I’m sure some scoffed when I gave that advice to men, but it turns out I was right! To increase the likelihood of a happy relationship men should be with women who are more attractive than themselves.
Women seeking a lifelong mate might do well to choose the guy a notch below them in the looks category. New research reveals couples in which the wife is better looking than her husband are more positive and supportive than other match-ups.
The reason, researchers suspect, is that men place great value on beauty, whereas women are more interested in having a supportive husband.
The mysteries of the herb factor solved.
The study involved asking couples a personal question and evaluating how supportive each partner was of the other. Couples were rated separately for hotness of looks.
Researchers videotaped as each spouse discussed with their partner a personal problem for 10 minutes. The tapes were analyzed for whether partners were supportive of spouses’ issues, which included goals to eat healthier, to land a new job and to exercise more often.
“A negative husband would’ve said, ‘This is your problem, you deal with it,'” McNulty said, “versus ‘Hey, I’m here for you; what do you want me to do?; how can I help you?'”
A group of trained “coders” rated the facial attractiveness of each spouse on a scale from 1 to 10, with the perfect 10 representing the ultimate babe. About a third of the couples had a more attractive wife, a third a more attractive husband and the remaining partners showed matching looks.
If my wife was getting fat I wouldn’t tell her it’s her problem. I’d be on her flabby ass like Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. I’m supportive like that.
Overall, wives and husbands behaved more positively when the woman was better looking.
Men — bat out of your league. Not only will you be happier, but so will she.
In couples with more attractive husbands, both partners were less supportive of one another. McNulty suggests wives mirror, in some ways, the level of support they get from husbands.
I’ve seen this in real life. My good-looking buddies who slum it with borderline chicks treat their girls like shit. This proves it’s practically a moral imperative to sleep with girls who are hotter than you think you can get.
Physical attractiveness of husbands is not as important to women, the researchers suggest. Rather, wives are looking for supportive husbands, they say.
So it seems the mismatch in looks is actually a perfect match. “Equitable is unlikely to mean the same on every dimension,” Ariely said during a telephone interview. “It just means that overall two people make sense together.”
Aiming for hotter chicks than what everyone tells you you deserve is not only great motivation and a guaranteed way to improve your game, it is scientifically and morally justified. Since I am a font of human kindness and a light unto the world, I will only hit on 9s and above tonight.
Aiming for hotter chicks than what everyone tells you you deserve is not only great motivation and a guaranteed way to improve your game, it is scientifically and morally justified.
It also increases the chances that a man will end up with nothing. Living alone at age 45, desperately looking through mail order bride listings – is that any man’s idea of fun?
LikeLike
I’m normally what most girls would consider an ideal boyfriend. But my second girlfriend started gaining some weight. Our conversation went like this:
“If you get any fatter, I will be physically incapable of loving you.”
“… do you see us getting married?”
*deer in headlights*
“what? no.”
“why not?”
“I think we should break up.”
LikeLike
…it turns out I was right!
….New research reveals..
Researchers videotaped as each spouse….
The tapes were analyzed…
A group of trained “coders” rated….
on a scale from 1 to 10…
About a third of the couples…
and the remaining partners…
McNulty suggests..
This proves…
is actually a perfect….
Equitable is unlikely to mean…i
is scientifically and morally justified
This is how you conduct your life? My guess is that you experience a lot of frustration.
LikeLike
I actually do agree with this. My husband is supportive, awesome, and always tells me I’m too good for him. I personally think he is really cute, but his perception of himself is that he is not as attractive. So he does more for me emotionally, and as a result I’m inclined to do more for him sexually. It all works out.
LikeLike
funny… my mom has been telling me for years that i should date down. however…my peeps are both good looking and have been happily married for forty plus years.. so?
LikeLike
I wonder if they add income in their studies anywhere? I bet that the less attractive guys with more attractive mates also happen to be healthy in the bank account too. (Exhibit A: picture of Howard Stern and his fiance Beth Ostrosky in linked article).
Money is the great equalizer in mating. 😉
LikeLike
The press release says this is more an effect on married couples, not those who just start dating — when people who match up closely on looks show more satisfaction, it says.
So the “hotter gf” applies to guys who are looking to get married to her, like the herb thing you point out.
Off tonight to search for my 16 year-old 10…
LikeLike
I’d Love to see a study on how when women are compatable with a guy – they love his natural scent and he loves her natural scent.
Sometimes you can smell when it is going to snow – the same way scent “is just right” and you find she is far more compatable with you. Good natural scent = good natural match
LikeLike
I agree with the basic premises that agnostic and Gannon outline for finding a young mate, but to be so mercenary about it is just a bit… creepy. Girls don’t want to be reduced to a number or a physical ideal that she won’t live up to forever.
When I was 16 or 17 I met a 30 something year old guy that claimed to like younger women, and even though I took a liking to him, he creeped me out quite a bit by just how much he wanted a younger girl, and it didn’t really seem to matter who. That’s just… eww.
LikeLike
This would even seem to be reasonably achievable without someone getting totally shafted. Women do seem to be better looking on average than men:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/08/fairer-sex-is-fairer-hotness-not-just.php
LikeLike
Aw shit I am screwed. I can’t marry up if there is no such thing as a girl over a 10. *shaking fist in the air* Damn you mom and dad! Damn you!
LikeLike
@Hope: the real advantage of marrying a woman 5-15 years younger shows up later in life. When the man is forty, he will still be very horny and have good acces to women between the ages of 24-28. Having a 38 year old infertile wife will frustrate him. Man at that age still want to ride fertile women. So having a young woman will save his marriage, because he has a still young fertile wife to mate with. By the way, obviously in real life my opinions are filetred and much more moderate. And to my gf I alwsys tell her that I don’t mind that she is younger because she is so mature for her age. lame, yes, but it works. Also, having an older bf (8 more years) gives her status among her friends, and two of her friends also have boyfriends in their early twenties.
LikeLike
The only problem I see with your advice is that some men seem to think that life owes them a hot babe just for existing, and thus they make no effort at at being worthy of that 10. I know you didn’t mean it that way, but women don’t owe men anything. You have to you know, like, do_something_to make them want to be with you.
LikeLike
It is probably best if the woman is just slightly better looking than the man. The greater the difference, the more likely she is going to screw around with other guys. A lower end guy might be willing to accept this as a necessary compromise allowing him to access to someone hotter than he could otherwise get, but, if he does allow it, she is going to lose respect for him, almost certainly dooming the relationship anyway.
