Three Six Mafia – Data about "6/6/6 dating" (2024)
Posted by embedding-shape 1 day ago
Comments
Comment by operation_moose 1 day ago
It's likely significantly over predicting how common $100k yearly income is among the 20-35 year old "dating pool". Though probably balanced out some by being 10 year old data by now.
Comment by throwawayffffas 1 day ago
Back in 2014 the share of household incomes earning more than 99,999 was 34.5 in 2024 it was 42.8
Comment by jimmydddd 1 day ago
Comment by economistbob 1 day ago
Comment by isoprophlex 1 day ago
Comment by ClikeX 1 day ago
Comment by 0-_-0 1 day ago
For the Average Man, gaining an inch of height is worth losing roughly $25k in annual salary. Meanwhile, an inch of pecker is roughly offset by reducing annual salary by $128k.
Comment by ASalazarMX 1 day ago
Comment by ladyanita22 1 day ago
Comment by layer8 1 day ago
Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago
Comment by szundi 1 day ago
Comment by lesuorac 1 day ago
> In a gaggle of 100 suitors, it's actually unlikely that a single one will meet all three criteria. Perfection. We now have a truly unreasonable set of standards by which to choose our dating partner.
Is it actually truly unreasonable?
Who has not seen 4000 males? Sure, you might not be able to name 4000 but that's not the criteria. You only need to learn about 1000 of them because visually you can tell the remaining 3000 are too short. And of those 1000 you only need to learn a little to tell if they're going to earn over 100k (i.e. what career path and where they rank in their cohorts).
That Blended Exclusivity Score is really a minimum so of the 170 remaining people at least 17 qualify. You don't even have to sleep with the remaining unqualified ones, make sure the lights are on and just leave if it's too short.
Comment by cindyllm 1 day ago
Comment by itsmemattchung 1 day ago
> A 6" wiener is even rarer than being 6' tall. The average erect penis length is 5.166" with a std dev of 0.654".
Comment by s_dev 1 day ago
One of the many gems from Silicon Valley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-hUV9yhqgY
This thread is just life imitating art.
Comment by ClikeX 1 day ago
Comment by bena 1 day ago
And then it's really if an angle allowed by Base to Floor (B2F) and Length (L) is compatible with an angle allowed by the other participant's B2F and L.
A single woman trying to derive pleasure from a single man has a totally different set of criteria she needs to qualify.
Comment by 4gotunameagain 1 day ago
Comment by ASalazarMX 1 day ago
Comment by rsynnott 1 day ago
Comment by BobaFloutist 1 day ago
Comment by rsynnott 14 hours ago
There’s so much psychological baggage here that I’d be really suspicious of any stats. The Kinsey Report famously found that gay men were almost half an inch bigger than straight men, and for a while that lead to a lot of speculation around sexuality being driven by maternal hormonal differences, but I think these days it’s pretty much accepted that it was probably just selection bias (that bit of the study was optional).
Comment by JsonDemWitOster 1 day ago
Comment by koe123 1 day ago
Comment by joshdavham 1 day ago
I will say that I've seen multiple definitions of the 666 rule where the last 6 represents either penis length or a 6-pack. From personal experience, I will say that maintaining a 6 pack makes you much more desirable in the eyes of women than, uh, the other option.
I'm also not much of a dater, but my friends always freak out at me when I tell them I've never been on a dating app. They seem to think I'd do well. ...Maybe this is my sign that I should try a dating app?
Comment by niemandhier 22 hours ago
So it probably is a good proxy measure for quite a few desirable character traits, such as diligence and discipline.
