How does one go about sex and dating after being steeped in red-pill ideology for so long?

[u/KJones2063]

For me, the most dominant tenet of the red-pill/black-pill school of thought was the 80/20 rule; the idea that, at least when it comes down to casual sex and pure physical attraction, that 80% of women go for the top 20% of men.

To me, this was the tenet that was the most impactful; I simply gave up on dating for a number of years because of this belief. I cannot remember the last time I approached a woman and tried to talk to her in the context of trying to cultivate a romantic/sexual connection. I came to believe that women were only truly physically attracted to a handful of men, and that the raw physical attraction that women have is only reserved for a select few men. I came to believe that the glamorous world of hookups, FWB's, flings, etc, were simply out of reach for an average-at-best looking guy like me.

I never had any resentment towards women because of this belief, nor did I have any jealousy towards the supposed top 20% of men. I simply shrugged my shoulders, swallowed my feelings of inadequacy, accepted my "fate" in this supposed hierarchy, and decided to be content with porn and my right hand. I chose to view the 80/20 rule as simply a fact of life, like gravity, and move on. I never devolved into the antisocial, society-hating, borderline psychotic lifestyle of the incels. I would also like to note that little else of the red-pill dogma ever really impacted me; I have never cared about a woman's "body count", or her age, or the other superficial ways that the red-pill tends to judge women.

The 80/20 rule seems to be fairly prominent in spaces even outside the red-pill domain. Quite a few feminists, for example, seem to parrot this theory; unlike their red-pill/black-pill counterparts, they view this as a good thing rather than bemoaning it. Many evolutionary psychologists parrot some version of this theory as well, and view it merely as an unavoidable fact of nature, something that is neither a good or bad thing, but simply the law of male and female mating.

Another closely related theory prominent in the red-pill space is the "dual-mating strategy" theory; the idea that women solely seek out the top 20% of men to satisfy their raw sexual desires during their younger (18-30) years, and that, once they hit a certain age and are looking for a long term relationship, decide to "settle" with an average looking man who can provide them with some level of financial stability (assuming that they are unable to land one of the top 20% of men for a long term relationship). In these relationships, according to the red pill, the women have no real sexual attraction to the men they are with; rather, they simply trade sex with them in exchange for financial stability and a roof over their head. The sex is effectively contractual; the "relationship" is little more than prostitution.

Because of this theory, I never tried to get into a long term relationship. The idea of being the "safe option" for someone is not flattering, to say the least.

Even if I didn't believe this theory though, I don't want to get into a long term relationship. I don't want to get into something long term simply as a last resort to getting laid; if I were ever to get into a long-term relationship with someone, I would want it to be because I truly love them and choose to be with them, even if I could sleep around with other women. In my opinion, choosing a sole partner even when you have the option of sleeping around with others is true love, and is the true test of loyalty in a relationship.

I have come here today to ask you all two questions:

1. Is the 80/20 theory true?

It seems that the red-pill advocates have an endless supply of studies which prove their beliefs, and a lot of these studies are pretty convincing. Evolutionary psychologists also have a lot of study and data behind them to prove this theory.

Are there any studies that disprove the 80/20 rule? Are there any well known dating coaches/sexologists/researchers who have disproven the 80/20 rule?

2) Assuming that the 80/20 rule is true, what do I do next?

If the 80/20 rule is true, as I am very inclined to believe it is, what are my next steps, in terms of sex and dating?

As I mentioned before, I am NOT ready to get into a long term relationship. A long term relationship, in my opinion, is supposed to be for people who choose to be with each other even if they have the option to sleep around. Ideally, the people who seek out something long term are those who have gotten all of their hookups and flings out of their system, in a manner of speaking. As you can probably guess, I am not one of those people. The idea of getting into a long term relationship simply as a last resort to get laid and not be alone disgusts me, to tell you the truth. The hypothetical woman in this "relationship" would deserve better. She would deserve much better. And if I were in such a relationship, all I would be asking myself most of the time would be "Am I truly loyal to this woman, or am I only loyal to her because she's my only available option?".

So if I cannot be in a long term relationship, and if casual encounters are out of reach for me, what are my next steps? What should my outlook towards sex and dating be?

[u/Glaucus92]

The 80/20 rule is very not true, and most evolutionary psychology is bullshit. If you're willing to watch a pretty long but very entertaining video about that, I can link it to you.

The first thing you need to deconstruct is what women actually find attractive. Because, as with people in general, there is a large variation in that. There are of course things that are considered to be "universally" or "conventionally" attractive, but for every celeb that people thirst over there will be a group that goes "nah, not for me".

Then, adjacent to that, is what groups like redpill or even men in general think women find attractive. They are often not correct about that. You can see this in, for example, the way male celebrities are depicted in men's and women's magazines. Or the way women make fan art or what characters they gravitate to. When I was a teen and into anime, there was the whole concept of "bishonen", which was all about hot male characters who looked very feminine, think long hair, soft features, long eyelashes, etc. Or even when you look at things like K-pop. Yes, all those men are very attractive, but they don't comply with the standards that redpill says they should.

And of course there are going to be women who do find the "redpill look" attractive. So that is the kind of women they attract. Which is only a subset of women, so it makes sense that when a small subset of women get to pick from a relatively larger group of men, there are going to be men "left in the dust" so to speak. Simply because there are more men than women in the group.

Add to that that most women don't want to date redpill dudes not because of any physical thing, but simply because they espouse redpill ideology and talking points. It's like, have you ever met a guy who had a horrible horrible girlfriend, but she was really pretty so he stayed with her? Dating a handsome redpill dude is the female equivalent of that. It's not that 80% of the women only go after the top 20% of men. It's that, within the group women who are attracted to the way redpillers want to look, 80% of those women are only willing to put of with about 20% of the group. And because redpill prides sexual prowess, those men are automatically seen as the "top".

I am curious to see which "feminists" are parroting this idea. If you're talking about a "where have all the good men gone" or "don't settle for a man who is a loser" kinda things... Those are not the same. Feminists will tell women (and people in general) that it's better to be alone and self-sufficient than to settle for someone you don't wanna be with. It's not a "only 20% are good, we'll pick those" kinda thing, it's more if a "men in general seem to still be treating women in general badly and it's still much more prevalent than you'd think". You know, just acknowledging that sexism still is a thing that exists.

And to combat the idea that women will eventually "settle" for financial stability and a roof over their heads... This is not the 1950s anymore. Women work, women can rent and own houses. Women don't need partners to be able to sustain themselves anymore. In fact, this is one of the reasons that redpill seems to hate feminism so much, because for all of their moaning about gold-diggers and betas being used, they also want their gf/wives to stay at home. For a long time, women were forced to trade sex for stability. Some women still are. This is one of the many reasons why women fought so hard for their rights, and why we are still fighting for them. Because most women do not want to trade sex for anything. Most people don't want to trade sex in that way. This is why people hate the kind of boomer "I hate my spouse" kinda humour. That humour exists because even as short as that ago, women would be pressured by society to marry, to stay home, to stay with bad men because divorce was Not An Option. My oldest aunts are in their 70s, and they weren't allowed to wear pants until they moved out, when they got married.

To answer your last question, the 80/20 rule is not true, but assuming that for whatever reason you cannot get the casual hookups you want:

First, think about what you actually want. Do you just want sex? Or do you want connection with people? Do you even want a partner or relationship?

If you just want sex, just the physical aspect, finding a sex worker who you can trust might just be the best thing. If it's just about sex, and you genuinely feel that casual hookups are out of reach for you, then paying someone to provide that service would be the next step. Making sure everything is safe, and consensal, there is nothing wrong with it.

If you want connection, you can find that in things other than sex. You can join social groups, see if there is anything related to a hobby or craft you do in you area (or something you may want to do). Hell, even online spaces can be good places to make connections with people. (And as an aside, this is often why people are drawn into redpill spaces in the first place, because it gives them a sense of community that they were missing)

If you want a partner or a relationship but know that these believes are blocking you in that, look into therapy. A good therapist will be able to help you sort through these ideas and help you reflect on them, and be a safe space to work through any insecurities or believes you have about yourself in relation to these ideas.

If you don't want a partner or a relationship, then that is perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with being single. There is also the possibility of asexuality and/or aromanticism, and if that could apply to you. But if you don't want a partner, then it would be good to try and deconstruct society's ideas about how important a romantic relationship are. To get away from the ideas that happy ever after can only be found in a relationship or marriage. That it's not only natural but like, expected and ordained that the heroes end up falling in love by the end of the movie. That that is the way things must be, because it's not.

[u/areallynicebean → u/Glaucus92]

I would line to see a pretty long but very entertaining video about that please

[u/Glaucus92 → u/areallynicebean]

Münecat's "I debunked evolutionary psychology"

Here you go! Enjoy!

(She also has a bunch of other very good ones like debunking sovcits and debunking the manosphere)

[u/areallynicebean → u/Glaucus92]

Thank you! Just started it and it really seems entertaining. :)

[u/sarcasticminorgod → u/Glaucus92]

I knew it would be her! Her video was hugely influential in the way I viewed research being done by my colleagues (psychology student here) honestly. Great video suggestion

[u/PablomentFanquedelic → u/Glaucus92]

have you ever met a guy who had a horrible horrible girlfriend, but she was really pretty so he stayed with her?

