Thread: A Misunderstanding of Female Attraction

A Misunderstanding of Female Attraction


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YixeECwUE_g&t


Based on a question I found on Quora I found from a guy that was wondering why despite what he claims to be physically attractive he still hasn't been having as much success with women


The answer is pretty clear if you're familiar with the breeding selection and what women desire more in men. Looks are not everything here. Quick video as to how that takes effect


Best way to win though? Don't Play

The looks do not matter debate was heavily popular during the early 2000s up until about 2014. The pick up artist industry at least in the beggining was full of bad looking guys who wanted to improve their confidence. Through experimentation, data, psychological experiments, looks really do matter in the world of dating. Many of the ones who claimed to be successful puas used paid actors to make it look like their material worked. For me the PUA industry was more of a cult, which from 15 yrs in the industry, it was only the good looking guys who were successful..

I am not a extremist in regards to looks are everything. For sure you will see instances of ugly guys with average women, but for the most part looks and status are the most dominant factor. Take this experiment that was used on Tinder. They used an attractive male where on his profile he informed the reader he was an ex baby rapist. This still did not stop him from achieving matches. The women in question said they were glad he owned up to it and everyone deserves a second chance. Now another study was conducted in which they used an ugly male who was a top ranking lawyer who gave 20% of his wages to charity. This male did not recieve any real matches at all. The conclusion was your personality has very low weighting when it comes to female attraction if you're good looking. In my own experiments using attractive males, there were multiple instances of women literally just messaging to fuck. The only difference was the profile was the same just I switched photos and recieved different results.

From a social psychology perspective women prefer faces which are assymetrical. Another study was conducted in which babies who have not been exposed to culture, were shown pictures of conventionally attractive and unattractive people. The babies smiled when seeing conventionally attractive males/females. Beauty definitely exists on a objective level. There are many benefits that attractive people have other unattractive people which trickles into the workplace and everyday life opportunities.

In regards to the Quora guy, I believe the premise to be false. I do not believe he is as attractive as he says he is. A lot of blue pillers believe they are more attractive than they think they are. Of course I understand women may find certain elements of a conventionally unattractive male attractive due to positive inferences through schematic processing, but on the whole I believe looks are the most dominant factor in mate selection.

Take another study in a tv show called 'dating in the dark'. The women were attracted to men who they were speaking to in the dark but as soon as the lights came on and they found out they were unattractive, the women instantly decided they did not like them. It seems if looks are able to make or break a connection then there is definitely a huge weighting placed on it.

I have seen good looking guys fail social testing of women and still pass it. I have seen ugly guys pass social testing and still fail it. For sure if a attractive guy acts super needy and has a repulsive personality than his success rates may drop, but the margin for error is enormously large compared to an unattractive male.

The dating economy right now is what I call a recession economy. If women have too many applicants, the only way to solve it is to increase your SMV value. Ultimately though your looks will make or break you.

Looks, game, money - you need two.

Always remember women need to feeeeeeel good. So if you're good looking she will feel good initially (cos of the status it affords her) but this will very quickly wear off if your personality doesn't make her feel good.

That's why ugly blokes who have that certain something that makes women feel good, are often successful. Could be wit, humour, or even just feeling 'safe' with him.

The other thing is women are completely confused as to what they want. That's cos they are easily programmable by the satanic elite.

Who really gives a fuck what women want, though?

A woman's mind is chaos. Fuck that shit.

Only if and when women start exhibiting good and moral behaviour en masse, will I start caring about their needs. So probably not in my lifetime then.

I'm cracking another beer and giving a middle fingered salute to all the wamens in the world.

And good on you for doing it!

Originally Posted by happybachelor

Looks, game, money - you need two.

Always remember women need to feeeeeeel good. So if you're good looking she will feel good initially (cos of the status it affords her) but this will very quickly wear off if your personality doesn't make her feel good.

That's why ugly blokes who have that certain something that makes women feel good, are often successful. Could be wit, humour, or even just feeling 'safe' with him.

The other thing is women are completely confused as to what they want. That's cos they are easily programmable by the satanic elite.

Who really gives a fuck what women want, though?

A woman's mind is chaos. Fuck that shit.

Only if and when women start exhibiting good and moral behaviour en masse, will I start caring about their needs. So probably not in my lifetime then.

I'm cracking another beer and giving a middle fingered salute to all the wamens in the world.

