80% of women are fvcking the top 20% of men is ridiculous.

[djjizzyjeff]

I don't know where dudes pull "Stats" out of their azz from but to think the top 20% of men are or have fvcked 80% of the women on the planet is laughably pathetic delusional cuckoobird nonsense.

As if these mythical top 20% who're banging 80% of women have nothing else better to do or going on in their lives, families,friends, jobs, hobbies, movies, promotions, shoots, concerts, plane flights and countless other things going on that they somehow live for fvcking 80% of the women their entire lives. And as if 80% of the women somehow have nothing better to do in their lives than seek out and meet up with these top 20% of men to fvck. (It just somehow all works out in the delusional mind.)

It's hilarious the claims as the same dudes who are so sure of it know none of these top 20% nor the 80% of women yet it sounds good to soothe their own failures.

I know and have known many dudes who are damn good looking, cut up, make lots of money etc. And they simply don't have time nor do all these chicks to have these invisible orgies that other dudes claim. (They aren't stuck in their minds they are living life. Which includes MANY MANY other things than "banging 80% of the women on the planet.")

Do better. That "stat" is laughably delusional at best.

 

[Fruitbat]

The stats are wrong, but I would say from experience this is more true the younger people are. In school this is exactly what happened.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Well, that 80/20 is well known and it's referred to as Pareto's Principle, and it's shown to be fairly valid in a large number of cases.

But yea, 20% of all dudes, nailing 80% of all women is laughable.

HOWEVER, if you look at the DNA makeup, it's actually pretty close to true.

Meaning most people alive today are descended from only 30-40% of men, and close to 80% of women of previous generations.

But since religion was invented, the one man / one woman rule was pretty much in effect until the last 50 years or so.

In a pre-agricultural environment. it was more like 80/20, AND I'd be willing to bet that among certain age groups of folks that aren't married or in a relationship, who WOULD be sexually active if they could, then you'd find that 20% of dudes were indeed banging 80% of the ladies.

 

[Wolfgang D]

Well, that 80/20 is well known and it's referred to as Pareto's Principle, and it's shown to be fairly valid in a large number of cases.

Pareto's Law should not be abused. It works when it works, but it can't just be put everywhere without proof.

For example, Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian economist, showed that in every country twenty percent of people tend to have eighty percent of the income. And among them, twenty percent will have eighty percent of that income. And among this smaller group, twenty percent will have eighty percent of the income. Meaning, when you calculate (0.2x0.2x0.2, and 0.8x0.8x0.8), that about one percent of the population will have about fifty percent of the income. (Which will make some throw a hissyfit, but there is no fixed amount of wealth in a country; wealth is constantly created goods and services. Those who make more money than you didn't take it from you, their work created that value. Bill Gates didn't take your money, if he hadn't existed the wealth he owns wouldn't have existed either.)

Pareto's Law tends to be seen in many contexts:

-In an organization, political party, etc, 20 percent of volunteers tend to do 80 percent of the volunteer work. 20 percent of donors tend to donate about 80 percent of the money.

-20 percent of merchandise in a store tends to pull in 80 percent of the revenue.

-I would wager personally that in a forum, 20 percent of regular posters will do 80 percent of the writing. Although it doesn't need to be exactly 20-80, it would be 21-74, 11-93, etc. Simply put, a minority will do the majority of posts.

However, this can't just be thrown around however people feel like. No one can state that 20 percent of guys sleep with 80 percent of women, until old age leads to the women marrying one of the lesser guys. Not without facts. I can wager, though, that a minority of men will have had a higher number of sex partners. But that doesn't mean the vast majority of men remain virgins and go without girlfriends until marriage time in their thirties.

Meaning most people alive today are descended from only 30-40% of men, and close to 80% of women of previous generations.

Let's be clear. That was in the Stone Age. "Previous generations" sounds like it was far more recent.

But since religion was invented, the one man / one woman rule was pretty much in effect until the last 50 years or so.

Stone Age people no doubt had religion too. They probably believed that there were spirits everywhere, making the trees grow and making the rain fall, just like people believed well into the Middle Ages, and beyond. Heck, many people still believed in trolls just a hundred years ago.

So it wasn't until religion was invented. The text you are thinking of, at the-spearhead.com I believe, doesn't state it that way. It says that monogamy developed in the Stone Age and was necessary for more children to be taken care of and surviving to adulthood, than had been the case in the earlier Stone Age era when harems stood for most of the children. (A few men would take most of the women for themselves. This can be seen in DNA research.)

