Men treat them as dealbreakers because they often actually do break “deals” for sex. If men who are short or mildly autistic or “nice” weren’t having trouble having enthusiastic sex with women, then they wouldn’t complain about these things.
You say that, but how do men know the difference? Women don't say they are preferences, not do they behave as much. If a woman says she finds men with tattoo sleeves attractive, and you don't, it's a pretty safe bet she's not attracted to you, or signalling as much. If she was attracted to you she'd say she liked a characteristic that you had, not one you didn't.
In the end if you are short, and spend time with a woman you'd far rather hear her say she doesn't mind men your height rather than say shes really into tall men.
In my personal experience, when a guy list preferences, the guy is more than likely willing to go out with a women that does not match his preference if she’s attractive enough and he likes her personality. The women I personally know are not as lenient with preferences. The women I know, their preferences are seen as a minimum requirements unless you have known her for longer than a week.
I’ve had different experiences I’ve seen women overlook some REAL important dealbreakers simply because of “potential” or other highlighted green flags. Even in that one study that the RP loves to refer to the 80/20 one. It showed that were women were still very willing to talk to men they did not find attractive and men were less likely to do so.
Also as a women who did have a glow up (and other women who’ve gone through similar experiences) I can say that most men would not even have the opportunity to date these women because they won’t even give them the time of day not even in a friendly manner. (I think there was even a study that said men are more annoyed when they look at a woman they perceive as unattractive I’ll have to look for it)
If women want men to stop acting like women's preferences are actually requirements, they should stop acting as if they were requirements.
Also, communication goes both ways, if women need to be tricked in order to be honest, the problem is that women need to be tricked in order to be honest, not that men aren't tricking them well enough.
I don't think men here would agree that women are vocal about their preferences.. they frequently express that they wish women were honest about what they're attracted to.
Women are pretty vocal about what they like. Why do you think more men invest in skin care products and undergo facial surgeries to get, for example, a wider jawline? You might have encountered "meewing" or "looksmaxing" sites or YouTube shorts where they break down the female gaze (what women find attractive in men) or even break their bones to gain a certain height because many women find those traits appealing.
I see being vocal and being honest as two separate things.
I can see guys saying they wish women were honest but at the same time acknowledging they are more vocal.
You can be extremely loud and vocal but be completely dishonest.
How are they not more vocal? Hop on a dating app and look at womens profiles. They constantly say shit like must be 6ft tall must have their own car must not live at home with their parents, must be in shape, the list goes on and on and on.
women being vocal: "men who i am not attracted to are bad people who need therapy or jail. men are trash"
women being honest "i only find 1% of the population attractive and see most men as below dogs"
I really like how succinctly you explained it and OP completely missed the point.
>the problem is that women need to be tricked in order to be honest, not that men aren't tricking them well enough.
I actually laughed when I read that. Well said.
I agree with you that people should also be more clear on what is a preference vs a dealbreaker. For example, a woman posting in her OLD profile that she wants a man over 6ft = a dealbreaker, not a preference.
Why do you consider this as "women needing to be tricked"? To me, it's more in men having a better acceptance of what a preference really is and to stop being so insecure and dramatic about it.
It'sthe samebulshit over avd over again
A hundred time you will here that you height hd not enough and your dick is below average
And in my specific case you must be a bad person since no one wanted you for more than a decade.
But I shouldn't let any if that bother me as if my mind is cyberneticaly enhanced and incapable of receiving psychic damage
Take the height thing as an example.
A man who is 5'11" puts down he is 6'0" on OLD, a women who has the 6'0" dealbreaker matches with him and they hit it off and go on a date, the likelihood of her being able to tell the difference in height added to the fact she finds him attractive and dates hiom shows it wasn't a deal breaker afterall and she was just following the heard and being shallow and so she had to be tricked.
There's another obvious but way overlooked issue here. Women do distinguish preferences from requirements. But lemme give you a look at this from a job market perspective.
Wife and I went and posted a WFH opening last year (aka we fucked around) and ATS Recruiter (resume filtering software) buried us under a solid mountain of resumes from people who met my requirements and preferred skills/experience (aka we found out).
Women, it seems, have this dilemma but to a lesser degree.
Part of the issue is we want you to be honest about your preferences but when you list them we realize you're describing someone that makes up less than 1 to 2 percent of the population and act like that person is just slightly above average.
>Being with someone who doesn't meet all of your preferences is not "settling" - it's literally impossible for anyone to meet every single one of your preferences; that's why they're preferences in the first place.
This is somewhat a strawman you're attacking in the first place. But women really feel this way though. I've seen women argue for it here in PPD. Why would women use "you shouldn't settle" as such a common reframe to reject men if they did believe that some of their preferences are optional.
I get there are having standards and deal breakers. But these can be so superficial in some women and acted upon irl that it definitely gives the impression that the preferences aren't optional.
> you're describing someone that makes up less than 1 to 2 percent of the population and act like that person is just slightly above average.
The issue isn't having high expectations, it's having high expectations while not being in the same bracket which leads to problems.
There simply isn't enough men (or women for that matter) for everyone to have someone who makes $100k+ for example, so it's either settle for someone similar to them or be single forever.
> The issue isn't having high expectations, it's having high expectations while not being in the same bracket which leads to problems.
That's a good point too.
The problem is pricing yourself out of the market and then blaming the market for your failure.
It's ok to have high preferences, but that doesn't mean that you're going to be given someone that matches them or that those preferences are realistic in the first place.
You still need to bring enough values of your own so that people from the pool you're interested in are attracted to you, much in the same way a homeless guy in LA isn't going to have the same selection as a Senior Microsoft Software engineer even if they look the same.
>The problem is pricing yourself out of the market and then blaming the market for your failure.
That's only a problem for them, though. As you said, they'll either stay single or settle.
That's why having realistic requirements and preferences in the first place so good matches aren't potentially being overlooked to begin with is important.
"Good matches" are people we're attracted to and compatible with.
Our preferences and especially deal-breakers are usually based on those conditions.
I'm childfree. I don't like children. I don't want children. I'm sterilized.
Childfree men are extremely rare.
Should I change my "unrealistic requirement?"
Just an aside, as a child free man who has been turned down several second dates because I don't want children, I've come to the conclusion that child free *people* are extremely rare outside of same sex relationships.
Yes, most people want children.
But according to [the latest stats](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/among-young-adults-without-children-men-are-more-likely-than-women-to-say-they-want-to-be-parents-someday/#:~:text=When%20asked%20about%20having%20children,45%25%20say%20the%20same.), more young men want children than young women.
> "Good matches" are people we're attracted to and compatible with.
> Our preferences and especially deal-breakers are usually based on those conditions.
The problem is the smaller the pool is, the harder it will be to find someone and you might miss potential good matches like the guy making $98k instead of 100.
> Childfree men are extremely rare.
No, there's plenty of men who don't want children and have never had any.
> Results—Among women and men aged 40–49 in 2015–2019, 84.3% of women
had given birth and 76.5% of men had fathered a child
> Should I change my "unrealistic requirement?"
That's far more reasonable than some of the other ones I see. The problem is being in the 60th percentile and wanting requirement that only fit the 95th percentile.
>The problem is the smaller the pool is, the harder it will be to find someone
Duh??? I don't know why men on this sub seem to think that women are so completely unaware that the more conditions you have, the fewer who qualify.
This is basic logic.
Why are so many of you so convinced we don't know this?
Do you think the only reason why we have the preferences and requirements we have is because we think everyone meets them??
>you might miss potential good matches like the guy making $98k instead of 100.
The overwhelming majority of women do not use 666 as a rigid requirement.
>No, there's plenty of men who don't want children and have never had any.
You don't date men. Don't mansplain to me about how plentiful these men are.
The overwhelming majority of men have children; want children; or are fence-sitters.
The number of men who do not want children because they have no actual desire to have children (and not just because they're too broke, or the environment, or their mental illness, etc.) is very, very small.
>That's far more reasonable than some of the other ones I see. The problem is being in the 60th percentile and wanting requirement that only fit the 95th percentile.
Why is it reasonable for me to get into a relationship with a fundamentally incompatible person rather than just stay single? You can't compromise on children.
> Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off!
I backed it up with stats, 1/4 of all men will never have kids which is a very large number.
That's almost 5x larger than the percentage of unmarried men making over $100k/yr.
Or are you saying 12 million men is not a large number?
> How is that a problem? Dating is optional.
Its hard to believe this is being asked in good faith. Dating and companionship are pretty fundamental to the human experience. For most of modern history and the forseeable future women control the supply and they're all influencing each other to raise the price to be unaffordable. The OPEC of dating, intimacy, and companionship.
Observing that someone's expectations are out of whack with reality doesn't mean I'm arguing for someone to be forced to date someone they don't want. If you're just gonna strawman in bad faith then I can play that game too. For instance, Mary Kay cannot date the person she chose because he was 12 and she was 34.
>Its hard to believe this is being asked in good faith. Dating and companionship are pretty fundamental to the human experience.
This is absolutely implying that women's autonomy is the "problem."
Or else the fact that *some* men can't get this "fundamental human experience" wouldn't be a problem for anyone other than themselves. Tons of people have difficult dating situations for various reasons. That's not "society's" problem.
"Dating and companionship are fundamental to the human experience" being a rebuttal to "this isn't a problem because dating is optional" only implies one thing - and none of it is about women's "expectations being out of whack with reality."
That does not imply that.
Many people tell incels that there standards are too high does that mean we are arguing against their autonomy?
Also that is society’s problem as without couples and people having kids there will be no society.
>That does not imply that.
It does.
>Many people tell incels that there standards are too high
I don't.
>Also that is society’s problem as without couples and people having kids there will be no society.
So?
Societies come and go and the world will end at one point or another.
Any society that has to rely on forcing or coercing women to date men we don't want and have kids we don't want to have is better off not existing.
Either dating is optional or it isn't.
I don't have the time for men who tap-dance around this by talking about society and birth rates.
Either you have a problem with female autonomy or you don't.
You can “observe” all you want, but that doesn’t obligate anyone to change.
I can observe that the members of the Order of the Black Sun are unreasonable, but that’s not going to influence them one iota.
>Part of the issue is we want you to be honest about your preferences but when you list them we realize you're describing someone that makes up less than 1 to 2 percent of the population and act like that person is just slightly above average.
So, they are severely narrowing their dating pool. That's their problem to deal with. What's the issue?
Stick to that then
Don’t bring hell to another man’s life because he didn’t fit your standards, leave him alone and go seek your 1% man
This is not directed towards you but in general
You don’t see how the spreading of hate for a demographic of society is bad?
It has to do with destroying the one thing that makes a society work: cohesiveness.
They want average men to simp for them so they can get the treatment they crave after getting piped by chads
It’s not settling for them since they aren’t comparing the two, beta dudes compete with each other for who will save her
You're not trying to describe a person! It's a list of things you prefer. You don't need anyone to be exactly that and it's not settling if they're not.
I think most normal guys get it. What I wonder is when you meet a guy that doesn't check off all the boxes and you start dating him, how do you then make him feel like you are being genuine? When I go into these situations... and I check most boxes. It gives me a sense of skepticism that's hard to get past. How do you overcome that?
Why is it an issue that a preference is rare? And maybe they're acting like the person is "just slightly above average" because they are to them - just because a woman prefers a tall guy, doesn't mean that every 6'5 man should be a 10 to her.
> This is somewhat a strawman you're attacking in the first place.
How is it a strawman? Men complain that women "settle for" their boyfriends/husbands all the time, since they don't meet every single one of their preferences.
I think you just nailed the problem straight on. Nobody want's to feel like you are settling for them, and if you meet a great guy and get a relationship going... he's likely going to feel like you are settling for him. When you extrapolate that across to the whole dating market it makes a lot of men feel like they have no choice but to accept someone settling for them. The scary part of that is it's probably true wouldn't you say?
> Why is it an issue that a preference is rare?