On the other hand, if a guy has someone slightly better looking than him,_he_is less likely to cheat (and we all know what natural cheaters most guys are), also stabilizing the relationship.
LikeLike
“(and we all know what natural cheaters most guys are)”
Some stats to back you up:
infidelityfacts.com:
Percentage of men who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they’ve had: 57%
Percentage of women who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they’ve had: 54%
LikeLike
And to my gf I alwsys tell her that I don’t mind that she is younger because she is so mature for her age. lame, yes, but it works.
Yes, and is completely fine. The creepy way is “I want to shag you because you’re 16 and hot, and I don’t really care about you for you. If some other hot 16 year old chick came along I’d just as soon get with her.” Women are happiest in relationships where the men are deeply emotionally committed to them. A man who sharply focuses on pure age and physicality is bound to freak girls out.
LikeLike
that’s why men learn to conceal their true feelings from women. if women only knew just how singularly focused men are on the physical…
Yes, and it’s a sign of greater social intelligence when people conceal such things. So while I agree with the basic premise and can understand why men focus on the physical, the way a man presents himself to women is important. The way agnostic writes here and on his blog, it sets off my creep-dar a bit too much. However, he likely doesn’t come off that way in person.
LikeLike
The man should always love the woman more. That happens if he worships her and views her as out of his league.
LikeLike
#19 Lemmonex
The man should always love the woman more. That happens if he worships her and views her as out of his league.
Bad idea. If he acts like she’s out of his league, she’ll come to believe she’s out of his league and start looking for someone who can play ball on her level.
LikeLike
I admire your honesty Agnostic. A lot of US men lack balls nowadyas. As I have said, standard normal sexual preference for man is between 14-25, being the exact age just a matter of personal taste. Funny thing is feminists say that women are mature enough to get engaged and marry after 25, that is after theri most attractive years. Also, marrying a 16 year old has the advantage that you will be enjoying ALL of her most attractive decades, whereas marrying a 24 yeat old means that you have one or two attractive tears left. Also, some women between 25-30 still look pretty good, whereas others already look like shit and much older than their age.
LikeLike
Anonymous, that’s not a very convincing source, since it doesn’t cite any research for its statistics.
Here’s another comment from the Journal of Sex Research:
In the current study, data from a nationally representative sample of 884 men and 1,288 women (1994 General Social Survey, Davis & Smith, 1994) who have ever been married were analyzed with regard to incidence, prevalence, and correlates of extramarital sex (EMS). Men were more likely than women to report ever engaging in EMS (22.7% vs. 11.6%, p [is less than] .00001), yet, after correcting the probability value for multiple tests, the apparent gender difference regarding the proportion of respondents who had EMS during the past year was not statistically significant (4.1% vs. 1.7%, p [is less than].008).
It seems that if you look at figures of who’s “cheating” during a given year, there isn’t much difference between the sexes, but lifetime incidence of cheating (which includes I suppose a larger range of couples of different ages) is considerably greater for men. It may be that some day this will no longer be true, if the second set of statistics is accurate.
LikeLike
It also increases the chances that a man will end up with nothing. Living alone at age 45, desperately looking through mail order bride listings – is that any man’s idea of fun?
Very true Peter.
LikeLike
“Living alone at age 45, desperately looking through mail order bride listings”
PETER IS TALKING ABOUT HIS PERSONAL LIFE AGAIN, and I wish him sincerely the best of luck.
LikeLike
“Anonymous, that’s not a very convincing source, since it doesn’t cite any research for its statistics. “
I’ve written to them to enquire as to their source. Hopefully, they respond soon.
Still, these are the only statistics that I can find that take into account “all’ relationships. With marriage going the way of the dinosaur, limiting such statistics only to married people is increasingly meaningless.
LikeLike
Sure, you need a tighter game. But as long as it is legal in your jurisdiction and are under 30/35, depending on how you look , it can be done. In the end, it’s a number’s game. And I enjoy the giggling and spontaneity.
LikeLike
versus ‘Hey, I’m here for you; what do you want me to do?; how can I help you?’”
I thought that type of attitude was considered beta behaviour? Hell, isn’t that type of behaviour inconsistent with the negative reinforcement techniques that supposedly serve as the Jedi-mind tricks of game.
LikeLike
“Living alone at age 45, desperately looking through mail order bride listings”
PETER IS TALKING ABOUT HIS PERSONAL LIFE AGAIN, and I wish him sincerely the best of luck.
I’m married.
LikeLike
Reggie: Women crave security…nothing is more secure than knowing you have someone in the palm of your hand. You are wrong.
LikeLike
Only insecure women crave security. Who wants an insecure woman?
LikeLike
Obligatory comment (for Peter):
The relationship can only work if the woman has a glorious natural pelt!
LikeLike
Oh one more thing:
I posted a link before about a homeless man who regularly pulls hot girls and sometimes maintains long term relationships with these girls. Sometimes he chooses these to be platonic because he has such an abundance mentality. Real Social Dynamics bootcamps have proven time and time again that looks matter so little that we can basically ignore them. The female posters here will probably refute this, but have they ever run into a flawless natural like Tim from RSD http://www.becometransformed.com/tim/
or Jeffy http://www.becometransformed.com/jeffy/ who are some of the most potent players around. So if you have fully grounded internal confidence versus egoic delusional confidence (see Eckhart Tolle for details) you deserve what you think you deserve and no woman can ever hold a candle to this. In essence when it comes to relationships the person with the strongest sense of reality wins. This conception of reality has no bearing on real debates like politics so don’t muddle the two.
LikeLike
We are all insecure. Why the need to define ourselves as alphas/betas/hot/not if not for insecurity?
LikeLike
i think you guys are underestimating the flakiness and hyper mood swings of teenage girls.
I know this very well! I’m surrounded by college students now, and before grad school I was a tutor. The volatility of young girls has good and bad effects: they’re more flakey and manic, but like Gannon said, more giggly and spontaneous. It also means they’re less able to dissimulate — if they like you, you will know so immediately, since they can’t control themselves.
older guys game needs to be that much tighter when dating younger girls.
This is true, but I don’t worry so much since I look like I’m 22, and I have pretty boy looks. Once they notice me and we start talking and having good vibes, I could tell them I’m 40 and it wouldn’t matter.
