Personality is mostly "looks"

[potato]

Read about The Guam Playboy, at Pickupguide-com. He likes to go after tourist women and he does it all with charm and confidence, not looks. He's the "ugliest b@stard on the block" but he can nail a chick in minutes flat.

How does the Kool Aid taste?

 

[Lexington]

I would argue that a woman can be attracted to your looks enough to talk for awhile but was never from the get go attracted enough to close the deal no matter what game/personality.

Talking means nothing. Generally, if you're approaching her in the context of a sexual/romantic frame and escalating, it's pretty obvious as to whether she's receptive to your advances or not. If she ain't sayin' no, then it's a go.

I would also say the minimum attractiveness standard women hold men to is often very high.

The minimum attractiveness standard is determined by a woman's sexual market value.

I've seen guys that had very good personality/game, but were lacking in physical looks. They could carry on conversation with women and get women to like them but the women were not interested in anything sexual.

Carrying on a conversation means nothing. Gay guys will carry on conversations with women for hours. I'm skeptical about these guys' Game. If their Game was indeed "very good", why did they carry on conversations with said women when they weren't interested in anything sexual? That's a rookie mistake. It's usually pretty obvious as to whether a woman is interested in anything sexual.

I don't entirely disagree that a guy has to also convey personality/game to close the deal. But my main point is that game/personality is mostly still superficial looks and appearance.

If the girl is receptive to your advances, then your looks are obviously sufficient to close the deal. Plenty of guys have adequate looks but fvck up in other ways (being too needy, not taking the lead, being too nervous etc.)

Things like body language, facial expressions, non verbals, voice etc are a big part of the perception a female has about a guy's personality/game.

Yes, I think it's commonly agreed that subcommunication is generally more important than verbal content. Body language, eye contact, vocal tonality etc. are an important part of Game.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Talking means nothing. Generally, if you're approaching her in the context of a sexual/romantic frame and escalating, it's pretty obvious as to whether she's receptive to your advances or not. If she ain't sayin' no, then it's a go.

Yes but you can't just walk up to girls and go direct generally, not even in a bar. But still whether she is receptive is based on your looks/appearance.

The minimum attractiveness standard is determined by a woman's sexual market value.

That's just it. HB1-5's can regularly get banged by M6-8. It's not a very good trade off for a guy. A guy who is a 5 might never get any action unless it's and ocasional HB3. A legit M7 might go weeks or months between banging a HB7 or better, so wanting sex more regularly than that outside of an LTR they lower their standards.. I know there are exceptions but this is what I see going on mostly.

Carrying on a conversation means nothing. Gay guys will carry on conversations with women for hours. I'm skeptical about these guys' Game. If their Game was indeed "very good", why did they carry on conversations with said women when they weren't interested in anything sexual? That's a rookie mistake. It's usually pretty obvious as to whether a woman is interested in anything sexual.

That's not what I meant. I mean they could open the hottest girl at the bar at a drop of a hat and get a positive response but she would soon eject. Or they'd be gaming a chick and another guy would draw the girl away. It's had to describe. The personality/game was good but the looks to create sexual attraction weren't there.

If the girl is receptive to your advances, then your looks are obviously sufficient to close the deal. Plenty of guys have adequate looks but fvck up in other ways (being too needy, not taking the lead, being too nervous etc.)

I just don't see it that way in say cold approaches in bars. Mostly the girls just aren't really receptive from the get go. If they really are receptive then it hard to fvck up really. The bar has a lot of obstacles and distractions. It's impossible to close every girl even if she is attracted to you. You do have to talk and carry the conversation usually initially and generally can't just walk up and start making advances without some lead up or flirting first. At least that's not how it works at any places I've been.

Yes, I think it's commonly agreed that subcommunication is generally more important than verbal content. Body language, eye contact, vocal tonality etc. are an important part of Game.

Yes and I think you can improve here but it's probably not easy to do so in positive ways. How you appear and how attractive you are is not entirely under your control. There's practical limits to how much you can improve your appearance. That's not to say that everyone does the improvements that they could though.

 

[Zarky]

Stagger, you're boring us with all your silly "looks is everything" threads. Studies show you're wrong, personal observation shows you're wrong, everything in the history of mankind shows you're wrong.

Women are not only interested in a man's visual appearance. Yes men's visual appearance is of importance in getting laid, but it's certainly not the only important thing and probably not even the most important thing.

Anybody can look around at the world and see that's the case. These threads are about as useful as folks going to an advanced physics forum and arguing that the world is flat. It's a waste of everyone's time.

