Dating is hard enough without the influence of the manosphere pouring poison into the ears of millions of men around the world. In case you aren’t up to date with the latest online lingo, the “manosphere” is a loosely connected network of websites, blogs, forums, and far right social media influencers like Andrew Tate and Nick Fuentes who discuss masculinity, men’s rights and issues affecting men, often from a violently misogynistic perspective.
If you’re wondering how deeply some of these pundits hate women, last week Fuentes declared that all women should “go to the gulag… Then go to the breeding gulags,” on one of his many livestreams. So, it’s bad.
The manosphere is largely run on misinformation and misplaced anger. One of the most common statistics you will see being bandied about in these spaces is that 80 per cent of women are attracted to only the top 20 per cent of men – the most good looking, the richest, and the manliest.
It is largely confined to the more extreme end of the manosphere, but it often escapes into more mainstream mediums. You can find it being seriously considered on podcasts, YouTube videos, TikToks, and schoolyards up and down the country where it is being used to justify a victim narrative: men feel terribly treated by callous and superficial women, which in turn makes them feel resentful and entitled. It’s also very useful for manosphere quacks flogging online courses to young men on how to be more manly – more “alpha”.
It is often referred to as the 80/20 rule and even made an appearance on the 2025 Netflix hit Adolescence, a series about so-called “incel culture” and the radicalisation of young men and boys online. As schoolboy Adam explains to a police officer: “Eighty per cent of women are attracted to 20 per cent of men. Women, you must trick them because you’ll never get them in a normal way.”
This statistic is quite obviously horse shit. Just go outside and look around you. Do you see only 20 per cent of the men coupled up? Look at your own friendship groups: is it correct that only the most “elite” men get to have relationships with women? Is it really only men who are over six feet tall, have a six pack, and earn over six figures (the so-called “6-6-6 rule”) who manage to get laid? Of course not. I have had relationships with staggeringly unattractive and idiotic men. Some of the men I’ve slept with didn’t even own a bedframe, let alone a trust fund. In fact, my dating history alone should be enough to debunk the 80/20 rule. It is simply not true.
So where does this widespread statistic come from? Like all good misinformation, from the internet. The source seems to be an anonymous blog article, posted in 2015 and rather grandly titled: “Tinder Experiments II: Guys, unless you are really hot you are probably better off not wasting your time on Tinder — a quantitative socio-economic study.” The article draws on lots of scientific rhetoric, yet is anything but.
The author created a fake profile on Tinder (in their own words: “fake super hot Tinder me”) then matched with 27 women and asked them “several questions about their Tinder usage while they thought they were talking to an attractive male who was interested in them”.
He then crunched the numbers, such as they were, and concluded that “the bottom 80 per cent of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22 per cent of women”. So, not exactly airtight, ethically speaking. In fact, as someone who worked in academia for 15 years, and who carried out multiple research studies that required ethical approval, I can tell you that this methodology would have been laughed out of the academy.
The sample size is too small to produce meaningful results, the subjects were deceived and unaware of what they were participating in, we don’t know what the questions were, if they were being truthful, and there is no way of tracing anyone involved. It wasn’t subject to peer review or published in any kind of academic journal. It’s an online blog post by an anonymous user calling himself “worst-online-dater”. This is the academic equivalent of Shein. It’s junk. However, as the old saying goes, a lie can travel around the world before the truth has had time to put its shoes on.
When we look at properly conducted, peer reviewed research on partner selection, a different picture emerges. It turns out that men value physical attractiveness more than women, whereas women tend to value intelligence and an affluent background. There is nothing wrong with wanting a lover to be good looking, or rich for that matter, but there is no evidence at all to support the claim that 80 per cent of women are only interested in the top 20 per cent of attractive men.
The damage this oft repeated falsehood can do is substantial. It feeds a larger narrative whereby young men feel justified in their anger towards women, who they perceive as rejecting them. In another blog post, worst-online-dater rages about how he has “never even [got] a phone number, let alone a hot make-out session” on the dating apps. He continues: “I got so distraught it made me desperate. I kept thinking, “It must be me right?”
So, he made up a fake profile and set about proving it was women’s fault he wasn’t getting the results he wanted, rather than doing any kind of personal reflection. That’s what this kind of shonky stats do: they enable a victim mindset. It’s much easier to be the victim in your own story than it is to take accountability of your own failings.
Remember last year when a story about a 26-year-old guy called Hayden went viral for claiming he swiped right on over two million Tinder profiles, only to secure himself one miserly date? I’m entirely sure I believe that, but nonetheless his tale of woe was also held up as an example of the unfairness of modern dating on the average Joe.
However, a closer look at his Tinder profile (if it is real) reveals not one but three photos of him holding fish, with the strapline “if you’re not trying to go fishing, I don’t want it,” as well as information about the 33 snakes he owns, and a picture of him wearing a T-shirt that reads “SITYA ASS ON MY FACE”… while holding a fish. But, no. It’s the women who are being too picky.
There is no doubt that dating has changed dramatically within our lifetimes. I’m old enough to remember when “lonely hearts” ads were looked on with pity and derision; now some 16 per cent of couples met their partners online. The motivations for wanting a relationship have also changed. Women don’t need men to “take care” of them, protect them or marry them if they’ve had sex outside of wedlock in order to avoid a scandal. People are entering into relationships based on personality alone, and it seems some people are having a hard time dealing with that.
No one is owed a date, let alone sex. Having a dating profile does not guarantee a relationship. If you do have a profile and are not enjoying the experience, either reassess what you are posting on your profile, or delete it and go out into the real world and actually meet people.
What we are not going to do is believe made up statistics about women being too picky and too “feminist” to date anyone who isn’t 6ft 2 and loaded.
Your next read
square CHRIS HOPKINSAmerica is realising that Trump is failing – just look at the polls
square JON SOPELTrump has turned the US into a laughing stock
square TESSA DUNLOPIn the shadow of Andrew, Prince Harry’s exile just became more shameful
square KITTY DONALDSONI interviewed Andrew. He ‘prince-splained’ amid his absurd teddies
Hence then, the article about my advice for men who aren t getting dates online was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( My advice for men who aren’t getting dates online )
Also on site :