And who does that? Only people interested in this website and in uploading their stats..
All this website shows you is the average data of people who used this website. Not the average tinder user...
He hasn't read the referenced sources and the disclaimer at the bottom of the website. He doesn't even know how that website works.
He hasn't even considered that the whole point of this website is to sell you a way to get more matches. They have no interest in being an unbiased source. They have all the interest in telling you that "tinder works, but your profile suck and we can make it work too if you pay us"
Tinder works really well for average women cause they can get sex with the hottest men
Alpha fucks beta bucks baby
Dating is so easy for an average woman in the modern world haha, it’s like living on easy mode.
The hottest men generally aren't fucking average looking women. As a guy who does well on dating apps, I can swipe right about 5% and get somewhere from 30-40 matches a week between the apps. It's enough volume that I'm able to meet a new girl pretty much any day I want to.
That's swiping right on the top 5%. Why would I swipe right on average looking women when I have essentially a limitless supply of attractive women? Some guys will say "oh it's less effort to sleep with average looking women", but that's not really true. Regardless of her attractiveness, it's basically match, exchange a few messages, and meet.
The red/black pillers have created this "Chad" boogeyman who's hogging all the average women. That's mostly nonsense in reality. There obviously may be exceptions, but people typically go for their best option, and Chad has better options than average looking women on any given night.
What race are you, and how’s your face? 10 being a professional male model, 5 being nondescript average guy (think a generic tech support dude), 1 being Jabba the Hut?
I'm white with brown hair and brown eyes. Don't really know how to answer the face question. Well above average but definitely not a model? I'm in shape though.
I'll say that there were other guys in my frat who did better with girls than I did, so I wasn't one of the "hottest guys" that he's talking about. But even at my level of looks, there's absolutely no reason to swipe on average looking girls on dating apps. Swiping right on my top 5%, the supply is basically endless.
For the mythical "Chad", the supply will be even larger. The idea that he's skipping over dozens of attractive recent matches to fuck an average girl is ridiculous. People go for the best option they have.
I will say that maybe an attractive guy in a small town might handle things differently. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone in a large city. I guess if there are 5 attractive options in town, then you're going to blow through them pretty quickly and then have to lower your standards if you want to keep having casual sex.
Um bud, that one match a day is usually a bot or some chick pushing a onlyfans or a premium snap... most men don't get a genuine match once a day maybe once a month.
That's so over dramatic, yes you match with a bot from time to time.
>maybe once a month.
That's men in the bottom 13% , bottom 13% women have it shitty too
It also depends on your area. If you're in a Tinder dead area it doesn't mean you're the bottom, small towns, or low pop places... you're more likely to get what I described above
I'm telling you, lack of success on the apps has nothing to do with attractiveness... it's about how well you take photos and portray your life... it's not a eww he's ugly... it's more eww he's cute but seems boring.....
Lol, cold approach isnt made for all.
Not everyone has a circle of friends from which to try with many women.
Not everyone is comfortable hitting on women in live and enjoy the distance the app provide.
A lot of people enjoy the privacy the apps are giving, low to no repercussion from trying , no social stigma
U see ? Your opinion is far from universal but good for you if you slay the way you do
You get no repercussions from trying, but also no experience and no feedback. You're essentially spinning wheels in place for months on end, if not years.
How many of those matches are bots?
>It totally contradicts the whole redpill
I think you mean blackpill. Also the men get 1 match for every 40 likes and women get 1 for every 2 likes kinda feeds into blackpill talking points ngl
Edit: also men like every 1 in 3 profiles and women like 1 in every 16 will also feed the blackpill.
Blackpill and redpill consider hypergamy as analytical element in the sexual market. However, the redpill focuses on sociocultural variables while the blackpill takes lookism as its fundamental analytical value; and then, if possible, you can add money and status as complementary values (dual mating strategy).
>The mean might be similar enough for men and women, but it's distributed so that most women are near the average (which is much higher than studies report) whereas most men are either far below or far above the average.
Actually it's the opposite.
The median 25-49 year old man has had about 50% more sexual partners than the median woman of the same age.
So, larger group of men are sleeping with smaller group of women.
[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key\_statistics/n-keystat.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n-keystat.htm)
At 15-19 years old median men have about 100% more sexual partners.
[https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Median-number-of-opposite-sex-sexual-partners-in-lifetime-by-age-and-sex\_fig6\_7517094](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Median-number-of-opposite-sex-sexual-partners-in-lifetime-by-age-and-sex_fig6_7517094)
Once again I am talking about the median. It's the value that splits the population in half.
Take 100 men , half (48%)of them will have 1 match a day or more
The median amount of match per day is therefore 1 (slightly below)
I'm pretty sure the source is [Tinder Wrapped](https://tinderwrapped.com/), which seems to be the same concept where you can upload your data and get insights. The article links to it. According to Tinder Wrapped, about half of all men get at least a match a day.
You've been proven wrong, cant call me bad at stats without any counter argument.
Im using this source as it's biased in your own favor but still proving the rp wrong. The median guy isnt invisible and gets near 1 match a day
Nope, that's exclusively black pill. The red pill never said that average men get no matches.
The red pill 80-20 is completely different, it's about casual sex
Oh come on, you're either very new or delusional about the average redpill perception.
