If you enjoy the site. Feel free to
make a donation or subscribe.
Thank you for your support. ~Blue
Welcome to ANSWEROLOGY RELOADED, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community. ~Bluegenel













































+2 votes
61 views

Credit goes to HelloBeautiful.com for this poll.  

Do mediocre men have dating standards that are too high?
1) Yes! I can't stand when a Flava Flav looking man demands a Beyonce looking woman!
2) Yes & no. Well all like what we like and sometimes women's standards are far too high as well.
3) *Shrugs* Just because they have those higher standards doesn't mean that woman would even give them the time of day.
My answer: (In my experience with the men I've come across) **** YES. Too often, the guy will have the most basic, boring life and look like he desperately needs a shave and a trip to the barber's, but he'll still think only women with those glamorous Instagram lives are good enough for him.
asked in Just For Fun by (50,930 points)

8 Answers

+3 votes
 
Best answer

They can always dream~~~!

Every frog wants a princess, riiiiight!


The Leftists have left us!

answered by (496,280 points)
0

You got that right, sweety! 

+3 votes

Actual studies have actually shown that women are FAR pickier than men.

On Tinder, men swipe right 53% of the time. Women swipe right 15% of the time. The average man has around 3-4 dealbreakers, the average woman has about 40. The average woman rates 93% of men as below average, which is crazy. Men have a much more rational view of a woman's level of attractiveness. Look at the interest curves for any dating site, and you will not how terribly skewed they are.

Women initiate divorce 70% of the time, and that is just on the record. In reality, it is probably more like 90%, because sometimes husbands just get pushed into initiating it. Why is that? Because women are always looking to "trade up" and think they can do better than what they have. Most women figure they are 5 pounds lost or one nice haircut away from landing their movie star husband, so why give average men any attention at all?

The sexual revolution has ushered in a baboon-like sexual marketplace, where women only express any desire for the top men. As a result, western birthrates are in the toilet, and our future is in doubt. 

answered by (133,000 points)
+2

"On Tinder, men swipe right 53% of the time. Women swipe right 15% of the time. The average man has around 3-4 dealbreakers, the average woman has about 40."

That's because when dating, men will take whatever they can get, use them, then throw them away when someone "better" comes along. 

Every single study I've ever read - ever - from any source - has said that men consistently place themselves in a higher league than women place them, and that women place themselves lower than men place them. 

"The sexual revolution has ushered in a baboon-like sexual marketplace, where women only express any desire for the top men."

Males have been doing that since gender began to exist. Males of every species look for multiple partners - so why shouldn't women look for the best one?  Historically men have married the best that they could get, then have 5 other wives (or mistresses depending on the culture and era) when they become bored with their first choice. And it was all perfectly acceptable and even expected. 

"As a result, western birthrates are in the toilet, and our future is in doubt"

Our future is not in doubt. There is NO shortage of human beings on this planet. No woman has any obligation whatsoever to breed in order to satisfy some racist view that there aren't enough white people around.  

Too many children make you poor - and it's proven that this affects women way more than men. Even the best case scenario of having a big family puts women out of the workforce, and completely dependent on the whims of a husband in order to survive. If he dies, runs off with his secretary, or becomes incapacitated, she is left poverty stricken with no job, no job skills, and a 15 year gap on her resume. When she tries to get help from a social safety net, she's told to stop being a lazy moocher. If he's a drunk, an abuser or a serial cheater, she has to stay with him because she's useless at supporting herself & her kids.  NOBODY has any debt to society to put herself in that position. If women choose to do so, that's their decision. 


0

I really don't get why you think me pointing out the very simple point that women are pickier than men indicates that I support some sort of forced eugenics program. Margaret Sanger, one of your heroes, actually WAS a big supporter of eugenics and creating a "race of thoroughbreds". 

Monogamy is a check on male promiscuity and female hypergamy, and in exchange, we get civilization.