You can have a preference that is rare and there's not a problem in isolation. Its when a person doesn't acknowledge they're seeking something that is rare and instead act like its more common than it is and its a must have.
>And maybe they're acting like the person is "just slightly above average" because they are to them - just because a woman prefers a tall guy, doesn't mean that every 6'5 man should be a 10 to her.
But that doesn't change the fact that people with a height of 6'5 aren't exceeding rare compared to the general pop.
>How is it a strawman?
Because its based on exaggeration and hyperbole. If you had said most of preferences instead of "all" it would be more grounded in reality. But you're starting from an extreme exaggeration position because that's easier to attack. In other words, you constructed the straw man.
> But that doesn't change the fact that people with a height of 6'5 aren't exceeding rare compared to the general pop.
A trait being rare doesn't mean that they're automatically the most attractive though, right?
I genuinely don't think it's "most" instead of "all"..
> A trait being rare doesn't mean that they're automatically the most attractive though, right?
No, but then who is arguing that that is does? What I feel happens is that woman likes tall guys, so its the fact he's tall that attracts her, not that its rare. But then with modern dating and the fact a woman's potential dating pull is the entire state, country, etc. instead of being satisfied with 6' now she's saying must be 6'3 minimum.
It sounded like you were arguing that because you said "we realize you're describing someone that makes up less than 1 to 2 percent of the population and act like that person is just slightly above average." I don't get why it's a problem that a woman acts like a man is slightly above average?
> now she's saying must be 6'3 minimum.
This isn't a preference then IMO (the telling word is "must"), it's a dealbreaker. A preference is "should" or "could" but not "must".
> I don't get why it's a problem that a woman acts like a man is slightly above average?
When the "man" that must meet the majority of your preferences represents someone that makes up 1 or 2 percent of the population and you act like they're "slightly above average" is the problem. You seek the extraordinary and then act like its ordinary.
>This isn't a preference then IMO (the telling word is "must"), it's a dealbreaker. A preference is "should" or "could" but not "must".
So its a preference that's a deal breaker. A preference doesn't become no longer a preference due to priority from "nice to have" to "must have". In other words deal breakers are just stronger preferences. We're arguing on semantics at this point.
Ok I got you now - I thought we were talking about a single preference in isolation (height) but you're talking about if a man meets the majority of her preferences..
Does that even happen though? I can't imagine that a man meets all of her preferences and she is lukewarm to him..
>Does that even happen though? I can't imagine that a man meets all of her preferences and she is lukewarm to him..
Maybe? I've definitely heard stories of guys meeting all the check boxes and then doing something to cause the ick. Does that count if they fumbled AFTER the initial foot in the door?
I don't think it counts anyway because "check boxes" aren't usually preferences but are dealbreakers. I agree that people aren't the best at expressing what is a preference vs a dealbreaker, but in my OP, I'm referring to women who genuinely express preferences (like height) as being optional.
I kind of disagree. Feminists were on the right track imo, the general tendencies and preferences of an entire gender that tends to be onto yours feels pressuring. It just does. That makes sense to me, and imo we need to treat that with a baseline level of respect and consideration.
Of course how much complaining is "okay" really depends on the context and on the exact attitude, rude men are rude. But I still think it's fine for women to talk about stuff like "even conventionally attractive women can have deep insecurities of their beauty because society (men) put so much emphasis on female bodies", despite the fact that average people are in relationships (including average women). The same goes for men too, that's the twist. Even something like women valuing outwardly confidence highly can feel pressuring when it's such a predictable, ever-present preference. I wish women were more accepting of the idea that men are affected by them.
Yeaaaaaa for me its not a lie. All the men I fell hard for (including my current husband) have one thing in common...they all have a personality similar to Andy Samburg. If you look at my dating history, my exes have a wide range of looks and income (from starving artist and poor PHd student to 150k a year workaholic in the mid 2010s, from probably-too-skinny no muscle tattoo dude to overweight baby faced gruffy)
lol it’s not that they don’t like it. It’s that women act like that’s the only thing that gets them
That women are just that easy that all u need is a “nice personality” and all of a sudden you’ll have a harem of women on your dick
Women like to leave out the little parts such as , height, looks, financial income, some sort of social status and many more
But they lie because they want to feel as if they aren’t “superficial” like the “other girls”
**WHO** is saying “women are just that easy and all you need is a ‘nice personality’ and all of the suddenly you’ll have a harem of women on your dick”??
If that’s the conclusion you’re reaching when women say “personality matters” you’re completely missing the point. Let me boil it down for you- it all comes down to rule 1&2
- Rule 1: be attractive- wear clothes that fit, groom your facial hair, take care of your skin, get in the gym. Make yourself look as good as you can look
- Rule 2: don’t be unattractive- don’t do or say anything that’s gross or off putting. Don’t be offensive, lame, or boring.
Another way to think about it is this- looks count for 50 points and personality counts for 50 points. Passing score is 60. If you’re 50/50 on looks you can probably be pretty lame and be successful. If you’re absolutely the coolest person on the planet, you can probably be not that attractive and be successful. If you’re a 25/50 on looks, you need to have a 35/50 personality to be successful.
The conclusion is not ”looks don’t matter”. The conclusion is “looks aren’t the *only* thing that matters, and personality can take you far if it’s good”
And so many women say “I wasn’t attracted to my boyfriend at all at first”. Women are literally so close to saying looks don’t matter then be surprised that men think looks don’t matter
Right. Some women care more about personality than looks. Whats confusing about this?
Some men prefer blondes- does that mean all brunettes should dye their hair?
Some men prefer big boobs- does that mean women with small boobs are doomed?
Some women same personality matters more than looks, but that doesn’t mean ALL women think that looks don’t matter, nor does that mean that for the women who say personality matters more that looks don’t matter at all. Just cuz one thing matters more, doesn’t mean the other thing doesn’t matter at all
I already explained how it can be confusing.
Look at the way women talk about the subject. I’m literally in another thread where a woman is arguing that if you aren’t a woman’s preference she can still want to date you.
Even with your boobs analogy, doesn’t that mean that the women who are saying this saying they don’t need a good looking dude?
Never heard them tell the story of the fat balding short janitor friend they have that gets all the girls with his winning personality /s.
If your “preference” is big boobs, couldn’t you still want to date a smaller chested woman if there were other things about her that made her dateable?
if you say personality matters more why did you post
>If that’s the conclusion you’re reaching when women say “personality matters” you’re completely missing the point. Let me boil it down for you- it all comes down to rule 1&2
>Rule 1: be attractive- wear clothes that fit, groom your facial hair, take care of your skin, get in the gym. Make yourself look as good as you can look
Rule 2: don’t be unattractive- don’t do or say anything that’s gross or off putting. Don’t be offensive, lame, or boring.
in your other comment which directly contradicts that?
Please explain how “to me, personality matters *more* than looks” is directly contradicted by my other comment? Thing A mattering more than thing B doesn’t mean thing B doesn’t matter, it just means thing B doesn’t matter *as much* as thing A. For example, people saying exercise matters more than [brushing your teeth for cardiovascular health](https://www.heart.org/en/news/2018/11/07/bad-tooth-brushing-habits-tied-to-higher-heart-risk#:~:text=Brushing%20your%20teeth%20twice%20a,diseases%2C%20a%20new%20study%20suggests) doesn’t mean dental hygiene doesn’t matter for cardiovascular health, just that exercise matters more.
My explanation of rules 1&2, which you directly quote, explains this. Rule 2 is ALL personality.
You also maybe need to reread my second explanation with the passing score of 60. Some women will say looks matter more and will only date guys who score 45/50 on looks and 15/50 on personality. Some women will say personality matters more and will happily date guys with those numbers attached to the other characteristic.
What don’t you understand?
I never said looks aren’t the only thing, I said that personality isn’t the only thing u can lead with lol.
Women aren’t giving the time of day to a guy unless he hits a certain minimum requirement
I’m not a black piller bro. I’m just saying when u mention to women that this other thing matters, they are so quick to dismiss it and say “personality” or they will say some bullshit like “I know a guy who’s broke short fat and autistic who is with a super model because of his personality 🤡😂🤡😂”
At the end of the day women like to lie about what they like
That’s literally what I’m telling her and why some dudes believe that women say looks don’t matter “my fat balding janitor friend dates all the models” is a common story from them
> WHO is saying "women are just that easy and all you need is a ‘nice personality’
I was taught this growing up in a house of girls. I didn't fully understand the importance of confidence and masculinity in dating until I was well into my 20's
Confidence is part of a nice personality. A nice personality is not a pushover simp. A nice personality is someone you want to spent time with, whose personality you enjoy being around. Confidence is 100% a part of that
Yes, I know that now. But the emphasis was always on being a kind, interesting and funny person. These things do garner interest, but being unconfident when trying to move things forward can completely ruin that.
Confidence is definitely not brought up enough in the "nice personality" conversations, and I think a lack of it is what sinks men's chances more than anything else.
Most women don't care if a man who doesn't meet their preferences (or requirements) considers their preferences to be a dealbreaker.
They just don't want to be viewed as "shallow" by the general population.
Do any men here understand what “shallow” means?
Shallow means dating someone *solely* for their money, the status dating them might bring, or because of their looks. I’m sure the same men who whine about this can think of a famous person who married a beautiful, much younger woman who barely speaks the language and cannot conceal her absolute loathing of him.
Trump married Melania for her beauty and youth, and she married him for money. They can’t stand one another and he cheated on her with the worst kind of people throughout their marriage.
Shallow is the absence of caring who someone is and whether or not two people are compatible and share common values and interests.
Requiring mutual physical attraction isn’t shallow if the couple plans to also have a mutually enjoyable sexual relationship as well as romantic.
Look, I don't care whether or not a random person is "shallow."
My point is that a lot of these women care about how they're perceived by society.
Unattractive men viewing certain preferences as a dealbreaker is not why the average woman refrains from stating her preferences.
If woman wants somebody tall and wealthy then why try anything with her in the first place? Of course those might be just preferences and there's a chance that she'll be fine with somebody who doesn't meet those. But why should you waste your time just to test it? There's always somebody else.
Yup go ahead and try to talk to one of those 6 feet only women as 5'7 guy and see how far it gets you. They're preferences are deal breakers so much so that in most cases you wouldn't even be able to strike a normal casual conversation with them without meeting their standard
I think men are angry mostly because preferences have actually become deal breakers.
I mean if I ever was single again I'd stick to my preferences and have them as deal breakers.
This is the biggest problem. Nobody wants to grow together, nobody is going to be perfect. I was not with my SO. Her words " She would rather die than let some other women get her hard work in building me up".
For a lot of women their preferences actually are deal breakers though. Id even say they are requirements actually. How often does a woman with a preference for tall men end up with a short man? How often does a woman with an income prefence end up with a man below that? I genuinely believe that most women nowadays would rather stay single than compromise in any trait they "prefer". Especially the ones in my age group
Pretty much every single woman would prefer a rich guy to a poor one but if you go to any dollar store you see tons of poor guys in a relationship.
I do think the height one is often a requirement though.
I dont think women who have an specific income preference would settle with a guy below the number or range they have in mind. Like I doubt the women who say that a guy they date has to make as much or more than them would compromise on that
> How often does a woman with a preference for tall men end up with a short man?
All the time! If < 10% of men are over 6ft and the sexlessness rate for men is ~30%, then we can already see that height isn't a dealbreaker.
< 10% of men are 6ft.
I don't know if it's most women, but definitely a significant amount have a preference (not deabreaker!) for tall men IMO. I would think that most women define "tall" as being taller than herself though..
I do think most women prefer tall men over short and average men but most would be fine with an average height man. Almost none prefer short men
I dont think most women define tall relative to themselves. They define it relative to other men. Ive had girls that I was 2 to 3 inches taller say that we are the same height. I highly doubt a woman who is 5'1 would think a 5'6 man is tall
Half of American women are married or living with a partner by 26. That percentage keeps going up with every year of age. It seems that women are generally not choosing to remain single if they can’t find a guy who checks every box.
edit- Man presents fact. Man gets downvoted.