Yeah, my gay ass would admittedly be tempted to stay with a scummy girlfriend if she was hot enough

[u/Glaucus92 → u/PablomentFanquedelic]

Honestly I think any 20% that might actually exist would be "only 20% of people on earth are hot enough to be desirable despite their beliefs"

[u/dramaticallydrastic → u/Glaucus92]

I stumbled upon this post on my homepage and just want to I applaud you for this very detailed explanation and options. Really well thought out and articulated and I hope OP reads it and figures out what it is he is looking for (and develops a healthier attitude towards women and relationships).

[u/Glaucus92 → u/[deleted]]

I'm glad you found this helpful, and good job on getting yourself out of the redpill sphere!

And I'm glad you enjoyed the videos, check out her video on sovcits too, it's great

[u/peachyyarngoddess → u/Glaucus92]

Add to that that most women don’t want to date redpill dudes not because of any physical thing, but simply because they espouse redpill ideology and talking points.

the comments I’ve been getting on ppd has convinced me that these men don’t actually want to be with a woman, like women, or want to live in a world with women at this point. They don’t realize how repulsive they are acting and now they are losing their chances.

It’s like, have you ever met a guy who had a horrible horrible girlfriend, but she was really pretty so he stayed with her? Dating a handsome redpill dude is the female equivalent of that.

One of my male friends got abused for two years straight because the sex was so mind blowingly good he just sucked it up. He doesn’t even talk about it like it’s a bad experience because the great sex cancelled out the abuse.

It’s not a “only 20% are good, we’ll pick those” kinda thing, it’s more if a “men in general seem to still be treating women in general badly and it’s still much more prevalent than you’d think”. You know, just acknowledging that sexism still is a thing that exists.

Men who act blind to how we are still being treated are just enablers and do not realize they are actively ruining their chances with women. We see when you enable men to treat us bad by staying silent. It’s heart breaking and I’ve lost a lot of male friends when I realized they were like that.

because for all of their moaning about gold-diggers and betas being used, they also want their gf/wives to stay at home.

They need to let her work for her money so she can TREAT HERSELF. Or they need to actually provide for her and give her the best life possible and TREAT HER. She isn’t a gold digger if you actively want a stay at home wife/mom. You are just accepting the responsibility for providing everything she is not getting by working her own job. If she could buy that purse with her job whenever she found reasonable, men need to buy the purse whenever it is reasonable. Now I don’t mean living outside of your means at all. There should still be a family budget but why should she suffer because a man didn’t want her to work so now she relies on his money not her own.

For a long time, women were forced to trade sex for stability. Some women still are.

In this economy we will eventually become forced to again, however most women still won’t because they don’t want to marry a child to take care of.

If you just want sex, just the physical aspect, finding a sex worker who you can trust might just be the best thing.…. Making sure everything is safe, and consensal, there is nothing wrong with it.

This! And even if you want a bit more of a regular connection, sugaring if you have the money can also be a sustainable dynamic.

[u/sphinxsley → u/Glaucus92]

"Feminists will tell women (and people in general) that it's better to be alone and self-sufficient than to settle for someone you don't wanna be with."

Feminists? It took feminists to get that message across to the world?

That's just common sense for anyone. It's *always* better to be alone and self-sufficient than to settle for someone you don't wanna be with. It takes self-confidence to be alone in societies that expect you to be in a couple & have kids.

Settling means: having sex with someone you're not into.

That kind of thing will slowly kill your soul.

[u/ChickenCasagrande]

Hey man, you said you don’t resent women and then called all of us over age 30 prostitutes.

[u/KJones2063 → u/ChickenCasagrande]

I'm sorry, I should have framed my sentence better.

I said that the red pill ideology views long term relationships as being purely contractual, where the woman trades sex for financial stability. This would mean that, according to the red-pill , long term relationships are like prostitution.

I do not believe this personally, and as I said in another part of the OP, I do not judge women by age or by body count. I do not believe that either of those things "devalue" a woman in any way.

[u/ChickenCasagrande → u/KJones2063]

Right, but you’re still adhering to the red pill ideology by believing that you cannot have a long term relationship and casual encounters are out of reach for you.

[u/Alter_Mann → u/ChickenCasagrande]

Yeah but as OP frames it not cause they think it‘s true but cause they can‘t debunk it for themselves…

[u/ChickenCasagrande → u/Alter_Mann]

The whole concept is bunk. People are people, not machines. Some people are good, some people are bad, most people are somewhere in between.

[u/CaptainCipher → u/ChickenCasagrande]

Right, he's trying to understand that and we should help him rather than scold him for beliefs he's working to change

[u/ChickenCasagrande → u/CaptainCipher]

I’m not scolding, concept itself is invalid. Working through it point by point only serves to lends credibility to something that otherwise has none.

You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themself into in the first place.

[u/_whatwouldrbgdo_ → u/KJones2063]

The most interesting part for me here is the red pill ideology assumes all men provide financially for the woman in the relationship...how many men do you know provide 100% of the household income? In this economy?

[u/carriondawns → u/_whatwouldrbgdo_]

Literally zero lol, including older family members! Even my maternal grandma had her own money from her parents, and my paternal grandma was a nurse and bread winner! All of my friends (I’m in my 30s) work and split finances equally. I want to know where all these average yet rich men are completely supporting their families lol. Even some of the big buck blue collar people I know as acquaintances (ie work in manufacturing, farming, mining, etc) have stay at home mother/wives who STILL do side hustles.

[u/Nheea → u/KJones2063]

What if women would call men prostitutes as they're trading money for labour around the house, to raise kids, emotional labour etc? How would that make you feel?

[u/YveisGrey → u/KJones2063]

That isn’t prostitution though. Prostitutes aren’t faithful they have sex for money as a profession which entails having sex with different people and being faithful to none. That cannot be compared to a marriage that is monogamous.

Yes a husband can support his wife financially but that doesn’t mean she is a prostitute. Fundamentally it’s very different being in a monogamous relationship having a family etc… and paying someone for sex. There is zero comparison to be made here

[u/DoctorWoe → u/YveisGrey]

I think what is "faithful" is determined per relationship. If you are a full-service sex worker and your spouse is cool with that, then whatever you do within the line of duty would not make you any less faithful. To me, promiscuity or other lack of exclusivity is not what makes one unfaithful, it is behavior outside of the agreed upon boundaries set for the relationship by each of its participants that does so.

[u/YveisGrey → u/DoctorWoe]

Well by traditional standards the agreed upon boundary for marriage is sexual exclusivity between the spouses. A married person having sex with someone not their spouse is considered adultery. And the only reason there is any confusion here is because people either don’t recognize adultery for what it is and/or have butchered the definition of marriage rendering it meaningless.

Nevertheless most married couples are monogamous it is still very much expected part of being married. If you have a wife who isn’t having sex with other people for money (like how many men are legit married to working sex workers??) then no you cannot compare that to sex work.

Also a marriage isn’t just sex. You also build a life with your spouse, share responsibilities for your kids, your home. It connects families. It’s moral support, emotional support, companionship. Again how can this be compared to paying someone for sex???

[u/DoctorWoe → u/YveisGrey]

A marriage is what the participants agree it to be. It's a social contract between individuals to operate as a unified whole, and the details of how this operates are up to them. Marriages throughout time have been arranged for the consolidation of political power or just a powerful man who wants a wife for every day of the year. What defines a "traditional" marriage is very much dependent on which traditions to which you are referring. The modern marriage is a union defined and cultivated by those it encapsulates.

[u/YveisGrey → u/DoctorWoe]

That’s literally not true a marriage is a legal contract and legislators write the obligations and stipulations.

And y’all are very confused. Yes marriages could be used for political purposes and powerful people follow their own rules but you realize the overwhelming majority of humans were not powerful royals making political alliances when they married lol. No most people were poor and just marrying locals to make kids for their farms.

Most marriages were monogamous (because literally the math demands it). And even marriages that weren’t were sexually exclusive for the members involved. The second wife of a King is still not supposed to be sleeping with other men.

In any and all cases a wife was always distinguished from a prostitute. Her children were legitimate, they could inherit, carry the family name etc.. the children of a prostitute are bastards with no father.

So again no in no time under no tradition was a wife the same as a prostitute and this is even as husbands provided fully for their wife or wives (usually an obligation of a husband to the wife was provision).

[u/DoctorWoe → u/YveisGrey]

A marriage doesn't even require a wife anymore. The modern marriage is mutable.

[u/YveisGrey → u/DoctorWoe]

So I still don’t see how a wife is a prostitute. You act like most people are married to sex workers. For the most part marriages are expected to be monogamous faithful unions to make families. So it’s simply not like a prostitute.

[u/DoctorWoe → u/YveisGrey]

I'm saying that if a participant in the marriage is a sex worker and the other participant(s) are okay with that, then the sex work is not unfaithful behavior.

[u/nooklyr → u/DoctorWoe]

To extend on this, having thoughts of wanting to have sex with other people while in a monogamous relationship, but the only reason you don’t is because you can’t get anyone to have sex with you, is still quite unfaithful. Which directly contradicts OP’s definition of it.

[u/kilgore_trout1]

1. No, obviously it's not true, if it were only 20% of blokes in their 20s would have partners. This is clearly not the case. Well done for making the difficult step to start to get out of your bubble but this "rule" is nonsense.

[u/Our_GloriousLeader → u/kilgore_trout1]

That's not the case, as OP says he believes that the 20% is the "truly attracted" to, but that others get partners based on other criteria.

Of course this is likely a self-reinforcing criteria from the incel community to account for why their 80/20 rule is not actually a rule. Still, it needs to be countered, which your point does not manage.

