[baccheion]

There are twice as many males on Tinder compared to women. Further, women swipe less often. 1 out of 2 people are at least unattractive, 1 out of 3 are outright attractive, and 1 out of 5 are hot.

The top half is typically seen as viable by males when they stretch (and women explicitly seek the top 20%). That is, all viable 50/100 women are gobbled up by the top 50/200 (ie, 25%) males. Not even out of "attractive" males and the viable women are already gone. The top 20% of males then end up being enough due to the swipe skew.

[cheriot]

Yet there's just as many women in society trying to find partners.

[baccheion]

The online skew was brought to life. Most of those pairings aren't a committed relationship. That is, most people roam freely until older (and setup to realize that at most 5-10% of romantic pairings can be minimally mutually satisfying).

The gender skew really made possible the accessing of the top 20% by the last slice of viable women. The top 80% of women have always gone after the top 20% of males. The top 20% (hot) and top 3rd (hot + outright attractive) generally succeeded, leaving the rest of the top 50% (viable) for everyone else. With this skew and overall warping of the mind/perception, now the top 50% often succeed at procuring a male in the top 20%. That is, all viable women are generally gone before getting to the other 80% of males.

As it gets even clearer to women, it'll keep getting worse. Women want to be with AND to be impregnated by the top 20%. If they realize that longer-term relationships are bogus anyway and they start being able to financially support themselves (as the prevailing norm), the "bottom" 80% of males simply won't exist. Most of the action gotten by them came from the 1/6th above the line and below the top 3rd.

Women like commitment, so maybe it'll linger anyway. It's already the case that 80% of white people over 40 have been married at least once. 80% of women over 40 have had at least 1 child. 57% for males over 40.

Get it? During the roaming days, they ideally want the top 20% There doesn't have to be enough to gobble up ALL women, as only the top half are seen as viable by males anyway. Beyond that, the ideal choice for males (ie, top 3rd) are already gobbled up by the top 20%. Further, the rest are had by extending to the top 3rd. The bottom 2/3rds of males never existed. Now it's the bottom 80% and total inaccessibility of women in the top 50%. The last 1/6th deals the most noticeable blow.

Confusion primarily stems from difference in measure used to create the top 20%. Women have a different measure, but males often assume they are primarily about aesthetics.

[kleo22]

Don't you need to account for the fact that the top 20% of attractive women in one context are not that attractive in another context. For example certain cultures value completely different features from others when it comes to attractiveness. In other cases, an individual might find multiple different features and ethnicity attractive such that they actually have a wideer pool of partners to select from. So unless your sample is completely homogenious and lacking significant cultural and ethnic diversity, I think the math would be far more complex than what you have.

[baccheion]

It being 20% is stable. And mostly overlapping. It doesn't affect much. Women have a different set of measures compared to men, but both have a top 20%.

[cheriot]

> Women want to be with AND to be impregnated by the top 20%. If they realize that longer-term relationships are bogus anyway

Have you run that idea past a woman?

[baccheion]

They'll slowly begin to realize it all and the well will further dry up for "bottom" 80% men. I do not discount the lower prioritisation of logical reasoning by most women.

In any event, the top 20% is where they really want to be and they'd just settle there if they could. To the extreme they'd rather share one (ie, get cheated on) than be caught dead elsewhere. Look at the extremes they go to, bypassing all logic and sensibility. On the other hand, they get old or are seeking someone to help raise their child.

The main means of imprisonment/trapping of women in prior generations was financial dependence and being seen with scorn (mostly by other women, as they had the same happen to them) if not married (, a teacher, or nurse) by 21.

As women grow more financially independent, they are less dependent on males. That leaves only/mainly the top 20%. For play and impregnation. The bottom 2/3rds of women have a harder time grabbing a top 20% male. Older women have the same experience. On the other hand, the pool that does not have a problem is the same as the pool most men desire. That is, all viable women are increasingly out of reach with time.

Keep trusting or even hearing what a woman says. Even if they aren't trying to be misleading, what they are saying is unusable and is to be ignored.

Men that are a part of the top 20% have the same experience as women.

If you're married/involved and she is attractive to you, great! Most don't get that far, especially after the first 2-3 years.