The best way to explain the tradeoff between chasing lots of pussy and pursuing the best pussy is in graphical form. First we’ll look at quality.
The pleasure axis measures the stimulation you feel from banging her and just generally looking at her naked. As you can see, the pleasure curve for quality pussy is exponential. Jumping from a 7 to an 8 adds more units of stimulating pleasure to the experience than jumping from a 6 to a 7 would add. Any girls 4 and lower and you’ll hardly notice the difference in pleasure — it’ll all just be wet holes and darkness and stopwatches and running out while she’s in the bathroom. The penis icons drive the point home even better. At a girl rating of 5, you’re chubbing out in anticipation of sex. Anticipating sex with a 7.5 gives you a full hard-on. When there’s a 10 in your bed, your dick is so hard it’s sprouted Wolverine claws. Perfect for female lawyers!
Now we’ll take a look at quantity.
The pleasure curve for quantity is different than the quality pleasure curve because there are diminishing returns to pleasure past a certain number of notches. Variety is its own reward until the effort expended exceeds the rewards gained. The effort required to bed 10,000 women is so immense, assuming you’re not a Wilt Chamberlain caliber alpha male, that any marginal increase in stimulation barely registers. You’re spending all your manly energy on the chase instead of the fucking. Your dick won’t be able to distinguish and enjoy the subtleties of individual women after about 5,000 — you’re lost in a sea of vagina at that point, and dehydrating fast.
There is a sweet spot, though. The curve really begins an upward trajectory of rising pleasure around 50 women and takes off until the penis is happiest in the 200 to 500 range, depending on your tightness of game and multitasking ability. You’ll want to shoot for a number somewhere in that range in order to maximize your joy on earth and minimize your regrets in old age.
Where does this leave the battle of quantity versus quality? In a perfect universe, we wouldn’t have to choose — the ultimate pleasure for men is 10,000 10s. But since only the tiniest fraction of super alphas can pull off that feat, we have to be realistic and take effort into account. If you were to superimpose the two graphs you’d see that the quantity curve near the point of diminishing marginal pleasure bisects the quality curve at around the 8.5 rating. This means that, if the effort required were the same, the pleasure received from bedding 100 average girls for one night apiece is equivalent to the pleasure of steady sex from one 8.5.
Of course, the effort required is not the same. Putting in overtime for 20 ugly chicks is gonna feel like shit compared to working half as much for one 7 or 8. But putting in equal effort for 20 8s will be worth more than sex with one 9.
The goal for the discriminating hedonist man whose time and energy is valuable should be 200-500 notches over his lifetime in the 5-8 range (allowing for the occasional dumpster dive), and steady girlfriends on the upper end of the rating scale.
Any guy who claims to have game but picks up hundreds of circus freaks a year will be a laughingstock. And the boastful guy with few notches who claims to know everything about women because he’s been dating his cute high school sweetheart his whole life will similarly be mocked.
t-l-d-r
LikeLike
How do you determine your point scale?
Keeping in line with my quantitative propensities (I am a physicist) I assume looks follow a gaussian distribution with a mean of 5 and a standard deviation of 1. The population I consider is all American girls 16-25. My closest friend seems to use this same scale but most men seem to take the girls percentile and divide by 10.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There should be a negative pleasure rating for shaved girls.
LikeLike
Am new to this post. Quite enlightening to say the least. At least it gives me insight into a certain subset of DC-ites, if not a subset of the U.S. male population between the ages of 20 and 35? It would be interesting to see the female correlation of your equations, but as a woman, I don’t think I would even attempt to quantify what turns me on. Maybe that is why men are so attracted to women? We are indecipherable, yet the male mind must penetrate the mysteries of woman. Lucky us!
LikeLike
Termagent is new to this post. A whole new me. You can’t handle that a person can change? Why? Has termagent offended you? Or are you being very controlling and sensitive today? Perhaps a nice self help book would help you to not feel so threatened where none is intended. This is a blog site, is it not? Where a person can be anonymous if they want? Where their ideas and opinions can be taken on their own merit? Hmmmm….does not appear so. This is true, though. Yesterday is dead. Five minutes ago is dead and gone. Yes, it is the Power of Now, to be trite, but to those who change, it’s not trite at all. But I see you have not changed at all! Not that I expected it at all.
