article: Why women prefer geeky guys

[backbreaker]

Women will settle for anything when they are just trying to get hitched or go for money, its the beta provider Roissy talks about. I don't know that I would consider this guy a "geeky guy" if he does not physically look geeky, but he does sound like a beta provider.

yeaht he more it hink about it he really isn't a geek lol. he's just a chump lol. if his parents weren't his parents she woudl not have looked twice at him beucase there is no way in hell he would get what he has on his own.

 

[Jitterbug]

I'm watching a show about Europe during the Renaissance. A young woman is deciding between two suitors (brothers) - one rich & powerful, one a struggling artist who gives her major tingles. Her mother advises her: "Marry one and have the other on the side. When you tire of both, take a lover".

Now they can even back that gig up with the laws protecting them all the way!

Just because she marries a moneyed up geek doesn't mean sh1t.

 

[azanon]

I see several people mistaking "alpha" for bulked-up, muscular dude, and "beta" for medium (or smaller) framed nerd. I realize I haven't been around as much, but since when have you guys come to mistakenly believe that being DJ alpha has anything to do with body type? Rollo, help these guys!

You could be a "Mark Zuckerberg" type, but if you have the attitude and DJ mindset here, then you're 100% alpha as far as Sosuave is concerned. The physical part of this forum is nothing more than a supplement. The equivalent of DJ vitamins.

Bottom line, you can be 6'3", 220, and muscled up, and so far you've told me absolutely nothing to help me determine whether or not you're alpha or beta. I've got both a Beretta and 911 on my phone, and plenty of money to pay a really good lawyer that says that don't mean s***.

 

[zekko]

Women don't prefer geeks; they don't go for geeks with the same zeal they do with jocks and artists

I disagree with the original post in that I don't think women prefer geeks. I definitely don't think they've caught up with the jocks on the desireability scale. But I do think nerds are on the up and coming list of male "types" women fantasize about. I don't think you're giving nerds quite enough credit. They may not live player lifestyles, but I think they often do better than you're giving them credit for.

By the way, I do know quite a few cute girls who are obsessed with World of Warcraft and other such role playing games - I think the social aspect is a factor for them - it's almost like Facebook, in a way.

"Geeks" means something different to me than nerds though - to me, geek implies the guy is unattractive, whereas nerd is more indicative of where his interests llie.

but what i have learned studying or looking at their relationship, she's not.. not passionate about him. to her marrying him was a calculated decision. he's hot enough to have sex with, smart enough to make a decent living and buy me **** and beta enough to not want to lose me and do whatever i tell him to do.

If you extrapolate this out, you could be as alpha as you like, and the girl you want could still go marry the beta because it's a better deal for her.
I guess if the alpha guy hangs in there, he still gets to bang her 3-4 times a year if she's the sleazy type.

Makes sense to me. I've passed up the superhottie that I knew would cheat on me before for the girl next door type who liked me better and would be loyal to me.

A young woman is deciding between two suitors (brothers) - one rich & powerful, one a struggling artist who gives her major tingles.

When exactly did the "struggling artist" become part of the "alpha" crowd? The explanation I've heard of it is that the artist type is usually rebellious of society and lives on his own terms, stubbornly going ahead with his art even though he wasn't enough money to live on. And maybe he has a small following. It just seems like an awful lot of cache to be getting out of just being rebellious.

And of course, it goes without saying for all these types that they have to be good looking first.

 

[azanon]

Probably a lot of this depends on the age group of question. If she's, say, 23 or less, then physical build and attitude will probably carry a lot more weight (pun intended), than intelligence, money, and non-physical power.

But once they're past the teen and early 20 years, it's a whole new ballgame. That bulked up painter that doesn't have a pot to pee in won't be getting near as much action. If a geek has money and worldly power, he's sporting a "virtual" 6-pack.

I need to find that old link to the "ladder theory". It had the percentages on what matters about spot on. Money was a dominant #1.

 

[zekko]

That bulked up painter that doesn't have a pot to pee in won't be getting near as much action.

I know I'm always talking out against steretypes, but how many "bulked up painters" do you know? Usually artists are busy painting, not lifting. But they do have low body fat since they're starving. The main example of a bulked up artist that I can think of is Henry Rollins, but:
a) He's famous, so he certainly doesn't qualify as starving, and
b) He's a front man, a unique breed.

I need to find that old link to the "ladder theory". It had the percentages on what matters about spot on. Money was a dominant #1.

And yet in PUA theory, a guy with money is usually portrayed as a "beta provider type". A guy a woman marries while screwing the alpha behind his back. Having money is usually portrayed as a detriment to getting sex because the women will see you as a potential provider and be on their best behavior (not being a slvt).
Of course, the pickup gurus were also the ones putting out the idea that "looks don't matter", so you have to take all this stuff with a grain of salt.

 

[easun]

IMO based on experience.

Ambition is sexier than money. Ambition is indicative of testosterone / sexual drive. A man with money but no ambition (ie: lazy) is not sexy. A man without money but ambition is sexier. Best is a man with both. If a man has money, a woman might initially be attracted, unless she discovers that man is ambition-less.

Social status, or how much others in your community respect/value you, is definitely more important than money.

Zuckerberg and Gates aren't attracting hotties because they haven't upped their skills and/or don't have enough confidence with women. They also aren't the best looking guys. Their skills with computers could translate to women as well if they worked at it, but they haven't. They command other men, which is sexy, but they aren't confident with hot women. So they are basically just money-bags to hot women. This isn't enough. I think Larry Ellison is a good example of a guy who does both.