SharpOrange
lifelong KHHV oldcel
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2023
- Posts
- 2,627
- Reputation
- 5,255
Macro perspective:
If youre only attracted to less than 5% of the opposite sex, that’s not automatically a failure of the entire dating pool..
That’s an extremely narrow attraction filter. And when a large percentage of people are competing for the same small tier of highly desirable partners, the results are predictable: those partners have more options, more leverage, and less urgency to commit.
that’s called basic supply and demand. There’s also a massive difference between “genuinely unattractive” and “not top 5–10%.” A lot of people collapse that distinction and filter accordingly. Then they’re confused when the top percentile behaves like it has abundance, because it does.
You’re free to pursue whoever you want. No one is entitled to anyone else’s attraction. But preferences don’t exist in a vacuum. If your standards concentrate you into the most competitive segment of the dating market, the trade-offs that follow shouldn’t be surprising.
And candidly, this dynamic seems more common among women than men. You don’t see large numbers of men arguing that 90-95% of female population isnt up to their standards and thinking they are entitled to 5% top tier partners instead.
Anyhow, most men understand implicitly that their outcomes align with where they stand in the hierarchy however for some reason so many women cant grasp this concept.
Personal perspective:
It honestly sounds like a curse, and I almost feel bad for some of them. I’m grateful I could easily build a happy, fulfilling relationship with a wide range of fit, attractive women if I needed to. By most “red pill” metrics (income, looks, height), I’d rank well and I’m already seeing someone great. Point is flexibility in attraction creates options and stability. Hyper-selectivity generally just creates volatility.
If youre only attracted to less than 5% of the opposite sex, that’s not automatically a failure of the entire dating pool..
That’s an extremely narrow attraction filter. And when a large percentage of people are competing for the same small tier of highly desirable partners, the results are predictable: those partners have more options, more leverage, and less urgency to commit.
that’s called basic supply and demand. There’s also a massive difference between “genuinely unattractive” and “not top 5–10%.” A lot of people collapse that distinction and filter accordingly. Then they’re confused when the top percentile behaves like it has abundance, because it does.
You’re free to pursue whoever you want. No one is entitled to anyone else’s attraction. But preferences don’t exist in a vacuum. If your standards concentrate you into the most competitive segment of the dating market, the trade-offs that follow shouldn’t be surprising.
And candidly, this dynamic seems more common among women than men. You don’t see large numbers of men arguing that 90-95% of female population isnt up to their standards and thinking they are entitled to 5% top tier partners instead.
Anyhow, most men understand implicitly that their outcomes align with where they stand in the hierarchy however for some reason so many women cant grasp this concept.
Personal perspective:
It honestly sounds like a curse, and I almost feel bad for some of them. I’m grateful I could easily build a happy, fulfilling relationship with a wide range of fit, attractive women if I needed to. By most “red pill” metrics (income, looks, height), I’d rank well and I’m already seeing someone great. Point is flexibility in attraction creates options and stability. Hyper-selectivity generally just creates volatility.