The world can support a larger population. There is more than enough resources to feed everyone today. The problem is misuse and corruption, not scarcity. The whole continent of Africa has enough farmland to feed the whole world. The reason why world population keeps getting bigger is because of advances in medicine and food production. Would you rather live in the Middle Ages when life expectancy was like 40? I doubt it. The notion that human beings are only a burden on the Earth ignores that fact that humans are also PRODUCERS. Humans are the ones who develop all the technologies that improve our lives. You often accuse me of being a backwards Victorian, but your view on human nature is right out of the pages of Thomas Malthus, who predicted that the world would run out of resources in 1900. Very smart man was he.

+2

 "Margaret Sanger, one of your heroes, actually WAS a big supporter of eugenics and creating a "race of thoroughbreds". "

As repugnant as that idea is today, it was embraced by numerous admired people during Sanger's era, including Teddy Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, Helen Keller, Winston Churchill, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, Woodrow Wilson and Clarence Darrow - to name just a few. It's a theory which has fallen out of favor in our modern morality, as many other equally unsavory theories have fallen by the wayside over time. 

"Monogamy is a check on male promiscuity and female hypergamy, and in exchange, we get civilization."

No, it's not and it never has been. It's the ILLUSION of those things. In reality, when monogamy became the social "thing to do" men simply ignored it by pretending to be monogamous with one wife, while taking mistresses and being as promiscuous as they wanted to be on the side. This concept has only very recently been socially unacceptable - but it still does go on. 

For my own opinion, the idea of monogamy is a guy wanting to marry because it's the only way he can get sex. That's pretty revolting. He doesn't want to BE WITH YOU - he just wants to get laid and marriage is the only way he can do it. (And we wonder why, after a few years of marriage, the man feels resentful, trapped and blackmailed into a situation he didn't really want, just so he could have sex.)  And  in that same "monogamous" vein, women are expected to marry in order to find financial security, and  she "pays for it" with sex, producing heirs and doing housework.  Sounds just a bit like prostitution to me.....

And "female hypergamy" is just another way to say "women should take the first guy who offers." The fact that women refuse to settle any more, has bred a generation of male incel losers who think they are entitled to marry Victoria Secret Angels and who blame women for their inability to get laid. As always...the fault for men's bad behavior is put on women. 

"The world can support a larger population. There is more than enough resources to feed everyone today. The problem is misuse and corruption, not scarcity. The whole continent of Africa has enough farmland to feed the whole world."

Great idea. Let's kill off every single animal, turn every open tract of land into farmland, and then we'll have lots more people, who have nobody for company but cockroaches. I believe other species have just as much right to live and thrive as humans do. But if we keep stealing their habitats, and killing them off for being in our way, in 100 years, wild animals will be as extinct as the T-Rex.

"The reason why world population keeps getting bigger is because of advances in medicine and food production....."  " The notion that human beings are only a burden on the Earth ignores that fact that humans are also PRODUCERS. Humans are the ones who develop all the technologies that improve our lives. "

And that's wonderful. But we have to be RESPONSIBLE producers, and we're NOT. Not by any means. We contaminate everything we touch with pollution, poison, toxic waste, our own ****...There isn't a large body of water on the planet that doesn't have a mountain of plastic floating in it, killing wildlife as it goes. We dump millions of pounds of garbage, sewage, spewage, chemical waste, mining waste, etc, into our waterways and bury it in our land, to poison our water table. 

"You often accuse me of being a backwards Victorian, but your view on human nature is right out of the pages of Thomas Malthus, who predicted that the world would run out of resources in 1900. Very smart man was he. "

So he was a few hundred years off. If we continue as we are going now, the world will NOT be a better place in the future.  We will be fighting wars over the last puddle of potable water and the last patch of farmable land. We'll be the *only* species left alive on earth, besides food animals and insects. That doesn't sound like a place I'd like to live in. 

0

Believe it or not, some people like to be married and have families, and intact families contribute far more to society than broken ones.

Farmland is not just crops, it also involves raising animals. There is a reason why hamburgers were unheard of in communist countries, because they had to focus their centrally planned farming on cheaper food products while still having their populations starve.

Animal species go extinct all the time, and as George Carlin put it "we didn't kill them all. They just  disappeared, because that's what nature does." Nature has all kinds of checks and balances built into it, and no one is exempt.

0

"Believe it or not, some people like to be married and have families, and intact families contribute far more to society than broken ones."

Being married and having families is awesome when it's your choice to do it. But when you're forced to do it because there are no other options... not so awesome.

