Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Blackpill The reason women are more selective than men is NOT because of pregnancy worries, safety, etc. The real reason is because men pursue women.

Edmund_Kemper

Edmund_Kemper

Suicide is self-expression
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Posts
25,318
Online
292d 23h 35m
Many people argue women ghost more or flake more or reject more or that women are choosier because women worry about safety or don't trust men or worry about pregnancy. Many also argue it's easier for women to get sex but harder for them to get relationships because men are too interested in sex and women are too interested in relationships.

These theories are all false. There's also this theory that evolution is why women are choosier. Nope. This is also a myth for the reason why.
Let's address each argument:

Pregnancy

First of all, you can be in a relationship and still have an unwanted pregnancy. It's not like dating someone or hooking up deters condom use, birth control, etc. This is ridiculous. In fact, statistics show that cohabiting women have a much higher unwanted pregnancy rate (141 per 1,000) compared to unmarried, noncohabiting women (36 to 54 per 1,000) and married women (29 per 1,000). This means women often get unwanted pregnancies from people they are already in a relationship with.
According to Psychology Today (link below),
Surbey and Conohan (2000) wondered whether worries of safety, pregnancy, stigma, or disease were holding women back from saying yes to sex with a stranger. In a "safe sex" experimental condition, they asked people, "If the opportunity presented itself to have sexual intercourse with an anonymous member of the opposite sex who was as physically attractive as yourself but no more so (and who you overheard a friend describe as being a well-liked and trusted individual who would never hurt a fly), do you think that, if there was no chance of forming a more durable relationship, and no risk of pregnancy, discovery, or disease, that you would do so?" On a scale of 1 (certainly not) to 4 (certainly would), very large sex differences still persisted with women (about 2.1) being much less likely to agree with a "safe sex" experience with a stranger compared to men (about 2.9).
Safety

Let's take a look at how often women feel unsafe doing certain things, because feminists overstate it a bit.
According to a YouGov poll, when it comes to going on a first date, only 21% of women often or always feel unsafe (10% vs 11%, respectively). 31% sometimes felt unsafe, and 35% rarely or never felt unsafe (25% vs 10%, respectively). This means 79% felt safe at least sometimes if not often. Only 19% always or often felt unsafe when at a bar alone (e.g.: waiting for a friend), whereas 51% felt often or always safe (29% vs 22%, respectively) and 27% felt sometimes safe. When it came to going to a stranger's house, it was common (43%) for women to feel unsafe, but not necessarily always (which shouldn't explain why they don't hook up as much or don't have an interest in dating a man as much). 23% always felt unsafe and 20% often did. 30% sometimes felt unsafe going to a stranger's house, compared to 22% rarely or never feeling unsafe. If a woman agrees to go to a man's place, she probably feels more trusting towards him in particular.

Crime statistics

Now lets look at crime. If women are choosy about who they date because of safety, then that doesn't make sense, because most men they ghost or reject aren't like that and most of the time that has nothing to do why she doesn't reciprocate interest. It's because she wasn't interested in him or didn't seem him as the right one. There can be exceptions to this rule here and there but that's typically the reason. In fact, intimate partner violence is actually a gender-symmetrical crime. Most intimate partner violence is actually mutual. Both are the aggressors, and in non-reciprocal cases, women are the aggressors up to 70% of the time. In fact, mutual violence was the most likely to result in an injury. Male victims are far less likely than female victims to report the crime or even tell anyone about it, so that's why all the survivors we hear about the female victims of male perpetrators. Women are just as likely, if not more likely, than men to commit intimate partner violence, and it's not usually in self-defense.
As for rape or sexual assault, this is also a gender symmetrical crime. Feminists often speak about how women don't report rapes, but there's still some who do even if most don't. A minuscule percentage of male rape victims report in comparison. In fact, the vast majority of rapes reported to the police were male-perpetrator-female-victim because male victims are way less likely to report it or even tell anyone about it. That's why we only hear about men raping women. Men often get forced to penetrate, but apparently that's not labeled rape because they aren't being penetrated (it's still rape). Just as many men are forced to penetrate each year as women are raped, and the perpetrators are women the vast majority of the time. Lifetime prevalence of being made to penetrate for men vs lifetime prevalence being raped for women show a gap (women were way more likely to be raped in their lifetime compared to men made to penetrate in their lifetime), but this is because rape rates against women have declined but made to penetrate rates against men have skyrocketed. That's why there's a gap in lifetime prevalence but not past-year prevalence. For example:

Millennial men were less likely than baby boomer and generation X men to have committed sexual violence but millennial women were more likely than baby boomer/generation X women to have done so. Nonetheless, it was not relatively unusual for baby boomer/generation X women to have committed sexual violence against men. Millennial women were more likely to rape through physical force than millennial men, but almost as likely to have raped someone than millennial men through intoxication. When it came to baby boomers/Generation X, women were as likely as men to rape through physical force, but men were more likely to rape through intoxication, but there also women who did so, too. Through all three generations, men were more likely to engage in sexual coercion (which is different from rape), but the gap wasn't super big with millennials, but baby boomer/generation X women sometimes still did it. Although baby boomer/generation X men were more likely to commit statutory rape with someone under 16, millennial women were more likely than millennial men to have done so. When it came to sex while being an authority for the victim such as a boss, teacher, babysitter, etc., there was no perpetrator gender gap among baby boomers/generation X but millennial women were more likely to have taken advantage of a student, employee, babysat person, etc. than men.

