Is she right? Are incels only single because their standards are too high?

I don't consider myself an "incel", but really refusing to have sex with a fat woman is a pretty basic standard. It's like refusing to have sex with somebody who refuses to practice basic hygiene - being fat is a result of total body negligence. It's not nearly the same as being ugly, there's very few women who don't look passable when they're not overweight

/soc/ is fucking horrible. Even on Jow Forums when they used to allow photos people would always be like oh you look fine maybe just change your hair or some shit advice but the truth is they were fucking ugly. Look if you are average then you are just an ugly freak who shouldn't be near women. The best you will get is a pity fuck every now and then maybe a GF for a few months until she finds someone better looking or maybe if you make it financially she'll want to be with you.

Her not being fat and her not being a single mom are the only standards I have. I look a bit above average according to shit like photofeeler and so on, I'm not fat, I take care of myself, I have a stable income and so on.
If that's not enough to have anything but the lowest of the lowest then I'll stay single. I don't think my standards are really high.

What if I'm thin but only fat and conventionally unattractive people like me? That's not fair at all.

Then you're not a true 7/10. That's just narcissism speaking. Your looksmatch is just the average or expected attractiveness you can get. If you reject your looksmatch, you cannot call yourself an incel. if you deny it is your true looksmatch or is somehow below you, you are not an incel but a narcissist.

That's why there needs to be a number range in place. So a 5-7/10 guy can only get with a girl in that range and vice versa. Everything would be much better in the end.

Because all of the 2/10 girls have 5+/10 boyfriends and we don't even register as people to them.

Attraction isnt linear thinking though.

It should be. It would be far more rational and no one would be screwed over. It would be like a caste system where everyone is happy.

It's better than women thinking the majority of men are unattractive. Their cutoff is a 6/10 unless you're rich as fuck, then they'll go for a 5/10 as a beta provider while cheating on you all the time. Everything below that isn't a human being to them.

>what is social anxiety disorder
dumb bitch lol
I am decent looking (7/10), just can't hold a conversation

Half right sime of yall are just filled with skewed visions of women whike the other half have legit reasobs they have no gf

>still wishing for a slim goth gf tho

How would we agree on everyone's rating? Do we get regular reevaluations to take into account aging, weight gain/loss, hair loss, accidents, plastic surgery?

The fact that Kate Middleton is with Prince William shows that theres other factors involved. She can do better than him but his wealth is a compensating factor.

She's right, most think they're better than the reality, and that they're entitled to a supermodel. It's both hilarious and pathetic

Attractiveness is so equally distributed.
Just moaned!

Attached: equalia.jpg (776x606, 125K)

The question "how fat" is the difference between 400lbs mammoth and a 180 lb chubby girl.

Nope, you should go for -2/10 women, since 2/10 want 4/10 +.

I like how this picture basically fits in every single thread on here.

Attached: demowipe.jpg (661x590, 147K)

What a load of bullshit. 2/10 men go for 2/10 women but women always date up, so even 2/10s get 5s+. The delusion these women live in is astonishing. I always thought they were self aware and just cunts but it seems they really are this dumb.

I'd rather cut my balls and give them to my dogs than let this thing near me.
Is she an incest byproduct or what?

Women do not go for their looksmatch, they go for men 2 to 3 points above them. The problem is women think theyre entitled to Chad but they think men are somehow entitled for wanting someone as attractive as they are.

More like you have an inflated perception of your value as a mate lol

12 month reevaluations until you hit a certain age and then it's every 6 months. This will also force longer marriages as the pool of people is limited and people will marry early to get a maximize their value before it goes down. As to how do we agree, I'm sure there could be a way to agree on a 3-point range.

Did you ever stop to consider you're not as good looking as you think you are? It's a natural inclination to want to think you're better than you are, but you guys really need a better sense of self awareness

It's not that women are dumb and don't notice it. It's that they don't see anyone below a rich 5 as a human being.

the correct formula for your true rating is to take your /soc/ rating and subtract by 2 you retard

Attached: 543254654634.png (174x162, 20K)

Well why would they?

If you could have your pick of 5+ girls, why go for anything lower?
5 and under males are merely excess, rejects. They don't serve a purpose to women, society or anyone aside from maybe themselves.

Not that user but please go outside more. If you unironically think 5/10 women want to date 5/10 men youre absolutely deluded.

The fuck are you talking about? I know that I'm a 3 on my best day. I admit to that with zero shame or hesitation. What I'm saying is that there's no reason for a 3/10 female to always go for a 5-6+/10 guy and view everyone less as not human. I have gone for other 3's and get told I'm not attractive enough. It's 100% bullshit.

I shouldn't have a chance at anything better than a 4 and I'm okay admitting that. I'm not some delusional retard. An ugly obese 3/10 woman can get a drunk 6 to PnD them anyday. This shouldn't be allowed. Make it illegal to date and have sex outside your range and it fixes everything.

