The thing women most value is sex appeal

[Gamisch]

So the man that does not have the height/hair sex appeal but does have the money/job sex appeal has to wait until the chicks go through their C0ck Carousel days?

View attachment 12208

If he wants her to commit? Then yes.

He could've been "number 15 in line " at the bang gang, just bang and release her like ALL the other men did.. But he wants female companionship above pride.

Thats why I always say that after a certain age a man must let go of the Disney dream.
Look, i believe that there's ALWAYS a balance between factors. By the time she is done riding the CC, you should be done chasing the disney fantasy( lets say at 35). Hence the balance I mentioned: I've been on the p00sy carousel as well, and there are always ways to enjoy a woman's company without sacrificing your own pride and honor in the process.

Its almost like life punishes the man who doesn't know this...

 

[Hamurabimbi]

But there's factors that determine that.

To me, the main 2 are height and wealth. If you make good money, and are several inches taller than her, it's hard to loose her. If you're unemployed and about the same height as her, going to be very hard to win her over.

Disagree. I’ve had LTRs with girls my height or about an inch shorter than me.

 

[Hamurabimbi]

Poor Chad > Rich Manlet

Chad & Manlet aren’t necessarily mutually reclusive. Chadlet. .

 

[BadBoy89]

No. It doesn't. Your post is dead wrong.

If I’m dead wrong, explain why.

To say so because you feel so doesn’t fly. You should explain with logic why the case isn’t so.

 

[BeExcellent]

If I’m dead wrong, explain why.

To say so because you feel so doesn’t fly. You should explain with logic why the case isn’t so.

Ha ha. I am not someone who posts anything based on "feels". I post based on objective experience and observation of myself and people I personally know. I also read a fair amount of the research; the science behind attraction.

The logic is simply this: At WHATEVER age a woman is, she must have primal sexual desire for the man in order for there to be REAL attraction. That means she gets wet for the guy and desires to copulate.

This is determined first and foremost by physical appearance and physique before the woman knows ANYTHING else about a man. There has been a ton of scientific behavioral research done on this where women are shown pictures of men and the woman's physiological response (heart rate/body temp and other changes are measured.) You can Google that.

The thing that IS true is this: Based on a man's physical appearance a woman will decide almost instantaneously whether or not he is fvckable. That truth gets discussed around here with frequency.

If he is not fvckable she does not have sexual desire for him. Period.

If he IS fvckable then she moves to secondary filters (traits like personality, intelligence, ambition/success). A man can get screened out based on the secondary filters but she still thinks he's hot.

The first thing women say to me 100% of the time if I'd like to introduce her to a man, is this: "Do you have a photo? What does he LOOK like?"

Exactly as men do.

They don't ask about his career or wealth or status. They ask about appearance.

That is as true for an 18 year old woman, 21 year old woman, 35, 45, 60 or 70 year old woman.

Physical appearance in a man is very important to women. Why do you think the so-called Chads and Tyrones slay? They are HOT. That's why.

I thought my husband was HOT when I met him. He thought I was the HOTTEST girl in the venue the night I met him. There was and is sexual desire between us.

Your assertion in your first contribution to this thread suggests to me several things:

1. You personally struggle with women because women (or at least the women you'd like to fvck) do not find you physically attractive. If they did, you would not struggle with women and you would not invest in the belief system you put forward.

2. You are not financially successful either. If you were, you would understand that there are many financially well off men who struggle with women because in spite of a man's wealth, women are not attracted to him unless they find him cute/sexy/charming/hot.

3. The age bracketology you do reflects ubiquitious PUA rationale. It is arbitrary. It is also a cope.

Taken together items 1, 2, and 3 suggest a high liklihood of lack of success with women and a bitterness that your posts often reek of.

The good news is that YOU can do a great deal to improve your attractiveness. Get in shape/Lift/Lose Weight/Work out, dress better, get your grooming on point. That handles maximization of your physical attributes.

