In a nutshell what attracts most good looking women?

[bigneil]

Looks don't mean much to women. That is, in terms of whether they will have sex with you, looks don't mean much to women. Think about from an evolutionary standpoint. It's only been in the last 100 or so years, since Hollywood, that what men even looked like was an issue.

Not enough time to affect evolution.

Do you think women cared what men looked like 5 thousand years ago ? Or even 400 years ago ? Nope. Well guess what women are still wired up the same way.

Looks are like having a big serve in tennis, you'll get some free points, but if your over-all game is not on the money, you won't get no were. I mean, if looks were important to women, then about 90% of men would be in big trouble.

Not only do your looks matter, but your looks change so much between your best, most fit, healthy day and your worst, most out of shape, unhealthy day that it can make or break your relationship. Beauty is health. Healthy people are better mates and have fewer mental health issues (mental health is physical brain health, directly related to digestive health and diet). Our genes are a store of what we were exposed to. By exposing yourself to toxins, your DNA degrades, but likewise, through nutrition, your DNA improves. Looks are everything to women for the first encounter. After that they say looks don't matter. Also, our eyes are a blueprint of our whole body, so that is why my favorite girl said my eyes (after 30 years of eating organic) were what attracted her first.

 

[Trilby]

Not only do your looks matter, but your looks change so much between your best, most fit, healthy day and your worst, most out of shape, unhealthy day that it can make or break your relationship. Beauty is health. Healthy people are better mates and have fewer mental health issues (mental health is physical brain health, directly related to digestive health and diet). Our genes are a store of what we were exposed to. By exposing yourself to toxins, your DNA degrades, but likewise, through nutrition, your DNA improves. Looks are everything to women for the first encounter. After that they say looks don't matter. Also, our eyes are a blueprint of our whole body, so that is why my favorite girl said my eyes (after 30 years of eating organic) were what attracted her first.

The problem is that you cant have a rational discussion about this because people are so emotional about this subject and tend to go to extremes. It's funny how dudes either rationalise that looks don't matter at all or on the other end of the continuum you have guys like you who rationalise that women are almost like men and looks totally matter.

Both of these realities are not true.

Those on the "Look totally matter" side will say "If you have an online dating profile of a guy who is good looking and one not so good looking, the good looking guy will get more responses"

Obviously if you have nothing else to go on this is true. I get that there are guys out there who have deeply rooted emotional issues with their looks.

Yes - Looks can help a guy and they don't hurt but you don't need it to attract. It's up to you to complete that value statement with DHV and confidence. In the end, the average looking guy with huge balls and great personality will probably end up at a better spot than the great looking guy with no balls.

And I've seen examples of this through out my life

Looks are not the best evolutionary indicator of male value. Looks alone doesn't kill animals, build shelters, lead tribes therefore looks in guys is quite low on the attraction scale. Someone with game can quite quickly smoke someone who only have looks because looks have very little leverage.

That's why women can do a major make out with a hot guy in a club on Saturday, then ignore his texts on Monday. This goes on every weekend the world over. Surface attraction and deep level attraction are two different things.

Because attraction for girls is not as static as for guys. .

Let's say you handsome guy. And you really need to be in the top 1% if you wanted to rely on your looks alone to pull women. “Decently handsome” (in the top 10%) won’t cut it.

If you’re just “decently handsome”, girls will throw you indicators of interest, but that’s about it. It’s not enough to make them game you based on your looks alone. You’ll still need game, and you’ll still need to do all the work yourself and even then these guys will only have an EASY time with average-looking girls and even cute girls – the 6’s, 7’s but with baddest women out there. No.

Those women want to see basically if you have more than your looks because they’re already swamped. They’re busy, and just being a good-looking guy is not enough.

As a man you has no excuse to not get good with girls since you have control over almost all of your attraction value. Bottom line is : You can trigger shi*t-loads of attraction without being even REMOTELY good looking.