 

[potato]

Stagger, you're boring us with all your silly "looks is everything" threads. Studies show you're wrong, personal observation shows you're wrong, everything in the history of mankind shows you're wrong.

Women are not only interested in a man's visual appearance. Yes men's visual appearance is of importance in getting laid, but it's certainly not the only important thing and probably not even the most important thing.

Anybody can look around at the world and see that's the case. These threads are about as useful as folks going to an advanced physics forum and arguing that the world is flat. It's a waste of everyone's time.

Actually Zarky, you are the one that is wrong. Your observations must be severely limited for you to be so sure of yourself on this subject. It may be that you are of low enough stature that average women are beautiful to you and your observations are skewed.

For instance, take a look at the gossip magazines. The guys that are dating the so-called “A list” women are all good looking. When is the last time you’ve seen a beautiful star with a butt ugly guy with “game”. Back when I was in high school it was the good looking guys that took dates to the dances while the average looking guys stood on the sidelines wishing they had a girl. Walk down the street of any city and in just about every case the looks of the guy and the looks of the woman are comparable. Listen to women talk about men. The ones they are most excited about are the “cute” ones. Ever see a woman get all giddy over an average guy? No, it is the good looking guys that women squirm and lose their senses over.

Show me one babe magnet that is not good looking.

Carrying on a conversation means nothing. Gay guys will carry on conversations with women for hours. I'm skeptical about these guys' Game. If their Game was indeed "very good", why did they carry on conversations with said women when they weren't interested in anything sexual? That's a rookie mistake. It's usually pretty obvious as to whether a woman is interested in anything sexual.

Do you know anything about women? I mean really. My first impression of you, by your posts, was that you only chased wh*res and this only solidifies that opinion. By taking your attitude I’m sure you never get quality women and certainly none of the really desirable ones. Have fun with that STD.

 

[Lexington]

Yes but you can't just walk up to girls and go direct generally, not even in a bar. But still whether she is receptive is based on your looks/appearance.

You don't walk up and say "Hey! I wanna fvck your brains out" (although I have read field reports of crazy openers like these working). But you can make it quite clear that when you approach a woman to talk about the weather, you're not really interested in talking about the weather.

Most girls know when you're trying to pick them up or get their number and it's fairly simple to gauge their level of interest.

That's just it. HB1-5's can regularly get banged by M6-8. It's not a very good trade off for a guy.

1s are the nastiest of the nasty and only the most desperate of men would even touch them with a 10 foot pole. I do agree that men want sex more than women (owing to higher levels of testosterone among other things), but an M6-8 isn't going to fvck a 1,2 or 3 unless he's on a really bad slump.

5s and maybe 4s could fvck 6-8s occasionally but it will still be a reach for them.

A guy who is a 5 might never get any action unless it's and ocasional HB3.

This is an extremely pessimistic statement and doesn't match at all with my observations. A guy who is a 5 will get action from 4s-6s from social circles alone (without even doing cold approaches and playing the numbers game). This is why most couples tend to be of matching attractiveness.

A legit M7 might go weeks or months between banging a HB7 or better, so wanting sex more regularly than that outside of an LTR they lower their standards.. I know there are exceptions but this is what I see going on mostly.

If a legit M7 can't do 10 approaches and land an HB6-8 for a SNL or Day 2, he must have awful Game. This is what I see going on mostly.

That's not what I meant. I mean they could open the hottest girl at the bar at a drop of a hat and get a positive response but she would soon eject.

Opening means nothing. Most people will be open to conversation so long as you are not rude or awkward. The only purpose of an opener is to open an interaction. If she "soon ejected" this is by definition not a positive response.

Or they'd be gaming a chick and another guy would draw the girl away.

When other guys feel comfortable brushing you aside, that usually means you were failing miserably at gaming that chick.

It's had to describe. The personality/game was good but the looks to create sexual attraction weren't there.

It doesn't sound like their personality/game was good at all.

I just don't see it that way in say cold approaches in bars. Mostly the girls just aren't really receptive from the get go.

What exactly are you saying here? The girls aren't really receptive? To who? Surely they must be receptive to someone. Sure, they are more receptive to the better looking guys but there are only a limited number of really good looking guys to go around. The vast majority of guys fall within a standard deviation of the average.

If they really are receptive then it hard to fvck up really.

One can be insecure, one can be needy, one can prematurely eject, one can be nervous, one can fail to lead, one can fail to advance. There are plenty of ways to fvck up even if the girl is receptive.

The bar has a lot of obstacles and distractions. It's impossible to close every girl even if she is attracted to you.

Agreed. I don't think anyone said it's possible to close every girl.

