Being attractive doesn't help you get a LTR

[mrgoodstuff]

Albeit fleeting, what I experienced was the most intense love I ever experienced in my life. The sex was so good it was comical. She cured early signs of ED. She healed me from circumcision trauma. Could she have faked something I never knew existed? I don't think so. In fact, she'll be back someday for sure.

I remember being in love with her physical equivalent in 1993 and 1988. Women were just as corrupt then, they just seemed to shack up more.

Perhaps relationships are shorter in proportion to social media giving everyone more options.

I've had women love me almost as much as my mother from 1990-2005. Since 2010 everyone heart seem guarded.

 

[resilient]

Perhaps relationships are shorter in proportion to social media giving everyone more options.

Bingo.

 

[bigneil]

I've had women love me almost as much as my mother from 1990-2005. Since 2010 everyone heart seem guarded.

You haven't got your second wind yet. It declines from 30-34, then when you hit 35 it takes off.

 

[bigneil]

Because we can no longer rely on women for long term love, and because women can no longer find men their age who are providers, it should be no surprise why sugar daddy / sugar baby relationships are becoming more popular.

As Sun Tzu noted, it's better to have someone relying on you for money than love. Love is fleeting. They always need money.

 

[3agle 3yes]

...Where dudes screw up is they end up pursuing chicks that really are not interested in them. Ignore all the PUA bvllsh!t... you can not get any woman you want, you can only attract chicks that are interested in what you have to offer.

I can't seem to get round this obsession with caring whether a girl is interested in you or not, who cares? A man should assume every woman he is interested in, is interested in him even if she doesn't show it. Because: 1. Interest is fleeting. In my younger days when I wasn't so good with women, many girls would show interest in me because they liked how I looked...I didn't bang most of them though because I was poor at transitioning into getting physical, so they lost interest.

Now days, I sometimes see the opposite happening. I approach girls who have showed me no interest (I approach many girls, even girls I don't find attractive and not necessarily for sex either), and sometimes they will start out cold...but after a while you can see their behaviour changing and they start to open up. I've banged girls this way...even when I wasn't necessarily trying to bang them.

Understand though, that I'm not saying you can bang any girl you want...and to be honest, wanting to bang every girl you find attractive is a child's mentality anyway because you shouldn't want to.

...Don;t waste time on low interest b!tches... they will only use you until another dude they are REALLY interested in comes along.

I don't see the point you're trying to make here. What you're essentially saying here is that there is potentially a man she will find more attractive than you, right? But this is always the case, interest level has nothing to do with it. But also, just as I posted further up, I've had girls become interested when they seemingly weren't before.

...I can't stand when guys give advice to sexlorn chaps in college. "Looks don't matter." Rubbish. Whether for a one night stand or something longer, being physically attractive to your partner is almost always a prerequisite...no chick is going to want you if you look like Urkel.

Everytime I see someone putting too much emphasis on how a man looks, they always seem to be saying essentially "physical attractiveness is binary". It's as if they believe a woman either wants to rip your clothes off or she finds you repulsive...as if there's nothing in between.

I'm not saying you're one of these people, but it may surprise some guys that many men fall in between, where she wouldn't mind fvcking you but she isn't necessarily enthused about it either.

And finally, in my experience what a woman finds physically attractive varies much more from woman to woman than it does for men...so even then your argument falls short.

Rather than improve your "game" the best thing a guy could do is improve your appearance. Cultivate a flattering look, diet and exercise, etc.

If you live in big city like I do, the average guy you're competing with is in shape and 'normal' looking. If a woman has to choose between two men and both of them rate the same in appearance she is going to use another factor
to make her decision.

Obviously women wanting a fling will go for the most good looking guy available. If that is your case you are in the position of abundance fairly goodlooking women live in, finding somebody for sex is as easy as breathing, but a proper relationship (and someone worth it...) is hard for everyone.

BS. First of all physical attractiveness is in a scale, it's not as simple as being good looking or ugly. You're assuming good looking men don't need to do anything. Women can get away with being passive (even when it comes to sex), but a man almost always needs to be proactive. He has to find a way to transition from conversation to getting her to bed...women in my experience almost always love it when it seems like sex 'just' happens (I have the firm belief women love the anticipation of sex more than sex itself), some guys are better at this than others.

 

[bigneil]

I can't seem to get round this obsession with caring whether a girl is interested in you or not, who cares? A man should assume every woman he is interested in, is interested in him even if she doesn't show it. Because: 1. Interest is fleeting.

Interest level isn't just important - it is the ONLY important factor. Nothing else matters, it's the gold standard. It's Hydrogen. It's Carbon.

Interest is not fleeting, it is varying. I graphed out the interest level for my last 9 month relationship - note how it didn't peak until from 4-8 months (red zone - here interest level is measured by the number of days per week SHE initiated a conversation), then poof.

See how it started out steady (lots of 2's), then almost fizzled out (lots of zeros), then hit the red zone with a steady increase? That's what a long term master seduction looks like - you raise her interest level over a long period. In this case circumstances beyond my control derailed things at our peak (her divorce - notice the sudden drop from 5 to 1 when she filed, a huge hiccup when there had never been any movement more than 1 for months? This graph predicted it). Also note the official end - double zeros for the first time ever. This formula works. Focus on getting her to initiate.

