Looks are more important than you think! Merged [Official thread]

[God_of_getting_layed]

I also totally agree on the perception thing you posted, Men ARE NOT a good judge of other men's looks. There are just as many good-looking guys as there are good-looking women.

Some ppl might not like this, but i think men are too harsh on themselves as far as how they look, or how other men look. There are guys that most men think are average-looking that women think are "flaming-Hawt". Just like the scott peterson example. So just being confident in your looks can really take you a long way, not to mention taking care of yourself.

Its true, most men are horrible judges of attractiveness. Alot of good looking men are seen as average looking by the "attractiveness blind" men that make up most of the male population. So to these men, they dont see a good looking guy with a hot girl, they see an average guy with a hot girl, and then turn around and conclude that women must not care about looks.

Women too arent all that great about judging female attractiveness either. I cant count how many times Ive seen a smokin hot girl with a guy that women think is hot, and the girl says "eww, what does he see in her?, shes soo ugly!". "attractivness blindness" causes people to incorrectly conclude looks dont matter to the opposite sex!

And yes, Scott Peterson is a perfect example. Alot of women think he's good looking, yet soo many men would consider him average looking.

Looks definitely give a good impression, and get the woman to open up to you, now they are not EVERYTHING, but i think looks DO matter, i'd give looks a good 30-40% of the equation.

Well, when it comes to the hot babes (not the fuglies, average girls or cuties, Im talking the smoking hot ones) Looks matter almost too much. The "looks equation" for these hotties would have parameters identicle to those that would be seen in the "looks equation" that describes male preferences. THe 2 equations for men and women would look exactly the same!!! that is when we are talking about the hot women.

The hotter she is, the more the equation would resemble the one that describe's a man's selection criteria.

 

[ricorico]

Deus,
You already graduated and you still need 2 jobs??????
Well anyway, I was talking to a girl at work who happens to be black about this very subject. She said she visits a forum where this topic is discussed a few times. Here is the link.
http://forum.blackhairmedia.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=70368&KW=looks


http://forum.blackhairmedia.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=70497&KW=handsome

She also agreed some insecure desperate sisters will date anything in order to have a man. Nothing to do with his "physical appearance. Everything to do with lack of father ,family life and LSE!!!!

Also, as you look around at couples, how do you know which women are in there for the money, or which have issues? Women will notoriously date fuggs if she thinks it will lead to a cushy life. That's why so many guys try to come off like they have cash. Those very same women will sleep with better looking guys than their husbands who they are attracted to.

If you ever listened to Leykis a couple of years back he had that very topic going on. He claimed many women will lust the bad boy and good looking guy who was unwilling to marry them because he had so many women to choose from. So competition is tough. Therfore, the women will marry the guy they have little physical attraction to, but he makes a good father,gives them a financially stable life and is low risk for having an affair. The only thing they have to do is give him sex once in a while.

Many women called in "Annonymously" to say that is exactly what was going on in their marriage. I'm sure those women get their "groove on occasionally when they get an oppurtunity and poor reliable,plain looking husband has no clue!!!

 

[wayword]

http://forum.blackhairmedia.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=70497&KW=handsome

Wow, you notice that the top req in all those posts is:

At least 6' tall!

Of course, the average height in this country is 3" shorter than that...

 

[Nighthawk]

Scott Peterson is hot. I've never heard of him, so I googled his pic. I give him a 9.

 

[ricorico]

Deus,

Read on http://www.researchfellow.net/ftopic14.html

 

[ricorico]

Deus,

If you believe in litmitless potential you sure are not doing anything about it. You remind me of someone who preaches if you believe you can do anything. Yet lives in his parent's basement and delivers neswpapers for a living. Preaching goals, but doing absolutely nothing to get anywhere himself!!!!!

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

NOTORIOUS? Really, now. That's a bold statement. If I am truly notorious for lying, then you'll have no problem pulling up a quote of a single lie that I've told during my tenure here. I'll be waiting.

you make this too easy for me Deus, I didnt even have to leave this thread to find one of your lies:

Women want MONEY. Not looks.

Another example that comes to mind is how you like to resort to deception tactics. ie using a rare minority example of a hot girl with an ugly guy (julia-Lyle) and turn around and try to say ALL hot women are like this and that this is the proof, when the fact is, your example which is the "proof" is actually a rare anomaly, not the norm for hot women. This is called lying, you know, telling things that are not true.

I can come up with many more examples of your lies and deception Deus. Dont make me! *caugh* fake poll you cite that you totally made up *caugh*

First of all, I'm a year older than you. I've been telling you this ever since you first started up with me back on the 80 page looks-matter thread in the Archives, "son."

"son" is kind of one of those figures of speech. It's use has less to do with age, and more to do with superiority. Since Im superior to you in this subject, my usage of it fits well.

