20% of men get 80% of women?

Post Reply New Topic

The Pareto Principle (or the 80/20 Principle) asserts that 20% of the invested input is responsible for the 80% of the results obtained. In Pareto’s case, it dealt with how 80% of the property in Italy was owned by 20% of the country’s population. I've run into sources that claim this principle pertains to dating as well, but the details around this claim are foggy to say the least.

Basically the theory is that men have lower standards for who they'll sleep with than who they'll date (a notion I can accept), so alpha males (who are apparently 1/5 according to this) monopolise on their attractiveness by sleeping with as many women as they like, which results in this supposed skew. Furthermore, it's alleged that the women these guys sleep with then come to expect that they are capable of snagging a guy off the dating market who boasts an equal magnitude of attractiveness as the alpha/s they've been under the sheets with, and will seldom settle for any less, because they don't feel they need to.

If we estimate that members of the top 20% of guys (attractiveness-wise) would only be interested in dating the top 20% of girls, that means that, according to this theory, 60% of women have an inflated sense of the kind of partner they are able to attract.

But is it really viable to think that 80% of women are even open to casual sex? I would say not.

And if we estimate that 80% of guys are losing out on sexual and romantic relationships as a result of the top 20% alpha types, how is it that 88% of American men and boys have lost their virginity before age 19?

How could it be that 40% of Americans are not single? It makes no sense.

The only way this theory could possibly make any sense is if it were to mean that 20% of men get 80% of the casual sex. Now that is a statistic that might be feasible. Certainly to a greater extent than the original.

So I've shared my thoughts on this 80/20 principle. What are yours?

The subject line is misleading. How many men do you personally know who have 4 wives and/or girlfriends (20%/80% = 1/4)?

I made a similar mathematical analogy in another thread.

So, we have a nightclub, that the same 50 men and 50 women visit every friday night.

The top 10 attractive males, manage to go home with one woman every friday night.

In 5 weeks, this means 10 men slept with all 50 women.

The bottom 40 males, however, go home with one woman every 2.5 weeks.

In 5 weeks, this means 40 men slept with 80 women - the original 50, and an extra 30 that started visiting.

So, while 10 men slept with 5 times as many women, 40 men slept with only twice as many women.

Overall, this means 80 women slept with 50 men, and at least 50 of the women went home with a man twice.

This means the 80 women had sex a total amount of 180 times (50x2+80), and the men? The top 10 had sex with 5 women each, and the bottom 40 only had sex with two women each. 50+80= 120.

Replace 180 and 120 with 180 million and 120 million (and so on), and you may see what i'm talking about.

Not sure if my analogy is true or not, just a neat, simplified example I thought up as to why some might feel the majority of women are only ending up with a minority of men, or that even if for every woman who finds a relationship, a man does as well, women may still end up with a higher number of suitors.

In countries like Saudi Arabia, this is exceedingly common. The consequence of polygamy is that a minority of men get ALL the women. There's a large percentage of the male population in muslim countries that have no chance of ever getting married(let alone getting laid).

I think certain factors are missing from the equation (as you stated), e.g. inherent preferences (types) in both genders, moral presets in each gender (not every male/female is promiscuous), education levels, the social status growing up (explaining why some individuals seek opportunities to 'climb' thus valuing themselves less), etc. The problem with the formula is (simply) that it is overly simplified.

If you think that education makes people less promiscuous....think again. What it does is make people practice safe sex and use contraceptives so they can have their cake and eat it too(with multiple partners). There are a lot of highly educated professional women who spend much of their college years and their 20s sleeping around while supporting themselves. Many upper middle class American women see the *sex and the city* lifestyle and the ultimate expression of independence.

Marrying young, and monogamy in ones 20s, is seen as increasingly old fashioned. What I have observed is that some highly promiscuous women become more monogamous as they progress from their 20s into their 30s(and beyond). Particularly those who become parents.

Notice I did not specify in which way the factors would affect the formula . Just stating factors that could necessitate adjustment (either increasing or decreasing the likelihood of engaging in sexual contact with the 20%).

I honestly wonder if education is a factor in promiscuity. Particularly that which does not result in unplanned pregnancy. I might have a bit of a bias of my own because I've always been drawn to countercultures and alternative lifestyles where "free love" is rampant and many participants are highly educated.

Basically, its a bunch of hooey.

I just meant that if a woman is well-educated, she might see through the 'bait' of the 20% - being able to identify the tactic used or just by being more critical of promises that may sound too good to be true. Or a well educated man could use what he has been taught to improve his chances with the 80%. Just random examples, which work vice versa as well.

It has bearing in my opinion, but prediction of the exact effect is not within my wheelhouse.

Fun to theorize about though! Actually theorizing is almost always fun to me .

I like to theorize, too. But I don't like to theorize about something which is really not true. And can be proven conclusively upon a superficial examination of demographic figures.

It also puts negative thoughts into people who already have a low amount of confidence in themselves.

Forgive me for being so blunt---but this kind of "social theory" or whatever really gets my goat.

This 80-20 thing might apply to some nonhuman animals. But not to people. We are Social Darwinists---but not to that extent.

I also don't like this "80% unemployment amongst Aspies" allegation. Because that isn't true, either.

OP's premise was that the formula was flawed. We were just speculating why - or at least I was.

From what I gather, algorithms are already being used to predict human behavior and to make policy choices based on said predictions.

What is te 80% unemployment issue? I think I missed something?

In Saudi Arabia, it is, and so in Gulfy states.

But according to UN stats, only 1% of muslim marriages are poly; I personally don't know any Muslim married man who's married to more than 1 wife.

I personally know no muslim woman who would even accept that; most Muslim communities are culturally monogamous, and the idea of poly marriage is joked about (and regarded as cheating).

Algorithms have their place.

But I don't believe they can hope to predict behavior at the microcosmic level. In other words at the basic human level.

The problem with using research findings in social research is that people read them, and make assumptions based upon their conclusions. They start seeing these findings as being the gospel truth, and start living according to these assumptions.

The conclusions do not apply to THEM as individuals. They only apply some average person, average autistic person, or whatever which is created by the research findings: like any average person could have 2.24 kids!

If some research finding states, for example that 50% of autistic people never have a romantic relationship throughout their lives, the people reading it will assume that it just might apply to THEM, causing these people to base important decisions upon these findings, rather than the fact of their individuality.

I hope I didn't upset anybody.

This might be one of those instances where I should have read the whole thread.

I still believe research studies of a social/psychology nature are relied too much, and are too often seen as providing "truth."

This is changing a little in certain places, but roughly, there is an unmarried female for every male. So it looks like the 20/80 theory isn't applicable to long term relationships.

I think the theory may be closer to the competitive nature of certain primate mating rituals. Especially the ones where the male tries to propagate his own gene set by impregnating as many different females as possible and the females choose which ones they accept using criteria such as health (strength) and also difference. Difference is desirable as it avoids genetic weakness by too close breeding.

So remember, next time you are at Le Disco. What you are really seeing is a bunch of apes jumping around in a courtship ritual. Its not really that complicated.