I would say pre-2012 game was quite important. A lot of guys were naturally needy so it was quite refreshing for women to meet a stranger who was cocky funny with good banter. Nowadays a lot of people have read up on game, are not as needy and have started to think about opening lines/tactics for conversation, so game doesn't really set you apart anymore. I would say social status and looks are the most important, with looks having the highest weighting.

This isn't just taken out the hat..we all know guys with no game who get everywhere through looks alone. On online dating which is the most dominant form of meeting someone now, the studies have concluded that looks top everything. We used good looking guys who admitted raping babies, raping women, huge jail time for terrible crimes, the good looking guys recieved 100s of matches, the ugly guys recieved none. We used professionally made profiles for the ugly guys with good pictures, high social status..using jobs such as Airline Pilot and lawyer yet couldn't find a real match that led to a date.

Definitely not saying game is null. We also used good looking women pretending to be men on ugly guys dating profiles. You would think women would know what women want to hear? Think again.. this female was LESS successful than a ugly guy with good game. It seems personality is not really accounting for much. Game is *expected*, You're expected to play things 100% or you'll just be ghosted unless in the top 15%. The rate of error is determined by your looks. We used ''K'' responses to women on online dating and found the female thirst was still there. You can imagine a graph.. the better looking you are the more you can get away with. If you use top 15% pictures you can just talk sex straight away and they are up for meeting (a lot but not all)

Interestingly, some good women do message the ugly guys (once in a blue moon) but 95% ghosted after the first 3 messages. This tells me the margin for error was set pretty damn high. I think also some women like to think looks are not everything so they message a guy they're not attracted to physically, then kind of backwards engineer it that it was the mans fault it never went any further. Also interesting to note Jeffy the RSD instructor, I believe in the 2013 period, he struggled to meet women on online dating apps, even though apparently had the best game out there at the time commercially. Some women quoted him using opening lines like ''Want to step inside my rape van?''

One thing I know for sure is if women actually got some first hand experience what dating is like for an average guy on the dating market, we might actually start seeing a change in attitudes.

This is mostly info for bachelors. My personal ratio of response is 5% which is not actually too bad, although the margin for error is set quite high. So evidently i Stay well away from dating apps.

What women define as a good "catch" depends upon their age (pre-post Wall), their desire to work to support themselves, and what will impress their social set.

The reason why their search for a "good man" is so frustrating, is that it is constantly involving.

The COVID19 recession is very different from the housing bubble recession.

The 2008-2009 recession was a "man-cession," in that sectors that men worked in (i.e. the building trades) were shrinking,
but the jobs where women were concentrated (i.e. government and teaching jobs) did not.

A great deal of the Stimulus Plan did not fund "shovel-ready" jobs, but sit-on-your-ass and click a computer mouse in a cubicle job.
It taxed blue collar men to prop up "pink collar" jobs: thanks to federal grants, no school teacher or social worker was laid off.

This latest recession was different. Truck drivers had all the work they could handle.

Many women, feeling more economically insecure, are not only facing the physical "wall", but are forced to face the economic "wall" as well.

We all know women who get their affirmative action/positive discrimination positions when they start out, but within 10 years in a cubicle farm,
abandon their "strong and independent" career dreams when they realize that marriage is a much easier life than working like a man for 40-50 years.

All of sudden, men who used to be as invisible as a stealth bomber become detectable on their sexual/dating/mating radar.
It is not just that Chad is broke, it is that Boring Bill the Beta has paid off his first house, gained tenure or seniority, and has been building his 401k while she was riding the carousel.

It is like that season of The Big Bang Theory, where CC-rider Penny realized that her acting career wasn't going to happen, that she was getting too old to make it big in Hollywood, that she wasn't going to be a movie star.

When that happened, THEN, she wanted to marry Leonard the nerd.

Gentlemen, if she did not find you appealing when she was young, don't accept her when she is broke.

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

Gentlemen, if she did not find you appealing when she was young, don't accept her when she is broke.

Or put another way, if you weren't good enough when all she needed to do was "want" you, don't bail her out when she "needs" you.

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

Gentlemen, if she did not find you appealing when she was young, don't accept her when she is broke.



Or put another way, if you weren't good enough when all she needed to do was "want" you, don't bail her out when she "needs" you.

One chance per lifetime.

Never go back.

I watched a YouTube video last night. The video was OK, but the title was thought provoking:

"Most Women Have Met Their Husbands, But They Just Didn't Marry Them."




It is like the story where a person dies, goes to heaven, and meets God.

The person complains about how bad things back on planet Earth.