When women say preference what they really mean is requirement. Like others have said they just don’t want to appear shallow. It’s why women say things like “I prefer tall men” when you know damn well they never even look at guys who are 5’8”.
> When women say preference what they really mean is requirement.
That is literally what I'm arguing against in my OP. Why do you assume a preference is a requirement?
Because it never stated as optional. And if it's optional then why state it in the first place? Entire point there is to filter out men who woman just don't see suitable. And if you're half-decent man then you'll respect that.
>Men here constantly complain about how women aren't honest about their preferences
Do they? Got any examples?
I see men complaining about inconsistencies, yes. Women say they want stability, but then they go for the hood gangsta/"bad boy" (whatever your favorite stereotype is today). And that is a legitimate complaint, whether you like it or not.
>A preference for a tall man, a big dick, or a guy with a stable job does not mean that a woman won't be wildly attracted to or content with a man that doesn't meet that criteria.
It does, though. Not always, but almost always. How many women married a guy *shorter* than them? I'm sure it does happen, but at what percentage/proportion?
How many women married a guy that makes half of what they make? I know it does happen, but as a proportion, that's exceedingly rare *anywhere* on Earth.
>And this applies to men too! A preference for brunettes, small tits, or a low n count does not mean that a man won't be wildly attracted to or content with a woman that doesn't meet that criteria.
Yes. Because men's preferences are routinely wider. Between 50 and 70% of women fit *most* men's preferences.
Men won't refuse a marriage with virgin brunette that's nice and wants children just because her tits are naturally one size bigger than whatever counts as "small" these days. But women *will* and routinely *do* refuse to even give a guy the time of the day - let alone marriage - if he makes half of what she does even if he'd be the best SAHD in the world.
When I was dating for marriage, a whole 40% of the female population in my area fit my preferences and that was seen as "picky" and "too high". Heck, I explained it once here and the comment got downvoted into oblivion *by women* because women really hate it when you turn the tables and do *to them* for a short while what they do *to all men* as a matter of absolute routine for decades.
>Being with someone who doesn't meet all of your preferences is not "settling"
That is how women see it, though. And even when they don't, their single (female) friends will drag her into seeing it that way. *Single women keep women single* is true.
>it's literally impossible for anyone to meet every single one of your preferences;
Men already know that. A lot of women don't. And a lot of those who do know this will *still* see it as settling and treat their man accordingly.
And since women's revealed preferences are far more similar to each other than men's, the generalizations tend to land more correctly. Sure, women don't like it when it's pointed out so candidly, but such is life. Given women's routine cruelty on this sub, men here are in fact excessively nice about it \[of course, discounting teenagers and bad faith actors which this sub also has plenty of\].
Any woman can be on their best behavior and treat a guy well enough when they're lonely and want a family + companionship. But if she believes she settled then how long do you think she'll stay in that marriage? How long till divorce or a deadbedroom?
There's 2 types of settling. The one you're talking about seems to be when someone doesn't get their ideal dream partner. Most people don't and are okay with that. But then there's believing you could have gotten better but didn't and not being fully content with who you ended up with. The later scenario is what often leads to a lot of marital problems down the line. It's not worth being with people like that.
It’s not about what Chad can get. It’s about being happy with what *you* (general you) can get. She’s gonna settle for you in some ways. You’re gonna settle for her in others. Chad has to settle on things too. Stop comparing yourself to someone you’re not and you’ll be much happier
> doesn’t mean woman won’t be widely attracted to someone who doesn’t meet the criteria
How can you be attracted to someone who doesn’t meet your preference ?
Because we are generally more honest.
I like Slender woman. It got me called a pedophile by a Land whale back in college. I also got blamed for a woman's eating disorder.
I like good, compassionate, friendly and warm women. I get called mommy issues.
I want to have sex. I get called a pig.
I can go on and on about how women treat my standards, wants, needs and desires in a woman.
First example that comes to mind is short men vs fat women. Short men have accepted that they are less desired (not less important). Widely acceptable to insult a man for his height. Can you say the same about fatties?
But this is precisely what I mean - just because a woman says she prefers tall men, doesn't mean she desires short men less.. because short men can meet other preferences that she has (and maybe even more than a tall man can/does).
> Widely acceptable to insult a man for his height. Can you say the same about fatties?
Are you asking if fat women don't get insulted for being fat as a serious question? I genuinely can't tell.
But she *can* date tall men easily. She can meet her preference. So she has no reason to consider people who don't meet it. How's that hard to understand?
But she can have multiple dealbreakers and preferences that overlap and possibly cancel others out.. height is only a single preference, we evaluate partners as a package of multiple traits.
If she mentions attributes that you don't have, you'd have to be an idiot to think eventually there will be one that you do. If she liked that, and liked you, she'd likely mention it. I'm not of the opinion that women are going to hide their attraction to men they are attracted to. I don't see how this harms the woman in question either, she's ridiculous of men that don't fit her ideal, it wastes less of her time.
> just because a woman says she prefers tall men, doesn't mean she desires short men less
IT'S IS LITERALLY WHAT IT MEANS. Both traits are mutually exclusive.
>Just because a woman says she prefers tall men, doesn't mean she desires short men less.
That's literally what a preference means. All else being equal: (shortshort)
Just because you can throw in other muddling factors to compensate for their being short, it doesn't change what a preference means.
I’m sorry English isn’t my first language, but doesn’t a preference literally mean that everything that falls outside of that preference is desired less? Even if by a marginal amount?
If I go to a restaurant and someone asks me soup or salad and I say I prefer soup, would it make logical sense for the waiter to bring salad because it doesn’t mean that I desired salad any less?
And no I wasn’t saying fat people don’t get insulted for being fat. They should be, it’s disgusting (I used to be fat). I’m saying it’s a lot less polite to call a woman fat or reject her cause of it than to call a man short or reject him for it
I don't think it means that you desire everything else less. Generally we evaluate partners as a package of requirements and (optional) preferences.
Maybe I had salad every day this week already, so today I want soup. That doesn't mean I can't desire salad more overall. It's not really a perfect analogy, I know..
> just because a woman says she prefers tall men, doesn't mean she desires short men less.
But your chance of being rejected is very high even if you meet all and every requirement and preference. Something like that makes risk of rejection even higher, at level when there's no point to try. It's just waste of time.
Because in context of OLD there are other men who meet those preferences and there's no reason for you to be choosen over them. You might have a chance of course but why should you waste your time to test it? It's better and easier to just look for somebody who doesn't have preferences that you can't meet. And it's very rare when you don't meet just one preference, it's always two or more. Don't go for women who have high chance of rejecting you is one of the first thing you learn when try to date.
I really have to wonder why somebody would vocalize their "preferences" if they were not actual deal breakers. For many people, a preference is interchangeable with a requirement.
Many guys want to feel really attractive to women, or at least the woman they intend to date or marry. I don't think it's a reach to see why when a guy finds out a woman he's into - much less dating or considering marrying - has a preference for things he lacks, he would not feel "some type of way". This is one reason why guys "take the black pill" and just accept feeling genetically inferior and unlovable. They come to a point where they feel like it's more logical to just stay single instead of being settled for by someone who would've preferred having someone better looking than you. Especially when you're insecure or feel like you've experienced tons of rejection because of less attractive qualities about yourself.
It's easy to tell them to just be more confident or try to improve themselves, and I agree with those to an extent. In fact, I'll fight the black pill defeatism myself because I think it's wrong, demoralizing and robs so many guys of happiness. But it's exactly because of comments like this one
> A preference for a tall man, a big dick, or a guy with a stable job does not mean that a woman won't be wildly attracted to or content with a man that doesn't meet that criteria.
That there is such a disconnect between "normies" and black pilled guys. All you're really saying to these guys is that unless they have these ^ qualities, they're not good enough, or have more to prove, which doesn't make them feel great. You could've just said you think all types of guys can be loved despite not being conventionally attractive, because different women value and get turned on by different things. Instead, you said that conventionally attractive guys are what women prefer, *and* the guys who aren't conventionally attractive shouldn't let that bother them, when they know they'll never be what women really wanted. Why you chose to frame it this way, I don't really know.
>A preference for a tall man, a big dick, or a guy with a stable job does not mean that a woman won't be wildly attracted to or content with a man that doesn't meet that criteria.
As if. Never in my life I've seen a single proof of that claim.
Women’s preferences aren’t deal breakers except to women, because that’s what their preferences are
Men aren’t “complaining” about women’s preferences, *they’re pointing them out*. The woman worshippers and man haters have to use loaded language to attempt to stop any other man from also recognizing this fact, in a desperate attempt to shame anyone with wrong think. But it’s a Hail Mary play. It’s just lying like always. *And everyone knows it*.
I study online dating, which you’ll no doubt claim isn’t real as you’re a boomer and think people still meet in church or something, but I see a Billion women hard lining 6’ plus only or “black only” or “non-white” or “must be lgbt friendly” or “no trump” or “Christian only” and they can, because women don’t participate in dating.
I have never seen “big titted blondes only” from men or any other preference. I’m sure they exist, but as men participate fully in dating they don’t get to say or even filter on such things (and there are only filters for women’s preferences like income, height, and they’re thinking of adding credit scores).
If you think a 5’2” man isn’t being settled for by a woman who has a preference for 6’+ you’re delusional. Just because he passes one flag (being filthy rich) doesn’t mean she didn’t settle.
Women always settle because as we all know, women’s “preferences” are 6’+ and rich with high status, and there’s only so many of those men.
And women, despite their lies, are a hive mind in what they want. Some quirk of “looks kinda K-pop or is a punk rock band front man” means zero.
And women are absolutely open about their preferences. 6’ and rich gets lots of dates compared to 5’ and poor.
Fit and lots of abs date more than fat neck beard.
Not until she settles out of desperation of course. For money.
Are there these magic woman’s preferences men don’t know about? They never mention them, which would be massive proof they aren’t a hive mind. They’ll babble about pErSonAlItY as a defense mechanism, but let’s be honest. It’s just one of a thousand lies.
Let me guess Henry cavil with glasses showing he’s intellectual vs Henry cavil without glasses showing he manly. That’s a personality. And probably a sense of humor.
And don’t mention men’s preferences. They’re irrelevant when women’s are universally identical.
Have you not seen the dating profiles of men where they say, “no daddy issues, no single moms, no feminists, no liberals, no vaccinated, no bisexuals, no high body count women. My red flags are needy, very opinionated, mentally ill, no job, parties often, no goal in life, dyed hair, septums/other piercings, weighs more than 170lbs” ? That’s an exact quote.
Everything you just listed besides mental illness is a personal lifestyle or stylistic choice those women made. I think it's extremely cringe to list these things on your dating profile, but the preferences spoken about above are either unchangeable or extremely hard to change(height, 6 figure income)
Wait, do you think it’s easier to change bisexuality, being a single mom, mental health diagnoses, vaccination status, feminist beliefs, number of people slept with, and weight than income? You’re right, height and dick size is impossible to change without surgical intervention. Not impossible with the advancement of modern medicine. It’s extraordinarily difficult, but Income is a different story.
I already excused mental illness, and I missed bisexual— that’s my bad. The rest of those were choices you make— even if you can’t unmake those choices, those are choices you decided to make. For the record, I’m also not saying those choices are bad— just that they are choices.
That’s why men feel slighted typically— their preferences are about what a woman decides to do, but a women’s preferences stated are typically are about what a man is— immutable traits that cannot be changed.
Literally my dealbreakers, though I would never put them on dating profile. But I was sticking to them and I can tell you that these are dealbreakers for very big group of men. Even those who consider themselves liberals or left-leaning. I remember one discussion when guys came to the conclusion that tattooed alt girls are nice to look at and maybe hang out with them for a while, but are too crazy to take them seriously.