According to CDC, women were more likely than men to experience sexual coercion in both lifetime and past year prevalence, but men were a very significant minority of sexual coercion victims, with the vast majority reporting a female perpetrator. Nonetheless, past-year prevalence for being made to penetrate was equal to past-year prevalence for women being raped, despite a gap existing for lifetime prevalence. This is in line with evidence showing that younger generations of women being more likely to commit rape than older generations but older generations of men being more likely to rape than younger generations of men. Perpetration rates of rape were equal for millennial men and women but a gap existed for baby boom/generation X men and women. But sexual coercion perpetration rates for both generations showing somewhat of a gap match how more women are victims of sexual coercion than men in the lifetime and past year.

Men who are made to penetrate are usually young men often ages 18 to 24, and if forced to penetrate rates against men have skyrocketed (same with women committing sexual violence in general against men), then this means older generations of men are less likely to have experienced in the past year and in their lifetime back when they were young adults themselves. This explains why lifetime gap but lack of past-year prevalence gap in how often men are made to penetrate vs women being raped. In fact, even college women just as likely if not slightly more likely than college men to commit rape, and are about as likely as college men to commit other forms of sexual assault and sexual assault in general. The data showed a gap in victimization but it could be because it only asked about being penetrated instead of made to penetrate, too.
In fact, according to the CDC, men are just as likely if not more likely to experience unwanted sexual contact in the past year, and half the time they report a female perpetrator. There's a gap in lifetime prevalence, but men who experienced it more than a year ago might be less likely than women who experienced it to remember it because if you teach people only women get sexually assaulted, then men might be less likely to remember being sexually assaulted unless it's particularly traumatic like rape/sexual coercion instead of being groped in the butt or something, so when you teach people something, anything they see that defies what they've been taught won't be remembered due to a subsconscious confirmation bias, but anything they see that reinforces what they were taught will be recalled. That's why men are presumably less likely to remember being groped more than a year ago compared to women.

Also, most murder victims are men, and men are more likely to be crime victims, and the gap according to NCVS would be probably bigger if we included forced to penetrate questions in the crime victimization survey. If you look up statistics, men are most robbery victims, most aggravated assault victims, more likely to be carjacked or victims of motor vehicle theft, more likely to be property crime victims, and more likely to be attacked by a stranger. In fact, many street criminals refuse to attack women or mug them because the street crime code says you only attack men in the streets, and women are left out of the "Street game". In fact, many inmates frown upon criminals who attack a random woman on the street. Nonetheless, these same men who frown on hitting a woman might still make exceptions for their significant other. Additionally, men might be more killed by their girlfriends than people think. A lot of evidence shows that women might get away with it more because many might hire hitmen or use poisoning. Murderers who poison are far more likely to be a woman, and it could be that male poisoners might get caught more, making it seem like most poisoners are still men because cops don't suspect a woman. They'll just assume the victim died of poison accident. For example, in multiple offender killings there are 4x as many husbands killed as wives. This means of all married people killed by a group, there's way more married men than married women killed. This means she could've hired hitmen and the hitmen never snitched, and cops won't suspect her because she's a woman, and hitmen hired by women are possibly less likely to snitch on her than hitmen hired by men, inflating statistics showing gender in contract killings. Also, contrary to popular belief, women who kill husbands usually don't do it in self-defense, and we don't know if women who say they did were truthful or lying to get sympathy (some evidence shows that sex offenders might lie about being molested as a kid to get sympathy from the public, although some still were molested as a kid). Women only kill in almost 10% of murders they commit, but women who kill husbands were no more likely to do so than women who kill in other circumstances. They were also just as likely as other female murderers to have criminal records. In fact, most female criminals commit crimes against women and most male criminals commit crimes against men. In fact, men are more likely than women to commit same-sex violence but women are more likely than men to commit intimate partner abuse. Men are more likely to beat up other men than beat their girlfriends but women are more likely to beat up their boyfriends than beat up other women.

In conclusion and additionally, it doesn't seem like safety is why women might be more choosier than men with both short-term and long-term relationship nor is it why women might ghost more, flake more, have less interest in casual sex, etc. This will be explained below.