The betabuxx alphafucks is all over the place saying women are only attracted to 20% men
Again that is a black pill idea, this place is infested with black pillers. I was on red pill sites from as far back as heartiste, altsedfast, in mala fide, the spearhead, etc
The RED pill concept of 80/20 is "20% of men are having 80% of the casual sex"
That's it. Any application to looks or online dating is pure back pill that was only invented recently on reddit. The red pill predates reddit.
Yeh alright you missed the redpill those 15 last years. Seriously how blind can you get to your own ideology. I guess it's easier to defend it when you deny 75% of its content
Or, wait for it....
You are wrong and don't know what you are talking about. By your own description you hate the red pill, why would I expected you to have an accurate view of something you hate?
Funny thing is I'm not red pill. I have my own criticisms of red pill ideas and the community. However mine are actually true.
>However mine are actually true.
Lol, redpill is an abstract constructiona that is evolving over time. Nowadays it's lame podcasts broadcasting any onlyfan girls or delusional mgtow ranting about how much women will regret "it" later on , add to that the blackpill zoomers and all the obsession on being "Alpha" and you get an overview of the mainstream manosphere in 2024.
Im sure if we go back to your good old times we can find figures of the redpill that fits your idea of it yeh
The red pill is a specific thing it's not a catch all term for everything a man says that you don't like.
What you are doing is saying communists, socialists democrats the ACLU and antifa are all the same thing because there is some overlap in the membership.
It's pure ignorance, each group and term has a specific meaning.
If you want a catchall term for them then use "manosphere" that's what it's there for.
>communists, socialists democrats
Those are ,well defined terms.
Show me your redpill bible ? What makes it the official one ?
You'll never be able to respond
Why do you have such an problem with accepting the difference between red and black pill ideas? They are different things.
Did you get so invested in labeling everything you hate "red pill" you can't accept that part of those things you hate are actually black pill?
Why can't you use the proper labels?
Firstly the 80/20 is not a hard number, its just a catchy stand in for the argument that a minority of men get such outsized amount of options it significantly negatively effects the amount of options the majority of men have.
Secondly it doesnt disprove this rule at all. 1 match a day out of what like 40 maybe 50 right swipes, and then that match has like a 10% chance of even saying anything back to you and maybe 1% chance of it ever resulting in her actually showing up to meet you is not disproving hypergamy.
ur moving the goal post, First you say the 80/20 rule doesnt exist and now you are what accepting that a minority of men do have massively outsized options, but that its ok? Address the point first before jumping around.
Another misleading statistic that is mostly the result of a longer average stay on the app. There are near as many women as there are men going on the apps, the imbalance mainly comes from men taking longer to find someone while actively searching than it takes for a woman who deletes the app way faster
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/
34% men vs 27% women who use online dating, on a 100 base that's 55.7% men
That alone explains why it's harder for men
Added to the fact that OLD favors better ranked profiles and ignores the rest
I don't know why you keep insisting on using OLD
Yes, reality is something that takes away many opportunities. But remember: It's better to be single than to find a bad woman who wants to steal the fruit of your work and effort and take advantage of you.
>courses, classes
If you approach women in any of these spaces they will say "i didn't come here to be approached by men i came here to learn".
> travelling
here they will say "i came here to see x country not to be approached", or they could easily be from some far off place that you are never going to go to, or be a local in which case you are approaching a woman shopping or whatever.
>friends of friends
This doesnt really work either becuase men and women have different interest, plus friendships circles are generally much smaller so most ppl are not going to have mixed friendship networks.
But even if you do have a mixed friendship network this wont work, the avg man is gonna have like a 10% chance at success with women, if that. So since girls really dont like it when you hit on a bunch of the friends they have introduced to you, you are quickly going to end up in a situation where what ever girl you are friends with that knows these other girls is going to stop introducing you to any new girls.
No, you get to know them and then you see if maybe they like you enough to ask her out. You don't ask them out first, that's creepy
but anyway, anything is better than OLD. Not only the ratio sucks (75% men) but also the algorithm is against you if you are not a chad.
Average people are having sex and relationships, this is a fact
"but none of that works!"
There's no other options. You are not that special. If you still think life is meaningless and there's no solution then maybe you can start therapy or reevaluate your standards, glow up, whatever
>I don't know why you keep insisting on using OLD
* Becuase this is how most people date
* third spaces where people might have met before are being closed down one after another also
* women are barely receptive to being approached in any space that isn't explicitly for dating
* women are largely not receptive to being friends with men and hate when men become their friends to try to date them
So the average man has to swipe on 120 profiles to get 1 match who then has a chance of being a bot or a sex worker.
He has to swipe on 1200 to generate 10 matches in the hopes that 1 of them might be a compatible option.
The average woman has to swipe on 32 profiles to get a match and 320 to generate 10 matches in the hopes 1 will be a suitable option.
Im not focusing on swipe statistics as they are quite meaningless , ill make a post about it another day.
Basically your profile is shown to a set amount of women per day may you swipe 20 times or a million times it wont change that set amount.
If you connect only once a week and swipe left on the second profile you can get near 100% match rate. That's how biased and meaningless this stat is.
Take the same guy swiping 10 times a day or 100 or 1000, he'll still have 1 match a day but can have 10/1/0.1% match rate
Swiping right on a million women a day wont make your profile seen by that million of women.
But try telling me where im wrong.
