Make A Difference

Your point is that we’re really no different than lions in the jungle. You’re basically saying human society should be like the lions where there are top males that mate with women and the other men just exist in a hierarchical structure catering to the lead men and their women. Not sure how that would work. Probably would cause an uprising because humans have weapons beyond pure physical attributes. And some portion of society, probably the majority, want to experience true and deep love, which is well beyond physical “Chad” attraction.

If the male goal in life is to pass on their genes as much as possible, and the female goal in life is to ensure they have the strongest fittest babies to ensure their survival. Then chads are doing what they’re biologically coded to do. And women are doing what they’re biologically coded to do. How dare you ask women to go against their biology (by settling for non-Chads) and not ask the men to do the same (by settling with only one woman). Ask them both to settle or STFU.

This should be easy to fix with AI and get to the truth. Dating apps need forget the left/right feature and give clear, honest representation of men/women that are your physical match. The reason they won't do this is probably because no one would pay for the app - they would be horrified of her/his physical equivalents. But, at least it would start to give a dose of reality of where you stand in looks and begin to correct the delusions in your mind.

So many incels calling them 5s but they can’t be. 5 is the median. The median American woman is overweight. None of these women are overweight. So they must be at least 6’s. Lina’s right to put the average at 7.

This is all subjective opinion and very far from the truth. Unfortunately, we now live in a "you can't say that" world, and some of us like you suck up for attention, rather than just being honest. With AI, I would love to see dating apps that take your picture, then sort through eligible men and give women a realistic, truthful view of men that match. It should be simple to create this feature, but most women would get sick to their stomachs at the sight of their actual, objectively assessed physical matches on the dating app. There should also be a "suck up" feature that posts like community notes. This post would be highlighted as the suck-up, disingenuous, trying to score points with political correctness note. Sucking up is worse than people who are on the other side, because you are providing a false narrative that distorts the reality of a situation and life.

Perfect rage bait for this site. But the OP is mostly correct (there are some individuals in the pick who aren't 7s, to say the least) These women do expect their guy to look good, make 6 figures, take care of himself, and be "interesting." But with young men falling behind, there's not enough candidates to go around, thus their standards can appear unrealistic while these women think there's GOOD MEN scarcity. This dynamic underscores most dating scene complaints

I thought this disconnect between men and women was all hype. For generations, once we got past arranged marriages and being able to marry for love, men and women kind of knew, growing up, the attractiveness category they were in. When did people become this delusional about how much better they looked compared to the rest? There is only one 7 in the back, and the rest are very average or below average in looks. The reality is, you may get a drunk guy or a sexually motivated guy that's a 7+, six feet plus tall, with great career potential, and with an income of $ 150k+ to sleep with one or all of these women, but honestly, he's not going to be with any of them. Unless she has the most awesome personality in the world and is the kindest, most caring, and decent woman he's ever met. After that guy has slept with them, these poor women think and set that male target for themselves. It's an unrealistic target, and people need to get back to reality and make a thorough, realistic assessment of themselves as a potential partner. Otherwise, they're destined to live an unhappy life, and even worse, make their future husbands they settle for miserable because they never got the guy whose only interest in them was a one-night stand or maybe a month or two purely sexual relationship. The truth hurts sometimes, but that's the problem with the everyone gets a trophy society we created. Very sad for the future of humanity.

This is what an above average group of 7/10 American girls looks like. They're business students from a very good school (which already raises the average by a lot) They also have significantly below national average BMI. They gonna be top 15% earners. So, in order to looks and status match with them, you should be about 6 feet tall, be in decent shape, dress well, and earn about $150k. The numbers don't lie.

Kind of funny seeing all the women hating on this guy. Do the math? She's saving $ 24,000 per year after taxes by living with him. Can someone tell me how he's taking advantage of her? In less than two years, she'll have enough money to buy a home if the relationship ends. In her current $ 3,000 per month rent situation, she's most likely not saving anything for a home. She needs to count her blessings. She's going to live with a guy she supposedly loves, cut her housing costs in 1/3rd, cut her 1-hour travel time to zero, and live a very nice lifesytle - probably with wonderful vacations she's never been able to afford. She's stepping up in every area of her life. By the way, Moms also need to start charging their deadbeat sons rent to live in the basement. So, they learn to become responsible adults rather than stay children. This isn't about not loving the person. This is about providing a hand up while not being taken advantage of. When you pay nothing to your loved one (even your Mom), you become an entitled person with a mindset that you deserve everything for free with no effort on your part. There's no free lunch in life, you should learn to thank and appreciate someone who's giving you lunch at prices others would die for.

