Utopia Talk / Politics / Inequality of attractiveness

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Mar 20 20:01:36 A data scientist representing the popular dating app “Hinge” reported on the Gini coefficients he had found in his company’s abundant data, treating “likes” as the equivalent of income. He reported that heterosexual females faced a Gini coefficient of 0.324, while heterosexual males faced a much higher Gini coefficient of 0.542. So neither sex has complete equality: in both cases, there are some “wealthy” people with access to more romantic experiences and some “poor” who have access to few or none. But while the situation for women is something like an economy with some poor, some middle class, and some millionaires, the situation for men is closer to a world with a small number of super-billionaires surrounded by huge masses who possess almost nothing. According to the Hinge analyst: On a list of 149 countries’ Gini indices provided by the CIA World Factbook, this would place the female dating economy as 75th most unequal (average—think Western Europe) and the male dating economy as the 8th most unequal (kleptocracy, apartheid, perpetual civil war—think South Africa). Quartz reported on this finding, and also cited another article about an experiment with Tinder that claimed that that “the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men.” These studies examined “likes” and “swipes” on Hinge and Tinder, respectively, which are required if there is to be any contact (via messages) between prospective matches. http://qui...uality-and-the-dating-economy/
Rugian Member	Sat Mar 20 20:05:37 Ok, why do you care about this shit? You're married, man. Take value in your wife.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Mar 20 20:15:15 Well Rugian, I have procreated. My caring transcendens my own life. A kleptocratic dating market where a majority of men have few prospects finding a mate, the collapse of the institutions of monogamy, is a threat to the stability of society.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Mar 20 20:15:32 The soul of the western world, is at stake.
habebe Member	Sat Mar 20 20:24:22 Ive always been amazed at the level of high quality tail Ive been able to snag.Im a decent looking guy, stay im shape etc. but I definitely get pussy that annoys other people, like "how did you get that?"
Y2A Member	Sat Mar 20 20:40:14 There is a case to be made against dating apps but here is the problem with this (from the article): "It is ironic that the progressives who cheer on the decline of religion and the weakening of “outdated” institutions like monogamy are actually acting as the ultimate reactionaries, returning us to the oldest and most barbaric, unequal animal social structures that have ever existed. In this case it is the conservatives who are cheering for the progressive ideal of “sexual income redistribution” through a novel invention: monogamy." This guy sounds like an Elliot Rodger type with this "based" muh SJWs bullshit.
Dukhat Member	Sat Mar 20 23:03:27 Nim wans a side-piece. Monogamy is a social construct for men to control women and ensure their spawn survive to breeding age.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sun Mar 21 00:07:49 Men have more "hotness inequality" than women, as measured by "like" clicks being treated as income. This is completely understandable. Women have a very simple algorithm to figure out, to get more "income" by this measure. Show more skin. A not-particularly-hot woman can easily achieve the median level of income by just showing some skin. And probably 20% above median by showing above-median amounts of skin. Maybe a tad on the heavy side? Great, throw a cleavage shot in there, whatever. There's your socialist guaranteed minimum income. Not so strong on the boob front, and maybe not in particularly good shape? OK, so you're probably on the skinny side, too. Crop top, maybe bikini pic. There's your guaranteed minimum availability of "income," accessible to probably >80% of women. Men, appealing to an audience of women in this context, can't just throw in a crotch shot to guarantee some baseline number of "likes." No guaranteed minimum availability of "income" that >80% of men automatically get. If you're fat, there's no cleavage-equivalent. If you're skinny without being in particularly good shape, there's no bikini pic equivalent. You *actually* have to be unusually handsome, or in unusually good shape, to hoard the "likes," there is no "hack" like the one women have where they can just play to a (or, maybe even "the") redeeming strength of whatever their body type happens to be.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Mar 21 03:19:31 Y2A You are being a reactionary fool more preoccupied with the optics, rather than the evidence: ”Multiple research studies have revealed that societies which are polygamous have higher rates of violent crime. The theoretical understanding of this phenomenon suggests that the violence is a result of a higher number of young males without access to mates, female partners, or reproduction.” http://www...y/201805/monogamy-and-violence
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Mar 21 03:32:02 So the theory goes, we were quite violent until some societies eventually invented monogamy. If the theory is correct, violence/instabily will increase as dating apps and the break down of monogamous relationships become the norm. Violence and instability have always been a strategy to create a ”new” order for men who were ledt our by the old order. When I brought this phenomena up the last time on UP, Donald Trump hadn’t even been elected. Suck on that Dickface and Y2A.
