Looks – 95%
We’ll get the obvious out of the way first. If you are ugly, blame your ugly parents for selfishly conceiving you. Makeup will add one point MAX, and eventually has to come off. What’s left for a woman to improve her dating market value isn’t much but in the bitch eat bitch world of the modern American manhunt even the smallest improvements count.
Femininity – 3%
You could also call this demure sweetness, or coyness, or emotionalism, or maternalism, or selflessness, or vulnerability. Whatever word you give it, men are drawn to it. There’s a reason it’s the girl putting her head on the man’s chest after sex, and not the other way around. Lawyers start off with negative points in this category, just below professional softball players.
Kinkiness – 1.5%
Sexual voracity won’t win a man (because he has to want to have sex with you first) but it will help keep him around for the long haul. A cute girl who loves anal has a better chance of converting her boyfriend to a husband than an equally cute girl who thinks the anus is a portal to Satan’s inner sanctum.
Sincerity – 0.3%
Don’t play games. For instance, take the one simple step of answering our calls promptly and you have leapfrogged to the front of the line.
Plastic Surgery – 0.1%
Don’t let its popularity fool you. Plastic surgery still has a long way to go before it can make women younger and hotter without turning them into grotesque cat-like aliens. (A cat lady’s dream?) This includes boob jobs. I’ve yet to see a breast augmentation that didn’t look (or feel) like a scoop of damp cement on top of a chest cavity. The only cosmetic surgery procedures that actually make the woman look better are nose jobs and botox for very small wrinkles in the forehead and around the eyes. Gastric bypasses are effective too, as long as she’s never seen naked.
Childlessness – 0.1%
Nothing keeps a woman’s body in prime groping shape for longer than abstaining from childbirth. Plus, kids are a total buzzkill. Is there anything worse than tripping over a toy and hitting the floor with a full erection? Bonus: Vaginal resilience!
The Rest – <0.1%
You know all those things girls think help them attract guys? They don’t. Fashion, shoes, hair styles, degrees, career, smarts, sassiness, dance moves, cultural sophistication, creativity, humor, encyclopedic knowledge of celebrity gossip, travel experiences, how well they “work what they got”, connections, alcohol tolerance, big breasts on a fat woman, scenester credentials, musical taste, personal philosophy, charity work, hobbies — don’t bother putting more than a token effort into these life improvements unless you are a lesbian. Men hardly care except to impress you with their listening ability.
the anus is a portal to Satan’s inner sanctum
It’s actually the exit ramp from the Hershey Highway.
Looks rather like the game for girls who want to attract you in particular.
You have a rather comprehensive list that all men can agree with, but individuals may the %’s here around a bit.
This list was pretty good. It always amazes me when a woman tries to impress me with her job or how smart she is etc. While having a personality is important, it means nothing if she’s not attractive, and all of the guys who insist otherwise are really bad liars.
Hmm. I agree that fashion – if by that you mean wearing clothes with recognisable labels and always the very latest thing, whatever it might be – has little effect on a woman’s “game”. But knowing how to dress for your figure and apply makeup to your face does count. Do it well and you can elevate yourself from plain to cute (I suppose what you might refer to as from a 4 to a 6); from cute to pretty (6 to 8) and from pretty to knockout (8 to 10).
I hate speaking in these terms myself, but I have to in order to make my point, and to reassure young women who might be reading this.
Personality also has an impact. I’ve known women who were no more than cute but who were so lively, full of charm, and fun to talk to, that they walked away from parties loaded with the phone numbers of handsome alpha men. (This won’t work in bars and clubs, where the music is too loud for personality to come through.) These women are rare but they do exist; they’re also likely to have happier marriages than average.
Personality is not to be confused, however, with tedious boasting about one’s achievements, or showing off one’s intelligence by being a know-it-all. If you are pretty enough men will overlook this, but they don’t like it much. (Same goes for men who try this route to impress women.)
As for sexual willingness, it does count – but only when the woman is tough enough to take rejection. If she isn’t, the repeated blows to her self-respect from men who happen to lose interest in her will destroy her emotionally. Fellow-females, if you must try this (and I don’t think you should, but then I’m old-fashioned that way), be sure you can handle it.
that 8 symbol was supposed to be the number eight.
You know all those things girls think help them attract guys? They don’t. Fashion, shoes, hair styles, degrees, career, smarts, sassiness, dance moves, cultural sophistication, creativity, humor, encyclopedic knowledge of celebrity gossip, travel experiences,
I thought girls did that to gain social status among other girls? Girls are brainwashed by marketing, but not so much that they thing guys actually care what brand their purse is.
Don’t play games. For instance, take the one simple step of answering our calls promptly and you have leapfrogged to the front of the line.
But of course there is a fine line between not playing games and being too available/desperate.
Plastic surgery still has a long way to go before it can make women younger and hotter without turning them into grotesque cat-like aliens.
Long is relative. Technology increases at an exponential rate. After all, women will be competing with sexbots in a generation.
i think some of the things you have listed in “the rest” really should be under “looks” like hairstyle, clothes, etc. think of a 6 and give her long hair and a figure-flattering wardrobe and she could be a 7 or 8.
think of a 6 and give her long hair and a figure-flattering wardrobe and she could be a 7 or 8.
Wait, you mean supermodels could have their looks impacted by totally bald? Nonsense!
see him as he wants the rest of the world to see him, assuage every insecurity he has, make him feel like he could have anything in the world, except for you.
Hey, I’m actually posting something that does not have to do with the Glorious Natural Pelt!
Very good looks can actually work against women. Some men are hesitant to get involved on a long-term basis with truly beautiful women, as they fear that too many other men will be targeting the women. Less-beautiful women are more likely to stay loyal, under this view.
