Is “Women only want the top 10 - 20%” actually true offline?

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

Probably similar to how most men aren’t REALLY turned on by average women unless she really knows what she’s doing in bed- they both kinda settle in that sense but if they are wise they will focus on reasons to love each other beyond just looks. Most people don’t actually understand Love- mating is just serving survival needs- which is why people like Sadia, Orion and Chris Williamson are famous - they teach survival relating not Love 

My experience has been a genuine preference for who I get into a relationship with... sexually and otherwise. Those things always have gone together for me.

And I've noticed that women, because we have a lot of options, we tend to go for who we really prefer... which for most women is a guy who's fairly average that she has special chemistry with.

Like, I'm never attracted to guys who are significantly less attractive or more attractive than me. The guys in those categories would make me feel unattractive to be with them. So, I am most attracted to men who are in my proximal range of attractiveness... which are average guys.

But for men, they don't have a lot of options. So, there's a tendency to fantasize about 10s but to cast a wide net and settle for whoever they can get.

I think this also leads into men projecting this "settle for who will have you" tendency onto women and feeling down about "Women really prefer Chads... and they just settle for average guys who can't really sexually satisfy them."

And that's because that's the way they feel about women. They prefer extremely gorgeous women that they can't get... but they settle for average women that they aren't that sexually attracted to.

So, they feel like relationship is about settling for a sexually unsatisfying partner and assume that women feel the same way about them. And it makes themselves feel sexually inadequate because of this projection of their own "settle for the sexually unsatisfying one" tendencies onto women.

But if a woman is with a man, she's probably super excited to be with him in particular. Otherwise, she'd pick a different option because women of most levels of attractiveness can afford to be picky.

[Schizophonia]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

I am definitely not wrong. You'll find that 7 times out of 10, guys who believe the "Women only go for the top 20%" thing are just projecting their own high standards and objectifying tendencies onto women.

I have several friends and I frequent French forums where men talk about romantic relationships; and when they are average or worse, uglier than average, many have great difficulty attracting any woman, even ugly, fat, etc.; lookmatch or inferior.
I'm not saying that means Black Pill, Pareto, and the like are true; I'm saying that your projection theory is false.
The nature of reality is projective, yes, but it involves similar objects; so men onto men and women onto women, but not men onto women, or vice versa; or, at the limit, projection of the anima onto women, as I theorized in one of my topics.

Quote

But it might be a different dynamic for you... as I think lots of young guys can just have a fear that no woman will ever like them or prefer them if they haven't seen evidence yet of a woman liking them.

So, those narratives (though false) can also provide a less personalized way of understanding why one is struggling to meet someone. It takes the onus of personal responsibility away and says, "It's not tha

t I need to socialize more. It's because women are unrealistically picky".

Maybe I don't have a clear opinion here; I was criticizing your projection theory.

Quote

Or if there is shame, it can even provide a salve of "It's not that I'm awful. It's because women are unrealistically picky."

Rumination alternates between a masochistic and sadistic pole.
And since masochism is primary (you have to be a masochist to shift your attention to an object you don't value, sadism therefore implies masochism), it is generally masochism that dominates, so If you ask people who ruminate a lot, it's usually self-hatred that wins out.
Look at incel forums; there are a lot of hate about other yes but especially self-hatred.

Same for LGBT forums and especially transsexuals btw.

Quote

But if you interacted more with women in person and were generally social, you'd probably find a girlfriend pretty quickly. You just have to be more social.

I'm not talking about myself; I probably won't have much trouble finding someone once my life is more in order, but that's because I'm at an advantage physically financially, etc.

I'm not going to lecture men about romantic relationships who are at a much greater disadvantages, that would be hypocritical.

All I can do that is truly productive is to propose individual and collective solutions.

Edited September 19 by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

It seems that the pattern is fairly common.

And it's just completely to opposite mindset one needs to have a real relationship with a woman.

Not only that... but it also scares women off, as women already deal with a lot of shame in the body because of the high beauty standards and how all-encompassing they are. Women are always getting the message overtly and covertly (since early childhood) that, if they're not beautiful that they won't be loved.

The last thing that a woman needs is to feel like a guy is comparing her body to other women's bodies and ranking them. It's the opposite of safety.

So, it's often the guys who have the highest tendencies towards objectifying women will have the most fear about women objectifying them.

It's similar to how cheaters will get SUPER suspicious of their partner cheating on them... just projection.

However, there's also other insecurities that can be at play... like fear of unlovability in general. So, that is the case sometimes with this belief. But I frequently see the 'objectifiers fearing objectification' dynamic play out with these beliefs.

Men are also under increasing pressure; look at all the men who bodybuild and even take steroids.
Even I, who am not very social, have encountered several of them both in real life and online.