LikeLike
Those wolverine claws are awesome.
LikeLike
How does this relate to your definition of alpha male post ?
LikeLike
therapist. you. perfect together.
Honestly, this is rather ironic. You and candy both seem opposite sides of the same coin.
LikeLike
but as a woman, I don’t think I would even attempt to quantify what turns me on. Maybe that is why men are so attracted to women? We are indecipherable, yet the male mind must penetrate the mysteries of woman.
Yeah, it could be that. Or it could be that you have a pussy.
LikeLike
There has never been a 10.
Ever.
Read Dan Jenkins’ Semi Tough for the explanation why.
LikeLike
Dude, this post is money. It gives guys something quantifiable and concrete to aim for over a lifetime.
LikeLike
a link you might like reading: http://www.philalawyer.net/archives/lawyers_in_heat_2.phtml
LikeLike
There has never been a 10. Ever.
Two words: Monica. Bellucci.
LikeLike
15 monhe… What does it mean?
“Or it could be that you have a pussy.”
Yes, and the pussy is the gateway to greater, and greater mysteries if you are brave enough to go there. Sorry, can’t help it. I’m a deep thinker. Perhaps I should be banned from this site. Wink, smile, laugh, etc.
LikeLike
Termagent did you read the Power of Now?
LikeLike
20 Poseur
Negative.
LikeLike
20 Poseur
Am thinking I should read it, though I dislike shoulds in general. I take it you read it and liked it and would recommend it?
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
23 Thank you. I will.
LikeLike
Seconding Monica Bellucci. Type her name into the Flickr search box and settle back for a very pleasing browse. Here’s my favorite.
LikeLike
That’s an NSFW link, btw.
LikeLike
Haha, dropping some serious knowledge. Out of curiosity, how much of a numbers person are you? Even most smart people can’t count past the fingers on their hand, since learning math requires effort in addition to intelligence, and few people like learning math.
Like, did you major in a science, or pick stuff up from reading books on economics, or something else?
LikeLike
Agnostic, and John Smith. What do you guys do, what kind of education did you have, and how are you all so well versed in psychology/biology/methods of statistical analysis?
LikeLike
Would you consider doing a post on college game. A lot of PU gurus do not cover this for some reason or other. This leaves some doubt as to whether they really conquered their younger day demons or whether it is simply that they started dating older women who are more in tune with less flaky behavior?
LikeLike
…I don’t think I would even attempt to quantify what turns me on. Maybe that is why men are so attracted to women? We are indecipherable, yet the male mind must penetrate the mysteries of woman. Lucky us!
That’s because women don’t know what they want. Women are flakes. In my circle, being a flake is not attractive but it does let us know that a girl deserves to be dragged through the mud. In all seriousness, if a girl proves herself to be a flake, I feel no guilt using her and breaking her heart, because she is low quality. My penis appreciates that most women are low quality.
LikeLike
30 Patrick
“..women don’t know what they want.”
Let me suggest possible reasons for this perception.
a) Women often don’t say what they want, because they’re pleasers of others by nature and/or social conditioning. Some believe that having wants = being pushy or selfish. Sometimes they try to get what they want/need by giving others what they want/need. The type who do this the most (‘give to get’) are the daddy’s girls or Jewish mother types or the type that wants to “keep the peace” at all costs; i.e. the doormat type.
OR
b) Like many people in general they don’t know what they want because they haven’t put much actual thought into the subject. This may seem odd to a man like you, who at least seems to know what he wants and has no hesitation about getting it.
c) They know what they want, but their belief that they can’t get what they want is stronger.
d) They are living live by default. Letting things happen and then reacting to them. This explains the vast majority of the human population.
e) Women being emotional, hormonal, intuitive, non-logically driven–like the ocean tides, are following a guidance that ebbs and flows by the tides (emotions) and what they want changes with their emotions, which cannot be understood by man who is predominantly logical.
f.) All women are flakes.
What would constitute a woman who is not a flake? What word would you use to describe her? Responsible? You have a girlfriend you spoke of. What makes her not flakey or less flakey than the others? Saying you feel no guilt about breaking a girl’s heart if in your opinion she’s a flake, sounds more like you enjoy breaking her heart, if in your opinion she’s a flake.