Femininity is way more than 3%. It’s at least 25%, maybe more than that. The coldest players I’ve ever known would never fall for a girl because of how hot she is. Absolutely never. Denise Richards in her prime wouldn’t faze a player. But they melt when those super-feminine girls come around. Those are always the girls who get guys and everybody “doesn’t understand how she landed him”. And he’ll say things like “I don’t know man, its just the way she carries herself” when he talks about her. I like the shock value on everything else, but 3%? Nah
dizzy8 -“Game” “Pick Up” Etc aren’t magical or frat boy tricks. It’s the same principle that’s allowed businesses to grow and HR departments to thrive. When you apply psychology to the interactions between men and women, you quickly find that most women are more interested in personality, not looks, and men quite the opposite. Like any group there are always outliers, and while you choose to focus on the outliers and pretend that “Game” is something frat boys use(It really isn’t, we preferred the old, “I have liquor for free” strategy), and “Strong” Women are precisely the types of women who do “fall” for “Game”. I’m guessing you’re a bored, unloved lawyer. Your strong presence doesn’t frighten away betas, rather it frightens away everyone. Any guy that know how to approach women, does it becuase they enjoy the company of women, not to prove out masculine they are, Alpha guys get over this need to prove how cool/strong/popular/masculine they are.
But thank you! You gave me a well needed laugh!
It goes without saying that attracting a man and keeping one are two entirely different things. Men are attracted to my looks and I find it no big deal to attract a man. Hungry fish will go after yummy looking bait. Ho hum. I’m not so stupid to place much value on my ability to simply attract men. But then getting laid is not my primary objective. (See deaf woman post.) I say “show me the love” first. That narrows MY choices down to <0.1%.
No way does attention to clothing, make-up, etc. boost a female’s score by 2 points on a 10-point scale — it’s like saying that wearing a suit with thin chalkstripes will add 3 or 4 inches to a man’s height. 1 inch at best, in reality. For females, 1/2 a point at best if they do their clothes and make-up right.
While the percentages are wrong (femininity gets much more than that), the rank order is pretty much correct. It’s also important to distinguish between things that add to her score no matter who she is, and those that magnify her existing qualities, whether good or bad.
An example of the first is going to the gym — helps everyone (well, minus the 0.0001% of females who are bodybuilders and need to knock it off).
An example of the second is sassiness (the nonchalant playful kind) — that’s a bit of a turn-on when the girl’s very good-looking, but cringe-inducing when an unattractive girl does it. Same goes for sexual forwardness — at least in the bar / nightclub environment, you might get turned on by a hot girl being more forward with you, while an ugly girl doing so would again make your stomach crumple up.
There are things like this for guys too. Going to the gym helps everyone. Slightly slouching only helps tall guys — “Wow, he can slouch and still look taller than the average guy” — whereas short or average guys would highlight their shortness.
OK, a correction about how clothes and make-up help — it’s probably a diminishing returns curve. A 3 might gain 2 points by doing her clothes and make-up really well, but by the time you get to an 8, she doesn’t really add anything more by doing so.
Also, you should review that book The Rules — from the excerpts I’ve read, it sounds like a futile attempt to use tricks that only work for men. Like being aloof — that makes a female warm up to a male no matter who he is. But when females do this, it only works for the really stunning ones. If she’s below that, her aloofness will only be annoying to guys, and since she’s not stunning, they’ll quickly dismiss her and move on to someone else.
When she brings me good coffee and a nice breakfast in bed after letting me get some catch up sleep it raises the %
Likewise if she likes to wrestle with her bi friends
Agnostic: “No way does attention to clothing, make-up, etc. boost a female’s score by 2 points on a 10-point scale”
“A 3 might gain 2 points by doing her clothes and make-up really well, but by the time you get to an 8, she doesn’t really add anything more by doing so”
===========
Sorry Agnostic, but wrong both times. The first assertion makes it obvious that you simply don’t know how much a woman’s appearance can be altered by the right clothing, hair, and makeup.
There are many naturally pretty girls who hide their looks, and most men are not good at seeing through this, unless they’re in the fashion business. The right presentation can take such a woman from a zero – i.e. completely unnoticed and thus unranked – to a ten. Many women, however, don’t want to emphasize their looks in this way. They are shy, or modest (in the sense of not wanting to put themselves forward), or they don’t want to live for their looks alone.
As for your second point – much depends on the social venue in which a woman finds herself. A pretty woman attending the kind of event at which many others are likely to be present will have to try harder to be noticed, so that the extra investment will be worth it. Or she can decide to emphasize her personality – and, as I said in my previous post, this may work in her favour.
dude, you need to make up your mind re: whether this is the ‘girlfriend list’ or the ‘wife list’. you mentioned the bf –> husband software conversion, but your list is missing a whole bunch of shit that’s crucially important in a wife despite being utterly irrelevant in a girlfriend.
i will assume that ‘wife’ implies ‘mother of children’, because getting married is unbelievably stupid if one is to remain childless.
to wit:
* reliability
* thriftiness
* intelligence (like it or not, if mom is a bok of rocks, the kids probably will be too)
* levelheadedness / lack of drama
* ability to figure shit out on her own (no one wants his wife to be a damsel in distress all the time) – note that this correlates to a certain degree with intelligence
* domestic skills
* future time orientation
* priorities and organizational skills
etc. etc.
i’m not brainwashed enough to say looks still aren’t the #1 criterion – they are – but if 95% of your permanent investment is based on looks, then you deserve 95% of what you get if she’s a hot but vapid bitch. just sayin’
“There are many naturally pretty girls who hide their looks, and most men are not good at seeing through this, unless they’re in the fashion business.”
Sure, in militant muslim countries where women are forced to wear burqas.
“The right presentation can take such a woman from a zero – i.e. completely unnoticed and thus unranked – to a ten.”
Watch any poorly written teen comedies lately?
“Many women, however, don’t want to emphasize their looks in this way. They are shy, or modest (in the sense of not wanting to put themselves forward), or they don’t want to live for their looks alone.”
Who the fuck is getting all that plastic surgery?
{:-P
Plastic surgery? Divorcees. Middle-aged ladies dumped by their husbands. Teenage girls, already pretty, who wants to be prettier still. I wasn’t trying to say that looks didn’t count. I wanted to emphasize that many men don’t notice women unless or until their natural prettiness has been skilfully presented to them. And, I added, many young women today, for various reasons, are going out of their way to hide their natural prettiness rather than emphasize it.