Paramount Member	Sun Mar 21 03:38:15 Doesn’t Islam have a solution to this? They have this thing that we call ”forced marriage” where every man gets a suitable wife. As far as I know they don’t have incels in the Middle East. Maybe it is because every man gets a wife? I think we had this in some parts in the West too? But we called it ”arranged marriage” and not ”forced marriage”. I don’t think the West had incels either back when ”arranged marriages” was a thing.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Mar 21 03:46:59 Uhm, no? The Islamic state were exactly one such offshoot of violence and instability, you find littering our history. In fact the Islamic 4 wives per man rule, contributes to the higher levels of violence and instability found in those countries.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Mar 21 03:53:35 To clarify, all societies that have monogamy as a central part of their culture, have a solution for this, just that in Islamic ones, this is undermined, by the 4 wives per man thing.
Paramount Member	Sun Mar 21 03:53:42 Maybe 4 wifes are too many. Because then the wifes could gang up on the man and nag him to insanity, which could create violence. The best solution is 1 wife per man. You shouldn’t get too greedy and demand more. The best solution is 1 wife per man.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Mar 21 04:06:49 It is a mistake to look at cultural constructs and assume that they emerged due to superstition and to administrate cruelty, and not because they, no matter how crudly, solved a problem. Islamic modesty laws for instance. They are an attempt at solving the problems that emerge with sexual signaling. Crude, but effectively stops all the overt signaling.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Mar 21 04:30:22 earthpig "No guaranteed minimum availability of "income" that >80% of men automatically get. If you're fat, there's no cleavage-equivalent. If you're skinny without being in particularly good shape, there's no bikini pic equivalent." I think another issue complicated things, women are not necessarily looking for "good looking" as their primary objective in a mate. Generally that means men have to preform to get laid, while women have to, just show up. Well, that isn't the case anymore with dating apps and porn hijacking our faculties.
jergul large member	Sun Mar 21 05:50:11 Well, you can always cash tank. Get professionals to take your pictures and write your profile.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Mar 21 06:02:38 Jergul I think something can be said, about an unfettered free market providing "goods" that everyone desires and needs, where the dynamics are evolutionary instincts being plucked like a fiddle by exponential technology. It is a bad idea.
Dukhat Member	Sun Mar 21 07:14:59 It hurts mostly men in 2nd and 3rd world countries. Plenty of ugly, fat dudes I know in passing have gotten girlfriends and wives from overseas that are very beautiful. Citizenship in a first-world country is getting bigger and bigger in a late-stage capitalist world (only the rich get richer) that's facing catastrophic climate change.
The Children Member	Sun Mar 21 07:22:11 so men r fucked. well isnt this some surprise, im so shocked.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Mar 21 07:29:04 No TC, everyone is fucked. But some of us, will at least get to fuck, before we get fucked. That is the moral of the story.
TJ Member	Sun Mar 21 11:04:39 This thread is an example as to why meritocracy (abilities and achievements) is so important for societies. Seems as though human nature is drowning in its own fabricated cleansing water. Born equal doesn't mean you'll grow equally and the collective desire of human nature will eventually defeat itself. If it continues on the same path the goal line won't deserve a tittle of admiration. It will take the brightest and most enthusiastic talent to redirect course. Human nature can't rebalance what nature imprinted.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Mar 21 12:23:00 along w/ earthpig's comments, women are also conditioned to try to look appealing... & makeup can do wonders i don't see men trying harder, so women should just lower their standards...
obaminated Member	Sun Mar 21 12:45:57 Its okay for nim to want a mistress. Most men have them.