This legitimately makes me skin crawl.

Yeah, super red flag. I could see him asking to be the sole owner if he were making a 100% down payment and paying 100% of the monthly mortgage. One of the responses was best, it should be 30/70 or whatever the actual contribution is to the down payment and the monthly mortgage. My concern for you and this situation is that he is giving you nothing as his supposed significant other for your financial contribution. When he knows 1000% if he was making a partial investment in any other asset (like an apartment building) where he was involved with an investment group, he would never even think of telling his investment partners, "you put in $ 100,000, and I'll put in $ 300,000 for the down payment. You pay 30% of the monthly building costs, and I'll pay 70%. And, I will take 100% of the asset, and you get nothing." How many investors do you think would take that deal? I'd say, "Run, run like the wind from him" - because he provides less fairness to you than a regular person off the street. When people show you who they are, believe them. Good luck!

My boyfriend and I are planning to buy a house together after dating for 3 years. He earns significantly more than I do, so he’d be contributing about 70% of the down payment. Because of that, he wants the house to be only in his name. He says it’s just “fair” based on the numbers, but we’d both be living there, splitting bills, and building a life together. I’ve been watching a lot of relationship content about equity vs equality, and it made me realize things don’t always have to be 50/50 but this feels like I’d have no security at all. He said if we ever broke up, he’d “do the right thing,” but that doesn’t really reassure me. My friends say don’t move in unless my name is on it. His friends apparently think I’m being entitled. Now I feel stuck between trusting him and protecting myself. Is this a red flag I’m trying too hard to rationalize?

@sarahmccammon Too funny. I want to be there when moms start kicking their sons out of the basement so the unrelated younger guys they want sex can waltz in. It's only a matter of time. You can only support so many, "so son you have to go : )". Sons, be careful, your days are numbered : )

Ok whatever floats your boat, but I’m here to tell you that by your 40s, the only younger men you will have the patience to pick up the tab for and allow to use your car are the ones you’ve literally given birth to - and only barely in their case

The strangest thing I’ve noticed today is women using the word boyfriend so much. Women say things like they broke up with their boyfriend after two months. That’s not a boyfriend. That’s a guy who used you for sex for two months. He was most likely above your level. And now you’re setting the bar of your future relationships based on this ex-boyfriend, who had no interest in you whatsoever. Women should also now just apologize to men for shaming them for dating younger. You’ve always been the same way. You’re so hateful of misogyny but have no issue with misandry now that it’s available to you. Time to get off your high horse and understand you’re just like every man you couldn’t stand for dating a younger woman.

Women their age are annoying and insecure, have annoying politics, are superficial, think they know everything (but know nothing), and are sexually stunted on account of prescription pills and porn culture. Older women are confident, actually like sex, are interesting, and are not obsessed with taking selfies above all else. Also it's very easy for women to stay attractive through their 40s and 50s now. Most men don't seem to even be able to tell the difference between a 35 year old and a 45 year old. Nor do they particularly care. idk honestly it's not that confusing. 20 year old women are annoying and vapid and young men are red pilled and their female peers have not caught up. Young men have high libidos and so do older women. 20 year old girls simply don't know very much about sex and their bodies. They're still caught up in being looked at over what is actually pleasurable/enjoyable to them. Despite what the manosphere is trying to convince you of, there really is a trend of younger men going for older women x.com/LisaBritton/st…

Keywords are "last boyfriend." You have the same mindset as many men. Many men think younger women are attracted to them because of their knowledge, status, relationship skills, and maturity. I think the difference is that many older men will marry younger women, thinking she actually loves him. They're too naive (to be kind) to think that all these younger women really want is financial upside and will often cheat with men they're actually physically interested in. You have this same delusion in that you believe you have the same physical value and attraction as women in their twenties. You don't. Most handsome young men are in it for some financial benefits and an easier life, until they find a woman they really want to be with. Young men haven't yet gotten to the point where they'll settle down and marry the golden goose. Look in the mirror and truly understand that you're the same person as the 50-year-old guy looking for love with a 25-year-old woman. Basically, looking for love in all the wrong places.