Why women are more selective than men or have less interest in hooking up or dating a guy

The real reason isn't because of safety. According to a research paper about gender differences in short-term mating, they wrote:
One of the most convincing experimental demonstrations of sex differences in the time needed before consenting to sex comes from Clark and Hatfield (1989). In a series of studies, they had male and female confederates approach someone of the opposite sex on college campuses and comment, ‘I have been noticing you around campus, I find you to be very attractive,’ and then ask one of three questions: (1) ‘Would you go out with me tonight?’ (2) ‘Will you come over to my apartment tonight?’ or (3) ‘Would you go to bed with me tonight?’ In experiments conducted in 1978 and 1982, Clark and Hatfield found that men and women responded very differently to these requests. Men were slightly more interested than women in dates with strangers (56% v. 50%), men were significantly more interested than women in coming over to a stranger’s apartment (69% v. 6%), and men were substantially more interested than women in having sex with a stranger (75% v. 0%).
Although safety fears could have been a contributing factor to these sex differences, no female participant reported fear as a reason for refusal, and further studies showed that safety was not a causal issue for short-term sex refusal. A follow-up study by Clark (1990), for example, found that having friends call the participants over the phone, attest to the kindness and integrity of another good friend of the opposite sex who is coming to town, and then ask the participant to have sex with that good friend produced similar sex differences in consenting to short-term sex. From these and other studies it seems that men more than women are willing to have sex with someone after knowing that person for a brief period of time.
It appears if a woman even tried to give a guy a chance to begin with, she usually considered him safe. In fact, according to Psychology Today:
Clark (1990) was among the first to address the issue of physical safety. He had college-aged confederates call up a personal friend on the phone and say "I have a good friend, whom I have known since childhood, coming to Tallahassee. Joan/John is a warm, sincere, trustworthy, and attractive person. Everybody likes Joan/John. About four months ago, Joan/John’s five-year relationship with her/his high-school sweetheart dissolved. She/he was quite depressed for several months, but during the last month Joan/John has been going out and having fun again. I promised Joan/John that she/he would have a good time here, because I have a friend who would readily like her/him. You two are just made for each other. Besides, she/he has a reputation as being a fantastic lover. Would you be willing to go to bed with her/him?” Again, many more men (50 percent) than women (5 percent) were willing to have sex with this personally "vouched for" stranger. When asked, not one of the 95 percent of women who declined sex reported that physical safety concerns were a reason.
The reason why women are choosier, flake more, ghost more, etc. is because men pursue, women get pursued. According to the same paper:
A diverse range of research findings lend converging support to the notion that men have a specialized psychology that leads them to consent to sex more quickly than women. For example, men are sexually attracted to women relatively quickly. Men interpret friendly behaviour by women as seductive and flirtatious (Abbey 1982), men find first dates more attractive than do women (Rubin et al. 1981), and men fall in love more quickly than do women (Rubin et al. 1981). Recently, Clark, Shaver, and Abrahams (1999) found that, once attracted, men were much more likely to use quick and direct techniques for initiating romantic encounters, whereas women were more likely to use passive and prolonged techniques for initiating romantic encounters. Clark et al. (1999) remarked that these sex differences were not the result of a few outlying men, and noted that their findings flatly contradicted the suppositions of Miller and Fishkin (1997).
In fact, even lesbians are no more interested in casual sex than women, yet lesbians are around other women. In fact, gay men were just as into casual sex as straight men. Men are more into casual sex than women, regardless of sexual orientation. Gay men have more casual sex than straight men, but it's because they are being with OTHER MEN, whereas men have to go for women if they're straight. So safety isn't why women get less into casual sex:
Safety concerns can also be addressed by examining men's and women's sexuality across varying sexual orientations. Among lesbians, for instance, safety concerns about the greater strength of opposite sex mates are not present. Schmitt (2008) examined men's and women's attitudes toward casual sex around the world and found wherever you go lesbians tend to have the same sexual attitudes as heterosexual women (and gay men have the same attitudes as heterosexual men). Moreover, in every region he examined, regardless of orientation, men tended to have more positive attitudes toward casual sex as women. However, because gay men have other men as their potential mating partners (whereas women have other women), gay men tended to engage in more casual sex than heterosexual men (d = .55). Lesbians, with women as potential mates, did not differ much in casual sex from heterosexual women (d = .18). And the differences between heterosexual men and women (d = .73) where much smaller than the differences between gay men and lesbians (d = 1.11). Under gender-target controlled conditions, sex differences in casual sex appear to reveal themselves even further.
Psychology Today also wrote:
In addition to these powerful experimental tests, a wide range of supportive evidence (literally hundreds of studies) confirms that men, on average, are more eager than women are for casual sex and tend to desire sex with more numerous partners, including complete strangers (Buss & Schmitt, 2011).
In terms of research on sexual attitudes, nearly all studies conducted have found that men have more positive attitudes toward casual sex than women (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010), have more unrestricted sociosexuality than women (Schmitt, 2005), and generally relax their preferences in short-term mating contexts (whereas women increase selectivity, especially for physical attractiveness; Buss & Schmitt, 2011).
When considering attitudes toward mixed-sex threesomes, for instance, most people express very little interest, with the notable exception being men considering having sex with two women at the same time, even if they are strangers (Thompson & Byers, 2016).
In fact, even with men they know, women aren't as interested. According to Scientific American, in opposite-sex friendships, men are far more likely than women to be attracted to their opposite-sex friend, and men are more likely to overestimate their friend's interest in them whereas women are more likely to underestimate their friend's interest in them.

