| > Does "dating" mean "late-stage worried-about-dying-alone parents-nagging-me dating"? Or does it mean "screw around and go where the wind takes me?". Is the context online or offline? Screw around part, before the predisposed expected monogamy bit usually called boyfriend/girlfriend. Holds for both. > I think "looks win" accurately describes the way many women select men online for many of their dating years This cannot be true. Just algorithmically, they have a rating for you, so women cannot pick men outside their rating regardless of their preferences. (I don't agree it would hold if they could pick any man, but its a moot question because they simply can't) > The "20% of the men get 80% of the women" works in short term dating, It doesn't. That fact comes from a horrible game of telephone, from a survey ran in a blog over a decade ago. The attempts to make an intellectual sounding argument for redpilling started early with comments about the Paretto principle. But thats not what the data showed at all. > From 100 men and 100 women, 20 men would pair with 20 women, and you have 80 men and 80 women left over. In the uk less than 50% of people are single in their 20s which is the heaviest user base of online dating sites. https://www.statista.com/statistics/714172/uk-current-relati... > And women know that a man can have a trait that's useless in the bedroom but very useful when raising a child. The idea that women go on sexual rampages after tall chiselled bodied men in their 20 and find a chubby bald rich 40 year old to settle after they are done is unsupported by data, research and anything outside of 4chan greentext stories. Which is where the idea started and should have died. > It's also hard to say what "4th most important" means. Women are asked to name what is important in a relationship, what is a dealbreaker, etc And looks hardly come first. Funnily enough in men appearance is quite an important metric early but goes down with time. Women usually say "stable income" as one of the most important things, many times above wealth (specially inherited many women prefer a smaller stable income over a one time larger paycheck). > but just about anything can be a dealbreaker. Sure, but thats on the extremes. Most humans fall in a bell curve, and 80% of them are not being tossed away over some perceived lack of top percentagedness. > I think you're correct in saying the gender inequity isn't so terrible at the end of the day. And at the start of the day. > I predict if you surveyed both genders about whether they get what they really want out of online dating, they'd largely say no. at the end of the day, its a company, they are there to make money not make you happy. Their product is access to women, their business model exploiting men loneliness. > that doesn't mean the average woman enjoys using Tinder much. They don't, which is why there are few women and why most feautures are designed either to make money or to retain women and nothing else. Those are the two metrics tinder checks. |