20% of men get 80% of women?

Post Reply New Topic

Good to know some guys see 'just words' if a female expresses not wanting a hook-up and will try to pursue them for a simple hook up anyways. But it must be the case, I imagine that is what the last guy I met before my current boyfriend was thinking though he wasn't an alpha male just a guy who wanted uncommitted sex and couldn't be up-front...getting led on kind of sucks.

I take all these stats and graphs about as seriously as this:

I am curious, Sweatleaf, how many dates your boyfriend got from dating sites before you meet him?

Have you ever tried to compare your counts? :p

As for thr Ms. President comment, it was sarcastic, but she always responds to every stat by showing how her case/experience does not reflect that, apparently trying to disapprove the numbers with the "These figures can't be entirely true because I am not like this, and I like X and do Y" logic.

He had a girlfriend he was living with, but it didn't work out with them...so there was a while he was dating before he met me. I'd say at least 5 dates but maybe more he didn't specify but mentioned a few different ones.

During that same time period I met one guy from okcupid in person but I don't think I struck their interest because I told them to give me a call if they wanted to get together again and it never happened. Then there was a guy I met thought he maybe was interested in a relationship but just turned into me and him having sex a few times till he told me there where other women he wanted to pursue instead. So I guess I had 2 for his 5.

I took it more as pointing out statistics don't reflect everyone and providing an example of such a case. I imagine a lot of females on this site don't fall in line with what stats say about 'most women' or rather most women on dating sites which seems to be where you get your stats.

Statistical figures are never entirely true.

Sure, if online dating works best for you, by all means use it.

I won't use it because it doesn't fit my preferences. I can't play nonverbal games online. I've tried it, but it gets really hard to interpret things online when you cannot see the person and thus don't even know who they are or if they are compatible and neurodiverse.

But I suppose if you are a person that wants to match interests, and that is an important feature for you, then online dating might work for you.

Ok, good....let's get a moment of peace.

Fair enough, you are right.

Peace.

Online dating probably works better for people who suck at nonverbal games with people they don't know like me. Me and my boyfriend have some amount of non-verbal communication that has developed more than when we first met, but we certainly would not have found each other by playing non-verbal games with strangers.

I guess both of us are the type who want to know what is going on up front and plan ahead a little bit without any game playing...wheres you're approach seems to come with more uncertainty.

Personally, I can spot if somebody is neurodiverse very quickly IRL. I do this by looking at things like stims and how they use eye-contact, and it works with complete strangers at a distance. Online, I might spot if somebody is neurodiverse if they are really extreme in their obsessions or interests, but I'm sure I miss most of them, and especially if it is ordinary sites or dating sites. I also get no help with it from dating sites. That's why I think IRL is superior.

In addition to that, the only purpose of dating sites appears to be to ask somebody on a date, but I'd prefer to tease and play games, something that cannot be done on a dating site, and often not on any site at all. Well, you can do it on social networks like Facebook and Instagram if you are creative and know each others IRL before.



It's rather stimulating to play these games. It's like a special interest that you are obsessed with. For me, typical dating is just as boring as any other monotonous work with given rules. I think this is also why I find roleplaying and BD/SM kind of interesting, even if I've never participated in it. For me, meeting girls should not be a boring "big-number-task" aimed at finding somebody that complements me in the NT social hierarchy. It should be great fun. Typical dating contexts like restaurants are no fun at all. A better place would be a playground, a park, hiking in nature or something else that is more stimulating.

Is there statistics to prove this?

No, it's an axiom.

How do you know it's an axiom?

Actually, there's this: https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... nt-results

^^ However, dating sites' stats (the reliable dating apps/sites) can be more statically correct than these psychologist studies, why? Data of those are much larger, it doesn't reflect a sample on one point of time (vs time when data collected by a questionnaire)- but they reflect cumulative data on users who have been members there.

The okcupid stats study *does* reflect somehow that 20/80 thing in women: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your- ... ine-dating.

The 14% thing on tinder reflects maybe millions of female users.

The cat user's argument against this that those who register in those apps are not representative of the young human population - but I am seeing everyone are using such apps, at least the young the people.

Your personal observations of people you see in your area are also not representative. It's not accurate, it's not scientific, it's anecdotal.

Another's observations could be entirely different.

A person living in a low-crime area, who never goes anywhere else could conclude that there is no crime in the world based on observations. While someone living in a high-crime area could conclude from observations that the entire world is full of criminals.