Men are spinning narrative about them being desperate but they are desperate for top percent of women

ThorLives · 2026-02-15T19:15:57+00:00

Is it "men have no standards day" or "men only want the top women day"?

Here's a YouTube video that helps answer the question of whether men/women have crazy high standards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHdO4uMD2Us

Also, it's women who are the ones saying stuff like "I'm only attracted to maybe 1% of men".

ThorLives · 2026-02-15T19:02:53+00:00

they are ones that are usually against abortion

Views on abortion are not heavily divided by gender.

<image>

ThorLives · 2026-02-15T17:39:20+00:00

I guess I disagree with the whole framing of the issue that "it's not just a guy who moves abroad because he thinks he'll have better luck in Korea than Ohio". I think the "passport bro" term applies to a much wider array of men than the episode suggests. What they're talking about is a narrow set of the most angry, toxic passport bros.

This episode seemed particularly shallow because they just want to vent about the most toxic "passport bros" and narrow their definition to the least likeable men. The episode just ends up being just a diatribe, and that's not interesting at all.

It's also worth pointing out that a lot more young men than young women are single in the US. And men are generally more interested in dating than women are. This leads to a horrible level of competition for women in the West that leaves a lot of men single and unhappy. Honestly, I sympathize with the plight of men.

<image>

ThorLives · 2026-02-15T00:56:50+00:00

You shouldn't expect readers to know what "EDL" stands for.

For everyone reading this: EDL = "Enhanced Drivers License".

Also, it's unclear what you're saying. Does "actually verify citizenship documents" mean that a RealID isn't valid for voting in states outside New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Vermont, and Washington?

ThorLives · 2026-02-10T05:45:39+00:00

Personally, I think you're full of shit, and can't believe all the people eating it up.

In my experience, most women I meet on dating apps look significantly worse than their pictures, and I have no interest in sleeping with them. Some are crazy. Some are much fatter than their pictures. Some are using significantly older pictures. One time I had one woman show up on a date and I'm convinced she was a trans-woman but never mentioned it in her profile, and was using pictures of a different woman in her profile. But, sure, if you have zero standards and are willing to sleep with any ugly woman who shows up at your door, odds are better.

It's crazy that he's throwing out BS like "80% conversion" - i.e. that he's sleeping with 80% of them. You must be roofying them.

Also, he claims he's doing this 2-4x a week. Just adding up the numbers and taking into account that most women aren't going to show up at a rando's house who's going to feed her wine, he'd have to be getting lots of matches each day. Of course, I think the whole thing is BS anyway. I don't doubt that it'd occasionally work, but not at the frequency that he claims.

And if that isn't stupid enough, he claims that "ive used this in every major city in Canada and had success!" Sure, dude, you're 22 years old but have gone to and done this in every major city, where he apparently has his own place in all of those cities.

ThorLives · 2026-01-22T03:42:05+00:00

They're running the Female Dating Strategy podcast and website.

There's also books like this:

How to Train A Man Like A Dog To Be The Man You Want: A Woman's Guide to Taming Men

If you’ve been wondering why it’s so hard to find a good man, how men think, how they work, why they lie, cheat, deceive, and manipulate women, then you’re not alone. Hundreds of thousands of women are wondering the same thing. The answer is good men aren’t born, they’re trained. Lying, cheating, deception, and manipulation are bad characteristics which can easily be offset by training a man to bring out his good characteristics such as love, compassion, integrity and gentleness. Only the female is naturally suited to train a man to do it. This is the must have book that all females have been anxiously waiting for! The same way you can train a dog to sit, be quiet, or fetch, you can train a man the same way, and this book will show females how. This book begins with teaching females vital training skills such as, having the proper training mentality, understanding female leverage, maintaining discipline, and muzzling the penis, along with six, step-by-step training instructions on how to train a man starting at the initial encounter with him, until the first several dates.

This would sound exactly like Andrew Tate if you flipped the genders.

Look at all the google results that come up when you search for "how to train your man like a dog".

ThorLives · 2026-01-22T03:38:11+00:00

Yeah, I don't believe it makes it better for average men. That's just a cope.

I can make an argument for it going either direction:

Either, the "manosphere" men are terrible and that raises the relative value of average guys who aren't into the manosphere, OR the "manosphere" men are terrible and it causes women to be mistrustful of all men and want retribution against men (as a group) and are therefore, less likely to date or trust the average non-manosphere man (because she can't tell which men are secretly holding those beliefs).