Is that a little clearer? You don’t have to be Muslim to get tired of, or disgusted or intimidated by, the perpetual competition for male attention. It’s not rare for young women to drop out of it and go Goth, or late-grunge, or otherwise turn themselves into (visual) freaks by wearing really strange clothes. I see these young girls – between 15-25, the prime years of sexual beauty – everywhere I go. And if you don’t see them, well, might that not prove my point?
An example of what I mean: just recently I watched an episode of a makeover series, which showed a young (22-year-old) Latina woman who had, for some reason, decided to dress as much like a freak as possible – I don’t mean natural freakishness, I mean the kind that can only be achieved with effort.
I could see that she was not merely pretty, but a beauty – and it was equally obvious that men in the street never looked twice at her, except perhaps at her generous bosom. A few tweaks by the show’s producers proved I was right: she was a stunner. It was stubbornness, lack of confidence, and a wish to prove her individuality that had pushed her into freakishness before. The change was terrific but obviously cost her something too.
“I see these young girls – between 15-25, the prime years of sexual beauty ”
I see I have convinced some people over here.
No Gannon – you say it’s between about 13 and 23! You always appear to dismiss the 25-and-overs as over the hill. But perhaps I’m mis-remembering?
Clio — you’re shifting the goalposts. In your first post, you measure physical attractiveness or good looks on the 1 to 10 scale (e.g., plain, pretty, cute, knockout). Now, you’re rating her noticeability from 1 to 10 (0 being unnoticed, 10 being very noticed).
I agree that a female can ascend the noticeability scale by a few points by dressing the right way, but not the sheer good looks scale. So much of that scale is determined by facial attractiveness, which can’t be dressed up much, even with plastic surgery.
I’ll admit that I’ve watched plenty of What Not to Wear shows, and the average effect is not to raise their good looks by 2 points. We remember exceptions more than the boring multitude of confirming data points, so sure, there are pretty women trapped in horrible clothing, and some slackers will eventually get into Harvard by changing their study habits, but dressing well and studying hard doesn’t change things that much, on average.
How about putting these in terms of tradeoffs – would you date a ballcutting 9 or a sweet as pie 8? Unless she’s a stunning head turner, most would take the sweetie.
Makeup and presentation can definitely affect things: for instance, most girls (by definition) don’t have perfectly proportioned faces, but wearing their hair a certain way can get them closer or farther to the classical ideal/proportion/etc. of beauty. I saw a girl in a class today who looked like a 5 today, but was easily a 7 before, cuz today her hair was wrapped in a tight ponytail and she’s got a broad face.
No, Agnostic, I’m not shifting anything, or at any rate not deliberately. I was not arguing that makeup and hair can do everything; I was trying to suggest that past the first 5 points or so on that ruddy 1-10 scale you fellows insist on using, much of what men perceive depends on women’s self-presentation and attitude.
Most men are conventional and not all that discerning, even in purely visual/aesthetic terms. They walk past a very pretty young thing dressed like a plain Jane with her brown hair in a bun, and wolf-whistle a pop-eyed, slack-jawed fake blonde with a low-cut dress and high-heels.
LOVE is rarely if ever mentioned in this verbose site. Has love become passe’? Have “qualifications” taken it’s place? Many here seem quite emotionally bankrupt and are not even remotely aware of it. Are ye the product of slick advertising? Or human beings in search of truth, beauty, love, joy, freedom? People used to discuss those kinds of meaningful issues in the days of Socrates and some are trying to keep the discourse alive. Here, it’s primarily about intercourse. God, how boring. Sorry! But this site is so fucking mundane.
No Gannon – you say it’s between about 13 and 23! You always appear to dismiss the 25-and-overs as over the hill. But perhaps I’m mis-remembering?
Yes, you are somewhat wrong.
In my opinion, a woman’s most attractive years are between 14-22. 13 year old girls still are in middle school and way too childish. For me, a woman has to be at least in HS. Most women are still fairly attractive at the 23-26 years age range.. But sorry, most women’s beauty starts to fade fast in her late twenties and than disappears in her late thirties. Men fade too, obviously, but I would give a man 10 to 15 more years.
in terms of dating game appearing available will get women hit on a ton.
especially here in NYC, a cute or hot girl who looks like she might fuck gets the most attention. since so many girls here are super attention whores being flirty and appearing easy (without needing to actually fuck much) gets them what they want. a while ago appearing slutty or being an attention whore might get a girl overlooked, now it works great — especially to self styled players who think they are playing a sophisticated game talking to a needy girl in a bar.
#24 Clio: I could see that she was not merely pretty, but a beauty – and it was equally obvious that men in the street never looked twice at her, except perhaps at her generous bosom.
Trust me, speaking as a man: They looked twice. They just figured that she had a chip on her shoulder — or a “stubbornness, lack of confidence, and a wish to prove her individuality” — that would make her difficult to deal with, leading them to conclude that it wasn’t worth the investment in time and effort when the odds of it paying off were so low. In other words, they didn’t pursue her because it’s a pain in the ass to deal with a woman — or a man, for that matter — who has something to prove.
If a woman is beautiful and wears any kind of clothing that shows her face and gives an idea of what her body looks like, men will see it and be attracted to her. Better/more “standard” clothing and makeup can help slightly, but not to any great degree — certainly not two points if we’re using the ten point scale. That’s why Pygmalion stories are fundamentally ridiculous if the woman is wearing anything short of a burka with face shroud.
Well, Reggie, I’m still not entirely convinced, though I see what you mean. (Personality counts, hurray!) The woman I’m thinking of (I saw this episode recently so it stays with me) had a rather dull complexion without makeup – not broken out, but drab and a little mottled, in spite of her youth. And her hair was both frizzy (not curly or wavy) and badly cut in a kind of shapeless wedge. The makeup evened out her skin, brought out her eyes and her naturally long lashes (a Latina trait, it seems), and showed off the fullness of her lips. It was clear that she had “natural”, if imperfect, beauty, but she had made it all but invisible.
Anyway, I think I’ll let this go now. I don’t want to belabour the point any further. I only wanted to give any insecure young things who might read this a little encouragement.