Comment by joshdavham 16 hours ago
Comment by firmretention 12 hours ago
Comment by p0w3n3d 21 hours ago
Comment by quadruple 1 day ago
Comment by nixon_why69 1 day ago
Comment by maerF0x0 15 hours ago
2. I've heard a variant of the "rule" (of thumb) that is six 6's . 6 pack abs, 6' tall, 6" below, 6 figures, 6 months (or more) single, 600+ HP car. This is sometimes pushed around by guys doing the very human thing of overweighting their own biologically driven selection criteria biases and assuming women choose the same way as they do. If you're a man reading this remember that women are naturally driven by 2 forces in selection, which are unfortunately called Alpha and Beta by the internet (though they should not connote superior and inferior). You can fit into the other category of being a great partner via connection, father traits (intelligence, support, kindness), being funny (also intelligence), and connecting on shared interests. Thankfully women tend to select from a large bucket of desires, unlike the testosterone driven visual selection that men trend towards which really causes a lot of trouble for women who bring a lot to the table but not "that".
Comment by BizarroLand 12 hours ago
Comment by p0w3n3d 21 hours ago
However my wife is the same height as me, meaning she's medium tall and I am short (in the medical classifications given by our pediatrist to our daughter) and still she's okay with it.
Meanwhile we have organised a global market of "who's the highest and have a largest pecker" in the network, and this is sick. Normally in a village some people would get chosen by the looks another by their standards and character. Tinder focuses only on one thing. So this is the anomality we're feeding
Comment by amluto 1 day ago
In the extreme case of using many independent traits, I think one might find that most of the population is in an exclusive minority :)
[0] Use logs. If there are n extra traits that aren’t in the original three, a random person scores some expected log exclusivity points for each extra trait. (Exactly 1 point, in fact, if you use natural logs and negate the result to get positive points.) Multiply that expectation by the number of traits and the average person scores n points. e^-n is very exclusive for even moderate n!
Comment by sagebird 1 day ago
(If height were not correlated with income that would be surprising, for example.)
Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago
a dude who is 6'4'' isn't going to have tiny hands or feet, and probably not a tiny wang.
likewise height directly correlates to management & leadership roles
Comment by laszlojamf 19 hours ago
Comment by rayiner 1 day ago
That said, individual chemistry is highly variable so these particular criteria are just a proxy and negotiable. Don’t take stated criteria at face value. My now wife’s type was chubby 6-foot plus midwestern future lawyers. But then she met a 5-9 Bangladeshi in law school and got baby fever and that was that. My personal view of it is God has a plan for all of us, but if you’re an atheist you can see it as the chemistry of biological compatibility being highly complex and individualized.
Comment by graemep 1 day ago
What is atheist about your comment? Nothing I can see. God has a plan for us does not contradict the evolutionary factors.
Comment by reverius42 22 hours ago
Comment by graemep 19 hours ago
Comment by rayiner 16 hours ago
Comment by niemandhier 23 hours ago
That way a single dominant feature cannot compensate for the collapse of all others
Comment by blaze33 1 day ago
Comment by tclancy 1 day ago
Comment by codedokode 1 day ago
Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players?
Also, the picture with income graph says "household income", not "personal income".
Comment by hackyhacky 1 day ago
It's a common aesthetic preference, similar to liking large breasts.
> Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players?
Some of them certainly do. But there aren't very many professional basketball players.
Comment by swat535 1 day ago
Isn't there simpler explanation in terms of evolution: taller men look more intimidating and can provide better safety for their offspring?
I think a lot of physical preferences (generally) have some kind of evolutionary roots to it, crude as they are in 2026.
I'm not sure how well researched this area is however, since it can be a bit controversial in the modern age.
Comment by hackyhacky 1 day ago
That is certainly a simpler explanation, but it doesn't mean that it's a correct explanation.
* "Looking intimidating" doesn't necessarily mean that they are better at providing safety
* Providing safety isn't necessarily the sole responsibility of a sexual partner
* Other factors may be more important than height in selecting a sexual partner
* Evolution selects for attributes other than mate suitability
Given the wide variety of preferences across the human species, I find it highly reductive when someone asserts a simplistic reason for such a human behavior, ignoring the many cases when humans do not follow that behavior.
Comment by ikr678 21 hours ago
For most hetero relationships, a tall/well built male partner helps to make you feel small/petite/attractive in comparison.
If I was physically larger than my boyfriend, I would probably be much more self-conscious of my weight/size.
Comment by tavavex 1 day ago
This is just my own observation, so it's probably biased. But if this correlation is real, that shows this is not just evolution. Subjectively, it feels like there's a lot of societal influence stacked on top of whatever is there initially.
Comment by codedokode 1 day ago
Comment by Archer6621 1 day ago
The reason why height is so important, is because it serves as a proxy for strength, potential for dominance, and protective capacity. Women feel safe from the world and other men, when they are with a tall man (assuming they also feel safe from him). The circular effect of this is that tall men are seen as a successful archetype from all the attention and resources they get, which inflates their true sexual value. Probably social media and internet has a big hand in this too.
Comment by hackyhacky 1 day ago
Comment by orangepanda 1 day ago
Comment by alberto467 1 day ago
Comment by tclancy 1 day ago
Cultures create an archetype of attractiveness and then everyone feels like they come up short. Tale as old as time.
Comment by nchmy 1 day ago
Comment by tclancy 1 day ago
Comment by mathgeek 17 hours ago
Comment by Teever 21 hours ago
In some contexts a healthy weight is stocky with extra body fat that can carry a person through a cold winter or a famine.
In other contexts a healthy weight is leaner with less body fat to better handle a hot climate or chase down an animal.
Comment by perpetuallunch 1 day ago
Therefore, women will tend to select mates who are taller than themselves.
It’s not a cultural phenomenon, it’s universal.
Comment by zardo 7 hours ago
Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago
not just universal for humans, but pretty common in general.
Comment by orangepanda 1 day ago
Comment by FeteCommuniste 1 day ago
Comment by perpetuallunch 1 day ago
Comment by akimbostrawman 22 hours ago
Comment by codedokode 1 day ago
Comment by nixon_why69 1 day ago
Comment by perpetuallunch 1 day ago
Comment by codedokode 1 day ago
Comment by fhdkweig 1 day ago
Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago
Comment by JKCalhoun 1 day ago
Comment by mathgeek 17 hours ago
Comment by alberto467 1 day ago
A tall person moving around a social setting naturally attracts more eyes, gets more noticed, attracts more attention. She literally “stands out”.
For both male and females I’d say. Then societal complexes pressure some people into the shorter gal taller guy couple stereotype, but the height itself is just a physical thing that brings more attention.
Comment by vovavili 1 day ago
Comment by brettgriffin 1 day ago
Comment by akimbostrawman 22 hours ago
I can not count the number of times i have seen average and above men go out with below average women simply because they where friendly to them and gave them attention.
For multiple decades now any women could just pull up there phone and be overwhelmed with attention and dates on the level as only the top 20% of men.
Comment by globular-toast 1 day ago
Your argument is that it's just more attractive. That might be true. That would also mean there's an underlying reason for females finding this attractive. This could be due to taller males being able to protect their offspring from other males, hence more of us are descended from taller males and females that found taller males attractive.
But being taller could also give other advantages like perceived or actual dominance over other males which is, in itself, an attractive quality.
Comment by Forgeties79 1 day ago
Comment by hackyhacky 1 day ago
Maybe. A lot of what we assume are innate sexual preferences are actually determined socially.
No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.
These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue.
Insofar as an attractive partner is a status symbol, the definition of "attractive" changes with fashion.
Comment by vovavili 1 day ago
This is usually based on a selective and wishful interpretation of historical data. The best argument I've found is here - https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/
Comment by BigTTYGothGF 1 day ago
My lived experience says they're right. In the 90s one didn't have a "phat ass", one was just a "fatass".
> The best argument I've found is here
Comment by hackyhacky 1 day ago
I'm also alive now. It's not hard to find big butts being idolized.
Your linked article is not very scientific. For example, it cites porn-store purchasing preference as evidence of actual male taste in partner selection.