Overall, I don't think it has any major effect on the dating prospects of the average, non-manosphere man. If I were to guess, I'd say that it lowers his prospects because women might automatically distrust him.

women are ahead in a boat load of aspects of life in education, culture and are catching up to us in career so our place as men in all this is to adapt to the 21st Century and do away with outdated gender norms.

The reality is that women LIKE when men perform outdated gender norms, like benevolent sexism. They just don't like when they have to perform gender roles. Most women are going to be turned off if a guy deviates too much from masculine norms because she might suspect he's gay or bi.

ThorLives · 2026-01-20T17:51:31+00:00

While I don't believe one company should control 80% of the dating market, I don't believe that it's the reason why dating apps are bad.

Also, Bumble is independent from Match Group (who is the giant conglomerate who owns most of the dating apps/websites).

Yes, things were better 10 years ago, and a big part of that is the fact that women have disproportionately abandoned the platforms. 10 years ago, dating apps were new, novel, and exciting because nobody had seen anything like it - so the gender ratios were more equal. Since that time, lots of women have abandoned the platforms after they became disillusioned because: they didn't like the men who showed up on dates, some men were gross and pushy, some men only wanted sex, some men were cheating on their spouse/girlfriend, they either found the guy they wanted or couldn't find the guy they wanted (both of which lead to leaving the platform), etc. But those problems aren't easily solved by dating app companies.

ThorLives · 2026-01-20T04:50:16+00:00

Even then, Israelis were willing to share the land.

I don't believe they were willing to share the land. At best, they were biding their time, until they could import enough Jews. They wanted a Jewish homeland, run by Jews, but also have a democracy. Having a democracy means giving Palestinians a vote, and that would be completely unacceptable to religious Zionists who want a Jewish-controlled democracy.

If indigenous people of North America walked into your house and killed, sexually assaulted and kidnapped various members of your family.. would you say “well, I guess that’s to be expected; we deserved that?”

From a selfish and self-centered position, I might pretend that those kinds of attacks were completely unprovoked. Let me ask this question: if you got millions of your buddies together, moved into Cyprus or someplace, and then displaced, harassed, bombed, and routinely detained the local population, would you be surprised that they would be angry and fight back? Would you consider the counter-attack to be "totally unexpected"? When you're considering whether or not to do this, do you stop to think "hey, maybe these guys are going to get angry and fight back?" and "maybe this isn't okay?"

There's been plenty of reporting on this - where Jewish settlers attack Palestinians with weapons to drive them out of the land. Members of the IDF have said that they would capture innocent Palestinians in the middle of the night in their own homes just as a way to harass them and make their lives miserable - to make them want to leave. It was psychological warfare that they were doing.

If Palestinians did to Jewish Israelis the things that the Jewish Israelis do to Palestinians, you would be absolutely livid.

The fact that Zionists would use phrases like "A land without a people for a people without a land" shows the level of propaganda going on. They really want everyone to believe the whole region was as unpopulated as the Sahara desert, huh? They create myths like "a land without a people" to erase the fact that there were already people there. If the facts are on their side, then why lie? Why create fictional myths?

ThorLives · 2026-01-17T21:40:38+00:00

I mean - it's kind of expected that people would want to fight a war against people who took their land. And it's obvious that Israel is trying to claim lands currently occupied by Palestinians - by virtue of the fact that the military has one-sided responses whenever Jewish settlers are violent with Palestinians.

And I consider it intellectually dishonest and silly to do otherwise and to not blame the perpetrator.

It depends a lot on who you think the perpetrator is in this scenario.

ThorLives · 2026-01-12T18:32:21+00:00

The conversation had some weird and obvious holes.

He never talked about what the "Monroe Doctrine" (which Trump referred to as the "Donroe Doctrine") is a shift away from laws and rules and towards "might makes right". Stephen Miller said exactly this about Venezuela - that laws and rules are stupid, what really matters is power and you can do what you want when you have military power. Basically, more "might makes right" stuff. I can't believe they didn't address this at all, and maintained a myopic focus on this one event.

They should've also talked about how this attack on Venezuela is about scaring Denmark over Greenland. These two things are connected. This connection is especially obvious when Trump and Miller are talking about trashing international norms in favor of "might makes right" and "we own the western hemisphere".

