Why Men Don’t Need To Worry So Much About Their Looks

The online dating site OkCupid’s crack team of SWPLs analyzed user data and made some interesting discoveries about men’s and women’s looks and how their attractiveness, or lack thereof, affects their profile response rate.

First, they posted two graphs which show how men and women rank the physical attractiveness of the opposite sex based on profile photos.

The first graph is a superimposed comparison of male appraisals of female attractiveness and the actual messages men sent to women:

Men have a very realistic appraisal system of women’s looks that clashes with their less realistic self-appraisal system of their chances to get the hottest babes. As you can see from the graph, men accurately rate most fertile-age women as mediocre lookers, with smaller contingents of the very ugly and very beautiful. This assessment accords with reality. But then, men send most of their messages to the hottest 20% of women.

As we will see, men are more forgiving than women in their ranking of the opposite sex’s looks, but they are less forgiving in their message send rate.

As with women, by their actions ye shall know them.

The graph might convince some that men have an entitlement complex as entrenched and powerful as women do, but that would be a misleading conclusion to the data. Men value looks above almost everything else in women, and this is particularly true when men have little to go on except online profiles. The photo looms large in online dating. Since women’s looks are so incredibly important to men’s happiness as regards their sex and love lives, men’s decisions to shoot for the moon on the one female variable that really matters in an environment that is conducive to mass approaches, (something which would not be feasible in a real world context), makes perfect sense as a courtship strategy. There is little risk that a man who follows this online strategy will refuse to later date down if the first wave of messages he sent to the 9s and 10s doesn’t pan out.

It’s all about investment cost. It costs men very little in time or effort to send a message to one hundred 9s on OkCupid, so the fact that they do so is less proof of their self-entitlement than it is of their rational utility maximization.

It’s more insightful to say that men have less an entitlement complex (as the term is understood when applied to female behavior) than that they have a tactical complex.

Now let’s take a look at the superimposed graph of female appraisals of male attractiveness and female message sent rate:

This is where things get interesting. The first surprise that jumps out in this graph is how harsh women are in their assessment of men’s looks. According to women’s perspectives, 80% of men fall on the ugly side of the physical attractiveness spectrum. This is way out of line with a reality where nearly every human trait is distributed normally. Clearly, women have a skewed entitlement complex much larger than men’s in how they judge the attractiveness of the opposite sex.

Yet look around you and you’ll see much more than 20% of men either hooking up or in relationships of varying strength with women. How can this be if women think 80% of men are ugly? Well, it can only be if women don’t put as much emphasis on men’s looks. And the second line in the above graph is evidence that men’s looks simply aren’t as important to women as women’s looks are to men. Women’s message distribution more accurately reflects their ranking of men’s looks than does men’s message distribution reflect their ranking of women’s looks.

That is, women may be saying one thing — men are mostly ugly — but they are doing the opposite — sending messages to lots of ugly men.

Do we really need more proof that men should never listen to what women say they find attractive and instead should WATCH what kinds of men women fall for? If you are a stickler for reams of scientific evidence, there was a NewYorkBetaTimes article not too long ago about a study that essentially confirmed for all men who know the score that what women claim they respond to sexually and what actually causes their vaginas to tingle is COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED.

That one study alone probably affirmed more about the core concepts of game than any other. That is, affirmed for those who disbelieve the field experience of millions of men.

Back to the second graph: there is a big difference between men and women in the number of messages each sends to the more physically attractive members of the opposite sex. OkCupid doesn’t delve very deeply into the implications, but we here at the Chateau will, and by doing so a crucial component of female mate preference is revealed:

Women are messaging less attractive men (according to women’s own assessments) because the suite of male attractiveness traits that women viscerally respond to includes much more than male physical attractiveness.

Women are looking at and judging the ENTIRE PROFILE of men on OkCupid and sending messages based on a more holistic appreciation of attractive male qualities. And what we can see based on female message sent rates is that plenty of ugly men — as perceived by women — are bringing other, compensating, attractiveness characteristics to the table that women find desirable in a mate.*

This conclusion is perfectly aligned with evolutionary psychology theory.