Comment by zardo 7 hours ago
Comment by vovavili 1 day ago
That's the whole point. Due to the touchiness of the subject matter, these kinds of topics would be quite difficult to discuss frankly in a politicized institution guarded by a peer review process.
Comment by hackyhacky 1 day ago
Comment by vovavili 1 day ago
Comment by codedokode 1 day ago
Comment by armenarmen 1 day ago
Comment by Lio 1 day ago
People have been talking about virginity and monogamy for 1000s of years. Men want to know that the children they raise are their own.
It might have blipped a bit since the invention of the pill but women cuckolding their partners has been frowned upon world wide for a very long time.
Sex before monogamous marriage has historically been a big thing.
There's even songs, sagas and religious books that make virtue of it.
Comment by vintermann 22 hours ago
Turns out, yeah, every one of those men's father was who they thought he was. Our Y DNA was the same, minus the mutations you'd expect over 400 years on separate branches.
That humans make a big deal about parentage and infidelity, doesn't mean humans aren't faithful. Apparently we're the most faithful of pair-bonding species by a big margin.
Comment by hackyhacky 1 day ago
You realize that the number (>0) of prior sexual partners has nothing to do with the parentage of one's children, right? You can marry a virgin and still be a cuckold; or you can marry a prostitute and sire a large family.
Comment by Lio 1 day ago
Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago
Comment by perpetuallunch 1 day ago
Therefore women will, on average, select mates who are taller than them.
Cultural relativism has fallen out of fashion, universal truths are back in.
Comment by rhrhfjfjjr44 1 day ago
Why do you think that is? Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins, while today's young men seem to consider themselves lucky if their girl is still in single figures. Things have changed, people are talking about it.
Comment by hackyhacky 1 day ago
Is that what your great-grandma told you?
Cultural prohibitions on discussing sexual matters didn't actual limit in pursuing sexual matters.
Comment by BigTTYGothGF 1 day ago
They also walked ten miles uphill (both ways) to school every day.
Comment by rhrhfjfjjr44 1 day ago
Comment by hackyhacky 1 day ago
I'm not saying you are one, but using this kind of language really makes you sound like a full on incel misogynist, who has sublimated his sexual frustration into antiquated paternalistic views of women's sexuality. But I'm sure that's not accurate.
Comment by rhrhfjfjjr44 5 hours ago
I could do the same for "antiquated paternalistic views of women's sexuality". Is that your way of shaming men for preferring virgins? You're fighting a losing battle there. It's innate. You can't change it. Morally weak and sexually desperate men will pretend it doesn't affect their perception of a woman but it does. It's in our DNA. The males who genuinely didn't care were killed off by natural selection.
Comment by hackyhacky 4 hours ago
You didn't make an "argument." All I heard from you is whining about how you're upset that women have sex that doesn't involve you. You're allowed to be upset about that, but it's a silly thing to be upset about.
> Is that your way of shaming men for preferring virgins?
Yes, it is. Also for generally being misogynistic by holding women to a different standard that you hold yourself.
> It's in our DNA.
Lots of things in our DNA are not part of civilized society.
> The males who genuinely didn't care were killed off by natural selection.
Cool. I'll just go and have lots of children with a series of non-virgins, while you can cry yourself to sleep alone in an onanistic frenzy.
Comment by rhrhfjfjjr44 3 hours ago
God bless you. Taking one for the team. Maybe you'll get lucky and some of them will even be biologically yours (not that you would care).
Comment by cindyllm 4 hours ago
Comment by BigTTYGothGF 16 hours ago
I'll say it.
Comment by quickthrowman 1 day ago
Lol yeah, and fetishes were invented in the 1950s. Very few people in history made it to marriage as virgins.
Comment by rhrhfjfjjr44 1 day ago
Comment by hackyhacky 1 day ago
Are you having trouble in the dating market? Perhaps you're frustrated by frequently meeting women who are experienced enough to recognize your inadequacy.