Men often get ghosted or flaked on or rejected even if they didn't do anything remotely suspicious. Men pursue women, so a man typically desires any woman he pursues, but the women who get pursued don't necessarily recriprocate interest. As a result, men will fall in love quicker, find first dates more attractive, etc. Men get more attached, but being attached or falling in love quicker doesn't mean he will be clingy or text too much, so even that isn't necessarily the reason why women ghost, flake or reject more frequently nor does it explain why women are choosier. A man doesn't have to signal how much he fell in love unless he acts too overt about it.
Also, the reason isn't because men just want sex while women just want relationships. Men fall in love quicker, and in a study measuring how willing people (straight men, straight women, and gay men but they did not include lesbians) are to date bisexuals, they found that men were more likely than women to find someone of the opposite gender both romantically and sexually attractive, and were more willing to date them or have sex with him, regardless of the target or participant's sexual orientation. Even gay men found a man more romantically/sexually attractive and were more willing to have sex with the man or date him compared to how women perceive the man, regardless of the target's sexual orientation. The study digged into people's subconscious because many people might refuse to admit they won't date bisexuals due to potential biphobia accusations, but straight women were less interested in dating a bisexual compared to straight men and gay men and straight women perceived bisexual men as less masculine (table below and read caption please).

1658370579217




You can see here that men show more romantic interest compared to women, so saying men are only into sex but women are more into relationships is false. A woman is way more likely to meet a man who wants a girlfriend than a man is to find a woman who reciprocates interest. Men pursue women, women get pursued. Women get pursued, so they usually decide whether or not they really like a man or not. Men pursue, which is why they fall in love quicker, so that's why they might already decide they like a woman.


The reason women are more selective isn't because of evolutionary reasons. It's because men pursue, women get pursued. A lot of evidence shows that men are indeed more interested in casual sex than women, regardless of sexual orientation, and Psychology Today wrote a good article about how even patriarchy or sexual socialization doesn't seem to explain the reason, with gender differences in casual sex being LARGEST in more egalitarian countries such as Scandanavian countries.
Men pursue, women get pursued is why women are more selective than men

A LOT of evidence shows that women value looks more for short-term relationships than long-term relationships and that they value hypermasculine men more for short-term than long-term relationships. HOWEVER, a study found that women only value a man's personality for long-term relationships if they find him at least moderately attractive. When it comes to hookups however, women only want hookups if they find a guy outright attractive, but men will hookup if he finds her at least moderately attractive. In fact, a Norwegian study found that single men who have more sex are more sexually satisfied but single women who have less sex while single are more sexually satisfied, regardless of sexual orientation. Not only that, but aside from a study above showing that men find women more sexually attractive/romantically attractive than vice versa, another study found that men perceive women as better-looking than women perceive men, and that if you're a man, other men will find you better looking than women will perceive you and that women find other women better looking than they find most men. This is why other guys will be more likely to tell you "you look good". This was found to be true regardless of age of the target.

TLDR

So why are women more selective than men?
Because men pursue women. When women get pursued, they have so many options to choose from, it makes them choosy. Men have to pursue, and not every woman they pursue will like them back, so men lower their standards to increase their odds. In a speed dating study where they made women pursue men, women were less choosy and men were more choosy. This is called the Sadies Hawkins effect. Women's choosiness isn't because of evolution. It's because men pursue, women get pursued. When you have many options to choose from, you get more choosy. When you have to pursue and you don't know who will like you back, you're less choosy.
 
Pillow City Rev

Pillow City Rev

"Ultravisionary Blackpilism"
★★★
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Posts
3,799
Online
68d 5h 29m
Many people argue women ghost more or flake more or reject more or that women are choosier because women worry about safety or don't trust men or worry about pregnancy. Many also argue it's easier for women to get sex but harder for them to get relationships because men are too interested in sex and women are too interested in relationships.

These theories are all false. There's also this theory that evolution is why women are choosier. Nope. This is also a myth for the reason why.
Let's address each argument:

Pregnancy

First of all, you can be in a relationship and still have an unwanted pregnancy. It's not like dating someone or hooking up deters condom use, birth control, etc. This is ridiculous. In fact, statistics show that cohabiting women have a much higher unwanted pregnancy rate (141 per 1,000) compared to unmarried, noncohabiting women (36 to 54 per 1,000) and married women (29 per 1,000). This means women often get unwanted pregnancies from people they are already in a relationship with.
According to Psychology Today (link below),

Safety

Let's take a look at how often women feel unsafe doing certain things, because feminists overstate it a bit.
According to a YouGov poll, when it comes to going on a first date, only 21% of women often or always feel unsafe (10% vs 11%, respectively). 31% sometimes felt unsafe, and 35% rarely or never felt unsafe (25% vs 10%, respectively). This means 79% felt safe at least sometimes if not often. Only 19% always or often felt unsafe when at a bar alone (e.g.: waiting for a friend), whereas 51% felt often or always safe (29% vs 22%, respectively) and 27% felt sometimes safe. When it came to going to a stranger's house, it was common (43%) for women to feel unsafe, but not necessarily always (which shouldn't explain why they don't hook up as much or don't have an interest in dating a man as much). 23% always felt unsafe and 20% often did. 30% sometimes felt unsafe going to a stranger's house, compared to 22% rarely or never feeling unsafe. If a woman agrees to go to a man's place, she probably feels more trusting towards him in particular.