122222010211014201222334543333444551121200

 

[RangerMIke]

I can't seem to get round this obsession with caring whether a girl is interested in you or not, who cares? A man should assume every woman he is interested in, is interested in him even if she doesn't show it. Because: 1. Interest is fleeting. In my younger days when I wasn't so good with women, many girls would show interest in me because they liked how I looked...I didn't bang most of them though because I was poor at transitioning into getting physical, so they lost interest.

Now days, I sometimes see the opposite happening. I approach girls who have showed me no interest (I approach many girls, even girls I don't find attractive and not necessarily for sex either), and sometimes they will start out cold...but after a while you can see their behaviour changing and they start to open up. I've banged girls this way...even when I wasn't necessarily trying to bang them.

You are confusing approach with dating. Sure always assume a chick is interested until her actions demonstrate she isn't. You are also confusing attraction with interest. ATTRACTION with chicks is fleeting... interest increases or decreases based on how you show up. Attraction is curiosity, as questions are answered she will settle into interest if you are as you appear to be.

MLS is what is important in attraction.
Self-control, confidence, and behaving like a man that has options (being willing to walk away) is important with interest level.

It's not an exact science and there are always exceptions, but all women respond to this, what makes it an art is what weight a chick gives to what drives up her interest or attraction. To some women, looks are the most important, some status is more important, with other money is the most important. If you come across a chick where money is the most important thing in attraction, and she sees you wearing an expensive suit and shoes and a Rolex watch... she WILL be attracted to you like a bee to honey. But after you approach her and she gets to know you, she notices the watch is fake, and you give her indications that that suit and shoes are really to only set you have... her INTEREST is going to drop like a rock.

Approach all women you are attracted to.... try to get them on a date.... if they won't date you they are either NOT attracted to you and/or she has low interest. Do not waste time with women like this.

 

[RangerMIke]

This formula works. Focus on getting her to initiate.

122222010211014201222334543333444551121200

I like this, simpler than what I use. Numbers on the bottom represent the varying interest level of one of my chicks. I really like this one (Collin). I am collecting data to try and quantify female behavior which I will use to write a book. The metric is a combination of flaky behavior, willingness to take a call, texting, reaching out et al. The important thing to note is that the HIGHER the number, the lower the interest, the numbers on the bottom are days.

As you can see when I first met "Collin" interest was middle of the road. But she was all over the place UP then DOWN over the first month... Later I would find out she was engaged to a dude, and she broke it off... this is how chicks behave when they are confused , hot, cold. As you can see after she finally dumped the dude, interest in me was pretty high. (Anything below 10 is really good, 10-15 is okay over 15 is low interest. Hot and cold over the next 4 months as she came to the conclusion that I was NOT a relationship dude... then she started to drift off (see the chart from 144 -254 over then next 3.5 months, until she met another dude. Then I was pretty much finished...

Then we had this up an down sh!t I had when I first met her, The new dude wasn't up to the task of keeping her interest... likely acted weak, started to chase or got too complacent thinking he had it in the bag. And she started coming back, culminating two weeks ago when we started fvcking again. This happens frequently with women. There are other patterns, I'm still studying and collecting behavior trends, but Collin is a classic high value Alpha chick.

 

[bigneil]

Here are other words to graph as separate polylines:

0) How many days per week does she initiate? (see above)
1) How many days per week do YOU initiate?
2) How many days per week does she text the word love. Girls reveal their true intentions. They will say "I love that you wear blue shoes" (I love you). It's because they are thinking "I love you" as they try to make small talk about the blue shoes.
3) How many days per week does she text a red heart? Girls seem to do this with the ones they love.
4) How many days per week does she text the word "excited".
5) How many days per week did you see her?
6) Sparkly hearts and dates should be plotted as nodes.

 

[3agle 3yes]

Interest level isn't just important - it is the ONLY important factor. Nothing else matters, it's the gold standard. It's Hydrogen. It's Carbon.

Interest is not fleeting, it is varying. I graphed out the interest level for my last 9 month relationship - note how it didn't peak until from 4-8 months (red zone - here interest level is measured by the number of days per week SHE initiated a conversation), then poof.

You are confusing approach with dating. Sure always assume a chick is interested until her actions demonstrate she isn't. You are also confusing attraction with interest. ATTRACTION with chicks is fleeting... interest increases or decreases based on how you show up. Attraction is curiosity, as questions are answered she will settle into interest if you are as you appear to be.

@bigneil and @RangerMIke I remember having this conversation with someone before, anyway I'm not the one who has it the wrong way round. Don't just take my word for it though. Google the definition of the word "interest" and "attraction":
_______________________________________________________________________
interest

noun
noun: interest; plural noun: interests
1.
the feeling of wanting to know or learn about something or someone.

verb

1.
excite the curiosity or attention of (someone).
_______________________________________________________________________

You see that?