The solution is to improve yourself, not to shame women.
Comment by rhrhfjfjjr44 5 hours ago
I'm tall, rich, fit and White. I've had my fair share of women in the sack. There's no shortage of promiscuous young women, but there are so few wives nowadays that it all feels rather pointless.
Yes, dating is fucked. Yes, I'm very frustrated by how "experienced" women are.
Comment by hackyhacky 4 hours ago
Do you know the definition of "wife"? It's a married woman. There are plenty of women who are willing to be married, but one of two things is preventing that: (a) you are disqualifying them for silly and capricious reasons, or (b) they are disqualifying you because you're a misogynist who thinks you're entitled to dictate what women do with their bodies before they've even met you.
> Yes, everyone is.
Plainly false.
> I've had my fair share of women in the sack.
The more I listen to you, the more clear it is to me why you can't find a partner.
Comment by codedokode 1 day ago
Also, in Muslim countries and regions it is typically expected for a woman to have zero previous partners to get married, or at least having relationship only within a marriage.
Comment by hackyhacky 1 day ago
I prefer the term "misogyny-shaming."
> Also, in Muslim countries
Really, Muslim countries? Muslim countries that are world-famous for denying women even basic legal rights? Muslim countries that treat women strictly as men's property? You're telling me that those same countries have strong cultural norms about controlling women's sexuality? I am truly shocked.
Comment by swolios 1 day ago
Comment by lo_zamoyski 1 day ago
You also can't ignore assortive mating. We're not all in the same mating pool, as it were. Women prefer men taller than they are, but that doesn't mean that a woman of 1.25m will pair with a man of 2m. The typical height difference between husband and wife is about 10-15cm, regardless of the absolute height of either spouse.
Comment by Archer6621 1 day ago
I will go as far as to say that assortative mating is likely a side-effect of people ending up in the same or similar socioeconomic circles, but that is just me reaching. In reality I would guess that it's a bit of that, and being used to people from a certain "class".
Comment by panny 1 day ago
Height coorelates with lots of things. Taller means longer feet. Taller people have larger heads as well. A large head means larger cranial capacity and therefore, likely higher IQ. Mostly, it's just our monkey brain which says taller is more formidible.
Comment by BigTTYGothGF 1 day ago
Unfortunately the effort is likely lost on the people who most need to understand it. It's very hard to reason someone out of a position they didn't get into via reason.
Comment by giancarlostoro 1 day ago
Fun fact: Three 6 Mafia used to be Triple 6 Mafia, they changed their name to be "radio friendly" (Three Six Mafia rolls off easier than Triple Six Mafia) after signing a record deal.
Comment by isoprophlex 1 day ago
Comment by antisthenes 1 day ago
Comment by isoprophlex 1 day ago
Comment by ClikeX 1 day ago
1: https://nowpatient.com/health-news/the-member-measure 2: https://longreads.cbs.nl/nederland-in-cijfers-2021/hoe-lang-...
Comment by ChoGGi 1 day ago
Comment by numbers_guy 1 day ago
Comment by vintermann 22 hours ago
Obviously they all succeeded, but I wonder if they worked extra hard for it. One relative was a gymnastics champion, a rally driver and diver, all areas where it's an advantage to be short. (I'd bet he'd been a jockey too if he had the time).
Comment by janderson215 1 day ago
Comment by akimbostrawman 22 hours ago
Comment by anal_reactor 1 day ago
Comment by drcongo 1 day ago
Comment by 1123581321 1 day ago
Comment by BigTTYGothGF 1 day ago
Comment by donohoe 1 day ago
Comment by Lio 1 day ago
This is a dating rule by women for women, not guys.
Comment by JKCalhoun 1 day ago
Comment by Lio 1 day ago
Are you the type of person that believes only men can say foolish things?
Comment by rsynnott 1 day ago
Comment by Lio 1 day ago
That doesn't mean that teenage boys are either the origin or the ones perpetuating it. They're just an easy target to throw crap at.