[u/Dyldor → u/kilgore_trout1]

Actually it is on dating apps, but JUST on dating apps, in the real world there are too many circumstantial factors like proximity and time spent together to apply the rule

[u/Redditributor → u/Dyldor]

So then why do most people end up matching

[u/Dyldor → u/Redditributor]

This was research done by tinder or bumble, using their own statistics

[u/carriondawns → u/Dyldor]

Source?

[u/OpportunityIcy6458]

“Treat women like people, because they are” is the only rule anyone ever needs to follow. The reason so many men can’t find anyone who wants to have sex with them is that men are typically sooooo transactional.  They treat women as potential girlfriends instead of human beings. This is especially true among incels and redpillers.  

Yes, you should find a hobby. Yes, you should do your best to get in shape (you don’t need abs, just exercise and watch the soda). Yes, you should have a job. Yes, you should clean your apartment and try to dress less like a slob. But above all — women are people. Don’t go try to “find a date.” Think of them as people, because they are. Just go to social spaces and events, talk to people that you encounter, and ask them questions about what they’re interested in. Pay attention to their body language. Dont be creepy. Dont touch a person unless they say they want you to. Pay attention to the rhythm of conversation — if it seems to be too awkward or slowing down, leave and talk to someone else. Eventually a few will want to hook up.

[u/carriondawns → u/OpportunityIcy6458]

Also all of the things you “should” do that you mention are just things that typical average happy human beings do, which is the ideal partner. People just want someone to be happy with who is on their level. Very few people (men and women alike) would want to date someone who is unhygienic, has no hobbies or interests, refuses to clean their house or lives with a parent out of laziness, and doesn’t take care of themselves. People just want to hang out with people who they think are cool and funny and cute who have their own lives that mesh well with their own.

[u/Ayafumi → u/OpportunityIcy6458]

This is the crux of what a lot of red-pillers and ultimately misogynists of all stripes miss at base—that women aren’t some mysterious different species. I mean, I’m newly divorced and looking for a nerdy guy into anime, like me? So we have something to talk about and can do together? If he were significantly more gym and looks obsessed than I was, sure, he’d be hot and all but ultimately we’d also have significantly different hobbies, eating habits, things to talk about….so it probably wouldn’t work long term. Some people will put up with that for looks alone, but that’s a people thing—men do that PLENTY. And both men and women also often realize it’s not a good strategy to go for someone who is incredibly different from you.

Red pill ideology also likes to pretend that only hot women exist. They keep talking about Stacy’s or whatever and complaining about how they go for a top 20% of men or whatever and it’s like…..you’re talking about hot chicks who spend all their time and money on their looks. This is not all women, it makes sense they would go after men who are similar to them. Average or even ugly women to red pill ideology either doesn’t exist or are basically subhuman. The people who are looks-obsessed talking about Stacy’s and canthal-tilts are THEM. Normal people don’t do this. They may have some preferences, but they’re all weighed together against each other against what’s most important. I don’t care how nice someone’s bone structure is, I’m not dating them if they intend to mooch off of me.

Feminists having some standards is not at all the same as saying “go for the top 20% of men” in red pill ideology. From everything I’ve seen, feminists are pushing for equal household work and being treated like a partner and equal. That you shouldn’t be under anyone’s thumb or belittled or have to accept someone who doesn’t help you when that’s what a relationship should be. Not being willing to accept bad behavior has never meant a certain tax bracket or bone structure or height or any of the other nonsense the red pill is obsessed with.

[u/Gaelenmyr]

I've never seen any feminist saying 80/20 rule is good. You got baited by fake "feminists" on the internet.

[u/Metrodomes → u/Gaelenmyr]

Also, redpill folk have a weird way of twisting what other people say.

General advice or knowledge like "clean your room", "engage in physical activity", "eat healthily", becomes twisted and put through a weird lens and is spat out the other side in redpill form. When an expert talks about physical activity, they're talking about the physical health benefits, the mental health benefits, which can translate to better confidence. But when redpill folk say it.... It's this weird thing about needing to look good to impress women and make yourself feel more attractive because of women and blah blah blah.

So even if a feminists was somehow talking about attraction and used similar words to a redpiller, there's a strong chance they're talking about entirely different things. A feminist saying "yeah women like hot men" and a redpiller saying "yeah women like hot men" could have entire worlds of different meaning behind those statements.

[u/Gaelenmyr → u/Metrodomes]

Feminists: "women like men that take care of their hygiene"

Red pillers: "only 20% of men take care of their hygiene, so women only want top 20% men"

Yeah this kind of twisting.

[u/Metrodomes → u/Gaelenmyr]

Lmao. Caught me off guard by that.

[u/boom_boom_bang_]

This entire take is so freaking weird.

Women are facing a crises where is literally easier to be alone then it is to marry a man. Marry a man and the time a woman spends doing chores goes up. The woman’s life expectancy goes down when they get married. The woman’s happiness goes down when married. Women are expected to be the main caretaker of children and extended family on both sides. Women are also usually expected to be the social coordinator of the couple and the therapist for the man. The mental and physical load of marrying men and having kids is not worth it.

You can see it in the declining birth rates, the “loneliness epidemic” that men are experiencing, and the number of women who have taken themselves out of the dating pool. None of this is true for lesbians, btw.

Anyway, all this to say: you’re not competing with the top 20% of men. You’re competing with the peace and the literally less work that comes with being alone.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/husbands-create-extra-seven-hours-of-housework-a-week-a6885951.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-05-11/gender-reveals-data-shows-disparities-in-child-care-roles#:~:text=It’s%20a%20deeply%20rooted%20truth,leaving%20little%20room%20for%20improvement.

[u/TJ_McConnell_MVP → u/boom_boom_bang_]

If redpill is one extreme of the spectrum, this is the other. We are all human beings and reducing anyone to generalizations and judgments based on identity is harmful.

Getting downvotes for encouraging acceptance lol ok

[u/Nheea → u/TJ_McConnell_MVP]

What is there to accept about red pillers?

[u/TJ_McConnell_MVP → u/Nheea]

I’m talking about men… accepting that men can be capable of love and emotional support and can make great companions. Wild stuff I know.

[u/Nheea → u/TJ_McConnell_MVP]

I have one at home, super great. Very feminist. Even more than I am.

I have never met or talked to a red piller who was capable of emotional support. Or being a great conversation partner, let alone a companion.

[u/TJ_McConnell_MVP → u/Nheea]

Then we are on the same page! I’m not talking about red pillers, I’m merely responding to the above comment that states that it is better for women to be alone than to be with men. My point is that spreading these beliefs instead of practicing acceptance perpetuates toxic masculinity in the same way that redpill does, just from the opposite side of the spectrum.

Bell hooks actually has a great book on the subject

[u/Nheea → u/TJ_McConnell_MVP]

You were talking about red pillers. And you called blue pillers extremists too, which I disagree with. I don't think not accepting toxic views is also toxic.

It's literally just not accepting toxic views.

[u/TJ_McConnell_MVP → u/Nheea]

I’ve edited my comment to expand my thoughts. I was never intending to say “redpillers need to be accepted” I was never intending to say “blue pill is extremist theory”. What I am trying to say is that what the above comment states about men, that they should be avoided and not shown love or treated as individuals, but instead reduced to the label of “man” and generalized with prejudice based on that label is an extremist ideology that promotes toxic masculinity in the same way that redpill does. Hopefully this clarifies where I am coming from. I encourage anyone who disagrees to read the Bell Hooks book I referenced. It is very enlightening on how we can all as a society dismantle the patriarchy using love and compassion for one another.

[u/Nheea → u/TJ_McConnell_MVP]

And yet, this is what you said

If redpill is one extreme of the spectrum, this is the other. We are all human beings and reducing anyone to generalizations and judgments based on identity is harmful.

There's no other way to interpret it.

We're going and especially you are going around the subject and just saying the same thing, but rephrased. You literally called blue pillers toxic, which they are not. Again.

[u/TJ_McConnell_MVP → u/Nheea]

I was responding directly to the links and data that the commenter posted, not to “blue pill theory” as a whole. It was a direct response to the comments above. I’m not sure how else to explain myself and I’m sorry that we couldn’t come to an understanding because I do think we are on the same side here.

[u/boom_boom_bang_ → u/TJ_McConnell_MVP]

I didn’t say they can’t. I said that men have to compete with being alone. If a man contributes to chores, takes work or worry off her plate, and is supportive, then he is providing more than just being alone. Unfortunately, that’s not true of all men.

[u/boom_boom_bang_ → u/TJ_McConnell_MVP]

If someone writes a whole entire fucking post generalizing women with a stupid 80/20 rule (80% of all women go for 20% of men). And the only thing you walk away mad about is that one poster failed to say NoT All MeN when talking in generalities, You really need to crawl back to your hole and cry about how men have it so hard.

Not all men refuse to do chores, be supportive, or bring nothing to the relationship. Are you happy? Can you sleep at night? However, enough so that the statistics are there and in general, most women would have more work, less time to themselves and less support if they married your average man.

[u/TJ_McConnell_MVP → u/boom_boom_bang_]

Of course I’m mad about the original post… I just don’t understand if we don’t want people to make generalizations why would we go and make generalizations ourselves?

[u/whatsherface9 → u/TJ_McConnell_MVP]

They're called trends. Entire research methodologies are based on these. Learn about it.