Now attraction:
_______________________________________________________________________
attraction

the action or power of evoking interest in or liking for someone or something.

a quality or feature that evokes interest, liking, or desire.

a place which draws visitors by providing something of interest or pleasure.
_______________________________________________________________________

To be honest both definitions look the same but a woman having a liking for someone or something most of the time doesn't happen right away nor does desire or pleasure.

 

[RangerMIke]

@3agle 3yes Forget book definitions. The dictionary isn't going to help you understand women better. Just like what women SAY isn't going to help you understand them better. For the purpose of what I MEAN when I talk about attraction and interest, just accept what I say as MY opinion, if you want to create more words and give them whatever means you want that's cool.

Attraction = curiosity
Interest = desire

I know this is different for the book definition, but you have to understand, that my advice comes with the understanding that there is a difference between interest in the very beginning and ongoing interest. The reason they are different is because Near Term Interest (Attraction) is based on different things than long term interest. If you prefer I could have said:

Short Term or Near Term Interest = curiosity
Long Term Interest = desire

Attraction is based on how you appear, Interest is based on how you continue to show up. How you appear is based on LMS, how you continue to show up is based on behavior.

Chicks will get an LMS impression (this is attraction) of you as soon as they see you. They can size you up like a piece of meat pretty freaking fast.... in seconds she will have figured out if, as far as she is concerned, you are fvckable. Doc Love isn't so crude and will say her interest level is over 50%... and he will say you have to 'pass the physical attraction test' which is fine, that works, but I think it's a little more complicated than that. Because a chick can find you fvckable, but not be interested in you for anything.... Which is FINE WITH ME. In fact that is my sweet spot.

I had to do this so that I could more efficiently screen out women that met my needs. The problem with Dating Coaches for me like Doc Love and Corey Wayne... sh!t really all of them is that at the center of it all, there play is to help guys get into relationships. So they do not talk much about the lizard brain stuff that happens with chicks. None of them will help you if what you want is just to fvck lots of girls, have them be totally okay with it. To do this you have to hack attraction, and keep that high going as long as you can, and dely her desire to try and lock you down as long as you can. I'm still trying to perfect this and I'm getting better at quickly ID'ing chicks that are down with this and keeping them around longer, and I know the secret is differentiating between long v. short term interest.

 

[3agle 3yes]

@3agle 3yes Forget book definitions...For the purpose of what I MEAN when I talk about attraction and interest, just accept what I say as MY opinion...

Attraction = curiosity
Interest = desire

Okay, so with a few exceptions we're pretty much saying the same thing.

 

[Urbanyst]

I got a girl to fall in love. It took 4 months of masterful seduction (each month featured a major pitfall that normally would have derailed the seduction, four times we tried to push each other away, but we made it and always felt the same about each other).

She then said "I love you" first. And God did she mean it at the time. I then had 4 months of super high interest and the best sex of my life. She then vanished overnight, ended her marriage, formed a new relationship, and stopped dating me (not exactly sure what the order was).

So you are partially right. You can still get them to fall in love but now it lasts months and not years. It's still a good thing to have as long as you don't get too attached.

Yep. You CANNOT get too attached (or attached at all).

The problem with this truth is it takes away (in my eyes) the value of a LTR. If you cannot get attached without things going off the rails, then why even bother committing? Sex on tap is the obvious answer. But you can also get that by just having enough plates.

Seems women today only want what they can't have. I have a booty call 6 I've known for over 10 years who I can text anytime and get a response from her. Doesn't matter what's going on in her life. Doesn't matter if I disappear for several months. You have to treat a 10 the way you treat a 6. Once women catch you, they lose interest. Once you respect a woman too much, she loses interest too. Women have to be worried you might cheat or leave otherwise they don't respect you. Hot, cold, hot, cold, hot, cold.

Drama, instability and dysfunction with a hint of passion is what turns women on. And the reason it turns them on is because we have made life WAY too easy for women. Women don't have to struggle. There is always an orbiter, the Government or some desperate cornballia breadknot ready to come to their rescue. Women are more committed to their little obnoxious designer dogs that have genetic disorders from inbreeding, then the men they date.

The type of LTR I would like with a woman might not exist. I cannot be with a woman who thinks its ok to disrespect me at any time or in any way.

 

[casanova_goat]

Everytime I see someone putting too much emphasis on how a man looks, they always seem to be saying essentially "physical attractiveness is binary". It's as if they believe a woman either wants to rip your clothes off or she finds you repulsive...as if there's nothing in between.

I'm not saying you're one of these people, but it may surprise some guys that many men fall in between, where she wouldn't mind fvcking you but she isn't necessarily enthused about it either.

And finally, in my experience what a woman finds physically attractive varies much more from woman to woman than it does for men...so even then your argument falls short.

I agree with you and I wasn't trying to say physical attractiveness is binary. It's like a dial. But the more physical attraction a woman has for you, the more likely there is to be a genuine connection. And to get in her pants, she needs to find you at least somewhat attractive. From there it's all personality and chemistry. I was trying to emphasize what it uphill battle it would be to have anything with a woman if you were not her type physically speaking.

I suppose women have broader tastes than men but there are definitely universal standards of beauty. I can say my taste in women in profoundly different than some of my friends'.