Im literally having those 50%+ match rate by only collecting my match every other days (second profile is almost always a match when you've been off a few days)
All you have to do is to be in the active users pool to be shown to women, then the amount of timd you swipe doesnt change how many chances you're given. Instead of showing your profile to 20 women out of the 50 you swiped right on, it will show your profile to 20women out of the 500 you liked
You are assuming that A. Someone has swiped on you, and B. That that person isn’t a bot or sex worker. Those are massive assumptions that show you just don’t understand how dating apps work on a fundamental level.
>You are assuming that A. Someone has swiped on you, and B. That that person isn’t a bot or sex worker.
There's no assumptions, it's a comparison all things equal, all men are exposed to sex workers and bots about the same. It's also a rare occurence, bots are a small minority let's cut the crap for a sec,
You need to have evidence of these things. You can’t just say shit and expect me to believe you. Bots and sex workers are pretty pervasive on dating apps. Any guy who’s actually been on a dating app will tell you this. So if you’re going to say otherwise you need some real substantive evidence to back it up. Put up or shut up.
You missed my point. How common bots are is irrelevant as it's as common for all men.
It's clearly not that often since 13% men have less than 1 match a week, it means men are matching with less than 1 bot a week
Im on the apps and yes it's very rare on a time basis. For those who get 0 match and end up matching with h a bot once a month, bots represent most of their matches but it's still one bot a month
Again you make these absolutely insane assumptions with absolutely no proof. You need actual evidence of what your saying or I’m simply never going to take you seriously
Oh god It's not a matter of proof but basic logic.
It's the same as comparing your income with the median income. Not everything is perfectly the same from an individual to another and yet you can compare. Not sure what is your argument. There are a few bots so what's your point exactly ?
What is it … 1 a month ? What does it change exactly if ppl on average are matching with 1 bot a month
The match rate is calculated from the statistics (mens is 3%) so if you only go on there once a week and swipe on 2 profiles your chance of a match is near 0.
The stats aren't meaningless.
>Basically your profile is shown to a set amount of women per day may you swipe 20 times or a million times it wont change that set amount.
Yeah but if ur profile is shown to 100 women a day and only 1 swipes right whereas you are shown 100 profiles and u swipe on 50 how is that not showing that women mostly gravitate toward the top % of men?
Several reasons for this. Very attractive men with as many options as women tend to get just as selective. It's called sorting out your best option and everyone does that and swipes relatively to their match rate
"It says that 48% of men get 1match or more per day. "
This stat is bullshit, it's even contradict in the FAQ where they said that "the average number of match for male user is 0,6 a day. You can't get a 0,6 average if you have 48% getting 1 or more, unless you have some users with "negative match", which would be hilarious.
Yeh one of two stats dont add up and to me it's the 0.6 average , that would mean women would have only 1.8match per day on average which sounds impossible
Both stats are bullshit imo.
One of my friend used to work in marketing for a french tinder competitor, it was a few years ago so number might be outdated but the % of guys who had less than 1 match per day was about 70%
Can't remember the average, but it was more than 0,6 mostly because the top guys get absurd amont of matchs. There was some attractive men in Paris who had dozens of match every day. Top guys are the top user mostly because of the abismal elo disparity in the male ranking (don't believe tinder when they said they get rid of the elo ranking, they changed the formula a little bit to stop calling it "Elo", but it still mostly the same thing).
Would it be Happn ? I'm french and it's the only one french brand i can think of and yeh i always had terrible results on this app, not sure why. I guess their algorythm is even more favorable toward the most attractive profiles being shown even morz than in tinder
This is stupid lol
It doesn't account for small cities. It doesn't account for people who don't swipe that much. It doesn't account for inactive users or bot accounts.
My friends who are completely normal looking dudes get roughly 1-2 matches per week I'd estimate. But they aren't on apps often, a better measurement would be swipe to match ratio (although it still doesn't account for fake accounts and bots)
Location means a lot.
I'm currently splitting my time living in the south one week and New England the next. In the small city (pop. ~35k) in the south, which is semi-rural, I can get maybe 1 or 2 matches per month on the apps. Up north, in the middle of a much larger city (pop. ~125k) with many other towns close by, I get around two dozen or more per week.
I've tried it as well, in NYC my matches per day are crazy, but where I normally live there's just not enough people, so my matches go way down per day.
The size of the pool doesnt matter much yet there are profiles left your profile is still shown to a relatively same amount of women.
And yeh that's how aggregated statistics work, it necessarely takes into account different kind of profiles. Taking all kind of profiles and locations , the median man gets near 1match a day and it doesnt fit with the RP storytelling where he would be invisible
>The size of the pool doesnt matter much yet there are profiles left your profile is still shown to a relatively same amount of women.
It does matter because small cities don't have enough women on the app to swipe 100 of them every day without running out.
Swiping 100s of women wont make your profile shown to 100s of women that's missunderstanding how the app work.
Women are seeing a given amount of profiles and that amount is divided among all the men.
Basically your profile is seen by X women a day. Let's say 20 , if you swipe on 100 girl, 20 put of them will see your profile , if you swipe on 1000 girls, that's still 20 but you have diluded the pool among who will see your profile.
You will be seen by 20 women a day until there isnt anymore to see your profile.
The only difference with big coty is how long it takes, not the amount of time your profile is seen.