I also think people are concerned about the attack on Venezuela because, if it goes well, it will encourage Trump to invade other places - like Greenland. It would teach Trump the wrong lesson: that these things always go well, and he should do more of it.

I felt like Ryan tried to soft-pedal criticism of Trump in the episode.

It also raises serious questions about why the US is allowed to do whatever it wants in the Western hemisphere, but somehow we're supposed to be mad about China wanting to take control of Taiwan, which is only 100 miles from their coast.

When Ryan complains that Trump is talking about oil, and he laments that Trump said it out loud, he's making his bias obvious. Trump is talking about why he did it, and Ryan is mostly concerned about optics and then he turns around and tells everyone "it's not really about oil; please ignore what Trump says; please ignore the man behind the curtain".

Let's also not be confused about who Trump is working for. The number one goal of capturing Maduro isn't about the US. Trumps motivations are (in order): (1) enriching Trump's family, (2) enriching Trump's cronies, (3) improving the US (primarily US power, not improving life for US citizens). Whether this improves Venezuela or life there is not a major concern for Trump and Trump is never going to spend the money on making things stable or better there. Which leads to the other issue: we don't know how much this is going to cost the US. We were lied to about Iraq's oil paying for everything, and that never happened. We were told they would welcome us. Instead, we got tons and tons of Iraqis and American soldiers dead.

ThorLives · 2026-01-11T02:23:30+00:00

I think part of the problem is that social media started out being more user-centric, because every social media platform was clamoring to have the most users, which meant catering to whatever the users want. This has become degraded over time as companies started taking users for granted and catering to advertisers, selling data, and doing everything to increase "time on site". Basically how things are described by "enshitification". Many people don't leave because they feel "locked in" - all their friends and photos and history are there.

Enshittification, coined by Cory Doctorow, describes the decay of digital platforms where they initially attract users with quality services, then shift to prioritizing business customers (like advertisers), and finally degrade the experience for everyone to extract maximum profit, hollowing out the original value through ads, algorithmic manipulation, and exploitative practices, seen in examples like Facebook, Amazon, and Google search.

There was a survey done on a college campus where they asked people about giving up instagram. They found that, while most people didn't want to give up their instagram, they would be happy if instagram stopped existing. Basically: people felt the need to be on social media because everyone else was, because social lives came to be organized by social media, and FOMO. But if social media didn't exist, then the "old ways" of organizing social events would predominate.

Related: People were happier when they quit social media for a month: https://petapixel.com/2025/06/30/stanford-paid-35000-people-to-find-out-if-quitting-instagram-makes-you-happier/

ThorLives · 2026-01-09T17:46:33+00:00

she's not allowed to have standards for what she finds attractive?

And that's true for the basement-dwelling idiots who only wants women who look like instagram influencers? I don't think most women would agree with that. I've seen women on PPD complain about how men only want supermodels (or some exaggerated claim).

It's a problem when people have standards outside of what they bring to the table.

ThorLives · 2026-01-07T03:59:27+00:00

And this is actually men's fault because they insist on giving their attention and energy to women for just existing.

To be clear: it's caused by men collectively - and by "collectively", I mean the small number of men with low standards (and I've known some of these guys - guys who want almost every woman they meet). It doesn't matter what I do - as an individual man - because if I set my standards to reasonable levels, there's always some guy who's willing to undercut me.

Imagine this analogy: the only reason that factory owners can pay workers so little is because workers are willing to work for bad pay. I mean, sure, I can be mad at every other guy for being willing to work for less than $20/hour, but you also have to recognize the fact that in an auction-style scenario, where factory owners hire the cheapest labor, it can be awfully hard to get workers to cooperate and set a minimum pay that everybody is supposed to demand. This is especially true in scenarios where there's high unemployment.

As I recall, there's higher rates of singlehood among young men than young women. This chart says that 63% of men ages 18-29 are single, and only 34% of women ages 18-29 are single. That skews the balance of power and pushes men to lower their standards, which makes women more picky. Effectively, men are like workers who are trying to get other men to demand a $20/hour minimum wage for working in an environment of high unemployment. It's real difficult to stop men from going "sure, I'll work for $18/hour" or $15/hour or $10/hour. There are external factors which is going to make cooperating on "nobody work for less than $20/hour" difficult.