Moral of the post: Men, work on your looks, get yourself looking as good as possible, but don’t worry so much if you’re not among the best looking men in the room. A lack of good looks is simply not the deal breaker for men that it is for women in the sexual marketplace.

*It should be noted that a secondary motivation for women messaging lots of “ugly” men on OkCupid has to do with women’s greater craving for ego assuaging, which is much easier to obtain in the online environment. Most men can handle a fair amount of rejection from hotties without crumbling into a puddle of self-doubt, and they don’t need a lot of compensating attention from less desirable women to make them feel better. Women, in contrast, cannot handle even a little bit of rejection from very attractive men, and they do get a thrill from receiving lots of “safe” internet attention from hordes of lickspittle betas. Yet another reason why online game is pointless for the huge majority of unenlightened men, but a cornucopia of cooch for those few men who know how to game the system.

It should be stressed that this is a SECONDARY motivation, as the graphs are showing women who are actively messaging these “ugly” men, (which indicates a desire to establish contact beyond that afforded by the quickie ego stroke), instead of waiting around for betas to message them. This is a critical distinction from the sort of attention that a hottie will get when her inbox floods with 50 boring unsolicited emails every hour.

Read Full Post »

Dominance Plays

I was at a club peering down at the dance floor from a bird’s-eye view on a second story walkway. Laser lights painted the room and I tried to avoid direct retinal shots. Whenever you see balconies and laser lights, and the floor is thumping underneath your feet, you’ll know you have entered a portal to another world — the Douchebag Zone.

A large man bulldozed through the crowd. As he passed me, he put his hand on my lower back, grazing the upper butt cheek, to guide me, roughly, out of his way, as he grunted “coming through” in that tone that suggests he really doesn’t care if you’ll pardon his intrusion. Instinctively, I jammed his arm away with a quick swipe of my elbow. He turned around mid-stride and our eyes locked in steely gazes, but nothing came of it. Too many people were in the way for confrontation to develop.

I’m certain that had I been most any other man, I would not have thought twice about a d-bag pushing his way through the crowd and physically nudging me aside with contact on a vulnerable part of my body. But game has changed me. Intricate knowledge of human social dynamics has made me acutely aware of other men’s alpha body language. Where most either blissfully ignore or are unaware of dominance plays by competitor males, my burden curses me with heightened perception of the smallest slights (and the tiniest flirtations). A touch here, a shove there, a distracted look when I’m talking… every mannerism and status signal is a cue that an alpha dominance maneuver is in motion, and I need to make moves to avoid being victimized by the subtle pull of rank.

Some of you are confident that awareness is better than ignorance. But are you sure? If happiness is the measure of a life well-lived, who is happier? The mindlessly naive or the savvily vigilant?

Ultimately, we all want (in the loosest definition of the word) to secure the best mate(s) possible in our short time on this earth. Awareness of reality helps us achieve that goal much better than contented ignorance. But it comes at a cost.

Read Full Post »

Social Media And Female Self-Esteem

It’s funny ’cause it’s true.

Feminists and their suckups have been very effective at shifting cultural opinion in the direction of believing that women suffer from low self-esteem at the hands of an antagonistic patriarchy. And they have managed this propaganda feat while simultaneously trumpeting the world-changing force of grrlpower. Remarkable squaring of the circle! Feminists are, if nothing else, skilled at resolving seemingly insurmountable contradictions in thought. Their hamsters are juiced to the cheeks on roid pellets and spinning that wheel faster than ever.

The truth, as is always the case when closely examining feminist doctrine, is the complete opposite.

If you are a man, imagine experiencing life through the fish-eye lens of the woman in the left-hand side of that Facebook graphic above. The lens distorts reality so that you are the impossibly enlarged center of your frame and everything around you recedes to warped insignificance. This is an even better analogy for the life of the typical attractive young woman than the metaphor of living in a fishbowl.