LikeLike
I assume looks follow a gaussian distribution with a mean of 5 and a standard deviation of 1. The population I consider is all American girls 16-25.
In other words, only three-tenths of one percent of American girls in the prime of life, ages 16-25, are 8 or above? And nines and tens are so rare you might never see them unless you hang out with movie stars and supermodels?
Ummm, right, stud. Even a professional athlete wouldn’t have a scale that demanding. Let alone a physicist.
LikeLike
The type who do this the most (’give to get’ are the daddy’s girls or Jewish mother types or the type that wants to “keep the peace” at all costs; i.e. the doormat type.
Daddy’s girls and Jewish mother types are doormats? LOL. Somebody doesn’t know women very well.
LikeLike
mq she’s saying they are passive aggressive. Kind of like the AFC that buys girls drinks and dinners and expects sex in return by default.
Sure it was wrong for the girl to accept these gifts by default if she wasn’t planning on having sex with the guy (and she knew what was going on). Why shouldn’t she take it though. This site advocates opportunism so if an AFC is willing to invest in a high yield high risk investment, then he has no right to be disappointedly when the investment goes bust (it won’t always go bust otherwise there would be no betas). This isn’t meant to commodify women or men, but just to put perspective on the matter. What you also have to think about is that today’s betas are yesterday’s alphas. Something like 40% of men didn’t get to reproduce in the old days, which means the other 60% are relatively alpha to those men.
LikeLike
termagant that was a very well thought out post.
LikeLike
I’m a graduate student and study evolutionary biology, psychology, anthropology, math, etc., so it’s what I do.
BTW, the attractiveness distribution is in no way a bell curve — that means as many people are a certain distance above as below the average. Like, if the average is set to 5, there would be as many 9s as 2s — if only that were true.
In reality, it is heavily skewed so that there are lots of people on the low end and few on the high end. My guess has always been a log-normal distribution: that’s what you get when you have several factors going into the mix, and they have an interaction or “synergy” with each other. Good immune system, youth, healthy diet, good luck in avoiding accidents at the micro level, being female, and so on.
When people says attractiveness is a bell curve, they’re not looking at the entire population, just the narrow group they rub shoulders with day-to-day. Again, just look at age: anyone under 15 or over 35 – 40 falls into the untouchable caste.
LikeLike
Ha, that should be “as many 9s as 1s” — you forget how to do arithmetic after awhile.
LikeLike
What would constitute a woman who is not a flake? What word would you use to describe her? Responsible? You have a girlfriend you spoke of. What makes her not flakey or less flakey than the others? Saying you feel no guilt about breaking a girl’s heart if in your opinion she’s a flake, sounds more like you enjoy breaking her heart, if in your opinion she’s a flake.
A women who is sufficiently logical and reliable is not a flake. What is sufficient? It’s hard to know where the line is, but most women are clearly on the wrong side of it. My girlfriend is a fellow scientist (at least by training) and was lucky enough to retain her girlyness, unlike many female scientists with her analytical disposition. I admit that I enjoy hurting women who are flakes. I’m not really sure why. No ex has hurt me much. However, I never let these emotions overcome my logical nature. The goal is to bang her, not to hurt her. Hurting her may be inevitable but it is only a byproduct of the seduction.
In other words, only three-tenths of one percent of American girls in the prime of life, ages 16-25, are 8 or above? And nines and tens are so rare you might never see them unless you hang out with movie stars and supermodels?
Ummm, right, stud. Even a professional athlete wouldn’t have a scale that demanding. Let alone a physicist.
What’s the problem with a tough scale? It’s really arbitrary. If my 6 is just as cock-worthy as your 8.5, does it really matter? Step out of your own mind for a second and stop imagining my world being full of your 4s, 5s, and 6s. In real terms, I may demand the same as you, but I just assign it a different number. I want to know what other people are calling an 8 so I can visualize it better.
I’m only a physicist by training. My future is somewhere in finance or business. Maybe I’ll sell my soul to a hedge fund when I finish my Ph.D.
LikeLike
BTW, the attractiveness distribution is in no way a bell curve — that means as many people are a certain distance above as below the average. Like, if the average is set to 5, there would be as many 9s as 2s — if only that were true.
