The 10% Rule

[zekko]

I'm a little fed up with reading this. I keep hearing on this forum the old saying "10% of the guys do 90% of the fvcking". First off, I say it's BS. Secondly, what the heck does this even mean anyway?

Are they counting different women only or are they counting each incident of intercourse?
Is this over a lifetime, just over the past year, this month, what?

I suppose this could be true if you're talking about, say, 15 year olds.

I suppose this could be true in that probably 10% or less of the population are pickup artists who make it a point to go out and bang a lot of different women.

I agree that the top 10% of guys get pretty much their pick of the girls.
If one of these top 10% guys finds a girl he likes and enteres an exclusive relationship with her, does that mean he is no longer part of the 10% that does 90% of the fvcking?

Most guys I know can get women. Maybe they can't all get 9s or 10s.
I'd say the saying should go more like "10% of guys can't seem to get laid".

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Zecko,
Sure I agree with you but......I believe that Prietos Rule of 20%-80% is more appropriate and that it also applies 20%-80% to the top 20%...Prieto and Fibbonacci are my two heroes,far into the future we will find there immutable laws that apply to less tangible factors in life than the Laws of Physics,like Newtons four Laws of motion.

 

[synergy1]

talking strictly within my social circle, it seems like only a few guys get most of the chicks. However, given the shear numbers of girls, pretty much everyone can get laid. To break down the numbers roughly:

8 guys
7-8 chicks

2 of the guys banged 2 or more chicks.
I banged only 1 ( not counting my last girlfriend which effectively took me out of the equation - the previous year I got with 2 and could have gotten with a third who had a bf at the time)
2 friends have gotten with none.
1 has a girlfriend.
1 had a girlfriend.

That doesn't quite add up, but of the 8 guys in our group, 25% total banged more than 1. most had a boyfriend, or didn't bang more than one. Of that entire group, I would say the bottom 25% had no game.

Given this real life example, I agree with ZEKKO and fail to see the 10% rule playing out. Perhaps the sample size is too small ( n=7,8 is hardly something a statistician can draw conclusions from in the real world), but the real misleading factor here is that many banged girls outside of the social circle. Thus there could not be 10% of guys getting all the women because there is an "unlimited" source outside of social circles. Its the same sort of assumptions engineers make when deriving fundamental second order differential equations for heat transfer - semi infinite solids aren't really infinite, but can be treated as such. The same applies here since there are always women available. *yes, you got "nerdified" reading this paragraph! *

I would like to close this post by saying that passing around girls and hooking up with them in social circles is a dumb idea. It creates unnecessary drama. My buddies ex who cheated on him tried putting moves on me; the easiest way to ruin a good friendship would have been to follow through with that ( I dislike his ex greatly). Staying out of the social circle game means you are in that bottom quartile, but passing women around just seems disgusting to me.

 

[zekko]

If the 10% rule were true, it would look like this:
If there were 10 girls and 10 guys on an island, one guy would bang 9 of the girls. Leaving the other 9 to compete over the leftover one? I don't see that happening.

I don't really want to argue the 20%/80% ratio because it starts to get more fuzzy. It still seems a bit low to me but it looks a little closer to the truth. Maybe if you said 30%/70% I wouldn't quibble.

the real misleading factor here is that many banged girls outside of the social circle.

Right, the math becomes a real mess the more you try to pin it down. That's why guys get away with claiming the 10% rule is true. How do you prove it or disprove it? No one will even define what it is supposed to mean (see the original post). I think it's mostly something said by guys who are bitter and frustrated.

 

[vatoloco]

I'm a little fed up with reading this. I keep hearing on this forum the old saying "10% of the guys do 90% of the fvcking". First off, I say it's BS. Secondly, what the heck does this even mean anyway?

Why does it even matter? Even if this so-called statistic were correct (and you know what they say about statistics: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"), do you want to be in the 10% or the 90%? What are you gonna do about it?

 

[mrRuckus]

Do you guys even try all the time? I routinely go months without even talking to any girls. Then I get on a run, and then I get bored of it again. I mean, maybe if they were offering, but I'm not super social to begin with so unless I really feel the urge I just don't bother talking to them. Then after a couple weeks where i haven't bothered at all in comes a txt asking "are you even interested anymore??" and next thing I know a girl is coming over.

It just doesn't matter that much. I'm sure I could boost my numbers way up, i don't know about some top 10% guy level, whatever that means, but I just don't put the effort in simply because most of the time I'd rather hang out alone or with just a friend or two, not talking to girls i don't even know, who believe it or not generally aren't that fun or interesting and it's just me being a clown doing the entertaining cause if i don't then it's fvcking boring.

