Only a small percentage of men (those in the top 10% in terms of power, wealth, status, beauty, success, talent or capability) are seen as attractive by all women. But this begs the question, what percentage of women are seen as attractive by all men and for what reason(s)?
From looking at all the statistics, it shows that men see more women as attractive than the other way round. This is amplified with online dating where you can see women getting tonnes of messages and men generally get nothing unless they are influential in some way, such as looks, money, status and power. Thus, there is only a small percentage of men out there that are constantly courted and sought by women.
Women want the best man that they can get and this typically parallels a man with money and power.
Can you have a man with money and no power? Yes, whether through family or being self made. There are many men out there that have a lot of money but seem to wield no power. But, if you really ponder, can a man really have money and no power with how society is structured? As the saying goes, money is power, so if you have money then shouldn’t you also wield power at some level?
Can you have a man with power yet no money? Yes, but this one is rare to have power but no money. In essence, once you have power (aka power over people or things) then money comes into play. For example, having power over a large group of people will in turn have then turn over their money to you. Jim Jones is an example and the many other ‘cult’ leaders.
Money and power often inter-mixing in the cauldron of status and are seldom separate.
Take a look at this:
Most of the stats look like John Naismith’s illustration from OK Cupid. In another study where they compared attraction to economies, women attraction to men looked like South Africa where there is almost no middle class. It is a few super rich and the rest are below the poverty line, where male attraction is like a lower first world country where there is a few rich, the most is middle class and a lot that are poor (but less than middle class).
A dating website did a survey of its users where they showed pictures of men to women & the women to men, and had them rate the others on a 1–7 scale, with 1 being least attractive, 4 being average, and 7 being most attractive.
The results were that women rated 7% of men as a 5, 6, or 7, while men rated 40% of woman the same.
Ever heard the saying “Sperm is cheap for men and eggs are expensive for women.” Well, this rings true in animals, even human beings because we are indeed animals.
A woman reproducing invests 9 months in gestation and then a long period of childcare. Men invest 30 seconds (2 minutes if the woman is lucky) in reproduction. So, men can spend their time and reproductive chances liberally, while a woman’s investment is quite large and can be deadly. Thus, women have to use their reproductive dollars more frugally and have to do more quality checking and comparison shopping – so to speak.
In essence, men are generally wired to find many women appealing while women are designed to look men over carefully before finding one satisfactory.
We can even call this the 80-20 rule aka the pareto curve:
The 80–20 rule describes a pareto distribution that states that ‘on average’ 80% of women will only find the top 20% of men to be attractive enough for them. But there is a wide variation when you try to apply that group statistic to individuals.
Since individual tastes do matter and human beings are complex and innate creatures. Besides, a woman in the bottom 20% will in all likelihood find a man in the top 50% attractive enough to partner with if all things are considered such as looks, stability, earning potential etc. It’s a pareto curve, not a linear demarcation because we have to distinguish between fact and anecdotal evidence as well as science and non-science. This can be considered an oversimplification. The Pareto principle aka Pareto principle or “80-20 rule” states that 80% of outcomes are due to 20% of causes, in our case, 80% of women want the top 20% of men and thus, the other 80% of men have to find other means to compete. This can be considered an oversimplification but it does have a lot of validity.
I will say this, the pareto distribution of 80-20 refers only to ‘sexual’ attraction. Once women ‘hit the wall’ as referred to by the manosphere, parenting becomes a bigger priority in most women’s lives and a great many women will find themselves willing to settle for a man they find less sexually attractive (sexually) and more attraction in a relationship sense where the man has the ability to take care of a family.
For women, sexual attraction and emotional attraction are very often completely different things.
The only people who lose out completely in this age of unconstrained female hypergamy (and feminism) are the bottom 20% of men. They have fewer options now than they had before. But there is always a light at the end of the tunnel.
Any man in the bottom 20% in America has a whole big wide world to choose from when it comes to women since just being a man from a first world country will allow opportunities elsewhere in the world that would not be given in their own states.
Thus, on a global basis simply having a US passport puts these men in the top 50% of wanted individuals and in some cases even greater than that.
Over-all, men find more women attractive than women finding men attractive. Looking back at John Naismith’s research, it is clear and concise.
It’s obvious that for sex, you can’t cut bread with a spoon so what is desired has to be attractive and useful for the purpose.
Plus, you have to take into account the effect of time.
When 100% of women go after the top 20% of men, you have to figure that there will be about 80% of the women who will need to “settle” for less. Sure, the top 20% of men will date around, sleep with those that are not at the bottom 20% of women for at least one night, etc. But getting commitment from any top 20% man will be difficult since they have options.
So as the women age, without getting a top 20% man to commit to them, and as their fertility window closes (~age 35), they will “settle” for a non-top 20% man.
However, to their dismay, they will find that these men will have achieved increased net worth and will attract younger, prettier women compared to them.
Hence, they question, “Where have all the good men gone?”