You do have to talk and carry the conversation usually initially and generally can't just walk up and start making advances without some lead up or flirting first. At least that's not how it works at any places I've been.

Yes you obviously have to start a conversation and initiate flirting. But it should be quite apparent if the girl is receptive or not pretty quickly. If a girl is standing in front of you and talking, that's the only "IOI" you need. You escalate and see if she's receptive. If she's not receptive, she will eject and then you find another girl to approach.

Yes and I think you can improve here but it's probably not easy to do so in positive ways.

I didn't say it was necessarily easy.

How you appear and how attractive you are is not entirely under your control.

I agree.

There's practical limits to how much you can improve your appearance. That's not to say that everyone does the improvements that they could though.

Agreed.

 

[Lexington]

Do you know anything about women? I mean really. My first impression of you, by your posts, was that you only chased wh*res and this only solidifies that opinion. By taking your attitude I’m sure you never get quality women and certainly none of the really desirable ones. Have fun with that STD.

Oh but didn't you read my field report about how I fvcked Kate Upton and Bar Rafaeli? I think they qualify as quality women.

Now woman, go back to the kitchen where you belong!

 

[Stagger Lee]

This. At the core of the whining is just pure entitlement syndrome that they deserve HB9-10 chicks like the Hollywood models they are in love with. This is why when we say "can't you just open your eyes and LOOK at all the average guys pulling hotties" they don't get it; they didn't see a 4/10 male with Gisele lol.

Talk about projection. It's just the opposite. Guys who accept that attraction is mostly about appearance are accepting that it's not generally possible to get really attractive women without having good looks.

It's more like guys without good looks think they are going to pull HB8-10 and celebrities with the right personality. So if anything, it's the personality/game advocates that have an entitlement syndrome and refuse to believe that they are not attractive to very attractive women.

 

[Boilermaker]

Stagger Lee and his deep insecurities ...

Why try to convince the world on a false premise, while you can use this energy on stuff that you can improve?...

I know you're balding and all, but I see lots of uggies with stunning girls, ALL THE TIME.

And I live in a college town where there is no shortage of good looking men, either.

Eh.... Boring.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Stagger Lee and his deep insecurities ...

Why try to convince the world on a false premise, while you can use this energy on stuff that you can improve?...

I know you're balding and all, but I see lots of uggies with stunning girls, ALL THE TIME.

And I live in a college town where there is no shortage of good looking men, either.

Eh.... Boring.

Don't start attacking the messenger just because you don't like the message. You can tell the guys who don't have any looks by how offended and insecure they get when anyone says that looks matter. And I'm not balding or receding, only thinning.

First step to improving is realizing what really needs improved. Which imo is appearance in most cases.

I live in a city that has a very large university too. And no there are not really very many stunning girls with uglies.

What's boring is all this personality, beauty and the beast fairytale stuff in a game/PUA new wrapper. I could get that mainstream or on a forum like Loveshack.

 

[ludis]

A man who feels confident and is charismatic will radiate this through his appearance as well. Personality shows upon appearance on a subliminal level, which is the predominant level females communicate on.

Assuming she's not Miss Vapid of the Year, looks alone can only get you as far as a ONS, or toy boy status, while she mocks you behind your back with her friends.

 

[Stagger Lee]

We are telling guys that you can do well for yourself without great looks because we are talking about real world attainable women and not women off IMDB lol.

And I'm saying the same thing. I'm not talking about just women off IMDB. I've said more than once that most guys are picking up girls at their looks level or mostly slightly below. The difference is regardless of a guys level of physical looks there's still an appearance factor.

A man who feels confident and is charismatic will radiate this through his appearance as well. Personality shows upon appearance on a subliminal level, which is the predominant level females communicate on.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Let's say a female was shown just a picture of a male. She likely might say he's not attractive enough. But if she was shown a short video clip of him delivering a script she might say he's interesting/attractive. Or vice versa depending on how well he delivered the same script. She would say it's "personality" and a guy might call it "game". But I'd say she is just making a perception of appearance.

 

[Zarky]

Don't start attacking the messenger just because you don't like the message.

LOL there is no message. It's you and your cronies going around throwing out generalizations that are meaningless.

I think I'm going to spam a bunch of boards saying that nothing matters but the size of your d*ck. I'm sure I could cherry-pick some examples that would support that.

Or I could say it's nothing more than how rich you are. Or nothing more than how tall you are. Or nothing more than how expensive your shoes are. I could back all those assertions up with some form of evidence. Which would be more than what the "looks are everything" nutbags are providing.

Really dumb. Any time some douche says "[X] is all that matters," I'll bet dollars to donuts that the guy doesn't have that trait, isn't successful with women, and instead of improving himself just wants to use the lack of that trait as an excuse and wallow in self-pity.