One factor that could have an impact is the gender ratio , if you live in a coal mine where there are significantly more men then your profile wont be seen as many times as the amount of views from women are divided by a bigger number
>The only difference with big coty is how long it takes
lmao bro so it might change those 1 match per days into 1 match per week..? Just like I said...?
>If you get less than 1 match a week, you are in the bottom 13% of male users
That doesn't make any sense because it also depends on how selective a guy is, or whether he right swipes on everyone.
Imagine two guys who are identical in every way. The guy right-swiping on everyone gets, let's say, 4 matches a month but all of them are terrible. The other guy right swipes on 20% of women, but didn't get any matches. Does that mean the first guy is seen as more attractive than the second guy? Of course not. Heck, the second guy could be dramatically more attractive than the first and still get fewer matches simply because he's not right swiping on everyone, but his matches could be much better quality than the first guy's.
It also depends on how much time a guy is spending on the app - i.e. how many times a guy is swiping in total. A guy who looks at 100 women's profiles each day and swipes right on all of them will get more matches than a guy who looks at 10 women's profiles each day and swipes right on all of them. The percentage is the same, but guy #1 is going to get more matches. Potentially 10x as many matches.
Maybe the experiment makes more sense if guys are required to blindly right swipe on exactly 100 profiles (ignoring the instant matches) and then tally-up the resulting number of matches.
Match quantity alone is not a decent measure of relative desirability. I bought Tinder gold/plat/diamond or whatever that let me see who had liked me and I’ve never seen so many fat women before in my life. My match rate would’ve been immensely higher if I was into that.
I’m not the guy you asked, but I had the same experience as him when I did a promo trial of tinder gold. When I signed up, my likes went from 99+ to 9,999+ (my account is over 6 years old), but almost all of them were from women I had zero interest in.
I probably swipe left about 95%, so that sort of makes sense, but my likes were noticeably less attractive than the general Tinder population. For whatever reason, most of my matches happen when I swipe first and get the match later.
how did he get this data?
edit: its from 2016-2017 lmfao, so if over half of men wasn't even getting a mere match daily back then, imagine how terrible it must be now. add into that self-selection bias + lying.
Brother, if you can’t see it yourself, then you’ve got to do some homework on how much social dynamics/standards have changed in the last 5 years or so
>standards have changed in the last 5 years or so
No they havent dating apps were already mainstream, the situation barely changed.
If one thing changed, it's feminism who lost influence , which would make the situation slightly easier
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In a smaller city where I live, I am getting roughly one match per month.
I have played the international dating game on the premium feature to boost my score: swipe left on at least 90% of international matches who like me.
While I have not changed cities, I have set my location to a nearby larger metro area, where I used to live. I am getting approximately one match a week, and I am paying a premium.
You, OP, are looking at an average me.
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess it depends on how much you’re swiping right, which will be partially dependent on the size of your city.
I normally get about 2-3 matches a day on Tinder, but I live in nyc and have a big population of women to swipe on. I downloaded my data once and I swiped around 200 times per day total and swiped right about 10 times per day. If I were in a much smaller city, I would run out of options swiping 200 times a day (it’s happened to me while traveling). I doubt I would get more than 1 match a day in most places in the US, mainly because I’m selective.
That's the common missconception, tinder doesnt reward mass swiping... Simply because it cant.
There are 3 men per women that means if women are swiping on average let's say 100 times a day then Tinder can distribute only 33 (100/3) views per men per day..
Swiping a thousand time that day will only result in showing your profile to the same amount of women but from a more diluded pool.
the common misconception is that you can swipe once or a hundred times?
i think you're lost.
i'm saying you can't tell from a guy being on tinder for a day how many times he swiped.
This is self-selection bias. Why would the men getting zero matches at all even bother at uploading their "stats" on this website?
I bet lots of those who claim they have nice stats have never dated anyone besides probably Eva AI sexting bot
[удалено]
It's not.
Why bother asking users when you already have the data?
Because they don't have the data. This website is not related with tinder or Match...
They do if they install the Tinder Wrapped app
And who does that? Only people interested in this website and in uploading their stats.. All this website shows you is the average data of people who used this website. Not the average tinder user...
the guy that does great on Tinder won't probably download the app though
Why do you believe that?
He hasn't read the referenced sources and the disclaimer at the bottom of the website. He doesn't even know how that website works. He hasn't even considered that the whole point of this website is to sell you a way to get more matches. They have no interest in being an unbiased source. They have all the interest in telling you that "tinder works, but your profile suck and we can make it work too if you pay us"
Tinder works really well for average women cause they can get sex with the hottest men Alpha fucks beta bucks baby Dating is so easy for an average woman in the modern world haha, it’s like living on easy mode.
The hottest men generally aren't fucking average looking women. As a guy who does well on dating apps, I can swipe right about 5% and get somewhere from 30-40 matches a week between the apps. It's enough volume that I'm able to meet a new girl pretty much any day I want to. That's swiping right on the top 5%. Why would I swipe right on average looking women when I have essentially a limitless supply of attractive women? Some guys will say "oh it's less effort to sleep with average looking women", but that's not really true. Regardless of her attractiveness, it's basically match, exchange a few messages, and meet. The red/black pillers have created this "Chad" boogeyman who's hogging all the average women. That's mostly nonsense in reality. There obviously may be exceptions, but people typically go for their best option, and Chad has better options than average looking women on any given night.