One of my former tutorees — she was 15 1/2, a pretty Persian girl — had a crush on me, and asked me how old I was. I told her, and though I was 10 years older than she was, she said, bashfully, “Oh, well I think age doesn’t matter if you love someone. Age is just a number.” That girl fucked with my mind. (She was a tutoree, so I didn’t pursue her, obviously.)
I emphasize that she was bashful because she is usually ultra Type-A, queen bee, is taller than most girls her age, etc.
LikeLike
There’s another aspect of the “out of his league” issue that needs discussion: Most men are quite careful not to become too deeply involved with a woman who outranks them in intelligence, no matter how attractive she may be. This is why so many women are convinced that men are “threatened” by a woman’s intelligence, although men swear up and down that appearance is their major concern.
I once dated a man who was extremely intelligent, and not in any sense my intellectual inferior – but he was almost hopelessly inarticulate. I couldn’t understand why, but I suspected that he became tongue-tied whenever he had to discuss anything he took really seriously. It was a difficult situation; I truly liked him and didn’t want to talk rings around him, which I could see was unfair, but I had a hard time figuring out what he wanted. In the end, it broke us up.
LikeLike
Tyler Durden had to create some meaning in a world gone mad. He fabricates a whole world around himself to help deal with his feelings of inadequacy and helplessness as a man.
We are all weak at times, no matter how strong we act. We have all had things taken away from us or lost something important…we want to hold on to what we have. Even the strongest man has moments of insecurity…this is what makes him more human. I call bullshit on anyone who does not experience moments of self doubt. How do we better ourselves if we are not always questioning? I would not categorize myself as an insecure person, but flashes of doubt certainly keeps me on my toes.
Worrying about how your hair looks or how physically attractive others perceive you to be is a modern phenomenon. Of course our ancestors were not worrying about their hair, but I am sure they based their perception of themselves on other forms of outside validation.
LikeLike
Tyler Durden wasn’t creating meaning to a world gone mad. He was trying to reconcile the destruction of morality by science with human life as having a purpose. He chose to do this by living on the edge which reminded him that he was alive. He was by no means an inadequate or helpless man. His alter ego Edward Norton started that way in the movie, but after he meets Tyler he becomes existentially empowered.
Self-doubt =/= insecurity. You don’t doubt your own attractiveness level if you are a secure well grounded person. The self-doubt you describe is called introspection and it is what positive secure people use to constantly better themselves. The way to live well is to constantly be striving for more and more in whatever area you excel in, so the need for self-doubt as a means to progress is nonexistent.
I highly doubt that in a time where your next meal was an undetermined phenomenon that anyone put any stock in external validation. Its when the idiot box (which coincidentally makes you several times more suggestible after just 20 minutes) came into play that we began to change to the insecure value sucking society that we are now. Note that there are some studies which indicate that although people in the third world are poor they experience the phenomenon known as happiness more. There are some studies relating happiness and material wealth for the first world as well (and the graph of wealth versus happiness becomes asymptotic to a horizontal line once you reach a certain amount of wealth). In other words there is a limit to how happy wealth can make you. You can’t just make a claim like outside validation and expect it to fly. Let’s see some specifics so it can be debunked.
LikeLike
I will give you I kinda jumbled introspection and self doubt, but still disagree on a lot of this.
And, TD is Ed Norton alter ego, not the other way around.
LikeLike
My bad, I’ve discussed this a number of times, and sometimes the question of who is the real McCoy pops up, but yeah for the purpose of this discussion TD can be assumed the alter ego.
LikeLike
The only problem I see with your advice is that some men seem to think that life owes them a hot babe just for existing, and thus they make no effort at at being worthy of that 10. I know you didn’t mean it that way, but women don’t owe men anything. You have to you know, like, do_something_to make them want to be with you.
Thursday
I noticed this too. I don’t get why so many unatractive people think that they should have a ten just because. How about looking for someone to treat you well and is decent looking instead. Even for those who are beautiful, its hard finding a good person to be with forever and ever. Look how many beautiful women in Hollywood have trouble finding true love.
LikeLike
A man who sharply focuses on pure age and physicality is bound to freak girls out.
that’s why men learn to conceal their true feelings from women. if women only knew just how singularly focused men are on the physical…
before anyone says it, looks and a hot bod are a necessary but not sufficient qualification for a fulfilling long term relationship.
LikeLike
“I want to shag you because you’re 16 and hot, and I don’t really care about you for you. If some other hot 16 year old chick came along I’d just as soon get with her.”
No, I’ve said and proved that females on average reach their physical peak from about 22 to 24, and I rarely focus on the physical traits of teenagers. And Gannon keeps saying that he likes girls in their mid-late teens because these are their bonding years.
Rewind to a week or so when posted on Bill and Monica — hotness played no role there. It was how she took such a starstruck, puppy-love shine to him, and how refreshing that must have been after being shackled to Hillary for so long.
The physical component is there, but it’s mostly about their personalities. Females refuse to acknowledge this, because it makes it impossible to write off guys as just a bunch of horndog bastards who only want to fuck hot girls (we are that, but more).
Females above 25 want to still hold on to the idea that, even if their looks are fading, at least their personalities are more appealing than those of younger girls — but, on average, that is not true either. I am more, not less, likely to like a 17 year-old “for who she is” and not view her as an expendable one-night stand, when compared to a 27 year-old.
I don’t mind setting off your “creep-dar” — you also thought I was high in Agreeableness, so I don’t take it seriously. 😉 Online personas don’t reveal a whole lot about the real person, just what their obsessions are.
LikeLike
Reggie: Women crave security…nothing is more secure than knowing you have someone in the palm of your hand. You are wrong.
Lemonex
Reggie,^^^ this is why women are willing to get over a man not being goodlooking if he is wealthy.
LikeLike
#32 Lemmonex:
Reggie: Women crave security…nothing is more secure than knowing you have someone in the palm of your hand. You are wrong.
Nope. Having someone in the palm of your hand means that you have control over them. Once a woman has a man in that position, she loses respect for him because she knows he’ll let her get away with anything. And when a woman stops respecting a man, she starts looking for something else.
As for security, how can you feel secure with a man who isn’t strong enough to keep you from totally wrapping him around your finger? I’m not saying he has to be entirely dominant in the relationship, but nothing is going to make a girl run away faster than a guy who fulfills her every desire in the hopes that it will convince her to keep him.