[BlessedLion]

On 9/18/2025 at 6:04 PM, Schizophonia said:

No she is wrong.

You only believe her because your ego is too afraid of an alternate reality where you don't have the privilege of your advantageous physical and economic status. 

People are led to think this because they can't get women at all; not because their physical standards are too high. Take an interest in the people concerned.

Would they care if all the “chads” were sleeping with only 4s and below? Fat chicks only? Or would they still be pist?

[BlessedLion]

On 9/19/2025 at 1:43 AM, Emerald said:

My experience has been a genuine preference for who I get into a relationship with... sexually and otherwise. Those things always have gone together for me.

And I've noticed that women, because we have a lot of options, we tend to go for who we really prefer... which for most women is a guy who's fairly average that she has special chemistry with.

Like, I'm never attracted to guys who are significantly less attractive or more attractive than me. The guys in those categories would make me feel unattractive to be with them. So, I am most attracted to men who are in my proximal range of attractiveness... which are average guys.

But for men, they don't have a lot of options. So, there's a tendency to fantasize about 10s but to cast a wide net and settle for whoever they can get.

I think this also leads into men projecting this "settle for who will have you" tendency onto women and feeling down about "Women really prefer Chads... and they just settle for average guys who can't really sexually satisfy them."

And that's because that's the way they feel about women. They prefer extremely gorgeous women that they can't get... but they settle for average women that they aren't that sexually attracted to.

So, they feel like relationship is about settling for a sexually unsatisfying partner and assume that women feel the same way about them. And it makes themselves feel sexually inadequate because of this projection of their own "settle for the sexually unsatisfying one" tendencies onto women.

But if a woman is with a man, she's probably super excited to be with him in particular. Otherwise, she'd pick a different option because women of most levels of attractiveness can afford to be picky.

That makes sense, but I do feel most women don’t have that many great options. They have options for sure, I’m sure most decently attractive women have their DMs flooded with horny dudes but they are probably quite burnt out and disenchanted by the quality of their options 

[Emerald]

10 minutes ago, BlessedLion said:

That makes sense, but I do feel most women don’t have that many great options. They have options for sure, I’m sure most decently attractive women have their DMs flooded with horny dudes but they are probably quite burnt out and disenchanted by the quality of their options 

That's a misunderstanding of how women become attracted to a guy. It's not about his positive qualities or being better than other guys.

So, it's not really about the man being some paragon... or objectively attractive in some way. It's so much more subjective than that.

And the guys in the DMs are unattractive by default because they're just spammers who are trying to sell themselves to any woman who will have them. It reads as needy and desperate... because it is.

It works though, as a numbers game. So, many guys do it.

But it's not attractive at all. And it's not because those guys are inherently unattractive. It's because they're spamming and come across as desperate and as having low standards. So, she will just see those guys as annoying the vast majority of the time.

Attraction arises through interaction and getting to know a man as a particular human being when he's not trying to sell himself to her at all. And when the attraction takes hold, it's like a Cupid's Arrow where it just feels so addictive to be around that guy... while other guys just feel neutral to be around.

And at that point, the constituent qualities of the guy don't matter. His strengths just add spice to him... and his flaws don't matter at all. It's rose-colored glasses on steroids. 

It's that he's this unique "flavor" of experience and there is no substitute. And he is one-of-a-kind... and cannot be replaced.

And this is true even if the guy is just some everyday random Joe Schmoe in the eyes of most people. But to a woman who has been struck by the Cupid's Arrow for him, he is THE guy.

And you may not understand because it isn't how your sexuality works. So, you may assume that the woman is settling for some Joe Schmoe... and just for what she can get. And the rationale might be, "If she could get better than him, she would"... as this is the way that guys can tend to think, as their sexuality is about casting a wide net and attracting as many as possible.

But to her, the guy is like a God. He is the one that she selected... as women's sexuality operates through selection, not attraction of many options. The attraction of many options is already a given.

So, it's common that men's selection is just because you're the best he can get... the best fish that swam into the net.

But for women, her selection is based on preference. The fish already chase her around... and beg her to eat them. So, there is not choosing based on scarcity... even if a woman may complain that "there are no good options" in exasperation of all the spammy attention she gets. 

It's waiting until the desire and hunger sets in... and choosing the exact fish that she wants. And it's usually some very specific average guy.

[Recursoinominado]

On 9/19/2025 at 4:07 AM, Emerald said:

That's false.

Most men that I've been attracted to are average. It's a chemistry thing.

For the first six months to a year, it's a breeze; then the initial excitement fades, and things get serious.

I am talking about long-term relationships here, where survival is important. 

[Emerald]

Just now, Recursoinominado said:

For the first six months to a year, it's a breeze; then the initial excitement fades, and things get serious.