Secondly, I'm already done with school.

That may be, BUT YOU ARE CLEARLY SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE!

You are the one who tries to form a conclusion by ignoring masses of evidence, and using only one single peice of evidence that favors your argument. And then you try to say its "proof" as if you are being scientific or something. Tell me, how is this being scientific?

As far as your other looks-matter rantings go, you're wasting your breath on me. I've already told you that I have no desire to respond to a poster than cannot remain civil in a debate, i.e. unable to abstain from speaking in excessively large font in an attempt to compensate for poor communication skills, personal attacks, and a refusal to find middle ground. You're better off using the ":yes:" emoticon when referencing another proponent of the looks-matter cult, or your own views.

oh right, like my usage of large fonts is a good reason not to have a debate with someone.

I got a better explanation why you wont argue with me: its becuase I always point out where and why you are wrong, the flaws in your argument,and you cant handle it!

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Yes, I've been saying this all along. However, body type is also part of appearance since it's easily altered.

Well, the word "appearance" is the word you use to identify that characteristic. Others may label that as "looks". But it is still what it is, just the name has changed. either way, that characteristic is what guys like me call "looks", and they do in fact matter.

There are many characterstics that make up "looks", 'body' happens to be one of them, there are many more. It just so happens that you can change some, and others you cannot change (ie height).

Trying to manipulate terminology will not help your argument that "looks dont matter."

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Stating that women want money is a lie? Not quite. Even if it wasn't true, what women "want" is entirely subjective. Try again.

yeah, women want money, as do all humans. But thats not the part of your statement that was the lie. The lie was the part where you say "not looks". Thats your lie.

I never said "ALL hot women are like this". You weren't paying attention. However, even if I did...that's subjective, once again. The equivalent would be saying that you are lying every time you say that looks matter. Still waiting for a lie.

Yeah, you never explicitly said this, but you implicitly did. It was very clear what you were implying given the context etc., and as we look over your past history of "looks dont matter" posts, it becomes even clearer how strong your view is that "all women dont care about looks". so, actually, yes, thats what you were saying exactly, and it was a bonafide lie!

Lets not forget about that poll youve been lying about. shame on you for trying to use evidence that doesnt even exist :nono:

Are you superior because you are unable to communicate clearly, or because your views are pro-AFC and anti-DJ?

Im superior becuase I know what Im talking about on this subject, you dont.

Not according to my SAT's, ASVAB, and IQ test.

SATs, ASVAB, and IQ tests dont measure scientific literacy. But your argument tactics strongly suggest you are scientifically illiterate.

Now, If those tests did say that you are scientifically LITERATE, then you should have absolutely no problem explaining how your tactic of usaging one or more peices of evidence while ignoring masses of ther RELEVENT evidence is in fact a scientific thing to do. I mean, hey, like you said about all those test you took, youre scientifically literate right? so go ahead and explain yourself, and prove me wrong. explain how your tactic of using only a very very small fraction of all relevent evidence is scientific.

You've got it all wrong. What you consider "masses of evidence", I call standard looks-matter rhetoric. And I've used many pieces of evidence to support our case. You just have been too busy typing "" to pay attention.

really? youve used many more pieces of evidence huh? cool, then you should have no problem posting them in a summary in your response to this. Becuase so far, none of you "looks dont matter" guys have posted anything credible that also CANNOT be explained using a "looks matter" theory.

everything you guys have shown so far either is total crap with no credibility or it can easily be explained using a "looks matter" theory. Evidence isnt strong if it can easily be explained better using the counter arguers position than your own position.

I mean, you guys havent really posted much at all, and you Deus definitely havent posted anything even remotely credible.

But please prove me wrong, give me the links, or provide a summary of your "evidence"!


.

 

[Michele l'Arcangelo]

...mods can close this already... no ones even talking about the xanga thing anymore.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Wrong. Stating that women don't require looks isn't a lie. It's a perspective.

Not occording to all the evidence that rico, myself and others have provided. This evidence outweighs anything your side has provided. But if you feel otherwise about this, please feel free to post the evidence from your side in summary format

No, I didn't. Your desire for me to make an equally outrageous statement to yours in the past trumped the evidence at hand.

yes you did implicitly say that. given the context and by looking at your stance based on your past history of posts, this can be inferred.

Wrong AGAIN??? Man, you're on a roll. I've told you time and time again. I will not go through the effort of honestly debating looks with you until you calm down and act like a man.

Okay, so IF I am wrong, you should have no problem providing me with the source of your poll . I mean, hey, according to you, your poll is real, so whats so hard about posting your source? all you have to do is type out a few words, not hard at all.

Heh. Obviously, you've never taken any of the 3.

yeah, I have. It doesnt include questions about if an example experiment was done scientifically or not, nor does it test you on your ability or understanding of exactly why the scientific method works.

But that doesnt matter. The point is, IF YOU ARE SCIENTIFICALLY LITERATE AS YOU SAY, then you should have no problem explaining how your biased tactic of only using selected evidence that favors your arguement is in fact a scientific thing to do. I mean, hey, if you are scientifically literate as you say, then I must be missing something, so please explain how your tactic is scientific

Right. However, you still remain unable to discuss looks in a calm, level-headed manner free of personal attacks.

thats a bullsh1t excuse you like to use to get out of posting evidence you dont really have.

No, you're just too deep into this looks-matter crap that you are unwilling to accept any evidence to the contrary.

How am I unwilling if Im almost begging you to post your evidence? If I were all in denial as you say, Id avoid having you "present your side". But Im doing the opposite, I want you to post you side see. You guys are the ones who b1tch and whine when we present our side of the argument. You always whine and beg the mods to close threads etc. You are the close minded ones who dont want to see evidence that goes against your side!!!

You are the closed minded ones!!!

 

[wayword]

Appearance Matters!

Well, the word "appearance" is the word you use to identify that characteristic. Others may label that as "looks". But it is still what it is, just the name has changed. either way, that characteristic is what guys like me call "looks", and they do in fact matter.

You know, I think this is actually a really important topic.

A lot of PUAs want to downplay looks so that it doesn't become a SLB and to give hope to everyone. They want to emphasize verbal game instead.

Well, if you believe APPEARANCE matters so little - you are really going to handicap yourself with what I now believe is one of the most crucial pieces of the Game. Your appearance IS what matters primarily upfront.

Now, the good news here is that for girls, your APPEARANCE may be determined more by your STYLE than your actual physical looks. Girls are more apt to be attracted to the "right" clothes, the "right" hair and the "right" style. And a look that really matches, fits, coordinates and showcases your unique "looks" and physique. When girls talk about a hot guy they met - they typically comment on an article of clothing or his hair - as opposed to how we comment on her facial features or body parts.

Yes, your physical looks still matter - but realize that it's only PART of your overall APPEARANCE, and your appearance is also only part of your overall sex appeal, and your sex appeal is only part of your OVERALL appeal.

Point is, you may not be able to change your physical looks. But you will still get radically better results if you simply "dress up to go out" than if you don't. You will get far more EC, IOIs and attraction. It is an even deeper level of subcommunication than NLP. Yo stylo is not even verbal, it is entirely non-verbal - yet says a LOT about your entire persona and status! So, your fashion sense makes an incredibly powerful statement - that can either work FOR or AGAINST you!

 

[KoalaKing]

I guess ROBBIE WILLIAMS is well off, he has both GOOD LOOKS and PERSONALITY plus FAME and MONEY and EVERYTHING ELSE.

 

[ricorico]

You can change your physical appearance through diet and excersice. Just not clothes. men and women are really not so different. A woman can change her looks drastically through diet and excersice and clothes and so can a man. Women will give you much more leaway if you have a fit body and not so great face. Same as we guys give leaway to girls with hot bodies and not so great face. Fact is if you are out of shape and have a not so great face it will be much more difficult to pull off your attractiveness just through clothes and hair. It will help, but don't expect anything above a 7 unless you are rich,she is a single mom, she is desperate to be married and noone else will do it or has major insecurity issues.

I know guys who look decent because they know which clothes to wear. But when we all go swiming or go to the beach we know some girls will make fun of the man boobs or the gut he could easily hide in clothes. You still have to get naked with a girl if you want to have sex and a flabby out of shape guy who may look great in a suit is revealed and can't hide it. So get to a gym if you want prime girls.

Otherwise, if you do get the hot girl, you better believe she will watch everything that goes into your mouth and nag you on your weight and out of shape body. But that will happen after you marry her. She will make your life hell!!!

 

[ricorico]

I guess ROBBIE WILLIAMS is well off, he has both GOOD LOOKS and PERSONALITY plus FAME and MONEY and EVERYTHING ELSE.

Robbie Williams
The Rock "Duane Johnson"
Brad Pitt
Colin Farell
Jude Law
Julian Macman

Guys like that have much more success with women even if they were not rich, than
Chris Rock
Danny DeVito
Wil Farrel
Ben Stiller

 

[wayword]

You can change your physical appearance through diet and excersice. Just not clothes. men and women are really not so different. A woman can change her looks drastically through diet and excersice and clothes and so can a man. Women will give you much more leaway if you have a fit body and not so great face. Same as we guys give leaway to girls with hot bodies and not so great face. Fact is if you are out of shape and have a not so great face it will be much more difficult to pull off your attractiveness just through clothes and hair. It will help, but don't expect anything above a 7 unless you are rich,she is a single mom, she is desperate to be married and noone else will do it or has major insecurity issues.

