Quote: (01-14-2019 07:44 PM)Delta Wrote:
Quote: (01-14-2019 01:15 PM)corsega Wrote:
Quote: (01-13-2019 12:54 AM)Delta Wrote:
or my locale is horrific.
Jesus, if you're not seeing girls like this where you are located, it's definitely that.
These types of girls are a dime a dozen in San Francisco. Similar types like me first all the time but I generally swipe left.
If you were out here, you would be getting 20+ matches a week of girls of similar quality.
This may be because you inadvertently posted my "type" (in-shape, smiling, not trashy looking) with the latter 3, but these are all easily top 10% of girls I see online, and as far as in-person, unless I go out night gaming, I'll go months on end without coming across a new girl anywhere near this attractive.
Online, a right swipe on any girl that looks like these is a 1 in a thousand Hail Mary for me. I'll match with them every now and then, but getting one that seems remotely interested in meeting happens about once every couple months... and that's combining every app I use (i.e. all the popular ones). If I was just using Bumble let's say, I'd be lucky to meet 2 girls per year of this caliber. And, I'll reiterate what corsega already knows for everyone else- I'm in very good shape, my photos do really well on Photofeeler, and I have a lucrative career.
So this is why it's mind-blowing for me to see people claim these girls are 6's and easily attainable for someone who's got his shit together. I knew my locale wasn't the greatest, but geez, I never imagined it was orders of magnitude worse than SF.
You need to move to a big city. You would be getting these types of girls easily.
Culture varies a lot between suburban/rural/urbanized areas in the US.
I personally prefer the more suburban/rural archetypes (more focus on maximizing looks, femininity, taking care of themselves) vs. the city archetype (focus on career, intelligence, social issues).