TJ Member	Sun Mar 21 14:42:26 It is natural to be attracted to qualities that one sucks at personally. Never lower your standards because that would be the most toxic path in any relationship. Good and bad is a balance necessary for sustainability if being honest with yourself. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses for the purpose of tempering couples like heat is to metal. It strengthens the bond. No union is, by far, better than a toxic one.
chuck Member	Sun Mar 21 16:54:14 Feel bad for kids dating these days. It was much more fun dating before it was algorithmic. Dating (and one night stands) have always favored the attractive, but nowadays there is this huge selection pressure for being a self-marketer. The top of the conversion funnel is your profile pic and your ability to wittily talk about yourself in your bio. There was always a game being played but I feel like now it's become much more formulaic, like selling cars. Instead of "go out with your friends, hang out, see what happens" you're...trying to sound cool over SMS for 1-5 days with 10 girls at once, playing the numbers game and hoping one will pick up what you're putting down? Soulless. The absolute hottest woman I ever pulled (sorry honey) back in my hounding days was a milfy 5'3"-ish early 30s blonde who looked like she was lead cheerleader in high school. Happened by total dumb luck. I was queuing songs up at a bar and she walked up and grabbed my ass, which (back then? as a guy?) was a very effective ice breaker. Another time, I wore a gorilla suit to a Halloween party and some girl there thought it was HILARIOUS and took a bunch of pictures with me. I saw her out and about a couple of weeks later, said "I'm the gorilla suit guy," and that was that. I wasn't carefully crafting an image, I just thought it would be funny to dress as a gorilla for Halloween at my friend's house. Surprise! There truly was meaning to the phrase "getting lucky." I feel like that sort of serendipity just can't happen when girls are swiping through the carefully crafted marketing materials of every guy in a 20 mile radius. It becomes much more of a winner-take-all proposition, and much more by the numbers. The bar across from my old apartment was a huge Tinder date spot. I'd go hang out there 2-3 nights a week after work and just shoot the shit with the bartender. My impression of that scene was that if you wanted to walk in there and do things the time-honored way, basically every girl there is waiting for their app date to arrive. You would need to be so winning that you convinced someone to no show on their date who will be there in 10 minutes. The kind of person who might get lucky under those circumstances is not actually getting lucky, they're just insanely winning and living a charmed existence in the attractiveness Olympics.
Forwyn Member	Mon Mar 22 00:14:39 "Monogamy is a social construct for men to control women and ensure their spawn survive to breeding age." LOL what? This is the most retarded shit I've seen here in a while, even by Cuckhat standards. Genghis Khan isn't represented in 8% of Asian men Y-chromosome sequences because of monogamy. Childbirth is a painful and debilitating ordeal. Sex is not. Childbearing women stand the most to gain via institutionalized monogamy, unless they're willing to join a harem.
habebe Member	Mon Mar 22 00:26:08 Well, for context Ghengis Khan was a serial rapist.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Mar 22 04:08:33 "TJ Member Sun Mar 21 11:04:39 This thread is an example as to why meritocracy (abilities and achievements) is so important for societies." Yes, but in the long run meritocracy will be a threat to the stability of society. Fewer and fewer people will have the merits that lead to careers, while the number of positions will either remain stable or diminish. That means a lot of unemployable people with nothing to do, but to hopefully remain distracted by porn and video games. How long will that last? Not long, unless we are turned into human batteries like in the Matrix movies, but even in this fantasy the "peace" didn't last, the batteries rose up in rebellion.
Dukhat Member	Mon Mar 22 06:00:33 Why does capitalism work? Because it co-opts the smartest people who woudl be the leaders of the rebellion and lets them join the ruling class instead of having them lead an insurrection. IQ use to be equally distributed between all classes. Now if you are rich, you also tend to be smarter. The dumber peopel can try to rebel, but they will fail. They are just too stupid. And it's not like they are smart enough to even blame the right people. Trump's most fervent supporters are young white males who were fucked by Republican policies. But Republicans distract them with culture wars and kill their own grandmothers and they still fervently support Republicans.