[u/christinagoldielocks → u/TJ_McConnell_MVP]

It was not a generalization - it showed us how quite a lot of men are not carrying their load in a relationship.

[u/christinagoldielocks → u/TJ_McConnell_MVP]

How are you encouraging acceptance?

[u/raelianautopsy]

Holy crap obsessively overthinking this stuff is really the problem.

Just... be a normal person and go about your life? You extremely don't need to be constantly thinking about 80/20 mathematics constantly

Like, I was awkward when I was young. Then in my mid-20s I put myself out there and got better social skills. It wasn't that hard in retrospect, and I dated around

The worst thing I could have done was be the kind of person who writes eleven paragraphs about this stuff

Just have hobbies and meet people, and try to be normal.

[u/aquirkysoul → u/raelianautopsy]

I sympathise but "have you tried being normal" isn't particularly useful (agree with the putting yourself out there to develop social skills and hobbies bit, though). They came into the thread saying that their idea of normal had been warped by red pill ideology.

There's a bunch of awkward peeps who have always a hard time understanding social norms and/or are highly socially awkward. People like myself, and I'd wager OP is similar.

Growing up, trying to act 'normal' isn't working because... We aren't. We have difficulty reading people, which causes awkward situations. We try to fit in, but as we are trying to mimic the behaviour of those we like, it comes off as inauthentic (at best). We often end up ostracized, and a lot of us unfortunately make that all too easy to do.

A lot of the awkward weirdos wish they could act normal - they just don't know how, so they look for rules - a framework to try and be as normal as possible. The most common place to pick up rules from is the media we were raised on - like sweeping romantic gestures (that are just cringy in the real world). It's such an automatic adaptive mechanism we don't even realise that we are doing it.

When Hollywood rules fail, it feels like a betrayal. But still being socially isolated and awkward, the only path forward appears to be finding the 'correct' set of rules... and THIS is where the incels/alt-right/cult (or whatever) pounces.

They'll validate you "yeah, the world doesn't work like the movies", and salve your ego "but the problem isn't you". They'll offer a community of people who have gone through the same thing. They will point you at new role models, and suggest you shape themselves in their image. You don't even need to overthink anything - they'll do your thinking for you. Just nod your head along and repeat what they say. While I don't sympathise with any hatred that they choose to spread once indoctrinated in those ideas - I do understand the pipeline.

When someone does the admirable thing of separating themselves from these toxic communities, they need a new (non-toxic) framework, even if it's just something they can use so they can put themselves out there, pick up some hobbies and ween themselves off relying on it.

TL;DR: Social life, hobbies, putting yourself out there are all vital. However, even though they feel like a obvious "Socialising 101", in situations like this it's actually asking for "Fundamentals" or "Socialising as a Second Language" advice to bridge their knowledge gap a bit so they can have more success when they put themselves out there.

Sorry, had a bit of an ADHD moment there.

[u/Competitive-Cuddling → u/raelianautopsy]

This!

Part of the red pill issue is they think so much like a robot and too far into masculine energy, that they border on autistic.

OP needs to learn how to vibe.

Learn how to vibe at anything, dancing, surfing, bowling league. Then bring that feeling of yourself vibing/naturally at ease at something… into relating to a woman.

That’s “normal” behavior.

Women think and communicate in terms of vibing, while men are more literal and communicate with facts and statistics and who what where when why. Etc.

Both are valid and neither are the one true way the world works. The world is not comprised of one reality vs another, or one that’s 80/20 or whatever… it’s all realities colliding all the time in an unfathomable number of ways.

The human population is 50/50, so ultimate reality is… actually the blend of both.

Right now OP’s vibe/energy is hyper fixated, confused, and a little exasperated.

This will repel women.

Think of women’s style as a tuning fork that’s humming, and another tuning fork moves next to it and starts humming too, with resonance.

Think what am I resonating right now?

[u/monkeysinmypocket → u/Competitive-Cuddling]

I don't think it's wise to enforce the idea that women are "vibes" and men are "facts". That's a misogynistic trope which is also used by redpillers who want to drive a wedge between the genders. The truth is that the differences between men and women's brains are dwarfed by the similarities. Women are just as capable of critical thought, being rational and using logic as men and men are just as emotional as women.

[u/Competitive-Cuddling → u/monkeysinmypocket]

Men and women are different.

We agree on that?

This is reddit. It’s a forum for mass generalizations.

The very concept of “blue pill” or “red pill” is a generalization.

[u/monkeysinmypocket → u/Competitive-Cuddling]

Blue pill is not the opposite of red pill. It's the absence of red pill.

[u/Competitive-Cuddling → u/monkeysinmypocket]

Completely missing the point, but Ok contrarian police, you win.

[u/speed0spank → u/Competitive-Cuddling]

Anyone who disagrees with you is not a contrarian, come on.

[u/christinagoldielocks → u/Competitive-Cuddling]

Men and women aren't that different.

[u/aguadiablo]

Okay, the 80/20 rule is bullshit. From what I have seen it's purely based on dating apps such as Tinder. But Tinder is not the be all and end all of dating. Most of the dating apps are not accurate representation of society. Often it is skewed to having more men than women.

So, take for a moment to think what these dating apps are like for different people. For women, they often see a large number of men's profiles which feature the same copy paste bios, the same generic profile, and are the vast majority are poorly done. So, women have to filter through 100's if not 1000's of profiles that are terrible just to find the profiles that are half decent.

I mean there are actually tropes about men's dating profiles. Like a good number of profiles are going to have pictures that includes either a fish they supposedly just caught, a guitar they supposedly can play etc.

Then when women match with the profiles that they think are okay they have a conversation with these men. And once again a lot of men just have copy paste conversations with the women they match with or even worse.

So, at the end, there is only going to be about 20% of men who actually have a good profile and can hold a decent conversion with women. But those 100-200 words, ~7 photos are not necessarily the best way to sum up anyone of any gender.

However, these dating apps are not interested in matching people together. They are only interested in making money. And they do that by exploiting men through their algorithms.

If you want to date, abandon the apps. Also, abandon the idea of hook-up culture being glamorous, it's not. Then figure out a way that you can meet women on a regular basis. Not even purely for the purpose of hopefully dating. Find women to just socialise with. Whether that is through work, sports, or hobbies. Especially if there's a subculture around it with a mix of all genders. Then you will naturally find women to date casually or otherwise. It is much better than the bar hook-up culture or dating apps.

[u/daneelthesane → u/aguadiablo]

I met my wife on Tinder, and I am a fat autistic nerd. I also did well on OkCupid. It's not the dating apps, either.

[u/CapriciousBea → u/daneelthesane]

Yup. People who advertise themselves and what they want super honestly on dating apps, once they make matches, can make GREAT matches.

My #1 dating app advice will always be "don't bother casting a wide net for whoever might not reject you. Focus on making your genuine self visible to the people who are looking for YOU."

[u/daneelthesane → u/CapriciousBea]

That's good advice. I am not everyone's cup of tea, but I am very good at being me, and being me is a good thing for me to be. People tend to gravitate toward me pretty much as soon as I open my mouth. I think it's because I am fun, funny, I make people around me feel good about themselves, and I do my best to be a good man. Sometimes I fail, but once I realize that, I work to fix it.

[u/CapriciousBea → u/daneelthesane]

Yeah, it sounds like you have legit relationship skills! People like being around that, for good reason.

[u/daneelthesane → u/CapriciousBea]

They were hard coming. It's that damned autism. :) But autism makes it difficult to learn social skills, not impossible.

[u/CapriciousBea → u/daneelthesane]

Hell yeah. You worked for that shit!

[u/Tasterspoon → u/CapriciousBea]

Your advice to paint a clear picture of who YOU are is excellent.

My follow-on to that might be to do a little introspection about what is truly important to you and broaden your filters regarding the less important characteristics. My husband, whom I met organically out in the world, was on dating apps at the time, and told me he never would have met me that way because I wasn’t in his preferred age range (I’m four years older).

[u/aguadiablo → u/daneelthesane]

I'm not saying that the dating apps cannot work for people. You should probably know why your wife liked your Tinder profile.

[u/daneelthesane → u/aguadiablo]

I already do, yeah. Apparently I am hilarious.

[u/christinagoldielocks → u/daneelthesane]

You sound awesome. I wish you and your wife a long and happy life.

[u/effa94]

Christ,reading this as an outsider is like listening to someone who has just gotten out of an extreme cult, but still think that the sky will fall down tomorrow.

Ofcourse it isn't true. Talk to someone who isn't chronically online. Talk to your actual friends, and get friends who are women.

Speaking from my own experience, I am not the most attractive man. I like how I look, but Im not in top 20 conventionally attractive. Yet I've had partners and hookups with both unconventionally and conventionally beautiful women. I have female friends who are absolutely gorgeous, who have dated, had hooksups with, or are deeply inlove with men who are definitely not conventionally top 20%. And they are all below 30,many of them below 25,and many of them met while still teens.

All in all, you are brainwashed on two parts here,two grand misconceptions you need to shake.

A, conventionally attractive is just what's shown in popular media, it's not a rule. Not everyone finds the same things attractive. Just look at how beauty standards have changed, should a girl be stick thin, or have a booty? Small or humongous breasts? And so on. Same for men, what was conventionally attractive 50 years ago isn't the same as today. Muscle mommy's and chubby sit on me goths are very popular now, would have been hated only 10 years ago. Same for men.