Any interesting papers you can cite? Anecdotally, I do seem to judge more girls as 4s than 6s. Most men seem to skew scores up though.
LikeLike
Patrick Bateman just curious, but why did you get a PHD in physics if you plan on being in finance? I mean doesn’t a PHD cost money?
LikeLike
As for agnostic, what prompted your choice of academia over something like finance where a really smart alpha guy can make boatloads of cash?
LikeLike
As for agnostic, what prompted your choice of academia over something like finance where a really smart alpha guy can make boatloads of cash?
I think Agnostic had identified himself in the past as not being an alpha.
LikeLike
@PA from his blog it looks like he has no problems getting the women he wants.
LikeLike
I don’t want to get into a lengthy discussion abotu Agnostic, whom I don’t know personally, but a year aor two ago he posted frank comments on his blog and at 2Blowhards about not being very outgoing and about his difficulty in finding a girlfriend. He also posted his photos, in which he looked like a shy brainy guy.
I think he has Alpha potential to the extent that he’s more a thinker than a feeler on the Briggs-Meyer scale and is relatively self-disciplined if not naturally charming with girls.
LikeLike
@PA scoring a feeling result on a Briggs-Meyer scale is a more favorable alpha trait because most women score feeling. That’s why in the club you have to act really fun and outgoing and bubbly if you want to get along with girls. In two years a beta can become the most amazing alpha.
LikeLike
I wrote that paragraph a bit sloppily. What I meant was, is that Agnostic, based only on my having read his blog only sporadically and his comments on other blogs, strikes me as an introverteg guy without a whole lot of natural charisma.
For that, he makes up by being self-disciplined and tough-minded, which is probably a function of his (apparently) high Thinker score on M-B.
LikeLike
Not sure I get your point. According to your reasoning, men should spend all their energy chasing after women as high up on the looks scale as they think they can reasonably attain. Either that or try to bang 100-200 girls (lifetime? what?) of as high calibre as thus spreading themselves their skills will allow, after which more girls provide insignificant margins of additional satisfaction. For a non-player such as myself, the latter would require far more effort than I am willing to expend, so the advice boils down to “plain girls aren’t worth it.” Not that I necessarily disagree. 🙂
LikeLike
34 mq
The “peace at all costs” doormat type and the Jewish mother/daddy’s girl type are two different things. The Jewish mother type thinks you have needs and wants to meet them; but not her. She over values everything she does for you, and under values everything you do for her. The doormat type will end up taking all types of abuse in a numb emotional state because they don’t want anything to effect them, so they can maintain a false sense of peace.
37 Poseur
Merci monsieur. ^_^
39 Patrick
“I admit that I enjoy hurting women who are flakes. I’m not really sure why. No ex has hurt me much. ”
I assert that someone has hurt you very much, though it may not be an ex. It may be a ‘kick the cat’ type of thing. Do you do this instead of facing issues in your more important relationships? How is your relationship with your mother? You can pay me later..
LikeLike
I’d say I’m a proto-alpha, and that the only thing getting in my way is being introverted — but that’s not so hard to get around. You have to be very low in Agreeableness, which I am, and to be a player probably low in Conscientiousness (in the sense of not being bound by many social mores), which I am.
My solution is either to play day Game, where you don’t have to be as extraverted as in a nightclub, or to just have a shot of booze right before I go to a nightclub, which lowers your inhibitions. I am definitely not shy, though.
I don’t know how well those photos showed it, but I’m pretty good-looking. I don’t see it myself, and have always seen myself as unappealing physically, so not being arrogant, but most of the PYTs on campus and in clubs let me know it. The other night at 80s night, some guy stopped me and said outright, “My friend thinks you’re hot!” referring to a 7.5 or 8 (it was dark and hard to tell). At the time I was just hanging out on the stairs, so I can just “stand there and look pretty” as they say.
I also dress nicely / to stand out, and I can cut a little rug (especially after a shot).
I was never interested in the professional world — I could rationalize that by saying that I’m more inquisitive and creative, but in reality it’s likely because I’m 5’8 and have never / could never project authority over a huge group of powerful strangers. Average CEO for Forbes 400 (or whatever it is) is 6’2.
Check it out sometime: male academics are average height or short, professionals are tall. (Females of either are above average height.)