This is an ecological observation, not an individual-based one, right? In other words, if you look at the pop as a whole, you see these patterns, then I would agree. But if you look at every specific coupling and what drew those two people together, the criteria is different. And I don’t mean “oh my boyfriend likes me because I am of the right breeding”. I mean that their vibes, DNA and immune systems matched well.
dizzy
“I don’t see men as personality-less androids available only for my pleasure, based on random criteria that I pretend is “biologically determined.” And I don’t see the fun in being around a man who sees me that way.”
If most men ‘use’ women only for sex, then most women ‘use’ men only for the nice emotional feelings they get from being around them and thinking about them. There is no functional difference between the two, just different pleasure switches involved. The proliferation of women scouring the globe for a man to emotionally leech off, to fantasize about, to idealize out of all proportion to reality (Titanic is to blame), is incredibly annoying.
“In the eyes of a person sentimentally committed to another person, the value of the beloved . . . grows enormously—as a rule out of all proportion to his or her real value.” – Pope John Paul II.
Women USE men for emotional pleasure.
I only wanted to give any insecure young things who might read this a little encouragement.
Alias clio, I admire your inner glow which so often shines through your posts. However, the thing that most gives young girls encouragement is the culture itself. This article might interest you a bit (2nd page talks about a little girl with much confidence).
The quality of men that a girl deals with from a young age will also shape her later experiences, perhaps even more so than the oft-cited “daddy issues.” The more I read writings by men here and elsewhere, the more I appreciate the men I know in my life.
It would be nice if we could fix the world with mere words, but our words change so very little. We can only affect a small bit in our own spheres of influence.
“In the eyes of a person sentimentally committed to another person, the value of the beloved . . . grows enormously—as a rule out of all proportion to his or her real value.” – Pope John Paul II.
Notice the gender neutrality in this statement. Men derive emotional pleasure (ego boosts are emotional) from sex as well.
There is biological basis for empathy and love (what you dismiss as “emotional pleasure”) just as there is for the urge to eat and the sex drive.
One set is not more objectively superior than the other — all facilitate perpetuation of the species.
Looks do count for over 90% of women’s game. That’s for sure. But some women, usually the middle attractive smart ones (5-7) have some game of their own, which amounts to a varied arsenal of femininity, friendliness, sluttiness, appearing popular and in-demand, and occasionally being genuinely funny or sassy, and when necessary, downright evil. They all believe, because they must, that a more attractive girl is guaranteed to be less interesting than they are, and that they are the “complete package” (see his list of “the rest”) Usually, the sweet behaviour is directed towards men and the evil shit is directed at other women, even their own friends. Women of average looks, just like non-alpha men, have to adjust their game according to their situation. For example, when a girl is the hottest girl in the room, she knows it and she uses it to her advantage by talking to all the guys, letting them compete against each other. As soon as a hotter girl shows up, which always happens, the lesser girl has to adjust to maintain male attention- by being especially funny (if she’s smart enough), acting stupid or slutty (if she’s typical), or by telling the guys who are suddenly no longer paying any attention to her what shit-eating whores the new girls are (if she’s a competitive cunt at heart). But either way she faces real competition. She will focus on her favorite guy at that point and usually he will be a more alpha guy who thinks he can bag the hottie. Its tough b/c women aren’t emotionally equipped to play this game. I’ve seen 5-6s with game get what they want (alpha male hookup) but I’ve also seen them fail miserably and end up crying. Literally, crying and drunk with their tank tops slipping off and mascara running, turning them from a 5 to a scary 3. Young girls try to play this game all the time and it can crush them. It can be sad. It takes a lot of mental toughness for girls to have game but it can also pay off.
Hope, whatever you say is meaningless and utterly misunderstood by the audience at whom you are directing it. It’s nothing against you, I am just saying that perhaps we are futile in our attempts. You and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, but you can’t fix Asperger’s Syndrome through blog comments.
41 rinaface:
“you can’t fix Asperger’s Syndrome through blog comments.”
“According to early Greek mythology, it was Dionysus who on occasion spurred the Greeks to give in to their irrational impulses with abandon. The trick was to find just the right balance: if you don’t vent your lower impulses intermittently, you become repressed and stifled in a way that can lead to abrupt and violent outbursts, the Greeks maintained. But if you overdo it, you become captive to those impulses. The earliest Greek societies held that the ideal balance–in which one learns to vent and channel sexual desires properly, in the right measure and for the right ends–can compel one to become more adept at discovering, contemplating, and fashioning beauty in its higher forms. It can lead to cultivation of rational, constructive, creative impulses, enabling one to develop talents in ways that make an optimal contribution to society.”
More importantly; it makes a contribution to oneself which cannot help but have a positive effect on “society.” Any comments? Or should we just get back to percentages of what women need to do to qualify for all those great player catches that we ought to be so viciously competing for?
I agree with Clio on this. Some attention to appearance (“some” being the key word) can really boost a woman’s attractiveness. So, for that matter, can having a pleasant disposition.
you can’t fix Asperger’s Syndrome through blog comments.
priceless.
when asperger’s syndrome first became a fashionable topic a few years ago, i predicted that it wouldn’t be long before pundits and punters alike started dismissing entirely typical male behavior traits as ‘A.S.’, and as things that had to be ‘fixed’. i have now been proven correct. cheers!
we have now come full circle in the process that started with taking the entirely typical traits of elementary-school boys, labelling them en masse with specious diagnoses of ADHD, and pushing medication on those boys to start making them act more like girls.
vive la difference, is all i sez.
There’s no medication for Asperger’s Syndrome.
There’s no medication for Asperger’s Syndrome.
ok yeah, that part of the argument is nonparallel.
but the principal point, which is that more and more entirely typical, nondysfunctional male traits are becoming syndromes with names, diagnoses, and indicated ‘therapies’, remains unscathed.
#48 retard:
ugliness is only marginally detrimental to a man in most endeavors, unless he looks like this dude. if it matters more than it used to, then only because we males are becoming a band of feminized metrosexuals.
a certain degree of ugliness can even benefit a man, as it removes the constant distraction of easy pussy, thus enabling a greater extent of self-actualization.
as my name implies, i speak as a five on a scale of ten. (also, as my name implies, i can read books really fast.)