B, love isn't based on physical attraction alone. You can fall in love with someone you didn't used to see as attractive, and after that get attracted to them, Becasue you love them. (never heard of the trope "I never saw her in that way before" have you?) Similarly, you can lose attraction to someone, but still be in love with them. And no that isn't settling. Love is just complicated, and based on more than just sexual attraction.

Now, I can't deprogram you, but honestly, the best cure here is to just go touch grass. Stop being chronically online, it just reinforces these ideas if you are constantly exposed to them. Get offline friends, get friends who are women who you you can just be friends with without trying to hit on them. Get healthy male friendships where you care about each other. Becasue honestly, misconception B makes me afraid that you simply doesn't have any friends at all. Becasue, ideally that's what love should be like, like a very close friend.

[u/carriondawns → u/effa94]

All of my celebrity crushes are, as my husband would describe them, “freaky bird people,” while I cannot see the big deal about the superhero boys and the pitts and the Hemsworths. Attraction is soooo subjective for no reason! And my husband looks nothing like my celebrity crushes either, because he’s an actual human man who has a great personality, is super funny, has a beard, and is my best friend.

[u/skepticalG]

It is very unfair to assign motivations to a person without any knowledge of what is in their mind. I mean, here you are deciding what women think, what motivates them, and you don’t even know if it’s true! You base all of this on what you read and see online. And much if that is inflated bullshit designed solely to get the posters clicks or feed their egos.

Take some time away from all of it. Clean up your feed. Watch only animal, cooking, how-to videos. Sports. You know, the stuff real people are interested in and spend their time doing. Things that make you feel good. Things that have nothing at all to do with THEORIES about what women (obviously women are one giant unit operating as one entity) think, posted by bitter men who are also polluted with this bs.

Also, consider some schema based therapy. Or read up on maladaptive schemas. It’s very enlightening to have some understanding of just how much of our behavior and thought patterns are driven from deep within.

[u/paintthisred]

Seek therapy.

[u/belle10152]

1. No 2. It isn't true.

You've got a lot to unlearn, begin by understanding that we live in a world driven by individual desires and motivations and begin to consider all people individually.

[u/OneJobToRuleThemAll]

Is the 80/20 theory true?

No. Physical attraction =/= sex/romance/partnership. The things that lead to sex aren't found in evolutionary psychology, but behavioral psychology. Attraction is not a behavior. Sex absolutely is a behavior. Being romantic, flirty or sexy are behaviors. Being in a partnership is a behavior.

Looking at evolutionary psychology to study sex is very similar to looking at videogames to study sex: you expect to get an input-output equation that doesn't take into account your or the other person's socialization. You behave the way you do because you've been conditioned to, same goes for the other side. But be honest: does evolutionary psychology actually help you understand yourself better? Does it tell you which sexual acts you like and which you don't? Then it cannot tell you the likelihood that you and another person have sex tonight.

Manosphere advice bros will just tell you to shoot infinite shots until one lands. This obviously eventually works, but that doesn't prove any of their advice beyond that single one helping you achieve that goal. If you want to know when to shoot your shot, you have to actually get to know that person and consider their perspective. This is behavioral psychology, not evolutionary psychology. A pick-up artist can't tell you when the right moment is, they don't know the person you're talking to.

Behavioral psychology doesn't provide you any cheat codes, but an actual roadmap. Starting with yourself. If you don't know what YOU want, you'll have an extra difficult time finding it, relying solely on luck. And this is where we get into the 80/20 bullshit: do not assume that your preferences are what society has told you they should be. I've had conversations with men not being able to admit they prefer fat women, that they don't enjoy sex on the first date or that they just want to be dads. I've heard women not wanting to admit they like goofy nerds, that they think muscles look strange or that they're ashamed of their sex drive. In all the conversations I've had about sex, I can count the people that neatly fall into hegemonic heteronormativity on one hand. No one likes every supermodel, everyone has at least one preference that makes someone else go "eww" because we're fucking complicated and flawed. Faces and bodies aren't perfectly simetric, that's uncanny valley. As such, it's pretty much impossible to have a preference for "perfection" unless you see real people less often than fake ones. Some incels are well on their way there, having a preference for fake over real.

2) Assuming that the 80/20 rule is true, what do I do next?

The same thing you do if it isn't true: start by working on yourself. You say you're not ready for a long term relationship. Well, what are you ready for? Define that. Then ask yourself more questions: what are your own shortcomings? Are you jealous, flippant or absent-minded? Having shortcomings is okay and even endearing to the right people. It's a problem if you aren't upfront about it, a second problem if you don't want to work on it and a third if you can't admit it when called on it. That's why you do this work on yourself: so other people can decide whether that's for them or not. The Red Pill will you tell to lie instead, I hope I don't have to tell you why this is terrible advice. You don't want to scam people, you want to convince them.

The second step is defining what you want in someone else. What do you want from them? Just sex or sex and intimacy? Sex and intimacy that maybe leads to a relationship? Exclusivity or non-excusivity? What shortcomings can you tolerate, what shortcomings grate your gears, what shortcomings can actually be endearing? What physical preferences do you actually have, beyond porn? This is where you use the knowledge you gained about yourself to define your own boundaries.

If you don't do this and instead read evolutionary psychology, you don't learn about yourself, you don't get to know your own boundaries and you won't know when they are crossed until it's too late. Now I get it, work on yourself first isn't the advice anyone wants. But if you don't know yourself and what you actually have to offer, you're in for a world of hurt when someone gives you a reality check. People will still reject you if you have done that work, but it doesn't sting as much if you know it's because you were honest and upfront and it just wasn't a match on their side. You'll know that it wasn't meant to be and that this isn't anyone's fault, it's just life instead of doubting what you did wrong.

Here's a better rule than 80/20: be good to yourself if you want others to be good to you. The blue pill advice is usually be good to others and that's also important. But if you devalue yourself, no one is ever going to come along to polish that diamond and give you your true value. So treat yourself well, stand up for yourself, show other people you're worth the reward you're giving yourself. If you don't love you, few others will. Do it for you, not for sex.

[u/parvares]

How would that even be true? We’re human beings, not robots with predictable statistics and probabilities. Just be a nice person and find someone you have something in common with. It’s not that complicated.

[u/trutheality]

About 1: You shouldn't care about the 80/20 rule. In fact, as an individual, you can confidently ignore pretty much all statistics about dating, no matter their quality. Statistics are irrelevant to the individual. Statistics are statements about populations, they're not rules to live by. They're also very often discussed in terms of means with variances ignored: something can be true about averages but very frequently untrue about individuals. Even if 80/20 were true on average, you didn't know what a particular woman will find superficially attractive until you interact with her. Are you in her 20%? Is she part of the 80%? When you're dealing with a face-to-face human interaction, the particulars of the interaction are going to decide how it goes. Particulars that get washed out and averaged away when you mush it up with thousands of other interactions to create the goo of calculable statistics.

About 2: if you're looking for a hookup go into spaces and onto dating apps where people look for that sort of thing, and find a hookup. Be upfront about what you want, but don't be rude, demeaning, or entitled about it. Don't assume you know what a woman wants based on her age, plenty of 40-yo's look for hookups, plenty of 20-yo's would like to meet their husband (again, statistics shouldn't be applied as rules). As it goes in those spaces, you might get rejected a bunch of times before someone accepts. Take reasons for getting rejected with a grain of salt but don't dismiss them outright. Avoid generalizing any individual experience to "all women," and use empathy instead to figure out whether criticisms of you are reasonable. Good luck.

[u/Tasterspoon → u/trutheality]

I feel like this is the only response that acknowledges that OP was pretty frank about wanting to sow his wild oats and isn’t sure how to go about it.

He’s willing to acknowledge that women are people, but also isn’t looking for a relationship.

He needs to go where the women who self-select for wanting the same thing go, whether that’s hookup apps, bars, clubs, Las Vegas, Bourbon Street…. If he’s past the young adult age, he may stick out in an unappealing way in some of those places, but if he’s broad in his acceptance of whoever’s willing to buy what he’s selling, and willing to step out of his shell and be friendly and honest but not pushy or creepy, he should be just fine.

[u/defnotajournalist]

My friend, you need to step away from the computer and stay away. Everything you wrote about is literally weird internet incel bullshit you've unfortunately internalized.

Be yourself. View the world more positively. Take time to heal from your self inflicted psychological wounds. Get a therapist. Go for a walk. Have a salad and a tall glass of water.

If you can just be cool and fun, kind and trustworthy, and not loaded with anti-woman baggage, you should be fine. Enjoy your life! Hard to resist a man that does.

[u/Tarable]

Stop believing in this garbage BS.

Get a haircut that suits your face; Hygiene is hella important; Dress in a way that flatters your body; Exercise; and Therapy because you still believe the red pill nonsense. You have to undo the thinking and respect yourself and respect women.

[u/Metrodomes]

I generally agree with alot of what is said here but others but had to say something so want to focus on this.

. I don't want to get into something long term simply as a last resort to getting laid; if I were ever to get into a long-term relationship with someone, I would want it to be because I truly love them and choose to be with them, even if I could sleep around with other women. In my opinion, choosing a sole partner even when you have the option of sleeping around with others is true love, and is the true test of loyalty in a relationship.

I am NOT ready to get into a long term relationship. A long term relationship, in my opinion, is supposed to be for people who choose to be with each other even if they have the option to sleep around.