And we shall never speak of any of this again. I don’t want to fascinate the readers here too much.
LikeLike
“(Check it out sometime: male academics are average height or short, professionals are tall. (Females of either are above average height.)”
This statement is so opposed to my own experience of academics that I have to assume that historians must be a statistical anomaly. I have attended many conferences of historians, and the men were always tall; the women – probably 2/3 Jewish, which may explain it – on the short side, so that my 5’8″ height seemed enormous among them. The only time I can remember feeling so huge other than at academic conferences was the occasion I attended a Sicilian wedding, and found that I dwarfed every other female there.
In fact, I have rarely met a female academic of whatever subject who was as tall as I am, let alone taller. (And 5’8″ is not that tall by today’s standards.)
And yes, I know that’s anecdotal, but it’s based on wide experience, and a frequent sense of freakishness when I was in rooms full of male and female academics.
LikeLike
Low in Agreeableness: is that another way of saying “dude ain’t got no friends”?
Low in Conscientiousness: is that anothe way of saying “a dude you don’t lend money to”?
LikeLike
Is game another word for mojo?
LikeLike
poseur
Patrick Bateman just curious, but why did you get a PHD in physics if you plan on being in finance? I mean doesn’t a PHD cost money?
Quantitative finance jobs usually require a graduate degree in math, physics, economics, etc. Of all those fields, physics is the one I found most interesting in undergrad. I went into undergrad thinking I wanted to be a scientist but later realized I just wanted a ton of money. Lucky me, I had chosen a program that could get me a very high paying job.
Ph.D.s in the sciences don’t cost any money. My school waives tuition and provides me a fellowship to live on.
termagent
I assert that someone has hurt you very much, though it may not be an ex. It may be a ‘kick the cat’ type of thing. Do you do this instead of facing issues in your more important relationships? How is your relationship with your mother?
I am generally a vindictive person. If someone proves that they will hurt me, even unintentionally, I will plot to destroy them or make them my pawn. This applies to men just as well as women. Machiavellianism is just my nature.
LikeLike
54 Patrick
“Machiavellianism is just my nature.”
Call it whatever makes you think more highly of yourself, but the way I see it, it’s just a simple case of nature wanting balance above all else; a mindless woman attracting a heartless man.
LikeLike
BTW Patrick. I’m vindictive too, but in a different way. As you most likely know, a certain man treated me in the most inhumane way. (You could say I was asking for it too of course. Don’t want to exclude myself from the infallible laws of the universe.) But I have immensely enjoyed observing him fuck up his life in every imaginable way, and better yet, without lifting a finger to bring on his demise.
The Universal Manager takes care of everything and everyone in a way no single human being can possibly come close to. (happy face.) No need to risk breaking a nail. I understand you prefer a hands on approach, but seriously what is it about flakiness in particular that warrants a desire to punish?
Revenge on someone who has harmed me personally I can understand, but I don’t see the logic in your wanting to punish flakiness. Does it hurt very much? (sarcastic smile)
LikeLike
Low in Agreeableness: is that another way of saying “dude ain’t got no friends”?
It means tough-minded, adversarial, doesn’t trust others, etc. It’s what a man needs to succeed.
BTW, “having friends” is for girls and pre-adult boys. Men have colleagues, acquaintances, wingmen maybe, but not “friends.”
Low in Conscientiousness: is that anothe way of saying “a dude you don’t lend money to”?
Ha, 0 for 2. As I said before, it means I tend toward the opposite of Boy Scout traits, aside from being hard-working.
LikeLike
This statement is so opposed to my own experience of academics that I have to assume that historians must be a statistical anomaly.
Maybe my pattern is only true for scientists.
LikeLike
“Men have colleagues, acquaintances, wingmen maybe, but not “friends.””
wtf? rubbish.
LikeLike
wtf? rubbish.
Agnostic, I’m picking up on persona-construction in your comments lately, with your repetitive claims to being low in Agreeableness and low in Conscientiousness. Bragging about being unagreeable and unconscientous carries a whiff of trying to come off like you’re a badass. You don’t need to do that.
An extreme example of that is our friend Patrick who writes “I am generally a vindictive person. If someone proves that they will hurt me, even unintentionally, I will plot to destroy them or make them my pawn.” Flex it, baby!