Because of the importance of monogamy, it was incorporated in religions. Some religions - those in the West (even before Christianity, Pagan religions such as Greek, Celtic, Nordic, Finnish and Slavic Mythology had monogamous marriages). Not in East Asian religions for example, where rulers could have many wives and concubines. Most of the people there were monogamous, but not because of their religions, which said nothing about monogamy and polygamy. (Religion there was not so much about moral rules, as it was an explanation of which god did what and who you needed to give sacrifice to on different occasions. As a side note, even Buddhist priests in China often had slaves working the fields for them. )

 

[zekko]

The guys I know who get the most @ss are simply the biggest horndogs. They're not the smartest guys, not the richest, not the tallest, not the best looking, not the guys with the most status, or even with the best game probably. In fact, I'd say they aren't very bright.

But they are RELENTLESSLY FOCUSED on getting pvssy. That's mainly what they think about, and what drives them. That's why I don't find PUAs very impressive.

 

[djjizzyjeff]

I'd love to meet these mystery men whom are in the top 20% that dudes know personally who've literally fvcked 80% of the women they've come in contact with in their lives.

It's like taking the best looking famous dude and putting him in a club and saying he's going to fvck at least 80% of the chicks there. Now most may want him to. But it would never happen.

Also these same dudes would be spending tons of their cash on condoms, std tests etc. Yet you don't see any of these mythical 20% ever in the news for just being all about having sex all their lives.

Hell even George Clooney, Brad Pitt, whomever would simply NOT have enough time or be stupid enough to literally fvck 80% of the women they've ever met.

Please. These retarded theories are for delusional incels and the butthurt that only help them sleep at night. Period.

Try telling some dude you think is a God that he fvcks 80% of the women he's ever met in his life. He'd look at you like an insane asylum escapee.

Let's stop the nonsense.

 

[Luke!!]

That may be quantifiable in economic situations. In this situation it is utterly ridiculous to calculate.

Attraction factor is large. If we took a sample size of 1000 girls, had 200 guys judge these 1000 girls. They would chose if they would sleep with them or not. Basically each guy would have to select 800 girls he would sleep with out of the 1000. Obviously it isnt as simple as that, I have no idea what the STD deviation on that would be.

This would also work in reverse for woman to would it not? Why is this only applied to males?

 

[plate's_empty]

Hell even George Clooney, Brad Pitt, whomever would simply NOT have enough time or be stupid enough to literally fvck 80% of the women they've ever met.

You are reading into this theory all wrong. They are not having sex with 80% of the women they meet...LOL.

wow dude

It's the same 20% of guys having sex with 80% of the women.

In layman's terms. There's a few dudes banging a new girl every night. And the rest of the dudes are bangin a new girl once a year.

Meaning these few player types(20% of the male population) are bangin most of the women...well 80% of them anyway.

Copy?

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Let's be clear. That was in the Stone Age. "Previous generations" sounds like it was far more recent.


Stone Age people no doubt had religion too. They probably believed that there were spirits everywhere, making the trees grow and making the rain fall, just like people believed well into the Middle Ages, and beyond. Heck, many people still believed in trolls just a hundred years ago.

So it wasn't until religion was invented. The text you are thinking of, at the-spearhead.com I believe, doesn't state it that way.

When I mentioned religion, I was more referring to organized religion which sprung up after the neolithic, like state sponsored religions, pharoahs, popes, etc.

One theory is that the one man / one woman rule came into play more so in larger societies (compared to hunter gatherers) because women sleeping around would cause quite a bit of social problems. Though shalt not covet they neighbor's wife, etc (present in at least Egyptian and Judeo-Christian "law")

My general thinking was that before the agricultural revolution, it was closer to 80/20 and after, due to the one man one rule, the ratio has slackened a bit, giving that stats closer to 50/80 or whatever it is, since DNA evidence is going to be cumulative.

However the numbers boil down, I do believe applying Pareto's Law is applicable in a homogeneous (demographics, etc) group of folks trying to get some.

It might be interesting if there were data available for the various dating sites, as far as the percentage of women who get the most attention from guys.

 

[djjizzyjeff]

You are reading into this theory all wrong. They are not having sex with 80% of the women they meet...LOL.

wow dude

It's the same 20% of guys having sex with 80% of the women.

In layman's terms. There's a few dudes banging a new girl every night. And the rest of the dudes are bangin a new girl once a year.