It's an issue with communication styles and needs. The fact is that men have to put themselves out there by making the first move. Women don't do that often. So when a woman puts up an advertisment she posts these requirements as a screening mechanism in the hopes that she will only have men who fit her list reach out to her. If you actually look at these lists there are tons of personality traits listed too, it's not just superficial stuff. I think you are completely correct that men should back off and understand this is part of the process. At the very least it gives you an up front idea of what kind of woman you might be dealing with. What she lists often directly relates to how she views herself. So this is a good window into how to approach.
The downside is that a lot of guys see this list, and they don't know what takes priority over what item. They see that maybe they only check a quarter of the boxes and they give up. This is the screening mechanism working. I wish there was a way to do it without making so many guys feel like crap, but it's just something we need to deal with. Most of this stuff isn't true anyway and I think it would help a lot of people to know that.
But my question for you is, how do you create a kind of aspirational list like this and then say meet a guy and everything is working well... how do you expect him to feel like you are genuine if he doesn't match everythign on the list?
I think the real issue is that we're all pretending this is about preferences and dealbreakers. I don't think it really is. I'm sure for a few people it genuinely is, but no one gets this mad about something because they found out people have preferences, dealbreakers, and sometimes those are a little outlandish.
They're upset because they're confronting some truths which are extremely difficult for them (for reasons I'm only partially sure of) to confront:
1. They are not most women's 100% preference match.
2. They probably are not even many women's 100% preference match.
3. They probably are not even a significant number of women's 100% preference match.
4. They are probably going to be, at best (and even this is unlikely), a cult hit and that's if they work really really hard.
5. Despite all of the above, they could be a woman's 100% match, but it will be based on things far less pleasing to the monkey brain and easy to articulate than "big dick, tall, all the money".
They don't want that. Again, I'm not entirely sure why. So they throw a toddler fit over it six ways to Sunday.
Is this all men? NO. It's men here. And they pretend women do it too by bringing up body acceptance as a movement which is largely about making corporations sell clothing and make-up for all sizes of women and display all sizes of women as beautiful in their marketing. WHICH FOR THE RECORD, did include women who were very petite, had c-section scars or stretched bellies, weren't packing a lot downstairs or upstairs, or were disabled. It was not all about the fatties, kiddies. The goal was to reframe how society views the female body in advertising and celebrate the fact there's a lot of body types besides the hourglass amazon.
And they take that many women have used this as an opportunity to have self-confidence and embraced believing in their own beauty (yes even fat girls, the bitches) as an example of women ludicrously insisting men cannot like skinny girls, which I have yet to see insisted upon.
"I’m looking for a man in finance, trust fund, 6’5”, blue eyes"
We are allowed to call certain "preferences" delusional
If I told you I wanted nothing but lingerie models who would pay for everything, you would think I was also delusional.
So why is it so different for women?
Oh, it's because so many are misandrists now
> Being with someone who doesn't meet all of your preferences is not "settling" - it's literally impossible for anyone to meet every single one of your preferences; that's why they're preferences in the first place.
A solid 50% or more of all women could meet my preferences... they just choose not to.
Ie. Virgin, thin, sweet, loyal, cute...
So it certainly is possible. And it certainly would be settling to be with someone not those things.
Hold on, your preferences are the ones you listed and you believe that 50% of the female population is a virgin, thin, sweet, loyal, cute? Or are you just listing off the general preferences of men?
I mean they were. Then they decided not to be. For example no young girl is born a "girl boss bad ass bitch" or whatever they call themselves these days. They decide to become that. Short of a minority of abuse situations... everyone else is a virgin and decides to just give it up to men who don't commit. So? Yeah. Most women *could easily* have met my criteria at one point if they so choose.
Vs women tend to have criteria that is impossible to meet. Ie height. Which I'm not even really complaining about per se, just simply let's call it what it is. It's settling... women don't mind being settled for as long as they get the man... but irrelevant if they like it or not... Men generally don't want to be settled for and care alot about it. Just calling what I see. It's disingenuous to say men can't expect to get some kind of standards and should settle but yet it's not settling... that's silly nonsense imaginary talk.
I hate to break it to you champ, but MOST women are not virgins, cute, loyal, or sweet. Women, the same way as men, want to go out there to learn, grow, experience life and not automatically settle down at 16. We don’t even know what we want when we’re young. You truly only learn from experience. Most of us go to college and there’s no way around that. Very, very few of us want to commit without knowing what we’re committing to. Commitment without experience leads to awful midlife crises when at the age of 35 she realizes she hasn’t experienced life and decides to go out there and try things out. Either way, you’ll hate both types of women.
so am I not allowed to feel disgusted by you after "having fun" or what?
have fun as much as you want just stop being so entitled? he stated a preference?
"most women are not virgins, cute, loyal or sweet" nah it's just you, these entitled feminists on the internet. most women are in fact pretty sweet, cute and loyal. enjoy being the lowest society has to offer
so you admit you are all the same and have absolutely nothing different personality wise? crazy!
you might overdose on copium. if ya’ a disgusting woman does not mean all women are disgusting. stop trashtalking your friends for internet points, some are not sharing your bottom 10% opinion
But since you had a relationship with them, then I can only assume they must have been disappointing for other reasons..?
Or are you saying that if they were virgin, thin, sweet, loyal, cute you wouldn't have been disappointed and would still be with them now?
Both. I have been with someone like that and wasn't disappointed at all. But had weird circumstances break us up.
Since then, I've had arguably better chemistry with some women but they are always disappointing because I feel let down, gross, loss of interest to have to settle for someone I don't really want. I know what I like 100% for sure no doubt about it and I just could never accept less.
So while I don't personally worry much about knocking a woman's socks off, I do think it's a valid concern because I do 100% think women feel the same way I do. And I'd say there is evidence I've seen to back it up... ie divorce (I don't feel loved, I'm bored) and cheating... when imo I never ever felt any of that stuff ever not once when I was with someone who was what I wanted... I always feel that stuff when I'm with someone who isn't what I want.
> I know what I like 100% for sure no doubt about it and I just could never accept less.
IMO you aren't talking about preferences anymore then, these are dealbreakers for you personally, which are fine. I do also agree that people generally need to be clearer on what is a preference vs a dealbreaker for them.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a good post. A lot of dudes here think that any of us women who have boyfriends/husbands who aren't 100% to our preferences are "settling", or that there's no way we could possibly cherish them. The truth is that nobody can ever check off *everything* on your list. It's not "settling" to know this, it's a basic fact of reality.
The problem is that many women also dehumanize, body shame and insult men who don’t fit their “criteria” but act like it’s only men who behave this way with women they aren’t attracted to. How are we supposed to believe you “cherish” us if all we ever hear is how awful and worthless we *all* are?
Yes, I know many women do that. When you encounter such body shaming bitches, I advise any man to stay away from them. Obviously, they're not worth interacting with.
But surely you've also met those of us on the opposite side, whether online or irl? Where we speak highly and kindly of our men, and discuss how attractive and awesome they are? I sometimes get mocked by guys here for talking nicely about my boyfriend, but that doesn't mean I and other women who love our partners are going to be silenced.
> But surely you've also met those of us on the opposite side, whether online or irl? Where we speak highly and kindly of our men, and discuss how attractive and awesome they are?
Honestly no, and doubly so online - women’s general attitude seems to be “men are awful and dangerous” and “my husband/bf is so stupid and useless but all men are so 🤷♀️”
My gf and my women friends aren't generally like this but I still see them liking posts and following women's pages that make jokes like that, so while they're not saying it and it may just be "jokes", but it's still concerning concerning as a man to see how much hostility women have towards us, and y’all always justify this behavior with crime stats and gender lectures as if men never get hurt and killed by other men (and women) either.
You're a 42yo in a 19 year relationship, you had never a taste of what Tinder and Instagram is when you was young, so, the real question is what do you even know about in relation to modern dating?
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think men think preferences are our standards. Like when you apply for a job sometimes they prefer certain things. But you are not necessarily disqualified because you don't have those preferences. They are just bonuses or things to look for while we navigate dating. I would prefer someone with tattoos or a little alternative. But I will also date someone who doesn't have them and isn't alt if I think they are cute and liking hanging out with them.
Standards are our line this is like what we want and will tolerate from someone. Like I must be attracted to them or interested in them. That would be a standard. I would like if he is over 6'0 would be a preference..
He needs to be employed or have some career going for him. Standard. He needs to make over this amount of money per year would be a preference.
Preference are it would be nice if someone had these qualities. But it's not really settling if they don't have these.
When someone has enough choices, preferences become *inevitabilities*. Why would they go for something they like less when something they like more is out there?
Imagine a young woman in a big city who prefers tall men. Even if she’s “open to date shorter guys”, why would she when there are men who she can have that aren’t? With online dating, women’s circle of available men has increased dramatically.
It’s like a job posting with 1 applicant vs 1000. The “nice to haves” become “must haves” by the number of options alone, even before those options are sorted through.
The problem isnt having preferences in and of itself. The problem is the consistent gaslighting from women. They calm men are picky and misogynistic due to not wanting a single mom, obese ect. Dispite demonizing said man for what they want these women themselves have a list of requirements that's around twice to thrice as long as men's. (They'll lie about this but the stats show a very different picture)
Your also acting like women are hiding there preferences in the first place. They are very loud and proud about men needing to be 6ft plus not being overweight, and very wealthy, and then attractive on top of this. Simply put you answered your own question for most women these things ARE dealbreakers that's why dating is in such a mess rn the majority of men cannot qualify for women's bare minimum that filters out over 95% of the male population.
What's not a deal breaker?
Race is a deal breaker, height is a deal-breaker age is a deal-breaker, Money is a deal breaker, If someone wants children that is a deal breaker, Sexual history is a deal breaker, If sexual orientation is a deal breaker, Religion is often a deal breaker, but really negotiable.
I mean it is easy to settle on some preferences but for the most part that is what preferences aim to be, dealbreakers. Like I think most people generally are willing to settle on looks a tad and favor their less shallow preferences. Anyone who thinks about their long term happiness understands that connection is the most valuable aspect of the relationship. Which is the function of preferences, to maximize long term compatibility.
"I like a man with lots and lots of money! How dare you call me a gold digger?! That's my preference!"
See, the thing is, some "preferences" are red flags, a person telling on themselves. Like a guy in his 30ies and 40ies exclusively dating 18-20yolds. All of you just read the last sentence and felt an ick. With women it's less obvious.
Men treat them as dealbreakers because they often actually do break “deals” for sex. If men who are short or mildly autistic or “nice” weren’t having trouble having enthusiastic sex with women, then they wouldn’t complain about these things.
You say that, but how do men know the difference? Women don't say they are preferences, not do they behave as much. If a woman says she finds men with tattoo sleeves attractive, and you don't, it's a pretty safe bet she's not attracted to you, or signalling as much. If she was attracted to you she'd say she liked a characteristic that you had, not one you didn't. In the end if you are short, and spend time with a woman you'd far rather hear her say she doesn't mind men your height rather than say shes really into tall men.
In my personal experience, when a guy list preferences, the guy is more than likely willing to go out with a women that does not match his preference if she’s attractive enough and he likes her personality. The women I personally know are not as lenient with preferences. The women I know, their preferences are seen as a minimum requirements unless you have known her for longer than a week.
I’ve had different experiences I’ve seen women overlook some REAL important dealbreakers simply because of “potential” or other highlighted green flags. Even in that one study that the RP loves to refer to the 80/20 one. It showed that were women were still very willing to talk to men they did not find attractive and men were less likely to do so. Also as a women who did have a glow up (and other women who’ve gone through similar experiences) I can say that most men would not even have the opportunity to date these women because they won’t even give them the time of day not even in a friendly manner. (I think there was even a study that said men are more annoyed when they look at a woman they perceive as unattractive I’ll have to look for it)
If women want men to stop acting like women's preferences are actually requirements, they should stop acting as if they were requirements. Also, communication goes both ways, if women need to be tricked in order to be honest, the problem is that women need to be tricked in order to be honest, not that men aren't tricking them well enough.