And Cuchulainn is right. Normal men have friends. Call it buddies, kinsmen, bros, guys you have a beer with, whatever.
LikeLike
Agnostic has to front hard to overcompensate for his diminutive size (5’7, 130) and unfulfilled rock star fantasies.
LikeLike
http://www.datinggroundwork.com/community
LikeLike
I understand you prefer a hands on approach, but seriously what is it about flakiness in particular that warrants a desire to punish?
I really can’t provide a logical answer to that one, I just feel it. Wow, I guess that part of me is feminine.
I’m really not heartless. I just keep my defenses up. My love for children and strong desire to be a father puzzles my male friends.
LikeLike
Is it persona construction if I mention that I’m 5’8 and 135 lbs? I do that fairly often for one reason or another. I’ve taken the Big Five personality questionnaire, and am reporting how I scored. I figure that’s a better way to convey what I’m like, for those interested, since it’s more scientific than inferring it from my blog and comments.
LikeLike
And if you’re interested in continuing this conversation, contact me through my blog profile or something.
LikeLike
Y’all know where “Patrick Bateman” gets his online handle from, don’t you? Read up on it.
Incidentally I’m not trying to make anything of this, just trying to keep the cultural level up a bit …
LikeLike
Agnostic – looks like we’re talking about two different things: I see that you’re talking about your Big Five metrics in the sense of psychology jargon, while I was reading your claims to low agreeableness and conscientiousness in the common English meaning of “dishonest asshole,” which rang a bit false to me because you don’t come across that way.
LikeLike
He sounds like a nice guy who’s trying to be a dishonest asshole. That’s not cool.
You should be a dishonest asshole who’s trying to be nicer. That’s cool.
LikeLike
I’ve noticed that the PUA community is broadly comprised of three subsets of people: the naturals, which make up the smallest percentage of PUAs. The not too bright but enthusiastic douches, which probably make up the second largest subset of PUAs and lastly the biggest subset, the nerds. Its pretty clear who the nerds are, always overanalyzing, overcompensating, and always just a little bit angry.
If you’re a man and you don’t have good friends, guys that you’re tight with that will back you up no matter what, then you’re just a hop skip and a jump away from digging a ditch in your basement mumbling, “It rubs the lotion on its skin. It does this whenever it is told.”
LikeLike
Rain And & MB-again, read Semi Tough. There are more criteria than those discussed here.
Ol’ Monica is definitely a 9+, though.
Agnostic sounds like a wannbe serial killer suffering from LMS.
LikeLike
in my experience too, introversion is a big barrier to being a PUA. I’m just too lazy to hang out in bars a lot putting out a ton of social energy looking to score an 8 when I’m already banging a 6.
LikeLike
The pleasure curve for looks is actually S-shaped:
1-5 Who cares?
5-6 Really huge jump. Getting a 6 is what separates the mere beta from the true loser.
6-7 Huge jump. Genuine prettiness starts here.
7-8 Big jump. Heading up into the big leagues. You are now subject to the law of diminishing returns.
8-9 Smaller, but still substantial jump. This is where the big leagues really start.
9-10 Small jump. Absolute perfection is desirable, but not essential.
Most guys can’t even agree on whether a certain girl is a 9 or a 10. I say Alicia Keys and agnostic says Mya. But almost everyone can tell a 6 from a 7. If the difference between a 9 and a 10 were really that important, the evolutionary process would have programmed us to be more objective.
LikeLike
you obviously don’t know too many naturals. or are one yourself.
Not one, know several closely. You’re right that my saying “at an early age” was probably mistaken. It usually happens somewhere in the 30s.
LikeLike
Most guys can’t even agree on whether a certain girl is a 9 or a 10
Good point. Beauty is substantially objective in that men in any culture can agree between a 1 and 10. But between an 8, 9, and 10? The ability to find marginal consensus even within a culture seems more dubious.
Glad to see Brutus allows that Bellucci is a 9+. If men can’t all agree she is at the very top of the scale then there must be some mysterious subjectivity to attractiveness indeed.