"God, why didn't you send us a savior, a messiah, to get us back on the right path?"

"I did. Several times."

"Really? Why didn't the saviors appear to us? What happened?"

"You aborted them."


Replace "person" with "single woman," "messiah" for "a good husband," and "aborted" with "friend-zoned" and the story still makes perfect sense.

From my observations the men that do not have looks, money or status, but still succeed with women simply don't care what other people think and do what they want. They are ultra aggressive with what they want and don't really care about rules. Women do sense these dark triad traits.

Society calls these men bottom of the barrel but from a perspective of passing on genes they are more likely to succeed. You can't succeed with your hands in your pockets. Action is everything for a man.

Looks, money and status makes things easier as they are all important tools. It does not guarantee anything but it makes things easier which is where game comes in.

Game is a fundamental understanding of social nuances and social structures.

If you don't understand who is at the top and who is at the bottom in social settings you are swimming in mud. But like I mentioned before there are men that can succeed despite being socially inept simply because they have a IDGAF perspective.

My view is that confidence and self respect trumps it all. If you are not willing to walk away from a beautiful woman then you are not ready.

Men will test you often and they will not know of your money or status and don't care about your looks unless they are the jealous type. You have to be prepared to defend yourself. Likewise, women will test you often not knowing your money or status with probing questions. I prefer to NOT reveal my education level, being a homeowner, etc in such interactions.

Does it make it harder in social settings if you don't reveal your money or status? Absolutely.

But if you don't have looks in social settings that is VERY hard to overcome. And frankly throwing around money and status doesn't matter that much unless we are talking mega bucks and social status the size of Antartica.

This is why there are men that view that looks matters a lot.

But to me for the long haul game is what helps you lead to money and social status as a man. Are there men that land jobs because HR females liked them? Yup. But for the most part men's climb up the ladder is a marathon and not a sprint.

Originally Posted by Azure Nomad

From my observations the men that do not have looks, money or status, but still succeed with women simply don't care what other people think and do what they want. They are ultra aggressive with what they want and don't really care about rules. Women do sense these dark triad traits.

Originally Posted by Azure Nomad

Society calls these men bottom of the barrel but from a perspective of passing on genes they are more likely to succeed. You can't succeed with your hands in your pockets. Action is everything for a man.

Looks, money and status makes things easier as they are all important tools. It does not guarantee anything but it makes things easier which is where game comes in.

Game is a fundamental understanding of social nuances and social structures.

If you don't understand who is at the top and who is at the bottom in social settings you are swimming in mud. But like I mentioned before there are men that can succeed despite being socially inept simply because they have a IDGAF perspective.

My view is that confidence and self respect trumps it all. If you are not willing to walk away from a beautiful woman then you are not ready.

Men will test you often and they will not know of your money or status and don't care about your looks unless they are the jealous type. You have to be prepared to defend yourself. Likewise, women will test you often not knowing your money or status with probing questions. I prefer to NOT reveal my education level, being a homeowner, etc in such interactions.

Does it make it harder in social settings if you don't reveal your money or status? Absolutely.

But if you don't have looks in social settings that is VERY hard to overcome. And frankly throwing around money and status doesn't matter that much unless we are talking mega bucks and social status the size of Antartica.

This is why there are men that view that looks matters a lot.

But to me for the long haul game is what helps you lead to money and social status as a man. Are there men that land jobs because HR females liked them? Yup. But for the most part men's climb up the ladder is a marathon and not a sprint.

I once had a debate with a few incels and my advice was aggression is part of an effective dating strategy. How do i define aggression? I have defined what a man is according to me. A man is a fighter. A spartan warrior-like figure. He must be fighting in the ring. Women will call it toxic masculinity, but its just a societal wide test. I disagree in that men without looks or status have women, I just haven't seen it for quite a few years. Pre-2012 they may have got together before dating apps. One thing I like to do is view couples via online youtube videos walking down the street, and see if there are any patterns in which mates women select. For sure a woman is often seen with a man who is taller than her, he most likely has hair the hotter the female is, no beer belly and muscles. Usually it is only older couples where the men can be quite ugly and still be in a relationship. The new generation is quite brutal in regards to looks criteria. The new generation select mates solely on looks.

It makes total sense as well. Women select the best looking males if there is multiple potential suitors. Just like you would select the highest qualified candidate in a talent pool of 200 applications.