jergul large member	Mon Mar 22 06:11:35 Evolution applies for species, not for individuals. Colourful male ducks camoflaged females find attractive are food for predators so that the female may survive. A good example as birds are modern dinosaurs with pedigrees going back millions of years. The same is true for hormon jacked bucks picking fights with bears. The bear eats, the impregnated doe survives. We may very well be hardwired as a species for males the be flamboyant. Which is pretty much how we measure merit anyway.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Mar 22 06:37:00 You know Jergul, I have begun to think more in terms of, evolution applies to lineages. Sometimes a lineage breaks off and we call that a new specie. It captures something "group selection" is after, but hasn't articulated, because genes are selfish, they only care about making copies of them self. But evolution applied to a lineage, means there are other very similar copies of your genes around, your family and relatives, the people in your lineage. People who on average look like you and behave like you. "We may very well be hardwired as a species for males the be flamboyant." I would say, taking risks and not taking shit. Men signal in whatever ways they think women will respond to. So, when you see men engage in some stupid activity, you know, or if you don't you should know, there are women fawning after those men. You know how many love letters famous criminals and murderers get from women? They go in single and come out MARRIED! Because women are fucking CRAZY! For men :)
TJ Member	Mon Mar 22 11:25:08 Nim: "They go in single and come out MARRIED! Because women are fucking CRAZY! For men :)" Crazy is subjective and cunning is specific. Terms and definitions that come immediately to my mind. clever intelligence X chromosome conditioned genetics environment differences spatial relationships impact I wouldn't limit the evolutionary process as Jergul has, but I'm perfectly agreeable to disagree. Removing or adding any aspect of a pattern will change it, maybe my process has something to do with my left-handedness, :). Sorting the evolution, so often viewed, as randomness(boiling pot). Personal and natural environmental change is key to result. You can have poor intelligent genetics and still develop better than average intelligence via personal environment. If one is lucky enough to receive the best of both you get what most would term as genius. All things combined. Effect is something that regularly happens in science.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Mar 22 11:40:49 It is subjective to a degree, but surely not on the level of one thinking intelligence has something to do with what I call "crazy", with regards to dating inmates? I say crazy, but we know it as, notoriety.
TJ Member	Mon Mar 22 12:51:18 I don't confuse all cleverness with a high level of intelligence, but I will agree that clever(a single aspect of intelligence) and intelligent people do stupid things. You can fit crazy into any situation was my intention of it being subjective. Notoriety is a singular reason, but there are others that explain (clever/cunning}. Such as, federal life sentences could mean financial gain for both. Although you can't receive monthly Social Security benefits while you're incarcerated, benefits to your spouse or children will continue as long as they remain eligible. Surely you can see the potential benefit for both all three. That makes two of which probably consist of many. Federal prisoners in the US aren't allowed conjugal visitation, hell they can't even kiss between bars. State prison rules can and do differ. But all the above in this particular post is extremely below the overall intent of my other posts.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Mar 22 13:22:02 TJ I said "crazy. For men". and end it with a :D. The context is given to narrow down the definition of "crazy". I was trying to be clever and funny. Mileage may vary, or rather it is subjective :) Complex human behavior, is obviously rarely the product of a single factor. I had not thought about the direct financial benefits connected to prison. But even then, financial gain, well you could point that out for a lot of non-incarcerated marriage, I ain't saying she's a gold digger... you know how the song goes. It is a thing, we know, but most women, even the these women who marry murderers, they have better options available, some of these women are solid 6's! Most women, like men, abide by these unwritten rules of social life. So, there is something else going on, beside money, that makes a women think, hmm I'm gonna be a gold digging in jail with a man that has a proven record of poor judgment and very often, violence. I think it is the "bad boy" attraction, the extreme end of it.
TJ Member	Mon Mar 22 13:53:40 Nim: I don't disagree that many things are going on. It should have been clear from my previous post. Disagreeing with the singular positions of crazy and notoriety. Your wit was long past recognized and noted, which is another skill set of intelligence. I'm opposed to most when it comes to most everything, not all. It could be from a lack of or an abundance of spatial skill. I'll leave that for you and others to decide. Odds are I'll oppose the former. :D
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Mar 22 14:18:23 "I'm opposed to most when it comes to most everything, not all." That. Sounds crazy! The kind of crazy where they put you in a white room, where everything is white and all the people are dressed in white. :-,) <- That is not a tear, it's a booger.
TJ Member	Mon Mar 22 14:40:12 Nim: Crazy is acceptable. How it is controlled is another matter entirely. Not white room, but psychedelic space is reasonable. You've got me in stiches.