I’d give Alicia Keys and Mya 8s. Certainly not 10s!
http://www.thesuperficial.com/2005/12/30/alicia_keys_visits_barbados.html
LikeLike
Maybe there is something subjective to attractiveness: I never got the Monica Bellucci thing. I find her a little too fleshy.
Then again, I never saw anything in Pamela Anderson (a female Michale Jackson), Jessica Simpson (too jawly and muscular), Anna Nicole Smith (a friggin tranny), or Halle Berry (a boy with tits.)
A tall, slender brunette with A or B-cup breasts and deep blue eyes is where it’s at.
LikeLike
63 Patrick
“I’m really not heartless. I just keep my defenses up.”
Me too, but there’s sometimes a fine line between defending oneself and rejecting others.
Machiavelli makes the statement that the only real defense is to strike before the other strikes, in anticipation of a strike. In essence that philosophy requires living in the past and the future. Based on past experience someone may feel a need to “strike first” in anticipation of a future event. There is really nothing new, interesting, or uncommon in this type of behavior. It’s how most people live.
LikeLike
75: the S-shaped curve is affected by the strong rule of social status-seeking in sexual pleasure. There is a large jump from a 5 to a 6, for instance, because this is the point at which you begin to feel like a sexual winner, superior to at least a bare majority of other men, because you’re banging an above average women.
LikeLike
But between an 8, 9, and 10? The ability to find marginal consensus even within a culture seems more dubious.
absolutely true. this is why arguments exist as to whether female celebrity X is hotter than female celebrity Y.
my main bitch with most celebrity sex symbols is that they’re just too skinny. i like a certain amount of what one might call fertility fat; ideally, i like a woman about 10-15lbs (depending on height) over what most females consider ‘ideal’ weight, with 99+% or more of that weight in The Right Places. kim kardashian and denise milani come to mind; if you could combine the former’s ass with the rest of the latter, you would have perfection incarnate.
LikeLike
Ross Jeffries had a post on http://www.speedseduction.biz/blog (“delude and diminish”) on expectations and self-image and how they can shape identity. One of the problems in going for 7s is that the leap from 5 and below to 7+ can reveal a gap: game is needed but in the development phase, while merely showing up and offering sex (which can be done without a normal DHV for 5s and below) won’t cut it. Recovering betas can thus feel adrift in an unpromised land, having let go of the past but unsure of the future.
LikeLike
PA –
“Maybe there is something subjective to attractiveness: I never got the Monica Bellucci thing. I find her a little too fleshy.”
She is a little to fleshy these days and for the last several years. She’s sort of ideologically opposed to worrying about being super thin, as opposed to healthfully thin. She’s also pushing 40.
Netflix Malena and report back. Tell me she isn’t jaw droppingly, achingly beautiful in that flick, which is really a full on ode to her beauty. (Basically the plot is she’s a very young war widow who’s worshipfully stalked by an about to become pubescent teenage boy in a semi innocent, semi lustful way.)
LikeLike
mq
“you obviously don’t know too many naturals. or are one yourself.
Not one, know several closely. You’re right that my saying “at an early age” was probably mistaken. It usually happens somewhere in the 30s.”
Yes, you’re right. BUT. There’s a big but. Marriage has become a really raw deal for men in America. It may not treat alphas as bad as often, but it still can and often does treat alpha’s very badly. Yes an alpha can divorce and get another girl, but he has to pay through the nose. What he wants to do is choose wisely, not leave his wife ever and give her affection and respect and love at least if she continues to try to be worthy, and sex as well to the extent she doesn’t lose interest (as many women do even with alphas (my ex wife did), but then have descrete affairs once in a while with limited emotional attachment and without lasting commitment.
The entire female community in America is massively up in arms to prevent this by trying to just about force the woman to divorce her husband (and take her to the cleaners). None of the rest of the world (save other parts of the Anglosphere to a lesser extent than here) feel this way. They all know that male affairs are the price you pay for having an alpha male – and it’s worth it so long as he’s still loving and respectful and a good father etc. – and gives her good sex too if she wants that which she might very well want MORE out of contained jealousy if she doesn’t subscribe to the American feminist outrage and men and women are the same bs.
It’s much easier to have an occasional bit on the side if you aren’t married but e.g. only living together, or not even, mq. Think divorce theft.
It doesn’t have to be that way in America, but it is.
LikeLike