Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Serious "Women get 2-3 times as many casual sexual relationships from Tinder than men"

CaptainSkincel

CaptainSkincel

Abandon all hope ye who enter here
-
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Posts
61
I'm relatively new to incel culture (followed incel content for about a year before finally signing up yesterday) and I was just reading through https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill when this (point 15.10) caught my attention. I'm not sure how to interpret the statement that women get 2-3 times as many casual sex relationships from Tinder than men. Pretty sure that's mathematically impossible in a sample of straight people where the gender ratio is 1:1 and all the parties involved are on Tinder.

This leaves two possibilities that I can see:
1. There are 2-3 times more men than women on Tinder.
2. The extra relationships reported by women are same-sex/lesbian encounters.
3. Some combination of the above.

Am I missing something here?
 
Last edited:
I'm relatively new to incel culture (followed incel content for about a year before finally signing up yesterday) and I was just reading through https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill when this (point 15.10) caught my attention. I'm not sure how to interpret the statement that women get 2-3 times as many casual sex relationships from Tinder than men. Pretty sure that's mathematically impossible in a sample of straight people where the gender ratio is 1:1 and all the parties involved are on Tinder.

This leaves two possibilities that I can see:
1. There are 2-3 times more men than women on Tinder.
2. The extra relationships reported by women are same-sex/lesbian encounters.
3. Some combination of the above.

Am I missing something here?
You're missing this, welcome.
 
1. There are 10 times more men than women on Tinder.
1. There are more men in general
1. The gender ratio isn't 1:1 in life and it ain't on tinder
1. Women get 1000 times more matches
 
Water is wet
 
Hypergamy post above
But also there are actually twice as many men than women on the app.
 
You're missing this, welcome.
Maybe it's too late at night for my brain to work properly, but I'm still confused.

As best as I can tell, this is the scenario predicted by the hypergamy model:

IMG 20201107 125510

Still same average number of partners across gender.

If you increase women's promiscuity, it increases the average number of partners for both genders:

IMG 20201107 125910


What am I missing now?
Hypergamy post above
But also there are actually twice as many men than women on the app.
That makes sense then, the diagrams above only hold true if the ratio is 1:1

Looked it up, there are actually slightly more women than men in the US IRL according to 2020 data, the ratio is 97:100 favouring women
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's too late at night for my brain to work properly, but I'm still confused.

As best as I can tell, this is the scenario predicted by the hypergamy model:

View attachment 368097
Still same average number of partners across gender.

If you increase women's promiscuity, it increases the average number of partners for both genders:

View attachment 368098

What am I missing now?
On dating apps, men are over represented which skews data (average for men comes down lower coz of the very few chads and majority non chads).

What you showed applies to real life.
 
On dating apps, men are over represented which skews data (average for men comes down lower coz of the very few chads and majority non chads).

What you showed applies to real life.
Makes sense that men being over represented on dating apps means that women can have a higher average number of partners than men. The number of chads shouldn't make a difference though, because the average will still include the chads, and the fewer chads there are the more partners they will have relative to the non-chads, meaning the average number of partners stays the same (as shown in my first diagram).
 
Last edited:
Women don't stay on dating sites. They get on, get what they need and disable it.

Men languish for years.

Women just trade around the same Chads. That's why STDs are at record levels every year for straight people.
 
I get zero
Precisely,
3*0 = 0
So foids get more than 3 times.
it’s not a simple matter of multiplication, it’s expressed in a formula
10y + C = x
Y represents the age of the foid. 10 minimum per year, plus C the unknown constant, that constant of course being their immense body counts by age 16
 
There must be some guys whos hobbies legitimately include fucking an ever evolving rosta of women every day. It's too early for this shit.
 
You convinced me, where's my partner now ? :feelsseriously:

Your maths proved that when a woman get laid with a man, they are both having sex with each other.
You're not pointing out the inequality of who is getting laid but the equality of men and women getting laid, overall. (which isn't even true if you consider the dogpill not being masturbation:feelskek:)

It's like associating the richest people with the others on the planet and stating that humans are extremely wealthy on average.
 