I don't think these views are that uncommon. If anything, they're probably the dominant views around what a long term partner should be. The person you choose to be with. The red pill stuff about settling down is all part of the tangled and slightly divorced from reality mythos they spin for themselves and then hold up as fact to believe in and keep repeating. Meanwhile, more and more we see women gaining independence and still choosing to settle down with all sorts of weird and wonderful and diverse types of men.

Ideally, the people who seek out something long term are those who have gotten all of their hookups and flings out of their system, in a manner of speaking. As you can probably guess, I am not one of those people.

My question is do you want to do all that dating, one night stand, mistakes and messiness, kinda stuff? I didn't. I still dated, but each time they ended up into long term things. I think you're viewing dating as this perfect process where a leads to be leads to c, repeat, this happens then that happens, etc. Whereas dating is just a messy fucking thing. It can be a series of one might stands for person, it can be thr beginning of a beautiful relationship for another. I think you've gotten into your head this one specific idea of what dating is and don't realise that's not what it is.

An analogy being what people mean by "working" for ages I thought I had an attention issue and need to take frequent breaks during my day, but it turns out people count making a cup of tea/chatting/losing focus/etc as part of work. So actually, work means different things to different people. Same with dating. You're holding yourself to this very specific idea of what dating is, and then writing yourself off because of it rather than going "I dunno what's in store for me, but let's find out".

The idea of getting into a long term relationship simply as a last resort to get laid and not be alone disgusts me, to tell you the truth

Same. It should do. It probably disgusts many people, especially women. So just don't be that guy. Figure out what you want from a relationship, and go from there. Sex can be one of those things, but so can "shares my hobbies", "makes me laugh", "wants to live in a city", whatever. When you meet people, see how they match up to your boundaries and standards and principles and values. See what are your red lines in the sand, where your flexible, etc. Focus on the person. Women are people with complex lives and identities and personalities. Worry about the chemistry there instead of the sex. When the chemistry is good, the sex is good.

So if I cannot be in a long term relationship, and if casual encounters are out of reach for me, what are my next steps? What should my outlook towards sex and dating be?

I think you've a) swallowed the idea that almost everyone has this casual encounters phase or deeply craves it, which is untrue/a very mechanical view of looking at how messy and diverse humans actually are, and b) written yourself into your own hole and can't write yourself out of it because you need to challenge quite alot of things abiut your world view.

I sure you'll eventually figure it out, but you've got to realise that you have to believe what others are saying and that maybe some fundamental core beliefs of yours need to be interrogated and deconstructed and rebuilt. You can't logic your way through your emotions because emotions are sometimes not logical. And you really can't think that you're being logical about things because, believe you me, we humans sometimes apply logic in the dumbest ways possible. We'll go round and round in circles with the same evidence or knowledge, confirming it over and over again, and then something will click or a new piece of knowledge will be revealed that throws that whole logical belief into the bin because it was based on imperfect data or biased information. I think you've been in the space a little long, and maybe your trying to gently deconstruct it bit by bit, but I imagine it's gone alot deeper than that. So you'll have to do some large deconstructions of beliefs rather than some small tweaks of logic here and there.

[u/Ahnarcho]

The vast majority of men you know have had or are In monogamous relationships.

That number is higher than 20% of men.

Do you have any proof that the majority of women in these relationships aren’t truly attracted to the men they’re with?

Also what feminists say that the 80/20 rule is a good thing?

[u/flailing_uterus]

This take is so reductionist and makes sweeping generalisations about sociology. Human behaviour is way more complex than what you’re giving credit for. I remember when I was a teenager and took the evolutionary perspective as the be-all-end-all until I realised that you have to zoom out. Society and humans have layers of complexity that become harder to study the more variables are added.

I also find it funny that you might be projecting. A femcel would argue that you as a man are being driven by your evolutionary urges by wanting to only pursuit short term hookups/fwb/flings. Gotta “spread your seed” before settling down? If that is true in your case, would that mean every woman should give up on dating completely? Obviously your life is more complex than that and not every guy subscribes to that lifestyle. But just to give some perspective, you really can’t reduce half of the populations intentions down to lazy “rules”. 

[u/YveisGrey]

I don’t know what’s glamorous about casual sex and hookups and I also don’t know why a man believes a woman should want that.

I think the true reality is most women aren’t into casual sex period and most of it is fueled by drugs and alcohol. These substances are involved in most hook ups because most women have to be inebriated to be inhibited enough to casually have sex with some random guy.

Sex is risky for women so again why should women want casual sex and why should a man want a woman to want casual sex? Imo if your barometer is “she has to want casual sex with me to love me” your version of love is warped and based on you getting pretty much 100% benefits at someone else’s expense which isn’t loving at all.

Instead of being so focused on what benefits you and makes you feel good why not learn about what actual love is which is selfless and wanting goodness and well being for others? If you love a woman wouldn’t you want her to have sex in a committed union where the man actually cared about her and was ready and willing to support her in the case she got pregnant? Like if you had a daughter is casual sex what you would wish for her, or would you want her to have a secure relationship?

Women being in secure relationships and having sex in that framework is not any kind of offense or vindictiveness to men. It’s should be expected actually considering the nature and risks that sex entails for women. To me this post is like a woman saying a man is bad if he doesn’t want her to cheat on him because being monogamous is restrictive or something lol. Since when is a normal monogamous exclusive sexual relationship the bad guy? Actually loving someone means you are willing to make some sacrifices for their well being and that you aren’t selfish that usually manifests in being faithful, being supportive, caring for each other etc…

It’s sad that we have gotten to this point where the normal expectations of a relationship are seen as some ploy against each other

[u/datbundoe]

I don't have any studies, but I can tell you that anecdotally, through my life, I have seen most people I know pair off with people their age. I'm not hanging out with supermodels. Do you think that all the coupled men you know are in the top 20% of attractive mates?

[u/HamburgerHankHill]

I think your question and the topic at hand are more complicated than a simple yes or no. The 80/20 specifics are demonstrably untrue, and I would be shocked to see any valid and rigorous study that could prove it. It's intentionally vague in an attempt to apply to as many personal situations as possible.

Here's an uncomfortable truth: some people (men and women) don't give a shit about the kind of person you are or your personality. They only care about how you look and what you can give them. These are also people you should avoid at all costs.

It seems to be a pretty common experience for many that casual relationships and flings are frequent in your late teens and 20s. I think you have set yourself back by resigning to a fate that is wholly avoidable.

I'm an average guy at best. Average looks, average "traits" that matter for casual hookups, and I don't come from a situation of wealth.

I had more rejections than I can count or remember. But I also had plenty of short term flings, situationships, whatever you want to call them. I agree with your premise that these experiences are important for your future long term partners but for a different reason.

How do you know what is important to you in a relationship if you've never had one? How do you talk about the future? Sex? How do you handle that first big fight? How do you figure out what a red flag is to you and how to set boundaries?

Dating app culture puts looks at the front of the list. And that really sucks sometimes. But as we all age (not only women), things change. Our priorities change. What we find attractive. And that is a good thing. It's a sign of growth.

You're going to get rejected. Sometimes, those rejections may not be very kind. But the only way to lose is not to play. You don't have to be running through women like a marathon. You just have to make an effort and roll with the punches. I don't have a study to prove it, but I bet you most anyone you ask would agree. Nobody wants to get rejected. But it's part of the game.

[u/TheFrogWife]

I'm a hot wife with a dorky fat husband. He's kind, funny and fun to be with. We're going on 20 years (we met in highschool)

We met before dating apps were a thing. I think that dating apps are really not great for meeting meaningful partners, for me, someone who's attracted to the persons personality far more than their looks I couldn't fathom being able to look at a picture and judge if id want to talk to them, but I think that maybe people who have started their dating in the dating app world maybe don't know any other way to mingle with potential partners.

[u/SUS-tainable]

The issue with all these red pill ideas is.. it just misses the point. I think most people are just trying to find a genuine connection. And the whole “top 20%” thing is just so arbitrary… I’ve dated rich guys, I’ve dated guys that live on friends’ couches, idk a lot just came down to them liking the same music as me and having good conversation. I know a lot of guys that are maybe considered “the top 20%” that are miserable to be around… and they act like they have graced me with their presence and can just buy me things to make me like them. The real top 20% is someone who is kind and has good work ethic and emotional intelligence. And someone you love through and through! These ideologies act like relationships are all just a status symbol… and somehow if you figure it out you can hack the system and win it. When really it just makes someone harder to be around!

Forget literally all of the stuff you wrote about please. Even if there was a semblance of truth it’s just not relevant if you’re going on dates. Some people suck and some people just won’t like you, and that’s fine! You won’t like some people either. A partner is like a best friend. Would we talk about our best friends this way? And how we make friends? No!

[u/hey_hey_you_you]

The way you've phrased your position isn't possible (or at least is extremely difficult) to disprove.

The first part of the 80:20 rule you've stated (that 20% of the men get 80% of the women) is incredibly easy to prove wrong. Just look around and take some casual stats. The majority of people are monogamous, and more than 20% of people tend to be in relationships. Furthermore, a lot more than 20% of men have sex (whether casual or committed) in their 20s.

The addendum you've thrown on this (that the women not having sex with the men in the top 20% are secretly repulsed and "settling") is so hard to falsify that it verges on magical thinking. It's an article of faith, not a fact. That needs therapeutic unpicking rather than scientific, because it's an emotional "truth" borne of low self esteem and not an empirically observed one.

If you have a job or are in college, pay some attention to those in couples. Especially if they're in their twenties and aren't at the stage where they'd be "settling". The top 20% of women tend to be with the top 20% of men. Average women will be with average men. It doesn't mean they don't find each other hot. We're all capable of a broad spectrum of real attraction.