I am talking about long-term relationships here, where survival is important. 

The last time that I had a relationship last less than a year, was when I was 15 years old... which was 21 years ago.

So, I am very much talking about women liking average guys for longterm relationships. And most men and women who are in longterm relationships are average. 

There is no need to be some super-star of a guy to sustain a longterm relationship. Just be yourself and have your life on the rails. And things will grow into something deeper.

So, I'm not just talking about the initial chemistry. I'm talking about the fact that most women choose average guys... during the chemistry "initial sparks" phase and long-term.

[Recursoinominado]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

There is no need to be some super-star of a guy to sustain a longterm relationship.

You can sustain it, just not a particularly happy one, because they are settling for what they can, rather than what they truly want.

[Schizophonia]

 

1 hour ago, Recursoinominado said:

You can sustain it, just not a particularly happy one, because they are settling for what they can, rather than what they truly want.

When you operate in a regressive, sadistic-anal manner, libido becomes confused with aggression.

So you'll create frustrating fantasies like "If I get a girlfriend, I'll be frustrated because she can't satisfy/be loving with a beta like me (or other people; the scenario doesn’t have to concern you just trigger agression)" something like that, because you enjoy the aggression it generates.

Look at the structure of the fantasy/game; it's not even "He can't get a girlfriend", but "He can get a girlfriend, but won't be able to enjoy it to the fullest because the girl will get cringey from interacting too much with someone at that level" (that's not quite what you said but it's the underlying fear, to put it briefly); my goal here is to maximize aggression.

And this comes from a mixture of trauma and the poor developpement of the Oedipus complex which did not allow the imaginary phallus to be castrated, you to enter into the symbolic order.

Aggression is enjoyable because the phallus is confused with excrement; there is a game of playing with excrements/dirty things and turning that into a power feeling.

But it is a form of mild chronic psychosis; your character of “I am the blackpilled” on x subject does not make you gain power, in the real world. It’s an illusion and a tentative to maintain a regressive psycho-sexual fantasy which ultimately incites and implies castration (poor life).

Edited September 21 by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

5 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

Would they care if all the “chads” were sleeping with only 4s and below? Fat chicks only? Or would they still be pist?

Lol what is this question.

They would be more pist because you “steal” their potential girlfriends (looksmatchs), I guess.

Edited September 21 by Schizophonia

[Recursoinominado]

9 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

in a regressive, sadistic-anal manner, libido becomes confused with aggression.
So you'll create frustrating fantasies like "If I get a girlfriend, I'll be frustrated because she can't satisfy/be loving with a beta like me (or other people; the scenario doesn’t have to concern you just trigger agression)" something like that, because you enjoy the aggression it generates.

Look at the structure of the fantasy/game; it's not even "He can't get a girlfriend", but "He can get a girlfriend, but won't be able to enjoy it to the fullest because the girl will get cringey from interacting too much with someone at that level" (that's not quite what you said but it's the underlying fear, to put it briefly); my goal here is to maximize aggression.

And this comes from a mixture of trauma and the poor developpement of the Oedipus complex which did not allow the imaginary phallus to be castrated, you to enter into the symbolic order.

Aggression is enjoyable because the phallus is confused with excrement; there is a game of playing with excrements/dirty things and turning that into a power feeling.

But it is a form of mild chronic psychosis; your character of “I am the blackpilled” on x subject does not make you gain power, in the real world. It’s an illusion and a tentative to maintain a regressive psycho-sexual fantasy which ultimately incites and implies castration (poor life).

Man, chill with the Freudian word salad. There's no need to analyze or attack me; critique my ideas. That's what a person with higher development does. 

I am pointing out a larger, general social dynamic, not talking about myself, and I am not the "beta" in this case, at least i don't see myself this way. Particularly, i am pretty happy with my results in the dating area. 

Also, i am not "blackpilled" because blackpill is a defeatist ideology, they believe women like male characteristics that are unchangeable like height. I am not even complaining about how thing are, just pointing out for those who want to improve, after all, this is a self-development community.

I believe you can actually improve and turn yourself into a man that women actually desire, if that's what you want. 

And this 100% is empowering.

[Schizophonia]

2 hours ago, Recursoinominado said:

Man, chill with the Freudian word salad. There's no need to analyze or attack me; critique my ideas. That's what a person with higher development does. 
 

I attacked nobody, I just looked at what you wrote and gave an idea what could going on.

If you cannot stand even friendly assumptions about your energy structure, then by definition it is impossible for you to develop.

Quote

I am pointing out a larger, general social dynamic, not talking about myself, and I am not the "beta" in this case,

I precised you don’t have to take you as an exemple to work on your energy agenda.