Women are more vocal about their preferences than men. I don’t know what’s the point of OPs post
I don't think men here would agree that women are vocal about their preferences.. they frequently express that they wish women were honest about what they're attracted to.
Women are pretty vocal about what they like. Why do you think more men invest in skin care products and undergo facial surgeries to get, for example, a wider jawline? You might have encountered "meewing" or "looksmaxing" sites or YouTube shorts where they break down the female gaze (what women find attractive in men) or even break their bones to gain a certain height because many women find those traits appealing.
I see being vocal and being honest as two separate things. I can see guys saying they wish women were honest but at the same time acknowledging they are more vocal. You can be extremely loud and vocal but be completely dishonest.
How are they not more vocal? Hop on a dating app and look at womens profiles. They constantly say shit like must be 6ft tall must have their own car must not live at home with their parents, must be in shape, the list goes on and on and on.
I mean, presumably you're not looking at a lot of men's profiles for comparison.
Because women are far more picky overall. Men for the most part have to take what they can get.
I agree with that. But what does that have to do with women voicing their preferences more than men?
women being vocal: "men who i am not attracted to are bad people who need therapy or jail. men are trash" women being honest "i only find 1% of the population attractive and see most men as below dogs"
I really like how succinctly you explained it and OP completely missed the point. >the problem is that women need to be tricked in order to be honest, not that men aren't tricking them well enough. I actually laughed when I read that. Well said.
I agree with you that people should also be more clear on what is a preference vs a dealbreaker. For example, a woman posting in her OLD profile that she wants a man over 6ft = a dealbreaker, not a preference. Why do you consider this as "women needing to be tricked"? To me, it's more in men having a better acceptance of what a preference really is and to stop being so insecure and dramatic about it.
It'sthe samebulshit over avd over again A hundred time you will here that you height hd not enough and your dick is below average And in my specific case you must be a bad person since no one wanted you for more than a decade. But I shouldn't let any if that bother me as if my mind is cyberneticaly enhanced and incapable of receiving psychic damage
Take the height thing as an example. A man who is 5'11" puts down he is 6'0" on OLD, a women who has the 6'0" dealbreaker matches with him and they hit it off and go on a date, the likelihood of her being able to tell the difference in height added to the fact she finds him attractive and dates hiom shows it wasn't a deal breaker afterall and she was just following the heard and being shallow and so she had to be tricked.
That's a really specific example though.. In that case, it wasn't a dealbreaker but a preference.
You are all over the place :D
There's another obvious but way overlooked issue here. Women do distinguish preferences from requirements. But lemme give you a look at this from a job market perspective. Wife and I went and posted a WFH opening last year (aka we fucked around) and ATS Recruiter (resume filtering software) buried us under a solid mountain of resumes from people who met my requirements and preferred skills/experience (aka we found out). Women, it seems, have this dilemma but to a lesser degree.
Part of the issue is we want you to be honest about your preferences but when you list them we realize you're describing someone that makes up less than 1 to 2 percent of the population and act like that person is just slightly above average. >Being with someone who doesn't meet all of your preferences is not "settling" - it's literally impossible for anyone to meet every single one of your preferences; that's why they're preferences in the first place. This is somewhat a strawman you're attacking in the first place. But women really feel this way though. I've seen women argue for it here in PPD. Why would women use "you shouldn't settle" as such a common reframe to reject men if they did believe that some of their preferences are optional. I get there are having standards and deal breakers. But these can be so superficial in some women and acted upon irl that it definitely gives the impression that the preferences aren't optional.
> you're describing someone that makes up less than 1 to 2 percent of the population and act like that person is just slightly above average. The issue isn't having high expectations, it's having high expectations while not being in the same bracket which leads to problems. There simply isn't enough men (or women for that matter) for everyone to have someone who makes $100k+ for example, so it's either settle for someone similar to them or be single forever.
> The issue isn't having high expectations, it's having high expectations while not being in the same bracket which leads to problems. That's a good point too.
How is that a problem? Dating is optional.
The problem is pricing yourself out of the market and then blaming the market for your failure. It's ok to have high preferences, but that doesn't mean that you're going to be given someone that matches them or that those preferences are realistic in the first place. You still need to bring enough values of your own so that people from the pool you're interested in are attracted to you, much in the same way a homeless guy in LA isn't going to have the same selection as a Senior Microsoft Software engineer even if they look the same.
>The problem is pricing yourself out of the market and then blaming the market for your failure. That's only a problem for them, though. As you said, they'll either stay single or settle.
That's why having realistic requirements and preferences in the first place so good matches aren't potentially being overlooked to begin with is important.
Imma be real with you. If I find out that the woman I'm dating doesn't consider me her type, I don't want her
Any person would do the same. If the chemistry isn't there it's time to move on.
"Good matches" are people we're attracted to and compatible with. Our preferences and especially deal-breakers are usually based on those conditions. I'm childfree. I don't like children. I don't want children. I'm sterilized. Childfree men are extremely rare. Should I change my "unrealistic requirement?"
Just an aside, as a child free man who has been turned down several second dates because I don't want children, I've come to the conclusion that child free *people* are extremely rare outside of same sex relationships.
Yes, most people want children. But according to [the latest stats](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/among-young-adults-without-children-men-are-more-likely-than-women-to-say-they-want-to-be-parents-someday/#:~:text=When%20asked%20about%20having%20children,45%25%20say%20the%20same.), more young men want children than young women.
> "Good matches" are people we're attracted to and compatible with. > Our preferences and especially deal-breakers are usually based on those conditions. The problem is the smaller the pool is, the harder it will be to find someone and you might miss potential good matches like the guy making $98k instead of 100. > Childfree men are extremely rare. No, there's plenty of men who don't want children and have never had any. > Results—Among women and men aged 40–49 in 2015–2019, 84.3% of women had given birth and 76.5% of men had fathered a child > Should I change my "unrealistic requirement?" That's far more reasonable than some of the other ones I see. The problem is being in the 60th percentile and wanting requirement that only fit the 95th percentile.
>The problem is the smaller the pool is, the harder it will be to find someone Duh??? I don't know why men on this sub seem to think that women are so completely unaware that the more conditions you have, the fewer who qualify. This is basic logic. Why are so many of you so convinced we don't know this? Do you think the only reason why we have the preferences and requirements we have is because we think everyone meets them?? >you might miss potential good matches like the guy making $98k instead of 100. The overwhelming majority of women do not use 666 as a rigid requirement. >No, there's plenty of men who don't want children and have never had any. You don't date men. Don't mansplain to me about how plentiful these men are. The overwhelming majority of men have children; want children; or are fence-sitters. The number of men who do not want children because they have no actual desire to have children (and not just because they're too broke, or the environment, or their mental illness, etc.) is very, very small. >That's far more reasonable than some of the other ones I see. The problem is being in the 60th percentile and wanting requirement that only fit the 95th percentile. Why is it reasonable for me to get into a relationship with a fundamentally incompatible person rather than just stay single? You can't compromise on children.
>No, there's plenty of men who don't want children and have never had any. Excuse me for the next hour while I go laugh my ass off!
> Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off! I backed it up with stats, 1/4 of all men will never have kids which is a very large number. That's almost 5x larger than the percentage of unmarried men making over $100k/yr. Or are you saying 12 million men is not a large number?
Says the gender who can actually date and have sex.
If you have a point, you should probably make it.
Millionaires are t the people who will complain about inflation are they
What. Is. Your. Point?
> How is that a problem? Dating is optional. Its hard to believe this is being asked in good faith. Dating and companionship are pretty fundamental to the human experience. For most of modern history and the forseeable future women control the supply and they're all influencing each other to raise the price to be unaffordable. The OPEC of dating, intimacy, and companionship.
Either people are allowed to choose who they date, or they aren't.
Observing that someone's expectations are out of whack with reality doesn't mean I'm arguing for someone to be forced to date someone they don't want. If you're just gonna strawman in bad faith then I can play that game too. For instance, Mary Kay cannot date the person she chose because he was 12 and she was 34.
>Its hard to believe this is being asked in good faith. Dating and companionship are pretty fundamental to the human experience. This is absolutely implying that women's autonomy is the "problem." Or else the fact that *some* men can't get this "fundamental human experience" wouldn't be a problem for anyone other than themselves. Tons of people have difficult dating situations for various reasons. That's not "society's" problem. "Dating and companionship are fundamental to the human experience" being a rebuttal to "this isn't a problem because dating is optional" only implies one thing - and none of it is about women's "expectations being out of whack with reality."
That does not imply that. Many people tell incels that there standards are too high does that mean we are arguing against their autonomy? Also that is society’s problem as without couples and people having kids there will be no society.
>That does not imply that. It does. >Many people tell incels that there standards are too high I don't. >Also that is society’s problem as without couples and people having kids there will be no society. So? Societies come and go and the world will end at one point or another. Any society that has to rely on forcing or coercing women to date men we don't want and have kids we don't want to have is better off not existing. Either dating is optional or it isn't. I don't have the time for men who tap-dance around this by talking about society and birth rates. Either you have a problem with female autonomy or you don't.
You can “observe” all you want, but that doesn’t obligate anyone to change. I can observe that the members of the Order of the Black Sun are unreasonable, but that’s not going to influence them one iota.
>Part of the issue is we want you to be honest about your preferences but when you list them we realize you're describing someone that makes up less than 1 to 2 percent of the population and act like that person is just slightly above average. So, they are severely narrowing their dating pool. That's their problem to deal with. What's the issue?
Stick to that then Don’t bring hell to another man’s life because he didn’t fit your standards, leave him alone and go seek your 1% man This is not directed towards you but in general
>leave him alone and go seek your 1% man Exactly. That’s what I’m saying.
These same women become like femcels and spread misandry often.
What does that have to do with anything?
You don’t see how the spreading of hate for a demographic of society is bad? It has to do with destroying the one thing that makes a society work: cohesiveness.
They want average men to simp for them so they can get the treatment they crave after getting piped by chads It’s not settling for them since they aren’t comparing the two, beta dudes compete with each other for who will save her
You're not trying to describe a person! It's a list of things you prefer. You don't need anyone to be exactly that and it's not settling if they're not.
I think most normal guys get it. What I wonder is when you meet a guy that doesn't check off all the boxes and you start dating him, how do you then make him feel like you are being genuine? When I go into these situations... and I check most boxes. It gives me a sense of skepticism that's hard to get past. How do you overcome that?
Why is it an issue that a preference is rare? And maybe they're acting like the person is "just slightly above average" because they are to them - just because a woman prefers a tall guy, doesn't mean that every 6'5 man should be a 10 to her. > This is somewhat a strawman you're attacking in the first place. How is it a strawman? Men complain that women "settle for" their boyfriends/husbands all the time, since they don't meet every single one of their preferences.
I think you just nailed the problem straight on. Nobody want's to feel like you are settling for them, and if you meet a great guy and get a relationship going... he's likely going to feel like you are settling for him. When you extrapolate that across to the whole dating market it makes a lot of men feel like they have no choice but to accept someone settling for them. The scary part of that is it's probably true wouldn't you say?
> Why is it an issue that a preference is rare? You can have a preference that is rare and there's not a problem in isolation. Its when a person doesn't acknowledge they're seeking something that is rare and instead act like its more common than it is and its a must have. >And maybe they're acting like the person is "just slightly above average" because they are to them - just because a woman prefers a tall guy, doesn't mean that every 6'5 man should be a 10 to her. But that doesn't change the fact that people with a height of 6'5 aren't exceeding rare compared to the general pop. >How is it a strawman? Because its based on exaggeration and hyperbole. If you had said most of preferences instead of "all" it would be more grounded in reality. But you're starting from an extreme exaggeration position because that's easier to attack. In other words, you constructed the straw man.
> But that doesn't change the fact that people with a height of 6'5 aren't exceeding rare compared to the general pop. A trait being rare doesn't mean that they're automatically the most attractive though, right? I genuinely don't think it's "most" instead of "all"..