Crime statistics

Now lets look at crime. If women are choosy about who they date because of safety, then that doesn't make sense, because most men they ghost or reject aren't like that and most of the time that has nothing to do why she doesn't reciprocate interest. It's because she wasn't interested in him or didn't seem him as the right one. There can be exceptions to this rule here and there but that's typically the reason. In fact, intimate partner violence is actually a gender-symmetrical crime. Most intimate partner violence is actually mutual. Both are the aggressors, and in non-reciprocal cases, women are the aggressors up to 70% of the time. In fact, mutual violence was the most likely to result in an injury. Male victims are far less likely than female victims to report the crime or even tell anyone about it, so that's why all the survivors we hear about the female victims of male perpetrators. Women are just as likely, if not more likely, than men to commit intimate partner violence, and it's not usually in self-defense.
As for rape or sexual assault, this is also a gender symmetrical crime. Feminists often speak about how women don't report rapes, but there's still some who do even if most don't. A minuscule percentage of male rape victims report in comparison. In fact, the vast majority of rapes reported to the police were male-perpetrator-female-victim because male victims are way less likely to report it or even tell anyone about it. That's why we only hear about men raping women. Men often get forced to penetrate, but apparently that's not labeled rape because they aren't being penetrated (it's still rape). Just as many men are forced to penetrate each year as women are raped, and the perpetrators are women the vast majority of the time. Lifetime prevalence of being made to penetrate for men vs lifetime prevalence being raped for women show a gap (women were way more likely to be raped in their lifetime compared to men made to penetrate in their lifetime), but this is because rape rates against women have declined but made to penetrate rates against men have skyrocketed. That's why there's a gap in lifetime prevalence but not past-year prevalence. For example:

Millennial men were less likely than baby boomer and generation X men to have committed sexual violence but millennial women were more likely than baby boomer/generation X women to have done so. Nonetheless, it was not relatively unusual for baby boomer/generation X women to have committed sexual violence against men. Millennial women were more likely to rape through physical force than millennial men, but almost as likely to have raped someone than millennial men through intoxication. When it came to baby boomers/Generation X, women were as likely as men to rape through physical force, but men were more likely to rape through intoxication, but there also women who did so, too. Through all three generations, men were more likely to engage in sexual coercion (which is different from rape), but the gap wasn't super big with millennials, but baby boomer/generation X women sometimes still did it. Although baby boomer/generation X men were more likely to commit statutory rape with someone under 16, millennial women were more likely than millennial men to have done so. When it came to sex while being an authority for the victim such as a boss, teacher, babysitter, etc., there was no perpetrator gender gap among baby boomers/generation X but millennial women were more likely to have taken advantage of a student, employee, babysat person, etc. than men.

According to CDC, women were more likely than men to experience sexual coercion in both lifetime and past year prevalence, but men were a very significant minority of sexual coercion victims, with the vast majority reporting a female perpetrator. Nonetheless, past-year prevalence for being made to penetrate was equal to past-year prevalence for women being raped, despite a gap existing for lifetime prevalence. This is in line with evidence showing that younger generations of women being more likely to commit rape than older generations but older generations of men being more likely to rape than younger generations of men. Perpetration rates of rape were equal for millennial men and women but a gap existed for baby boom/generation X men and women. But sexual coercion perpetration rates for both generations showing somewhat of a gap match how more women are victims of sexual coercion than men in the lifetime and past year.

Men who are made to penetrate are usually young men often ages 18 to 24, and if forced to penetrate rates against men have skyrocketed (same with women committing sexual violence in general against men), then this means older generations of men are less likely to have experienced in the past year and in their lifetime back when they were young adults themselves. This explains why lifetime gap but lack of past-year prevalence gap in how often men are made to penetrate vs women being raped. In fact, even college women just as likely if not slightly more likely than college men to commit rape, and are about as likely as college men to commit other forms of sexual assault and sexual assault in general. The data showed a gap in victimization but it could be because it only asked about being penetrated instead of made to penetrate, too.
In fact, according to the CDC, men are just as likely if not more likely to experience unwanted sexual contact in the past year, and half the time they report a female perpetrator. There's a gap in lifetime prevalence, but men who experienced it more than a year ago might be less likely than women who experienced it to remember it because if you teach people only women get sexually assaulted, then men might be less likely to remember being sexually assaulted unless it's particularly traumatic like rape/sexual coercion instead of being groped in the butt or something, so when you teach people something, anything they see that defies what they've been taught won't be remembered due to a subsconscious confirmation bias, but anything they see that reinforces what they were taught will be recalled. That's why men are presumably less likely to remember being groped more than a year ago compared to women.