Are you super tall? I feel like that’s what allows dudes to match a ton on old
I'm between 6'3 and 6'4. I've tried both in my bio and I actually feel like I do better at 6'3, but I could be imagining it.
I think you’re past the point of women nitpicking over height lol
What race are you, and how’s your face? 10 being a professional male model, 5 being nondescript average guy (think a generic tech support dude), 1 being Jabba the Hut?
I'm white with brown hair and brown eyes. Don't really know how to answer the face question. Well above average but definitely not a model? I'm in shape though. I'll say that there were other guys in my frat who did better with girls than I did, so I wasn't one of the "hottest guys" that he's talking about. But even at my level of looks, there's absolutely no reason to swipe on average looking girls on dating apps. Swiping right on my top 5%, the supply is basically endless. For the mythical "Chad", the supply will be even larger. The idea that he's skipping over dozens of attractive recent matches to fuck an average girl is ridiculous. People go for the best option they have. I will say that maybe an attractive guy in a small town might handle things differently. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone in a large city. I guess if there are 5 attractive options in town, then you're going to blow through them pretty quickly and then have to lower your standards if you want to keep having casual sex.
How stupid can you be?
Um bud, that one match a day is usually a bot or some chick pushing a onlyfans or a premium snap... most men don't get a genuine match once a day maybe once a month.
That's so over dramatic, yes you match with a bot from time to time. >maybe once a month. That's men in the bottom 13% , bottom 13% women have it shitty too
It also depends on your area. If you're in a Tinder dead area it doesn't mean you're the bottom, small towns, or low pop places... you're more likely to get what I described above
Low pop means you'll rub out of women seeing your profiles earlier but in the meantime it's the same
I'm telling you, lack of success on the apps has nothing to do with attractiveness... it's about how well you take photos and portray your life... it's not a eww he's ugly... it's more eww he's cute but seems boring.....
and what if he's ugly? and not "cute but boring" like you happened to be because of your good genetics.
Then you're gonna have to date someone on your level, should still try and max, but can't do nothing about genetics
I will now reveal the secret to defeating dating apps once and for all: Uninstall. Gratz, you win!
Just like in EVE online
R/im14andThisIsDeep So alright you dont like OLD , then what is your way ? Do you think it is better and suited for all ?
Going outside and yes, it is strictly better.
Lol, cold approach isnt made for all. Not everyone has a circle of friends from which to try with many women. Not everyone is comfortable hitting on women in live and enjoy the distance the app provide. A lot of people enjoy the privacy the apps are giving, low to no repercussion from trying , no social stigma U see ? Your opinion is far from universal but good for you if you slay the way you do
You get no repercussions from trying, but also no experience and no feedback. You're essentially spinning wheels in place for months on end, if not years.
>You're essentially spinning wheels in place for months on end, if not years. Only if you never learn, it's really not as dark as you imagine it
How many of those matches are bots? >It totally contradicts the whole redpill I think you mean blackpill. Also the men get 1 match for every 40 likes and women get 1 for every 2 likes kinda feeds into blackpill talking points ngl Edit: also men like every 1 in 3 profiles and women like 1 in every 16 will also feed the blackpill.
Blackpill and redpill consider hypergamy as analytical element in the sexual market. However, the redpill focuses on sociocultural variables while the blackpill takes lookism as its fundamental analytical value; and then, if possible, you can add money and status as complementary values (dual mating strategy).
[удалено]
[удалено]
>The mean might be similar enough for men and women, but it's distributed so that most women are near the average (which is much higher than studies report) whereas most men are either far below or far above the average. Actually it's the opposite. The median 25-49 year old man has had about 50% more sexual partners than the median woman of the same age. So, larger group of men are sleeping with smaller group of women. [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key\_statistics/n-keystat.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n-keystat.htm)
[удалено]
At 15-19 years old median men have about 100% more sexual partners. [https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Median-number-of-opposite-sex-sexual-partners-in-lifetime-by-age-and-sex\_fig6\_7517094](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Median-number-of-opposite-sex-sexual-partners-in-lifetime-by-age-and-sex_fig6_7517094)
Once again I am talking about the median. It's the value that splits the population in half. Take 100 men , half (48%)of them will have 1 match a day or more The median amount of match per day is therefore 1 (slightly below)
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure the source is [Tinder Wrapped](https://tinderwrapped.com/), which seems to be the same concept where you can upload your data and get insights. The article links to it. According to Tinder Wrapped, about half of all men get at least a match a day.
You've been proven wrong, cant call me bad at stats without any counter argument. Im using this source as it's biased in your own favor but still proving the rp wrong. The median guy isnt invisible and gets near 1 match a day
How does this contradict the *red* pill? Isn't it the back pill you are talking about?
They both agree on their 80/20 rle and how average men would be invisible
Nope, that's exclusively black pill. The red pill never said that average men get no matches. The red pill 80-20 is completely different, it's about casual sex
Oh come on, you're either very new or delusional about the average redpill perception. The betabuxx alphafucks is all over the place saying women are only attracted to 20% men
Again that is a black pill idea, this place is infested with black pillers. I was on red pill sites from as far back as heartiste, altsedfast, in mala fide, the spearhead, etc The RED pill concept of 80/20 is "20% of men are having 80% of the casual sex" That's it. Any application to looks or online dating is pure back pill that was only invented recently on reddit. The red pill predates reddit.