I started thinking of a response but then I realised I really don't give a shit what women want in a man.
I spent most of my life worrying about that and it was a waste of time. They want whatever they want at that particular time. Briffaults law means relationships are necessarily gynocentric. That means YOU have to please HER and do it constantly, and with her needs always shifting.
Looks, game, money.. all can be improved.. but to what end? You'll never be quite enough. She doesn't love you for who you are. You're always just her current best option.
Fuck that.

Originally Posted by happybachelor

I started thinking of a response but then I realised I really don't give a shit what women want in a man.
I spent most of my life worrying about that and it was a waste of time. They want whatever they want at that particular time. Briffaults law means relationships are necessarily gynocentric. That means YOU have to please HER and do it constantly, and with her needs always shifting.
Looks, game, money.. all can be improved.. but to what end? You'll never be quite enough. She doesn't love you for who you are. You're always just her current best option.
Fuck that.

You should have ended it there!

You're right, no more was necessary!

Originally Posted by ShogunRonin

I once had a debate with a few incels and my advice was aggression is part of an effective dating strategy. How do i define aggression? I have defined what a man is according to me. A man is a fighter. A spartan warrior-like figure. He must be fighting in the ring. Women will call it toxic masculinity, but its just a societal wide test. I disagree in that men without looks or status have women, I just haven't seen it for quite a few years. Pre-2012 they may have got together before dating apps. One thing I like to do is view couples via online youtube videos walking down the street, and see if there are any patterns in which mates women select. For sure a woman is often seen with a man who is taller than her, he most likely has hair the hotter the female is, no beer belly and muscles. Usually it is only older couples where the men can be quite ugly and still be in a relationship. The new generation is quite brutal in regards to looks criteria. The new generation select mates solely on looks.

It makes total sense as well. Women select the best looking males if there is multiple potential suitors. Just like you would select the highest qualified candidate in a talent pool of 200 applications.

You touched on some interesting points.

Aggression of the mind is a big part of the equation as well. If your mindset isn't aggressive it manifests itself in the real world. I see this often with younger men in that they let social media influence their perspective way too easily. They follow instagram hoping to find the mysteries of life with "influencers" when the mystery of life requires a man to be willing to walk away and actively do things on your own. No thyself this old philosopher once said.

It is true that women are even more selective than years past but men have become less selective relative to their social level. It seems I see more young, tall men with ham planets than the other way around.

But it comes back to confidence because if these men can't say no to the ham planet they have no shot of saying no to a beautiful woman.

The power to walk away is tough for any man but it is something that is forged through life experiences.

Originally Posted by happybachelor

You're right, no more was necessary!

No it was a good post i enjoyed reading it because you're absolutely right. She doesn't love you, she loves your resources and what you can give her. Once you stop giving that or she doesn't want it no more she's onto the next fool as quick as a flash. They believe by being in relationships and tying you down makes them happy. The reality is they are miserable beings and nothing will ever make them happy and the result is we become miserable!. As you said, fuck that.

Right I don't take it personally if women are sizing me up due to my resources. But I am not going to be a fool and let my guard down either.

When a woman says she loves you it means you provide a level of security and/or resources. Men tend to read too much into what women say and start to fabricate and exaggerate the implications of words even a baby parakeet can utter.

Originally Posted by Azure Nomad

You touched on some interesting points.

Originally Posted by Azure Nomad

Aggression of the mind is a big part of the equation as well. If your mindset isn't aggressive it manifests itself in the real world. I see this often with younger men in that they let social media influence their perspective way too easily. They follow instagram hoping to find the mysteries of life with "influencers" when the mystery of life requires a man to be willing to walk away and actively do things on your own. No thyself this old philosopher once said.

It is true that women are even more selective than years past but men have become less selective relative to their social level. It seems I see more young, tall men with ham planets than the other way around.

But it comes back to confidence because if these men can't say no to the ham planet they have no shot of saying no to a beautiful woman.

The power to walk away is tough for any man but it is something that is forged through life experiences.

I have noticed this too. Online dating also known as the branch system 2.0, allows lower SMV women to sleep with high SMV men, and high SMV men to sleep with multiple women of all SMV values. I find it quite funny that women have talked so much crap about low SMV men, but haven't realised that 95% of them get humped and dumped by the men they do want. The value systems have completely obscured which is a complete failure on our governments inability to act. Communities based on competition rather than collaboration are a cultural failure. It looks as if its beggining to bleed into society. Soon unattractive low SMV men/women will not even be able to get jobs without sparkling white teeth and a above average physique.