Also, most murder victims are men, and men are more likely to be crime victims, and the gap according to NCVS would be probably bigger if we included forced to penetrate questions in the crime victimization survey. If you look up statistics, men are most robbery victims, most aggravated assault victims, more likely to be carjacked or victims of motor vehicle theft, more likely to be property crime victims, and more likely to be attacked by a stranger. In fact, many street criminals refuse to attack women or mug them because the street crime code says you only attack men in the streets, and women are left out of the "Street game". In fact, many inmates frown upon criminals who attack a random woman on the street. Nonetheless, these same men who frown on hitting a woman might still make exceptions for their significant other. Additionally, men might be more killed by their girlfriends than people think. A lot of evidence shows that women might get away with it more because many might hire hitmen or use poisoning. Murderers who poison are far more likely to be a woman, and it could be that male poisoners might get caught more, making it seem like most poisoners are still men because cops don't suspect a woman. They'll just assume the victim died of poison accident. For example, in multiple offender killings there are 4x as many husbands killed as wives. This means of all married people killed by a group, there's way more married men than married women killed. This means she could've hired hitmen and the hitmen never snitched, and cops won't suspect her because she's a woman, and hitmen hired by women are possibly less likely to snitch on her than hitmen hired by men, inflating statistics showing gender in contract killings. Also, contrary to popular belief, women who kill husbands usually don't do it in self-defense, and we don't know if women who say they did were truthful or lying to get sympathy (some evidence shows that sex offenders might lie about being molested as a kid to get sympathy from the public, although some still were molested as a kid). Women only kill in almost 10% of murders they commit, but women who kill husbands were no more likely to do so than women who kill in other circumstances. They were also just as likely as other female murderers to have criminal records. In fact, most female criminals commit crimes against women and most male criminals commit crimes against men. In fact, men are more likely than women to commit same-sex violence but women are more likely than men to commit intimate partner abuse. Men are more likely to beat up other men than beat their girlfriends but women are more likely to beat up their boyfriends than beat up other women.

In conclusion and additionally, it doesn't seem like safety is why women might be more choosier than men with both short-term and long-term relationship nor is it why women might ghost more, flake more, have less interest in casual sex, etc. This will be explained below.

Why women are more selective than men or have less interest in hooking up or dating a guy

The real reason isn't because of safety. According to a research paper about gender differences in short-term mating, they wrote:


It appears if a woman even tried to give a guy a chance to begin with, she usually considered him safe. In fact, according to Psychology Today:

The reason why women are choosier, flake more, ghost more, etc. is because men pursue, women get pursued. According to the same paper:

In fact, even lesbians are no more interested in casual sex than women, yet lesbians are around other women. In fact, gay men were just as into casual sex as straight men. Men are more into casual sex than women, regardless of sexual orientation. Gay men have more casual sex than straight men, but it's because they are being with OTHER MEN, whereas men have to go for women if they're straight. So safety isn't why women get less into casual sex:

Psychology Today also wrote:



In fact, even with men they know, women aren't as interested. According to Scientific American, in opposite-sex friendships, men are far more likely than women to be attracted to their opposite-sex friend, and men are more likely to overestimate their friend's interest in them whereas women are more likely to underestimate their friend's interest in them.

Men often get ghosted or flaked on or rejected even if they didn't do anything remotely suspicious. Men pursue women, so a man typically desires any woman he pursues, but the women who get pursued don't necessarily recriprocate interest. As a result, men will fall in love quicker, find first dates more attractive, etc. Men get more attached, but being attached or falling in love quicker doesn't mean he will be clingy or text too much, so even that isn't necessarily the reason why women ghost, flake or reject more frequently nor does it explain why women are choosier. A man doesn't have to signal how much he fell in love unless he acts too overt about it.
Also, the reason isn't because men just want sex while women just want relationships. Men fall in love quicker, and in a study measuring how willing people (straight men, straight women, and gay men but they did not include lesbians) are to date bisexuals, they found that men were more likely than women to find someone of the opposite gender both romantically and sexually attractive, and were more willing to date them or have sex with him, regardless of the target or participant's sexual orientation. Even gay men found a man more romantically/sexually attractive and were more willing to have sex with the man or date him compared to how women perceive the man, regardless of the target's sexual orientation. The study digged into people's subconscious because many people might refuse to admit they won't date bisexuals due to potential biphobia accusations, but straight women were less interested in dating a bisexual compared to straight men and gay men and straight women perceived bisexual men as less masculine (table below and read caption please).

View attachment 641106



You can see here that men show more romantic interest compared to women, so saying men are only into sex but women are more into relationships is false. A woman is way more likely to meet a man who wants a girlfriend than a man is to find a woman who reciprocates interest. Men pursue women, women get pursued. Women get pursued, so they usually decide whether or not they really like a man or not. Men pursue, which is why they fall in love quicker, so that's why they might already decide they like a woman.


