If you're a lover of mathematics, it would be quite the romantic idea that the Paretto Principle, the idea that only 20% of a population achieve 80% of the desired results, would also be present in the dating world, but this statistical phenomena is only present in environments with a neutral measuring unit that every member is equally vying for.

The Paretto Principle works for things like income, coding, and even crime, because the entire population within those categories are being measured for the same outcome.

For instance, money is neutral within itself as we all desire it somewhat equally. This provides an even playing field for the Paretto Principle to play out.

However, this does not work in dating because attraction and attractiveness for the opposite sex, for both genders, is not neutral, so the desire and distribution can not be spread out so uniformly.

Most of the speculation on this theory falls flat because it's viewed from the perspective of perceived "lower tier" men, without much consideration of what's happening outside with the other members of the population.

Even if 80% of women are indeed chasing the top 20% of men, this does not mean that the top percent of men are juggling all 80% of those women. 

First off, having that many women is bound to infringe on the law of diminishing returns. The most likely scenario is that a top-tier man has a decent rotation of women which most likely increases in quality but reduces in quantity over time. That's exactly how the RSD guys do it.

It was called "running the gauntlet", when you start out with average looking girls and work your way up to a 10/10 girlfriend. 

But if the guy never settles down for a girlfriend, there is a common phenomenon of women not getting a call back after a one-night stand, so even if Chad has run through every single woman on the planet, most of them are still not going to see him again and remain single. 

Even if that’s not the case, if you are a top-percent guy, why would you associate with the bottom tier of women when you have access to the cream of the crop? 

To further our research, we would have to investigate the habits of these top-percent men to confirm. But fine, I'm a little bit more conservative myself, so I'll be happy to concede that many other men can be complete thirst dogs and fuck anything that moves. Onto the next point.

Download the Brave Browser!

You can support me for FREE(!) by using my referral link here: https://brave.com/moo427

Believing in the 80/20 dating rule completely ignores beta-buxxing and monkey branching as well, as there are certainly men out there who are able to get sex via their ability to provide.

Now, the quality of that sex is a different story.

We could have a totally separate argument that out of all the men having sex, only 20% are having 80% of the best sex, but to just outright say that only 20% are having sex at all is a complete misuse of the principle.

At first you're getting 100% with the girl, but then you move in or marry her, and after a while it's only 20% of what it used to be, in quality and quantity. Meanwhile, on Girls' Night, that's where she meets Chad to make up for that 80% you've been missing.

But let's continue with the premise that 80% of women are chasing that 20% of men, which I will concede is occurring on online dating sites. But even so, for the women who have a harder time gaining access to this select field, how long can she delay gratification?

"At best, they are looking to have their egos stroked by saying no to all the men who seem to be interested in them [especially through online dating] and then will have an anonymous sexual encounter with some random loser, when they have been too long without love, sex or intimacy. "

- Nicoguy_Chad on goingyourownway forums.

This is why I still think game matters, because you could easily be that "random loser" who can score the woman with the social media inflated SMV (Sexual Marketplace Value) when she realizes her dreams aren't coming true. 

However, I think there's a little bit more variety and optimism to be had in life. Not every girl is online dating. Do you really not have any friends who are average guys and are able to score some dates?

Having a limited social life and only reaching out to other individuals with a similar predicament on the internet can really distort your view of reality.

Some girls also learn quite quickly that bad boys break hearts, and start looking for something safer. Others will have realistic expectations (or low self-esteem) that will clue them in of their pecking order being outside of contention for that 20%. And you know the low self-esteem girls I'm talking about.

The high-school slut with the abusive alcoholic mom, or the train-wrecks at the bar at last call waiting for guys to get drunk enough for the beer goggles to kick in and take them home. 

You can find a decent girl, or a bad one. The only question is what kind of man you are.

If you're an incel-type, consider this excellent quote by Coco Chanel:

“The best things in life are free. The second best things are very, very expensive.”

Everyone has value and an equivalent cost to pay, that's why it's called the Sexual Marketplace after all. Having good looks allows you to buy high quality sex for cheaper. If you're not naturally gifted, you'll have to increase your value and buying power through money, for direct purchase, or status. 

But if you're in the MGTOW camp like myself, the currency to play with in these exchanges is broadened out to freedom and time. We don't ask questions about getting the girl, we ask "Is it worth the time and effort to get her and then the subsequent cost of freedom to maintain the relationship?" 

For us MGTOW men, we always weigh the options. And when things don't add up, we go our own way.

See you on the Far Side. - Moon Base

Thanks for reading. You can directly support the operation at https://www.ko-fi.com/moonbasemgtow!