LikeLike
I once dated a man who was extremely intelligent, and not in any sense my intellectual inferior – but he was almost hopelessly inarticulate. I couldn’t understand why, but I suspected that he became tongue-tied whenever he had to discuss anything he took really seriously.
Well, isn’t this a case of the less verbally adroit not wanting to get involved with the more nimble? Maybe the way a guy with two left feet would not want to go out salsa dancing every night with his professional dancer gf?
He may have scored higher than you on intelligence tests, but just not in the verbal sub-tests, the same way the clumsy dancer might be a top athlete compared to his limber gf.
I don’t trust impressions like these because usually the two never whipped it out to *measure* and see whose truly was bigger. Unless it was obvious, like he didn’t get into any college while she went to Harvard.
LikeLike
agnostic, gannon, i think you guys are underestimating the flakiness and hyper mood swings of teenage girls. it’s fucking annoying and emotionally draining. however, i have not dated a 16 year old since discovering game, so maybe game can make them less flaky somehow. i was pretty needy, and had a post before about how older guys game needs to be that much tighter when dating younger girls.
LikeLike
whereas marrying a 24 yeat old means that you have one or two attractive tears left
It makes more sense to get married after attraction peak than before it. The female gets to use her beauty for its maximum gain, including access to alpha males. Besides, given that most women age, firstly, you may as well marry at an older age to see what the future decline will look like, and per Agnostic, if women’s personalities change, maybe it’s best to see what her mature adult personality is like before marrying. Hell, Wellesley Queen went from nice, sweet chubby white friend to less chubby, snotty bitch.
Admittedly, I can understand why he uses game since it works for him, but I’m at a loss as to why somebody like Gannon is so obsessed with mostly gawky looking teen girls and something as boring and dowdy as marriage at such a young age. Dude, you’re a lawyer, go bang hot women left and right, and don’t waste your position just one female. Only loser betas incapable of finding women use marriage to lock in women for the long-term… 🙂
LikeLike
comment #38 Poseur
mentioned how much control the media (fashion, TV, movies, magazines etc) control the way we think. Many people here just were not buying it. Not enough parents spend time convincing their children that it is okay to be who you are. It is so sad to see people who are 40 and 50 years old in thousands of dollars of credit card debt because they went out and brought everything the stars have because they thought it would make them feel better about themselves or to feel “special”.
“Just because some guy thinks your ugly or some girl thinks your lame doesn’t mean you shouldn’t value yourself as a person. However, people with self/esteem issues tend to let themselves go hence the correlation”
I love you for ^^^ Poseur.
“Its when the idiot box (which coincidentally makes you several times more suggestible after just 20 minutes) came into play that we began to change to the insecure value sucking society that we are now.”
Another good point.
comment # 45 .Poseur I actually feel the same way about women who think they deserve a rich man just because.
“Some girls have sour personalities or just want to do one night stands. That’s fine and men should accept this”
I agree with this and don’t understand why more men are not happy that so many women give it away freely when sl.ee.ping with a woman is their main goal anyway.
“When you see women constantly falling for killers, rock stars, rapists, wife beaters, the list goes on (this was obviously meant to be facetious) what else can he think? If you are a good man working a 9-5 job or you have spent your entire life devoted to a subject you love living what would be considered the good noble human life and all of a sudden you are denied life’s greatest pleasure in favor of those you have been taught are scum how would you feel?”
I actually understand how good men feel about being passed over for trash. I have actually had debates with women about this. I have always and will continue to always go for nice guys who like me a lot. I do not understand why so many women go for loser guys. Well, except when they are exceptionally good-looking because sometimes women are swap away by beauty too. I have come to the conclusion that some women (don’t tell the feminists) like to be mistreated. Actually, many men do to because they will let a 10 get away with a lot more than a 5 just to keep her
Poseur you must admit that its very expensive to have and take care of children.
One reason that many women are hesitant to have children is because they are fearful of repeating their parents’ mistakes. I think if a woman knows or thinks she will not make a good parent she should not have children. There are too many people walking around angry at the world because their parents were/are horrible parents. Also, since women are valued primarily on
their looks, many women may be hesitant to destroy the beauty of their bodies with childbirth.
LikeLike
Reggie I think I must be that one in 3billion because that is exactly what I like. He can play he-man with the rest of the world but when he is with me, he should be a teddy bear(sp) . Why would I go out looking for another man, who will not treat me as well as what I already have. Life is to short for all of the mind games.
Reggie, just because he is wraped around my finger, does not mean he is not be a good man and provider.
Let me ask you Reggie how about when the shoe is on the other foot, and the guy has the woman wraped around his finger. Good or bad thing?
LikeLike
One reason that many women are hesitant to have children is because they are fearful of repeating their parents’ mistakes. I think if a woman knows or thinks she will not make a good parent she should not have children. There are too many people walking around angry at the world because their parents were/are horrible parents.
Umm you just proved my point. Most people these days are just big babies. They backwards rationalize not wanting to commit to being a parent by saying that they are scared of failing. Well tough shit, everyone is scared of failing, but guess what that’s how you learn.
Also, since women are valued primarily on
their looks, many women may be hesitant to destroy the beauty of their bodies with childbirth.
99.99% of men on this planet are betas and will never discover the game. Their bargaining power is very low until the woman starts to naturally decline in beauty. The absence of children means a lack of commitment and makes it easy to get a divorce. If there are children involved and the man is a man he would at least wait until the kids are grown up until he decides to start banging Denise from the water cooler (although this is fucking dumb to).
If you are a man you need to sack up and tell your wife you need some needs fulfilled and if she truly loves you then she’d agree to a threesome type situation or whatever. Then again if you love her you would get over your damn visual issues turn of the lights and pretend your pounding some hottie. There is also cosmetic surgery if you really want the younger look. Besides I have to agree with what Gannon says about finding a woman that is 10 years younger than you. That way when you are 60 she is 50 and hopefully she did her part by going to the gym and doing yoga she is still bangable.
At 70 your sex drive should start to decrease, but if it doesn’t, well you’ve had a good 50 years to fuck around so stfu and look at porn. It’s not all about you especially if you are married and by this time probably have grandchildren. Basically this comes down to not being a selfish fuck.