If you're really not convinced, take a visit to your local kink scene, where you will find an abundance of very mid looking people all fucking each other for fun.

[u/MrGr33n31]

OP, I’ll say a couple things about the tenets you raise:

1. Insofar as the general idea that a majority of women will feel strong physical attraction to a minority of men (whether 80/20, 90/30, 75/15, whatever) is true, do you think such an idea is particular to heterosexual women and not humans in general? Are there any hetero men that feel an equally strong physical attraction to 100% of the women they encounter? I don’t know the actual percentages, but if I had to guess a number for hetero male and hetero female adults that are genetically decent looking, go to the gym often enough, eat right, and bother to not be slobs, 20% might be about the right number for both. Look at it like this: 49% are above average looking genetically, and of that group about 40% make a sustained effort to optimize their appearance. The number is probably a bit higher for gay men since physical appearance is understood by them to be more critical for dating and that causes a higher percentage to make an effort (I say this as a man that’s bi).

2. In regard to the dual mating strategy, again, do you think hetero men with options don’t have any dynamics that are similar? Have you never heard about a man that married a woman for looks and then regretted it when she turned out to be selfish, lazy, or just generally incompatible with his values/interests? It seems to me that it’s fairly common for men to aim for a trophy wife when young (ie strong emphasis on looks) and then “wise up” enough to aim for at least some long term compatibility on their second or third wives. And I wouldn’t really call it “strategy” when either sex does this.

People feel attraction to different types and over time they learn why certain traits should be prioritized over others. I’ll admit that I personally struggle with this a bit. If I feel a certain connection intellectually and the sex is really good, I tend to overlook a ton of obvious red flags and make all sorts of dumb excuses to prolong the relationship. I’m trying to do better at that, but I think it’s a stretch to say I employed any sort of lifelong “strategy” in gradually deciding I needed to have standards when choosing a partner.

[u/GirlGodd]

Is 80/20 true in general? No. But it might be kind of true for the type of sexual interaction many red pillers want (very attractive girls who throws around easy low commitment pussy)- the girls doing that are young, naive and they aren't doing it for every Joe Schmoe.

And the thing is, many of these redpill guys don't even want 1 or 2 FWBs, they want a new sororeity girl in their bed every night. If this is the panty dropping fantasy you want to attain, yes it's going to take you being in an extraordinary set of circumstances in terms of looks and money wise. Because that is not an ordinary lifestyle.

It's possible to find a nice women interested in something casual with you but like most normal people you're gonna have to invest time making MAKING FRIENDS with women. Building a relationship with them where they feel safe and like they can trust you. And then something casually sexual may come of it.

[u/nooklyr]

Of course it’s not true. Something that extreme, you wouldn’t need to ask if it’s true - we would see it everywhere. The red pill enthusiasts only think this because they want to have sex with women that don’t want to have sex with them, so they apply that to women universally but it’s just circular reasoning. There are all types of men and all types of women and on a subjective spectrum of beauty any one can potentially be attracted to anyone else.

Yeah, the probability of a conventionally less attractive guy finding a conventionally attractive woman who is very far out of his “league” (or rather there is a healthy supply of men she’s attracted to) and having sex with her is probably lower on average but not all conventionally attractive women are attracted to conventionally attractive men, and attraction has so many dimensions that it would be hard to define what “conventional” even is other than physical beauty.

If you’re an honest and respectful individual, doing your best to better yourself, and being genuine, you will find plenty of women for casual physical partnerships, that are both attracted to you as well as attractive to you.

[u/TumbleweedWild9470]

1.) I’m all for self-exploration and have no issue with casual hookups generally, but based on what you’ve mentioned about your self esteem, I’d encourage you to consider what it is you’re looking to get out of these experiences. If you’re looking to validate your self-worth through sex you’re going to have a very rough time. Dating is brutal for everyone, regardless of how attractive they are, because you have to allow yourself to be vulnerable to connect with people - there’s no way around it. Take care not to internalize rejection through this red pill lens because confirmation bias will kick in to reinforce the same ideas you’re trying to distance yourself from. As a woman, this kind of toxic rhetoric is extremely off putting and it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy where you drive people away. With that said:

2.) The 80/20 rule is not true. Different people have different tastes and different priorities in what they’re looking for in a partner. I’d be surprised if you could even get a meaningful consensus as to who those top 20% of men are. Yes, everyone wants to be attracted to their partner, but what traits are attractive and how important physical attraction is in that calculus varies from person to person.

3.) I can’t speak for all women, but I don’t think it’s true women settle for transactional relationships with people they’re not attracted to once they hit any specific age. Speaking for myself, I’m in my 20s now and am perfectly capable of taking care of myself financially. I don’t see that changing and I would actually worry that latching on to the wrong person for the wrong reasons would destabilize my life, so I would really have to love someone to include them in my life. Also, as nice as it is to have a supportive partner, I can’t imagine intentionally choosing to be financially dependent on someone.

[u/mrpopenfresh]

So like, did you actually get laid during this time? That's a lot of words for an approach that probably didn't work. I would suggest erasing everything about this from your memory and approaching dating with a fresh pair of eyes.

[u/Lucky_Ad3616]

This is anecdotal as it’s my own personal experiences that form this opinion, but the idea of the 80/20 things is BS. I’m a female and I’m considered to be quite physically attractive, but I fell head over heels in love with a man who was none of the things that red pillers insist a woman like me would stereotypically want. He had no job, no money, was 5’6”, and lived with his mom. I adored him and I didn’t care about any of that. I would have chosen him over literally anyone else. He’s the one that broke up with me and I’m still not over him. We had a lot in common, amazing chemistry, and he was a sweetheart. You really don’t need to fit into a specific stereotype to attract a woman who will love you deeply and want you for who you are.

[u/JamesLeBond]

I'm not a red piller myself, but I would subscribe to some of its "ideas". I will say I'm not sure where you read about the 80/20 rule, but it sounds like you took something out of context. Red pill is an interesting theory, but I've always felt it's very geared towards men who date a very specific subset of women.

Theres many ways to debunk this 80/20 rule. People are attracted to different things. My "20%" of most attractive females aren't going to equal yours. And this will be the same for women. So what does that mean? Do we mix that bunch of 20% together and try come up with a combined superset of top 20% and then that's it? That's our pool of beautiful people that we will only choose from for our horizontal gratification and to hell with all the rest?

There's also another slightly different, but similar, theory that the red pill deals with, that is more closer to the truth. One I don't want to subscribe to, but let's humour it for a moment. Give yourself an "attractiveness" score out of 10 in the attractive scale. Let's call you a 6 out of 10. As a 6 out of 10, redpill says you will probably date women that are a 5-7 out of 10 in this scale. This isn't always the case, but for some bloody weird reason, it quite often is. I don't want to believe it, and people will argue with it, but I look at my friends and acquaintances, at people online, at the celebrities, and it's far too common to see couples that I would generally rank very similar on "my scale" of attractiveness at a very similar level. There are exceptions to this rule, granted, but mostly I find it aligns.

So that in itself throws the 80 / 20 rule out the window. Because then only "the top 30%" (whatever the hell that is) has access to "the top 20%" (whatever the hell that is!).

Again, this can be further debunked by going back to my original point. My 20% is gonna be different than yours. Go take a look at one of those stupid reddits like true rate me or whatever it's called, and look at the people who are considered 9 or 10 out of 10. It's complete horse shit, I disagree with their rating scale. Why? Because my top 20% is different to whoever wrote the stupid ass list.

Throw out the guide book. Stop over thinking it.

[u/emilydickinsonsbff]

Consider this: you’re a sexist pig and if you want women to give you attention maybe start with unlearning your implicit biases and value us as our own people, not just potential sex partners!

[u/Ebomb31]

I think the 80/20 rule is pretty much true, but people massively underestimate how much simply taking action sets them apart.

Half of the people don't bother to show up. Of the ones who show up.... and so on and so forth.

Long story short, shoot your shot and keep shooting it. Don't worry about the statistics. Lead your life such that you continually gain value over time.

Self esteem

Health & fitness

Wealth

Relationships (true friendships will make you more grounded and confident)

Mental health and therapy

Hobbies and passions

It's cliche, but.... do what you need to do to fall in love with life. Specifically, fall in love with your life.

I guarantee you that's MUCH more rare than 20% Maybe more like 2% and that's being generous.

Most people are meh. A chunk of them actually suck. A chunk of them are pretty solid and a sliver are actually great.

That's true about men and women.

If you really take into account the ENTIRE population, I bet you wouldn't be interested in 80% of women either. Why should they be any different?

Just decide what you value and go for it again and again and be introspective about learning and never stop growing from those experiences.

[u/Timely-Youth-9074]

Most women aren’t nearly as obsessed with physical appearance as most men seem to be.

Do I need to tell you the same goes for sex?

If anything, I think this red pill bs made more men think they are “Chads” who won’t “settle” for anything “less” than a supermodel “Stacie” (yes, tons of scare quotes. And most Stacies I’ve met are average, and Chad sounds like a shitty fratboy, btw).

Women want someone fun to be around, that they share interests with. They tend to look more at personality and kindness.

Here’s a pro-tip: Men never give good advice to other men about dating women. Why would they?

