You're ignoring all the male 4's and below who won't settle for anything less than a female 8. To put it in high school terms if you're that overweight guy with the pocket protector and the bad hygiene but refuse to settle for anyone other than the cheer captain (who must be simultaneously a virgin and knowledgeable about how to please a man sexually), whose fault is it really that you're still single?
But the "dating" behavior of men is dictated 95% by their gonads, and men's gonads haven't changed all that much since the Pleistocene Epoch. Men have always striven to spread their seed as far as they can. Men don't need a reason (to couple), just an opportunity.
So you're saying that if a fit woman of reproductive age but a horribly burned face was willing you'd have sex with her? Her facial burns don't affect her ability to carry your baby to term, after all. And her face means she's bound to have a low body count. Or maybe men do have standards besides mere reproductive fitness after all and that is 100% okay. The only problem happens when people of either sex have standards above what they can reasonably expect to attract AND take it out on the opposite sex (since people with unrealistic expectations alone will simply be alone forever, not unlike many celibate priests and nuns).
I don't have a cure for the 4's who think they are 10's. From what I've seen it's a disease that affects primarily white American men, though I have no experience dating European men, so it's possible they're just as bad. I just count myself fortunate to have found a husband from a country not yet contaminated.
I'm actually glad most men don't think primarily with their genitals, that they can control themselves if they so choose, for that would make them unfit leaders. I don't want a leader who will start a war to prove that his "nuclear button" is larger than another leader's "nuclear button". Russia already has that. We don't need it in America.
Your entire post hinges on extreme outliers. Extreme cases don't make for productive discussions. Please be reasonable!
You're ignoring all the male 4's and below who won't settle for anything less than a female 8. To put it in high school terms if you're that overweight guy with the pocket protector and the bad hygiene but refuse to settle for anyone other than the cheer captain (who must be simultaneously a virgin and knowledgeable about how to please a man sexually), whose fault is it really that you're still single?
As I've said before: Young men are quickly forced to confront the reality of life. They are quickly disabused of any delusions they may have. They might spend their high school and college years pining for the cheerleaders, but eventually they will "get a grip on themselves" and see clearly.
Of course there are backwoods hermits and other unsavory types who never learn. BUT THEY DON'T REPRESENT A SOCIAL OR POLITICAL FORCE!
They are not allowed to / have little desire to promulgate their distorted version of reality, except maybe in some corners of the DarkNet. They don't even appear on our collective radar screen unless they start sending bombs through the mail.
They are not setting trends or establishing norms. There are no Ivy-League t.v. pundits arguing their cause - if anything, they are derided. There are no publicly funded shelters for them, no govt.-run programs to rehabilitate them. Society's message to them is essentially, "Just die already!" If their existence is acknowledged at all, then only to be held up and jeered at.
Single mothers, on the other hand...
You are suffering from the "boiled frog" phenomenon.
In the 1950s, an overweight guy with bad hygiene who complained publicly about "not getting a date" would have been laughed out of the house.
And a single mother who petulantly complained about no man wanting to "step up and wife her up" - wait, in polite circles, it wasn't allowed to even admit the existence of single mothers! They were pariahs, in any case!
Fast-foward to the 2020s, and the situation for the overweight guy is unchanged. While single mothers are glorified and exalted!
You have forgotten what society-pervading mindset is necessary for the dating market to function properly.
So you're saying that if a fit woman of reproductive age but a horribly burned face was willing you'd have sex with her?
Always with the extreme cases! It is not possible to conduct a productive conversation and derive generalized truths when constantly resorting to extreme cases!
You can't, e.g., go to townhall and discuss setting up a "Free Parking" zone in the downtown area if someone pipes up with, "But what if someone wants to park a car that's as big as an oceanliner - or is highly radioactive?!"
Please be reasonable, and restrict yourself to plausible scenarios pertaining to 90% of the population. That would be useful.
Regards,
Genetic studies have revealed that, for most of human prehistory, almost all the offspring were the result of unions between a small sliver of men on one hand and every available uterus on the other.
In other words: We have a few g-g-g-g-g-g-grandfathers, but many g-g-g-g-g-g-grandmothers.
A fertile uterus was too valuable to waste. On the other hand, sperm is cheap!
Competition among men was stiff. Among women? Not so much. (At most: Competition for the best men.)
Don't want to "get into the weeds" with extreme cases, but: A horribly burnt (but otherwise reproductively fit) woman can still find some sperm. A horribly disfigured man will have to become a high-earner, a productive member of society. Unless he becomes a rapist.
Regards,