You cannot tell me Jason Statham or "The Rock" who are both bald, have trouble with women because of hair.

You cannot tell me top Thoroughbred jockeys struggle with women either, and some of those dudes are bald AND very short.

So your "height + hair" thing falls flat. Jason Statham is not a very tall man either. He's under 6 feet. Ditto Tom Cruise, Keith Urban, Kevin Hart (they are all handsome however) and women think they are fvckable.

To improve your attitude create some financial success in your life. Again this within your realm of control. Success teaches you various life skills that go a long way in building self confidence, goal setting, soft skills and other attributes that boost your attractiveness.

You assert that all women are transactional in how and why they procure a relationship. That simply is not true. So your belief system is your excuse for not upping who YOU are.

If women don't give you the time of day? You have work to do to improve yourself. Lack of female interest is an indicator pointing at YOU.

Fix yourself and you'll have an entirely different viewpoint.

 

[NealIRC]

Disagree. I’ve had LTRs with girls my height or about an inch shorter than me.

Well, I said A and B, not A or B. So you had A, but my point was if you didn't have A and B.

 

[BadBoy89]

Ha ha. I am not someone who posts anything based on "feels". I post based on objective experience and observation of myself and people I personally know. I also read a fair amount of the research; the science behind attraction.

The logic is simply this: At WHATEVER age a woman is, she must have primal sexual desire for the man in order for there to be REAL attraction. That means she gets wet for the guy and desires to copulate.

This is determined first and foremost by physical appearance and physique before the woman knows ANYTHING else about a man. There has been a ton of scientific behavioral research done on this where women are shown pictures of men and the woman's physiological response (heart rate/body temp and other changes are measured.) You can Google that.

The thing that IS true is this: Based on a man's physical appearance a woman will decide almost instantaneously whether or not he is fvckable. That truth gets discussed around here with frequency.

If he is not fvckable she does not have sexual desire for him. Period.

If he IS fvckable then she moves to secondary filters (traits like personality, intelligence, ambition/success). A man can get screened out based on the secondary filters but she still thinks he's hot.

The first thing women say to me 100% of the time if I'd like to introduce her to a man, is this: "Do you have a photo? What does he LOOK like?"

Exactly as men do.

They don't ask about his career or wealth or status. They ask about appearance.

That is as true for an 18 year old woman, 21 year old woman, 35, 45, 60 or 70 year old woman.

Physical appearance in a man is very important to women. Why do you think the so-called Chads and Tyrones slay? They are HOT. That's why.

I thought my husband was HOT when I met him. He thought I was the HOTTEST girl in the venue the night I met him. There was and is sexual desire between us.

Your assertion in your first contribution to this thread suggests to me several things:

1. You personally struggle with women because women (or at least the women you'd like to fvck) do not find you physically attractive. If they did, you would not struggle with women and you would not invest in the belief system you put forward.

2. You are not financially successful either. If you were, you would understand that there are many financially well off men who struggle with women because in spite of a man's wealth, women are not attracted to him unless they find him cute/sexy/charming/hot.

3. The age bracketology you do reflects ubiquitious PUA rationale. It is arbitrary. It is also a cope.

Taken together items 1, 2, and 3 suggest a high liklihood of lack of success with women and a bitterness that your posts often reek of.

The good news is that YOU can do a great deal to improve your attractiveness. Get in shape/Lift/Lose Weight/Work out, dress better, get your grooming on point. That handles maximization of your physical attributes.

You cannot tell me Jason Statham or "The Rock" who are both bald, have trouble with women because of hair.

You cannot tell me top Thoroughbred jockeys struggle with women either, and some of those dudes are bald AND very short.

So your "height + hair" thing falls flat. Jason Statham is not a very tall man either. He's under 6 feet. Ditto Tom Cruise, Keith Urban, Kevin Hart (they are all handsome however) and women think they are fvckable.