Men have control over 80-90% of their attraction value. Girls are born with 80-90% of their attraction value.

Be thankful you are a man
.

 

[Trunks]

In the end, the average looking guy with huge balls and great personality will probably end up at a better spot than the great looking guy with no balls.
.

This is worth repeating.

 

[IBreatheSpears]

No matter where in the world you are. If you walk into a McDonald's and order a Big Mac. It will taste the same in Russia, Dubai, India, Germany, USA, Brazil or were ever the **** you are

This isn't true IME. When I went to NYC a few years ago my Big Mac tasted weird and the packaging was slightly different (thicker cardboard).

 

[bigneil]

I think you're dismissing money as being attractive because it isn't part of your game. Now, I'm not saying a guy needs money to seduce women, he certainly doesn't. But as far as attraction goes, it can be a factor, and not just with gold diggers. Do you think the alpha in nature doesn't have access to resources?

Exactly. People with no money tell themselves that women who care about money are "gold diggers". This is only true when it goes to the extreme (she leaves a guy with 2 boats for a guy with 3 boats). The reality is, raising a child requires tremendous resources and disables a woman for years. Throughout history, women looked for the strongest men because they were the ones who traveled the furthest and climbed the highest and dug the deepest and acquired the necessary resources to raise their families. It turns out that strong men who have an advantage at resource acquisition are intrinsically more attractive for that reason alone. Hence the term "looks aren't everything". If you gather a lot of resources, they will say you are an attractive man. But today's Millennials sit around taking selfies telling themselves someone will love them for them.

 

[bigneil]

I live quite a carefree lifestyle. I come from a fairly moneyed family, and currently work part-time for family businesses.

Women categorize thusly: lover, provider, orbiter. In that order. I have literally no interest in being anything other than a lover.

Sounds like deesade's dad was a harder worker than he is.

 

[zekko]

The reality is, raising a child requires tremendous resources and disables a woman for years. Throughout history, women looked for the strongest men because they were the ones who traveled the furthest and climbed the highest and dug the deepest and acquired the necessary resources to raise their families. It turns out that strong men who have an advantage at resource acquisition are intrinsically more attractive for that reason alone.

Women generally see men as Providers and Protectors. You're showing evolutionary reasons why women are attracted to Providers. PUA gurus like you to tell you that Protectors are good, Providers are bad. They want you to believe that if a woman thinks you are a Provider, then that is the kiss of death - they are not sexually attracted to you, and you get put in the beta category. But the truth is, the Protector and Provider role in nature are often tied together. PUAs tell you that if they see you as a provider, they will make you wait for sex. But I've never had a girl interested in me as boyfriend material, who was not extremely eager to take things into the bedroom to express their attraction.

The thing is, just because they see you as a potential provider, that doesn't mean you have to actually provide. And just because they may see you as a potential provider, that doesn't mean that they don't see you as a lover also. To some extent, it depends on the type of man you are. Obviously being a cuckold is a bad thing, but all men with resources are not cuckolds. This idea that you have to be either/or is just nonsense. You can be the full package.

My confidence doesn't come from the fact that I can get laid. My confidence comes from the fact that I have built my life, put in the hard work, and acquired the necessary resources to fulfill my needs and live the kind of lifestyle I choose. If that makes me attractive to some women, that's icing on the cake. The main thing I am concerned with is that it is to my benefit. They always say we need to follow our mission - that (along with my hobbies) has been my mission. It's not that I'm materialistic, it's that resources give you freedom. Is some PUA guru going to tell me that following my dreams and self improvement plans just makes me a beta provider? The idea is laughable.

 

[Trunks]

Women generally see men as Providers and Protectors. You're showing evolutionary reasons why women are attracted to Providers. PUA gurus like you to tell you that Protectors are good, Providers are bad. They want you to believe that if a woman thinks you are a Provider, then that is the kiss of death - they are not sexually attracted to you, and you get put in the beta category. But the truth is, the Protector and Provider role in nature are often tied together. PUAs tell you that if they see you as a provider, they will make you wait for sex. But I've never had a girl interested in me as boyfriend material, who was not extremely eager to take things into the bedroom to express their attraction.