Last edited:
Women don't stay on dating sites. They get on, get what they need and disable it.

Men languish for years.

Women just trade around the same Chads. That's why STDs are at record levels every year for straight people.

I have seen this from women I know from work and an acquaintance. They will just get on briefly, fuck chad, then delete it and repeat later.
 
It's the same dudes banging multiple women.
It's the women going for the same guy
 
You convinced me, where's my partner now ? :feelsseriously:

Your maths proved that when a woman get laid with a man, they are both having sex with each other.
You're not pointing out the inequality of who is getting laid but the equality of men and women getting laid, overall. (which isn't even true if you consider the dogpill not being masturbation:feelskek:)

It's like associating the richest people with the others on the planet and stating that humans are extremely wealthy on average.
All I'm saying is the average will include the rich as well as the poor, and with a finite resource like women, the average will stay the same in spite of inequalities in distribution (in the same way that if I score 50 percent in each of 4 subjects, or 0 in two and 100 in the other two, my average is 50 percent in both cases).

This doesn't mean that you're automatically going to get a partner, just that the *average* number of partners for men will include both you, and the chads who have a 100 partners a week. So by definition, since IRL there's a roughly 1:1 ratio of men to women, the *average* number of straight sex partners must be the same across genders (although men presumably have much more variance in number, because chad hogs all of them).
 
Last edited:
literal water is wet thread. nothing new
 
There are several times more males than females on all such sites.
 
2-3? Cope
More like 15-20
 
2-3? Cope
More like 15-20
Sounds sus to me tbh, are you saying there are 15-20 times more men than women on dating apps? 2-3 times more is believable, but 15-20?
 
Sounds sus to me tbh, are you saying there are 15-20 times more men than women on dating apps? 2-3 times more is believable, but 15-20?
99% of men dont get anything from tinder while woman can fuck everyday with a new chad
 
God I hate women. they live such a fucking easy life. They never have to put in effort, and yet they think they can give advice. Like a fucking son of a billionaire telling the son of a cashier how to get rich
 
99% of men dont get anything from tinder while woman can fuck everyday with a new chad
Yeah if you exclude chads then women could get 15-20 times the matches that non-chad men get, sure
 
God I hate women. they live such a fucking easy life. They never have to put in effort, and yet they think they can give advice. Like a fucking son of a billionaire telling the son of a cashier how to get rich
I want to slide spin them (in crash bandicoot 4)
 
First you successfully proved that when a woman get laid with a man, they both get sex. "math says that both equal to 1"
Now you admit that hypergamy does exist "chad have 100 partners a week "Chad hogs all of them"".
chads who have a 100 partners a week. because chad hogs all of them).
There's nothing more to be said. Water is wet. As i said :
 
What am I missing now?
Women always go for the best available Genetics (Chad). Hypergamy cranked that selectiveness into the extreme. Mating with lower tier Males (6 and below) is perceived negatively socially (Where are you Standards, kween?), do damage the foids reputation (He makes me look bad) and are shunned.
 
First you successfully proved that when a woman get laid with a man, they both get sex. "math says that both equal to 1"

Now you admit that hypergamy does exist "chad have 100 partners a week "Chad hogs all of them"".

There's nothing more to be said. Water is wet. As i said :
I'm not trying to prove hypergamy doesn't exist, just that it can't lead to disparity in *average* number of straight sex partners across gender, provided the gender ratio is 1:1.
 
I'm not trying to prove hypergamy doesn't exist, just that it can't lead to disparity in *average* number of straight sex partners across gender, provided the gender ratio is 1:1.
Gender ratio is indeed : 1:1. But hypergamy creates the 20/80 rule.
On average, you're going to get a lower SMV woman that you are, Chad's scraps.
/thread
 
Maybe that number is referring to the average female vs the average male and not the average of all females and males.
 