To improve your attitude create some financial success in your life. Again this within your realm of control. Success teaches you various life skills that go a long way in building self confidence, goal setting, soft skills and other attributes that boost your attractiveness.

You assert that all women are transactional in how and why they procure a relationship. That simply is not true. So your belief system is your excuse for not upping who YOU are.

If women don't give you the time of day? You have work to do to improve yourself. Lack of female interest is an indicator pointing at YOU.

Fix yourself and you'll have an entirely different viewpoint.

OK dear, alot of projection in this post. I asked "Can you explain yourself" and you go to: "You suck with girls and are bitter."

All I'm saying is what a woman wants in a man depends on her age in life.

A younger woman wants the genetically blessed man for her babies.
An older woman wants a man with resources for protection.

Both are attracted to Chad, but the older woman will take less of Chad for more of his resources.

Men, on the other hand, will not take less of a hot girl for more of her resources. Men don't care.

Now I don't know where you get I'm bitter. I'm not a Chad-like guys on here who spit a few words and the hot girl takes off her clothes in 7 seconds. I can't do that. And I don't have 100 girls lined up every month to make love to like the guys on here do, but generally, I go out with hotter younger girls. I can go for lunch with older women, but I cannot get with them. Maybe its cope. Maybe its something else. A while back, I had a single mother, maybe 46-47, wanting to be "alone" with me. I asked her "Why?"

As for Jason Statham and the Rock and Tom Cruise OK, now you are getting into celebrities, which makes it a different ballgame.

As far the "height + hair" thing. I've been set up alot, the first thing the younger women have always asked before even seeing me, is "Do you have your hair, how tall are you? I don't mind, but notice they don't ask "Are you charming? Are you funny? Are you mysterious? Do you have six-pack?" No, its always the height + hair.

We are talking in general terms, all other things relatively equal.

 

[member162951]

The logic is simply this: At WHATEVER age a woman is, she must have primal sexual desire for the man in order for there to be REAL attraction. That means she gets wet for the guy and desires to copulate.

I wholeheartedly agree with this! But imo and experience it's about a man's energy; if his energy is piss poor it won't matter how conventionally hot she thinks he is. Judging f*ckabiliy based on HOTNESS is typically a man's frame.

Female frame (generally speaking, there are always exceptions) is more nuanced. If he has high energy, or the "right" energy for that particular woman, for example exuding confidence, a bit of c0cky and funny and "swag," is able to engage her, make her laugh, a man with subpar looks can successfully pull her, I've seen it! At ANY age.

Men are naturally more visually oriented; again generally for many women, it takes more than just good looks and IS about "feels" not logic or scientific research.

For most women, it's about "emotions" and "feels," which has also been discussed almost ad nauseum on this forum. There is one particular poster who is no longer here who had an excellent understanding of women and used to post about this all the time. And most men agreed.

I don't refute your research about women's heart rate increasing etc when seeing pics of a conventionally hot looking man, and her desire to f*ck him, and that may be true for you and the women you associate with.

it's just not true for ALL women 100% percent of the time, that's all.

For many women it's a combination of things, but mostly the energy he projects, his vibe, and the "emotion/feels" he is able to elicit in her.

$.02.

 

[Hamurabimbi]

As far the "height + hair" thing. I've been set up alot, the first thing the younger women have always asked before even seeing me, is "Do you have your hair, how tall are you? I don't mind, but notice they don't ask "Are you charming? Are you funny? Are you mysterious? Do you have six-pack?" No, its always the height + hair.

My experience has been a bit different. I’ve always been contacted via SM/OLD that uses photos. Obviously they can see my hair. And my face. Height not so much. However, they haven’t asked height. And I’m on the short side.

 

[BeExcellent]

I wholeheartedly agree with this! But imo and experience it's about a man's energy; if his energy is piss poor it won't matter how conventionally hot she thinks he is. Judging f*ckabiliy based on HOTNESS is typically a man's frame.