Just like knife crime in the UK, this is all bubbling under the surface and will do for years before it reaches boiling point. We can see the sexless generation of men indulging in gangs and knife crime. With the combined confounding variables like poverty, those who cannot climb social hierarchies through legit means will turn to crime in order to do it.

Me personally im working on strength and fighting ability. There really is a high probability of societal collapse. Societys which are based around superficial means of value and beauty, are often the most dangerous and volatile, as men go into full competition mode. We see this from what is going on.

Interesting post here. I do want to pick up on a few points from Shogun Ronin, Azure Nomad and Sam Luis Obispo,

My first point would be, that looks do matter - and in fact, in the specific context we are talking about, the western, 21st century, dating-apps world, looks are all that matter.

If you think about relationships pre-dating apps, a woman could only meet someone who was in her local bar. If you were "different" like you had an interesting job, or came from somewhere exotic, a woman was curios. That curiosity turns into interest, and conversation. This is where the attraction actually happens. Words, language, intellectual curiosity do actually lead to sexual attraction, the brain is actually a sexual organ in that sense.

There is something to be said about being "vulnerable" and "opening up" to women, they do appreciate that - but it doesn't lead to sex.

The way things are set up nowadays, is that, a woman, will go on Tinder for sex, but will have a few average guy buddies, or other women to confide in and be "emotional". This renders the "vulnerability" argument ineffective, because a woman has now "compartmentalised" her life. Men are there for two reasons primarily, to provide and for sexual pleasure.

The argument for "provision" though is also dead.

What good is a man who is average or even above average in terms of looks; even if he earns an above average wage?

Let's think about a city like London, the average wage is about £38,000 per annum. Even if you earn £50,000 which is above average, a 5/10 on the hotness scale woman is going to be making more than that through a variety of means:

- government support.
There are hundreds if not thousands of programmes where women are supported and get to milk the public coffers. Free education for STEM degrees, free healthcare, free mental health care, free gyms, free "self-defence" classes and so on.

-divorce.
Most women will marry and divorce an ugly, but stable man by their 30s, and will milk him for half. If he is some programmer on 40k, then half of that is going to her. And she will do that to the next sucker, a few years down the line - the money doesn't go to the children - it goes to her pocket.

- making money from dating,
If a woman goes on a date, she definitely won't be spending any money. Drinks, steaks, cocktails, wines, the bill adds up to £100, £200 and the average beta chump goes home to jackoff, and even worse actually believes "there was no spark". LOL! If she does 2-3 a week of these kinds of dates, then that is already an extra £600 in her pockets - not actual money but she is still benefitting from the lifestyle.

-money from social media.
Shaking her ass on Instagram, and getting paid sponsorships for her "hard-work". All she has to do is showcase some yoga pants and shake her ass - the money is pouring in.

So, I think we can safely say that money, in the current epoch has no effect on women - they make way more, doing way less. Unless you are a multi-millionaire and even then its a meh...

Now, looks are everything, but in a much more skewed sense than what has so far been posted on this thread. The only way for a woman to take a sexual interest in a man, is if he is in the top 3%. Anything below that, and a woman feels cheated and actually get very angry at the idea of dating anyone who is in the 97%.

Should you be part of the 3%, then you could be a rapist, a murderer, heck you could even have committed genocide on a mass scale; women won't mind.

This isn't my opinion, it's actually women who I have dated, they have told me this. I very clearly remember a woman who I dated a long while ago say these exact words "a woman simply cannot resist a man who is extremely good looking, tall, big dick, and is good in bed".

She may hate him even, but she will always be ready to open up her legs. It's a primal thing.

If your goal is marriage though, then that is very straight-forward, just find a woman who is nearing her late 30s, be slightly above average in height, make a stable income, and you don't have to even be that good looking. She will have your child, and then divorce a few years later to hook up with Tyrone and his friends.

If you aren't good looking then you may get pity matches, or as Shogun says, the margin for error will be extremely high. Say the one wrong thing, send the text at the wrong time, it's all over in an instant.

The point that Azure makes about Ulta-agressive men, well that can only be achieved once you have FU money, and how to achieve that? Most men are working paycheck to paycheck, which is the problem. And what is FU money? You need at least a few hundreds of thousands of pounds in my opinion, if you're living in a city like London. And that money has to be wisely invested to yield enough for you to say whatever you like, whenever you like.

First you need a fuck-you attitude, the money will surly follow.

There's no such thing as fuck-you money without first acquiring a fuck-you attitude. Trust me on this one!