I can’t believe I just wrote that shit, I am the biggest proponent of playerhood at 80. Although this may just be an ego thing where I want to prove to the world that it doesn’t matter how old you are or how bad you look you can still pull.
LikeLike
No Lemmonex we are not all insecure. Watch the movie Fight Club. Tyler Durden is a fictional character, but he represents a fact. Consumerism has made us insecure. We think we are always one step away from being complete (which makes us insecure) when really that is a bad way of viewing life. Embrace uncertainty and you will live the life of a secure person. Do you think our ancestors walked around worrying about the way their hair looked. Of course not. When you see what is important in life you stop feeling insecure.
The alpha beta definition is just another fad (evo psych) by a bunch urban yuppies who want to pretend like they know science. It’s the same as the feminists (2nd and 3rd generation) pretending to be superior to biologists. The stuff he talks about on this site is still in its infancy scientifically speaking and even though some of the things might be anecdotally correct they still need more refinement.
Hot/not has nothing to do with security. A person’s value has nothing to do with their sexual market value (at least not on a self esteem spiritual woo woo type level). Just because some guy thinks your ugly or some girl thinks your lame doesn’t mean you shouldn’t value yourself as a person. However, people with self/esteem issues tend to let themselves go hence the correlation.
LikeLike
poseur are you really eighty?
LikeLike
Poseur do yo believe everyone should have children because they can? What
LikeLike
but how do they do it? it’s much easier to get someone “on your level.”
LikeLike
I see you guys are still at it.
LikeLike
For men it doesn’t really matter how good looking the girl is, if you have the core confidence to support her. Some girls have sour personalities or just want to do one night stands. That’s fine and men should accept this. Anyone that tells you otherwise simply doesn’t have the reference experience of a seasoned pua. I’ll admit there are some men who think the world owes them a 10, but put yourself in the man’s shoes. When you see women constantly falling for killers, rock stars, rapists, wife beaters, the list goes on (this was obviously meant to be facetious) what else can he think? If you are a good man working a 9-5 job or you have spent your entire life devoted to a subject you love living what would be considered the good noble human life and all of a sudden you are denied life’s greatest pleasure in favor of those you have been taught are scum how would you feel?
Some men are actually boys disillusioned by the prospect of marriage. Gasp there is a higher purpose than sex for you here! The actual intended byproduct of sex, children. Coincidentally to our website feminists your liberal brethren willingly fore go the children in an effort to save the planet of overpopulation. Oh how nobel they are! How heroic! How utterly stupid.
Oh and Chic Noir you are so clever with your statement about men should do something to earn the woman. Has it ever occurred that maybe the woman should do something to deserve the man. Granted being born beautiful is what attracts men, but if the woman wants some prince charming then don’t you think she should do something to earn it (your answer will be yes of course, but for you this was an afterthought and not the main argument). So tell me what do women find attractive that actually gets results for men.
The only reason he can’t imagine being married is because he is still young and that’s just where he is in life. The young are always acting like nothing is impossible morons. Or maybe not.
LikeLike
thanks poseur for clearing that up.
LikeLike
#48, Agnostic – I’m not certain what you’re getting at here. I really don’t know which of us would have scored higher on an intelligence test, although I’m certain he would have done better than I in any advanced math exam.
My point was just that non-looks related issues can have an impact on men’s dating habits. In my example, the issue didn’t arise until he actually knew me a little better, but it’s not impossible that some men might decide on the first occasion of talking to a woman that she was “out of his league” because she was too articulate, or for similar reasons.
LikeLike
There’s another aspect of the “out of his league” issue that needs discussion: Most men are quite careful not to become too deeply involved with a woman who outranks them in intelligence, no matter how attractive she may be. This is why so many women are convinced that men are “threatened” by a woman’s intelligence, although men swear up and down that appearance is their major concern.
Those men are pussies.
LikeLike
Don’t think so, U-lurk. It’s just one of those facts of life.
LikeLike
No. I meant I am the biggest proponent of men staying as players until 80. I am not saying everyone should have children. I am saying most people who choose not to have children these days do so because they pussyfoot through life and this is no different. Oh it’s too hard I can’t do it! Is the excuse of the day. I believe he refers to it as victimology.
LikeLike
Chic Noir said:
“I have come to the conclusion that some women (don’t tell the feminists) like to be mistreated.”
Perceptive comment. I think it plays into the forgotten notion that most women like to be subserviient on some level. The media makes us think powerful women are the noem.
Has anyone noticed that when women are not being submissive to the needs of a man, they find ways to oppress themselves — anorexia, trendy health regimens, fanatical exercise, obsessive adherence to some religion.
I think one of the reasons the United States is a failed experiment in democracy is because people don’t actually want freedom. They want to control or be controlled.
LikeLike
I think one of the reasons the United States is a failed experiment in democracy is because people don’t actually want freedom. They want to control or be controlled
Some people!
LikeLike
I think one of the reasons the United States is a failed experiment in democracy is because people don’t actually want freedom. They want to control or be controlled.
I loled.
LikeLike
Don’t think so, U-lurk. It’s just one of those facts of life.
I was just pushing the buttons of any guy who can’t take a smart girl.
LikeLike
Anecdotally, I haven’t found this to be true. It seems like my best-looking friends are paired up with 1) Equally gorgeous men (in which case they’re quite happy) or 2) Slightly less good looking men who have other shallow traits to offer, like being from a good family and having a boring but high-paying job (none of these are happy – probably because the relationships seem to be based on nothing more than, “We both fit about the same socioeconomic profile so why not?”) or 3) Not-good-looking men who are insecure.
And the truly beautiful friends always seem to be with guys who can’t handle it. Either he dotes, which is annoying, or he goes out of his way to keep her insecure, which gets old too. I can think of one or two beautiful women who found a real connection, but it required hooking up when they were both in high school, or a long period as friends, and always an incredible guy with a lot to offer. Also, the girl moved toward hiding her looks as much as possible.
LikeLike
Days of Broken Arrows, there is an inverse correlation between feminist beliefs and self-oppressive diseases such as anorexia and cutting. I have no idea why you think it would be the other way around. How many smelly, loud feminists do you see skipping meals in order to please the patriachy’s ideas of beauty? Your own cliches fight against your uneducated claim, dude.