A lot of younger men increasingly see women as persons who gain knowledge, status, relationship skills, and emotional maturity with age. A lot of mid to late 30s women still look about the same as we did in our 20s. My last boyfriend was 25 and said I was hotter at 38 than at 26. He said women his age were too dumb. 🤷🏻‍♀️

This is actually funny. So, younger women dating older guys are gold diggers. What do you think these guys are? Same thing, different gender. If you take a positive position on older women dating younger guys, instead of shaming older guys for doing the same thing, you should be supporting them too. Or is it not a two way street in your world?

What’s going on is if you’re a girlboss who pays all her bills and you’re single. The 24 year old with a 6 pack is more appealing than the 34 year old with a beer belly who is balding. Ew.

Said differently, older men (Thirties/forties) who aren't married and are interested in a long-term relationship want a woman who isn't up against a wall to have kids. So, these older men pursue women who aren't up against that wall. This gives them the ability to decide how many kids they would like to have, not constrained by the woman's age. Younger, hotter men have no interest in a long-term relationship. They're enjoying their lives to the fullest, and the last thing they want is someone wanting to settle down. If you're ok with being another notch on his bedpost, go for it. He's glad to put you on his sex list with the hundred other women already there.

Maybe “the wall” is just projection. Most men get almost zero attention even when young. So they try to scare women into settling by going on and on about the wall. Maybe the wall keeps older men from wanting women, but younger, hotter guys don’t care. Win-win.

Well, for many young guys, it's better than living in the basement of your Mom's house. They get the same pampering Mom provides, sex, and don't feel bad about being a parasite and putting Mom in a financial position where she has to keep working/retire much later than she wants. Why not sponge off someone else?

This has been going on for decades. I was never interested, but when I was in my early twenties, my friends would go to a late-night bar where women in their thirties and forties would hang out. Basically, if they struck out with younger women earlier in the night, they went to this bar to get attention and sex. If you're ok with being a mutually consensual sex partner for these younger guys with a high sex drive, great. But don't fool yourself or be delusional about these guys actually being interested in a long-term relationship with you. You're wasting your time, unless you're happy being with Mr. Right Now.

This is actually true. Lately, many of my girlfriends (mid to late thirties) have been telling me that they are getting approached by early-twenties men, very confidently I would add. What’s going on?

@BeBetterMan_ I don't care how much you spend on a watch. I had one friend show me his $160,000 watch, which Jerry Seinfeld also owns. I told him I don't care how much you paid for your watch. The coolest watch in the world is still Omega.

"The richest 0.001% don't wear luxury." Yes they do. You're just too poor to know them... it’s not Dior, Louis Vuitton or Gucci. Here are 7 brands that billionaires & royalties actually wear: 1. T𝗼m F𝗼rd

Well, this is very misleading because it's theoretical - his math works in a lab but is not based on reality. Only a clueless, privileged, wealthy person would make this kind of statement who has no connection to everyday people and current living conditions today. You're as much of an arse as O'Leary for highlighting his stupidity. O'Leary should put his money where his mouth is and live for a year on a $ 69,000 income. Then show everyone how his BS ideas fared in the real world.

Kevin O'Leary says you can become a millionaire on $69,000 a year by investing 20% weekly. Here's the actual math on why he's right. 20% of $69,000 is $13,800 a year. That's $265 a week into the S&P 500. At the historical average return of ~10% annually, $265/week hits $1M in roughly 22 years. Start at 25, you're a millionaire at 47. Start at 30, you're there by 52. Most people think millionaire by 65 is the best case. This math says you can beat it by nearly two decades. The part most people miss: the first $100K takes about 7 years. The second $100K takes 4. The third takes 3. By year 15, you're adding $100K every 18 months. Compounding doesn't feel like anything for the first decade, then it turns into a machine. $265/week sounds impossible on $69K until you realize the median American spends $3,000/year on takeout and $2,500 on subscriptions they forgot they have. The money exists. The discipline is the hard part. Kevin's actual insight here isn't "invest more." It's that the gap between $0 invested and $265/week is the single largest wealth decision most people will ever make. The first dollar is harder than the millionth.

I don't understand the constant chicken little comments about tariff impact. There are financial organizations that are willing to pay 50% of the tariff costs/impact if the company assigns it tariff exposure over. If RH spent $ 200 million in tariffs, they would get $ 100 million today with no risk. These financial organizations believe the current tariff costs will be fully reimbursed by the government, and that's why they're willing to make this offer. If RH did that deal, they would have had $ 100 million in raw $ that would have gone directly to its 2025 bottom line.