The reason women are more selective isn't because of evolutionary reasons. It's because men pursue, women get pursued. A lot of evidence shows that men are indeed more interested in casual sex than women, regardless of sexual orientation, and Psychology Today wrote a good article about how even patriarchy or sexual socialization doesn't seem to explain the reason, with gender differences in casual sex being LARGEST in more egalitarian countries such as Scandanavian countries.
Men pursue, women get pursued is why women are more selective than men

A LOT of evidence shows that women value looks more for short-term relationships than long-term relationships and that they value hypermasculine men more for short-term than long-term relationships. HOWEVER, a study found that women only value a man's personality for long-term relationships if they find him at least moderately attractive. When it comes to hookups however, women only want hookups if they find a guy outright attractive, but men will hookup if he finds her at least moderately attractive. In fact, a Norwegian study found that single men who have more sex are more sexually satisfied but single women who have less sex while single are more sexually satisfied, regardless of sexual orientation. Not only that, but aside from a study above showing that men find women more sexually attractive/romantically attractive than vice versa, another study found that men perceive women as better-looking than women perceive men, and that if you're a man, other men will find you better looking than women will perceive you and that women find other women better looking than they find most men. This is why other guys will be more likely to tell you "you look good". This was found to be true regardless of age of the target.

TLDR

So why are women more selective than men? Because men pursue women. When women get pursued, they have so many options to choose from, it makes them choosy. Men have to pursue, and not every woman they pursue will like them back, so men lower their standards to increase their odds. In a speed dating study where they made women pursue men, women were less choosy and men were more choosy. This is called the Sadies Hawkins effect. Women's choosiness isn't because of evolution. It's because men pursue, women get pursued. When you have many options to choose from, you get more choosy. When you have to pursue and you don't know who will like you back, you're less choosy.
Read ever words
Truly high iq and entertaining
 
jerkjocky

jerkjocky

mentally chad
-
Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Posts
2,595
Online
15d 3h 0m
100% - week long vacation
you said you were leaving why the fuck are you here you stupid cringy fucking piece of shit braindead retard. you are scum of the earth and your shit essays can get fucked. piece of shit fucking faggot
 
theAnt

theAnt

KTHHJSV, 3/10
★★★
Joined
Jun 16, 2022
Posts
1,254
Online
8d 17h 52m
Jesus christ
 
jerkjocky

jerkjocky

mentally chad
-
Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Posts
2,595
Online
15d 3h 0m
Read ever words
Truly high iq and entertaining
of course a homosexual like you whos 6 foot in chink midget land who sits in his house talking to fags on telegram group would find this cuckold OP's posts interesting JFL at you
 
theAnt

theAnt

KTHHJSV, 3/10
★★★
Joined
Jun 16, 2022
Posts
1,254
Online
8d 17h 52m
you said you were leaving why the fuck are you here you stupid cringy fucking piece of shit braindead retard. you are scum of the earth and your shit essays can get fucked. piece of shit fucking faggot
 
theAnt

theAnt

KTHHJSV, 3/10
★★★
Joined
Jun 16, 2022
Posts
1,254
Online
8d 17h 52m
of course a homosexual like you whos 6 foot in chink midget land who sits in his house talking to fags on telegram group would find this cuckold OP's posts interesting JFL at you
Raging retard cant detect irony. Take a chill pill sweetie
 
Pillow City Rev

Pillow City Rev

"Ultravisionary Blackpilism"
★★★
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Posts
3,799
Online
68d 5h 29m
of course a homosexual like you whos 6 foot in chink midget land who sits in his house talking to fags on telegram group would find this cuckold OP's posts interesting JFL at you
My thread live rent free in your head
I mean cmon fags get over from it already
 
wintercel

wintercel

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 27, 2021
Posts
425
Online
3d 19h 53m
Considering lesbians are less interested in sex than gays, doesn't this prove that a man's higher sex drive also plays a role?
 
jerkjocky

jerkjocky

mentally chad
-
Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Posts
2,595
Online
15d 3h 0m
My thread live rent free in your head
I mean cmon fags get over from it already
talk more to homosexuals on gaytele group instead of getting women when youre 99% taller then everyone around you. fucking brainlet retard faggot
 
jerkjocky

jerkjocky

mentally chad
-
Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Posts
2,595
Online
15d 3h 0m
Raging retard cant detect irony. Take a chill pill sweetie
you dont know the history of that fag so how about you go back to pounding your ass with bananas
 
Pillow City Rev

Pillow City Rev

"Ultravisionary Blackpilism"
★★★
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Posts
3,799
Online
68d 5h 29m
talk more to homosexuals on gaytele group instead of getting women when youre 99% taller then everyone around you. fucking brainlet retard faggot
L-I-V-E R-E-N-T F-R-E-E
 
Pillow City Rev

Pillow City Rev

"Ultravisionary Blackpilism"
★★★
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Posts
3,799
Online
68d 5h 29m
"hehe im pillow city im a faggot who likes chatting with men better then women hehe hey guys wanna jiggle balls in each other face?"
Ryback ryback eating chips
 
