The articles misses one important factor: Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, OKCupid et al. have changed the market in such a way that in a large city, even the homeliest of girls can log on and within hours arrange sex with a guy who she would otherwise have no prospects of a long-term relationship with, but is well above the attractiveness level she would have previously had access to.
I haven’t just read this online; I have seen this with my own eyes, with multiple female acquaintances, none of them exactly venuses, showing me the guys they’ve been meeting up with.
The fact stands that guys are a lot less choosy than girls, and this necessarily includes the guys who are also more physically attractive than most.
As online dating has become the norm, this causes a drought for a larger portion of men than before.
>As online dating has become the norm, this causes a drought for a larger portion of men than before.
From my own experience, it's impossible for me to find a date on Tinder. No matter how much time I spend on profile pictures or crafting bios.
On the other hand in face to face interaction it's not a problem.
From my experience women are more choosy online when they only have data (height, salary, picture). For in person interaction talking, physical interaction (e.g. dancing), energy, smile etc. have more weight.
Tinder became impossible for me too. Take a look into Hinge. The demographic is a lot more focussed and fewer people use it. If you at least ostensibly fit the demographic, then you'll have a big chance.
Sadly I had a different problem on Hinge. Lots of dates with physically very attractive girls, but nothing to talk about. That is not necessarily a problem, but it does make things difficult, at least given how I work. Obviously well educated, well connected, stable, attractive and interesting girls (and actually guys) have no need for online dating anyway.
I was left quite confused as to why they were meeting up with me, and I was quite open about my educational background and interests on my profile. It's also not the case that I have a terribly out of this world salary that I could imply or was implying in my profile.
A few years ago I was getting consistent success through Tinder. It was pretty much my main source. Growing up, your age puts you into a different set of priorities which you are measured by.
I did notice a lot of questions recently about my living situation. Personally I prefer to pay less, live with others and save up. I've always preferred independence. However I might now be entering the demographic where it's expected that I pay for a place on my own. I have been pressed multiple times in the past to move into somewhere on my own by girls who would not be able to afford the same for themselves.
The fact stands that Tinder and Hinge give girls easy short-term access to the guy who doesn't even need to save up. Forget earnings, Adonis is a swipe away too. It's either a blessing or a curse depending on where you stand.
However much song and dance either side likes to make over dating, both sides know the deal, and you're not meeting up just to chew the fat. I've decided to cut my losses and focus on other things for now.
> I did notice a lot of questions recently about my living situation.
Don't sweat it. We are not all Zuckerbergs. You don't have to get your own place in anticipation of finding someone. As you mentioned, its the woman without a place that is very concern. Even though, I live on my own & have my own car. While dating, I initially say that I live with my parents & don't have a ride. More than 10 matches, unmatched me. I am not a chauffeur or bed & b'fast place.
I agree! As a man, you're in for a really hard dating life (and life in general as a result) if you're relying on these apps. Meeting women in person, an increasingly rare opportunity, is far more likely to result in a positive outcome.
At some level I hold the apps them selves responsible. I think they create some kind of negative loop in the dating world. I don't believe the results of these apps are a net positive for society but my perception is colored.
It's not a negative loop at all. This is now how the market works. The task is to be aware of how it works and to use it to your advantage as far as you can.
I mean yeah, you can exploit it to your benefit by going full pickup artist with your profile(s) but that's a) a lot of work if you're just trying to get normal dates and b) generally frowned upon in polite society.
This isn't about whether you go full peacock fedora pickup artist. The thing I would like to emphasise is that each side knows the deal. Women are provably better at festooning the deal in the presence of other men, but the deal remains. This includes "normal" dates.
I can't know what sort of girls you are generally around, but I was with a group of girls the other night, who were comparing their recent Tinder matches and fucks with each other. They were not talking any differently about the guys they'd met to how men are generally portrayed to talk about women, including size appraisals of varied body parts.
On the polite society comment, each gender is just as calculating as the other. From my experience, this fact does not change particularly based on education level, though the festooning around it might well.
A girl who really has no prospects of a quick fuck might indeed be more inclined to settle for what you would be implying with a normal date. The same goes for for guys in a similar bracket as well.
Going full pickup artist does not generally work if you are physically unattractive (mainly based on face and height if you go by what various studies have shown). Dating apps have utterly decimated dating for a big percentage of the young population - that did not win the genetic lottery - and exposed various strong biases and conditioning in the female sex [1].
The following was deleted since many expressed fears that it would further fuel "incel culture" not to mention it's bad for business, but I managed to find it on archive.org.