Why do men only message attractive women? That's not fair. Men should only be allowed to message women in their looks range

yea everyone knows personality/wealth/status matters much more for guys. its why you see creepy old men marrying models
in other words, your 7/10 looks and 2/10 personality makes you like a 3/10 to a girl (i.e. more weight on 2/10)

>Why do men only message attractive women?
They dont. But if youre messaging first youre more likely to go for top targets. It would be exactly the same if roasties were expected to message first

You seriously think women care about personality? They'd rather fuck and obsess over a 7/10 mass murderer than go with a 4/10 guy with a great personality.

Men don't only message attractive women as any obese female profile gets 10x more messages than an attractive guy does.

I wonder where you live 2bh. Almost all couples I see are looksmatched. If I do see a disparity, more often than not it's the woman who is better looking. Awful lot of fat guys with skinny wives out there

But they don't? Literally any woman on tinder etc. no matter how ugly or fat gets swarmed with men. Dumb roastie.

>Make it illegal to date and have sex outside your range and it fixes everything.
for guys, personality factors a lot more into the rating. in other words, you may be a 3/10 looks wise but your 1/10 personality is a lot more important to a girl. you would have to factor this into your tier system

If you are a 5 and under male, you should not have a shot at anything. How's that for starters?

Welcome to the male bottleneck of reproduction!

A man needs a woman exclusively, he can't 'share' her with other guys.

A woman however can perfectly share a guy with lets say a few other women if the guy is alpha enough and can provide for them all.

That is why chad ends up with 5 women and you end up with nothing.

The women in my range are all garbage though.

You're a brave man. I've always wanted to post in /soc/ but the idea of getting my face associated to Jow Forums really frightens me.

This. I got rated a 6/10 on /soc/
I'm a three in reality.
I'm not dating a fat bitch though. I'm not fat so why should I have to settle for a fat bitch?

My post has nothing to do with individual attractiveness or its determinants. I am simply stating that women find most men below average while men have a very nice bell curve of women they consider attractive. This necessarily leads to straight men being fucked in a world with a limited supply of women.

Bullshit. I've been told by ugly obese women that I have a perfect personality, but then they refuse to date me because I'm too ugly or not attractive enough. They don't give a fuck about personality.

can confirm from personal experience. i grew a man bun so take like 1 point from my overall attractiveness.
The amount of sex i was having during this period drastically increased though because i improved my personality by like 4 points.
i used to get super nervous on dates and feel entitled. then i started relaxing, making jokes and not taking myself too seriously. makes a huge difference

I'm absolutely rock bottom in the pecking order m8, I can't really have any inflated views about my attractiveness.
Being down here gives you a perspective on how great the average guys look who end up with women who are almost cartoon villain ugly. These girls have absolutely no trouble reaching above their weight.
There are no 2/10 girls who would even look at a 2/10 guy

The fact that you can attract women means you are already a 6/10 so it doesn't fucking matter. You also just admitted to having sex before which proves again that you're attractive and personality didn't mean shit.

it's another leftists act like they can read minds episode.

The question of matter in messaging is: Who strains more out? And for what? Think of the female apathy and hypergamy rule in the ever so funny balanced date-battle out there.

Attached: 1468666255414.png (1097x1600, 632K)

Nice blanket assumption. Some incels actually prefer a fat ass.

Attached: uhhhh.png (639x488, 415K)

The idea that personality compensates for looks in women's eyes is a goddamned meme. They care about personality but only as an additional factor. You still have to meet her requirements for looks to even have a chance at her screening your personality. Since women have higher standards for looks, this just means they're more selective about both looks and personality.

I'd do her from behind

>pshhh, nothin' personnel...thing...

>that women find most men below average
this is impossible. 50% of the population is below average. 50% are above. this is a statistical necessity. what you are observing is that one distribution has higher kurtosis. in other words, the tails are fatter on the distribution of girls attractiveness. In other words.
What the statistics are really telling you is that that women don't really differentiate between men based on how attractive they are (presumably because they care more about status and personality)

I mean I had sex before, but like not consistently or when i wanted too. mostly with 3/10 loonies that i regretted after

its literally reflected on those graphs people keep posting. women don't really differentiate between guys based on beauty. that's why the average rating for guys is lower.
women make quick judgments in terms of personalities though. usually they are in tune with stuff i don't even notice.

The day a girl approaches me is the day I'll get one. Any could try. None have so clearly they aren't interested and don't want any of this sexy incel body.

Attached: 1428203220926.jpg (472x337, 57K)

100% true. Personality is nothing more than a tiebreaker, but it's far down the list of shit. Height, fitness, dick size, wealth, etc. all matter a great deal more than personality.

You do realize you just said that nobody is average, right?

And 3/10 looking women only go with 6s or hung 5s. Since you can attract women, you're a 6/10 which means personality means next to nothing.

OKCupid used to let people rate looks and personality. Women equated that a great looking guy had a great personality and an ugly guy had a bad personality. It's why they stopped doing it.