Yeh alright you missed the redpill those 15 last years. Seriously how blind can you get to your own ideology. I guess it's easier to defend it when you deny 75% of its content
Or, wait for it.... You are wrong and don't know what you are talking about. By your own description you hate the red pill, why would I expected you to have an accurate view of something you hate? Funny thing is I'm not red pill. I have my own criticisms of red pill ideas and the community. However mine are actually true.
>However mine are actually true. Lol, redpill is an abstract constructiona that is evolving over time. Nowadays it's lame podcasts broadcasting any onlyfan girls or delusional mgtow ranting about how much women will regret "it" later on , add to that the blackpill zoomers and all the obsession on being "Alpha" and you get an overview of the mainstream manosphere in 2024. Im sure if we go back to your good old times we can find figures of the redpill that fits your idea of it yeh
The red pill is a specific thing it's not a catch all term for everything a man says that you don't like. What you are doing is saying communists, socialists democrats the ACLU and antifa are all the same thing because there is some overlap in the membership. It's pure ignorance, each group and term has a specific meaning. If you want a catchall term for them then use "manosphere" that's what it's there for.
>communists, socialists democrats Those are ,well defined terms. Show me your redpill bible ? What makes it the official one ? You'll never be able to respond
You are the same as a feminist who would say "but feminism is only about equality and allowing women to vote"
Why do you have such an problem with accepting the difference between red and black pill ideas? They are different things. Did you get so invested in labeling everything you hate "red pill" you can't accept that part of those things you hate are actually black pill? Why can't you use the proper labels?
“betabuxx and alphafucks” is a blackpill adage
Oops responded to the wrong comment.
Firstly the 80/20 is not a hard number, its just a catchy stand in for the argument that a minority of men get such outsized amount of options it significantly negatively effects the amount of options the majority of men have. Secondly it doesnt disprove this rule at all. 1 match a day out of what like 40 maybe 50 right swipes, and then that match has like a 10% chance of even saying anything back to you and maybe 1% chance of it ever resulting in her actually showing up to meet you is not disproving hypergamy.
1 match a day is more than enough and swiping a ton isnt rewarded your profile is seen a set amount of time
ur moving the goal post, First you say the 80/20 rule doesnt exist and now you are what accepting that a minority of men do have massively outsized options, but that its ok? Address the point first before jumping around.
> 75 % of Tinder users are male
> 52 % of men have less than one match a day
Another misleading statistic that is mostly the result of a longer average stay on the app. There are near as many women as there are men going on the apps, the imbalance mainly comes from men taking longer to find someone while actively searching than it takes for a woman who deletes the app way faster https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/ 34% men vs 27% women who use online dating, on a 100 base that's 55.7% men
That alone explains why it's harder for men Added to the fact that OLD favors better ranked profiles and ignores the rest I don't know why you keep insisting on using OLD
What other options are there aside from OLD? That's all I've done for the last 10 years. Dating in general is harder for men.
courses, classes, travelling and friends of friends
I assume all women will find me ugly anyway so I just to stick to online.
Yes, reality is something that takes away many opportunities. But remember: It's better to be single than to find a bad woman who wants to steal the fruit of your work and effort and take advantage of you.
>courses, classes If you approach women in any of these spaces they will say "i didn't come here to be approached by men i came here to learn". > travelling here they will say "i came here to see x country not to be approached", or they could easily be from some far off place that you are never going to go to, or be a local in which case you are approaching a woman shopping or whatever. >friends of friends This doesnt really work either becuase men and women have different interest, plus friendships circles are generally much smaller so most ppl are not going to have mixed friendship networks. But even if you do have a mixed friendship network this wont work, the avg man is gonna have like a 10% chance at success with women, if that. So since girls really dont like it when you hit on a bunch of the friends they have introduced to you, you are quickly going to end up in a situation where what ever girl you are friends with that knows these other girls is going to stop introducing you to any new girls.
No, you get to know them and then you see if maybe they like you enough to ask her out. You don't ask them out first, that's creepy but anyway, anything is better than OLD. Not only the ratio sucks (75% men) but also the algorithm is against you if you are not a chad. Average people are having sex and relationships, this is a fact "but none of that works!" There's no other options. You are not that special. If you still think life is meaningless and there's no solution then maybe you can start therapy or reevaluate your standards, glow up, whatever
>I don't know why you keep insisting on using OLD * Becuase this is how most people date * third spaces where people might have met before are being closed down one after another also * women are barely receptive to being approached in any space that isn't explicitly for dating * women are largely not receptive to being friends with men and hate when men become their friends to try to date them
So the average man has to swipe on 120 profiles to get 1 match who then has a chance of being a bot or a sex worker. He has to swipe on 1200 to generate 10 matches in the hopes that 1 of them might be a compatible option. The average woman has to swipe on 32 profiles to get a match and 320 to generate 10 matches in the hopes 1 will be a suitable option.