That's quite an interesting analysis. On OKCupid women shift their attractiveness expectations only slightly ahead of the curve when compared with men. OKCupid is generally accepted to be more of a long-term thing than the alternatives. I predict that this does not apply to Tinder and Hinge.
I appreciate the reading list, but wouldn't mind more clarity. Why do you suggest these readings in particular?
Anyhow, I've only read Women from the list. The book seemed to be a male perspective about women. Bukowski doesn't know why they prefer what they do, or why he would be attractive to them. He doesn't know how to get involved with them without some degree of harm or drama either. A great book, but how do you feel it relates to the conversation at hand?
These books have reinforced my belief that all relationships are transactional. Why should romantic relationships be the exception? They have reinforced my belief that romance is something made up by guys for guys, that women gladly play into the romantic ideal to their own ends, and that by focussing on finding an interesting woman to date seriously as an end in itself, you lose that woman. It’s a lost cause. I don’t mean this negatively or positively.
I think that's cynical and incorrect. Charles Bukowski's Women is not an example of a normal relationship.
By a vague enough definition, all relationships are "transactional." Both parties can intellectualize their feelings and point to what they get out of it, and both parties can point to a theoretical breaking point, where the transaction no longer has any benefit.
But, when most people say "transactional" they mean something a bit different: that the relationship is devoid of genuine emotion, and instead based on some selfish benefit, such as money or shelter. I think you're equivocating the two here. Real, genuine affection does exist. The fact that both people are "getting something out of it" doesn't mean that it's transactional.
This is why I said that I do not mean it positively or negatively. The foundation of a relationship is the transaction. It is not necessarily a bad thing.
The emotion exists on top of the transaction. Real, genuine affection and love do not exist, as they cannot be defined objectively. Romance is the terms, such as love and affection, and framework we use to describe our subjective emotions in the context of the transaction.
One party can use the other's emotion and his or her conception of romance around that emotion to sway the transaction to her or his benefit.
Charle's Bukowski's relationships were normal for him. The relationships described in the other books were normal for their authors. The settings change, but the unproductive idealisations of romance and desire for motherly affection remain.
Yeah, you could also hang out with your actually funny and interesting female colleague and meet her female engineering college friends.
In pre online dating times you'd meet people by physically hanging out in groups, having fun and eventually meeting other friends. Good times. Y'all should try it eventually.
I have had many, many long and interesting conversations with women colleagues, and there's never been any risk of anything being misinterpreted, because I:
* don't joke about how I would like to date them (because I don't want to and it isn't a good joke),
* don't suggest that we should meet in places that would be appropriate for dating (romantic restaurant, one of our places, quiet bar, etc),
* don't joke about having sex with people (because those aren't good jokes and I wouldn't discuss having sex with people who aren't close friends),
* don't talk about or joke about pornography.
Carving out that handful of broad exceptions of things I don't discuss with colleagues (men or women) leaves a huge amount of things to discuss -- and places to discuss them -- that aren't really open to misinterpretation.
I also don't think most women want to call out their coworkers, because of the intense social scrutiny turned back on them when they do so, even when their initial calling-out was warranted.
Certainly, it's possible one can be accused of anything, with or without any basis in reality.
I don't believe the risk of being accused of inappropriate behavior is anywhere near what you seem to, and accordingly have spent many, many hours and evenings socializing with colleagues, many of whom (men and women) remain friends long after the job is over.
Govern yourself according to what you deem appropriate, but suggesting that it is a fact of society that women are untrustworthy is neither true nor useful to society at large.
Whoever's left after several generations of this consumer technology will look at apps like this and the associated lifestyle the way humans look at snakes, open sores, and other dangerous, reproductive-fitness harming things today. This may be counterintuitive, but since birth control there is an inverse relationship between the number of sexual partners and the number of children.
I think the article could go into more depth and analyze this much further. One aspect that is entirely missing is how dating changed over the last decade. The rise of dating apps for instance would be interesting to put into the mix when discussing this.
Technology could be creating a 'winner-take-phenomenon' in dating by massively expanding the options people have. The top X percentage of guys get all the women. There's also the social argument, since marriage is less common, sought after males are no longer locked down the way they once were.
What I don't understand with this argument, is sex is usually a 1:1 activity that takes up a bit of time (like interviewing). Even if you have a population H (for Hottie) of men every woman would wave her panties for (doubtful but let's assume) the men in H can't possibly have sex with every woman every day. Meaning some of the women, even if they can have sex with the men in H, and it probably does affect how they view men in not-H (less well due to inferior H factor), must be spending enough time sexually frustrated to be available for not-H.