Another important point is that his list only rates how important these things are to men. But that’s only half of hooking a guy — the other half is female vs. female competition, which is ruthless. That’s where the fashion stuff comes in: if you can intimidate other females, their confidence will drop, they’ll be more retiring and insecure, and they won’t be in the right mindset to have fun and enjoy themselves around guys.
That’s true for guys also — a lot of the stuff we do isn’t attractive to females, but it intimidates our male competition to stand aside, drop out, etc.
Many women nowadays seem to enjoy denigrating men’s appearance, in fact worse than men do to women. Women commonly describe anyone who doesn’t look like Tom Brady or Brad Pitt as “ugly” because they have been conditioned to think a movie star will whisk them away. I find young women very shallow. Men of course are too, but that is expected and has always been the case. However, men are usually more diplomatic about it, whereas women don’t care much about mens’ feelings.
There are many more attractive women nowadays than feminine/caring women. Women seem to enjoy adopting the worst habits of men, which will almost always repel a guy. Nicer, and more caring women, if at least cute, should be very desirable in the near future because of the rarityof these kinds of women. Many more fuck and chuck types than wife and mother types.
#34 Clio: (Personality counts, hurray!)
Yeah, I don’t quite agree with his breakdown. In particular, I’d combine “feminity” and “sincerity” into one category, and probably throw a few elements of “the rest” — smarts and humor, principally — under the same umbrella, which I’d just call “personality.” Here’s the modified scale:
Looks: 80%
Personality: 8%
Sexual appetite: 8% (In lieu of “kinkiness”; I don’t care too much if she’s super kinky provided she wants it twice a day or more)
Childlessness: 2%
The rest: 2%
I’m not trying to fix the world, Hope – I am using this website to expand my sphere of influence!!
Seriously, I’m not trying to achieve any moral revolution by posting at his site. There’s much I don’t understand in my own history and the sheer crassness of expression here makes it possible for me to see some things more clearly.
Interjecting a contrary opinion now and then or trying to point out the subtleties of male-female interaction is what I’m able to offer out of my own hard-won store of understanding.
Heck, I meant not to say any more…
#41 rinaface
Hope, whatever you say is meaningless and utterly misunderstood by the audience at whom you are directing it.
even the legendary CH himself has touted the unique and sublime benefits of love, an endorsement that was not roundly rejected by anyone here. i guess you missed that particular memo, no?
hope does, however, manage to hang on to that elusive thing called ‘agape love’, as admirable as it is elusive in our culture of interchangeable disposables. were there more ladies out there like her, there wouldn’t be as much need for the game. really, truly, there wouldn’t.
ironically, if the different rates at which the sexes initiate divorce is at all meaningful, they seem to show that it’s actually females who have divested themselves of the need for a long-term emotional companion in favor of moere exciting things.
51 dizzy8
” You only get one mother in this world.”
OOOOOOH, tell it girl! Seems Jack is lookin’ for not just any mama; but a real, real good mama. Many of those “nice, caring” women have learned to manipulate and suppress anger in order to catch a man. My mama did and daddy’s been paying ever since. Better to get it ALL out in the open, but then only a real man and love a real woman. You won’t find real men here.
dizzy 8 – Smart women will also be quite happy at being with a guy who could care less about them. Attraction isn’t a choice. You see more women with suave, game skilled men, then with the really nice guy. There’s a reason we say, “Nice guys always finish last”. If you don’t like the double standard so be it, but it exists on both sides of the spectrum. If a nice well meaning gentleman walks up to a girl in a crowded social setting and says, “Hi My name is X, How are you?” He will get blown out and the girl will pay no attention to him. If the same guy comes in with good body language and game the girl will be much more receptive to him. Then if that girl wastes her time constantly complaining about how X guy isn’t Brad Pitt, she’ll find herself pumped and dumped more often than not. She can’t accept every guy who walks up and says hi, because she gets hit on so much that it’s impossible (Even Ugly girls get hit on a lot, simply because some guy wants ass tonight), so she should focus on retaining the Alpha guy with game, by figuring out his needs/weaknesses and play along to them. This idea that everyone is equal that guys shouldn’t judge women on looks is stupid, because women judge men on personality, whereas men don’t spend as much time doing that with women. Different bio/physio/pysco logical methods.
54, I.E. I’m budding in on dizzy8 here, but can’t help it! You are too entertaining I.E.
“Smart women will also be quite happy at being with a guy who could care less about them.”
#1, it’s COULDN’T care less.
#2, you completely misuse the word “happy” here. How happy would you be in a relationship with a “gal” who could not care less about you? Are you masochistic? Do you think women must be too. Even a “satisfied” masochist is not “happy”. Yes, they may be burned by assholes after asshole after asshole, and live to learn from the experience, but to call them happy is 100% idiotic.
Love and happiness; two of the most heinously misused words on this site.
“Nice guys always finish last”.
No, pricks finish last, but good looking assholes get more pussy. Does this make them happy? Oh, right; I forget we have different definitions of the word.
“This idea that everyone is equal that guys shouldn’t judge women on looks is stupid.”
Agreed to a point, but I would add to this. A man who judges a woman purely on looks is looking to pump and dump and playing the odds like a Vegas slot machine, if he deludes himself into thinking he will find “love” that way.
Women SHOULD judge men on looks too. The better looking; the more they should be avoided like genital herpes OR they should be put to a much more rigorous qualification test. Nine times out of ten, these guys are assholes who will make a woman feel like a piece of shit for having had sex with them. THEY know that although the infantile American culture views them as a big “success”, that inside they are losers without a real clue as to what real success is. :)
“I find young women very shallow. Men of course are too, but that is expected and has always been the case. However, men are usually more diplomatic about it, whereas women don’t care much about mens’ feelings.”
Spoken like someone who has never experienced first-hand how pointedly – and pointlessly – cruel men can be. Especially in the safety of a group.
And the fact that shallowness has “always been the case” (and I’m sure non-shallow men the world over will disagree with that assertion, as well they should) is no reason whatsoever that women should just sit back and accept lowest-common- denominator behavior.