Im not focusing on swipe statistics as they are quite meaningless , ill make a post about it another day. Basically your profile is shown to a set amount of women per day may you swipe 20 times or a million times it wont change that set amount. If you connect only once a week and swipe left on the second profile you can get near 100% match rate. That's how biased and meaningless this stat is. Take the same guy swiping 10 times a day or 100 or 1000, he'll still have 1 match a day but can have 10/1/0.1% match rate
That is just a total misunderstanding of both tinder and statistics. Well done
Swiping right on a million women a day wont make your profile seen by that million of women. But try telling me where im wrong. Im literally having those 50%+ match rate by only collecting my match every other days (second profile is almost always a match when you've been off a few days) All you have to do is to be in the active users pool to be shown to women, then the amount of timd you swipe doesnt change how many chances you're given. Instead of showing your profile to 20 women out of the 50 you swiped right on, it will show your profile to 20women out of the 500 you liked
You are assuming that A. Someone has swiped on you, and B. That that person isn’t a bot or sex worker. Those are massive assumptions that show you just don’t understand how dating apps work on a fundamental level.
>You are assuming that A. Someone has swiped on you, and B. That that person isn’t a bot or sex worker. There's no assumptions, it's a comparison all things equal, all men are exposed to sex workers and bots about the same. It's also a rare occurence, bots are a small minority let's cut the crap for a sec,
You need to have evidence of these things. You can’t just say shit and expect me to believe you. Bots and sex workers are pretty pervasive on dating apps. Any guy who’s actually been on a dating app will tell you this. So if you’re going to say otherwise you need some real substantive evidence to back it up. Put up or shut up.
You missed my point. How common bots are is irrelevant as it's as common for all men. It's clearly not that often since 13% men have less than 1 match a week, it means men are matching with less than 1 bot a week Im on the apps and yes it's very rare on a time basis. For those who get 0 match and end up matching with h a bot once a month, bots represent most of their matches but it's still one bot a month
Again you make these absolutely insane assumptions with absolutely no proof. You need actual evidence of what your saying or I’m simply never going to take you seriously
Oh god It's not a matter of proof but basic logic. It's the same as comparing your income with the median income. Not everything is perfectly the same from an individual to another and yet you can compare. Not sure what is your argument. There are a few bots so what's your point exactly ? What is it … 1 a month ? What does it change exactly if ppl on average are matching with 1 bot a month
The match rate is calculated from the statistics (mens is 3%) so if you only go on there once a week and swipe on 2 profiles your chance of a match is near 0. The stats aren't meaningless.
>Basically your profile is shown to a set amount of women per day may you swipe 20 times or a million times it wont change that set amount. Yeah but if ur profile is shown to 100 women a day and only 1 swipes right whereas you are shown 100 profiles and u swipe on 50 how is that not showing that women mostly gravitate toward the top % of men?
Several reasons for this. Very attractive men with as many options as women tend to get just as selective. It's called sorting out your best option and everyone does that and swipes relatively to their match rate
I must be extremely ugly then that I did not manage to get a single match in 3 month
Not necessarely ugly, could be bad pics or even a shadow ban but yeh your profile is clearly bottom tier
"It says that 48% of men get 1match or more per day. " This stat is bullshit, it's even contradict in the FAQ where they said that "the average number of match for male user is 0,6 a day. You can't get a 0,6 average if you have 48% getting 1 or more, unless you have some users with "negative match", which would be hilarious.
Yeh one of two stats dont add up and to me it's the 0.6 average , that would mean women would have only 1.8match per day on average which sounds impossible
Both stats are bullshit imo. One of my friend used to work in marketing for a french tinder competitor, it was a few years ago so number might be outdated but the % of guys who had less than 1 match per day was about 70% Can't remember the average, but it was more than 0,6 mostly because the top guys get absurd amont of matchs. There was some attractive men in Paris who had dozens of match every day. Top guys are the top user mostly because of the abismal elo disparity in the male ranking (don't believe tinder when they said they get rid of the elo ranking, they changed the formula a little bit to stop calling it "Elo", but it still mostly the same thing).
Would it be Happn ? I'm french and it's the only one french brand i can think of and yeh i always had terrible results on this app, not sure why. I guess their algorythm is even more favorable toward the most attractive profiles being shown even morz than in tinder
This is stupid lol It doesn't account for small cities. It doesn't account for people who don't swipe that much. It doesn't account for inactive users or bot accounts. My friends who are completely normal looking dudes get roughly 1-2 matches per week I'd estimate. But they aren't on apps often, a better measurement would be swipe to match ratio (although it still doesn't account for fake accounts and bots)
Location means a lot. I'm currently splitting my time living in the south one week and New England the next. In the small city (pop. ~35k) in the south, which is semi-rural, I can get maybe 1 or 2 matches per month on the apps. Up north, in the middle of a much larger city (pop. ~125k) with many other towns close by, I get around two dozen or more per week.
I've tried it as well, in NYC my matches per day are crazy, but where I normally live there's just not enough people, so my matches go way down per day.
The size of the pool doesnt matter much yet there are profiles left your profile is still shown to a relatively same amount of women. And yeh that's how aggregated statistics work, it necessarely takes into account different kind of profiles. Taking all kind of profiles and locations , the median man gets near 1match a day and it doesnt fit with the RP storytelling where he would be invisible
>The size of the pool doesnt matter much yet there are profiles left your profile is still shown to a relatively same amount of women. It does matter because small cities don't have enough women on the app to swipe 100 of them every day without running out.