Indeed, if you look at sex not as a matching problem between males and females, but as an event distribution, then let's say "desirable men" want sex at a rate of K events per week and all women want sex at a rate of J events per week. Let's say the population has 10 desirable men, 90 undesirable men, and 100 women. In the past where the desirable men were married off, they had sex avg(K,J) times per week, for a total of 10xavg(K,J) events involving a desirable man, leaving 90xavg(K,J) events involving an undesirable man.
Let's say now all those people move in the new, "casual" world. The desirable men can have sex to their heart's content: K times per week. The undesirables must use the remaining times that a woman in the population would like to have sex but the desirables are satiated: 100xJ-10xK. Now, if 100xJ - 10xK > 90xK, so if men and women want sex roughly as many times, or if women want more, undesirable men are not really negatively affected. Indeed they have more variety under the new system.
However if J = 0.5xK, then roughly half the undesirables are unsatisfied, or they're all unsatisfied half the time, which does feel like a step down.
Anecdotally I don't think it's the case that 50% of less desirable dudes are just not having sex, but let's say it's 10, or 20%, that's believable. It would mean women want sex slightly less than men -- 10 or 20% less. Note that the 10 or 20% not having sex aren't necessarily less desirable than the other undesirables, just less lucky.
Clearly a solution for the leftover guys is obvious: They must increase all women's libido past the points where the hotties can satiate it.
(Obvious caveats: silly analysis, doesn't model gay people, assume libido is constant or normally distributed across populations, assume partners for every event are independent, etc)
Yeah I haven't mention this, but my theory also suggest undesirable men may be even less well served if, for some reason, more desirable men also want more sex. If so then they could easily satisfy most of the women -- even if the undesirable men don't want sex as much, sex would unlock more social benefits of "interacting with a woman semi-regularly", and now that they aren't getting any, they also lose that.
If that is the case it would be interesting to know why desirable men have such outsized libidos. Is it that they are choosing sex over other activities because it is more rewarding for them?
Is there any reason to think desirable men have a differing distribution of libidos (vs the not desirable men)? A simpler explanation would be that they have more sex because they have more opportunity, no?
This has actually been studied quite a bit, and it would appear that the increased optimization of dating apps has caused a huge inequality in the dating "market". It can even be quantified with the Gini Coefficient, a measure of economic inequality. [1]
> It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men.
And anecdotally, it is consistent with what I have observed. I am troubled by the effect this might have on our society. I am sure that it is sowing resentment among those who have been left behind. Our society is more sexualized than ever; people are bombarded with messages about how great sex is, and yet it is less available than ever.
I'm arguing that if sex is more casualized, which it is, then partners are not "competing"; they can have sex with Man A on Monday and let Jody from Accounting have Man A on Tuesday.
The failure modes for this system are twofold: if women want sex much less than men, by a huge factor (which for casual sex may well be true) or if the most desirable men are insatiable nymphomaniacs and quite capable of finding a spot for every groupie. I'm not sure if the second part is amenable to change, but I'm sure it's possible to increase women's libido because surveys tend to indicate women have much less satisfying sexual experiences than men do, so changing that would show room from improvement.
It really isn't a distribution problem, although it is tempting to look at it that way. But I think you are neglecting human behavior.
It would seem that what is happening is that the majority of women are competing for the attention of a small minority of men. The goal of the players is not to make sure that the most people have sex.
Lot of equations here. A non mathematical way to understand it is to look at societies where men can marry multiple wives. The rich and high status men have several leaving many men with none. These men with zero chance of reproduction become big social liabilities as they are easier to draw towards high risk activities like terrorism.
Another great issue that is overlooked is the #metoo era we live in, where men are just disgusting pigs and its our uncultured savage nature that is the issue. We are blamed for looking at a woman's ass when she chooses to wear a very tight dress showing all her curves in the name of freedom & female liberation. That is just a reflex action. One cannot be blamed for laughing when they see or hear something funny. In the same way, as a heterosexual guy, I look at what attracts me.
The main issue that, a woman has just claim without any proof and the guy is just ruined.
That is the reason why myself and couple of friends (single) have backed away from dating apps. But now we are quite anxious to date anyone we work with or lives near us.