And then these loons come to the internets and post their sad little tales, masquerading as great truths. It's funny but sad.

Provide some evidence that looks are everything.

 

[Stagger Lee]

LOL there is no message. It's you and your cronies going around throwing out generalizations that are meaningless.

I think I'm going to spam a bunch of boards saying that nothing matters but the size of your d*ck. I'm sure I could cherry-pick some examples that would support that.

Or I could say it's nothing more than how rich you are. Or nothing more than how tall you are. Or nothing more than how expensive your shoes are. I could back all those assertions up with some form of evidence. Which would be more than what the "looks are everything" nutbags are providing.

Really dumb. Any time some douche says "[X] is all that matters," I'll bet dollars to donuts that the guy doesn't have that trait, isn't successful with women, and instead of improving himself just wants to use the lack of that trait as an excuse and wallow in self-pity.

And then these loons come to the internets and post their sad little tales, masquerading as great truths. It's funny but sad.

Provide some evidence that looks are everything.

Man you have something wrong with you. I never said looks are everything. I said visual appearance is what fundamentally triggers female attraction, so it's the most important thing. There's a boat load of studies about male attractiveness and mate selection. Do a google search. I posted the OKcupid study in the other thread, which you ignored.

It's common sense that after approaching attraction happens very fast or not at all, if you ever did any approaches.

You have no real point besides being an annoying jacka55. I think you are just salty because you boink only ugly, low quality girls from online. You don't like it that someone says that all you need is a good enough appearance to attract much better women. But in your case, you might have personality issues too.

 

[Jitterbug]

You seem convinced 100%. So what are you doing to make yourself prettier, Stagger Lee? You can lift weights and take special vitamins for a great physique. You can get plastic surgery - it's very affordable now, just look at the Koreans for example.

Why are you arguing here so much with people who obviously do not share your view at all? This has gone beyond a simple debate of differing points of view. If for some reason, we all agree that you are absolutely right about that, does it make you happier and more successful with women?

 

[zekko]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Let's say a female was shown just a picture of a male. She likely might say he's not attractive enough. But if she was shown a short video clip of him delivering a script she might say he's interesting/attractive. Or vice versa depending on how well he delivered the same script. She would say it's "personality" and a guy might call it "game". But I'd say she is just making a perception of appearance.

Sounds like you are talking about mannerisms here. I suppose you can develop more attractive mannerisms. One thing I've done as I've gotten older is become a little more animated, especially in my facial expressions. I've always tended to be a little too stoic though, so that may be why this has been an improvement for me. Maybe some guys would benefit from toning it down.

Then there's the classic case of a pretty girl with a mannerism and it seems cute. But if a fatty ug does the same mannerism it's repuslive lol.

You seem convinced 100%. So what are you doing to make yourself prettier, Stagger Lee? You can lift weights and take special vitamins for a great physique. You can get plastic surgery - it's very affordable now, just look at the Koreans for example

There are so many cases of plastic surgery I've seen that just look hideous. It often looks fake and unnatural. I'm sure there are well done cases that I probably don't even notice, but I'm not sure what percentage that would be. In any case, I'm not convinced that plastic surgery is an effective way to improve your looks - seems like a roll of the dice at best.

I don't believe that looks are all that matter. But the correlation between looks and attraction is hard to dismiss. Studies show that people of similar looks level tend to couple up. And then there's the old saying that a woman knows if she would sleep with you within the first five seconds of meeting you. I don't know if that is true or not, but that certainly points to a strong physical component to attraction.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Sounds like you are talking about mannerisms here. I suppose you can develop more attractive mannerisms. One thing I've done as I've gotten older is become a little more animated, especially in my facial expressions. I've always tended to be a little too stoic though, so that may be why this has been an improvement for me. Maybe some guys would benefit from toning it down.

Then there's the classic case of a pretty girl with a mannerism and it seems cute. But if a fatty ug does the same mannerism it's repuslive lol.

Yeah. I think some guys are physically good looking enough and have enough "game" to get better results than they do, but their mannerisms are not particularly attractive.

Here's a couple link I found explaining something similiar,

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201207/mens-nonverbals-increase-women-s-attractiveness

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201106/beauty-is-more-skin-deep-the-different-types-attractiveness

There are so many cases of plastic surgery I've seen that just look hideous. It often looks fake and unnatural. I'm sure there are well done cases that I probably don't even notice, but I'm not sure what percentage that would be. In any case, I'm not convinced that plastic surgery is an effective way to improve your looks - seems like a roll of the dice at best.

