don’t wanna discuss them all because some half beaked weirdo always chimes in with “duh Real Estate” or “duhhh Hedge Funds” or “duhh [insert XYZ investment vehicle]”.
Bottom line is: You need lots of money to make lots of money.
What theses FIRE guys (1st time I hear about it) want is to play big playa game with small money.
If your 6 % p.a. AVERAGE stock market returns equal 10 mio per year and you have a dry spell for 3 years, but only spend 1 mio per year, then you can do it. Them fuckers would be broke, or would have significantly reduced their working capital if they hit such a dry spell. TIME is the variable they all gamble against, and they never win.
Steady 5-6% returns, that used to exist many moons ago in government bonds. And even then there’s inflation… bla bla bla.. the whole lot.
Again: It takes money to make money.
Alternatively it takes tremendous risk with a good enough payoff and the stock market with its index funds hardly provides enough upside to compensate for the possible drawdowns à la 40-50% like in 2008.
May I add that financial crises are cyclical and we seem to be overdue for the next one. Some respectable economists and hedge fund managers are forecasting a big crisis within the next 2 years, if not sooner.
Not only is it a pipe dream, it is a fucking joke. There are some people who have done it though. For example, a guy named Mr. Money Mustache has done it. But all you have to do is to look further to know the joke of all of them who have done it.
Stock market returns are just as a joke as well. Even that joke is not true if you don’t reinvest dividends. Heck, even Donald Trump would’ve been a bigger billionaire if he only invested the money he got from his father in the stock market index funds according to some asshole FIRE enthusiasts. Well, yeah that is true only if he reinvested dividends.
Get this, you can’t eat reinvested dividends. Let alone buy a Jet air plane and yacht like the Donald.
Unless you strike it rich somehow. Trying to live above your means is stupid.
you could also buy bitcoin and hope John McAfee is right with his 100k prediction.
\sarc
Jokes aside, there are some solid digital asset investment cases out there. I’d say two or three. The other 2’500 are shit. If you can live with the volatility and the uncertainty of this potentially being one big ponzi scheme, then you can give it a try. The return potentials are “yuuuge”.
That’s basically what i do. I just don’t get involved with some group of strangers doing my investments. I manage them myself with a trustworthy person who’s close to me. And who really knows the market. I don’t make 4%. I make between 10 and 30 percent a year on average. But i also had some very good years where i made 70%. I had to take risks to get the 70%. And it worked out fine. But i wouldn’t advice doing that. I’m trying to pull out the stockmarket. But i’m making more than i can pull out nicely and without alarmbells. Otherwise they’ll tax me right into a heart attack. So this situation wasn’t planned. It just turned out this way. It’s basically grey money. I don’t do anything illegal. But i can’t pull it out without giving the government it’s share. I’m not taxed for it now. But i will be the moment i pull out. Thats the part they don’t tell people. If you park your money that way. You can’t just pull it out. That would cost me a fortune. So i take it out slowly.
Note: I didn’t start with zero. And i have one of the best professionals helping me. You would never get someone that good in some low profile investment club. And my guy does it for free for me. He doesn’t take a cent. Normally this guy would do investments for Billionaires. He helps me because of family relations. Normally he wouldn’t bother with a low level player like me. Thats the only reason this works for me.
So it’s possible. But unlikely some low level investment club can pull it off. It’s more likely these people are scamed out of their money. Or that they’ll screw up and lose it.
As the saying go’s.
It’s a big club. And you ain’t in it!
yeah but ben, this is only applicable to countries that have capital gains tax.
And there are waysaround it even if you life in such a place. Holdings that you don’t own but control and that kinda jazz.
Looks don’t matter to women, even Tyler from RSD said that in his seminar. Tyler is ugly, he looks like santa claus and he bang hot chicks. You can be bald with big belly and still fuck 9 and 10. Tyler is a proof. Game is everything. Confident matters. How do you will explain about Tyler from RSD? He is ugly as fuck! He can fuck chicks without difficulty. I hope Aaron reply.
You’d have to prove that Tyler gets hot women first. Also, for someone who claims that looks don’t matter, he goes to great lengths to fit into the LA hipster stereotype.
Unoriginal, shallow, no critical thinking repeats questionable or debunked assertions… I smell an NPC. 🙂
If looks don’t matter why did he start working out?
If Tyler was fucking so many chicks, how does he still have time for RSD business and a family with two kids?
Yawn… what’s next, “Mystery Method actually works, you’re just not talking to the HB10 from the right angle and not using the right opener”?
Oh boy, good old times hahahahaaa
I see a lot of ugly guys with hot chicks and are you saying looks matter?
Even PUA BadBoy Lifestyle (Dan) From Croatia can get hot girls and he is ugly as fuck.
Even Tom Torero can bang hot chicks.
https://goo.gl/images/m9SWj9
https://goo.gl/images/JpdejE
https://www.badboylifestyle.com/dan-the-life-coach/
Tom Torero was caught using actresses for his videos, while Bad Boy was caught in-person negotiating prices with hookers. Also, I’m amused by guys like you who see a marketing shot of some dude with a chick and assume he’s banging them. Idiots like you see an RSD clown pose with a bunch of club girls who pay zero attention to him and you assume he’s having a five-some or something along those lines, when they end up going home empty-handed. With your defence of PUAs you are years too late, by the way. That boat has sailed. The industry is done.
i think he trolls u guys.
So what about Robert Greene Book, The Art of Seduction? is a scam too? Will not work for today world, for seduce girls?
But badboy have good game, he is direct.
Do you have proof, badboy negotiating with hookers? My friend payed 13,000€ for 3 days in Zagreb and he get laid, badboy was coach, my friend got results.
Imagine how much experience that guy could have gotten elsewhere for that kind of money. Well, a fool and his money…
Even in Robert Greene Book (The Art of Seduction) says looks don’t matter. Robert Greene is author of books 48 Laws of Power, 33 Strategies of War, Mastery, 50th law and Laws of Human Nature.
Feel free to believe that.
Aaron, and what about Elliot Rodger? He kill people because of girls. He had looks…money and no girl was attracted to him
basic logic ain’t your strength, son.
I concur Tayob is a troll
but for the beenfit of anyone else reading, Eliot Rodger had some clear mental health issues.
I read somewhere he was offered advice regarding women by experienced guys and he rejected it.
While Tayob is indeed a troll, looks don’t matter unless you’re going after 13yo girls, in which case I have a good friend from FBI who’d like to interview you.
The real world would disagree with you on that matter. However, you are welcome to provide conclusive proof that looks are irrelevant in the dating market. We’ll be waiting.
My own case is certainly anecdotal but as a 4-5/10 I never had trouble getting laid, which shouldn’t be possible according to the Pareto principle.
I have allopecia and don’t work out (heart condition), I’m below 6′ and the only thing I have going for me physically are rather symmetrical facial features.
So yeah, I have zero matches on Tinder or on any online dating sites.
But in the real world, provided I can talk to a girl and not simply stand in a corner waiting for one of them to show interest, I manage to secure a consistent poon supply.
I’ll concede that I haven’t banged any 10s and had very few 9s, but anywhere from 5 to 8 is doable (pun intended).
Of course that’s just me, but I see a similar trend among my friends which are on the same scale in terms of physical appearance as I’m not stupid enough to hang out with male models or otherwise pretty boys, shooting myself in the foot in the process.
And when I randomly talk to people at work or during social events after business meetings, everybody seems to share a similar experience.
The very reason why the idea of incel is so repulsive for the average person is that the notion of men struggling with getting laid is absolutely foreign to the experience of the vast majority of people, which also explains why PUAs ultimately fizzled out as they were targeting a ridiculously small niche market.
As to my previous comment, I didn’t get laid before college since girls in high school do indeed value looks above all. This is the only context in my experience where looks came first.
“the notion of men struggling with getting laid is absolutely foreign to the experience of the vast majority of people”
Whaaaat?
Brahhahhhhahaa you gotta be kidding bro…. I just laughed my ass off.
So wait a second, who’s “vast majority of people”? Is this a sample of women only? Oh hell yeah they’ll say “Huh? guys don’t get laid? wtf, it’s so easy”
Like, you know that today, we have much less male ancestors than we have female ones? How does that go for “naw man… men don’t struggle getting laid”.
Yo, I’m wondering what you have been smoking.
Oh btw, in your defense, you said you had a symetrical face and actualIy I believe you might be underestimating how good looking you really are.
Nope, I didn’t mean females. I personally know zero guys who never got laid. I’m 35 so I can’t speak for guys in their early twenties and younger today as we rarely belong to the same social circles.
I had lots of virgin guy friends in high school, some in college and none after about 25.
Getting laid isn’t the same as siring kids, especially with the current zeitgeist. I’m not saying that all men got laid throughout all of history but when you see that the average (even though the median would be more interesting here) age for first lay is 14-15 yo if not lower, this seems to be the easiest time to get laid yet.
Also, now that I think about it, our ancestors used to die more often and younger, deaths in childbirth also being much more prevalent before modern medicine. Therefore the correlation between getting laid and having kids isn’t immediate.
I’m also not saying that incels don’t exist but I believe the reason PUAs never made it mainstream is not as much censorship by the feminists as it is the lack of demand for the purported skills they were teaching.
PS. I don’t smoke for the same reason I don’t work out, fuck this life
man… you’re a tough case, ain’t ya?