Comment by rsynnott 1 day ago
Comment by vintermann 22 hours ago
You'd be surprised at how much "incel" terminology about how women are, started out as advice in self help literature by and for women, or in magazines like Cosmo. There used to be a whole subreddit for Cosmo's terrible relationship advice.
Comment by brazzy 1 day ago
Comment by m4ck_ 1 day ago
Comment by gadders 1 day ago
Comment by joshdavham 1 day ago
(And yes, I realize we're all being a little shallow and tongue-and-cheek here)
Comment by Lio 1 day ago
If it's just dating or a one night stand I think men can sometimes have potentially no standards at all.
If it's about marriage then there's things like hip to waist ratio, facial symmetry but I think in general men are much less picky.
Comment by brazukadev 1 day ago
Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago
e.g. 32-26-32, etc.
Comment by camgunz 15 hours ago
Comment by seriousmice 1 day ago
Comment by panny 1 day ago
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-h...
Maybe that's what the rule tells you. Ladies love the north Europeans.
Comment by thrownawaysz 1 day ago
Comment by bonoboTP 1 day ago
Comment by anygivnthursday 1 day ago
Northern Europe is a region and while there can be various definitions the most common ones do not include Benelux countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe
Comment by bonoboTP 1 day ago
Comment by x3qt 1 day ago
Comment by numbers_guy 1 day ago
Comment by rob74 1 day ago
Comment by consp 1 day ago
Comment by epolanski 1 day ago
You're gonna need to be even bigger in the netherlands, both in height and salary to impress a dutch woman if you're dutch already.
In south east asia you may get away with less height and money.
Comment by Sharlin 1 day ago
Comment by pavlov 1 day ago
The 6/6/6 dimensions seem to capture very little about what's actually important for the success of a long-term relationship. I guess that's fine, it's presumably a game for 20-year-olds.
Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago
Comment by epolanski 1 day ago
And if you're planning to move to the US, then its still irrelevant, because what matters is how much you make in US compared to the cost of living of the US.
Nobody would trade making 40k net in Italy for making 80k net in US, you're actually poorer (and not just financially).
All measures are relative. Absolute wages have stopped being impressive as the world got richer in the last decades and standards of living improved.
Comment by kilroy123 1 day ago
Comment by bradlys 1 day ago
Comment by brazukadev 1 day ago
Comment by api 1 day ago
It’s also funny cause it’s mocking this BS in such a good natured wonderfully overdone way. Guy in my college house who got laid the most was on the shorter side, poor, and kind of acted effeminate at times to the point that people mistook him for gay. Never saw his wing wong so maybe it was like ten inches but I doubt it. He was also kind and not a jerk and did not act like an “alpha male.”
What was he? Fun, hilarious, and confident.
I got zero until I decided to stop pretending not to be a weird nerd and just chat about stuff I was into, which at the time was evolutionary information theory and hacking. Guess what? Leading with who you are is confident.
It’s attractive in women too, at least for me.
The incel stuff is just men catching up with women when it comes to dumb anxieties about looking right according to arbitrary external standards.
Comment by noir_lord 1 day ago
That was always my attitude, why hide who you are in the first place, I'm a computer geek who likes playing Chess,Cycling and heavy metal music - I put that on my dating profile and it didn't hurt me in the slightest.
Comment by RajT88 1 day ago
Comment by sublinear 1 day ago
I would argue that "success" at that age is more a matter of being interesting and entertaining in a nonthreatening way.
It comes across as insincere to the majority of women who are also getting ignored by the majority of men at that age. That's what you get when you optimize for cheap and easy attraction instead of long term relationship appeal. A lot of younger people don't know the difference.
Comment by rhrhfjfjjr44 1 day ago
Comment by nixon_why69 1 day ago
Comment by alberto467 1 day ago
It would’ve of course helped.
The fact that height and stereotypical beauty standards are not the only things that matter does not change that on average they have a significant positive impact.