Try to picture this life, except with the sex roles reversed. Every one of your trivial observations or random thoughts gets “upvoted”, literally and metaphorically, by throngs of admirers, mostly female but some male too. Your lauded accomplishments amount to sharing cute puppy pics. Say something stupid? No one will call you out on it. Make a lame joke? Everyone laughs uproariously. Post a drunken photo of yourself? Hundreds of chicks “like this” and cheer in unison, “you go, guy!”. Tell no one in particular that you are sad, and you’re having a bad day? Hundreds more line up to offer uplifting messages of support.

You get the idea. Now, what do you think experiencing life like that will do to your self-esteem? If you answered, “my self-esteem would fly through the roof”, you win. Again.

The notion that American women endure the travails of low self-esteem is unmitigated bullshit; mythmaking of the highest caliber. American women, and really most women in post-industrial countries on the downslope into cultural decay, have the opposite psychological condition: TOO MUCH self-esteem.

Social network mediums like Facebook and Twitter have contributed to the bloating of the American female ego by giving her access to the admiration of ARMIES of would-be suitors (the equivalent of a handful of suitors in pre-internet fame times), and to an emotional support system that numbers in the hundreds, even thousands, over the relatively tiny social circle her grandmother was grateful to have in her day.

Today, it is insidiously easy for a woman in her peak attractiveness years to attention whore. If you want to know why so many women so readily whore for attention, the answer is simple: because they can. Cute puppy pic —> cascade of high fives. Who wouldn’t avail themselves of that quick ego fix?

In contrast, most men must still attention whore the old-fashioned way: by earning real achievement and marketing it to as wide a receptive audience as possible. A man doesn’t have the luxury of posting puppy pics to get his ego thrills. He needs to actively market himself and/or his accomplishments, and to sell himself in such a way that he is received in a positive light by his audience. Game is a revolution in thought because it allows men to circumvent the traditional avenues of male attention whoring; namely, occupational status and ostentatious materialism.

In some limited ways, social media serve men’s interests as well. The task of preselection becomes a lot easier. One pic of you doing shit with a cute chick is worth ten overactive hamsters. Plus, if you have a band, it’s now a lot simpler to expand the pool of potential groupies. Nevertheless, critical differences in how social media affect men’s and women’s psychology exist; few men will experience the instant ego rush from online exposure that so many girls in their prime fertility years do.

I occasionally get emails from older men taking issue with one or another core game concept. Usually, they are along the lines of “When I was dating, I didn’t need to neg women. It wasn’t that complicated.” Well, that may or may not be true (rose-colored glasses come to mind, as does the suspicion that a lot of old-time players have conveniently forgotten how much game they used to spit), but the fact is that the prevalence of social media and its effects on women’s egos has demanded the use of self-esteem lowering seduction tactics like negs and disqualifications.

Maxim #22: A woman with inflated self-esteem is a woman who will erroneously believe she is too good to date men normally in her league, unless steps are taken to bring her self-esteem back in line with reality.

Corollary to Maxim #22: A dating market lopsided with unrealistically high self-esteem women will shrink the pool of men available to date and marry, with the consequence that women remain single longer than they would otherwise.

Corollary to the corollary to Maxim #22: The most effective measure society can undertake to increase the incidence of marriage and the quality of married life is to stop artificially propping up women’s self-esteems.

It’s no coincidence that social media — and the Generation Masturbation it spawned — and the modern permutation of game co-evolved at roughly the same point in history. Future anthropologists will study this era as one in which the sexual market operated in near complete freedom, with all artificial constraints tempering female sexual prerogative removed, and many of the impositions on the full expression of male sexuality removed as well. The consequences of this society-wide experiment are beginning to manifest, and so far the social landscape coming into focus — despite being a boon to cultural renegades like myself — doesn’t bode well for maintaining a healthy, prosperous nation.

*downvote*

Read Full Post »

Study Proves The Validity Of Game

A reader (a Ph.D. scientist, for those of you who yearn to believe only d-bags read about and practice game) writes:

…it is a delight to understand what motivates women and how to make sense of various factors and my previous dating life.   Your continuing incisive reporting has helped my understanding tremendously.

He attached a link to a study confirming YET ANOTHER essential game concept — that men’s attractiveness to women, at least in the early rounds of meeting, is based as much on, and perhaps more on (if you expand the criteria list to include all modifiable male attractiveness traits), their attitude and sociosexual-related personality dimensions (i.e., their game) as on their looks. Taking the usual caveats about speed dating studies into consideration (which the authors discuss), you really should read the entire paper, because there is so much in there that confirms just about every Chateau maxim in the whole.

men’s sociosexuality was attractive to women and showed incremental validity over and above men’s physical attractiveness (see Table 3)…

Interestingly, there is evidence that all these [male attractiveness attributes] can be accurately judged in short periods of time…

However, only sociosexuality added incremental predictive power over and above physical attributes in the current study. Unexpected was that sociosexuality emerged as a relative powerful predictor of men’s popularity to women, particularly because women largely expressed a long-term mating interest. A possible explanation is that male sociosexuality indicates a history of successful mating experience or mating skills that are attractive to women.

Sociosexuality is basically a psychological term that, in this context, defines the personality and temperamental characteristics of a man who has game, and encompasses such time-tested game concepts as preselection, confidence, assertiveness, cockiness and, well, pretty much everything listed in the 16 Commandments of Poon at the top of this blog.

Game is notoriously difficult to measure scientifically in the field, so sociosexuality serves as a comparable substitute for measuring the traits that are common in men who are good with women. Think of sociosexuality as more of an indrect indicator of overall game proficiency, rather than as a measurement of familiarity with specific game tactics.

The takeaway lesson of this study is a powerful one: women, sluts and saints alike, are really attracted to men with high sociosexuality, otherwise known as game/charisma/chemistry.

This is about as close to scientific proof of the effectiveness of overarching game proficiency to mating success as I’ve yet seen in the literature. To be sure, there are plenty of studies confirming the efficacy of specific and narrowly-defined game tactics, but not many that have found a positive correlation between men who embody game as a personality trait and their success with women. This is why I think the study’s authors were a bit surprised by their results pointing to sociosexuality as a major player in male attractiveness.

What other stone cold but soft on the inside Heartiste truths are buttressed by this study?

– Older men have higher sexual market value, while older women have lower SMV. This is reflected in their choosiness. Older men are like aged single malt scotch; they command a higher price. Older women are like milk; they hit their expiration fast and no one wants them:

As Figure 1 shows, men’s choosiness increased and women’s choosiness decreased with increasing age. […] The higher choosiness of women that is ubiquitous in studies of young adults decreased and even tended to reverse for older women.

– The 463 bullet point checklist that women carry in their heads when they meet a man is true and relevant:

[…] females based their choices on more criteria than men did…

– Women had best be hot or they aren’t getting much attention from men with choices:

[F]or women only facial attractiveness [increased the frequency of matches]…

– The higher your sexual market value, the choosier you are (and this goes for men as well as women, although, surprisingly, it seems to be more true for men at the very right tail of the SMV curve, possibly because very high mate value males are rarer than very high mate value females):

As expected, many of the attributes that made individuals attractive were negatively related to the frequency of choices (see Table 3), and thus positively related to choosiness (Hypothesis 2a).

– Being a niceguy is a tingle killer (or, at best, a non-tingle generator), as is having nerdy or beta traits like shyness and conscientiousness. (In contrast, shyness in women is not a bad thing for them.):

The expected negative effect of shyness was also confirmed but reached significance only for men. As expected by Hypothesis 1a, agreeableness had no effect on being chosen by either sex.

– Women are the choosier sex, but men exercise choice as well:

On average, male participants were chosen by 3.6 females (32% of their 11.2 dating partners), female participants were chosen by 4.1 males (37% of their dating partners).

– Men are more interested in short term mating opportunities than are women:

Confirming hypothesis H4b, the sex by interest interaction was due to the fact that men reported more short-term interest than women… and this effect was due to a higher variance of short-term interest in men than in women.

– The icy hell of LJBF banishment is real, beta orbiting and sycophancy will not get you sex, pushing for sex sooner rather than later is a better pickup strategy, and acting like a beta provider who wants a relationship will have no effect on women’s interest in you for either sex or LTRs:

As Table 4 indicates, Hypothesis 4d was fully confirmed. Women had a preference for having sex with men who pursued more a short-term mating tactics but did not tend to develop a romantic relationship with them, whereas the long-term interest of men did not influence women’s mating or relating.

– Game, and other attraction triggers, work on all kinds of women, even women who are very dissimilar to you:

Together, these findings suggest that similarity effects are weak in studies of brief real dating interactions.

– Men really do prefer to invest more in women who aren’t slutty:

Conversely, men had a preference for relating with women who pursued more a long-term mating tactics but did not tend to have sex with them…

Ignoramuses (paging Amanda Marcotte) who think evolutionary psychology doesn’t tell us anything useful about male-female mating and relationship dynamics will blow an aortic valve if they stumble across this post.

Our analyses were based on numerous evolutionarily informed hypotheses. Most of these hypotheses were confirmed and were consistent with earlier dating studies, lending further support to evolutionary accounts of human dating, mating and relating.

I can just hear the wailing and see the rending of garments of all the anti-game haters and feminists reading this study. May your suffering burden you this holiday season with the cursed tidings of a full-blown mental breakdown!

Read Full Post »

Second Stupidest Anti-Game Meme On The Internet

“Game is just learning how to supplicate to women and be a slave to women’s desires.”

If enjoying the exquisite pleasure of a beautiful woman’s sex and love is supplication and enslavement, then I don’t want to be emancipated.

Certain quarters of the MRA movement have a lot in common with feminists. I wonder if they are aware of the similarities?

Read Full Post »

Revisiting AMOG Tactics

Readers have lately been requesting information on how to handle AMOGs (“Alpha Male Other Guy”, or “Alpha Male of the Group”, as it is known in the acronymic community). They want to know how to effectively neutralize direct male competition. A worthy subject, because everywhere else in the animal kingdom, males square off to win the rights to glorious pussy access.

But humans are more sophisticated than animals. Human males rarely compete *directly* for women, although we certainly do compete indirectly, from the barroom to the boardroom. Game mostly focuses on indirect male competition — i.e., wooing women with your superior seduction skills and bypassing any direct mano-a-mano confrontation — but there will be those times when you’ll have a high noon showdown with a very aggressive, brazen male interloper itching to horn in on your action.

The reason I don’t write much about AMOGs is a simple one — the SWPL-fied regions of the country (and this includes almost all big blue cities outside of the ghettoes) are not breeding grounds for confrontational men, especially outside of the office. While there are plenty of alphas rolling up with their Silicon Valley posse and think tank crew, these aren’t the kinds of men who relish an opportunity to get in your face and show off in front of a girl. So unless your stomping grounds are roadhouses situated off muddy roads in the deep south, you can go months at a time hitting on girls without having to deal with an AMOG in the traditional sense of the word.

Nevertheless, a good Bush Scout is always prepared.

In that vein, here’s a comment from Yareally:

Bouncers have situational confidence/value. They’re low on society’s status pole but king of the hill in the club. Does a girl’s brain realize “I’m in a shit-hole bar?” No lol Her brain just sees “other men supplicate to him, other girls want to fuck him, and his frame dominates everyone else’s”, so she’s attracted. These are the same traits game teaches you to demonstrate.

If you think she has to talk to the bouncer to be attracted, or that she likes the quarterback because of his sports skill or muscles, or that when a celebrity walks into the club all the girls snub every other guy because the celebrity is rich or a good actor or handsome, you’re still looking at surface-level shit and you don’t understand how the bouncer, quarterback and celebrity are demonstrating attractive traits or how their jobs/fame influence their display of those traits.