I know guys who look decent because they know which clothes to wear. But when we all go swiming or go to the beach we know some girls will make fun of the man boobs or the gut he could easily hide in clothes. You still have to get naked with a girl if you want to have sex and a flabby out of shape guy who may look great in a suit is revealed and can't hide it. So get to a gym if you want prime girls.

Well, you can exercise your body, but not really your face.

Let's say you just got really ugly facial features, a blockhead and a giant forehead. Working out isn't going to change that.

That's why some of us can be paid models...and the rest have to get real jobs. However, with proper styling you can maximize whatever you do have. See Style (and what an appropriate name btw - as for him good style did truly trump his below-average looks). After (and ONLY after) his makeover was he able to pull some pretty hot chicks.

A lot of PUAs forget this and focus so much on verbal game - meanwhile ignoring the fact that they dress like mallrat wiggas or boring cubicle nerds, at best.

 

[ricorico]

Style pulls some hot chicks because he writes books about famous people, knows famous people ,now has money a nice car and a nice pad. Here in Hollywood, you can look like a retard and pull girls with that . Nothing special.

Plus he is not really ugly.You see his before pic? It was just bad grooming. Now first off noone goes out with hair like that no matter what, unless you have no mirror! It's an exxageration. No shaving like a homesless guy. He had a good base and really not that much to do to look decent. He was is, has decent facial bone structure. But add his new designer clothes,money,nice car,writer,know famous folks and probably gets invited to good parties,so is this guy really a PUA or is he just getting what most guys in his position can easily get?

His before pic would equate to a chick who does'nt comb her frizzy hair,does'nt pluck her eyebrows and leaves them unruly, has a mustache and does'nt wax and wears a rubber band to hold up her glasses. She would either have to be nuts to think anyone would take her, or be writting a book to give ugly girls hope by exxagerating her ugliness.
If she fixes her looks and gets to be a 6 or a 7, is famous,has money knows famous folks. Is it really that shocking to think she can pull better looking people than she did before????? She had the foundation to begin with.

 

[wayword]

Style pulls some hot chicks because he writes books about famous people, knows famous people ,now has money a nice car and a nice pad. Here in Hollywood, you can look like a retard and pull girls with that . Nothing special.

Plus he is not really ugly.You see his before pic? It was just bad grooming. Now first off noone goes out with hair like that no matter what, unless you have no mirror! It's an exxageration. No shaving like a homesless guy. He had a good base and really not that much to do to look decent. He was is, has decent facial bone structure. But add his new designer clothes,money,nice car,writer,know famous folks and probably gets invited to good parties,so is this guy really a PUA or is he just getting what most guys in his position can easily get?

His before pic would equate to a chick who does'nt comb her frizzy hair,does'nt pluck her eyebrows and leaves them unruly, has a mustache and does'nt wax and wears a rubber band to hold up her glasses. She would either have to be nuts to think anyone would take her, or be writting a book to give ugly girls hope by exxagerating her ugliness.
If she fixes her looks and gets to be a 6 or a 7, is famous,has money knows famous folks. Is it really that shocking to think she can pull better looking people than she did before????? She had the foundation to begin with.

1) Not true. Before he had his makeover, he was still a celeb writer but rarely got laid...
2) AGREED! You see how much grooming and style can maximize your looks and boost your appearance? And before, you think women would look past his bad grooming to say - hey, underneath it all he's actually half-decent-looking? Hell no! You've got to develop your own potential and show it off. And some good grooming and style can go a loonngg way.

 

[ricorico]

1) Not true. Before he had his makeover, he was still a celeb writer but rarely got laid...
2) AGREED! You see how much grooming and style can maximize your looks and boost your appearance? And before, you think women would look past his bad grooming to say - hey, underneath it all he's actually half-decent-looking? Hell no! You've got to develop your own potential and show it off. And some good grooming and style can go a loonngg way.

Of course good grooming and style can take you a long way. As opposed to dirty looking with no style.But I do not beleive Neil (Style) walked around like that in Los Angeles and did'nt get laughed at. I still say he exxagerated that look for the book.
Of course he was not getting laid by girls back then because though he may have been a celeb writer, many girls probably looked past him and did not give him the oppurtunity to talk to them to find out what he did for a living, or thought perhaps he was a bit crazy,druggie or whatever. You can't look like a homeless person and get attention.

If Paris Hilton walked around looking like a bag lady, would she even get dates with guys like that shipping Heir she was engaged to? Or even anybody? Good grooming is essential for anyone and most people have good grooming. So is style. Most guys who work in an office and make money will have good style and good grooming.