Comment by nixon_why69 1 day ago
Give women some credit. Confidence and fun are way better heuristics than a strong jawline on a neurotic wreck. They are smarter than men socially, on average, so any theory should account for that.
Comment by rhrhfjfjjr44 1 day ago
Comment by nixon_why69 1 day ago
OPs friend got laid a lot despite "traditional" defects because of wholesome, fun confidence.
Comment by rhrhfjfjjr44 1 day ago
Put "I'm fun and confident" in your dating profile and I'll put "6'4"" and we'll see how that pans out. You won't be having much fun and your confidence will be shot.
Comment by nixon_why69 1 day ago
A friend of mine, well below 6 feet, once had a dating profile where he went into a weird tangent about loving mac and cheese. A weird, sexual and hilarious tangent, where he started arguing with you, the reader, about why are we still talking about this? I said I never had sex with a bowl of mac and cheese! It was classic and he got a ton of dates from it.
Admittedly online dating sucks and my friend there could have been a comedy writer in another life. It's hard to stand out. But in person? It doesn't matter how many dates your profile did or didn't get, you must be fun and comfortable in your own skin, why spend time with someone who isn't both of those things?
Comment by rhrhfjfjjr44 1 day ago
Your goofy friend might get lots of updoots on reddit but if he's short and broke it would be <1% of women who don't immediately reject him. They will never even see his mac and cheese bio. Online dating would be a waste of time for him at best; at worst, kiss goodbye to this delusional confidence once the crushing reality manifests.
Comment by nixon_why69 1 day ago
There's a point past this where racking up a number is hollow and meaningless but that's beside the point right now. The thing I'm trying to tell you is that you can have a better and more positive personality even if you can't grow 6 inches. And that better personality is not some incel shit or "negging" or whatever.
If none of this makes sense to you, look up Stavros Halkias on youtube and compare his looks to his general confidence and attitude.
Comment by rhrhfjfjjr44 1 day ago
Do you think Stav would be less popular with women if he was a 10/10 physically? Of course not. In fact, he wouldn't even need to be funny. He wouldn't need to be rich. He wouldn't need to be famous.
Maybe we're arguing different things here, I don't know what's going on. I mean many women will literally set a filter so that their apps don't even show them men under six-foot-whatever. These men are invisible. Yes, as the author proves, short kings can still get it. No shit. It's not a binary: 666 or permanent incel. I know you know this so I'm genuinely confused what you're trying to argue.
Comment by pavlov 1 day ago
It's weird to watch all those fans of patriarchy step right into their own trap. Didn't they get the memo that this stuff was set up to control women? Or is it just a reflection of how these self-proclaimed "alphas" secretly see their own proper place as subjugated by men higher up in the hierarchy?
Comment by api 1 day ago
It’s also a big con. Andrew Tate might be an abuser of women but his big marks are men. Look at how much money he makes selling that BS to insecure guys. That was his whole schtick as he rose to fame.
I suspect the manosphere stuff is designed to make men repellent to women to keep them hooked on it. If you find a girlfriend you might not pay $25K to attend an alpha male boot camp to have an idiot yell at you.
Comment by nixon_why69 1 day ago
Comment by economistbob 1 day ago
Comment by cindyllm 1 day ago
Comment by PUA_throwaway69 1 day ago
Comment by phplovesong 21 hours ago
Comment by hmontazeri 1 day ago
Comment by tclancy 1 day ago
Comment by SirFatty 1 day ago
Comment by exhumet 1 day ago
Comment by joshdavham 1 day ago
Comment by bawana 1 day ago
Comment by joshdavham 1 day ago
Comment by lackoftactics 1 day ago
Fun fact, I learned yesterday that Bumble will delete swipes in their upcoming app reset and go ai assistant way. Not that that I am fan of dating apps, it's one of the worse inventions ever, but seems pretty interesting seeing their stock price plummeted 93% since IPO
Comment by askl 1 day ago
Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago