@nonthaki, you are correct, with Eatinglue, SaintElliot, Tommy_407, spazgamz, redditer0, raisins3142, ArkAngelEV all being on the same page

I predict grave cultural repercussions for the invention and mass adoption of "race to the bottom", digital dating & the current, over sensitized, female induced, mate screening trends (i.e. UNMET high female expectations of what constitutes a "suitable man")

I'll clarify further

The current batch of Millennial women are doomed & are actually, in a sort of "dead-woman-walking" scenario, that the general population & public health officials are completely unaware of. One day this situation will become a HUGE mental health crisis in the West & will cost billions in healthcare treatment, as government officials try to mitigate the fallout across ALL classes & income brackets

I noticed what I call a "nouveau-ho" trend developing a few years ago, for example, back in the 90's and prior, a female that had a "50+ notch count" was usually involved in a business where they could garner an unusual amount of attention, from higher status males, such as: stripper, model, stage entertainer or actress. Normal women, not performing those types of jobs, in those days, would have needed to constantly project their "availability" publicly, in order to garner a "50+ count". Most sane women, back then, did not do such because they would have been labeled a "slut" publicly, by their peers & family, so their "notch counts" were significantly lower as a result

So, what's changed in the last 15+ years? Due to social media, regular women, even ugly chicks, can now get the same volume of attention today, that ONLY a stripper, model or actress could have gotten in the pre-social media era (note, however, that the status of the males paying attention to these normal women is usually much lower as well)

In the 90's & prior, men had to put in a decent, but not a herculean, amount of effort to get laid, in general. So, for higher status males, pursuing ugly chicks was completely out of the question because that effort was better spent elsewhere (opportunity costs). But today, a high status male just needs to post a good Tinder profile & then waits for the "ugly chicks" to do all the work pursuing them instead. Essentially, the modern Alpha just sits back & "waits for the easy lays to roll in". Also, the digital world, allows these women to have somewhat better control over how much information is released about their "slut activities". At the end of the day, they can keep their "notch count" mostly a secret, by only seeing men that don't know each other, are not a part of their current circle of acquaintances, whom don't live in their localities and/or by "traveling the world" for sex tourism, etc

Back in the 90's & prior, not many men would have thought it was a good idea to marry a former stripper, stage entertainer, model or actress, nor do many men think so today either. However, none of the younger men today have fully realized that a majority of women available, under 35 years of age, are currently living lives that are not much different from a strippers life, back in the 90's and before. Its all disguised now because these women work in offices, at regular jobs and seem like normal people, on the surface, when in fact they are not because of the undue sexual attention that they are able to get via "social media"

The number of "high notch" women has exploded since 2008-2009, POST, the mainstream acceptance of smartphones & social media. Prior to that time, "high notch" women were typically limited to the abused, mentally ill, strippers and/or celebrities (i.e. Heidi Fleiss & Kim Kardashian types). Normal looking chicks, due to this now mainstream tech, have access to something that they did not have in previous decades; the focused attention, of large numbers, of thirsty men. In earlier times, that kind of attention was reserved for the best looking women only, particularly those that actually took the time to look good & put themselves out there, in public, in order to get noticed on a regular basis

The difference between today & the pre-smartphone/pre-social-media era, is that Ho-ing, used to be a LOT of HARD work. Women had to dress nice, flirt properly, going out of their way to find the best clubs, beaches, universities and bars, that they could actually get into, where higher status men hung out, etc. In contrast, today, average women simply get their phone out & wait for hits, choosing the men they like (and at the same time, NEVER learn how to gracefully turn away those men that they do not wish to interact with). When these "nouveau-ho's" meet up, with the "man-of-their-choice", the woman doesn't have to get dressed up, they give their selected men a hard time, shi*t testing, both low & high status males, yet eventually still end up getting laid, without putting in any effort. If any woman had taken this route in the past, they would have been barred entry into the goods bars/clubs, ostracized from the various college party scenes and/or rebuked by their peers/family. In the past, "Ho-ing" was not for the timid, in the old "pre-smartphone world", that was based on face-to-face interactions, coupled with a REQUIRED penchant for good visual style & overt flirting, on the woman's part