The "you gotta" was the only part of your comment that wasn't a problem! For starters, please don't go on about your "graphic sex fantasy" here. No doubt it gratifies something, but not intellectual curiosity: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
While I agree, I don't think this is particularly new. I've been married 20 years now, so the last time I approached a girl was in the 1900's - and I still recall the look of utter disgust and contempt that I would get from at least 80% of the women I tried to approach (mind you, I'm talking about going out to bars and clubs where there's sort of an expectation of meeting or at least talking to strangers). I was hardly alone, either. Being rejected - cruelly and viciously - is part and parcel of the male dating experience; I just think that young men have gotten tired of it.
20 yrs ago? I am shocked. I thought this was just a 2000 shit. I felt 1900 was a time when there was a respect and a good relation was treasured. Did the one you end up with, treat you right from the beginning? Any tips or advice?
You are true, I am bloodly fedup with this shit. I am not an animal nor have I treated woman badly, I dont find a need to apologize for some other guys shit. This is the same sentiment with all my friends. I am not going to sugarcoat or feel bad for who I am. Like me as I am, if it happens, it happens. I don't mind if I end up alone. I rather be single, than tied up to a monster and awaiting the sweet relief of death.
Plus, if a girl only knows the shitty type of guy, I wonder what is so messed up in her that all the jerks are just drawn to her or may be she just hates to admit it to herself, that she wants shit. I distance myself from girls like that. You cannot respect me, there is nothing. Mutual respect is vital.
I think you're absolutely right, and this is part of the challenge of this sort of approach: can you take the sometimes brutal rejection gracefully. This is not new, although technology may exaggerate some of the trends that already exist. Notably, at least when it comes to an initial meeting ~80% of men are "below average."
This is frankly a trope of most of the action/romance movies out there. How does Jasmine initially respond to Aladdin? By telling him what a worthless scrub he is. How does Aladdin prove he's not a worthless scrub? By hard work, a good attitude, and persistence. Jasmine eventually sees the value he demonstrates.
There's more complexity here than what I've laid out. But, think on this: Tinder mostly cuts the process off at approach.
You are free to be wary of it, but that fear is not grounded in observable evidence (of which there isn't much, but it is certainly better than anecdote, hearsay, or fiction).
10% isn't exactly what I'd call rare. 1 in 10 is uncommon, but it is certainly the kind of thing I'd worry about in other situations. Hell even @% (if I had a 2% chance of getting assaulted by everyone I met for example I'd be a shut in).
Obviously that isn't a fair comparison and I find this isn't actually an area I'm concerned about for whatever reason... But I wouldn't call it "exceedingly rare" with the numbers you gave
That take is grossly misleading. Around 15% of rape allegations are proven true. 2-10% are proven false (either a solid alibi or a later confession from the supposed victim).
The remaining 75% of cases are neither proved nor disproved. If you are accused, but don't have enough evidence of your innocence (or they don't have evidence of guilt), the case is not prosecuted or results in a hung jury.
The most you can accurately say is that for every 2 convictions there is one person falsely accused.
59 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadI haven’t just read this online; I have seen this with my own eyes, with multiple female acquaintances, none of them exactly venuses, showing me the guys they’ve been meeting up with.
The fact stands that guys are a lot less choosy than girls, and this necessarily includes the guys who are also more physically attractive than most.
As online dating has become the norm, this causes a drought for a larger portion of men than before.
From my own experience, it's impossible for me to find a date on Tinder. No matter how much time I spend on profile pictures or crafting bios.
On the other hand in face to face interaction it's not a problem.
From my experience women are more choosy online when they only have data (height, salary, picture). For in person interaction talking, physical interaction (e.g. dancing), energy, smile etc. have more weight.
Sadly I had a different problem on Hinge. Lots of dates with physically very attractive girls, but nothing to talk about. That is not necessarily a problem, but it does make things difficult, at least given how I work. Obviously well educated, well connected, stable, attractive and interesting girls (and actually guys) have no need for online dating anyway.
I was left quite confused as to why they were meeting up with me, and I was quite open about my educational background and interests on my profile. It's also not the case that I have a terribly out of this world salary that I could imply or was implying in my profile.
A few years ago I was getting consistent success through Tinder. It was pretty much my main source. Growing up, your age puts you into a different set of priorities which you are measured by.
I did notice a lot of questions recently about my living situation. Personally I prefer to pay less, live with others and save up. I've always preferred independence. However I might now be entering the demographic where it's expected that I pay for a place on my own. I have been pressed multiple times in the past to move into somewhere on my own by girls who would not be able to afford the same for themselves.