I don't believe that looks are all that matter. But the correlation between looks and attraction is hard to dismiss. Studies show that people of similar looks level tend to couple up. And then there's the old saying that a woman knows if she would sleep with you within the first five seconds of meeting you. I don't know if that is true or not, but that certainly points to a strong physical component to attraction.

I see it that way too regarding plastic surgery, and also couples generally matching in attractiveness. PS is not something I would suggest and it's not going to fix mannerisms which is the main point I was making. For short-term hook ups though women tend to be able to date up and men are willing to date down.

 

[zekko]

Yeah. I think some guys are physically good looking enough and have enough "game" to get better results than they do, but their mannerisms are not particularly attractive.

Here's a couple link I found explaining something similiar.

Interesting links. Attractive people tend to be treated a certain way, and they come to expect it. This expectation is reflected in their nonverbal behaviors, which in turn makes them even more attractive. Tyler from RSD calls these "sub-communications".

Some people say that the reason people of the same looks level tend to get together is that they are more confident (because of the way they've been treated). And that their partners are actually attracted to the confidence, not the looks. Yet even if this is true, the effect is the same. In fact, it gets to be kind of like a snowball rolling downhill: The better looking you are, the more confidence you pick up, which makes you more attractive, which makes you more confident, etc.

Your other link also points out that being emotionally expressive is considered attractive and charismatic. This relates to how I've tried to become more animated in my facial expressions, which I believe has made me more attractive. And they don't have to be positive expressions either, I often scowl or frown, for example. Whereas when I was younger I used to try to keep a poker face more.

And the way people move does affect the way they look. Like when you see a picture of a girl, and then meet her in person and she looks completely different.

They used to have something called charm schools for girls, where they would learn table etiquette and to walk with grace, etc. I recently saw a woman walking splay footed (with her toes pointed out), and it struck me as being rather unattractice.

For short-term hook ups though women tend to be able to date up and men are willing to date down.

I actually have always thought that it is easier for men to date up in the short term than in the long term. I've been able to date a few HB9s for short periods, but there's no way I could have hung onto them indefinitely. They had too many options, and were intent on exploring them.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Some people say that the reason people of the same looks level tend to get together is that they are more confident (because of the way they've been treated). And that their partners are actually attracted to the confidence, not the looks. Yet even if this is true, the effect is the same. In fact, it gets to be kind of like a snowball rolling downhill: The better looking you are, the more confidence you pick up, which makes you more attractive, which makes you more confident, etc.

There's definitely a positive or negative feedback reinforcer depending on your looks and appearance that increases or decreases one's confidence. And how is confidence conveyed and perceived? Again I would say it is mostly non-verbal/body language visual cues. Confidence is really a lot about the lack of non-confident appearance cues-nervousness, tension etc.

Your other link also points out that being emotionally expressive is considered attractive and charismatic. This relates to how I've tried to become more animated in my facial expressions, which I believe has made me more attractive. And they don't have to be positive expressions either, I often scowl or frown, for example. Whereas when I was younger I used to try to keep a poker face more.

I agree, emotional expressiveness is not about being overly expressive and smiley. It can be subtle and even a scowl or a frown. It depends on the context and congruency with the conversation. So it's hard to say just what expressiveness a given person needs to use. But generally I think a poker face or nervous/unconfident expression is not good for attracting women.

With a poker face women can't "read" or feel you and it doesn't have a pleasant affect and is often intimidating. I think women can be bored with conversations if there's not enough expressiveness. I have had a problem with being poker faced and it can really intimidate young women on approach.

No one, not women either, can read anyone's mind. What you say is only half the battle probably less, the rest is nonverbal communication. There's a term in psychology called "affect". Others read and respond to your affect. All this stuff about confidence, "inner-game" etc to me is mostly bogus. All women can do is make a perception of your mood/emotion based off what they mostly visually see.

The problem with trying to improve your expressions and nonverbal is by consciously thinking about it and not really knowing just what needs improvement, any changes you make can be worse. Sometimes not thinking about it and just expressing yourself naturally is best lol.

 

[Lexington]

The reason Inner Game is preached so much because it has an effect on your affect. Your mental state influences your facial expressions, your mannerisms and your body language. If you feel anxious and depressed it will almost certainly manifest in your body language. On the other hand, if you are genuinely in a positive frame of mind, your body language will improve.

Rather than robotically trying to imitate the body language of an upbeat, confident person, it's better to be that upbeat and positive person; the body language/mannerisms etc. will follow automatically. Of course, it doesn't hurt to study your body language, facial expressions etc. and to make a conscious effort to improve these things. Actors do these things.