"Farmland is not just crops, it also involves raising animals."

Food animals. Not exactly wildlife.

"Animal species go extinct all the time, and as George Carlin put it "we didn't kill them all. They just  disappeared, because that's what nature does." Nature has all kinds of checks and balances built into it, and no one is exempt."

When animal species disappear because we're too selfish to share the world with them, that is NOT the same as natural selection. There is nothing "natural" about killing off entire species so we can use their habitat to raise more cows or plant crops or mining or logging or putting up  buildings. Nothing. It's pure greed and selfishness on our part and saying "nature has all kinds of checks and balances built into it" is 100% UNTRUE when humans are purposely eradicating entire species because we're a bunch of dicks who think we're more ENTITLED to be here than the animals are. 

+2 votes

If you ask the question, "Should I settle for less?" the answer will always be no. Funny that.


Just Relax and have Fun with it.

answered by (3,355,691 points)
+1 vote

they are fukktards..but hey broads come along with the territory

answered by (3,253,080 points)
+2 votes

We want to be better?   ;-)

answered by (517,430 points)
+1

"We"?? 

0

Yep.  Hey... I have a mirror.... ;-)

It's like the old Peanuts cartoon: Lucy is berating Charlie Brown, telling him, "You know what you are, Charlie Brown? Mediocre!  Mediocre! And you'll always be mediocre.  You'll never be more than mediocre!!!"  Charlie Brown replies, "That's OK.  Just so long as I'm above average."

:-)

+4 votes

I've found the opposite.

"AIn't ****" WOMEN with NOTHING to bring to the table (no degree, no job, no property ownership, etc.) want a man who is intelligent, well-read, with connections, money, clout. And complain about the average joes wanting them and "where are the GOOD men" meaning "where are the handsome rich men I deserve just because I have a vagina and I'm cute."

I always ask when girls tell me about their perfect man "what would a man like THAT want with a woman like YOU?" Same for men. You want Beyonce but you got Waffle House Money. What would a BEYONCE want with a man like YOU? What do YOU bring to the table?

It's life I guess. You want better that you have. Women want to "marry up"

answered by (475,900 points)
+2

You hit the nail on the head, well said

+1 vote
When I didn't have a degree.... or a car.... or my own place to live.... I got modest action but not a ridiculous amount. 

Funny thing is, the upgrade to my car got me MUCH more attention from women than my own place, both degrees, and the new job COMBINED. It wasn't a very flashy ride but it was brand new with the newest set of wheels out and I kept it detailed monthly. The women would say they never did something once in the passenger seat and then DID IT (or tried to).

Basing worth on something as replaceable as a car showed me that some women were full of ****. Their mouths said they wanted a modest man but would drop the drawers and spread it wide for the mere chance of someone nowhere close to it. 

Personally, I wanted a wife and and for the kind of wife I needed to fill that role, I decided that I must become the kind of man that type of woman I longed for would be attracted to enough to marry. The women approaching me prior to likely wouldn't have looked my way without that car.... so maybe they considered me mediocre.... oh well. 

Their loss as they chase men in the limelight that have no interest in them beyond a nut!


"He who is not courageous enough to take risks will accomplish nothing in life." - Muhammad Ali

answered by (1,221,730 points)
0 votes

I try not to make these questions personal when I reply, but this one, I am going to.

Who is anyone to judge what another deems attractive?  Love is in the eye of the beholder.  I have cerebral palsy, although minor, and not a big deal, in dating and people who don't know me.....If they saw me with a beautiful woman, 99.9% of society might question what a woman might be doing with a woman.

Does that mean I don't deserve love?

I have enough aesthetically beautiful friends, and go out with them enough as simply friends to know people question why someone who looks like them might be out with me or dancing with me.

I understand this was a simple poll, but don't buy into that hogwash



Time is simply how we live our lives-Craig Sager

answered by (1,278,570 points)
[ contact us ]
[ richardhulstonuk@gmail.com ]

[ F.A.Q.s ]

[ Terms and Conditions ]

[ Website Guidelines ]

[ Privacy Policy and GDPR ]

[ cookies policy ]

[ online since 5th October 2015 ]

...