The fact stands that Tinder and Hinge give girls easy short-term access to the guy who doesn't even need to save up. Forget earnings, Adonis is a swipe away too. It's either a blessing or a curse depending on where you stand.
However much song and dance either side likes to make over dating, both sides know the deal, and you're not meeting up just to chew the fat. I've decided to cut my losses and focus on other things for now.
Don't sweat it. We are not all Zuckerbergs. You don't have to get your own place in anticipation of finding someone. As you mentioned, its the woman without a place that is very concern. Even though, I live on my own & have my own car. While dating, I initially say that I live with my parents & don't have a ride. More than 10 matches, unmatched me. I am not a chauffeur or bed & b'fast place.
I'm not sure why you would think a car and place are unreasonable ways to judge how attractive someone is.
At some level I hold the apps them selves responsible. I think they create some kind of negative loop in the dating world. I don't believe the results of these apps are a net positive for society but my perception is colored.
I can't know what sort of girls you are generally around, but I was with a group of girls the other night, who were comparing their recent Tinder matches and fucks with each other. They were not talking any differently about the guys they'd met to how men are generally portrayed to talk about women, including size appraisals of varied body parts.
On the polite society comment, each gender is just as calculating as the other. From my experience, this fact does not change particularly based on education level, though the festooning around it might well.
A girl who really has no prospects of a quick fuck might indeed be more inclined to settle for what you would be implying with a normal date. The same goes for for guys in a similar bracket as well.
The following was deleted since many expressed fears that it would further fuel "incel culture" not to mention it's bad for business, but I managed to find it on archive.org.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170330131859/https://theblog.o...
Nietzsche: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24702467-aphorisms-on-lo...
Houellebecq: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomised
Bukowski: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38500.Women
Kundera: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unbearable_Lightness_of_Be...
Anyhow, I've only read Women from the list. The book seemed to be a male perspective about women. Bukowski doesn't know why they prefer what they do, or why he would be attractive to them. He doesn't know how to get involved with them without some degree of harm or drama either. A great book, but how do you feel it relates to the conversation at hand?
By a vague enough definition, all relationships are "transactional." Both parties can intellectualize their feelings and point to what they get out of it, and both parties can point to a theoretical breaking point, where the transaction no longer has any benefit.
But, when most people say "transactional" they mean something a bit different: that the relationship is devoid of genuine emotion, and instead based on some selfish benefit, such as money or shelter. I think you're equivocating the two here. Real, genuine affection does exist. The fact that both people are "getting something out of it" doesn't mean that it's transactional.
The emotion exists on top of the transaction. Real, genuine affection and love do not exist, as they cannot be defined objectively. Romance is the terms, such as love and affection, and framework we use to describe our subjective emotions in the context of the transaction.
One party can use the other's emotion and his or her conception of romance around that emotion to sway the transaction to her or his benefit.
Charle's Bukowski's relationships were normal for him. The relationships described in the other books were normal for their authors. The settings change, but the unproductive idealisations of romance and desire for motherly affection remain.
Yeah, it will take another 100 years until women are hired 50:50 into engineering jobs. Or probably so many jobs.
I have had many, many long and interesting conversations with women colleagues, and there's never been any risk of anything being misinterpreted, because I:
* don't joke about how I would like to date them (because I don't want to and it isn't a good joke),
* don't suggest that we should meet in places that would be appropriate for dating (romantic restaurant, one of our places, quiet bar, etc),
* don't joke about having sex with people (because those aren't good jokes and I wouldn't discuss having sex with people who aren't close friends),
* don't talk about or joke about pornography.
Carving out that handful of broad exceptions of things I don't discuss with colleagues (men or women) leaves a huge amount of things to discuss -- and places to discuss them -- that aren't really open to misinterpretation.
I also don't think most women want to call out their coworkers, because of the intense social scrutiny turned back on them when they do so, even when their initial calling-out was warranted.
I don't believe the risk of being accused of inappropriate behavior is anywhere near what you seem to, and accordingly have spent many, many hours and evenings socializing with colleagues, many of whom (men and women) remain friends long after the job is over.
Govern yourself according to what you deem appropriate, but suggesting that it is a fact of society that women are untrustworthy is neither true nor useful to society at large.
Indeed, if you look at sex not as a matching problem between males and females, but as an event distribution, then let's say "desirable men" want sex at a rate of K events per week and all women want sex at a rate of J events per week. Let's say the population has 10 desirable men, 90 undesirable men, and 100 women. In the past where the desirable men were married off, they had sex avg(K,J) times per week, for a total of 10xavg(K,J) events involving a desirable man, leaving 90xavg(K,J) events involving an undesirable man.