Do MOST guys even try that hard or are the ones doing all the fvcking the ones always asking to fvck?

 

[zekko]

Do MOST guys even try that hard or are the ones doing all the fvcking the ones always asking to fvck?

I know what you mean. I am living with my LTR of seven years so I'm not really in the game right now. Do I even fit in these statistics somewhere? I have no idea. That's why I'd like to clarify just what "10% of the guys do 90% of the fvcking" means exactly.

But I'm with you mrRuckus, I'm not that social either. I was more social when I was younger - because I was trying to prove something to myself. When I was going through my spinning plates days I don't think I was really that happy. I'm a lot happier now that I've settled down. I do the things I want to do now, instead of doing things I think I should be doing (if that makes sense).

There are some guys who appear to be a personality type where it seems like they just want to fvck like rabbits. I enjoy sex, but I swear these guys don't have an off switch - it seems like it's all they live for. And they don't seem too particular about who they get it from either. They probably do a lot of the fvcking because it's all they care about.

 

[Night Owl]

I am the 10%....

While you lot were busy working out the statistics of who does what, I was busy with all the women that you let slip by while you lot were arguing about it like a bunch of sad looser Beta males...

 

[synergy1]

Right, the math becomes a real mess the more you try to pin it down. That's why guys get away with claiming the 10% rule is true. How do you prove it or disprove it? No one will even define what it is supposed to mean (see the original post). I think it's mostly something said by guys who are bitter and frustrated.

I grossly oversimplified things because I don't really know ( or care for that matter) who does what. The fact is that there are basically an infinite number of women if you live in the right area. Even if the 10% rule was true, by saying you could still bang girls outside your social circle, it wouldn't even matter. These kind of sayings are likely the work of the pick up artist community in an attempt to make people fearful and want to pay money to vault up to an exclusive club. Its great marketing trick and little more.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

I am the 10%....

While you lot were busy working out the statistics of who does what, I was busy with all the women that you let slip by while you lot were arguing about it like a bunch of sad looser Beta males...

There's winners and losers. And losers that generally fall into two categories:

The 10% who learn from their mistakes and spend their efforts to improve themselves

The 90% who spend all their efforts pointing out the flaws in the game.

you know who you are

 

[J. Darko]

It's not bull, it's a scientific fact. Look for the article ''scale-free networks'' by Barabasi. It explains a theory of networks, the so called ''power law''.

It's a 99/1 rule that applies to money, relationships, online communities, even ecosystems.

In other words: a small group of people on this planet has almost all the money that exists, the rest of the people have to share a small amount of money with eachother. Almost all the messages on a board, like Sosuave, are posted by 1 percent of the visitors of the board. The other 99 percent are lurkers or post occasionally.

Guess what else researchers found? That there is a small group of people, 1 percent, that had a lot of sexual contacts. The rest of the people only had sexual contacts occasionally or not at all.

Thus, it's true.

 

[synergy1]

The so called power law is a probability density function and looks like this:

http://users.dimi.uniud.it/~massimo.franceschet/R/lnorm.png

basically all it says is that its easier to fail at life than succeed. Thats fine. But to what degree is likely from some numerical simulation which they didn't mention anything in the white paper - and it is nothing more than that really. In other words, don't take it too much to heart. Even Newton's laws aren't "Scientific fact" and they hold a lot more water than your beloved 99/1 theory.

 

[Jitterbug]

It's not meant to be mathematically accurate.

What it says is that a minority of men get most of the shares in the sexual market place (SMP), while the majority get little or nothing in comparison.

That appears to be a pretty accurate observation, IME.

If one of these top 10% guys finds a girl he likes and enteres an exclusive relationship with her, does that mean he is no longer part of the 10% that does 90% of the fvcking?

There are guys who are in exclusive relationship who either cheat, or still get girls obsessed enough with them that they (the girls) would not entertain being with another guy for quite some time. If you date around a lot, you'll run into these single but very much unavailable girls. They're kind of like AFC orbitors around a hot chick, but unlike the AFCs who can be easily tempted away by another attractive girl, those girls are heavily emotionally invested in their target man and would not respond to another man's moves.

So while the fvcking doesn't happen in that scenario, a top man can still take a lot of women off the market (thus making a lot of other men go without) without banging all of them.