Swiping 100s of women wont make your profile shown to 100s of women that's missunderstanding how the app work. Women are seeing a given amount of profiles and that amount is divided among all the men. Basically your profile is seen by X women a day. Let's say 20 , if you swipe on 100 girl, 20 put of them will see your profile , if you swipe on 1000 girls, that's still 20 but you have diluded the pool among who will see your profile. You will be seen by 20 women a day until there isnt anymore to see your profile. The only difference with big coty is how long it takes, not the amount of time your profile is seen. One factor that could have an impact is the gender ratio , if you live in a coal mine where there are significantly more men then your profile wont be seen as many times as the amount of views from women are divided by a bigger number
>The only difference with big coty is how long it takes lmao bro so it might change those 1 match per days into 1 match per week..? Just like I said...?
Well... Yeh obviously, once you went through all profiles there's no more profile. Yep.
If you're on OLD in the first place you're not attractive. Women will approach you in person if you're attractive.
Lol so what's the deal then ? Your suggestions
I dunno, be more handsome or something.
>If you get less than 1 match a week, you are in the bottom 13% of male users That doesn't make any sense because it also depends on how selective a guy is, or whether he right swipes on everyone. Imagine two guys who are identical in every way. The guy right-swiping on everyone gets, let's say, 4 matches a month but all of them are terrible. The other guy right swipes on 20% of women, but didn't get any matches. Does that mean the first guy is seen as more attractive than the second guy? Of course not. Heck, the second guy could be dramatically more attractive than the first and still get fewer matches simply because he's not right swiping on everyone, but his matches could be much better quality than the first guy's. It also depends on how much time a guy is spending on the app - i.e. how many times a guy is swiping in total. A guy who looks at 100 women's profiles each day and swipes right on all of them will get more matches than a guy who looks at 10 women's profiles each day and swipes right on all of them. The percentage is the same, but guy #1 is going to get more matches. Potentially 10x as many matches. Maybe the experiment makes more sense if guys are required to blindly right swipe on exactly 100 profiles (ignoring the instant matches) and then tally-up the resulting number of matches.
I agree it's a fair limitation to this approach. One who is very picky knows he is though. That's assuming average swiping behavior
Match quantity alone is not a decent measure of relative desirability. I bought Tinder gold/plat/diamond or whatever that let me see who had liked me and I’ve never seen so many fat women before in my life. My match rate would’ve been immensely higher if I was into that.
Depends on how selective you are yep, how often do you swipe left ?
I’m not the guy you asked, but I had the same experience as him when I did a promo trial of tinder gold. When I signed up, my likes went from 99+ to 9,999+ (my account is over 6 years old), but almost all of them were from women I had zero interest in. I probably swipe left about 95%, so that sort of makes sense, but my likes were noticeably less attractive than the general Tinder population. For whatever reason, most of my matches happen when I swipe first and get the match later.
Damn you must be very handsome, i like how all those likes make you very picky, same as for women
how did he get this data? edit: its from 2016-2017 lmfao, so if over half of men wasn't even getting a mere match daily back then, imagine how terrible it must be now. add into that self-selection bias + lying.
Why would the situation be any different than in 2017 ? It was peak feminism when metoo appeared and shit
Brother, if you can’t see it yourself, then you’ve got to do some homework on how much social dynamics/standards have changed in the last 5 years or so
>standards have changed in the last 5 years or so No they havent dating apps were already mainstream, the situation barely changed. If one thing changed, it's feminism who lost influence , which would make the situation slightly easier
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In a smaller city where I live, I am getting roughly one match per month. I have played the international dating game on the premium feature to boost my score: swipe left on at least 90% of international matches who like me. While I have not changed cities, I have set my location to a nearby larger metro area, where I used to live. I am getting approximately one match a week, and I am paying a premium. You, OP, are looking at an average me.
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
what is all this math for
Damn I’m bottom tier. I get less than 1 match a month 🥲
Maybe shadow ban , i was for months
One match a day is hardly good.
I guess it depends on how much you’re swiping right, which will be partially dependent on the size of your city. I normally get about 2-3 matches a day on Tinder, but I live in nyc and have a big population of women to swipe on. I downloaded my data once and I swiped around 200 times per day total and swiped right about 10 times per day. If I were in a much smaller city, I would run out of options swiping 200 times a day (it’s happened to me while traveling). I doubt I would get more than 1 match a day in most places in the US, mainly because I’m selective.
6eag, that is very selective for a man.
The source says that over 50% of men get less than one match a day.
it would completely depend on how many swipes you make to get that match
Yeh you can focus on the amount of likes instead if your swiping habits are extreme
i mean "a day" or "a week" isn't a helpful metric they could have swiped on one person or 100 people in that time frame
That's the common missconception, tinder doesnt reward mass swiping... Simply because it cant. There are 3 men per women that means if women are swiping on average let's say 100 times a day then Tinder can distribute only 33 (100/3) views per men per day.. Swiping a thousand time that day will only result in showing your profile to the same amount of women but from a more diluded pool.
the common misconception is that you can swipe once or a hundred times? i think you're lost. i'm saying you can't tell from a guy being on tinder for a day how many times he swiped.
Lol, did you missunderstand and thought i was talking about a 1 day test ? Im talking of about an average over a longer period, obviously
Wouldn't location matter alot...
Very informative
And how do women determine their ranking
Dont you get enough attention
No 🥵
Second swipe it's always a match. You want another match? Restart the app until you run out of matches