3 ms·
I'm not gonna try to defend GPs theory, but you're misrepresenting their post. The claim was that women supposedly "fought" for those "5%", in the context of da
by ratww 4y ago
I'm not gonna try to defend GPs theory, but you're misrepresenting their post. The claim was that women supposedly "fought" for those "5%", in the context of dating apps. OP didn't claim women exclusively dated them or ended up with them in the real world. There's no "man in a suit denying advances". This is Tinder, people can just swipe to one direction or the other.
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago> you're misrepresenting their post. thats true, I replied to what they implied rather than what they said. And then they replied and proved what I had read between the lines is what they meant. > The claim was that women supposedly "fought" for those "5%", in the context of dating apps. OP didn't claim women exclusively dated them or ended up with them in the real world. If you fight for something, then your attention, time and effort is spent on that. The resulting relationships would therefore just be women spent from trying to get with those men and settling for everyone else, again something demonstrably false by the countless happy couples out there. It would be impossible if the basis of 95% of them was a tired, desperate women who ended up with Craig cause that top 5% man said no to her repeatedly.
- ratww 4y agoAgain, nobody is "saying no repeatedly" to anyone, because the app works by swiping and matchmaking. There are no conversations without matches, so there's no "tired, desperate women" that got "rejected" by lots and lots of men (and vice versa, men also spend a lot of time there). That's absurd, there's just a lack of matches. Similarly, in the real world there would be no "hard rejections" if this OPs theory were true, just harmless refusal to flirt.