Edmund_Kemper

Edmund_Kemper

Suicide is self-expression
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Posts
25,318
Online
292d 23h 35m
you said you were leaving why the fuck are you here you stupid cringy fucking piece of shit braindead retard. you are scum of the earth and your shit essays can get fucked. piece of shit fucking faggot
My ego death is gone
 
Edmund_Kemper

Edmund_Kemper

Suicide is self-expression
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Posts
25,318
Online
292d 23h 35m
RuudVanNistelrooy

RuudVanNistelrooy

Admiral
★★★★
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Posts
2,816
Online
42d 6h 52m
Considering lesbians are less interested in sex than gays, doesn't this prove that a man's higher sex drive also plays a role?
Completely. Testosterone is a hormone that makes you take a charge and pursue.
 
ezio6

ezio6

Incel grindset
★★★★
Joined
Jul 20, 2021
Posts
380
Online
8d 15h 31m
Foid worship:feelsohgod:
 
ezio6

ezio6

Incel grindset
★★★★
Joined
Jul 20, 2021
Posts
380
Online
8d 15h 31m
we already knew about this "reason" woman choosinesz etc, the problem is they abuse their "power" and sub8 got no chance:feelsohgod: Understanding them, whats the point of speakinng facts about women behaviour in incel forum tbh
 
Edmund_Kemper

Edmund_Kemper

Suicide is self-expression
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Posts
25,318
Online
292d 23h 35m
we already knew about this "reason" woman choosinesz etc, the problem is they abuse their "power" and sub8 got no chance:feelsohgod: Understanding them, whats the point of speakinng facts about women behaviour in incel forum tbh
No it’s because men pursue women
 
erenyeager

erenyeager

Destroy the world for inceldia
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 18, 2021
Posts
12,536
Online
73d 12h 41m
you said you were leaving why the fuck are you here you stupid cringy fucking piece of shit braindead retard. you are scum of the earth and your shit essays can get fucked. piece of shit fucking faggot
Copypasta
 
erenyeager

erenyeager

Destroy the world for inceldia
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 18, 2021
Posts
12,536
Online
73d 12h 41m
Completely. Testosterone is a hormone that makes you take a charge and pursue.
I see the devil hormone is the reason why I suffer. If only castration of the human race was the real goal. Castrating evil men and women....my dream:feelsaww:
 
turbosperg

turbosperg

PTSD ADD NW4 5'9 4/10 sperg
★★★★★
Joined
Mar 21, 2022
Posts
967
Online
11d 1h 54m
men pursue, women get pursued.
Yes.

It's basic economics -- supply and demand.

Any foid has hundreds of suitors ready to move mountains for her, only Chad males know what is like to have a queue of foids to fuck...

and by the way, Chads flake and ghost foids all the time -- and foids love getting pumped and ghosted by random Chads.:chad:

The remaining question is WHY men pursue foids at such astounding rate, resulting in foids (and Chads) ending up with queues of suitors?

That's biology: men's sex drive is aroused by almost any foid, whereas foids' sex drive is aroused only by Chad.

Any male wants any foid.
All foids want Chad.

The elementary economics of these facts ensures that Chads and Foids have hundreds of options to pick from, therefore they need to be picky.

Non-Chad males have zero options in queue to chose from, so they each opportunistically pursue hundreds of random foids in the vain hope of hearing an eventual "yes" -- your typical male in a developed country sends DMs to hundreds of girls online, and also approaches dozens of girls in person in order to have sex once or twice a year.
 
Last edited:
H

hatewimen

Greycel
Joined
Jul 25, 2022
Posts
99
Online
1d 7h 39m
The more we simp and chase women the more picky they will become, if men left women alone, women would be begging for us.
 
TiredofTalking

TiredofTalking

Officer
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
Posts
961
Online
28d 5h 48m
The more we simp and chase women the more picky they will become, if men left women alone, women would be begging for us.
Mostly stop trying to humanize them.
 
ezio6

ezio6

Incel grindset
★★★★
Joined
Jul 20, 2021
Posts
380
Online
8d 15h 31m
Supply and demand:society:
 
T

Theinvoluntarycelib

Sub-2 168cm manlet KHHV too ugly for prostitutes
★★
Joined
Feb 17, 2022
Posts
653
Online
6d 14h 55m
Now you know that I hate simps
 
C

ConservativeCel

Recruit
★★
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Posts
181
Online
13d 19h 40m
This was a huge long story, but one of the main aspects was ignored (I usually like Kemper's posts). This time really pretty much tl;dr.

The safety of pregnacy nowadays is irrelevant, women have had hundreds of thousands of years of the need to select a man who would both give healthy genes (Chad) and preferably also have a dominant status in human pack (alpha male), to ensure the offspring's safety.

This is down to anisogamy, which Bateman principle relies on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateman's_principle

Biology comes first, economy later.
 

Similar threads

El Enemigo
Replies
25
Views
708
xXnobodyXx
xXnobodyXx
W
Replies
8
Views
393
BardakTheGreat
BardakTheGreat
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top