PUAs have already broken down how to directly compete with, tool, and take girls from these guys. We call it AMOG tactics:

http://www.rsdnation.com/node/60063

And if they’re dating, there’s boyfriend destroyers for sabotaging their relationship:

http://www.rsdnation.com/node/61702

The Chateau’s version of game is very toned down and socially friendly, which is ultimately a healthier outlook than seeing other guys as competition, but understanding the above two oldschool PUA posts allows you to take girls from the metaphorical quarterback.

But most guys don’t have a strong enough frame or enough balls to successfully use this stuff, which is good because most of them would get their asses kicked trying it lol.

The posts Yareally linked to may be old school, but they’re still as relevant as ever. It’s my opinion that Tyler Durden (the guy behind RSD Nation) wrote the definitive guides to handling AMOGs and destroying boyfriends. There are a lot of gems in those posts, and I suggest you read them over. For example:

The easy way to handle any alpha is to be polite to him, but act disinterested by his rap/accomplishments using tonality/body language (without coming off as patronizing/sarcastic) while simultaneously being charming to others around you. This will drop his perceived value and cause him to qualify himself to try and raise it back up. He can’t fight you or do shit like that, and he can’t move to insults, because you’ve been polite and in doing so he would be making himself look VERY BAD. The only tactic vs this is to walk away. If you reward him just enough to encourage further qualifying but not enough to make him feel validated again he will fall into line as beta in relation to you. […]

AMOG: How do you guys know eachother?
PUA: Her? I fucked her.
(Girl will go “aaaaaaaaah… hahahahah, I did NOT!!! But she’ll hit you and be giggling and start crawling all over you…). […]

AMOG: (showing signs that he wants to fight)
PUA: hahah, dude, are you like trying to pick a fight with me? hahahha.. ok ok hold up hold up.. wait a sec, we’ll do even better.. first… we’ll have an armwrestling competition.. then second.. we’ll do one armed pushups.. and last….. POSE-DOWN!!

(then you start flexing and go “ladies?”, and they start saying how you’re so strong, and the AMOG looks like a tool.. you’re tooling him, by making him seem like he’s trying too hard to impress the girls by showing them superiority). […]

AMOG: blah blah..
PUA: Dude, are you pissed that you’re rolling with all guys? […]

Once you get the guy to qualify himself to you in any way (like he tries to make friends), rather than being nice, IMMEDIATELY cut him out of the circle. Just cut him out. You’ll notice trying to SHUT YOUR GAME DOWN by bombarding you with logical questions. They’ll start pummeling you with logical stuff, so that you have to answer him the girls fall out of state. For me I found the solution was just to say “hey man, don’t get all scientific on me.. we’re here to have fun..” and then immediately start gaming the girls again. btw, if I’m out with any of my GFs at a club, and another guy hits on them, I use the same tactics on AMOGS to stop them.

These are pretty hardcore tactics, and they WILL work very well on the average man; i.e. your typical urban hipster, frat boy or poseur. But you would be tempting a physical or psychological beatdown if you tried these anti-AMOG tactics on one of the three following archetypes of men:

• The big bruiser with the hair trigger impulse control. This guy will take anything you say as an insult, and he has the size and sloping forehead to put a serious hurt on.
• The drunk. Alcohol releases all inhibitions, including those locked up in the fists. At least with the drunk you can easily avoid his wild swings.
• The egotistic player-savant. The guy who is smart enough to know when he is being played, and smarter still to turn the tables on you. Beware this guy, for although he is a rare breed, he can tool you in front of a girl.

Those three exceptions aside, it behooves you to learn some common anti-AMOG tactics. If you chase skirt in any major city on a semi-regular basis, you will encounter an AMOG situation at least a few times per year.

I had a buddy who would dismiss AMOGs with this go-to line:

“Oh, I didn’t know she was your girlfriend. You two make a good match.”