It's not so much that you cannot attract a woman once you are slotted into the provider category, it's that the time frame for seducing her is unnecessarily drawn out longer because her expectations from you are raised once she puts you in the provider box.

If she only sees you as "fun dude I wanna fvck", things like beliefs, values, money, etc. don't really matter.

The thing is, just because they see you as a potential provider, that doesn't mean you have to actually provide. And just because they may see you as a potential provider, that doesn't mean that they don't see you as a lover also. To some extent, it depends on the type of man you are. Obviously being a cuckold is a bad thing, but all men with resources are not cuckolds. This idea that you have to be either/or is just nonsense. You can be the full package.

This part is the key. As long as they also see you as a lover, it doesn't really matter. But they have to see you as a lover from the start. The mistake dudes make is to sell themselves as boyfriend material without confidently moving forward sexually from the get go. Otherwise, you end up in that zone where the woman really likes you, and is tip toeing sexually for fear that you will dump her once the deed is done.

 

[bigneil]

Younger guys need to realize that men in their 40's and over have already experienced being both lover and provider. In our early 20's we could offer nothing but the lover-with-potential role. We saw what that got us: a few hot college girls who vanished at some point. In our 30's we were neither here nor there usually. We learned that women consider anything under $100K "chump change" and would just assume be cougars and pay for young dudes with their ex-husband's money (acquired when she got his inflated house during the real estate bubble). In our 40's we learned that once we secured the ability to extract large amounts of resources from the Earth (in my case $4000 a week), beautiful women half our age appeared in droves. When I took it to the next level and got 2 sources of income ($8000 a week), my dream girl magically appeared (at age 46 I honestly wonder if I was ever in love before). But it wasn't a hooker experience as you might imagine when you hear that money was a factor. It was a magical romantic experience. It turns out that women like attractive men who can support a family. When they realize you aren't a criminal and you earn good money, they naturally gush with romance and you become that much more attractive. Once you have lots of women telling you how attractive you are, you "appear really sure of yourself" as they will say. Then you can try the perfect seduction: finding a girl who is extremely attracted to you from the start, and courting her like a princess while remaining a mystery.

As far as beta providers being made to wait for it, consider that my dream girl and I had sex within about 10 minutes after we were first alone together. For older men, our experience is also a huge factor. Consider I gave her her first vaginal orgasm, her first oral orgasm (from a man) and her first multiple orgasm, all in our first four dates. Her young boyfriend (who she's dated for 7 years) is the cuckold here.

The most important thing is attraction though. Having sex with a woman who is not attracted is one of the worst experiences. Don't try to bypass attraction with cash or you become a rich VIP slob. You must first seek women who are attracted to you at the root level (choose the right target), then blow them away by spoiling them financially, emotionally, romantically and sexually.

 

[devilkingx2]

i wouldn't know what gets hot girls, i decided that getting them was too much work and stopped trying ages ago, i go for average girls now.

 

[bigneil]

i wouldn't know what gets hot girls, i decided that getting them was too much work and stopped trying ages ago, i go for average girls now.

Ages ago? You mean one year ago? It gets easier as you get older.

 

[devilkingx2]

Ages ago? You mean one year ago? It gets easier as you get older.

a year is a pretty long time i'd say.

 

[bigneil]

a year is a pretty long time i'd say.

When you're 19 yes. Hang in there. The next 5 years gets worse for men on average, then it gets better and better. I would skip college and become an apprentice in a high paying trade.