LikeLike
The reasons underlying anorexia are numerous — genetic disposition to perfectionism, cultural indicators of the thinnest as most beautiful, and social pressures from peers. Young women also often lose sight of what a lot of normal men want, healthy fertility fat. Too much fat is obviously not a good idea, but unhealthy eating habits like binging then purging deposit more cellulite than eating well and exercising.
When too many women of the same are in the same competitive environment for too long, then there is the perception of a male shortage (more women going to college nowadays than men), and the parents are not able to provide their children with inner strength but only monetary resources. Mothers these days are often dieting, obsessed with celebrity culture, etc.
One of the solutions offered in this article is to “expose kids to alternatives to the pseudo culture mass manufactured for their consumption.” My personal solution is that women should hang out with nerdy men more, because there is a perceived female shortage among those social groups.
http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20071228-000004&print=1
LikeLike
Dizzy8, I wish I could agree with you wholeheartedly, but I’ve got at least one well-known reservation, possibly two: their names are Gloria Steinem, who was slightly nuts about food (i.e. semi-starvation + a sweet tooth, according to Germaine Greer), and Naomi Wolfe, who even by sympathetic accounts was rather obsessive about her appearance before she got married. Feminism doesn’t automatically free women from “self-oppressive diseases”.
Oh yes, and then there’s Virginia Woolf, who was semi-anorexic for much of her life.
What bothered me most about DoBA’s statement was the suggestion that married women are “subservient” towards their husbands. In almost any long-term traditional marriage that I’ve seen, wives are dominant, even when there is every kind of social and legal impediment to prevent it from happening. That, incidentally, is probably the reason why so many men fear women and marriage: they know subliminally that they will gradually, over time, become subordinate to them. Only in those cases where the woman is exceptionally fragile, or the man exceptionally self-absorbed, is this unlikely to happen, eventually.
LikeLike
Feminism is responsible for anorexia and the like IMO because it changed the playing field for women. I never said feminists per se “had anorexia.” After feminism, a lot of the social constraints on women were removed — and they found themselves in a more competitive, less structured world. My belief is that a lot of women cannot deal with these expanded choices and find ways to self-oppress.
I think many minority groups are gukilty of this as well. Once the barriers for success were removed for American blacks, they came up with a gangsta culture that keeps them trapped in poverty because its not cool to “act white.”
It makes you wonder whether there was ever any “oppression” as we were told, or whether some groups and gendres were never fit to lead.
If women and black could have invented the Western World, they would have. But they did not. White men did.
LikeLike
And, DoBA, what makes you think that white women didn’t help to invent the Western world, or any other form of civilisation, for that matter?
Just one example: one of the factors that made the biggest difference to the spread of literacy in Europe was that competing Catholic and protestant faiths both decided that it would be better to educate women in the faith then relying on men to uphold the truths of whichever faith a family belonged to. Educating women required, first of all, teaching them to read, and so a huge project in the promotion of female literacy began in the 17th century.
Educating women in this way meant that the values of European civilisation, including hygiene, health care, and literacy itself, could be spread more effectively because they could be inculcated by mothers into the young of both sexes at an earlier age – and because, of course, at the ground level it was women themselves who were mainly responsible for hygiene and preventive health care. This is one reason it has been so difficult to introduce social change (including basic hygiene) in cultures where female literacy is not already established on a wide basis. Female literacy and education also appears to be one of the decisive factors in keeping family size within reasonable bounds.
You cannot remove the female factor out of the spread of civilisation. I think the premise – that it wouldn’t exist if women were responsible for ruling the world – is nonsense anyway, since it is not only physically but logically impossible to remove women from their role in the formation of a society. Without two sexes, society wouldn’t exist at all.
LikeLike
Clio, civilization started way before the 17th century.
LikeLike
What I was getting at was that before the 17th century, why wasn’t it women who were the writers and inventors of books and why weren’t they having to teach the men to read? Why wasn’t it the other way around?
We drive over bridges, give our kids vaccines and take elevators in building — all of which are “male constructs.” My question is why weren’t women inventing all this? Or even helping with the heavy lifting? It’s laughable that feminists go on about the “patriarchy” when they get to live in a civilized world that was invented by men largely to benefit women.
LikeLike
Yes, yes, Thursday, but the 17th C. was the period when the groundwork for the scientific revolution – the experience that distinguishes western civilisation from the others – was laid, which is why I mentioned it. Without female literacy, the radical modernisation of Europe, which I of course do not regard as an entirely beneficient movement, would have taken much longer. In fact, there’s a chance it might not have happened at all.
Widespread female literacy really does change the nature of any society, both by spreading education still further – because it has been women who end up teaching the very young, whether in the home or in schools (men have always tended to regard this as somewhat beneath their dignity, and it doesn’t usually doesn’t pay well), and by making them more broadly useful in paid employment of other kinds, helping them to enrich their families and society.
LikeLike
Again, DoBA, what makes you so certain that it wasn’t women who were doing at least some of these things? One of the many ways in which western civilisation – meaning western Christendom, with a strong Judaic component – has distinguished itself from any other has always been that it gave women far more freedom than any other civilisation has done. This is a sign of the wisdom of western patriarchy AND of the fact that it was considerably less purely patriarchal than all the other patriarchal civilisations in human history.
Don’t forget, I’m not an anti-patriarchalist. I just think that it is absurd to speak of the creation of any civilisation as if it could take place without some kind of contribution from women. All other civilisations in human history have done everything possible to suppress the female contribution, or restrict it to the realm of mere breeding – Christendom did so rather less than any of the others, and benefitted by it. (Not to say that it was a picnic for women either; just better.)
Any attempt to account for women’s contribution, or lack of it, to high civilisation really has to take into account the extent to which women were at the mercy of their – our – biology. For example, Peter Brown has written in The Body and Society about how it’s been estimated that every woman in the Roman Empire would have had to give birth to 5 children apiece in order to maintain population levels at maximum strength, to feed the empire and man the army. That’s one hell of a large and time-consuming responsibility. And celibacy was technically illegal in the Empire at various times: you had to pay a fine if you chose to remain unmarried.
That reminds me of another factor unique to western civilisation: that it not only permitted but encouraged celibacy among its peoples – something that made it possible for both women and men to pursue learning without hindrance by family ties.
Don’t permit your anger with some of the more foolish elements of feminism (and I don’t think it was all foolish) to warp your larger perspective on women and their role in all avenues of human achievement. Very few of us will be pioneers, perhaps, but that doesn’t mean that we have no contribution of value to make to civilisation, or that it would even be possible without that contribution.