"Ho-ing" is the EASIEST its ever been & the laziness of women is clearly shown, by how poorly they take care of their looks, yet still are able to find sex partners, whom in the past would have rejected them for better prospects (again, opportunity cost for the Alpha Males & even higher up Beta Males). Alphas typically aren't "thirsty", except now, they just aren't turning down "no effort lays". To my point, "no effort lays" in the pre-smartphone era required some effort on the part of the Alpha Male, so his time was better spent pursuing the best looking women he could get. This is no longer the situation today

Today those low grade women require almost nothing, in regard to effort, for the Chad's. So the Chad's are basically "taking a sip" from EVERY "public water fountain" that they walk by

The reason why I say, we will see a mental health crisis of untold magnitude, in the future, is because historically good looking, aging hoe's, could always pick up a Beta Bucks', even a good looking one. However, an average or ugly chick, with a high notch count, will most certainly not be so lucky & essentially will have a "Wine Coinsures" tastes buds, on a strictly "Beer Budget", perhaps even a "Water Budget" in some cases. Hence, no Beta or Gama that is willing to take them, will ever compare to the long line of Hot Chads that plowed through them via Tinder, OkCupid, etc

There is also a HUGE mental health crisis looming on the horizon for women that are currently aged 15-30. When the "Carousel Ride" ends for them, they will be far less capable of begrudgingly accepting a "Beta Bucks", for the sole purpose of securing a post-wall, survival position, in a stable nuclear family. I'd bet my house that suicide attempt rates for women, born in the early 1990's and thereafter, will skyrocket, when these single women hit their late 30's to early 40's, ALONE, due ENTIRELY to unmet, unreasonably high expectations

The success of online dating sites has baffled me from the very beginning because you need BOTH men & women to believe they work. When these sites first came out, I wondered to myself, "how in the world does this process benefit any AVERAGE MAN using this new dating medium?" Note, I am assuming that most men, posting here, prefer to know in the first couple of minutes if they are wasting their time or not. In most cases that analysis can be done faster in person. Perhaps some of you somehow figure that out faster online. I personally feel that finding positive hits online is much more time consuming & a sheer numbers game, as opposed to in person

Online dating is & always has been a "hamster wheel" for women, period. The BEST long term outcome would be for the number of males using these sites to drop off a cliff (the 80/20 rule, that we all know to be true, makes it impossible for the 80% to be successful at dating online). To a certain extent I believe that has already happened & is being kept a secret, to keep the gravy train rolling. Online dating has ALWAYS been geared toward the lowest common denominator, hence, we see all the "single mothers are great" articles posted on dating website sponsored blogs

How many rejections does a man need to receive before he quits online dating cold turkey? 5, 50, 500, 5000? Note, I don't mean how a man gets back into online dating after one successful hook-up, or after a dry spell, I mean, how many continuous rejections are required, until they turn away from the method completely. We don't know what that number is, but OkCupid, Match.com, Tinder, etc. CERTAINLY know what that number is & they are NEVER going to let the public know. If Ashley Madison had 5 million accounts with only 12,000 real women using the site, what is the REAL ratio of men to women using Plenty of Fish, E-Harmony, Match etc?

Since the "hamster" is easy to fool, I'd bet there are a LOT a male-bot profiles & male-sock-puppet accounts being managed by staff of the websites, in order to keep these women on the "hamster wheel". I can imagine these companies ALL have some kind protocol for dealing with female accounts that get no interest from real males, where the bot or employee run account sends them messages to keep them addicted to the chasing of "what-ifs". I'd wager they know the minimum number of message pings that will keep a woman on the site, even if they result in no face-to-face meetings. Note, I don't think these dating websites started out this way, but they have had a long time to monitor user behavior & most certainly know that female interest is the key to their survival, even though men may no longer be interested in participating in the online dating process