[baccheion]

There are twice as many males on Tinder compared to women. Further, women swipe less often. 1 out of 2 people are at least unattractive, 1 out of 3 are outright attractive, and 1 out of 5 are hot.

The top half is typically seen as viable by males when they stretch (and women explicitly seek the top 20%). That is, all viable 50/100 women are gobbled up by the top 50/200 (ie, 25%) males. Not even out of "attractive" males and the viable women are already gone. The top 20% of males then end up being enough due to the swipe skew.

[cheriot]

Yet there's just as many women in society trying to find partners.

[baccheion]

The online skew was brought to life. Most of those pairings aren't a committed relationship. That is, most people roam freely until older (and setup to realize that at most 5-10% of romantic pairings can be minimally mutually satisfying).

The gender skew really made possible the accessing of the top 20% by the last slice of viable women. The top 80% of women have always gone after the top 20% of males. The top 20% (hot) and top 3rd (hot + outright attractive) generally succeeded, leaving the rest of the top 50% (viable) for everyone else. With this skew and overall warping of the mind/perception, now the top 50% often succeed at procuring a male in the top 20%. That is, all viable women are generally gone before getting to the other 80% of males.

As it gets even clearer to women, it'll keep getting worse. Women want to be with AND to be impregnated by the top 20%. If they realize that longer-term relationships are bogus anyway and they start being able to financially support themselves (as the prevailing norm), the "bottom" 80% of males simply won't exist. Most of the action gotten by them came from the 1/6th above the line and below the top 3rd.

Women like commitment, so maybe it'll linger anyway. It's already the case that 80% of white people over 40 have been married at least once. 80% of women over 40 have had at least 1 child. 57% for males over 40.

Get it? During the roaming days, they ideally want the top 20% There doesn't have to be enough to gobble up ALL women, as only the top half are seen as viable by males anyway. Beyond that, the ideal choice for males (ie, top 3rd) are already gobbled up by the top 20%. Further, the rest are had by extending to the top 3rd. The bottom 2/3rds of males never existed. Now it's the bottom 80% and total inaccessibility of women in the top 50%. The last 1/6th deals the most noticeable blow.

Confusion primarily stems from difference in measure used to create the top 20%. Women have a different measure, but males often assume they are primarily about aesthetics.