LikeLike
“In almost any long-term traditional marriage that I’ve seen, wives are dominant, even when there is every kind of social and legal impediment to prevent it from happening”
Alias Clio
Why do you think this happens ?
I think people forget that women like to “fix” and beautyfi(sp) things by our very nature. So it should not be shocking that many women who are feminists are also suffering from eating disorders. Lets not forget about the many lipstick lesbians who know as much about fashion,beauty and working out as any striaght woman. Yet these women have no desire to attract men.
LikeLike
Inspiration while looking: http://www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com/
LikeLike
Feminism is responsible for anorexia and the like IMO because it changed the playing field for women
I wonder if it had more to do with the changing standard in beauty. Up until the 60’s, an hourglass figure was seen a beautiful. After Twiggy came on the seen, we see women who want a more waif like appereance.
I wonder if there are any notes on the eating habits of women during the 1600-1800’s when a more buxum appereance was celebrated. I wonder if the size 0 & 2s of that time were overeating to fit the standard of beauty during that time.
” think many minority groups are gukilty of this as well. Once the barriers for success were removed for American blacks, they came up with a gangsta culture that keeps them trapped in poverty because its not cool to “act white.””
This is an overstated reason for why blacks as a group are not at the top in this coutry, when really its just a piece of the puzzle.
‘
“What I was getting at was that before the 17th century, why wasn’t it women who were the writers and inventors of books and why weren’t they having to teach the men to read? Why wasn’t it the other way around”
When men start having children and raising them we will see women take the lead.
LikeLike
I
LikeLike
One of the many ways in which western civilisation – meaning western Christendom, with a strong Judaic component – has distinguished itself from any other has always been that it gave women far more freedom than any other civilisation has done. This is a sign of the wisdom of western patriarchy AND of the fact that it was considerably less purely patriarchal than all the other patriarchal civilisations in human history.
Not long ago, an interesting thread on Gene Expression looked into the widely varying performance of the different immigrant groups in Britain. The Pakistanis are pretty much on the bottom level of the socioeconomic ladder even though they’ve been present in substantial numbers for many years, well into the second and even sometimes third generation. Indians, Chinese, Caribbeans and Africans generally do better. While there could be other factors at play, one thing which sticks right out from the official statistics is that the Pakistanis have a much lower rate of female labor force participation than the other immigrant groups.
LikeLike
Chic Noir,
You need to get over yourself just a little bit, hon.
LikeLike
who deserves a 10 the most?
the man who’s willing to hold out until he gets one, at the risk of ending up alone – truly alone, while everyone else gets on with their lives. alone enough to put the lie to the saying that no man is an island; alone is sickness and in health, alone through thick and thin.
and even if he gets the elusive prize, exponential decay will crush his dreams anyway; for just like all the others, his 10 has a half-life of a few years.
meanwhile, the rest of us play the game as well … until we’re finally old and wise enough to see that there’s no light at the end of the tunnel; that the light just fades until it’s black, and that we’d better find someone to love, who won’t rip out our hearts – whether a 10 or a 6, knowing, as above, that exponential decay always wins in the end – before that light is all gone.
on roosh! on johnny five!
to the top of the 0-10 scale, to the top of the wall!
but if we dash too long…
dash away ladies! dash away all!
it’s saturday night, and now i’ll drink
the night away with my friends
because all of us think
the game never, ever, ever ends.
LikeLike
one more thing – to all the people who noticed on the last thread that PUA’s and game are a peculiarity of modern society:
BRILLIANT.
thank you for pointing out the monumentally, glaringly, blindingly obvious. no, really, thank you.
now please do reach the same conclusion about ALL of the following social phenomena as well:
* the women themselves who are the targets of PUA’s (i.e., women who can live independently without constant male protection)
* life expectancy that assures that we won’t die before we scramble to reproduce in our teens and twenties
* the expectation that young women will pursue careers and not families, rendering them perfect quarry for PUA’s
* the ridiculous notion that children are ‘expensive’ and a ‘luxury’ (hint: they don’t have to be)
* etc.
the PUA is indeed a strange growth on the equally strange branch of the evolutionary tree known as modern man. but so is EVERYTHING ELSE around you, unless you live in a farming town whose population is a few hundred or less.
so, all these tropes about how ubersuccessful PUA’s “aren’t really alphas” because they don’t lead groups of males may be true in some archaic sense, but … it doesn’t fucking matter.
the definition of alpha has changed, along with EVERYTHING else in society, and his definition – love it or hate it – is a 100% correct definition in the modern context. deal with it.
LikeLike
so, all these tropes about how ubersuccessful PUA’s “aren’t really alphas” because they don’t lead groups of males may be true in some archaic sense, but … it doesn’t fucking matter.
You just don’t get it. Men who get respect from other men are more attractive to women while women are not attracted wimpy guys who get walked over by everyone. That’s what alpha potential means. It hasn’t changed one bit and it will not change one bit as long as humans remain human. It’s about your pecking order WITH GUYS, whether they walk over you or whether you walk over them or something in between. There will always be pecking orders.
You may think it’s really important to score over a hundred chicks in life. Whatever. Good for you. It just doesn’t make you any more of an alpha than, say, passing level 100 in WoW (or whatever is “impressive”). As long as you’re not a total wimp, there are a many ways to get girls other than alphaness, so it proves nothing. In fact, picking up strangers is a way to hit on women when your alphaness/betaness tendencies have less chance of coming up as you’re not interacting with guys. It doesn’t mean that you’re not alpha, it doesn’t mean that you’re alpha, it means that alphaness is actually often irrelevant – and such seducers *did* exist before modernity.
The pick-up guys are just trying to hijack a term with a specific meaning – being at the top of a pecking order – into their moralistic structure, some ideal guy you’re supposed to strive to be. That’s not even good for them. Such structures are obviously beta. It is most definitely not alpha to make up ideals to submit to. Look at all the pathetic whiney nice guys. Did submitting to expectations on what a good guy’s supposed to be do them any good? Will switching that to another structure to submit to make them alpha? No, although if it has been built to mimic what a non-douchebag would do in the same situation, it might get them laid.
LikeLike
“such seducers *did* exist before modernity.”