Shallow people suck, regardless of gender.
dizzy wailed to her god and savior:
Jack, he wrote an incredibly rude post.
i piss in your face and in the faces of your feminist clacking cunt brigade for the loathsome lies they spread.
you don’t like it.
i say “so?”
you say “how wude!”
and that’s all ya got.
because you know as well as i do that if i turned my death star ray on designated targets that you approve of — like betaboys and whiny men — you’d silently assent and probably even join in the destructive fun.
and so you have no defense when i do it to you.
calling someone out for rudeness is the last defense of the intellectually bankrupt.
(And he has written multiple posts about me, so I don’t feel bad about calling him out).
calling me out about what, exactly?
i’ve never claimed that good looks on a man are completely irrelevant to picking up chicks. what i’ve said is that they are not as important as personality, psychological dominance, and tight game for triggering a woman’s attraction mechanism and ESPECIALLY for keeping her attracted. good looks might get a guy an easier audition with any random girl but his looks will be wasted if he doesn’t move the right way or say the right things once he’s captured her attention.
as evidence of this phenomenon, i can personally attest to a quadrupling of my success rate after i improved my game and my understanding of the different psychological mentality women possess, while my looks stayed the same.
hope extremis:
Wait, you mean supermodels could have their looks impacted by totally bald? Nonsense!
hope, don’t be dense. how many women do you see walking around totally bald? yeah, not many, so your example is foolish. what we are talking about is makeup, hair STYLES, and fashion, which are much less radical alterations to a woman’s appearance than shaving all her hair off. and these minor improvements will only add a MAXIMUM of one point to a woman’s physical attractiveness.
i understand why women want to believe makeup, et al. can make a plain jane ravishingly cute, but that is just wishful thinking when faced with the very depressing reality that it is the unchangeable underlying bone structure of a woman’s face that makes nearly all the difference whether she will be considered hot or not by men.
ps: a bald britney is still hotter than the average woman.
I’ve said several times here and still believe that men are simply unaware of the power of presentation.
Makeup, clothes, and general attitude can’t turn a truly plain woman into a beautiful one, but they can turn an insipid woman with nice features, the kind who never attracts any attention, into one who catches every male eye.
I’ve experienced this so often, both in men’s response to my own person and in their response to female friends of mine, that I really can’t doubt it. In my youth I found that when I put on my glasses I became invisible; minus the glasses, and with a little makeup (esp. lipstick), I suddenly got tons of male attention.
A story: one of my cousins years ago was a great fan of Charlie’s Angels, esp. the ravishing Jaclyn Smith. One day he saw a magazine cover on the kitchen table with the photo of a somewhat washed-out-looking brunette on it. He said, “God, who is that old hag?” It was…you guessed it…Jaclyn Smith. She was still a young woman then and not at all hag-like, but the cover photo was for a housewives’ magazine and the photographer had not tried to glamorize her at all.
Your personal favs Kirstin Dunst and Rachel Weisz are not conventional beauties with harmonious features; they are pleasant-looking women who might be considered plain (by some men at any rate) if their sparkling personalities did not animate their appearance so well.
And there are some plain Jane types who manage to radiate sex appeal all the same, for some mysterious reason. Charlotte Bronte, who practically invented the original plain Jane in Jane Eyre, was a very plain woman, tiny, with missing teeth, but she had several marriage proposals from successful men and she eventually married a tall, broad shouldered, and very virile-looking clergyman when she was 37.
Dizzy, I never even said women could never consider looks at all. Shallowness is caring about looks above all else. In society, men are prized on accomplishments, and women on looks. You make the mistake of thinking men and women should be judged on the same criteria.
It’s funny, because the point I was trying to make is that I am probably LESS shallow than most guys. Even the hottest girl can turn me off with certain personality traits. And a 6 can bump herself up. But let’s say a chick is 300 pounds. Sure, I won’t hit on her, but at least I might have compassion for her because i know it must suck.
What you know about my hair? Have you seen me too? lol
Dchero
Dchero I think you are right on on the way she carries herself thing. All the talk of strong woman meaning strong in a traditionaly manly sence. The way my wife carries herself is the most amazing thing. Demure, modest, no swearing, poised, has good advice on moral issues. Yet she is strong in a way I have never seen before. She can be all woman and at the same time run a business and make money. She doesn’t have to be domineering to do it. She doesn’t have to compete with her man either. Why I am achieving what I want to achieve because seeing the future filled with grace is a magical catalyst for working my ass off. Femininity has got to be given way more wieght.
#41 The Greek idea of middle ground intrigues me because most of Western civilization has a hard on for the ancient Greeks. Yet a western country like ours is all about the EXTREME. How can this be?
johnny five- I didn’t label is a syndrome, someone else did. I actually don’t think autism is a disorder either, it’s just a slightly off-center common behavior-type of in many humans. However, the men who tend to comment here seem to exhibit many traits of AS (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and trying to change the way you or they see the world is impossible. I, as well as the majority of women, and many men particularly the ones who have natural Game abilities don’t understand what the big deal is about this blog. To us, these things are silently as self-evident as the fact that the sun comes out at dawn.
Thursday, you’re wrong. It’s precisely where the really beautiful women are concerned – those who are 8-10 – that things like presentation and the personal preferences of men become most important.
Who’s more beautiful? Audrey Hepburn (girlish sweetness, elfin grace), Marilyn Monroe (girlish sweetness contrasted with brazen vampiness), Julie Christie (bohemian-poetic), or Greta Garbo (haughty aristocratic)?
All of them are pretty women, but which of them couldn’t have been rendered much less beautiful through bad dressing/lighting/makeup? It would be easy to make Audrey Hepburn look like a plain skinny waif with an over-large head; it would be easy to make Marilyn Monroe look like an overblown tart with frizzy hair (her hair was naturally curly, and reddish-brown); July Christie’s features could look over-large and vulpine; Garbo could look stiff and statue-like.
Since all you hetero-males ever notice is the finished result (whether plain or pretty), you are clueless, I suspect, about what goes into producing it, or how it can be influenced by slight alterations in presentation.