Female frame (generally speaking, there are always exceptions) is more nuanced. If he has high energy, or the "right" energy for that particular woman, for example exuding confidence, a bit of c0cky and funny and "swag," is able to engage her, make her laugh, a man with subpar looks can successfully pull her, I've seen it! At ANY age.

Men are naturally more visually oriented; again generally for many women, it takes more than just good looks and IS about "feels" not logic or scientific research.

For most women, it's about "emotions" and "feels," which has also been discussed almost ad nauseum on this forum.

I don't refute your research about women's heart rate increasing etc when seeing pics of a conventionally hot looking man, and her desire to f*ck him, and that may be true for you and the women you associate with.

it's just not true for ALL women 100% percent of the time, that's all.

For many women it's a combination of things, but mostly the energy he projects, his vibe - high/low, positive/negative, etc.

$.02.

Look at @BadBoy89 you asked for logic. I responded with both inductive and deductive rationale (logic). I also logically evaluated yout assertions. My conclusion yes, is essentially as you note.

I was very clear in my post. Women make a go/no go decision based on a man's appearance. Now. You seem to misunderstand. She's not deciding she is GOING to have sex with him. She's decided his appearance is enough that she will CONSIDER him. Fvckable (if he doesn't screw it up on her non-appearance criteria) is NOT a sure thing.

I agree about vibe but vibe in the absence of attractive looks it doesn't matter unless a man is extremely self assured. Most men who are average in looks suffer from lack of self confidence around women. And you can't always get vibe on OLD for example. That is looks based. Once they have decided he's a "go" then the secondary filters are applied.

That's what I do: 1. Ok he's up to my standards in looks...2. what kind of person is he?

If he doesn't pass on Q1 he does not move to to Q2, rather he gets cut loose.

If he passes Q1 and fails Q2? I cut him loose. without sex etc.

If I didn't find a man suitably attractive that I'd consider him fvckable (he's not sexually desirable)? I never wasted time getting to know him. You cannot negotiate desire and I was always respectful enough to respect my time & the guy's time.

I do think that there are girls who will do ONS for men who Pass on Q1, Fail on Q2, but they were horny or drunk or wanted sex with the guy....only to ghost him after. I've never been that type. My standards are too high & so is my character & self esteem.

Too many of the men here are trying to convince themselves that a low interest woman can be massaged into becoming high interest. Low interest = low compliance or no compliance with getting a date and escalation.

Cut loose low interest women & drill into your mind what low interest looks like.

Low Interest means you are not a priority and her behavior will demonstrate that you are not a priority.

Younger women are not all about babies. If that were true you guys wouldn't be complaining about careerists and women who don't give you an opportunity.

And no, older women are not all about resources etc. (I, and many women now days) are financially self sufficient.

But here's what IS true. Women (at least in the West) are capable in many cases to take care of themselves financially and therefore are more choosy than ever as a result. Why deal with another person and their imperfections if he's not what you want? I do think that selects against many guys who have not taken care of their looks & getting their lives & finances together.

 

[member162951]

You seem to misunderstand. She's not deciding she is GOING to have sex with him. She's decided his appearance is enough that she will CONSIDER him. Fvckable (if he doesn't screw it up on her non-appearance criteria) is NOT a sure thing.

I agree with this^!

In the post I responded to, you wrote this (below).

The thing that IS true is this: Based on a man's physical appearance a woman will decide almost instantaneously whether or not he is fvckable.

Which is a man's frame. And different from saying a woman will "consider" whether or not she will have sex with a man (i.e he is f*ckable) based on his appearance, which again I agree with.

The comment I responded to sounded like an absolute (a man is f*ckable based on his appearance), and there are never any absolutes about such things, imo. There are other factors involved, as you clarified in your response.

In any event, thank you for clarifying, I appreciate it. It makes sense. The written word can be ambiguous sometimes especially on forums like this.