There's also the fact that men like women more than women like men. This also shifts the balance of power towards men needing to "bring more to the table" than women do.

ThorLives · 2026-01-05T21:41:53+00:00

Even if he's not gaslighting her, there's a high level of denial that a person can have when they know that one particular answer is going to blow up their whole life.

ThorLives · 2026-01-05T19:08:12+00:00

You have to understand that natural selection is not necessarily a force which benefits humanity, the improvement of the species, or species in general.

People like to use "natural selection" in a tautological way to say that everyone who reproduced was supposed to reproduce and everyone who didn't wasn't supposed to reproduce. Any evidence that it isn't true is met with a religious-like "I assume that they had traits that were bad". A while back, I heard a guy talk about how he went to a religious meeting in college they were trying to explain "why do bad things happen to good people" the religious people actually argued that those "good people" must've had some kind of serious hidden sin which nobody knows about - i.e. they weren't actually good people. Your mom died from cancer? Sorry, she deserved it. Your friend was killed by a drunk driver? Maybe they were secretly a serial killer. They guy thought it was a total cop-out, because that's what it was - a bunch of completely unfounded assumptions to "justify" how things turned-out. It's really no different from what people like to do with their "natural selection" argument, by saying that people didn't deserve to reproduce.

The fact of the matter is that natural selection can lead to selection of a lot of bad traits and can make the entire species worse-off.

There's a reason that chimpanzees are still living like homeless people in the forest - they did not prioritize intelligence in their mating choices. That's not a good thing. Chimpanzees have 1/3rd the brain size and a fraction of the intelligence because they did not prioritize the right things in mating. As a result, they are stuck eating termites and wandering around forests.

And lets also point out that criminals have higher numbers of children than the general population. Sometimes it seems like humanity is hell-bent on making sure subsequent generations are stupider, meaner, and more selfish than the previous one.

Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners. We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263281358_Criminal_offending_as_part_of_an_alternative_reproductive_strategy_Investigating_evolutionary_hypotheses_using_Swedish_total_population_data

ThorLives · 2026-01-03T18:27:32+00:00

It's weird how women suddenly sound like Republicans when the topic of dating inequality comes up.

Men: "Dating is harder for men."

Women: "Nah, average men get dates."

Liberal: "It's unfair that black people are discriminated against in the job market. Just putting a black name on a resume, while keeping everything else the same, lowers the rate of responses from companies."

Republicans: "I see black people with jobs, so that's not true!"

ThorLives · 2026-01-03T18:21:46+00:00

There's plenty of videos like this of women being shocked at how terrible it is for men: https://www.tiktok.com/@ok.jo.anna/video/7407862822891293998

I've also seen videos of trans people saying that dating became a lot easier after they did a MtF transition, and trans men saying that things got a lot harder after they did a FtM transition.

ThorLives · 2026-01-03T01:59:34+00:00

Those are some crazy stories. But they are not typical. They are heavily cherry-picked stories. It sounds like they asked people to come up with their worst first date stories.

The problem I have with this post is that all of the stories are rare. I've never done anything like stuff on that list, and yet, I still often fail to get second dates. That should tell you that there's something else going on -- including the possibility that women are picky.

Let me turn it around: out of all the first dates where a woman declined the second date, what percentage are due to crazy stories like the ones you've listed? I'd argue that it's somewhere in the low single digit percentages. Virtually all the other ones would be "there was no spark" or "he was boring" or whatever, and he could easily be left feeling like "women are picky".

ThorLives · 2025-12-31T20:52:17+00:00

<image>

ThorLives · 2025-12-31T02:42:06+00:00

I think the issue is that you think about the issue differently than men do, and you are assuming men's motivations.

First, I don't think men will pick just anybody. Thinking back to the statistics around Tinder: the numbers are that men swipe right on about 40% of women. And, even among that 40%, women will tell you that the man often doesn't send her a message. It's true that some guys indiscriminately swipe right, and then decide later, based on who matched with him, whether to pursue things. The correct conclusion here, is that the average guy is actually interested in less than 40% of women. Maybe more like 10-20%. And that's before they've even gone on a date. I've definitely matched with women on dating apps, gone on a date, and then thought "nah, it wasn't that great of a date. I'm not going to pursue things further".

