The 10% Rule

[guru1000]

It's a hyperbole, not meant to be taken literally; just as the Ladder Theory.

 

[TheHumanist]

Well Roissy just slightly struck this topic again. Though only at the last paragraph.

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/sex-at-dusk/#comments

Instead of the 90-10, it's the 80-20. Either way, he paints a pretty depressing picture. A picture that 80% with 80% of men are paired together via monogamy, but there's a quiet desperation where girl deep inside is only pretending to love the man and the man only have a girl who doesn't really love him.

Not a great image to imagine yourself or any guy who looks over to their girl and their loving smile is all an act.

Hell, I think that's why a large reason of why this thread is being discussed. It's pretty bleak to have the thought that if you want any girls, you have to be in the top 10/20% and everyone else gets to masturbate.

Among my circles, most of the guys are doing ltrs rather than like one guys is hooking up with all the girls in circle except 1 or two where all the other guys are fighting over. Although some guys I can point to have a history of a serial type of hook-ups.

From such observation, my thinking is those who are in the top are able to **** a lot of girls if they choose to and in the middle 60-90 are able to get laid by their go through ltrs more commonly with the bottom omegas scaring off guys and girls.

One illustration is the party girls and those who advanced to cougars. Those guys hooked up with tons of guys, but they are not slvtting it up to every guy, but the Alphas. They are at least a 7 and slvtting it up to only the Alpha guys, but they don't make 80/90% of the female population (at least not at my school, but we're not University of Florida). However, there are plenty non-party girls (and 7 and higher) who are not partying (or at the same level).

So, viewing it like that, I have doubts it is 80-90% or girls throwing themselves/pining for that 10/20% guy, but it doesn't mean there's a 10/20% of guys who are seeing no shortage of girls throwing at them. Also still means that there's age a large percentage of guys who are also struggling, but there's also a middle area too.

That still leave a question, the middle guys, those who are neither flooded nor suffering a drought in girls, are those girls are only pretending? For to believe in the 80-20/90-10 implies that picture.

 

[samspade]

Well Roissy just slightly struck this topic again. Though only at the last paragraph.

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/sex-at-dusk/#comments

Instead of the 90-10, it's the 80-20. Either way, he paints a pretty depressing picture. A picture that 80% with 80% of men are paired together via monogamy, but there's a quiet desperation where girl deep inside is only pretending to love the man and the man only have a girl who doesn't really love him.

Not a great image to imagine yourself or any guy who looks over to their girl and their loving smile is all an act.

Hell, I think that's why a large reason of why this thread is being discussed. It's pretty bleak to have the thought that if you want any girls, you have to be in the top 10/20% and everyone else gets to masturbate.

Among my circles, most of the guys are doing ltrs rather than like one guys is hooking up with all the girls in circle except 1 or two where all the other guys are fighting over. Although some guys I can point to have a history of a serial type of hook-ups.

From such observation, my thinking is those who are in the top are able to **** a lot of girls if they choose to and in the middle 60-90 are able to get laid by their go through ltrs more commonly with the bottom omegas scaring off guys and girls.

One illustration is the party girls and those who advanced to cougars. Those guys hooked up with tons of guys, but they are not slvtting it up to every guy, but the Alphas. They are at least a 7 and slvtting it up to only the Alpha guys, but they don't make 80/90% of the female population (at least not at my school, but we're not University of Florida). However, there are plenty non-party girls (and 7 and higher) who are not partying (or at the same level).

So, viewing it like that, I have doubts it is 80-90% or girls throwing themselves/pining for that 10/20% guy, but it doesn't mean there's a 10/20% of guys who are seeing no shortage of girls throwing at them. Also still means that there's age a large percentage of guys who are also struggling, but there's also a middle area too.

That still leave a question, the middle guys, those who are neither flooded nor suffering a drought in girls, are those girls are only pretending? For to believe in the 80-20/90-10 implies that picture.

It's pointless to worry and wonder about which percentile you're in. The key is that game begets p/ssy which begets more p/ssy. It's like having capital - makes it easier to acquire more once you have some.

The stats people throw around apply more to the open market and who's making themselves available ("available" being flexible of course). A bar with 500 patrons a week, including 50 male regulars, might see 10 of those regulars lapping up 80% of the female action, followed by a large second echelon getting the remainder or sloppy seconds, then a small echelon of guys getting none. Ditto for a college or high school environment.

I worked at an office a few years ago where this young guy had slept with almost all the young single females (he wasn't their boss). Some of those girls may have had a boyfriend, but it doesn't mean he was sleeping with 80-90% of the women at the company - just the "available" ones who were part of the pool.

 

[Nutz]

I'm a little fed up with reading this. I keep hearing on this forum the old saying "10% of the guys do 90% of the fvcking". First off, I say it's BS. Secondly, what the heck does this even mean anyway?

Are they counting different women only or are they counting each incident of intercourse?
Is this over a lifetime, just over the past year, this month, what?

I suppose this could be true if you're talking about, say, 15 year olds.

I suppose this could be true in that probably 10% or less of the population are pickup artists who make it a point to go out and bang a lot of different women.

I agree that the top 10% of guys get pretty much their pick of the girls.
If one of these top 10% guys finds a girl he likes and enteres an exclusive relationship with her, does that mean he is no longer part of the 10% that does 90% of the fvcking?

Most guys I know can get women. Maybe they can't all get 9s or 10s.
I'd say the saying should go more like "10% of guys can't seem to get laid".

It means only a small percentage of men have true abundance and are getting laid regularly. Most guys either go without or get stuck with the same old piece of ass the rest of their lives. It's the handful of guys getting laid like rockstars who make up for the rest of the guys by having sex with all the extra women out there. See also: Out of all human ancestery only 40% of males have reproduced whereas 80% of women have.

 

[zekko]

I don't think the rule would work like that with your island example. It would probably be 9 guys each with one girl, and the 10th guy having sex with all 10 girls.

Even if this very extreme example were true, the one guy isn't having 90% of the sex. He's having 10 times the sex that any other guy is, but he's only having 53% of all the sex being had on the island. That's a big number, but nowhere near 90%, or even 80%. I agree with guru1000, I don't think it's supposed to be taken literally. But in my mind this makes it a lousy saying because it is so obviously not true.

It means only a small percentage of men have true abundance and are getting laid regularly. Most guys either go without or get stuck with the same old piece of ass the rest of their lives.

First off, I am not "stuck" with my girlfriend, it is my choice to be with her. There is no doubt I could get other women, and it is a temptation sometimes, but it is my choice to give priority to my LTR.

What you're not taking into account here is the cycle of life. Guys tend to "sow their wild oats" when they are younger, and at some point when they get older they find a girl they like and stay with them. Why is it necessary to characterize this as being "stuck"? I agree a lot of guys ARE stuck, and probably the younger they settle down the more likely that description fits them.

 

[Nutz]

Why is it necessary to characterize this as being "stuck"? I agree a lot of guys ARE stuck, and probably the younger they settle down the more likely that description fits them.

Because for 80-90% of the guys out there they do end up stuck with a chick that's not the best one for them, but was the best one they could get. In other words when you strip away all the ego protection the guys really just settled for Ms. Good Enough. Take a look at what's around you and tell me how many guys you think are a good catch on paper have the awesome personality + bombshell looks wives out there. I'll tell you here and now it's not nearly as many as you'd think. It's actually usually the opposite, guys ending up with nagging shrews and/or warpigs. Men are horrible at being choosy because most guys AREN'T choosy, they don't know how to be because they lacked true quality abundance when they were selecting their LTR. Hell, the average number of women a man dates before marrying is a whopping......

FIVE

Think about that.