Yes. A couple of the more infamous among them being Shelley and Byron, the poets who were also friends and rivals in seduction. Shelley was no use at all as a leader of men; the only people he could persuade to follow him were women who were in love with him. Byron, who could easily outdo Shelley in the seduction sphere, was somewhat better as a leader of men, but he failed to make a real impression in Parliament, perhaps because it was not a place that had room for his form of grandstanding. He had to go to Greece to find men who were willing to be led by him.
Of course, though, you could argue that the early 19th century was in fact “modern”, so that these examples prove nothing.
LikeLike
I wonder how much of this is supply and demand? I mean, if the girl’s cute, the guy is more concerned about keeping her, so he’ll be nicer to her. If the girl is ugly, he takes her for granted. Conversely, alphas get better treatment from their girlfriends than betas.
‘Game’ seems to me a (largely successful) attempt to invert the usual rules by calling a pretty woman’s self-esteem into question. Of course, it has to be done by a man who sends off alpha signals–I can insult a pretty girl any time I want but will simply be ignored (and possibly attacked by her boyfriend).
Clio: I think intelligence correlates better with success for women than it does for men; it’s harder for them to fall off the ‘nerd cliff’ at the extreme high end of the IQ distribution. So intelligence is probably a proxy for success here; men despise superiority.
LikeLike
Dr. Phil isa fat pgi who preaches about weright loss. Americans are stupid, fat lazy morons who lap up his mental urine.
Here is an example of what is on Dr. Phil’s Message Board regarding the Mystery Method:
“Women beware: Men are on the prowl! Some guys win your heart and dupe you for thousands of dollars, while other men learn the slick techniques of pick-up artists so they can get you in the sack!”
Think about this for a second. Pick it apart. The fact that “men are on the prowl” is news? What are we supposed to sit in our rooms till feminists deem us worth for breeding?
And how are men “duping” women for money? And why is that a crime? Women get free dinners and all sorts of other free shit.
Finally, men are trying to get women in the sack? Again, this is news? If women don’t know this already, they are retarded. Wait, we’re talking about American women. They are in fact mentally challenged.
Dr. Phil also just bailed out the ringleader of those girls that did the YouTube beating. This guy is the worst of the worst, lower than Maury Povich, because at least Maury admits what he does is tawdry garbage.
LikeLike
If we’re linking, this shit is interesting. A study from the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality: 56% probability of getting a date with the following line:
‘“I have been noticing you around campus and I find you to be very attractive. Would you go out with me tonight?”
http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/odds_are_you.htm
LikeLike
The show was funny. Dr. Phil was very fair to the MM guys and even supported them by calling out push up braws as being the same as routines. The comments on the message board are not reflective of the show.
LikeLike
Alias Cleo, you’re right that some pioneering feminists had anorexic tendencies, which I think helped prompt the self-reflection that inspired their insights, “I am killing myself because otherwise I won’t look good for a man? Really? Are other women doing this?” And so on. Just because they realized what they’re doing, doesn’t mean it’s easy to quit. (Anorexia changes your brain, and I believe it’s something that you’ll fight the rest of your life, once you have it).
But I was talking about modern feminists. The people I know. And I think it was Poseur who thinks women seek anorexia because they want to be controlled? (which is an after-the-fact rationalization of a phenomenon that could have plenty of other causes). So, the argument goes, “Women like to be controlled, now they ahve more competition for men, so because of feminism they stop eating in order to look good for men.”
However, 1) Feminists don’t want to compete for men 2) Feminists don’t want to change their body for men 3) Feminists, by definition, don’t want to be controlled. So the argument breaks down. I think the women who the argument fits are the non-feminists. The women who are competing for men, assume they have to please men, and so are willing to shape their lives around that competition and that goal. I think those girls accept the control, not because they want to be controlled, but because they want the men and they don’t see other options for their lives.
LikeLike
I am late to this party, but RE:Anorexia –
I remember reading that a study came out recently regarding the subject. The researchers were trying to figure out whether the girls (these were all girls) were trying to reach some sort of physical ideal. Their conclusion was that the girls were not starving themselves for perfection but rather they were trying to “destroy” themselves.
If this research is ultimately correct, I think that it is a good thing. Not that the girls are trying to destroy themselves, but that the actions “fit” the underlying feelings/emotions/thoughts.
At least, now, we can go after the underlying problem; the Self-Hatred.
—————————
On that note, I only knew one girl who had Anorexia and she was real pretty before she started with her eating disorder. And I never got the idea that she was trying to perfect herself. She actually seemed to be trying to distance herself from others while passively screaming for help and attention.
LikeLike
Hey Dr.Phil did an episode on the Mystery Method and Ross Jeffries it was pretty hilarious. Care to take a look?
http://www.drphil.com/messageboard/topic/3211/12/
LikeLike
I’ve known half a dozen women with severe anorexia rather closely and it’s about perfectionism. They’re obsessed with perfection and absolutism in EVERYTHING. At school, it was perfect grades or suicide plans; after finding Jesus, you can’t even kiss before marriage (the boyfriends before finding Jesus don’t count) and so on. Any idea they get on what’s “good” or “expected” gets turned into a life-ruining extreme, even when the expectations are something they themselves hallucinated.
Of course, they all had the confessional feminism about all the impossible expectations supposedly piled on women – right after having nearly killed themselves by making up impossible expectations for themselves when everyone was actually desperately trying to talk them out of it.
(These cases do have common genes, though, so perhaps it’s not a much better sample than 1.)
LikeLike
“Since I am a font of human kindness and a light unto the world, I will only hit on 9s and above tonight.”
You better have a 9 wallet. Period.
LikeLike
DOBA
“Dr. Phil isa fat pgi who preaches about weright loss”
Use your spell check, moron.
LikeLike
anonymous boo
Chic Noir,
You need to get over yourself just a little bit, hon.
?
what did I say?
LikeLike
It’s not what you said, it’s what you ARE, or rather what your hefty ego would have us believe you are: special and important.
“I am everything that you desire to be…” “Most importantly I am pure glamour.”
Hon, this is not important. Like I said, you need to get over yourself just a wee bit.
LikeLike
Ok, thanks. 🙂
LikeLike
[…] women are smart to do this; studies have shown that the strongest relationships are ones where the woman is better looking than her partner. When a women feels pretty in the context of the man she is with, she will be happier… as […]
LikeLike