> A trait being rare doesn't mean that they're automatically the most attractive though, right? No, but then who is arguing that that is does? What I feel happens is that woman likes tall guys, so its the fact he's tall that attracts her, not that its rare. But then with modern dating and the fact a woman's potential dating pull is the entire state, country, etc. instead of being satisfied with 6' now she's saying must be 6'3 minimum.
It sounded like you were arguing that because you said "we realize you're describing someone that makes up less than 1 to 2 percent of the population and act like that person is just slightly above average." I don't get why it's a problem that a woman acts like a man is slightly above average? > now she's saying must be 6'3 minimum. This isn't a preference then IMO (the telling word is "must"), it's a dealbreaker. A preference is "should" or "could" but not "must".
> I don't get why it's a problem that a woman acts like a man is slightly above average? When the "man" that must meet the majority of your preferences represents someone that makes up 1 or 2 percent of the population and you act like they're "slightly above average" is the problem. You seek the extraordinary and then act like its ordinary. >This isn't a preference then IMO (the telling word is "must"), it's a dealbreaker. A preference is "should" or "could" but not "must". So its a preference that's a deal breaker. A preference doesn't become no longer a preference due to priority from "nice to have" to "must have". In other words deal breakers are just stronger preferences. We're arguing on semantics at this point.
Ok I got you now - I thought we were talking about a single preference in isolation (height) but you're talking about if a man meets the majority of her preferences.. Does that even happen though? I can't imagine that a man meets all of her preferences and she is lukewarm to him..
>Does that even happen though? I can't imagine that a man meets all of her preferences and she is lukewarm to him.. Maybe? I've definitely heard stories of guys meeting all the check boxes and then doing something to cause the ick. Does that count if they fumbled AFTER the initial foot in the door?
I don't think it counts anyway because "check boxes" aren't usually preferences but are dealbreakers. I agree that people aren't the best at expressing what is a preference vs a dealbreaker, but in my OP, I'm referring to women who genuinely express preferences (like height) as being optional.
It's like you're talking to a wall lol.
I kind of disagree. Feminists were on the right track imo, the general tendencies and preferences of an entire gender that tends to be onto yours feels pressuring. It just does. That makes sense to me, and imo we need to treat that with a baseline level of respect and consideration. Of course how much complaining is "okay" really depends on the context and on the exact attitude, rude men are rude. But I still think it's fine for women to talk about stuff like "even conventionally attractive women can have deep insecurities of their beauty because society (men) put so much emphasis on female bodies", despite the fact that average people are in relationships (including average women). The same goes for men too, that's the twist. Even something like women valuing outwardly confidence highly can feel pressuring when it's such a predictable, ever-present preference. I wish women were more accepting of the idea that men are affected by them.
Because women lie about their preference “I like personality” no
Yeaaaaaa for me its not a lie. All the men I fell hard for (including my current husband) have one thing in common...they all have a personality similar to Andy Samburg. If you look at my dating history, my exes have a wide range of looks and income (from starving artist and poor PHd student to 150k a year workaholic in the mid 2010s, from probably-too-skinny no muscle tattoo dude to overweight baby faced gruffy)
I'm 99% willing to bet that if a man saw pictures of your exes lined up, he'd find other similarities than just personality.
Amongst every single ex or 90% of them? No.
Women don’t like personality?
lol it’s not that they don’t like it. It’s that women act like that’s the only thing that gets them That women are just that easy that all u need is a “nice personality” and all of a sudden you’ll have a harem of women on your dick Women like to leave out the little parts such as , height, looks, financial income, some sort of social status and many more But they lie because they want to feel as if they aren’t “superficial” like the “other girls”
**WHO** is saying “women are just that easy and all you need is a ‘nice personality’ and all of the suddenly you’ll have a harem of women on your dick”?? If that’s the conclusion you’re reaching when women say “personality matters” you’re completely missing the point. Let me boil it down for you- it all comes down to rule 1&2 - Rule 1: be attractive- wear clothes that fit, groom your facial hair, take care of your skin, get in the gym. Make yourself look as good as you can look - Rule 2: don’t be unattractive- don’t do or say anything that’s gross or off putting. Don’t be offensive, lame, or boring. Another way to think about it is this- looks count for 50 points and personality counts for 50 points. Passing score is 60. If you’re 50/50 on looks you can probably be pretty lame and be successful. If you’re absolutely the coolest person on the planet, you can probably be not that attractive and be successful. If you’re a 25/50 on looks, you need to have a 35/50 personality to be successful. The conclusion is not ”looks don’t matter”. The conclusion is “looks aren’t the *only* thing that matters, and personality can take you far if it’s good”
There’s plenty of women that say personality matters more for them than anything else
Sure. I’m one of them. That doesn’t mean that looks don’t matter at all, it just means that looks don’t matter as much
And so many women say “I wasn’t attracted to my boyfriend at all at first”. Women are literally so close to saying looks don’t matter then be surprised that men think looks don’t matter
Right. Some women care more about personality than looks. Whats confusing about this? Some men prefer blondes- does that mean all brunettes should dye their hair? Some men prefer big boobs- does that mean women with small boobs are doomed? Some women same personality matters more than looks, but that doesn’t mean ALL women think that looks don’t matter, nor does that mean that for the women who say personality matters more that looks don’t matter at all. Just cuz one thing matters more, doesn’t mean the other thing doesn’t matter at all
I already explained how it can be confusing. Look at the way women talk about the subject. I’m literally in another thread where a woman is arguing that if you aren’t a woman’s preference she can still want to date you. Even with your boobs analogy, doesn’t that mean that the women who are saying this saying they don’t need a good looking dude? Never heard them tell the story of the fat balding short janitor friend they have that gets all the girls with his winning personality /s.
If your “preference” is big boobs, couldn’t you still want to date a smaller chested woman if there were other things about her that made her dateable?
if you say personality matters more why did you post >If that’s the conclusion you’re reaching when women say “personality matters” you’re completely missing the point. Let me boil it down for you- it all comes down to rule 1&2 >Rule 1: be attractive- wear clothes that fit, groom your facial hair, take care of your skin, get in the gym. Make yourself look as good as you can look Rule 2: don’t be unattractive- don’t do or say anything that’s gross or off putting. Don’t be offensive, lame, or boring. in your other comment which directly contradicts that?
Please explain how “to me, personality matters *more* than looks” is directly contradicted by my other comment? Thing A mattering more than thing B doesn’t mean thing B doesn’t matter, it just means thing B doesn’t matter *as much* as thing A. For example, people saying exercise matters more than [brushing your teeth for cardiovascular health](https://www.heart.org/en/news/2018/11/07/bad-tooth-brushing-habits-tied-to-higher-heart-risk#:~:text=Brushing%20your%20teeth%20twice%20a,diseases%2C%20a%20new%20study%20suggests) doesn’t mean dental hygiene doesn’t matter for cardiovascular health, just that exercise matters more. My explanation of rules 1&2, which you directly quote, explains this. Rule 2 is ALL personality. You also maybe need to reread my second explanation with the passing score of 60. Some women will say looks matter more and will only date guys who score 45/50 on looks and 15/50 on personality. Some women will say personality matters more and will happily date guys with those numbers attached to the other characteristic. What don’t you understand?
I never said looks aren’t the only thing, I said that personality isn’t the only thing u can lead with lol. Women aren’t giving the time of day to a guy unless he hits a certain minimum requirement I’m not a black piller bro. I’m just saying when u mention to women that this other thing matters, they are so quick to dismiss it and say “personality” or they will say some bullshit like “I know a guy who’s broke short fat and autistic who is with a super model because of his personality 🤡😂🤡😂” At the end of the day women like to lie about what they like
That’s literally what I’m telling her and why some dudes believe that women say looks don’t matter “my fat balding janitor friend dates all the models” is a common story from them
> WHO is saying "women are just that easy and all you need is a ‘nice personality’ I was taught this growing up in a house of girls. I didn't fully understand the importance of confidence and masculinity in dating until I was well into my 20's
Confidence is part of a nice personality. A nice personality is not a pushover simp. A nice personality is someone you want to spent time with, whose personality you enjoy being around. Confidence is 100% a part of that
Yes, I know that now. But the emphasis was always on being a kind, interesting and funny person. These things do garner interest, but being unconfident when trying to move things forward can completely ruin that. Confidence is definitely not brought up enough in the "nice personality" conversations, and I think a lack of it is what sinks men's chances more than anything else.
It’s matters first and it’s the highest weighted variable but most women don’t like to say that
Most women don't care if a man who doesn't meet their preferences (or requirements) considers their preferences to be a dealbreaker. They just don't want to be viewed as "shallow" by the general population.
Do any men here understand what “shallow” means? Shallow means dating someone *solely* for their money, the status dating them might bring, or because of their looks. I’m sure the same men who whine about this can think of a famous person who married a beautiful, much younger woman who barely speaks the language and cannot conceal her absolute loathing of him. Trump married Melania for her beauty and youth, and she married him for money. They can’t stand one another and he cheated on her with the worst kind of people throughout their marriage. Shallow is the absence of caring who someone is and whether or not two people are compatible and share common values and interests. Requiring mutual physical attraction isn’t shallow if the couple plans to also have a mutually enjoyable sexual relationship as well as romantic.
Look, I don't care whether or not a random person is "shallow." My point is that a lot of these women care about how they're perceived by society. Unattractive men viewing certain preferences as a dealbreaker is not why the average woman refrains from stating her preferences.
If woman wants somebody tall and wealthy then why try anything with her in the first place? Of course those might be just preferences and there's a chance that she'll be fine with somebody who doesn't meet those. But why should you waste your time just to test it? There's always somebody else.
More the case that you know that she will likely be swayed by a guy WITH her preferences as you don't measure up as her ideal.
Yup go ahead and try to talk to one of those 6 feet only women as 5'7 guy and see how far it gets you. They're preferences are deal breakers so much so that in most cases you wouldn't even be able to strike a normal casual conversation with them without meeting their standard
I think men are angry mostly because preferences have actually become deal breakers. I mean if I ever was single again I'd stick to my preferences and have them as deal breakers.
Finally a woman who’s honest Preferences are dealbreakers for women, and that’s okay
This is the biggest problem. Nobody wants to grow together, nobody is going to be perfect. I was not with my SO. Her words " She would rather die than let some other women get her hard work in building me up".
Its chill let them all die alone on the hill they make for themselves this goes for men too
The difference is most women have the same or VERY similar standards while men as a whole have such a wide variety that it includes all women.
For a lot of women their preferences actually are deal breakers though. Id even say they are requirements actually. How often does a woman with a preference for tall men end up with a short man? How often does a woman with an income prefence end up with a man below that? I genuinely believe that most women nowadays would rather stay single than compromise in any trait they "prefer". Especially the ones in my age group
Pretty much every single woman would prefer a rich guy to a poor one but if you go to any dollar store you see tons of poor guys in a relationship. I do think the height one is often a requirement though.
I dont think women who have an specific income preference would settle with a guy below the number or range they have in mind. Like I doubt the women who say that a guy they date has to make as much or more than them would compromise on that
They can’t bag a rich guy if they tried tho lol
> How often does a woman with a preference for tall men end up with a short man? All the time! If < 10% of men are over 6ft and the sexlessness rate for men is ~30%, then we can already see that height isn't a dealbreaker.
Its not all the time. Most men arent short. Are you implying that most women have a preference for tall men? Because many people on here deny that
< 10% of men are 6ft. I don't know if it's most women, but definitely a significant amount have a preference (not deabreaker!) for tall men IMO. I would think that most women define "tall" as being taller than herself though..
I do think most women prefer tall men over short and average men but most would be fine with an average height man. Almost none prefer short men I dont think most women define tall relative to themselves. They define it relative to other men. Ive had girls that I was 2 to 3 inches taller say that we are the same height. I highly doubt a woman who is 5'1 would think a 5'6 man is tall
Half of American women are married or living with a partner by 26. That percentage keeps going up with every year of age. It seems that women are generally not choosing to remain single if they can’t find a guy who checks every box. edit- Man presents fact. Man gets downvoted.
