>>21656717very interesting graph, so much to glean from it. source, btw? I want to study the data and see if I can draw additional conclusions.
>enemy bar quickly drops off as you move away from the hyper masculine, becoming essentially a flat line, while the friend grows linear as you move from masculine to effeminateso women perceive most men, even weak effeminate men with roughly same level of danger, only increasing for the most masculine of men. This explains their high rejection or mid and lower men for sex/relationships, to them the risk is still the same but the benefit is lower. but at the same time, they're fine with these less masculine men being "friends". this is odd, and I think it hinges on a difference in understanding of the word "friend" between men & women.
to men, friends are people who you share some bond with and can count on. who you can trust to see you at your lowest and most vulnerable and help you, and to return the same to them. who share in the good times, commiserate in the bad times, and to have each others backs and help build each other to be better men. If a man feared that another man might at any time turn and try to kill him for no apparent reason, he would not be friends with him. But women are fine with being "friends" with men whom they just a moment ago rejected being intimate partners with for that same fear of violence. so obviously they have a different definition of what a friend is.
>the most desirable mates are not at the peak of masculinity, they are about 2/3 upThis is interesting, yet also logical. the most masculine men would necessarily also appear the most dangerous. so mid-tier men trying to compensate by improving their physique may be missing the mark and jumping past the sexy territory into the dangerous territory. The narrow range of desirable mates also matches up with what we see in reality, with 20-30% of men enjoying the majority of attention from women.