 

[devilkingx2]

When you're 19 yes. Hang in there. The next 5 years gets worse for men on average, then it gets better and better. I would skip college and become an apprentice in a high paying trade.

yeah, i don't see it getting any better.

actually i took a semester off college and i'm working at a clothes store now, thanks to minimum wage laws i make $11 an hour and if i manage to keep this job til next year (2018) i'll make like 13.50

my friend is going to a trade school, i think he's going to become an electrician or something, i guess i'll find out from him how worthwhile it ends up being

 

[Roober]

When you're 19 yes. Hang in there. The next 5 years gets worse for men on average, then it gets better and better. I would skip college and become an apprentice in a high paying trade.

This is actually great advice! Bachelor's degrees take more time and rarely pay well initially...

 

[zekko]

It's not so much that you cannot attract a woman once you are slotted into the provider category, it's that the time frame for seducing her is unnecessarily drawn out longer because her expectations from you are raised once she puts you in the provider box.

I'm aware that this is a common belief that the manosphere puts out. What I'm saying is that, for whatever reason, that hasn't been my experience. I'm not even saying that the manosphere is wrong on this, it just hasn't been true for me, who knows why? I mean, the idea makes sense: If she sees you as a guy she wants to keep around, she wants to put her best foot forward, wants to make the best impression, by not giving the sex away too quickly or easily, so she doesn't look like a slut.

Were this to happen to me, it wouldn't even bother me, I would take it as a compliment. Because that means she thinks enough of me that she wants to present herself well, and wants to keep me around. But for whatever reason, if a girl has been attracted to me (as a boyfriend or whatever), she has always not only been responsive to seduction, she has always been eager to express that attraction sexually.

PUA types want to put out the idea that if she sees you as boyfriend material, then she isn't really attracted to you. She only wants sex from the alpha bad boys who won't commit, and for a boyfriend she just sees some beta provider cuckold that she can drain of resources. This is nonsense at its core. There are definitely women who treat their boyfriends like that, and (more commonly, I think) girls who get bored with their boyfriends after awhile and lose attraction for them. But the idea that girls aren't sexually attracted to men they want as boyfriends is silly, and wishful thinking on the part of PUAs who want to portray themselves as the ultimate alpha males on the planet.

Sure, you can be a cuckold, a doormat, or a beta provider type. But you don't have to fit into that niche. It's not either/or.

 

[Tenacity]

I'm aware that this is a common belief that the manosphere puts out. What I'm saying is that, for whatever reason, that hasn't been my experience. I'm not even saying that the manosphere is wrong on this, it just hasn't been true for me, who knows why? I mean, the idea makes sense: If she sees you as a guy she wants to keep around, she wants to put her best foot forward, wants to make the best impression, by not giving the sex away too quickly or easily, so she doesn't look like a slut.

Were this to happen to me, it wouldn't even bother me, I would take it as a compliment. Because that means she thinks enough of me that she wants to present herself well, and wants to keep me around. But for whatever reason, if a girl has been attracted to me (as a boyfriend or whatever), she has always not only been responsive to seduction, she has always been eager to express that attraction sexually.

PUA types want to put out the idea that if she sees you as boyfriend material, then she isn't really attracted to you. She only wants sex from the alpha bad boys who won't commit, and for a boyfriend she just sees some beta provider cuckold that she can drain of resources. This is nonsense at its core. There are definitely women who treat their boyfriends like that, and (more commonly, I think) girls who get bored with their boyfriends after awhile and lose attraction for them. But the idea that girls aren't sexually attracted to men they want as boyfriends is silly, and wishful thinking on the part of PUAs who want to portray themselves as the ultimate alpha males on the planet.

Sure, you can be a cuckold, a doormat, or a beta provider type. But you don't have to fit into that niche. It's not either/or.

I completely agree. It's like I said before, everything is BLACK OR WHITE with these guys. I can't tell you anything major in life that operates in a black or white situation. Everything has shades of gray to it.

I always promote that guys fix their looks, personality, and finances, to focus on being the best version of THEMSELVES that they can be. It would be a balanced approach. You also won't function under any stupid title (such as Alpha or Beta, or Red Pill or Blue Pill).....you will just be YOU, but the best version or better version of YOU.