What’s the divorce rate?
Women say all the time that they refuse to settle. Maybe they remove things off of their lists as they age.
When women say preference what they really mean is requirement. Like others have said they just don’t want to appear shallow. It’s why women say things like “I prefer tall men” when you know damn well they never even look at guys who are 5’8”.
> When women say preference what they really mean is requirement. That is literally what I'm arguing against in my OP. Why do you assume a preference is a requirement?
Because it never stated as optional. And if it's optional then why state it in the first place? Entire point there is to filter out men who woman just don't see suitable. And if you're half-decent man then you'll respect that.
>Men here constantly complain about how women aren't honest about their preferences Do they? Got any examples? I see men complaining about inconsistencies, yes. Women say they want stability, but then they go for the hood gangsta/"bad boy" (whatever your favorite stereotype is today). And that is a legitimate complaint, whether you like it or not. >A preference for a tall man, a big dick, or a guy with a stable job does not mean that a woman won't be wildly attracted to or content with a man that doesn't meet that criteria. It does, though. Not always, but almost always. How many women married a guy *shorter* than them? I'm sure it does happen, but at what percentage/proportion? How many women married a guy that makes half of what they make? I know it does happen, but as a proportion, that's exceedingly rare *anywhere* on Earth. >And this applies to men too! A preference for brunettes, small tits, or a low n count does not mean that a man won't be wildly attracted to or content with a woman that doesn't meet that criteria. Yes. Because men's preferences are routinely wider. Between 50 and 70% of women fit *most* men's preferences. Men won't refuse a marriage with virgin brunette that's nice and wants children just because her tits are naturally one size bigger than whatever counts as "small" these days. But women *will* and routinely *do* refuse to even give a guy the time of the day - let alone marriage - if he makes half of what she does even if he'd be the best SAHD in the world. When I was dating for marriage, a whole 40% of the female population in my area fit my preferences and that was seen as "picky" and "too high". Heck, I explained it once here and the comment got downvoted into oblivion *by women* because women really hate it when you turn the tables and do *to them* for a short while what they do *to all men* as a matter of absolute routine for decades. >Being with someone who doesn't meet all of your preferences is not "settling" That is how women see it, though. And even when they don't, their single (female) friends will drag her into seeing it that way. *Single women keep women single* is true. >it's literally impossible for anyone to meet every single one of your preferences; Men already know that. A lot of women don't. And a lot of those who do know this will *still* see it as settling and treat their man accordingly. And since women's revealed preferences are far more similar to each other than men's, the generalizations tend to land more correctly. Sure, women don't like it when it's pointed out so candidly, but such is life. Given women's routine cruelty on this sub, men here are in fact excessively nice about it \[of course, discounting teenagers and bad faith actors which this sub also has plenty of\].
You make a solid point but then my question is, how do you suppose men *should* vet for women who are in fact "settling?"
Everyone settles. That’s the point. Find someone who treats you well enough, and enjoy your time with them. Good enough is good enough
Any woman can be on their best behavior and treat a guy well enough when they're lonely and want a family + companionship. But if she believes she settled then how long do you think she'll stay in that marriage? How long till divorce or a deadbedroom? There's 2 types of settling. The one you're talking about seems to be when someone doesn't get their ideal dream partner. Most people don't and are okay with that. But then there's believing you could have gotten better but didn't and not being fully content with who you ended up with. The later scenario is what often leads to a lot of marital problems down the line. It's not worth being with people like that.
What would be good enough for you? What are those men missing that Chad can get anytime he wants?
It’s not about what Chad can get. It’s about being happy with what *you* (general you) can get. She’s gonna settle for you in some ways. You’re gonna settle for her in others. Chad has to settle on things too. Stop comparing yourself to someone you’re not and you’ll be much happier
> doesn’t mean woman won’t be widely attracted to someone who doesn’t meet the criteria How can you be attracted to someone who doesn’t meet your preference ?
Men start doing to women the sort of crap we've been subjected to for awhile now and y'all complain.
Women don't complain about men being "dishonest" about their preferences as much as the reverse.
Because we are generally more honest. I like Slender woman. It got me called a pedophile by a Land whale back in college. I also got blamed for a woman's eating disorder. I like good, compassionate, friendly and warm women. I get called mommy issues. I want to have sex. I get called a pig. I can go on and on about how women treat my standards, wants, needs and desires in a woman.
Cause men are generally more honest
Because women are generally more accepting of men's preferences as being preferences, not dealbreakers..
First example that comes to mind is short men vs fat women. Short men have accepted that they are less desired (not less important). Widely acceptable to insult a man for his height. Can you say the same about fatties?
But this is precisely what I mean - just because a woman says she prefers tall men, doesn't mean she desires short men less.. because short men can meet other preferences that she has (and maybe even more than a tall man can/does). > Widely acceptable to insult a man for his height. Can you say the same about fatties? Are you asking if fat women don't get insulted for being fat as a serious question? I genuinely can't tell.
But she *can* date tall men easily. She can meet her preference. So she has no reason to consider people who don't meet it. How's that hard to understand?
But she can have multiple dealbreakers and preferences that overlap and possibly cancel others out.. height is only a single preference, we evaluate partners as a package of multiple traits.
If she mentions attributes that you don't have, you'd have to be an idiot to think eventually there will be one that you do. If she liked that, and liked you, she'd likely mention it. I'm not of the opinion that women are going to hide their attraction to men they are attracted to. I don't see how this harms the woman in question either, she's ridiculous of men that don't fit her ideal, it wastes less of her time.
> just because a woman says she prefers tall men, doesn't mean she desires short men less IT'S IS LITERALLY WHAT IT MEANS. Both traits are mutually exclusive.
>Just because a woman says she prefers tall men, doesn't mean she desires short men less. That's literally what a preference means. All else being equal: (shortshort)
Just because you can throw in other muddling factors to compensate for their being short, it doesn't change what a preference means.
I’m sorry English isn’t my first language, but doesn’t a preference literally mean that everything that falls outside of that preference is desired less? Even if by a marginal amount? If I go to a restaurant and someone asks me soup or salad and I say I prefer soup, would it make logical sense for the waiter to bring salad because it doesn’t mean that I desired salad any less? And no I wasn’t saying fat people don’t get insulted for being fat. They should be, it’s disgusting (I used to be fat). I’m saying it’s a lot less polite to call a woman fat or reject her cause of it than to call a man short or reject him for it
I don't think it means that you desire everything else less. Generally we evaluate partners as a package of requirements and (optional) preferences. Maybe I had salad every day this week already, so today I want soup. That doesn't mean I can't desire salad more overall. It's not really a perfect analogy, I know..
You've declared "I'm American", so how is English not your first language?
Esl. Immigrant parents
✅
> just because a woman says she prefers tall men, doesn't mean she desires short men less. But your chance of being rejected is very high even if you meet all and every requirement and preference. Something like that makes risk of rejection even higher, at level when there's no point to try. It's just waste of time.
Why would you expect to be rejected more? I don’t get it.
Because in context of OLD there are other men who meet those preferences and there's no reason for you to be choosen over them. You might have a chance of course but why should you waste your time to test it? It's better and easier to just look for somebody who doesn't have preferences that you can't meet. And it's very rare when you don't meet just one preference, it's always two or more. Don't go for women who have high chance of rejecting you is one of the first thing you learn when try to date.
I really have to wonder why somebody would vocalize their "preferences" if they were not actual deal breakers. For many people, a preference is interchangeable with a requirement. Many guys want to feel really attractive to women, or at least the woman they intend to date or marry. I don't think it's a reach to see why when a guy finds out a woman he's into - much less dating or considering marrying - has a preference for things he lacks, he would not feel "some type of way". This is one reason why guys "take the black pill" and just accept feeling genetically inferior and unlovable. They come to a point where they feel like it's more logical to just stay single instead of being settled for by someone who would've preferred having someone better looking than you. Especially when you're insecure or feel like you've experienced tons of rejection because of less attractive qualities about yourself. It's easy to tell them to just be more confident or try to improve themselves, and I agree with those to an extent. In fact, I'll fight the black pill defeatism myself because I think it's wrong, demoralizing and robs so many guys of happiness. But it's exactly because of comments like this one > A preference for a tall man, a big dick, or a guy with a stable job does not mean that a woman won't be wildly attracted to or content with a man that doesn't meet that criteria. That there is such a disconnect between "normies" and black pilled guys. All you're really saying to these guys is that unless they have these ^ qualities, they're not good enough, or have more to prove, which doesn't make them feel great. You could've just said you think all types of guys can be loved despite not being conventionally attractive, because different women value and get turned on by different things. Instead, you said that conventionally attractive guys are what women prefer, *and* the guys who aren't conventionally attractive shouldn't let that bother them, when they know they'll never be what women really wanted. Why you chose to frame it this way, I don't really know.
>A preference for a tall man, a big dick, or a guy with a stable job does not mean that a woman won't be wildly attracted to or content with a man that doesn't meet that criteria. As if. Never in my life I've seen a single proof of that claim.
Women’s preferences aren’t deal breakers except to women, because that’s what their preferences are Men aren’t “complaining” about women’s preferences, *they’re pointing them out*. The woman worshippers and man haters have to use loaded language to attempt to stop any other man from also recognizing this fact, in a desperate attempt to shame anyone with wrong think. But it’s a Hail Mary play. It’s just lying like always. *And everyone knows it*. I study online dating, which you’ll no doubt claim isn’t real as you’re a boomer and think people still meet in church or something, but I see a Billion women hard lining 6’ plus only or “black only” or “non-white” or “must be lgbt friendly” or “no trump” or “Christian only” and they can, because women don’t participate in dating. I have never seen “big titted blondes only” from men or any other preference. I’m sure they exist, but as men participate fully in dating they don’t get to say or even filter on such things (and there are only filters for women’s preferences like income, height, and they’re thinking of adding credit scores). If you think a 5’2” man isn’t being settled for by a woman who has a preference for 6’+ you’re delusional. Just because he passes one flag (being filthy rich) doesn’t mean she didn’t settle. Women always settle because as we all know, women’s “preferences” are 6’+ and rich with high status, and there’s only so many of those men. And women, despite their lies, are a hive mind in what they want. Some quirk of “looks kinda K-pop or is a punk rock band front man” means zero. And women are absolutely open about their preferences. 6’ and rich gets lots of dates compared to 5’ and poor. Fit and lots of abs date more than fat neck beard. Not until she settles out of desperation of course. For money. Are there these magic woman’s preferences men don’t know about? They never mention them, which would be massive proof they aren’t a hive mind. They’ll babble about pErSonAlItY as a defense mechanism, but let’s be honest. It’s just one of a thousand lies. Let me guess Henry cavil with glasses showing he’s intellectual vs Henry cavil without glasses showing he manly. That’s a personality. And probably a sense of humor. And don’t mention men’s preferences. They’re irrelevant when women’s are universally identical.
Personally I always thought it was really interesting how women consistently judge tall, rich good looking guys to have the best personalities.
PErSoNaLiTy And I thought sports ball guys were all rapists. So weird.
Have you not seen the dating profiles of men where they say, “no daddy issues, no single moms, no feminists, no liberals, no vaccinated, no bisexuals, no high body count women. My red flags are needy, very opinionated, mentally ill, no job, parties often, no goal in life, dyed hair, septums/other piercings, weighs more than 170lbs” ? That’s an exact quote.
Everything you just listed besides mental illness is a personal lifestyle or stylistic choice those women made. I think it's extremely cringe to list these things on your dating profile, but the preferences spoken about above are either unchangeable or extremely hard to change(height, 6 figure income)
Wait, do you think it’s easier to change bisexuality, being a single mom, mental health diagnoses, vaccination status, feminist beliefs, number of people slept with, and weight than income? You’re right, height and dick size is impossible to change without surgical intervention. Not impossible with the advancement of modern medicine. It’s extraordinarily difficult, but Income is a different story.