Quote

at least i don't see myself this way. Particularly, i am pretty happy with my results in the dating area. 
 

So much the better

Quote

Also, i am not "blackpilled" because blackpill is a defeatist ideology, they believe women like male characteristics that are unchangeable like height. I am not even complaining about how thing are, just pointing out for those who want to improve, after all, this is a self-development community.

You said you said that women can't be happy with an average man, that's a blackpill idea (or redpill idk, whatever)

That said, it doesn't mean that you believe in BlackPill most of the time; our structure is fluid with ego backslashs.

Quote

I believe you can actually improve and turn yourself into a man that women actually desire, if that's what you want. 

And this 100% is empowering.

I trust you.

Once again, my game is to delve into people's unconscious; not what they consciously think and say whether it's true or not. I'm not even saying that what I say is true, I'm just giving a point of view that can explain the energy.

[Recursoinominado]

18 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

You said you said that women can't be happy with an average man, that's a blackpill idea (or redpill idk, whatever)

Who cares where this idea comes from lol either the idea is true or not, that's how tier 2 thinking works.

[Schizophonia]

41 minutes ago, Recursoinominado said:

Bitch, you don't know my development, and you make too much assumptions with too little information. Again, chill, dude.

Since you are so developed you could use your large development to react like a normal man, and not like a teenage girl who gets angry and insulting because someone made an assumption about your structure.
Because that's what it's about; I've never been rude/mean, it's just hate to be discovered.

38 minutes ago, Recursoinominado said:

Who cares where this idea comes from lol either the idea is true or not, that's how tier 2 thinking works.

Once again, as you are a diva, you feel humiliated by my approach and try to humiliate me back with your "tier 2 thinking" business.

Well if you are that smart you should be able to understand that if you state something, that this thing is blackpilled, and then you call yourself anti-blackpilled then you are contradicting somewhere; You probably denied blackpill because you felt humiliated by my comment.

Edited September 21 by Schizophonia

[Recursoinominado]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

Since you are so developed you could use your large development to react like a normal man, and not like a teenage girl who gets angry and insulting because someone made an assumption about your structure.
Because that's what it's about; I've never been rude/mean, it's just hate to be discovered.

Once again, as you are a diva, you feel humiliated by my approach and try to humiliate me back with your "tier 2 thinking" business.

Well if you are that smart you should be able to understand that if you state something, that this thing is blackpilled, and then you call yourself anti-blackpilled then you are contradicting somewhere; You probably denied blackpill because you felt humiliated by my comment.

?

That's very anal retentive of you

[theleelajoker]

Grabbing popcorn  🥸🍿....

[Emerald]

19 hours ago, Recursoinominado said:

You can sustain it, just not a particularly happy one, because they are settling for what they can, rather than what they truly want.

I can understand that that's what you fear... so it feels real to you. Plus, all the online propaganda that preys on the insecurities of men uses these kinds of narratives to agitate those pain points and insecurities to make men more receptive to buying solutions.

And the Red Pill is about selling men expensive solutions to try to make themselves "high value men" through all sorts of permutations of macho play-acting... and frames everything relationship-wise as purely objective and transactional.

And the Black Pill is about selling men the certainty of failure in matters of sex and love, so that men can feel the relief that comes with pity, victim's mentality, and giving up. And this also makes them a target audience for grifters looking to sell attractiveness ratings and things like that to mirror back to them their "certainty" of romantic failure.

It's similar to how fashion and beauty companies have historically sold products by making women feel inadequate and unattractive. 

It's "Create a problem that doesn't exist... or exacerbate a small problem to the point where it seems insurmountable. Then, sell the solution."

It's not our first rodeo though... so there's a lot of push towards body-inclusive brands of clothing and make-up. Society knew this marketing was a problem, even when I was a child. But I'm sure that the problems with this kind of marketing weren't in the public consciousness for quite some time.

But this past 10 years is men's first rodeo with this kind of predatory marketing... and it is quite all encompassing.

The problem is that men feel like these movements are working for them instead of against them, so there is an allegiance with the predatory marketers. They believe that they are being told the "real secrets" about women... giving the impression that they are being helped. But it just adds more insecurity.

But in the coming decades, I suspect there will be a genuine men's lib movement where men come to collectively wake up to and push back on predatory marketing in the way that women have over the past 20 years or so.

All that to say... in the majority of cases, it isn't actually true that women are settling for the men that they're with. That's just men's fear that they are settled for instead of chosen.

So, the internet is filled with echo chambers that will keep validating that fear over and over. So, it feels very real. But it isn't happening in most cases.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

3 hours ago, Recursoinominado said:

?

That's very anal retentive of you

You done?

[Recursoinominado]

2 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

You done?

But moooommm