Meaning these few player types(20% of the male population) are bangin most of the women...well 80% of them anyway.

Copy?

Uh no. There aren't some mythical player dudes in the top 20% banging a new girl every night. Not even close. These dudes no one has ever posted proof of that bang 365 different women a year for God knows how long. It's not possible.

They'd have zero life but women. No family, no friends, no hobbies, no job, just women. It sounds great but not based on reality in the slightest.

You'll never find a provable example.

You'd have an individual who never does anything else but. From clownish PUA's selling BS, to actors, to athletes, to rock and rap stars etc. No one is banging a new chick every week.

You'd hear it all over the news or would hear about law suits etc. from "used" women looking to cash in.

Even Tiger Woods simply cannot bang that many women even IF they and he wanted to. He's got much more to do besides that. And he got caught after like 15. Not even 52 which would be one a week.

To think some random dude "Top 20%" unknown, never to be seen, model looking guy is banging more chicks than an average looking Tiger Woods a Billionaire or porn stars is laughable.

People actually have lives besides chicks. Top 20% looking or not. I'm not buying the nonsense.

 

[3agle 3yes]

The Pareto Principle can't be used on anything.

The truth is 80% of women aren't even worth a man's time (a PROPER man BTW).

So, rather it's...20% of women are unavailable to 80% of the men.

 

[yyc12]

Uh no. There aren't some mythical player dudes in the top 20% banging a new girl every night. Not even close. These dudes no one has ever posted proof of that bang 365 different women a year for God knows how long. It's not possible.

^^gosh dude it's just an exaggeration! :kick: yes there can't possibly be 20% of dudes banging 80% of women BUT...there are some dudes who are banging more chicks than most other dudes are. You can't tell me you don't see this or haven't at some point in life seen this.

 

[djjizzyjeff]

^^gosh dude it's just an exaggeration! :kick: yes there can't possibly be 20% of dudes banging 80% of women BUT...there are some dudes who are banging more chicks than most other dudes are. You can't tell me you don't see this or haven't at some point in life seen this.

Some is more realistic rather than the complete nonsense spewed in the seduction community like it's gospel.

And just because they're even banging more chicks than most doesn't at all mean they're the richest, best looking, or have the most status like dudes love to claim.

I've known several not as good looking or even have as much money, status as much better looking dudes who've gotten more chicks than them.

The exaggeration of things related to "seduction" in this community is laughable to any dude who isn't an over-analyzing whack job who actually personally knows many hot chicks and good looking dudes.

Word travels and somebody would have to know these top elite males and women who bang them...Yet everyone has no personal examples and can prove the person is a known pvssy slayer who is in the top percentile of dudes.

Just because most live in their heads in regards to seduction with ridiculous theories doesn't mean dudes who are top 20% etc. Have nothing else EVER going on in their lives but banging more chicks than most other dudes.

But if it helps you dudes sleep at night. Carry on.

 

[plate's_empty]

Some is more realistic rather than the complete nonsense spewed in the seduction community like it's gospel.

And just because they're even banging more chicks than most doesn't at all mean they're the richest, best looking, or have the most status like dudes love to claim.

I've known several not as good looking or even have as much money, status as much better looking dudes who've gotten more chicks than them.

The exaggeration of things related to "seduction" in this community is laughable to any dude who isn't an over-analyzing whack job who actually personally knows many hot chicks and good looking dudes.

Word travels and somebody would have to know these top elite males and women who bang them...Yet everyone has no personal examples and can prove the person is a known pvssy slayer who is in the top percentile of dudes.

Just because most live in their heads in regards to seduction with ridiculous theories doesn't mean dudes who are top 20% etc. Have nothing else EVER going on in their lives but banging more chicks than most other dudes.

But if it helps you dudes sleep at night. Carry on.

This is really simple. It's the same thing with sales, 20% are making 80% of the sales.

But in this case it's actually more like the top 10%

What is the average amount of sexual partners for the average man in a life time?
7 to 9

Think about it.

So if a guy had a new sexual partner once a month for 5 years that he was single he would be at 60 women. And be in that top 20%. Once a month. I have a friend who has, on average, 3 new ones a week. Yes, this is true.

Do you think all of this $hit is joke on here? Like we're all in fantasy land? I'm sure some are....like you talking out of your a$$. But some of us aren't.