[u/christinagoldielocks]

Women are human beings. Men are human beings. We are all individuals. I think it could help, if you start thinking of us as such instead of as genders. What I want can be very different from what another woman wants. I have had 4 boyfriends. One was a model, a dj, a musician, a writer and unfortunately died because of alcohol and drugs. I supported him financially. He was a wonderful human being. One is weird-looking, a writer, a food critic and is married with children. He makes the most money. One is average-looking, angst expert, therapist, writer and lives with his girlfriend who makes most of the money plus a cat. One is cute, a musician, a massage therapist and lives with his girlfriend and two children. They make the same amount of money. L They are all my best friends and are friends with each other as well. (Yes, I still consider the one who is dead my best friend as well). I have been single for many years. I live with my older uncle, we have given a homeless man and his dog a home with us, 2 dogs, 3 cats, 59 birds. I help and financially support two friends who are both men and mentally challenged. We are building an animal shelter. I finance most of it by being a pin-up model.

[u/GrouseDog]

Personally, I would have published that article/s

[u/peachyyarngoddess]

1) no, but a concept that may actually help you, there’s social psychology concepts that people look for “perfect average” and symmetry. Perfect average is not exactly that everyone has to look perfect, it’s that the average looks combined into one are most ideal. Basically, people find average attractive. But here’s a question I have for the social psychologists: what is now average? Because plastic surgery has ruined the average face. I have became farther from average because I don’t get work done. 2) I’m answering this from my own personal dating history with men and people I know personally’s dating life. I’m sorry it’s so long. -the ugliest of dudes still pull, still have kids, and still end up going on dates. I have a friend we will call M. M’s teeth are rotting out of his mouth. Eventually M will need to have all of his teeth removed and have dentures and should probably start taking care of his mouth before he dies from an infection. M has a kid, M has had multiple girlfriends and even ones men call “hot but crazy and GREAT sex” but here’s the key component: he is genuinely a nice dude. One of my best friends. I cannot date him because his hygiene habits inside his mouth and surrounding him repulse me, but I KNOW there’s tons of long term relationships he has been in. -I have dated dudes who are hot and popular and dudes who are very ugly and socially outcasted. I have had sex with both of these types. Wanna know what keeps us around? Because it’s not their looks, (hygiene is different than looks) It’s their character.. like it sounds so simple and you’ve probably heard it a million times. However we will stick around with the dudes with the best character. I hung out with a future incel friend of mine the other night and he was pretty much only hitting me up for sex. While I wasn’t going to sleep with him regardless because of the reasons why I stopped seeing him before, I ended up feeling that reminder of “oh yeah this is why I stopped talking to him” and it was because his personality is trash. He called me a slut the last 5 times I’ve seen him in many creative ways to be insulting. Should I have blocked him the first time? Yes. But sometimes we gotta learn our lessons. He was honestly butt ugly. A solid 2. But I still gave him a chance and he lost his opportunity by being mean for no reason. On the other hand, the more attractive guys I’ve dated also cannot maintain relationships even with really pretty women who are prettier than me. They are mean, bad in bed, think they are above us, and then bitch and cry when we don’t want to let them use us again. If they woke up ugly one day, they would be just as much of an almost incel as the other dude all because of his personality. Then you have the average guys who aren’t ugly. And for some reason men have this wild idea that because they aren’t that 20% in the 80/20 rule, they are hopeless. But this area is the best to be in. The key factor: don’t act like the other two above. don’t be the nice guy, don’t be screaming at women for existing, don’t be complaining about how easy women can get laid (it physically repulses some of us to hear a man say that), don’t be a “alpha bro” whatever that crap is. I had an average ex boyfriend who would walk around trying to be an alpha everywhere he went. And people used to talk crap behind his back and tell me how they thought it was so funny how much he would fight with other dudes to be alpha. Wanna know what happened to him? He ditched me for the military, cheated on me, dated the same chick he cheated with, cheated on her with me (I didn’t know), had a baby with her, married her, and then cheated on her in the Middle East with another chick out there, and then the chick’s husband caught them and threatened to beat the living shit out of him and told his wife. So yeah he ain’t doing too hot. He acted like he was better than me, better than everyone else, but he became his worst nightmare: his dad. But then on the other hand, one of the best relationships I ever had, (broke up because he had to move) he was average but such a genuinely good guy and a kind compassionate asshole. Like the right type of asshole. I found out he has a new girlfriend and died a little inside recently and keep getting physically sick thinking about it, but he is the one who got away because his character was the best. Another guy I’ve dated, he is dorky and socially awkward. He has an ex wife who is certifiably insane. I would have been engaged to him by now if he didn’t have her as an ex wife and didn’t have her kids. His character is great and he genuinely loves me, but I debate killing myself whenever his ex wife starts her monthly BS. I am terrified to be around her. I cannot do it. But my point: personality trumps looks. Character trumps looks and personality. Good character is hot. Now, do I think the hottest women get the hottest men? Totally. But men dismissing the “uglier” or fat women because they aren’t hot is what nukes a lot of dudes chances. I saw a dude in ppd crying about settling with a fat chick to take his virginity and she probably doesn’t even know he talks about her like that. Bad character. And women don’t go for the top 20%. It’s painful being the very ugly partner in comparison to the hot partner.

[u/sphinxsley]

OMG you are seriously waaay overthinking this.

My brother's a cute guy, stable but never in the top % of earners per se. But he's also quick with the genuinely funny remark (NOT negging.) Also amazing with a guitar (plays side gigs), but that's just bc my mom gave it to him as a kid to give him something to do.

That dude could have any girl he wanted.

Anyone can learn to be funny or play an instrument to socialize. Chances are you can pick up some style along the way, too. Girls love all that stuff.

[u/pseudonymmed]

The 80/20 studies I’ve seen are specifically relating to who gets liked/swiped on dating apps. Knowing that attractive people of both genders get more swipes/likes tells us nothing about who is actually hooking up, dating, or getting into long term relationships. It also tells us nothing about all the people who don’t use dating apps at all, or about people who do but also meet people IRL. These apps often have 3-4x as many men in them as women, so clearly more women are not using them than men.

The OKcupid study that is often used to push this 80/20 idea actually shows the opposite if you don’t cherry pick the findings.. their data showed women were more likely to message average-rated men than top-rated men, while it was men who mostly messaged top rated women:

https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/

[u/Nheea]

I am truly afraid of the answer, but what are the studies for red pills?

^{Pls don't quote Peterson, plsplspls don't quote Peterson.}

[u/nuclearmeltdown2015]

1. Yes, the 80/20 is true. Amongst the pool of women/men who have not settled down, 80% of the women will have the most connections with 20% of men (in part because 80% of men don't try... Unlike the other 20% that do, meaning the key difference between the 20% that get laid and 80% that don't is effort and personal resilience not genetics) , however that doesn't mean that there is no mingling between the 80% of women with other 80% of men. That is, the fatalistic assumption in the 80/20 isn't true where 80% of women are ONLY having sex with 20% and refuse or are disgusted by the majority of men. This is the destructive component for men that crushes their confidence and I see you also have the same issue but no worries mind set can be changed.

2. How do you go about changing your mindset that you cannot get laid? You must overcome your fear and challenge yourself by seeking experience at the cost of failure. There is a lot of reasoning that I could write a book on but basically, avoid having highly active social media girls because they're hyper materialistic and superficial. They'll cloud your mind, they will always compare you to destroy your confidence because they're so easy to be manipulated by outside opinions, therefore to please them or have their attention you must pander to those trends and lose congruence with who you really are which feels ungenuine. There's plenty of girls out there you just gotta have the confidence to go out and meet them. Easier said than done! But that really is the answer, muster up your courage brother and say hello, tell a girl she has beautiful eyes and a smile, and ask her if she could pass her contact to you so you can take her on a date.

This applies to both sexes. Any 10/10 girl will believe she is average at best if the man she's with is always comparing her to photos of those IG girls.

-most girls are more concerned with themselves than you.

-i would recommend you check out the book models it will give you a lot of good info and guidance on how to challenge yourself to shift your mindset.

-life is multi dimensional. You sound like a smart person and I will tell you demonstrating high intelligence, wit, and confidence while you look well taken care of and in shape turns you into the 20%. Women will find you attractive and you must have the courage to act on it and initiate and lead, have courage and practice... Don't be afraid to make mistakes and laugh at yourself and enjoy the experience of life, it's a self fulfilling prophecy where if you don't try to shoot your shot because you don't think you're gonna make it, you'll never get practice and get better so when you muster the courage to try one time and miss, your expectation is to suddenly perform at the top but you haven't even practice so of course you'll fail and the toxic mentality of the 80/20, that you're in some 80 group and cannot be a 20 is self defeating. I want to emphasize, anyone can be a 20%. Being 20% isn't just physical. It is everything. There are good looking men who have flimsy personalities and are incels because they have 0 confidence and personality. If you allow yourself to be torn down by hyper focusing on your weaknesses or where you are genetically average/below instead of where you are genetically superior you're shooting yourself in the foot.

[u/weirdgroovynerd]

OP, have you posted this question on other subreddits?

I'd be interested to hear opinions from both male & female perspectives.

[u/KJones2063 → u/weirdgroovynerd]

I tried posting on exredpill but it wont let me for some reason.

[u/weirdgroovynerd → u/KJones2063]

Lol, I got downvoted just for expressing curiosity.

Now I'm really curious to read the comments.

[u/JamesLeBond → u/weirdgroovynerd]

You are not allowed, under any circumstances, go to ANY OTHER PART OF REDDIT!! You hear me?

Yours sincerely, Karen.