Walked through my local RH yesterday. The store, the café, the entire mall.. empty. You could have shot a cannon through them. Today the stock hit its lowest since March 2020, down 20% after earnings. Gary Friedman opened the call quoting Einstein, compared RH to Hermès, and told investors "this is a good time to buy our stock." He bought $10M at $216. It's $112 now. "I was wrong," he said. "It wasn't the low point." Here's what's interesting. I run a system that measures how CEOs actually talk - not what they say, but how they say it. Constraint language, conviction, vagueness, hedging. 23 quarters of RH earnings calls. Two quarters ago, Friedman's language hit crisis levels: vagueness at 4x his historical baseline, conviction at an all-time low. That was the sound of a CEO who didn't know what was coming. This call was the opposite. Constraint language hit its highest level in six years of data. Vagueness normalized. Growth language at a record high. No anomaly flags. He's acknowledging real headwinds - tariffs on 80% of his product categories, worst housing market in 40 years - while being more specific about the path forward than he's been in two years. The real warning was Q2 2024, when his constraint language collapsed to an all-time low and his conviction-to-constraint ratio hit 0.89. That's the sound of a CEO who thinks nothing can go wrong. The stock was $350. The empty store is real. The -20% is real. But the signal says Friedman is no longer selling you a dream. He's describing a war. In my experience, that's when you start paying attention; not when a CEO is euphoric, but when he's constrained and specific about why he's still fighting. Not a recommendation. Just the data.

Young people who travel to exclusive destinations, go to exclusive nightclubs, lease exotic cars, and pay $ 5,000+ per month for rent in NYC are living a millionaires lifestyle while pissing away money that can build wealth. You see this with athletes, entertainers, … all the time that go broke, and their careers are over. The wannabes in the 5% trying to live the same lifestyle are even more pathetic, because you’re buying and doing things trying to act wealthy, when you’re not. You’ll be in your forties very quickly only to realize how much money you pissed away chasing a dream that only exists for the .01%. You’re very immature for your age and have no clue in understanding your financial capabilities and position right now. Stop being a wannabe and start building real wealth and financial independence. Otherwise you’ll be in retirement with few assets and relying on social security.

There are two types of people in this world: 1. The ones who want to travel, build wealth, live in the top 5% and experience everything life has to offer. 2. And then there are the minivan people… White picket fence, safe neighborhood, predictable life. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with average. For me, average = boring Why would I settle for normality when a fabulous life is available to me? The most important decision you'll ever make is your partner. Because if they're chasing a minivan and you're chasing the world: one of you is going to have to give something up.

@NFL_DovKleiman Just a personal observation: if you see someone wearing sunglasses inside, there's a 99.99% that person is an ass. The .01% are people who are like Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, ... This could even be a scientific fact.

Insane: Kevin Hart had to break up a fight between Gronk and Logan Paul at the flag football press conference. "I'm gonna beat your a** and all your brothers a**'s." These two truly hate each other...🫣😳

Maybe you should join the Marines. You'll learn to be an hour early and learn how to deal with actual difficult situations. Imagine a woman who would take it out on her husband because he expected her to be on time, and she got pissed off at him because she couldn't decide what outfit to wear. That husband is in for a life of misery. If you get that angry over a wrong outfit, what are you like when things really go wrong? Marriage is hard, about compromise and going with the flow. You're not meant to be a wife or mother, certainly not without significant self-reflection and change. Maybe you should stop dating for now and take the time to learn to be a decent, caring, and adaptable person.

Now it’s both of our problems

I have a friend who's a billionaire. Lives on the top two floors of a Park Avenue building. He has no idea how much milk costs, electricity costs... He pays for two car spots (I think he bought them) in his building, so no one can park next to him. He doesn't pay after dinner at the top restaurants he frequents. Has no idea what the dinner cost is, doesn't calculate the tip... They just send his assistant the bill every month. Has Goldman and others as his wealth advisors. So, you wouldn't date him because he can't calculate the tip, doesn't do math, and doesn't make even one investment on his own?

@MurrayHillGuy1 If a man can’t calculate a tip why would I want him as my financial advisor (husband)

My female friend (@raqisright) broke up with the last guy she was seeing because she got “the ick” from him using his calculator for a tip Made me think… what is the weirdest reason you’ve broken up with someone?