Anyway, that's it.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

So if a guy had a new sexual partner once a month for 5 years that he was single he would be at 60 women. And be in that top 20%. Once a month. I have a friend who has, on average, 3 new ones a week. Yes, this is true.

Anyway, that's it.

When you mix all girls and guys in society together, you aren't really getting a "random" sample. Guys guys are ultra conservative etc.

One way to wrap your mind around this idea is to think of the "college experience." Consider guys and girls who attend a large university for four years. Most guys don't get that much.

For those of you who've spent some time in college, you can likely recall that you and your buddies were always out on the prowl, but didn't always get laid.

Then there were those guys that were able to consistently pull new girls week after week through their college days.

Even if they only pulled, on average, one girl a month, that would still be nearly 50 girls over a four year college career.

Compared to the vast majority of other guys, who maybe got one or two girls.

 

[djjizzyjeff]

This is really simple. It's the same thing with sales, 20% are making 80% of the sales.

But in this case it's actually more like the top 10%

What is the average amount of sexual partners for the average man in a life time?
7 to 9

Think about it.

So if a guy had a new sexual partner once a month for 5 years that he was single he would be at 60 women. And be in that top 20%. Once a month. I have a friend who has, on average, 3 new ones a week. Yes, this is true.

Do you think all of this $hit is joke on here? Like we're all in fantasy land? I'm sure some are....like you talking out of your a$$. But some of us aren't.

Anyway, that's it.

So you're saying that this 20% means they have to be the best looking, high status, with the most money? And that means they get all the chicks? lol

There can't possibly be other dudes getting more chicks than those types...nah..

So I'm sure you personally know these dudes who got tons of azz consistently in life. And all of it was high quality? lol. Dude I know dudes who've gotten high quality and tons of uggs. And dudes would be jealous or count a dude who's gotten a bunch of uggs as a top 20%er? lol

Yeah I talk out of my azz...right...While some mentally masturbate on here I'm meeting new chicks everytime I work.

The point is not every dude has to be loaded, the best looking, or have super high value to get a lot of chicks. Doesn't mean they shouldn't strive to be the best they can be. But to think it's all about looks, money status is false.

I know several dudes who have gotten tons of azz. With a lot of uggs mixed in with some hot chicks. And some dudes who're extremely good looking who get their fair share but aren't going berserk to nail every chick nor have every hot chick running after them. Some over 6ft, swimmers build, jacked, have money etc. And they've never bothered with seduction sites. They go out and do all kinds of things not just focus on chicks. To think just because some dude has money, or is better looking than you or has some super high status automatically = tons of chicks he's fvcking. Simply isn't always true in a lot of cases.

 

[Bokanovsky]

It's the same 20% of guys having sex with 80% of the women.

But this is not even logical. Why would men who can get women so easily be so non-discriminating when it comes to picking their mates? Let's face it: even if you cast off the bottom of the barrel 20% of the female population, you are still left with a whole bunch of plain janes, fatties, ugs, etc. who make up the majority of the remaining 80%. So why would top tier guys have sex with these average and below average women when they could be banging hotties?

 

[Bokanovsky]

Meaning most people alive today are descended from only 30-40% of men, and close to 80% of women of previous generations.

That was largely a result of high male mortality due to constant warfare, back breaking labour, etc.

 

[VladPatton]

If 80% of women are banging the top 20% of males, then the other 20% of women are banging the other 80% of left over males. 100% lay record all across the board. Puṣṣy for everyone!

 

[plate's_empty]

But this is not even logical. Why would men who can get women so easily be so non-discriminating when it comes to picking their mates? Let's face it: even if you cast off the bottom of the barrel 20% of the female population, you are still left with a whole bunch of plain janes, fatties, ugs, etc. who make up the majority of the remaining 80%. So why would top tier guys have sex with these average and below average women when they could be banging hotties?

How often do you think those ugos and fatties are having sex?

Who knows, maybe there is some ugo DJ going out there banging them all.

Anyway,

Just because you're in the the top 20% doesn't have to mean you're bangin any hotties...at all. Pretty sure there are guys out there who can boast about sleeping with 100 girls but 90% of those girls have not been higher than a 6.

Being in the top 20% just means you're sexually active. That's it.

There are top tier guys that are sexually active...banging the top tier women.

There are lower tier guys that are sexually active...banging the lower tier women.

Sometimes they overlap, and usually alcohol or drugs plays a factor in this overlapping. Or else, some guys just don't have high standards. They just want to get laid.