I have to agree with Clio re: men’s lack of familiarity with how much work goes into producing the finished result they see, and how large the discrepancy can be between the “Before” and the “After”. This was most apparent in college, when I lived with the girls my guy friends dated, and saw first hand what their “knockouts” really looked like. They’d ask my opinion, I’d tell them the truth, they’d dismiss me as jealous, and eventually apologise when they finally bedded their dream-girl and woke up to her the next morning looking completely different than she had the night before.
The sad thing is, none of the women were unattractive without all the gilding; they were mostly all normal, pretty humans and didn’t deserve the guys’ often-horrified reaction. The guys wanted the goddess, and could never seem handle discovering that the goddess had feet – or a face – of clay.
Dizzy, I partially just like riling you up…
Rasberry – #1 I meant COULD not COULDN’t. When a guy spends all of his time worrying and caring for a woman, she will lose value for him. I know, you want a guy to care for you all the time, but really you end up more attracted to the guy who’s emotions waver, thus they could care less, not could not.
#2. When did I say that I didn’t want any emotional affection? It’s quite impossible for you to determine what makes individual people happy, as we are all quite different. What I’m stating is that in the realm of relationships, as the topic pertains to, that women are happier with the man who controls the situation and doesn’t appear needy and dependent or in other words beta. And if these were the guys that made them unhappy why do they continue to chase?
#3. Women should pay more attention to looks, but they don’t, and personally I wouldn’t mind if they did. While you say that they should shit test more on good looking guys, I think they should do the opposite. The good looking ones aren’t as dangerous because they can be more forward and use their natural looks to their favor, it’s the less attractive more highly game skilled ones that women should shit test at a higher degree, yet I’ve seen it’s the opposite.
Unlike many of the people who post here, I make no assumptions about ‘love’. I’m only commenting on the initial encounters, and no I don’t believe at love at first site, I think love requires emotional commitment that takes time, I’m posting/discussing the initial pickup and follow up dates/hookups.
72, I.E.
“The good looking ones aren’t as dangerous because they can be more forward and use their natural looks to their favor, it’s the less attractive more highly game skilled ones that women should shit test at a higher degree, yet I’ve seen it’s the opposite.”
Well, speaking from personal experience the man who treated me the worst–by FAR the worst–was also the best looking and most overtly seductive of the bunch. By FAR the best looking, because I have never chosen men based on looks. I’m going back to more average looking men and will be very wary of exceedingly handsome men in the future.
Don’t have time for the other points….later.
J5: People who are still drunk, or hungover, or half-asleep, and who often leave before their partners are actually awake – all common behaviours in “hookup” culture – may never really see what the said partners look like the morning after.
Anyway, I really ought to have given up this argument when I said I would. I knew I didn’t have much hope of persuading anyone.
clio:
yeah, i know.
but unless things have changed drastically since back in the day when i rode dinosaurs to school, these guys have to have spent at least a few nights + mornings after with girls. enough to notice the ritual, at least.
perhaps things have indeed changed drastically since back in the day when i rode dinosaurs to school.
clio:
Since all you hetero-males ever notice is the finished result (whether plain or pretty), you are clueless, I suspect, about what goes into producing it, or how it can be influenced by slight alterations in presentation.
i would suspect that this statement is only true about hetero-males who have never lived with a woman, or perhaps only hetero-males who have never even spent multiple nights with a woman.
if a man and woman ever see the harsh light of the morning after together, he can’t help but notice the differences and/or the remedies therefor.
of course, if the hetero-male population is truly a formidable redoubt of autistic personality traits, you might be right after all.
lastly, although he would lambaste me for saying so, your writing style gains you one point in my book.
There are many, many men out there, particularly in science, math, engineering, tech, etc., who long for women who share their interests. In my experience, that famous Adams joke about female engineers (..female engineers become irresistible at the age of consent and remain that way until about thirty minutes after their clinical death) is true & applies to women in most of these traditionally male fields. A woman who goes into these types of fields gives herself a big advantage with these types of guys, who tend to be good husband material (e.g. see the wives of famous tech/science guys.)
“I’d disagree on the percentages though: looks make up at least 80% of what makes a woman attractive, and probably more like 90% in most cases, but not 95%.”
I disagree it’s more like 91.65%…
Are you insane?
This is really depressing stuff. Let’s hope it’s just a phase.
“Nothing keeps a woman’s body in prime groping shape for longer than abstaining from childbirth”
Nothing kills a culture quicker than abstaining from childbirth, too. In this case the loss may not be noticeable.
Reminds me of this Lionel Shriver piece :
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,6000,1571998,00.html
“To be almost ridiculously sweeping: baby boomers and their offspring have shifted emphasis from the communal to the individual, from the future to the present, from virtue to personal satisfaction. Increasingly secular, we pledge allegiance to lower-case gods of our private devising. We are less concerned with leading a good life than the good life. We are less likely than our predecessors to ask ourselves whether we serve a greater social purpose; we are more likely to ask if we are happy. We shun values such as self-sacrifice and duty as the pitfalls of suckers. We give little thought to the perpetuation of lineage, culture or nation; we take our heritage for granted. We are ahistorical. We measure the value of our lives within the brackets of our own births and deaths, and don’t especially care what happens once we’re dead. As we age – oh, so reluctantly! – we are apt to look back on our pasts and ask not ‘Did I serve family, God and country?’ but ‘Did I ever get to Cuba, or run a marathon? Did I take up landscape painting? Was I fat?’ We will assess the success of our lives in accordance not with whether they were righteous, but with whether they were interesting and fun.”
you’re all stupid
79 Laban,
I feel you deserve points for trying. Most here are tedious and depressing. If you enjoy that kind of thing, stick around. It gets worse. :D
Let me boil it down to its simplistic essence: Happy/fun people are attracted to happy/fun people and unhappy/miserable people are attracted to unhappy/miserable people.
Doesn’t get much better than that! “Game”? Dating is NOT a hobby, it’s something you do, like eating or sleeping, so that you can get on with fun living (including having regular sex).