From there, you approach women in a balanced view as well, which is what I call Purple Pill. You deal with women on an individualized basis, not as a GROUP. Every chick has her pluses and minuses, your job is to find the chick (or chicks) who have minuses that you can "tolerate" because their pluses fulfill the needed benefit you are seeking.

 

[devilkingx2]

I'm aware that this is a common belief that the manosphere puts out. What I'm saying is that, for whatever reason, that hasn't been my experience. I'm not even saying that the manosphere is wrong on this, it just hasn't been true for me, who knows why? I mean, the idea makes sense: If she sees you as a guy she wants to keep around, she wants to put her best foot forward, wants to make the best impression, by not giving the sex away too quickly or easily, so she doesn't look like a slut.

the last thing you want is a girl who holds out on you to make you think she's different than she really is.

like, she's not any less of a slvt because she doesn't do anal with YOU if she did it with 12 other guys, if anything that just makes it worse for you because you're still dating a slvt only now you don't get the benefits.

likewise if all her other boyfriends got laid on the first date after 3 drinks but you gotta wait til date 5

PUA types want to put out the idea that if she sees you as boyfriend material, then she isn't really attracted to you. She only wants sex from the alpha bad boys who won't commit, and for a boyfriend she just sees some beta provider cuckold that she can drain of resources. This is nonsense at its core. There are definitely women who treat their boyfriends like that, and (more commonly, I think) girls who get bored with their boyfriends after awhile and lose attraction for them. But the idea that girls aren't sexually attracted to men they want as boyfriends is silly, and wishful thinking on the part of PUAs who want to portray themselves as the ultimate alpha males on the planet.

Sure, you can be a cuckold, a doormat, or a beta provider type. But you don't have to fit into that niche. It's not either/or.

i think the idea is that if she's picking you based off logic she's likely manipulating or using you, and if she's not picking you based off logic she doesn't really care what you can provide for her.

which is why all the PUA stuff says that you should make girls see you as someone they want to fvck, because that means they actually like you and there's no risk of them just wanting access to your resources

 

[Tenacity]

The difference between you and me is quite simple:

You like pro-wrestling, right? You watch it knowing that it is all a work. Just a show. Yet you suspend your disbelief, and enjoy the experience.

That is what I do with women. I know it's a work, and I enjoy it regardless.

Yet, imagine if pro-wrestling insulted your intelligence enough to insist that it was all a shoot? And then imagine that all the marks would chip in and pay lip-service. That would be annoying, correct?

Let's stay with this analogy for a minute to tie it to my perspective of the dating/women situation.

- The part about pro-wrestling that's a "work" is the outcome of the matches.

- What makes it interesting is everything that goes into the matches, including the storyline, promos, ring entrances, match psychology, kick-outs, steel chairs, falling through tables, etc., that gets us to the "goal".

So with that being said, back to the dating/women situation.

- The part about women (from my perspective) that's a "work" is their typical stated objectives, which is to pick a guy that's a protector/provider.

- However, the actual guy she picks to protect/provide varies, is random, and "protection/provision" is in the eye of the beholder, or to say it's subjective based on each individual woman. To Tyquesha in the hood, the THUG is the protector/provider. To white girl Mary in the Suburbs, Steve on Wallstreet is the protector/provider. To black girl Anglea who stays in the Suburbs next door to Mary, Jim the aspiring Engineer is the protector/provider.

- While it's scripted in terms of what women want, each woman's path to get there (pro wrestling match) is going to be different.

This is why you can't approach everything as BLACK AND WHITE, in a one-dimensional framework. Because like in Pro Wrestling, you would be expecting every match to go like a "Hulk Hogan match" went, when in actuality, for YOU, your match might go like a Rey Mysterio/Cruiserweight/High Flying match.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

i wouldn't know what gets hot girls, i decided that getting them was too much work and stopped trying ages ago, i go for average girls now.

They probably phvck you a lot better too.