That is deformed, not simply ugly. The genuinely deformed are rare, even here.

what she's saying is that there are female incels too but they aren't violent, because muh toxic masculinity and this and that.

truth is a 5/10 man can't get female attention of anything above a 2/10

>You do realize you just said that nobody is average, right?
technically you are right. statistics are weird. the odds of being exactly average are 0 (obviously, there are some assumptions underlying that -- but these are needed for a continuous value like beauty)
>personality means next to nothing
i one time told a girl she wasn't good enough for me after i was rejected. my personality still needs work but it definitely matters. even if it doesn't matter to women-- having a good personality makes dating so much easier for yourself
>OKCupid used to let people rate looks and personality.
any chance you have this data? I would be curious to know if this correlation was stronger among guys rankings for women, or womens rankings for guys.

The perceived average is much higher than the actual average. So most men are below average in the eyes of women.
That's why user said they FIND most men below average.

that isn't how things work, women expect men to come to them at a finger snap. you have no choice but to approach them yourselves. that is how it has been and always has been for centuries. it's deeply rooted in human nature.

You can't be above or below average if there is no average.

Personality is a tiebreaker for women and it's far down the list, maybe not even in the top 10 and definitely not even weighted close to looks, money, and dick size.

Google it and you'll find the graph. There's also a graph for rating profiles with and without profile text. Spoiler, it doesn't fucking matter.

Perhaps it is. Well, it genuinely is but I'm not capable of it. Such is my nature. So I'll die alone.
Could be worse.

are we looking at the same graphics?
the womens rankings for men are clearly right skewed.
in other words. being a 3 or 5 as a guy doesn't really mean that much. you could look at this as saying 8-9s must get all the girls without trying. or you could look at it as women don't really care that much about looks. if your smart/rich/funny they'll sleep with you as long as your a 3-7.

Seriously, this dickweed is trying to be le statistics master and is missing the point. I know that most people can't be below average. The female biology however does not have any innate knowledge of statistics and therefore resorts to the tried and true reproductive strategy of dating up. Men care for quantity as well as if not more than quality, so this strategy works.

You're assuming they're all attracted to those below average guys. You don't understand the graph is showing they consider most men to be unattractive.

The whole point is that women's subjective valuation doesn't follow the logic of objectivity, while men's does. Their perceptions are unrealistic. Think of what a graph would look like if they used a number rating system instead and then used that data to determine averages. It'd show the same result.

I came to respond logically and shitpost against women, and I'm all outta logic

Attached: women vs predator.jpg (640x816, 96K)

>trying to be le statistics master
The only reason i'm still here is because the stats are really interesting. I always find this stuff super interesting
what the graph is telling you as that being a 3-6 as a guy doesn't really matter much.
there are 2 ways to interpret this
1. 7-9s must get all the girls without trying
2. women don't really care that much about looks. if your smart/rich/funny they'll sleep with you as long as your a 3-7.

My standard is that she cares for me
My mother doesn't even do that

Makeup would probably help a lot

girls perceptions are just different than yours. why do you think one is right or wrong?
from their perspective we care too much about looks and should care more about subjective factors like personality.
I'm definitely not endorsing that point of view

>why do you think one is right or wrong?
because one is objectively right and based on logic and other is fairy magic feefee bullshit

Attached: 1471984314687.png (898x1133, 281K)

You fucking nincompoop it says attractiveness not physical attractiveness or handsomeness or anything of the sort. Get the fuck over it women can date up because men are ready and willing to have more than one partner.

what i'm saying is that they're indifferent between the 'below average' guys -- if they're rich for example

I'm not saying I disagree with the graph, but I think it would be reasonable to assume attractive men don't need dating apps in the first place. That hot murderer got a millionaire gf almost immediately after being seen by people.

>fairy magic feefee bullshit
i think this is a nice way of describing a combination of money and social status. which are definitely not bullshit

Is this a real fucking article? Thats hilarious

She's cute. I'd date her.

Attached: 1498354216101.png (482x427, 79K)

>combination of money and social status
so they do not love like normal humans do, because they are literally subhuman, nigger of sexes

Attached: 1524658785446.jpg (400x400, 49K)

This isn't true. My sister is overweight and has only ever dated guys twice her size.

I think she's fucking dead

I envy her.

Attached: 1525112353763.jpg (480x480, 10K)

hmmmm my almonds, there is something happening with them

Attached: fatho.png (704x875, 131K)

>all these incels not having sex with ugly and fat women
it means that you're not incels but volcels

why should I fuck ugly female when I can just fap?

Attached: 1471985102776.jpg (900x644, 383K)

all i'm trying to say is that women care about mostly a combination of money and social status when choosing a husband. they don't really care about looks
guys care about age/physical attractiveness. money/social status don't really matter as much
both are kind of shitty and superficial. neither involve 'love'. i don't think i'm really reinventing the wheel here. i'm kind of surprised this is so earth shattering or controversial

>they don't really care about looks
but they do as well

Attached: 1471983932080.jpg (1513x960, 381K)