It was particularly effective on guys who would enter his conversation uninvited and compliment the girl he was talking to. Never underestimate the sheer numbers of men who think that complimenting girls is a surefire way to get the girls interested. The beauty of my buddy’s line is that the girl would almost always disqualify herself to the interloper. “Oh, he’s not my boyfriend!” Then the AMOG would be left standing there having to come up with a witty, ego-salvaging rejoinder. Luckily, most men — most people — are mediocre intellects and don’t have the mental acuity to think fast on their feet.

Read Full Post »

The Importance Of Male Style

If you follow the conventional wisdom closely, (or just leave your apartment once in a while), you’ll come under the impression that a good sense of style is more beneficial to women than it is to men. Women are the ones who lacquer themselves in lotions potions liners and rouges, spend exhorbitant amounts of green on fashionable attire, and coif their hair to perfection down to the last flyaway strand.

Men, in contrast, are the ones who throw on a pair of jeans and an ill-fitting button-down.

Now, the CW makes some sense, at least in the big picture. Women, being the sex whose primary attractiveness derives from their looks, would want to focus on maximizing the display of those looks. Men, whose primary attractiveness derives from status and attitude, don’t get as much SMV bang for the buck from ken dolling themselves up. But I’m here to tell you that for some men, particularly ugly men, style can play a huge role in boosting their perceived attractiveness.

Maxim #77: The role of style in diverting attention from male ugliness is severely underplayed by most ugly men.

I was at a party and noticed down at the other end of a long hall a small congregation of girls swirling around one man. I stepped closer to check out the scene, and if any of the girls were ones I knew. I didn’t know anyone, but I did notice the guy, and he was one ugly-ass mofo. Bug eyes, big ears, blotchy skin, beak nose, and horrible teeth, some of which were snaggletooths jutting out at angles like broken glass.

Now I’ve been around long enough that the sight of an ugly man holding court with one or more hot babes is nothing surprising to me. I know a man’s can-bang attitude can compensate for poor facial structure genes. But I also know it can only compensate so much. There has to be something else that distracts girls from the ugliness. And in his case, it was his flashy style.

He was decked out in what looked like Italian shoes, a fitted metallic gray suit, red socks, vest, blood red tie with some sort of iridescent pattern, and big tortoise shell designer sunglasses. He sported a very minor fauxhawk, and was well-tanned. He was a skinny white guy, average height. He smiled like he knew he was the go-to guy at that party. I could have sworn he had a gold cap on one of his miserable teeth.

No homo here, but I have to tell you, the combined sight of the girls swarming around him like he was a maypole (manpole?) plus his impeccable dress played with my powers of observation. The ugliness that assaulted me at first began to dissipate, and suddenly I was looking at a guy who left me with little doubt he knew how to seduce women. Now imagine that perception-warping power quadrupled when used against women, who are after all the sex with the more easily manipulable acumen.

Great style — the kind of style that says you are confident enough to outshine other men and that you have exquisite taste for the finer things in life — is ugliness-reducing. If you are an ugly man, you WILL become less ugly to women if you dress like you’re a leading man. Coupled with game and a totally un-self-conscious attitude, girls will not even notice they are falling for a troll.

NOTE: Does not work for women. Ugly women can maybe… MAYBE… add a quarter point to their rank with good style, but unfortunately for them men are so piercingly attuned to women’s facial features and body that not even the best tailored fashion can alter the trajectory of their target designators. Ugly men have options that ugly women do not.

If you are an average-looking man, the right style will help, but you won’t see as much of a benefit from it as the ugly man. There are diminishing returns to dressing to excess. If you are a good-looking man, you are almost better off *downscaling* your style, so that you don’t intimidate girls into thinking you’re unattainable. Very good-looking men with game who also dress with flash should focus on 9s and 10s, because those will be the only types of girls who won’t give such a man undue grief for making them feel like he is out of their league.

I later learned the ugly guy worked for Prada, and he was wearing one of their suits. I also learned something which only one other person knew at that party: he was bi. Those girls smitten by his style and charm were in for disappointment, unless they like to share.

Read Full Post »