If dating is your “hobby,” then you need to take up a proper hobby like surfing, snowboarding, mixing, kiteboarding, biking, language learning, picture taking, writing (not for i-diaries), travelling . . . etc.
Also, if dating is a hobby then it’s a temporary one, and when/if you find a boyfriend/girlfriend, then dating ceases to be your hobby and you now have one less hobby.
Come on, Woody Allen is the original dating “blogger” neurotic and it becomes fucking irritating after 2 seconds.
If attitude were a substitute for intelligence, this post would have been informative.
Unenlightened by the social science lit on attraction. Devoid of very basic considerations in mate selection that a conversation among hillbillies would make clear after a beer or two.
Subsequent comments are only slightly less innane.
I’ve seen some of the most hideous she devil beasts with some pretty decent looking men, so I think this whole post is crap. What every person secretly and TRULY wants is someone they can despise enough to violently violate physically or emotionally several times a week as their needs dictate. No one wants a cherished lover who is attractive and kind. They want a mangy bitch/bastard that they can yell at over their cell phone at the Mall food court or have angry, STD-laden sex with. The saggier her titties/his johnson, the better because then you can bitch about them to all your poser friends and eventually call them names like WOOFWOOFWOOF when they finally get you on the Jerry Springer show because you left them for another man but they still want you because you could actually deal with the stench their moist skin folds exude long enough to impregnate them five times. :P
Welcome to the modern American love affair.
Blech.
“#3. Women should pay more attention to looks, but they don’t, and personally I wouldn’t mind if they did. While you say that they should shit test more on good looking guys, I think they should do the opposite. The good looking ones aren’t as dangerous because they can be more forward and use their natural looks to their favor, it’s the less attractive more highly game skilled ones that women should shit test at a higher degree, yet I’ve seen it’s the opposite.”
This is a good point.
I’ve seen handsome, slick guys be jerks, but ugly guys can often be far more bitter. I guess it is hard to build character when women throw themselves at you no matter what you do, but it is also easy to lose hope when women shun you no matter what you do. Women don’t care about the personalities of either studly or ugly guys. There are some exceptional guys who work on themselves even if it does not affect how much sex they get, but they are the exception.
The guys that are most likeable are either handsome but dorky guys or normal looking guys with decent social skills. They will need to develop their personality and character to have success with women.
Then again, there is this guy I recently got to know better because we were taking a course together. I’ve known him for 7 years but always had some prejudices against him. He is very good looking and not just sociable but also slick. On top of that, many of the other guys were saying they disliked him and he was a jerk and superficial and whatnot. But as we worked together, I found out he had a lot of interesting thoughts and ideas and was a very kind person, very willing to teach others something.
As for the percentages; does that not depend on what decision a guy is making?
If it is about a guy being out and deciding which girl to approach and which one not, then it would not surprise me that looks make up near 100% of what motivates a man to ask a girl out. In a bar, in public transport or at the gym, there is little else a guy even knows about that girl, so it is kind of unfair. I guess there is a 5% chance that a woman is either do something very kind, and he sees that or does something very gross.
If a guy is still only counting looks when he is deciding wether to ask a girl out for a 5th date or propose, then either she has little else to offer or he is very shallow.
In my opinion, ugly is as ugly does. Most people on earth are fairly symmetrical with no outstanding defects, so most people are basically beautiful.
It’s the things people do to themselves that uglify them.
Whatever is trendy, only one basic rule applies to men when it comes to women’s attractiveness. Men like variety. Period. Even if certain physical features are defective, you can find at least a good proportion of men who have a fetish for it…from long second toes to 80 year old grannies.
The rest about how he’ll treat someone he’s attracted to, depends on social convenience, and this is where fashion comes in. Men are competing for status in their own right moreso than women (who bounce status through marriage more often). So who a man is seen connected to is important as to whether or not he’s seen as powerful or worthy. This means that whatever he may be attracted to (which is usually a fairly wide list of traits), only the women who will confirm his status will get premier attention from him. The rest he will try to get away with discretely shagging and putting them away.
So the game for women is basically getting a man of the highest status she can attract, and for this she has to appear to be a suitable status accessory.
Those of us who’ve found ourselves in cultures where we’re default outcast or low status based on some silly criteria, must have a different game, which is pursuing and achieving equal status to the males we wish to attract, in our own right. This is about the only way we have to prove that we are worthy…by being colleagues, rather than accessories.
If we aren’t colleagues, then we’ll be invisible except as sperm dumps…and even being a colleague is not enough sometimes, if the culture is really hostile. We must become the males’ superiors in order to receive equal respect to someone who is basically inferior to them, but more trendy.
The problem is that the more power a woman gets on her own, the less she needs men for the things most other women (feel like they) need men for. So ultimately, a moneyed, influential woman finds herself needing only companionship and sex from a man, and any kind, virile, personality-compatible guy will do for that. She doesn’t really need a man of equal or higher professional capability and/or status…but some silly women go for that anyway.
“Game” in the conventional and almost outdated board, is over for women at 30 at the most. If a woman finds herself still single at that point in her life, she should seriously rethink her desires…ask herself whether what she’s been doing has really been doing anything for her.
Nowadays, guys aren’t so hung up about age or a woman being higher status and making more money. As many single dads and Gay dads have proven, men are equally capable of being the primary nurturers of children, and in some ways, better at it because they’re usually non traditional.
So a woman who doesn’t look like a good status accessory in whichever culture she’s in should seriously consider refining her game to acquire a mate with a backbone and good fathering skills. Someone who is a more hands-on type king of his castle, rather than a volunteer credit card with an incubator.
That’s just my opinion. The rest can keep their high power execs, doctors, and lawyers. Give me the eccentric history professor who takes Jiu Jitsu classes in his ample spare time.
It is not always a straight line. A certain 7 can be more attractive than a particular 9, based on personality, moral values, general compatibility, etc. It is not common, but is possible.
A 6 or below can never compete with a 9, however. Only after both are 60+ years old and the former 9’s advantage is gone.
[…] reality of female sexual market value is that most of it is determined by factors that are either outside the woman’s control or the result of choices that can’t be […]