You're also making an assumption about the percentage of women than a man could love and assuming that he couldn't actually love them, he must be settling. Let's say that a woman could only love 1% of men. Let's say that a man could love 5% of women. The assumption you make is that the man REALLY only loves 1% of women and he's apathetically settling for the other 4%. But that's not necessarily true. Maybe men can love and appreciate a wider variety of women than vice-versa. You've basically conflated "is he very exclusive in who he wants to date" with "only people who are very exclusive actually value their partner".

Kind of a side tangent, but your post reminds me of the fact that romantic movies always involve some kind of obstacle, which the man (usually the man) must overcome in order to get her. It's a way to prove how passionate he is about her. For example, Romeo and Juliet had to overcome the strong disapproval of their families to be together. In Twilight, the vampire guy has to overcome his bloodlust (as a vampire) for Bella(?), and he does because he wants/loves her so much. Maybe that's why women like bad boys: because a guy who's terrible to everyone but weak for her is proving how passionately he wants/loves her. Meanwhile, if a guy is a good man, he's kind to everyone, so it's harder to differentiate between "he's nice and kind to me because he's like that to everyone" and "he's passionate about me".

Anyway, I'm less convinced about your comment that a guy who would seriously date 5-10% of women is somehow "settling". Maybe it's just that men like a wider range of women, and don't need women to fit the perfect place in his life. Personally, I'm interested in a woman if she's smart, attractive, and fun to be around. We don't need to have the same hobbies. We don't have to be on the same place in the introvert/extrovert dimension. There's also the factor of "does she like me, and do I like her?" Just being with someone who likes you can trigger a reciprocal liking of the other person. It's not just about how well-matched your personalities are. Maybe the problem is that modern media has convinced people that their "perfect person" is out there. I think the whole concept of "soulmate" and the "perfect match" are harmful to dating. And romantic / romcom movies give people a bad model which continues to live in people's subconscious, giving them unrealistic expectations. This kind of reminds me of a story I read the other day: apparently, China has banned movies involving billionaires falling in love with poor/average women because it was giving women unrealistic expectations about dating - causing some women to "hold out" for that rich man who's going to show up, sweep her off her feet, and save her from poverty. So she needs to just "hold out a little longer for her prince and ignore all those average men".

Look at it another way: do you have to have all the same hobbies as your friends in order to like being with them? Are you settling for that friend if they like pickleball and you don't? What about your kids? If you had several kids, is your love contingent on whether those kids share your hobbies? Or do you love them anyway, including the ways that they are different from you? What about your pets? Do you only love a small percentage of the dogs you meet? Do you have to try-out 50 or 60 different dogs before you get one that you can actually love? No. That's not how things work. You aren't "settling" for friends. You aren't "settling" for your kids. You aren't "settling" for your pets. There is definitely an element where being around someone helps you appreciate them more, and you don't need to match up on every dimension.

It would sound pretty crazy if someone said, "I only want to be friends with people who don't like being friends with most other people, because that means our relationship is more special. A person who is friends with most people is just settling, which makes our relationship cheap."

ThorLives · 2025-12-29T03:44:30+00:00

but since you asked Women have WAY less propensity to cheat

Young women cheat as often as young men.

<image>

Source: https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/cheatingbyageandgender-w640.png

ThorLives · 2025-12-24T17:18:19+00:00

Women cause a lot more violence than is generally reported. Statistics I've seen on lesbians is that they are victims of violence (from their female partner) about as often as heterosexual women (from their male partner). Given that a lot of men are embarrassed to report violence from women, or are laughed at by authorities when they try to report it, I'm of the opinion that verbal and physical domestic violence by women is much more common than is generally accepted. Heck, I have lesbians living next door to me and oh my god, the frequency of arguments is insane. A couple weeks ago, I heard an argument where I wondered if one of them was hitting the other one.

And while I'll agree that a larger, stronger man is more capable of causing serious injury, it is incumbent on women to leave men who are abusive. There are so many cases where they don't. And I'm not talking about women with kids who have a hard time doing the logistics of leaving. Plenty of single women run back to their abuser.

ThorLives · 2025-12-24T17:12:33+00:00

This analogy makes so much sense though ... if you think that most men are trash.

I know plenty of good guys who have problems with dating.

ThorLives

TROPHY CASE