Maybe that number is referring to the average female vs the average male and not the average of all females and males.
Unless you exclude chads, those numbers are going to be the same for males and females
Gender ratio is indeed : 1:1. But hypergamy creates the 20/80 rule.
On average, you're going to get a lower SMV woman that you are, Chad's scraps.
/thread
Sure, that makes sense
 
It's the same dudes banging multiple women.
It's the women going for the same guy
Agreed, this by itself wouldn't shift the average though
 
Agreed, this by itself wouldn't shift the average though

Imagine there are 7 guys (1 of them is chad) and 7 foids.

If 7 foids had a choice between fucking a top tier chad .vs average guy they'll pick chad and he'll be fucking all 7 of them that week.

1 chad fucked 7 times
7 foids fucked 1 time
6 average guys fucked 0 times

What's there that you're not getting?
 
Imagine there are 7 guys (1 of them is chad) and 7 foids.

If 7 foids had a choice between fucking a top tier chad .vs average guy they'll pick chad and he'll be fucking all 7 of them that week.

1 chad fucked 7 times
7 foids fucked 1 time
6 average guys fucked 0 times

What's there that you're not getting?
The reason this works is that you're excluding the chad from the male average. Which is fine if specified, but the original statement didn't specify any such thing.
 
The reason this works is that you're excluding the chad from the male average. Which is fine if specified, but the original statement didn't specify any such thing.
Foid average: (7+7+7+7+7+7+7)/7 = 7
Male average: (7+0+0+0+0+0+0)/7 = 1
 
Foid average: (7+7+7+7+7+7+7)/7 = 7
Male average (7+0+0+0+0+0+0)/7 = 1
Wait what? The foids all fucked chad once each.
Foid average: (1+1+1+1+1+1+1)/7 = 1
 
Wait what? The foids all fucked chad once each.
Foid average: (1+1+1+1+1+1+1)/7 = 1
Aaa yes, you are right
I had a brain fart.

But the point remains that it's impossible for women to be incels while a lot of guys live it
 
Last edited:
When you click on the link the study never said women get 2-3 times more casual sex relationships. It said they are 2.34x more likely to have used Tinder to engage (successfully) in a casual sex relationship.
Doesn't sound like a meaningful difference to me tbh
The only part I don't understand is that it's only 2.34x more? One explanation is that men who are striking out leave (unless they are true gluttons for punishment!) - resulting in most men on tinder being high-tier normies and above. This is verified anecdotally. Rare to see a truecel profile on Tinder.
Good point
 
Unless you exclude chads, those numbers are going to be the same for males and females
NO! I m talking about the median not the average. The amount of sex an average men get is different than the average amount of sex men have.
 
NO! I m talking about the median not the average.
Isn't the median just going to be halfway between 0 and 100 or however many partners chads have?
The amount of sex an average men get is different than the average amount of sex men have.
Pretty sure you have to exclude chads to calculate the first number, is all I'm saying
 
Last edited:
2-3 times? That's an understatement. I've heard that on some dating apps theres 8-9/1 male/female ratio which takes hypergamy to another level.
 
Precisely,
3*0 = 0
So foids get more than 3 times.
it’s not a simple matter of multiplication, it’s expressed in a formula
10y + C = x
Y represents the age of the foid. 10 minimum per year, plus C the unknown constant, that constant of course being their immense body counts by age 16
Holy shit lmao :feelskek: :feelskek: :feelskek: :feelskek:
absolutely based math
 
I think it makes a huge difference:

Consider 4 females. 3 of them successfully used Tinder to obtain a casual sex relationship.
Consider 4 males. 1 of them (Chad) successfully used Tinder to obtain a casual sex relationship.

That means 75% of women did vs. 25% of men. Here, women were 3x more likely to successfully use Tinder to obtain a casual sex relationship.

However, if all 4 women had sex with that 1 chad, then the average number of relationships are equal between men and women (like you smartly pointed out earlier).
That's a really good point, thanks for pointing it out! That makes much more sense then, making it a yes/no question means that the chad's extra number of successful relationships doesn't confuse the issue
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top