Let's say now all those people move in the new, "casual" world. The desirable men can have sex to their heart's content: K times per week. The undesirables must use the remaining times that a woman in the population would like to have sex but the desirables are satiated: 100xJ-10xK. Now, if 100xJ - 10xK > 90xK, so if men and women want sex roughly as many times, or if women want more, undesirable men are not really negatively affected. Indeed they have more variety under the new system.
However if J = 0.5xK, then roughly half the undesirables are unsatisfied, or they're all unsatisfied half the time, which does feel like a step down. Anecdotally I don't think it's the case that 50% of less desirable dudes are just not having sex, but let's say it's 10, or 20%, that's believable. It would mean women want sex slightly less than men -- 10 or 20% less. Note that the 10 or 20% not having sex aren't necessarily less desirable than the other undesirables, just less lucky.
Clearly a solution for the leftover guys is obvious: They must increase all women's libido past the points where the hotties can satiate it.
(Obvious caveats: silly analysis, doesn't model gay people, assume libido is constant or normally distributed across populations, assume partners for every event are independent, etc)
Ouch.
In my experience, this is counterfactual.
Also, I have a hottie buddie who has a lot of sex with a lot of women. Suspect he can easily keep ten women satisfied, on average.
If that is the case it would be interesting to know why desirable men have such outsized libidos. Is it that they are choosing sex over other activities because it is more rewarding for them?
> It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men.
And anecdotally, it is consistent with what I have observed. I am troubled by the effect this might have on our society. I am sure that it is sowing resentment among those who have been left behind. Our society is more sexualized than ever; people are bombarded with messages about how great sex is, and yet it is less available than ever.
[1]: https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...
The failure modes for this system are twofold: if women want sex much less than men, by a huge factor (which for casual sex may well be true) or if the most desirable men are insatiable nymphomaniacs and quite capable of finding a spot for every groupie. I'm not sure if the second part is amenable to change, but I'm sure it's possible to increase women's libido because surveys tend to indicate women have much less satisfying sexual experiences than men do, so changing that would show room from improvement.
It would seem that what is happening is that the majority of women are competing for the attention of a small minority of men. The goal of the players is not to make sure that the most people have sex.
Maybe Facebook is the recruiting agency and dating apps are (at least a factor in) the cause!
The main issue that, a woman has just claim without any proof and the guy is just ruined.
That is the reason why myself and couple of friends (single) have backed away from dating apps. But now we are quite anxious to date anyone we work with or lives near us.
You are true, I am bloodly fedup with this shit. I am not an animal nor have I treated woman badly, I dont find a need to apologize for some other guys shit. This is the same sentiment with all my friends. I am not going to sugarcoat or feel bad for who I am. Like me as I am, if it happens, it happens. I don't mind if I end up alone. I rather be single, than tied up to a monster and awaiting the sweet relief of death.
Plus, if a girl only knows the shitty type of guy, I wonder what is so messed up in her that all the jerks are just drawn to her or may be she just hates to admit it to herself, that she wants shit. I distance myself from girls like that. You cannot respect me, there is nothing. Mutual respect is vital.
Yeah, seeing how you talk about women I guess you have a long road ahead of you.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is frankly a trope of most of the action/romance movies out there. How does Jasmine initially respond to Aladdin? By telling him what a worthless scrub he is. How does Aladdin prove he's not a worthless scrub? By hard work, a good attitude, and persistence. Jasmine eventually sees the value he demonstrates.
There's more complexity here than what I've laid out. But, think on this: Tinder mostly cuts the process off at approach.
For rape, the best estimates are 2% to 10% percent of accusations are false, according to this, which looks pretty thorough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
You are free to be wary of it, but that fear is not grounded in observable evidence (of which there isn't much, but it is certainly better than anecdote, hearsay, or fiction).
Obviously that isn't a fair comparison and I find this isn't actually an area I'm concerned about for whatever reason... But I wouldn't call it "exceedingly rare" with the numbers you gave
The remaining 75% of cases are neither proved nor disproved. If you are accused, but don't have enough evidence of your innocence (or they don't have evidence of guilt), the case is not prosecuted or results in a hung jury.
The most you can accurately say is that for every 2 convictions there is one person falsely accused.
Somebody has created another graph showing the confidence intervals, and there is a large overlap:
https://twitter.com/graykimbrough/status/1111695055541161992...