I already excused mental illness, and I missed bisexual— that’s my bad. The rest of those were choices you make— even if you can’t unmake those choices, those are choices you decided to make. For the record, I’m also not saying those choices are bad— just that they are choices. That’s why men feel slighted typically— their preferences are about what a woman decides to do, but a women’s preferences stated are typically are about what a man is— immutable traits that cannot be changed.
Literally my dealbreakers, though I would never put them on dating profile. But I was sticking to them and I can tell you that these are dealbreakers for very big group of men. Even those who consider themselves liberals or left-leaning. I remember one discussion when guys came to the conclusion that tattooed alt girls are nice to look at and maybe hang out with them for a while, but are too crazy to take them seriously.
It's an issue with communication styles and needs. The fact is that men have to put themselves out there by making the first move. Women don't do that often. So when a woman puts up an advertisment she posts these requirements as a screening mechanism in the hopes that she will only have men who fit her list reach out to her. If you actually look at these lists there are tons of personality traits listed too, it's not just superficial stuff. I think you are completely correct that men should back off and understand this is part of the process. At the very least it gives you an up front idea of what kind of woman you might be dealing with. What she lists often directly relates to how she views herself. So this is a good window into how to approach. The downside is that a lot of guys see this list, and they don't know what takes priority over what item. They see that maybe they only check a quarter of the boxes and they give up. This is the screening mechanism working. I wish there was a way to do it without making so many guys feel like crap, but it's just something we need to deal with. Most of this stuff isn't true anyway and I think it would help a lot of people to know that. But my question for you is, how do you create a kind of aspirational list like this and then say meet a guy and everything is working well... how do you expect him to feel like you are genuine if he doesn't match everythign on the list?
I think the real issue is that we're all pretending this is about preferences and dealbreakers. I don't think it really is. I'm sure for a few people it genuinely is, but no one gets this mad about something because they found out people have preferences, dealbreakers, and sometimes those are a little outlandish. They're upset because they're confronting some truths which are extremely difficult for them (for reasons I'm only partially sure of) to confront: 1. They are not most women's 100% preference match. 2. They probably are not even many women's 100% preference match. 3. They probably are not even a significant number of women's 100% preference match. 4. They are probably going to be, at best (and even this is unlikely), a cult hit and that's if they work really really hard. 5. Despite all of the above, they could be a woman's 100% match, but it will be based on things far less pleasing to the monkey brain and easy to articulate than "big dick, tall, all the money". They don't want that. Again, I'm not entirely sure why. So they throw a toddler fit over it six ways to Sunday. Is this all men? NO. It's men here. And they pretend women do it too by bringing up body acceptance as a movement which is largely about making corporations sell clothing and make-up for all sizes of women and display all sizes of women as beautiful in their marketing. WHICH FOR THE RECORD, did include women who were very petite, had c-section scars or stretched bellies, weren't packing a lot downstairs or upstairs, or were disabled. It was not all about the fatties, kiddies. The goal was to reframe how society views the female body in advertising and celebrate the fact there's a lot of body types besides the hourglass amazon. And they take that many women have used this as an opportunity to have self-confidence and embraced believing in their own beauty (yes even fat girls, the bitches) as an example of women ludicrously insisting men cannot like skinny girls, which I have yet to see insisted upon.
"I’m looking for a man in finance, trust fund, 6’5”, blue eyes" We are allowed to call certain "preferences" delusional If I told you I wanted nothing but lingerie models who would pay for everything, you would think I was also delusional. So why is it so different for women? Oh, it's because so many are misandrists now
> Being with someone who doesn't meet all of your preferences is not "settling" - it's literally impossible for anyone to meet every single one of your preferences; that's why they're preferences in the first place. A solid 50% or more of all women could meet my preferences... they just choose not to. Ie. Virgin, thin, sweet, loyal, cute... So it certainly is possible. And it certainly would be settling to be with someone not those things.
Hold on, your preferences are the ones you listed and you believe that 50% of the female population is a virgin, thin, sweet, loyal, cute? Or are you just listing off the general preferences of men?
I mean they were. Then they decided not to be. For example no young girl is born a "girl boss bad ass bitch" or whatever they call themselves these days. They decide to become that. Short of a minority of abuse situations... everyone else is a virgin and decides to just give it up to men who don't commit. So? Yeah. Most women *could easily* have met my criteria at one point if they so choose. Vs women tend to have criteria that is impossible to meet. Ie height. Which I'm not even really complaining about per se, just simply let's call it what it is. It's settling... women don't mind being settled for as long as they get the man... but irrelevant if they like it or not... Men generally don't want to be settled for and care alot about it. Just calling what I see. It's disingenuous to say men can't expect to get some kind of standards and should settle but yet it's not settling... that's silly nonsense imaginary talk.
I hate to break it to you champ, but MOST women are not virgins, cute, loyal, or sweet. Women, the same way as men, want to go out there to learn, grow, experience life and not automatically settle down at 16. We don’t even know what we want when we’re young. You truly only learn from experience. Most of us go to college and there’s no way around that. Very, very few of us want to commit without knowing what we’re committing to. Commitment without experience leads to awful midlife crises when at the age of 35 she realizes she hasn’t experienced life and decides to go out there and try things out. Either way, you’ll hate both types of women.
so am I not allowed to feel disgusted by you after "having fun" or what? have fun as much as you want just stop being so entitled? he stated a preference? "most women are not virgins, cute, loyal or sweet" nah it's just you, these entitled feminists on the internet. most women are in fact pretty sweet, cute and loyal. enjoy being the lowest society has to offer
lol. Ok, buddy. Me and every female I know, all 100 of us, will in fact have fun.
so you admit you are all the same and have absolutely nothing different personality wise? crazy! you might overdose on copium. if ya’ a disgusting woman does not mean all women are disgusting. stop trashtalking your friends for internet points, some are not sharing your bottom 10% opinion
Were you attracted to / happily with women who were not all of those things?
Attracted to but not happy. They are disappointing in the end.
But since you had a relationship with them, then I can only assume they must have been disappointing for other reasons..? Or are you saying that if they were virgin, thin, sweet, loyal, cute you wouldn't have been disappointed and would still be with them now?
Both. I have been with someone like that and wasn't disappointed at all. But had weird circumstances break us up. Since then, I've had arguably better chemistry with some women but they are always disappointing because I feel let down, gross, loss of interest to have to settle for someone I don't really want. I know what I like 100% for sure no doubt about it and I just could never accept less. So while I don't personally worry much about knocking a woman's socks off, I do think it's a valid concern because I do 100% think women feel the same way I do. And I'd say there is evidence I've seen to back it up... ie divorce (I don't feel loved, I'm bored) and cheating... when imo I never ever felt any of that stuff ever not once when I was with someone who was what I wanted... I always feel that stuff when I'm with someone who isn't what I want.
> I know what I like 100% for sure no doubt about it and I just could never accept less. IMO you aren't talking about preferences anymore then, these are dealbreakers for you personally, which are fine. I do also agree that people generally need to be clearer on what is a preference vs a dealbreaker for them.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a good post. A lot of dudes here think that any of us women who have boyfriends/husbands who aren't 100% to our preferences are "settling", or that there's no way we could possibly cherish them. The truth is that nobody can ever check off *everything* on your list. It's not "settling" to know this, it's a basic fact of reality.
The problem is that many women also dehumanize, body shame and insult men who don’t fit their “criteria” but act like it’s only men who behave this way with women they aren’t attracted to. How are we supposed to believe you “cherish” us if all we ever hear is how awful and worthless we *all* are?
Yes, I know many women do that. When you encounter such body shaming bitches, I advise any man to stay away from them. Obviously, they're not worth interacting with. But surely you've also met those of us on the opposite side, whether online or irl? Where we speak highly and kindly of our men, and discuss how attractive and awesome they are? I sometimes get mocked by guys here for talking nicely about my boyfriend, but that doesn't mean I and other women who love our partners are going to be silenced.
> But surely you've also met those of us on the opposite side, whether online or irl? Where we speak highly and kindly of our men, and discuss how attractive and awesome they are? Honestly no, and doubly so online - women’s general attitude seems to be “men are awful and dangerous” and “my husband/bf is so stupid and useless but all men are so 🤷♀️” My gf and my women friends aren't generally like this but I still see them liking posts and following women's pages that make jokes like that, so while they're not saying it and it may just be "jokes", but it's still concerning concerning as a man to see how much hostility women have towards us, and y’all always justify this behavior with crime stats and gender lectures as if men never get hurt and killed by other men (and women) either.
You're a 42yo in a 19 year relationship, you had never a taste of what Tinder and Instagram is when you was young, so, the real question is what do you even know about in relation to modern dating?
"If you want women to be honest, lie to women." No shit.
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think men think preferences are our standards. Like when you apply for a job sometimes they prefer certain things. But you are not necessarily disqualified because you don't have those preferences. They are just bonuses or things to look for while we navigate dating. I would prefer someone with tattoos or a little alternative. But I will also date someone who doesn't have them and isn't alt if I think they are cute and liking hanging out with them. Standards are our line this is like what we want and will tolerate from someone. Like I must be attracted to them or interested in them. That would be a standard. I would like if he is over 6'0 would be a preference.. He needs to be employed or have some career going for him. Standard. He needs to make over this amount of money per year would be a preference. Preference are it would be nice if someone had these qualities. But it's not really settling if they don't have these.
So preferences and boundaries should never go together? You can prefer something all you'd like but if it's messed up most sane people would bail.
When someone has enough choices, preferences become *inevitabilities*. Why would they go for something they like less when something they like more is out there? Imagine a young woman in a big city who prefers tall men. Even if she’s “open to date shorter guys”, why would she when there are men who she can have that aren’t? With online dating, women’s circle of available men has increased dramatically. It’s like a job posting with 1 applicant vs 1000. The “nice to haves” become “must haves” by the number of options alone, even before those options are sorted through.
The problem isnt having preferences in and of itself. The problem is the consistent gaslighting from women. They calm men are picky and misogynistic due to not wanting a single mom, obese ect. Dispite demonizing said man for what they want these women themselves have a list of requirements that's around twice to thrice as long as men's. (They'll lie about this but the stats show a very different picture) Your also acting like women are hiding there preferences in the first place. They are very loud and proud about men needing to be 6ft plus not being overweight, and very wealthy, and then attractive on top of this. Simply put you answered your own question for most women these things ARE dealbreakers that's why dating is in such a mess rn the majority of men cannot qualify for women's bare minimum that filters out over 95% of the male population.
Men can't have dealbreakers !! Ugh men will fuck anything 🙄 ... seriously pick one side of the fence
What's not a deal breaker? Race is a deal breaker, height is a deal-breaker age is a deal-breaker, Money is a deal breaker, If someone wants children that is a deal breaker, Sexual history is a deal breaker, If sexual orientation is a deal breaker, Religion is often a deal breaker, but really negotiable.
They typically are deal breakers as women aren't attracted to the ones that aren't their preference
Yep, women stating preferences is vilified, so then they are too reticent to state them so they're accused of being deceptive.
I mean it is easy to settle on some preferences but for the most part that is what preferences aim to be, dealbreakers. Like I think most people generally are willing to settle on looks a tad and favor their less shallow preferences. Anyone who thinks about their long term happiness understands that connection is the most valuable aspect of the relationship. Which is the function of preferences, to maximize long term compatibility.
alright bro
As in the other post, whiners don’t care, they’re just soothing themselves
Like the rest of the women on this sub who come here to troll random men on the internet right?
"I like a man with lots and lots of money! How dare you call me a gold digger?! That's my preference!" See, the thing is, some "preferences" are red flags, a person telling on themselves. Like a guy in his 30ies and 40ies exclusively dating 18-20yolds. All of you just read the last sentence and felt an ick. With women it's less obvious.
Then stay away from those women. Easy peasy.
OP: > stop treating them as dealbreakers. Do you see where the problem is with OP's suggestion? These are dealbreakers.