No, the problem with dating apps for women is that there are tons of “regular” guys looking for a relationship, but because of the gender ratios there are also quite a few “top 5%” guys relative to the number of women. Guys that are very attractive and have great charisma, the kind you’d see on the bachelorette or similar shows.
What ends up happening is that most women will match with these guys (the same way men will swipe right on every supermodel looking woman just in case). So you have relatively few guys dating pretty much all the women they can, because our society says that sleeping with a lot of women if you can is a great way to show you have value. And for these men there are plenty of fish in the sea and no reason to settle down so they get labeled “fuckboys”. Fundamentally these men would normally be completely inaccessible to most women, but the gender ratios on dating apps create this situation where average men don’t get any matches and average women are only dating fuckboys who don’t want a relationship. Then they leave the app and quit dating for a bit out of frustration.
In a normal setting average men and women pair up over shared interests and goals, and fuckboys date supermodels (over their shared focus on aesthetic beauty and charisma I suppose).
Obviously this is an overgeneralisation. But it’s not exactly a gendered issue since if you flip the genders you’d other still get the same dynamic. The problem on these apps is the gender ratios. You can’t have health matchmaking when there are 10 men for every woman (or vice versa).
This wreaks of incel talking points. You’re literally doing chads and stacys here. I think the real problem may be more things like this:
Women tend to have realistic expectations and seek out partners their own age on dating sites. Men of all ages try to get with 22 year olds. 40 year old men who are bald, 50 lbs overweight, and with no real hobbies will message women in their 20s expecting a response. And they themselves will have a long list of weed-out criteria. No woman nearly as obese as he is. No women with children. No women over 30.
The data shows that women are much more reasonable in their partner expectations than men. This is likely what is largely responsible for the difference in gender ratios on the platforms.
Women on dating apps rate 80% of men below average and men rate 50% of women below average. You can say women are more reasonable but it sure doesn’t look like it.
What I said has nothing to do with chads and Stacey’s. It’s an outcome of an almost 4:1 gender ratios on dating apps. The outcomes are the same in anything that’s badly matched. 4:1 jobs to employees means employees will jump ship at the slightest hiccup seeking greener pastures with very little getting done. The opposite ratio is of course worse with employees being abused in every way like in every recession.
Any time the ideal ratio is 1:1 and you throw it off that hard you’re going to have dysfunctional human behaviour because we’re not designed to have so many options. We evolved in deep scarcity and a key aspect of our survival was optimizing our choices. When we have no choices, or too many choices we are dysfunctional. Fuck even too many brands of shampoo is stressful to choose from.
I’m not judging anyone or stereotyping anyone here. The same would happen with reversed genders. It’s just dysfunctional human behaviour because of shitty algorithms.
No, the problem with dating apps for women is that there are tons of “regular” guys looking for a relationship, but because of the gender ratios there are also quite a few “top 5%” guys relative to the number of women. Guys that are very attractive and have great charisma, the kind you’d see on the bachelorette or similar shows.
What ends up happening is that most women will match with these guys (the same way men will swipe right on every supermodel looking woman just in case). So you have relatively few guys dating pretty much all the women they can, because our society says that sleeping with a lot of women if you can is a great way to show you have value. And for these men there are plenty of fish in the sea and no reason to settle down so they get labeled “fuckboys”. Fundamentally these men would normally be completely inaccessible to most women, but the gender ratios on dating apps create this situation where average men don’t get any matches and average women are only dating fuckboys who don’t want a relationship. Then they leave the app and quit dating for a bit out of frustration.
In a normal setting average men and women pair up over shared interests and goals, and fuckboys date supermodels (over their shared focus on aesthetic beauty and charisma I suppose).
Obviously this is an overgeneralisation. But it’s not exactly a gendered issue since if you flip the genders you’d other still get the same dynamic. The problem on these apps is the gender ratios. You can’t have health matchmaking when there are 10 men for every woman (or vice versa).
This wreaks of incel talking points. You’re literally doing chads and stacys here. I think the real problem may be more things like this:
Women tend to have realistic expectations and seek out partners their own age on dating sites. Men of all ages try to get with 22 year olds. 40 year old men who are bald, 50 lbs overweight, and with no real hobbies will message women in their 20s expecting a response. And they themselves will have a long list of weed-out criteria. No woman nearly as obese as he is. No women with children. No women over 30.
The data shows that women are much more reasonable in their partner expectations than men. This is likely what is largely responsible for the difference in gender ratios on the platforms.
Women on dating apps rate 80% of men below average and men rate 50% of women below average. You can say women are more reasonable but it sure doesn’t look like it.
What I said has nothing to do with chads and Stacey’s. It’s an outcome of an almost 4:1 gender ratios on dating apps. The outcomes are the same in anything that’s badly matched. 4:1 jobs to employees means employees will jump ship at the slightest hiccup seeking greener pastures with very little getting done. The opposite ratio is of course worse with employees being abused in every way like in every recession.
Any time the ideal ratio is 1:1 and you throw it off that hard you’re going to have dysfunctional human behaviour because we’re not designed to have so many options. We evolved in deep scarcity and a key aspect of our survival was optimizing our choices. When we have no choices, or too many choices we are dysfunctional. Fuck even too many brands of shampoo is stressful to choose from.
I’m not judging anyone or stereotyping anyone here. The same would happen with reversed genders. It’s just dysfunctional human behaviour because of shitty algorithms.