So from “the notion of men struggling with getting laid” we went to “I personally know zero guys who never got laid”. Is that your style of argumentation? Dude, I was challenging the “struggling” notion which implies that getting laid was easy. WHICH IS NOT THE CASE. How the fuck can then “I don’t know virgins” be a counter argument, are you fucking kidding me?
By the way, of course you’ll have a hard time to find a 35 y old virgin, i.e. finding someone who hasn’t gotten lucky even once. “Getting laid” implies that it is a repeatable process, which is not the case for the majority of guys AT ALL.
On a side note, the chances that you’ll find a guy with a laycount above 7 are similarly slim, given the global average of female sex partners men have is 2-3.
“I’m not saying that all men got laid throughout all of history but when you see that the average (even though the median would be more interesting here) age for first lay is 14-15 yo if not lower, this seems to be the easiest time to get laid yet.”
Check your figures, global average is more like 16-17 and it’s going up.
“Also, now that I think about it, our ancestors used to die more often and younger, deaths in childbirth also being much more prevalent before modern medicine. Therefore the correlation between getting laid and having kids isn’t immediate.”
You are suffering from reading comprehension it seems. I said “today, we have much less male ancestors than we have female ones” That means that your genetic variety in terms of what your DNA carries is much smaller on the male side than on the female side. Which again means (you still follow me?) that more women fuck the same guys.
WHAT THE FUCK HAS DEATHS IN CHILDBIRTH TO DO WITH THAT? You could crank up the deaths in childbirth figure by a solid 50%, and those which survived ARE STILL “PRODUCED” BY LESS MEN! Because… the fucking has already happened, got it?
Duh…. geez man, what the fuck? Can’t you see that this is proof that few men got to and still get to fuck all the fuckable women? Women rate 80% of men to look “below average”, so, who gets laid? The other 20%, right????
“I’m also not saying that incels don’t exist but I believe the reason PUAs never made it mainstream is not as much censorship by the feminists as it is the lack of demand for the purported skills they were teaching.”
No, PUA never made it mainstream, because IT DOESN’T WORK. Any product that goes mainstream has some benefit, be it utility or perceived value in terms of style or whatever. And since PUA has not utility (it doesn’t work) and since society doesn’t think it’s “cool” to be a PUA, like it thinks it’s cool to have a certain brand of clothes, it didn’t go mainstream.
Besides, PUA targets a niche of guys who are looking for a strong father figure and found that (or believe to have found that) in their PUA masters they worship. Given the skyrocketing divorce rates, there’s plenty of demand for that.
– It was for 99.9999% of human history. Contraception is a rather modern invention.
– It’s an evolutionary fact that most males in most species do not reproduce… and no… this isn’t despite “getting laid a ton, it just didn’t result in pregnancies” lol… it’s because they didn’t stick their organ into a female of their species
@Neutral
I am ashamed to admit, but I have 15 years of experience arguing these kindsa trolls online… In my defense it’s my only vice. I literally have had no other form of procrastination.
What I would suggest is that you consider that adamastor is actually a woman. You’re going by the wrong premise by even treating her as a “clueless man”.
These trolls always are a woman… I know from the content of the comments (even if I never looked at their username)… but they also always have a malename as a username.
It’s some sort of a first instinct they all get “how do I pass off as a guy… i got an idea, i’ll call myself Adam”.
By the way, the fact that most men didn’t reproduce and only the best ones did served to maintain the health of the population. Then after the advent of monogamy, the health of the population will presumably be going down. That being so, in the really long term, having stable nuclear family units is not viable.
We’d have to be cycling between short periods of monogamy (and consequently civilization+advancements) and really long periods of polygyny (and consequently anarchy+regression) with most men not passing on their genes.
That’s why I was wondering why Aaron didn’t just take one for the team and impregnate a shitton of hoes to raise the health of the population lmao.
Thoughts?
@Neutral,
I don’t know where you got your 2-3 (do you really mean in an entire lifetime?) female sex partners stat from.
Since we’re not insects, regardless of how many men fucked a woman, the child will only carry genes from one man.
Death has everything to do with genetic variety. It’s as if you argued that people who massively died from smallpox in the Middle Ages in Europe never reproduced because their genes are absent from the current genetic pool.
Yes, women rate 80% of men as below average ONLINE. Just as “Alek” pretends to be a guy ONLINE and projects it on others. In the real world, women don’t have a consistent access to the top 20% and they actually date within or below their SMV.
Take Eastern Europe, most of the time simply having steady employment is sufficient to get laid, the bar is that low.
PUA works in the same way as advertising works. It’s simple selling and marketing techniques adapted to the sexual market. So yeah, most people won’t buy a product because they see an advert, the key of PUA is to target only women who already actively want to get laid, such as drunk thots in bars.
I agree with you on the lack of a strong male role model being a prerequisite to follow PUA teachings, along with a lot of free time.
@Alek,
Aren’t you a cute little thing?
Please tell us how you came up with the idea of posing as a guy on the Internet, it sounds so exciting.
Also how do you manage to squeeze it in between all the pussyhat marches you attend and how do your cats cope with such neglect?
“Take Eastern Europe, most of the time simply having steady employment is sufficient to get laid, the bar is that low.”
Yeah, tell Alek and me how Eastern Europe works. You picked the right guys on this blog lol.
You’re full of shit. Thanks for the entertainment.
Sure dude, I was born and lived most of my life in Eastern Europe but your experience as a sex tourist is somehow more significant than mine.
Nice try. Reading between the lines ain’t your strenght either. Alek is from down there and so am I.
The reason we know you’re a woman is because you have female definitions of “getting laid”. No man actually defines “getting laid” this way.
– When an average guy spends most of his youth seeing chicks banging the chads, and then at 23 (if he’s lucky) some average chick decides to take a break from chad cock and use him in a beta-provider fashion – THATS NOT “GETTING LAID”.
– To get laid means to have sex on a regular basis without paying for it.
The average guy “gets the privilege” of being some average chick’s provider in exchange for her having passionless sex with him once a month, or however often she rations it. That’s not a guy who’s “getting laid’.
This discussion with female trolls always ends up in the same manner… Defining “struggle to get laid”… with said female claiming that men don’t actually want to get laid.
—> Of if the average guy can easily get laid (doesn’t struggle)… why does the modal average guy only have 2-3 sexual partners IN HIS LIFE (that’s PER LIFETIME, NOT PER YEAR).
– But he has 10-20 years of leaving the house and being in places where women are around… That’s 3-4000 situations he finds himself in with women. And only ends up getting with a woman 2-3 times…
Only two possible explanations.
1) Man can get laid, but for some reason they don’t want to… I mean they can as “as these female trolls claim” just pick up a chick and take her home… but for some reason 3998 times they said “nah, I don’t feel like having sex today”, yet somehow mysteriously they all then went home and watched porn. Even though they could have easily gotten the real deal instead…
2) Men are struggling to get laid
The reason they only get sex from 2 out of 4000 opportunities? It’s not fucking easy you fucktard.
Nice strawman (or rather strawwoman in your case) definition of “getting laid” =”23 yo provider’s sloppy seconds”.
Either you’re not a man and have no idea how easy it is to fuck a girl in the modern hook-up culture or you have a major mental problem blocking you.
The other possibility being that you’re not nearly as average as you think.
2-3 average sexual partners in HS and/or college maybe. 2-3 average female sexual partners in a lifetime only makes sense if you spend 50 years in prison for some mass murder crap.
Also you are either a sex addict or a virgin who idealizes sex if you think that a man whose life doesn’t revolve around porn in his mom’s basement will want to fuck on each and every single day within a 20 year timeframe.
Sex is good but it is by no means the most interesting or rewarding thing a man can do in his life.
Those are the stats bitch. Look it up. Find me a radically different stat*. Go ahead.
That’s how I know you’re a woman. You focus on the top 10% of men and define everyone else as subpar. Otherwise known as the Apex fallacy. It’s something that inflicts vagina owners.
*Note I was very specific to say modal average. This is because studies find an arithmetic* average of 7. This means thay if Joe has 14 lays and Bob has 1, the average between them is 7. The researchers all say that they believe this is inflated as well, due to make bragging. So it’s a number based on embellishments, includes outliers. Without the outliers and embellishments it’s like 2-3.
There goes your vagina speaking Apex phallacy again. Those are the Chad’s giving your vagina tingles… not the average guy. Half of people go through college as Virgins….
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a47924/college-virgin-poll/
49% of guys report being sexless in college… Not the occasional weirdo you Apex phallacy drunk bitch… FORTY NINE PERCENT.
As much as a third of guys finish college as VIRGINS. Do you understand this you reality challenged cunt?
A full 60% now finish high school never having had sex.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-recession/573949/
So the freshmen of today? Some 60% of them are Virgins. Only half lose their virginity in college… The rest finish college having never experienced sex in college either.
AND NOTE
This is in the country thats among those having the most sexual partners (USA, Nordic countries etc). In other countries they have 2-3x less.
So your claims are absurd even for a hypersexual society. To then claim it for less sexual countries puts you in a crazier category than flat earther you reality challenged cunt.
“This is because studies find an arithmetic* average of 7. This means thay if Joe has 14 lays and Bob has 1, the average between them is 7.”
Alright, you are clearly mentally challenged. The above average is 7.5. If you can’t even do basic artithmetics, you don’t have any business discussing statistics.
“The study includes responses by over 15,000 men and women between the ages of 16-74. Men claimed a lifetime average of 14.14 partners, while women say they’ve slept with 7.12 men.”
That’s the first link in Google, you lazy lying cunt.
https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/men-claim-they-have-more-sex-partners-than-women-but-is-it-true
So even if you suppose that men lied, 7 is already more than twice as large an average as the figures you’re pulling out of your ass.
“The first result”? You mean kind of like when you feminists say “the dictionary”? But there are actually dozens of dictionaries. “The first result” depends on what you were searching for…
My “the first result” happens to be this one:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/study-sexual-partners
It says as such:
Let’s be hyper-charitable to you… let’s use the highest number you could find…. 14… which again… is an arithmetic average.
It takes chad thundercock and virgin mcvirginson and averages them together… it doesn’t mean if you point to Joe Average on the street he will have 14 lays in his lifetime… But let’s assume he will, just to be charitable to you 🙂
For you to assume that the average guy is near the arithmetic average… you have to assume there aren’t enough guys that pull the average up by much.
Let’s assume that if the arithmetic average for men is 14
– it means average guys get 14 chicks in a lifetime
– it means male models get 14 chicks in a life time (or only slightly more)
– it means players get 14 chicks in a lifetime (or only slightly more)
– it means nerds get 14 chicks in a lifetime (or only slightly less)
– it means unsocial introverts get 14 chicks in a lifetime (or only slightly less)
– it means gregarious charismatic people get 14 chicks in a lifetime (or only slightly more)
So we’re assuming all this absolute batshit insanity just to be charitable to you 🙂 We’re assuming that the modal average would be very similar to the arithmetic one… and we’re assuming the average guy should be near the arithmetic one… We’ll even go for that super unrealistic number that magically popped up as “first result” but I’ve never seen before….
And we will be charitable to your desires and assume there is NOT a minority of hyper-succesful men who lay more than the majority of men… Let’s assume concepts like the 80-20% is complete bullshit, and most men are similar (near the arithmetic).
LET’S ASSUME THIS IS THE ONE AREA IN LIFE where there aren’t distribution curves and most people are near an arithmetic average….
So with all this charity and bias in your favor it turns out that
—-> Men meet tens of thousands of attractive women in their lifetime
—-> And they can easily get laid
—-> But only choose to do it with 14 of these women
(which amounts to let’s say one new chick every year-and-a-half)
This is how we know you’re a chick. Only women argue for this bullshit. That average men “can” and “could” lay hundreds of women, but supposedly “choose” to only bang one girl every year-and-a-half… But they could totally bang chicks easily, like a different chick each week, they just choose not to.
By some weird coincidence, when a guy becomes a rockstar and can lay more girls (magically) he does want to and does bang hundreds of chicks… But by some weird coincidence the average guy “chooses” to only bang a different chick once every year-and-a-half. But it’s effortless, and everyone can do it.
Oh and all that data on virginity that you conveniently ignored?
Again, you’re purposefully ignoring distribution (that some guys get laid, and some struggle) and caught on the bait to argue about the average number (which averages everything from virgins and rockstars into one number).
– Fact, 49% of guys don’t get laid in college
– Fact, 60% finish high-school as virgins
– A good third end college as virgins
So… you would have us believe that in these super-horniest years, guys totally can get laid if they wanted to… they just choose not to 🙂 Hmmm, I smell a change of argument coming.
Let me guess… you’re gonna change the tune and say “ok ok, they struggle but only until they finish college”. What’s it gonna be champ?
“The first result depends on what you were searching for… ”
My bad, I thought we were talking about the average number of sexual partners for men…
But you pussyhatters love moving goal posts as you go along.
You are confused regarding what the average represents.
You assume a uniform (or quasi-uniform) distribution which makes little sense.
If you take a gaussian-like distribution, the average Joe will have 14 partners, the ultimate Chad Thudercock (or whatever makes your flaps wer) will have 28 partners and Virgin McVirginson will stay true to his name.
Of course it would still be an imperfect model because many men have much more than 28 partners, but you get the notion, or do you?
It depends on the specific phrasing you use 🙂 Change one word and results are different, but you wouldn’t know anything about how search engines work miss piggy would you 🙂
With that out of the way… I DID copy-paste your exact phrase into google and got this as the first result 🙂
Screenshot included here 🙂
https://prnt.sc/loa804
The first result for me is
=== Can we move on and pretend that your claims make sense 🙂 I gave you all that 🙂 I’m charitable like that
– Let’s assume the arithmetic average is in fact 14 and ignore the ones that say 7
– Let’s assume joe average is very near or exactly at the arithmetic average 🙂
I’ll even link you to the next step in the debate
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2018/11/04/the-futility-of-wanting-to-impress-women-with-money/#comment-57024
Go piggy go 🙂
It depends on the specific phrasing you use 🙂 Change one word and results are different, but you wouldn’t know anything about how search engines work miss piggy would you 🙂
With that out of the way… I DID copy-paste your exact phrase into google and got this as the first result 🙂
No need to convince us 🙂 I already gave you all that coz I’m charitable as heck…
– Let’s assume the arithmetic average is actually 14 🙂 and ignore all those that say 7
– Let’s assume Joe Average is very near his arithmetic average… i.e. Joe Average has banged 14 chicks lol…
(I already charitably gave you all of these as a gift, as prepostrous as they are) 🙂
Would you so kindly move on to the next step in the debate, that would be here:
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2018/11/04/the-futility-of-wanting-to-impress-women-with-money/#comment-57024
Go Miss Piggy, Go 🙂
Btw yes, the Pareto distribution is complete bullshit. It was never intended to describe sexual interactions.
Unlike funds, there is no free movement of people around the globe and it is impossible for women to have consistently access to the 20% of men.
Also what is the argument for a man in the 20% to go bang a 2 or a 4 or even a 6 when he has access to the 7-10 range?
It works locally dumbass lol. I’ve never seen anyone claim it’s global 20%. It means that the top 20% of a high-school generation do 80% of the chicks. It means top 20% of guys in a given niche/context get 80% of the chicks…
But let’s assume it’s all wrong 🙂
Let’s be hyper-charitable to your world-view… There’s no 20% banging banging 80% of chicks 🙂
Hint for retards: The concept is symbollic in nature… It means a minority in something is producing the majority of results. It’s true in anything from people who win prizes in a hobby, to making money, to achieving sales for a company, to winning cooking competitions, to how many friends you have or how many job offers you get… It applies and was found in every area of life (but wasn’t meant to apply to sex) 🙂
However, let’s assume it doesn’t apply to sex, and continue 🙂
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2018/11/04/the-futility-of-wanting-to-impress-women-with-money/#comment-57024
You conveniently left out all those virgins in the data 🙂
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2018/11/04/the-futility-of-wanting-to-impress-women-with-money/#comment-57025
You can’t have all these sexless virgins
(and at the same time)
Claim the average guy doesn’t struggle with sex
I.E our claim (80-20 theory for example) would have you believe there are a majority who struggle with getting sex, and a minority who don’t struggle.
– The data on the number of virgins fits that theory
– It doesn’t fit your theory
How do you square that miss piggy? 🙂
– Or more specifically… combine it with your claim that there is no sizeable group who are far off from your claimed “average”. (they must be weird exceptions with mental issues)
– Whilst claiming an average being a guy who doesn’t struggle at all.
This can’t (logically) coexist in the same universe where this is a fact:
A full HALF OF THE POPULATION do struggle with getting laid (they’re virgins, unable to get laid for all of HS, and most of them barely get laid in college, or not at all)… all of this during their horniest years.
Ghhh, editor needed 🙂
Fact: There is a sizeable group of people who can’t get laid during their horniest years (49%) in fact… Most of them fail to get laid during college or barely get a single lay.
– This fact is congruent to something like 80-20 theory.
– This fact is completely logically impossible to fit into your claims
You claim:
– The “arithmetically average guy” has no struggles with getting laid
– Most people are similar to this arithmetically average guy*
*-I’m simplifying for readability. You claim there are no sizeable parts of the population which stray downards from the average to the extent where they enter “struggle territory” i.e. getting laid is hard
THAT CLAIM CANNOT COEXIST IN THE SAME UNIVERSE WHERE 49% of guys can’t get EVEN A SINGLE LAY during their most horniest years 🙂
“The average number of sexual partners for men and women in the United States is 7.2, reports a recent Superdrug survey.”
See that’s already much better than your 2-3 bs. So you can actually type, congrats for finishing middle school.
“Would you so kindly move on to the next step in the debate, that would be here”
That was already covered and conveniently ignored by you, miss. I understand that your ovulation cycles make you quite unable to control yourself but men don’t build their lives around sex as they rarely if ever define their value by their sex organs.
But I understand that having a pussy pass in everything in life would make you think so.
“It works locally dumbass lol”
If that is the case, then looks indeed don’t matter (original claim) as all a man would have to do is go to a place or into a field with many women and few men.
The Pareto distribution is NOT symbolic in nature, Pareto developed the concept in the context of the distribution of income and wealth among the population.
That you want to use it in unrelated fields is just your own fallacious thinking.
You cannot compare the number of lays in a LIFETIME with the proportion of virgins in HS or even college. According to your apex fallacy, how many men go a LIFETIME without busting a nut in your precious birthing canals?
“You claim there are no sizeable parts of the population which stray downards from the average to the extent where they enter “struggle territory” i.e. getting laid is hard”
Math and reading comprehension aren’t your strong points. I claimed that it follows a Gaussian-like distribution which means that there are roughly as many virgins as there are uber Chads, with the majority of people closer to the mean, more precisely 68% being within one standard deviation from the mean.
As I said the Gaussian model isn’t perfect but it works much better in real science than the Pareto distribution which describes a notion in economics.
Adamastor,
you are not arguing in good faith. How about you directly address the issues Alek Novy raises instead of moving the goal post? I have now watched your debate from the sidelines. All I see is you doubling down on, spouting out one lie ore egregious than the other. I have been quantitatively trained myself. Seeing you misuse well-known statistical concepts in a desperate attempt to make your point is incredibly off-putting. If you are not someone’s wife already who of course is not putting out, I’d suggest you go join the Democrats. They need a cunt like you.
I’ll address the “issues” Alexia raises when she provides anything resembling a counter-argument to my original claim that looks don’t matter instead of blowing made-up figures out of her butt-plug filled ass. It is hilarious though that she actually makes my point for me without even realizing it.
I’m sorry if reality conflicts with your worldview or business model but I’m not the one twisting facts through strawman claims such as uniform distributions or other similar nonesense.
A HS diploma isn’t enough to address statistics and probability properly, but I’m willing to step down to Alexia’s level since simple models seem to be sending her brains in overdrive.
Nice ad hominem bro, when you can’t argue with facts, just bring in some irrelevant political references. I see you memorized your NPC manual well.
I never entered that debate miss 🙂 I entered this discussion when I noticed you claim the average joe is effortlessly getting sex left and right 🙂
I accepted to use ANY figures you want to use 🙂 You still won’t address the next logical step, even if we use the most outrageous figures that we can find 🙂
Chain of events (simplified to eliminate your obfuscation attempts)
Neutral(then me): The typical guy barely gets 2-3 lays
Me(explaining): That’s because an arithmetic average of 7 includes guys who get laid a lot more… and includes boosting… it’s realistic to say the average guy is more like 2-3 (or 4 perhaps).
You: NO NO THE TYPICAL guy is near the arithmetic, and that arithmetic is 14
Me: OK, LET US ASSUME THAT the arithmetic average is 14, and joe average is near it… Joe average bangs 14 chicks (lol)… Let’s ASSUME all of that, and procceed 🙂
You: NO NONO, let’s go back to analyzing those numbers and throw fancy sounding words about what the numbers are, and what they mean in terms of distribution.
You keep going back to previous debate point, and even changing topic (to looks)… but that debate part was conceeded to you… we’re all gonna pretend joe average bangs 14 chicks in his life, we conceeded it to you! 🙂
Now, with that accepted, can we move on to what it means in terms of your claims that Joe Average has it easy getting laid? 🙂
Baby Steps dear 🙂 So you do admit guys struggle with getting laid in their most horny years?
So I DID PREDICT CORRECTLY about 10 comments ago that you’d have to shift your point to “yeah yeah, guys do struggle, but only until they finish college” 🙂
Coz your original claim was:
– Only guys with mental issues and a weird minority of guys would struggle with getting laid… normal guys don’t struggle with getting laid
– But what will it be now miss piggy? Is it now with the qualifier “after they finish college”? Because your original claim cannot coexist with the hs/college data…
Are you now modifying the claim with the disqualifier “they magically stop struggling the moment they get that college diploma” 🙂
So 49% of guys in HS are chads? 🙂 And the remaining 2% of guys are “normal” 🙂 Woooah, that’s not an absurd claim at all miss piggy 🙂 Way to go 🙂
And then the data shows that most of those virgins go to college, and get no (or barely any sex) in college as well. So 49% start college as virgins, 25% end as virgins still… It doesn’t give the specifics nf those 25% that lose their virginity… But if 25% end as virgins I’d say the other 24% barely lost their virginity, they didn’t start getting laid left and right… But whatever… To be charitable to you, we can say they’re not struggling anymore, again hyper-charitable.
Basically we know that 24% are virgins at start of college, but not at end of college. To be hyper-charitable to you, we’re gonna assume all 24% go from virgin to having sex left and right 🙂 Not that they barely managed get a mercy fuck or a fat feminist like yourself took them on.
Your theory might need updating 🙂
So did I predict correctly? You are now going to admit guys struggle up to a certain age, and up until that age a sizable portion of the population are guys who struggle… but somehow we end up at an age where most guys don’t struggle 🙂 and most guys get laid a lot, easily 🙂 with chads/struggles being a minority.
You came up with a theory that requires that somehow chads become unchads overtime lololol wtf… The mental gymnastics you’re going through to “prove” that most guys “get laid easily” are amazing 🙂
The case of the dissappearing chad… lololol
“throw fancy sounding words about what the numbers are, and what they mean in terms of distribution”
Your lack of understanding of statistics does not affect the validity of said “fancy sounding” words.
“So you do admit guys struggle with getting laid in their most horny years?”
I did admit that in my second post, saying I didn’t get laid until college.
You are the one claiming these are a man’s horniest years. Of course, your optimal fertility window being between 15 and 20, that makes sense to you, but don’t project it on the opposite gender.
“they magically stop struggling”
You can call it magic, I call it growing up and evolving priorities. Did it occur to your peanut female brain that men do attend HS and college to get an actual education and networking? Sure you got hired by batting your lashes and climbed the ladder by dropping on your knees in front of your CEO, but men don’t have that option, and if we did, we wouldn’t take it.
We have to fight to get ahead in life, we don’t have a red carpet of grants, quotas, bullshit jobs, alimony, single mother subsidies, divorce settlements, etc in front of us, you project way too much, darling.
“So 49% of guys in HS are chads”
We already established that you don’t understand distributions. So, instead of me expaining what a gaussian is with fancy sounding words, just look up the graphic on Google.
“somehow chads become unchads overtime”
Again, this is your claim, not mine.
“So at the start of college 49% are virgins, 49% are chads 🙂 THIS IS YOUR CLAIM 🙂 lol”
Wrong, this is your claim.
My claim is that male sexual access follows a gaussian distribution, a fancy sounding word to say that there are as many people in the upper 5% (or whatever figure you think the Chads you crave for are part of) as in the lower 5% and there are more people around the mean than on either extreme (seriously, look the graphic up if you don’t understand the words). Therefore most people get laid with an average partner count and a minority of people are either Chads or virgins. Therefore the average guy does not struggle with getting laid.
“– So at some point in college, it goes to being like
–> 40% of guys are virgins and 40% are chads lol
Then it gets to a point where:
– 30% of guys are virgins and 30% are chads lololol
And at graduaton you have 25% virgins and 25% chad roflmao…
This all to get from that 49% virgins in year 1, to 25% virgins at graduation day… Somehow chads need to become unchaded 🙂 Or we need to have more than 100% in a whole 😉”
Chick “logic” at its finest. I hope no hamster suffered injuries from spinning so fast.
I’m OK with stepping down to your level, but even my 7yo doesn’t have such a challenged logic processing.
You wrote this claim miss ^_^
So now you admit this claim isn’t true in High School and college?
And when does it start being true?
So at the start of college 49% are virgins, 49% are chads 🙂 THIS IS YOUR CLAIM 🙂 lol
There’s no breakdown when these virgins get to put a penis into a vagina in which year… but let’s look it as the numbers of virgins go down… following your logic… next thing that happens is
– So at some point in college, it goes to being like
–> 40% of guys are virgins and 40% are chads lol
Then it gets to a point where:
– 30% of guys are virgins and 30% are chads lololol
And at graduaton you have 25% virgins and 25% chad roflmao…
This all to get from that 49% virgins in year 1, to 25% virgins at graduation day… Somehow chads need to become unchaded 🙂 Or we need to have more than 100% in a whole 😉
A clarification for non retards (a retard won’t get this)
– when people use a phrase like 80-20 in normal life, they are not literally referring to mr Pareto or the original context he discussed it in
– in common parlance when people say 80-20 they’re using it as short hand to mean “unequal distribution of results in a given field where a minority of individuals get the majority of results”.
– In this use of the term it doesn’t mean a literal 80 or literal 20. It’s just shorthand. And no it doesn’t mean they’re quoting Mr Pareto directly lol. Nor are they claiming Mr Pareto wrote about this given particular niche or application lol.
So to avoid strawmen, we’ll just use different terminology because retards want to obfuscate by arguing any mention of the concept is referring to Pareto AND the original case study LITERALLY. LOL.
Now… In this getting laid discussion there are two competing theories
= The fair distribution theory:
It claims the number of sexual partners is distributed fairly evenly and most guys get a similar decent (but not amazing) number of lays… Guys who struggle are a rare weird anomaly.
= The unfair distribution theory:
It claims a minority of men get most of the lays. And the majority of men struggle for getting a few lays here and there.
How do they stack up with the virginity data
How do they stack up with the virginity data
=== The unfair distribution model has no issues here.
The HS and college virginity rates fit in just fine. It means guys struggle to even start getting laid in the first place (whilst other guys got a headstart without a problem). And they continue struggling with getting laid (it never becomes easy for most).
=== The fair distribution model has a major hurdle here
It needs to insert a qualifier to explain away all those Virgins* in HS and college.
This theory literally has to kick in somewhere after college to have any chance of checking out. It’s literally inconsistent with HS and college data.
It can’t claim that both the average guy is getting laid effortlessly and that most guys are the average (exceptions being a weird minority) with such a huge percentage of Virgins.
So this theory needs to insert a new claim that there’s an automagical point in time after graduation ceremony where the sexual market magically arranges itself into a fair distribution of guys getting laid left and right… By graduating college lol.
*Note I’m being charitable by not even mentioning that many of the college nonvirgins are barely unvirgined… because Miss Piggy can claim they went from Virgins to lotharios overnight. Virgin until the third year… Then bam starts fucking left and right lol.
But 49% are virgins 🙂 You can’t say there’s a bottom 5%, when 49% are at the bottom… Zero lays is zero lays 🙂
So with the data disproving this claim at the hs and college level, when does your claim become true? Can we please get an answer, thanks 🙂
“So to avoid strawmen”
You avoid strawmen by creating more strawmen.
“Equal” distribution = uniform distribution.
“Non-equal” distribution = any other kind of distribution.
That’s it, you don’t need to go in circles in your wheel about it.
“Now… In this getting laid discussion there are two competing theories”
False dichitomy followed by yet another strawman. Nobody except you claimed a uniform distribution.
A gaussian distribution is a non-equal distrubution but it’s not as skewed as your 80/20 or whatever.
“But 49% are virgins”
Not gonna debate the number because it’s irrelevant as you’ll keep on moving the goal posts.
It’s the same as if I claimed that a Chad does not exist cos 100% of males are virgins at birth.
“If you have to choose between sex and grades, THEN IT MEANS IT ISN’T EASY YOU FUCKING IMBECILE XD”
Of course you never had to choose. Nobody ever gave a shit about your diploma or skills. All you ever had to do to get ahead was to open your legs.
You simply don’t understand that, unlike you, men are not paid for existing and they actually have to make efforts. Fucking your pussies and dealing with your drama is a huge waste of time in the formative years in HS and college. So yeah, it is a choice we make, not because it’s hard to fuck a thot like you, but because it distratcs us from much more interesting endeavours.
Now let me say it in a language that you’ll understand. Eating ice-cream is easy and playing tennis is more interesting than eating ice-cream. But if I eat a lot of ice-cream, I’ll never be a good tennis player.
The hamster is strong in you.
“Only one thing left, and that’s the bridge. Which… we claim is hard to cross for most guys.”
That simply isn’t true. You are here discussing these views in an echo chamber of what, 10-20 visitors? Then fatties like you come to add to it cos Chad from sales refused to fuck your ass in the office bathroom.
The very reason this blog is a niche and not mainstream is that it targets incels who are disappointed by PUAs and other red pill websites.
The mainstream, as in the fucking VAST MAJORITY of men, do not seek such content because they do not have any problem getting laid.
Adamastor,
how about you prove that sexual experience does not follow a Pareto distribution? If a proof is too much, then how about you provide some solid evidence? We’re waiting.
Despite your claims to the contrary, the 80/20 rule has shown to be very effective for describing plenty of naturally occurring phenomena. In particular, if any measure of ‘popularity’ is involved, you can bet that it is Pareto-distributed. Here is a hint: how is it that there are men women swoon over? Now, let’s take this one step further and assume that men who women swoon over also easily get laid. You may also want to look into evidence OKCupid showed that women consider 80% of men to be unattractive. If that does not shout “80/20” rule, I don’t know what does.
Dude, if it was so fucking easy to get laid, how come that there is any interest in pornography at all? Or what about hookers? In your world, it seems that every guy has to dodge twenty thots on the way to work alone, so please tell us how the fuck this adds up.
Also, Adamastor, my patience has been wearing rather thin. Answer the questions you were asked and don’t move the fucking goal post yet again. The Gaussian distribution is the normal distribution. Did you not pay attention in Statistics 101 or what?
You still refuse to answer any questions or points.
Question:
1) Did you or did you not claim there is an equal number of Chad’s and Virgins?
Yes or no?
Hint: your original claim is still up for everyone to see.
You are allowed to say you misspoke or backtrack any which way you prefer. It will show you’re arguing in good faith. Pretending you never made the statement shows you are not arguing in good faith.
2) Do you have different research that shows a radically different number of Virgins?
Yes or no?
Saying you will ignore this part coz “Alek will just move goal post” is a lame cop out coz Everytime you provided numbers we accepted them, no matter how ridiculous.
I’m being hyper charitable and using YOUR NUMBERS each time you provide them. So if you provide a source with research showing less virgins in this time period/context, I will accept it.
Aaron,
“how about you prove that sexual experience does not follow a Pareto distribution?”
I did but you ignored it. The assumption of a Pareto distribution is the free circulation of wealth. There is no free circulation of people. Therefore women cannot have consistent access to the 20% of men. Therefore they bang men in the 80%.
Alexia argued that 80/20 is a figure of speech. It doesn’t matter, you can set it at any other value, the principle remains the same.
Alexia also argued that it was situational, which proves my point that getting laid is easy as it simply requires a man to get into situations with many women and few men.
I was a virgin till college but my college was next to a nurse school.
“You may also want to look into evidence OKCupid showed that women consider 80% of men to be unattractive. If that does not shout “80/20” rule, I don’t know what does.”
Correct. Precisely because OKcupid does not suffer from physical limitations. You have free “circulation” of profiles.
“Dude, if it was so fucking easy to get laid, how come that there is any interest in pornography at all? Or what about hookers?”
Different ways of adressing the same need. If you owned an apple orchard, would that stop you from buying pears?
“In your world, it seems that every guy has to dodge twenty thots on the way to work alone”
I never said that. Going to a party in the nurse school and bringing a drunk chick to your place isn’t the same as having to fight girls off in the street.
Don’t tell me you don’t see the difference between these situations. Or is the point that going to a party cannot be considered an easy lay because one has to actually step out of his room?
If that is the case, then I concede; if struggling to get laid is the equivalent of having to do something to get laid, then I agree that all men struggle to get laid, Chads included.
“The Gaussian distribution is the normal distribution”
Sure, and? Did I claim it wasn’t? How does me pointing out the difference between Alexia’s uniform distribution and the gaussian challenge the above statement?
Alexia, darling,
“1) Did you or did you not claim there is an equal number of Chad’s and Virgins?”
Yes I did.
“2) Do you have different research that shows a radically different number of Virgins?”
I provided you with the average number of sexual partners a man has in his life. From this I assumed a gaussian distribution.
You understiod gaussian as uniform and drew fantastic conclusions from it.
The fact that you are stuck on one number related to one specific age range is the real weakness of your approach.
The age at which a man decides to start getting laid is irrelevant.
Just as the age at which a toddler starts walking is irrelevant.
If you look at toddlers at 9 months you’ll have lots of “walking virgins” and few “walking Chads”, if you look at kids aged 6, you’ll have mostly “walking Chads” and some disabled kids.
Your whole “getting laid is hard” argument literally revolves around an arbitrary age.
It does not contradict the global average number of partners, you simply cherrypick a subset of the whole population to make your point.
But 49% start college as virgins, and most of these don’t start getting laid by end of college either 🙂
So… Exactly when does this occur miss piggy? 🙂 Is it one year after college, is it two years after college? 🙂
– 49% are virgins 🙂
– So chads would have to be 0.5% for this sentence to hold true 🙂
(that they would be less than 50% combined, i.e. a minority in the most charitable definition of a minority)
This contradictics with your earlier claim that the number of chads and virgins is the SAME 🙂
So which will it be missy? 🙂
Yeah, it totally occured to me that for a majority of horny teenage boys getting sex is easy, but they totally forego this “easy to get” sex so they get a grade higher here and there. 🙂
You worldview totally makes sense 🙂
– Horny teenage boys can get laid easily
– But choose to forego sex in favor of “networking”
🙂 🙂 🙂
Joking aside, you don’t seem to get that you’ve proved our point for us. That’s what we claim. Getting laid isn’t easy for most. It takes work and effort and isn’t easy. It is easy to get laid for only a majority of guys. For most guys it takes a sacrifice.
The claim that you’d give up on easy sex to get more homework done (or whatever) doesn’t logically hold up. If it was easy you wouldn’t have to give it up you retard.
If you have to choose between sex and grades, THEN IT MEANS IT ISN’T EASY YOU FUCKING IMBECILE XD Otherwise you wouldn’t have to choose between the two would you 🙂
In before miss piggy says the actual sex act takes time lol
HOWCOME these same guys don’t have to sacrifice masturbation/porn in favor of grades or what not? They masturbate multiple times a day. Look up how many hours they spend watching porn. It doesn’t take more time to fuck an actual chick you retard. So then it can’t be the time to fuck that they’re sacrificing for grades can it be you cunt?
In before miss piggy tries to backpeddle and she means to say it’s the meeting people that takes time… because we’ve already showed it’s ridiculous to say fucking itself takes time (that they have to forego the actual fucking act in favor of more studying time).
But you already SAID they are networking you fucktard
So they ARE already meeting people, and we know they’re socializing and hanging out with people. They’re not sacrificing actually meeting people in favor of getting “more study time”.
It’s only that bridge between knowing someone in an asexual way, and having them strip naked in front of you.
That’s our whole fucking claim the whole motherfucking time you fucking idiot. It’s that bridge which isn’t easy for most guys. That bridge to go from someone being just a chick whom you know, to a chick who is taking her clothes in front of you.
— So somehow these guys don’t have time to cross this bridge… but they have time to network… (i.e. the 95% of stuff before you get to the bridge crossing).
Not only do they have the time to network… but they sacrifice getting laid in order to have more time to network. (facepalm)
DO YOU EVEN HEAR YOURSELF!?!?!
– Fucking takes little time comparatively (they already spend as much or more time on porn). So it can’t be the actual naked time they’re sacrificing to get more “networking time” CAN IT!?!?
– So what is it they’re sacrificing to get more time for other stuff? We know it’s not the meeting chicks in the first place part. We know it’s not the actual time it takes to fuck part.
Only one thing left, and that’s the bridge. Which… we claim is hard to cross for most guys. IF IT WERE EASY, NOBODY WOULD HAVE TO FOREGO IT in favor of having more energy/time for other things in life.
So after wasting a bunch of time on this loser, we find out that there’s no disagreement, it’s just coping 🙂 I was going to suggest that at some time btw.
The way the mainstream (average) guy copes with the fact that getting laid is much more difficult for him than chad, is to convince himself “he’s not that all into sex” anyway while he spends thousands of hours and dollars on porn and video games.
It’s kind of like when a poor person says he doesn’t wanna be rich anyway, there are more interesting things in life than money… but he could become rich “if he wanted to”.
The way he can convince himself that getting laid is easy, despite banging a fattie every 2-3 years… is that he doesn’t do shit, until some fattie picks him up… “oh dude getting laid is totally easy, you just gotta convince yourself you’re not that interested in sex, but you could like totally get laid easily any time you wanted to, like totally”.
The average guy spends many hours a day playing videos games, watching TV, porn etc… So it’s not like he’s foregoing sex because he’s too busy to have sex lol. He can’t ACTUALLY get free sex (like chads can).
He’d need to invest a shit ton of effort (or time) to get it (WHICH MEANS ITS NOT EASY BY DEFINITION YOU RETARD). If it requires a lot of anything to get (has a large nonmonetary cost) it doesn’t fit the definition of easy you drooling piece-a-shit. Do you even know what WORDS MEAN?
Easy to get (cannot equal) large nonmonetary cost to acquiring
That’s like LITERALLY the opposite of what easy means. If there’s a LARGE COST to getting laid (WHICH YOU ADMITTED)… THEN THAT BY DEFINITION MEANS IT’S NOT “easy to get”.
DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT BASIC WORDS MEAN!?!?!?!
When we say there’s an 80-20 in terms of getting laid, with chads getting sex easily, THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS YOU RETARD.
1) CHADS DONT ACTUALLY HAVE TO WASTE TIME TO GET LAID
DO
YOU
UNDERSTAND
THIS
2) CHADS DONT ACTUALLY HAVE TO DEAL WITH DRAMA TO GET LAID
DO
YOU
UNDERSTAND
THIS
Most of us here have either been chads at some point, or hanged-out-with-chads. As a chad (or the guy getting laid easily) it’s drama free and requires no time… Escalation is sometimes a few minutes long. (no huge time investment for chads).
That’s what fucking “getting laid easily” means you fucktard.
AGAIN, I AM QUOTING YOU… IT IS YOU WHO WROTE THIS SENTENCE. Are you gonna pretend you didn’t write it?
Obviously I added the numbering to point the two parts… You in your words claim that getting laid involves
1) A huge waste of time
2) Dealing with drama
THEN IT IS NOT FUCKING “EASY” YOU FUCKING TARD WHO DOESNT KNOW THE BASIC DEFINITION OF WORDS.
Ok Finally, we have answers ^_^
You answered that:
– You do confirm that you claim there’s an equal number of chads and virgins
– We DO have data on the number of virgins (there’s no data on chads unfortunately)
That’s the point. YOU ASSUMED IT. But there’s no PROOF OF IT. That’s what Aaron asked you for. WHAT IS YOUR PROOF?
The only data we have is:
– The number of virgins
– The arithmetic average
Everything else we have to tease out…
Now… let’s continue, shall we…
1) If there are 49% virgins at the start of college, is it then not TRUE that your claim can’t possibly be true for for freshmen (or do you claim 49% of freshmen are chads?)
Yes or no?
2) If you do admit that your claim is completely inaccurate for freshmen… At which point does your claim start becoming true?
Again, we have data that shows something completely different to your claims… You claim this isn’t important because once this guys start fucking, it’ll all just take on a “gaussian-like distribution” (lol).
Because using technical terms in your claim is a substitute for actually arguing for/proving your claim 🙂 Totally no need to prove your claim… just says Gaaaaaahzhuan… lol. Oh, sorry for disagreeing, you used a big word, your claim must be true, no evidence required 🙂
When does it get from most guys are virgins, to most guys get laid
“That’s the point. YOU ASSUMED IT”
You assumed a Pareto distribution, I proved it to be wrong. I offered another model, which is consistent with common sense.
If you claimed the sun was blue, I’d have to prove it isn’t blue and also to prove it is yellow, right?
1) If there are 49% virgins at the start of college, is it then not TRUE that your claim can’t possibly be true for for freshmen (or do you claim 49% of freshmen are chads?)
Yes or no?
2) If you do admit that your claim is completely inaccurate for freshmen… At which point does your claim start becoming true?”
If say 80% of kids can’t walk at 9 months, does it nvalidate the claim that most humans can walk?
At what point does the claim that most humans can walk becomes true?
How in hell is that relevant? If you cherrypick the population set, you can get whatever conclusion you want.
If I pick a subset of only rich guys with model-tier looks and great status, my conclusion will be that there are no virgins whatsoever.
If I pick a subset of only tetraplegic guys who took shrapnel in the face, my conclusion will be that no man gets laid.
“gaussian-like distribution”
Fancy or not, it is a natural assumption when dealing with large sets of similar but slightly different things, like say 7 billion humans.
“When does it get from most guys are virgins, to most guys get laid”
When does it get from most kids crawl to most kids walk?
https://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/hjsr20/0/hjsr20.ahead-of-print/00224499.2018.1481193/20180711/images/large/hjsr_a_1481193_f0001_b.jpeg
(from study Adamastor linked)
Partner count for males and females follows a Pareto distribution. However I wouldn’t necessarily say that 20% of best looking guys get 80% of women.
Personally I find partner count to be a meaningless statistic. Is a guy who fucks 30 average looking women better than a guy who fucks one or two and marries a stunner?
Thanks for helping out Skepdic…
Haha, gotta love this. So the graph from the study this bitch herself linked to PROVES OUR WHOLE INITIAL POINT. lol. Gotta love the irony.
You will see in the graph that the two longest bars are guys who have 2 and 3 partners respectively!!!!! Should have looked at it earlier, would have saved me time arguing with this retard. Thanks skepdick…
Also from the same chart:
– There are 3x more virgins than chads…
Ooops bitch… You linked to this shit, it’s your source.
That’s the initial claim Neutral and me made.. that modal average should be there somewhere with 2-3 lays…
Who’da guessed it… the modal average IS in fact actually 2 and 3 lays… Damn… 🙂
Specifically “THE” modal average is 1 lay in his entire fucking life… lol. The second most frequent kind of a guy is the one who has had the GRANDTOTAL of 2 lays in his life. The third most frequent (far less frequent kind of a guy) is the guy with a grandtotal of 3 lays in his life….
Sorry, gotta rub it in some more. It shows exactly what I was saying lol XD
(The majority of the male population falls under either the)
– Virgins bar
– 1 lay in his life bar
– 2 lays in his life bar
– 3 lays in his life bar
– 4 lays in his life bar
Add it up yourself bitch. It’s way over 50% you dumb cunt. And trust me next time when I tell you about arithmetic average not representing the average guy you cunt.
Meh, I fucked up, I added up the female bar for one. So it’s less than 50%. (it’s above 50% of female population)
Still, 40% of the male population are in this range:
– Virgins bar
– 1 lay in his life bar
– 2 lays in his life bar
– 3 lays in his life bar
– 4 lays in his life bar
“Still, 40% of the male population are in this range:
– Virgins bar
– 1 lay in his life bar
– 2 lays in his life bar
– 3 lays in his life bar
– 4 lays in his life bar”
So you’re saying that the large majority of men gets laid?
Omg, what a surprise!
Yes, with a grand total of 2-3 chicks 🙂
The number you said we were pulling out of our ass. And remember dumbass, I was being super-charitable with you and wanted to grant you that Joe Average bangs 14 chicks in his lifetime.
Btw, I smell a ban coming. This last comment of yours was highly intellectually dishonest. Not arguing in good faith at all.
Though Aaron is a nice guy. I’m sure if you apologize and grant you were wrong on these points he will pardon you. Be warned though, otherwise, he really dislikes intellectually dishonest trolls.
Feel free to pretend you were never arguing against paretto-like distribution (which this graph showed). Feel free to pretend you were never arguing that joe average bangs “way more than 2-3 chicks”.
But you can’t ignore the comment where Aaron gave you that warning. I believe you owe Aaron an apology.
“Btw, I smell a ban coming. This last comment of yours was highly intellectually dishonest. Not arguing in good faith at all.”
Dishonest like the 49% of virgins that suddenly flew out of the window? 😄
– How did it fly out of the window? This chart breaks down virginity for a lifetime. 49% of freshmen ARE STILL virgins. They haven’t flown anywhere.
1) Until we were linked to this graph, we only had the number for virgins in first year college. Which proved your theory was wrong for freshmen, but you had no proof that it becomes true at any later point in time.
– Our claim, guys start out struggling, heck 49% of them are virgins at start of college and only manage to bang a couple of chicks until the end of life
2) Now we have data for a LIFETIME as well. And it shows your theory is wrong for LIFETIME AS WELL.
I smell Aaron’s patience is growing super-thin.
“49% of freshmen ARE STILL virgins. They haven’t flown anywhere”
So you actually admit you were cherrypicking ?
Yes, i’m an evil guy 🙂 I totally cherrypicked 🙂
I totally had the lifetime data all along, the data that shows your theory is wrong FOR ALL MEN EVERYWHERE AT ALL AGES 🙂
But I purposefully pretended to have only found data up until start of college. I love wasting my time like this. I totally had the other data all along, but I “cherrypicked” which only partially disproves your claim.
But the whole time I knew the rest of the data fully demolishes all of your claims and proves all of mine and neutral’s claims… But I “cherrypicked” the data that only partially demolishes you… I like wasting time like that.
If you didn’t catch the sarcasm and need a translation retard…
I don’t think you know what the term cherrypicking means. It definetely doesn’t mean picking the data point which serves you LESS and makes proving your point harder.
Darling, you picked a set of population and you argued it invalidates the global data.
Now you can obviously see that it goes from 49% to 5%, fully validating my argument that the age itself is irrelevant.
But you’re either too dense to understand it or simply apply your intersectional feminism teachings from NPC 101.
Your argument was that we should ignore that young guys can barely get laid, because eventually (at some point in time you never specified) they’ll magically become guys who bang 14 chicks and everything becomes a Gaussian curve… Because apparently THEY ONLY struggle in college because they love studying more than sex.
Why the fuck would you lie when the original shit is right above on the page. It was me and Neutral who claimed:
– The actual *typical* guy bangs 2-3 chicks a lifetime
(and that the arithmetic is skewed, it’s not near the modal which should be more like 2-3 chicks and we were shown to be right)
– I said guys barely can even get that first lay, have a hard time getting even that first lay, and then at most get 1-2 lays after
(the high-school/college data proves the first part, the lifetime data proves the latter)
– We (all of us here on this blog except you) claimed it’s a lot closer to a paretto like distribution than your fantasy…
(the data showed that as well)
By global data you mean the original arithmetic average?
– I argued that the arithmetic average tells us nothing about the distribution. It’s a fucking arithmetic average.
– I argued until we get something better than an arithmetic average, we have to use logic and other data points to see which is more likely… your gaussian bullshit, or a more Paretto like situation.
– The point I made is that we have data on how many guys finish college sexless or as virgins… and that unless these guys go from virgins to Lotharios overnight, it is unlikely they will end their life near the arithmetic average
But guess what, we did find data on this shit broken up. So we no longer have to deduce from other points. We have the data… We were right, you were wrong. Suck it up and go fuck yourself.
“I argued that the arithmetic average tells us nothing about the distribution. It’s a fucking arithmetic average.”
You argued retarded crap like “if there are 49% of virgins in college, the number cannot “magically” go down later”
Well, guess what, the data shows it does.
You pressed me to pinpoint the age at which such “magic” happens, as if it was relevant and as if me being unable to guess somehow challenged the fact that virgins are a minority just as Chads.
It’s actually quite funny to see your hamster spinning. The best part is when you bring in “intellectual honesty”, that’s just hilarious.
You don’t even realize how lucky you are to be a chick. Either you have a separate online personality or, if you were a guy and argued like that in real life, you’d get the shit beaten out of you on a regular basis.
Adamastor,
the only reason I have not banned you yet is that I find it amusing how you have been unraveling. Thanks to you, we have learned that “getting laid” does not mean smashing sluts in club bathrooms left, right and center but getting a drunk lay once a decade. Let’s pursue a different angle and use money instead. I say “have money” means having so much that you are more than just comfortable. It is not a concern for you. You would interpret “have money” much more generously, though, and probably claim that anybody who is in the possession of money, no matter how little and how fleetingly, “has money”. Do you realize how incredibly dishonest that kind of argument would be? It’s the same you tried to pull off when telling us that some lowly beta who has to settle for a washed-up woman in her 30s after enduring decades of involuntary celibacy “gets laid”. Out of curiosity, are you a member of the Democrat party?
Aaron,
I am not American, nor do I live in the US.
For me “having money” would mean having enough money so that one can live without working. If you have to work, then you need to make money that you don’t have.
So yeah, most people don’t have money, I have no idea what the figure is but even people in top management positions in large companies or administration still have to work.
Obviously what standard of living is acceptable will be different from one person to another.
To get back to the original topic, I obviously cannot deny the data, in particular since I did not produce it myself.
However, if I were to accept the above chart as being true, that would put me in the top 10-15% by number of partners and I’m “only” 35. This is inconsistent with the fact that I’m nowhere near the top 10-15% in looks, money or status.
So, to make sense of my experience, I have to either accept that I live in some sort of anomaly (social circule of uber Chads or whatever) or that the data is incorrect. And Occam’s razor clearly cuts one way rather than the other.
You know, if you’re gonna lie about what happened, it helps if the original happening isn’t just a mouse scroll away lol XD Either you’re flat out lying, or managed to read words that never appeared on your screen…
What I argued was:
1) The data shows a huge portion of guys reach college-age without having had sex EVEN ONCE… and then it shows they struggle during college years as well, with most of these guys still not getting even a single lay, and some barely getting any
2) This inability to get laid during these years shows they’re struggling to get laid (it isn’t easy to get laid)…
3a) I said that you need to show us proof that these guys somehow magically go from struggling for all of college to out of nowhere banging 14 chicks left and right…
(Because using logic, tells us that your lifetime predictions (for the typical guy) can’t materialize if they’re doing so badly in college. We claimed the typical (modal average) guy isn’t anywhere near your claimed arithmetic average.)
3b) For the record, we predicted they barely get 1 or a few lays after that, and that’s it. There’s a full page scattered with us predicting that. How the fuck can you be such a fucking massive cunt to pretend or lie that someone claimed they never fuck anything after college either.
The college-years data was the only non-arithmetic data we had. You never provided any better/alternative data that guys magically go from struggling with sex, to guys who can get laid at a whim.
But now we have the broken-down data… And guess what ALL OF OUR PREDICTIONS turned out correct. EVERY SINGLE MOTHERFUCKING ONE OF THEM. Every single one of your predictions turned out wrong, every single one of them.
Now you have to invent shit to “save face”. Like how can some FAIL SO MASSIVELY. Is it even possible even if you tried to get ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING WRONG (while being smug about your predictions)? Like if I had something this embarrassing happen, I’d go hide in a cave for 5 years.
@Aaron
I don’t buy for a second this bitch actually believes getting 1-2 lays in your lifetime qualifies a guy as “getting laid easily”.
She’s just backtracking for failing so massively, pretending she believed this all along. If she had believe 1-2 lays in a lifetime is enough to qualify as “guys get laid easily”, she wouldn’t have needed to push that “joe average bangs 14 chicks” bullshit so hard. She knows full well that 1-2 lays in a lifetime is ridiculous to be defined as “guys get laid easily”.
P.S.
I put a blockquote by mistake in this comment. It’s part of the comment, not a quote:
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2018/11/04/the-futility-of-wanting-to-impress-women-with-money/#comment-57239
For people who can’t be bothered to scroll, here’s just some of the evidence. Like is this chick on LSD? Does she believe her own reality distortion? Can someone lie so boldly about something a mere mouse scroll away?
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2018/11/04/the-futility-of-wanting-to-impress-women-with-money/#comment-57002
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2018/11/04/the-futility-of-wanting-to-impress-women-with-money/#comment-57025
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2018/11/04/the-futility-of-wanting-to-impress-women-with-money/#comment-57033
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2018/11/04/the-futility-of-wanting-to-impress-women-with-money/#comment-57034
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2018/11/04/the-futility-of-wanting-to-impress-women-with-money/#comment-57085
They do have intercourse (when an ugly fat drunk hoe like yourself jumps on them like once a decade), and that’s it. That prediction is on this page like what a dozen times? HOW CAN YOU lie so massivelly as to pretend “we claimed that all the guys who are virgins in college remain virgins forever”. We never did no such thing you fucking stinky whore. Like do you get away with this kind of shit in real life?
Us: Guys struggle to even get that first lay (we have the data that shows they struggle to get that first lay)… and we predict the struggle never ends, even if after they start, getting lays is hard to come by… with joe typical having 2-3 lays in his lifetime
You: Nah, joe typical bangs 14 chicks, easily, he could get more, but he just doesn’t bother during college, he does it all later….
And then you desparetely come with: “But but, you said guys who didn’t get laid by age x, never get a single lay.”
Like actually making shit up, about shit’s that RIGHT ABOVE ON THE SAME PAGE, it’s just a fucking mouse scroll away. I mean despite the fact there’s like 15 places on this very page where we talk about how guys struggle to get that first lay, and then get only a few more (nobody said never get a single lay if they didn’t until age x).
Again, either you are the most LSD-tripping insane cum-drunk whore who reads words that were never written, or the most dishonest person we’ve seen here. And we’ve seen plenty of dishonest troll chicks ranting about easily typical guys get laid.
All of these trolls are banned I believe for using the same kind of dishonest arguing tactics, you’re not a unique snowflake bitch. In fact you’re copy-paste.
“– So at some point in college, it goes to being like
–> 40% of guys are virgins and 40% are chads lol
Then it gets to a point where:
– 30% of guys are virgins and 30% are chads lololol
And at graduaton you have 25% virgins and 25% chad roflmao…
This all to get from that 49% virgins in year 1, to 25% virgins at graduation day… Somehow chads need to become unchaded 🙂 Or we need to have more than 100% in a whole 😉”
This your original claim, “RIGHT ABOVE ON THE SAME PAGE”. You are explicitly mocking the idea of 49% of virgins getting laid later in life as requiring “chads to get unchaded”, whatever that hamstering means…
Can you quit lying about the claims you made in the same thread or is it too much to ask?
I guess your IQ doesn’t allow you to see the irony, but hearing : “you’re not a unique snowflake bitch. In fact you’re copy-paste” from a blue-haired feminist NPC is priceless.
“Nah, joe typical bangs 14 chicks, easily, he could get more, but he just doesn’t bother during college, he does it all later….”
So, do you actually agree that the number of virgins drops from 49% in college to 5% later in life or not? What part of data do you then consider to be valid?
“Now you have to invent shit to “save face”.”
This is a retarded statement in many ways.
1. I don’t give a shit whether you agree with me or not because your opinion as well as your existence are irrelevant to me.
2. I don’t have a horse in this race. I have nothing to gain from people believing your drivel or understanding my approach. I don’t sell books, courses, PUA guides or coaching on how to fuck feminist NPCs like yourself.
3. The only reason I ever challenged your original claim is that it is so far removed from common sense and what people actually experience in life. I simply wanted to see whether you had anything to back up such outlandish claims. But since you have nothing to offer except ad hominem and constantly shifting arguments, it is clear that you either argue for the sake of trolling or you are desperate to market some product.
My advice to you, darling, is to get knocked up by some Chad before your ovaries dry out and to raise some children so as to give a purpose to your existence. It seems you have too much free time on your hands and are paid too much for your front-hole in your bullshit job. Seriously, just go fill your purpose, give birth to the next generation and let men talk in peace without your hysterical hamsterbation.
Like how can you lie again about something when it’s right above, a mouse scroll away.
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2018/11/04/the-futility-of-wanting-to-impress-women-with-money/#comment-57088
(My comments get filtered when I link directly link to multiple comments in question, but I did post multiple links yesterday for people who don’t wanna scroll, they should appear when Aaron comes and approves them)
THE ORIGINAL COMMENT, WHERE YOU COPIED THAT FROM… IT HAS A QUOTE. IT QUOTES THIS LINE OF YOURS
IT WAS MOCKING YOU FOR SAYING THERE IS AN EQUAL NUMBER OF CHADS AND VIRGINS. (but the number of virgins change, so they can’t be equal you dumbass unless number of chads changes at the same time, BASIC LOGIC 101 YOU RETARD)
THIS IS LIKE BASIC LOGIC 101, which your claim is so incompatible with. Which is why I asked you (since this sentence can’t be true over a lifetime, WHEN DOES IT BECOME TRUE? Because it can’t be true in general. YOU CAN’T SAY THERE ARE THE SAME NUMBER OF VIRGINS AS CHADS, if the number of virgins is dropping)
LIKE HOW THE FUCK DO YOU READ WORDS THAT WERE NEVER WRITTEN? Your eyes ACTUALLY READ THINGS that were NEVER DISPLAYED ON YOUR SCREEN. HOW IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE? Even with an LSD trip. What’s happening with you?
The original comment is linked right above. Those words ARE NOT CONTAINED IN IT (or subsequent comments mocking you for the same idea).
I’m not the one saying chads need to become unchadded for virgins to lose virginity YOU SAID THAT. I was mocking you for saying that. THIS IS LIKE LOGIC 101, like first 4-5 classes of logic in university you cunt.
Your statements contradict yourself in the MOST BASIC logic101 fashion. NOT advanced logic cunt. BASIC.
Here’s another example:
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2018/11/04/the-futility-of-wanting-to-impress-women-with-money/#comment-57103
YOU SAID THE FOLLOWING THINGS:
1) The number of virgins (A) and chads (B) is the same
(and made it as a general statement, i.e. you didn’t specify an age)…
YOU MADE THIS RIDICULOUS CLAIM YOU FUCKING BRAINDEAD PIECE OF SHIT.
2) I pointed out that (if) A (always equals) B… then if A is different at a different point, then B should be equally different at that same point
BASIC LOGIC 101 YOU FUCKING RETARD. LIKE HOW DO YOU NOT GET BASIC LOGIC?
3) We know the number of virgins changes.
IF YOUR STATEMENT IS TRUE at 18 (when virgins are 49%)
AND
ALSO TRUE at 22 (when virgins are 25%)
Then there would need to be 25% chads at 22. LIKE HOW THE FUCK DO YOU NOT GET THAT YOU SAID THIS ABSURDITY, YOU UTTER FUCKING WASTE OF OXYGEN?
Kinda like…
Me: How many apples and what kind do you have?
Piggy: I got 2 red apples and 2 green apples
— YOU ARE SAYING YOU HAVE 4 apples (it’s 2+2 you cunt).
If you make the statement that the number of chads is the same as the number of virgins, then if there are 49% virgins, there are 49% chads. And if the virgins (at another time) are 25% then the chads are also 25%. THIS IS WHAT YOUR STATEMENT MEANS YOU RETARD. LIKE HOW DO YOU NOT GET THIS!?!?! HOW IS IT POSSIBLE?
Hint, I OFFERED YOU A CHANCE to redeem yourself or backtrack by saying it only applies after a certain age. BUT YOU NEVER DID. If your statement applies as a general unqualified rule (WHICH I HAD YOU DOUBLE CONFIRM), then you’re saying chads go down as virgins go up. THAT’S WHAT YOUR STATEMENT MEANS YOU FUCKING RETARD. Like how are you even alive? This is barely one microlevel in brainprocessing above getting 2+2=4.
Since this needs to be spelled out for retards…
Your statement:
Percentage of chads (always* equal to) Percentage of virgins
(in a mathematical/logical way means)
Number of chads go down when number of virgins go down.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND BASIC MATH/LOGIC? Kindergarten stuff here you cunt.
*-Note, I gave you several chances to retract it or qualify it or backtrack… You could have said something like “well, after a certain age it’s true” to escape the absurdity of your claim. BUT YOU DOUBLED DOWN.
Alexia, sweetie,
I never said that the number of virgins is ALWAYS equal to the number of Chads, that was your claim.
And I actually pointed out that it was fully retarded since everybody is born a virgin.
I said that the number of virgins is equal to the number of Chads, building from the number of average sexual partners over a LIFETIME.
I explicitly showed the fallacy of your cherrypicking of a specific subset and all the follwoing idiocies.
You pretend that never happened, you are welcome to actually read the thread before quoting fragments out of context. Were you raised on a cherry orchard as a kid?
To be fair, I have to apologize to you. I said above: “since you have nothing to offer except ad hominem and constantly shifting arguments, it is clear that you either argue for the sake of trolling or you are desperate to market some product.”
I was wrong. You merely don’t have the 70 IQ needed to understand simple logic.
Guys I admit I am not very good at math but:
Let’s assume that SMV for women and men have Gaussian distribution.
Now assume that no women have sex with lower SMV.
Now map the 2 graph and create the “Possibility to have sex” graph by pairing SMV values with higher and same SMV .
I think you will get exactly this pareto distribution if you calculate the access to sex for guys
The argument is that chads have access to all the girls:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Cumulative_distribution_function_of_Pareto_distribution.svg/1280px-Cumulative_distribution_function_of_Pareto_distribution.svg.png
Aka chads have tremendous access.
Now imagine how this graph skews if tweak, for example that women don’t have sex with only SMV+3 guys. Then you can get a nice cut at the bottom for virgin men even if you assume that women dont even have sex with equal SMV guys.
Your reasoning is correct. You know a lot more about maths than Adamastor does.
There is also the old OkCupid data that showed women consider 80% of men to be below average in physical attractiveness.
lol
This data was published by OKCupid, shithead. The original blog post was scraped from their website, but it can easily be found on the Internet Archive. Furthermore, one of the founders of that site wrote a book on some of their findings, which includes this statistic as well. It is called “Dataclysm”.
In case someone missed it. Skepdick dug this up… It’s even more powerful than the OK Cupid data:
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2018/11/04/the-futility-of-wanting-to-impress-women-with-money/#comment-57137
HintOfIrony: He extracted it from the link adamstor wanted to use to say guys have a higher average.
It breaks down the distribution of lays, and it’s exactly how those of us experienced with the real world predicted:
– The single most common type of guy is the guy who’s had a SINGLE lay in his life (the modal average)
– The second most common kind of guy is the one with two lays in his LIFE
And if you look at the distribution of lays further, you’ll see that (as skepdick points out) it’s very much closer to a paretto-like situation as we’ve been claiming all along. It’s kind of interesting nobody dug this up until now, as it kind of verifies those 80/20 claims we’ve been making for years in this part of the internet.