 

[goodfoot]

If the 10% rule were true, it would look like this:
If there were 10 girls and 10 guys on an island, one guy would bang 9 of the girls. Leaving the other 9 to compete over the leftover one? I don't see that happening.

I don't really want to argue the 20%/80% ratio because it starts to get more fuzzy. It still seems a bit low to me but it looks a little closer to the truth. Maybe if you said 30%/70% I wouldn't quibble.


Right, the math becomes a real mess the more you try to pin it down. That's why guys get away with claiming the 10% rule is true. How do you prove it or disprove it? No one will even define what it is supposed to mean (see the original post). I think it's mostly something said by guys who are bitter and frustrated.

I don't think the rule would work like that with your island example. It would probably be 9 guys each with one girl, and the 10th guy having sex with all 10 girls.

 

[DoItAgain]

I think a good 70 or 80 percent of men have never dated or had sex with a HB7 plus in their life (HB7 by most guy's stsndards.) The 20 or 30 percent are continually getting the HB-7-8-9-10s because they have something women want (looks, fame, money, personality, game or a combination of these factors.)

The other majority of men aren't good with women and bang/date/marry UGs and fatties and AVGs in their social circle, or they're George Sodini types.

 

[wait_out]

This rule exists because some guys find its easier to think of themselves in the bottom 90% than the bottom X%, depending on where they are.

I am getting real tired of these kind of threads too. I'd prefer "to learn from my mistakes and spend my efforts to improve myself". You are not supposed to surround yourself with negative people and draining commentary. There should be a COMPULSORY DJ vow made before posting here -- NO SELF PITY

 

[Scars]

There are guys who are in exclusive relationship who either cheat, or still get girls obsessed enough with them that they (the girls) would not entertain being with another guy for quite some time. If you date around a lot, you'll run into these single but very much unavailable girls. They're kind of like AFC orbitors around a hot chick, but unlike the AFCs who can be easily tempted away by another attractive girl, those girls are heavily emotionally invested in their target man and would not respond to another man's moves.

So while the fvcking doesn't happen in that scenario, a top man can still take a lot of women off the market (thus making a lot of other men go without) without banging all of them.

This is gold.

 

[zekko]

I don't think the rule would work like that with your island example. It would probably be 9 guys each with one girl, and the 10th guy having sex with all 10 girls.

I might believe one guy having sex with six or seven of the girls, not all ten.
Otherwise, if you extrapolate it out, basically you have one guy who has sex with every woman on the planet. Again, not likely.

So apparently what actually counts in this ratio is the number of sex partners? It's not actual times sexual intercourse has occurred, it's the number of women it has occurred with? So the saying should go something like: 10% of the men have sex with 90% of the women?

I think a good 70 or 80 percent of men have never dated or had sex with a HB7 plus in their life

No way. You can't be serious. In their whole life?
Are all the guys everyone here knows collossal losers or something?

There are guys who are in exclusive relationship who either cheat, or still get girls obsessed enough with them that they (the girls) would not entertain being with another guy for quite some time. If you date around a lot, you'll run into these single but very much unavailable girls. They're kind of like AFC orbitors around a hot chick, but unlike the AFCs who can be easily tempted away by another attractive girl, those girls are heavily emotionally invested in their target man and would not respond to another man's moves.

So while the fvcking doesn't happen in that scenario, a top man can still take a lot of women off the market (thus making a lot of other men go without) without banging all of them.

I'm trying to think of an example of that in real life, and I can't.
A girl may pine for a guy for a while, but at some point she has to move on.
And considering girls tend to get over guys easier than guys get over girls, I don't see females taking themselves off the dating market for indefinite periods in the hope of landing some elite guy they're hung up on.

 

[zekko]

"A woman would rather have 10 minutes of Alpha than a lifetime of Beta,"

There's another one! That is garbage. Betas get laid all the time, in nature, and among humans. Betas are not omega males, they're the ones who are the real losers. 10 minutes of alpha my @ss. A woman will prefer an alpha male to a beta, why not just stop there? Why make it stupid with the 10 minute business? I doubt too many women would actually take that offer. Spend 10 minutes with an alpha and no more men for the rest of her life? Yeah, right.

I know Night Owl's post was kind of troll-ish but he makes a good point. Worry about yourself and your goals and forget all the psuedoscientific "stats."

Again, I have a girlfriend so I'm not actually in the "game". I just find it interesting, and when I hear things that I think are so blatantly false I have to say so.

 

[guru1000]

It's a hyperbole, not meant to be taken literally; just as the Ladder Theory.