TJ Member	Mon Mar 22 22:44:32 Nim: Oops, my index finger misfired on the keyboard.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Mar 23 04:45:28 I want to believe, the world would be a better place, if most people took shrooms, like once a month. Nothing crazy =) a moderate dose, just enough to see the tiles on the roofs breath. But I bet you never felt uncomfortable inside your own head, no matter which corner of it you visited, there was nothing there that made you panic. By the time you tried something the first time, you had spent a lot of time inside your own mind.
Habebe Member	Tue Mar 23 05:08:12 Nimatzo, Shrooms are hand down my favorite drug. They make table tennis fantastic.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Mar 23 06:06:07 Have not tried table tennis on shrooms, but I believe you. I had never seen sound, before I took shrooms.
Nekran Member	Tue Mar 23 06:17:27 I did shrooms for the first time last year and for a 3rd time the past weekend. I don't see myself playing table tennis in that condition, but I have to say the way it affects people very differently is also an interesting aspect of them. Once a month sounds like a lot to me... but I fully intend to do them 2 or 3 times a year. It's super fascinating. I have not yet seen sound, but I have seen many amazing things, life the majestic valleys that are hidden inside my handkerchief and the massive gorgeous jungle that is my garden. Most intriguingly I have had a loss of self thing the first time around, which I still think about regularly. Definitely my favourite drug as well. And the only one I would indeed also recommend to almost everyone.
TJ Member	Tue Mar 23 12:09:28 Nim: I take it you were addressing me with that bet so I'll personally respond. Should it frighten me to say what I'm about to say (what is on my mind)? I'll confirm, it doesn't in the slightest way. If you can't be honest with yourself you can't be honest with others. I shredded and began reconstructing my thought patterns at an early age and that reconstruction hasn't ended so the bet is reasonably correct. Nothing to fear and everything to gain. I contribute my thinking process to genetics and my young age environment viewing both as gifts. I had nothing to do with those rewards other than understanding the best possible heights from experiencing both. The environment was less than most would consider satisfactory, but it was a motivator for change. There are valuable lessons to learn from any situation if you choose to focus on the positive rather than the negative elements. Avoiding vulnerability, blocking, or stuffing can create a permanent path in the brain. I chalk it up to a non-accepting ego. If you are frightened by your own mind you'll never truly understand the most possible from others, but it is extremely important to realize and accept that nothing is ever complete in our world. I soon realized that basic levels would never satisfy my thirst for more. You are individually responsible to make the world a better place. There is nothing you can do with something that is out of your control, accept and distance yourself from unrealistic goals. The mushrooms won't make or detract from the concept. Nekran: "the majestic valleys that are hidden inside my handkerchief" I laughed, obviously because of a previous comment.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Mar 23 14:07:03 "Once a month sounds like a lot to me" I am pretty sure I said once a year, but that isn't what I wrote! It was actually quite a few years ago now, I did shrooms. Only micro dosed on occasion. The opportunities for such trips have not appeared since I got the boy. But I think I really need to soon. You know, to defrag the harddrive :) "but I have seen many amazing things, life the majestic valleys that are hidden inside my handkerchief and the massive gorgeous jungle that is my garden." http://ima...le-chips_mark-weinberg-192.jpg O_o
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Mar 23 14:36:06 TJ It was! I appreciate it. It just struck me you know, because either your dive in and figure it out running, or you already feel based, quality or quantity in experience. For sure, there is a genetic component, if one has a family history of certain mental illnesses, maybe don't do it. But probably do it. Shrooms should have a user beware warning: Do you feel safe in your head? Because whatever is in there, is coming out.
TJ Member	Tue Mar 23 16:04:04 Nim: "if most people took shrooms" There that word is again❗ I am hesitant to agree or disagree, lulz.
Dukhat Member	Tue Mar 23 22:57:55 You can just fast instead to reset your body instead of taking chemicals you barely understand you stupid fuck. Do a 5-day fast. It will get rid of cancerous cells and make some stem cells too. It'll also fill you full of HGH for fat burning and recovery.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 24 02:24:49 Just ignore him and he usually goes away. Sometimes we have to throw rocks at him.
Dukhat Member	Wed Mar 24 02:38:20 Take more shrooms dumbass. It's not like it makes a difference. You're only barely a tier above the cuckservatives here.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 24 02:46:58 Thank you Dukhat. Your comments are the best kind of confirmation, that I have made the right choices in life.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: