The inverse relationship between looks and character

[SoCalMike]

Wow, potato actually said something that makes sense!



I don't know what bars or restaurants you guys are going to, but the places I have been the hottie bartenders smile at me and get me my drinks and go about their business. I was at a bar last night that has some of the hottest bartenders you will ever see. I'm talking Playboy material, some of them. No problems whatsoever.

You see her as uber hot and automatically assume it's her looks that causes her attitude. I think you might be imagining things. These women make their living off their looks and attitude. You got a bad apple.

As far as a normal chick being standoffish when you aren't even hitting on them....it happened to me a few weeks ago in a bar. There was a tall, decent looking chick standing next to me facing a couple of douchebag looking guys who were wearing t-shirts that said something really odd and kinda gay. Don't remember what the shirts said, but I was curious so I impulsively turned to this chick and asked her if she knew what it meant.

You would think I was trying to chat up Angelina Jolie when she was on the rag and suffering from the flu or something. As I was talking, she started turning to face the opposite direction, wouldn't even look me in the eye and just kind of shrugged her shoulders with a blank look on her face.

B!tch, or b!tch shield? Who knows. Was her attitude called for, considering I was only asking her a question? I don't think it was, but oh well...whatever. Thing is, I'm sure she thought I WAS trying to pick her up, and she probably wasn't physically attracted to me. I'm not ugly, but I know not every chick is gonna dig me, so whatever.

The argument is not "all hot chicks are *****y and stuck up". The argument is it is MORE COMMON behaviour from the 9's/10's vs 6's/7's/8's. I believe I am now repeating myself.

 

[SoCalMike]

I disagree completely. I think people are rarely themselves, all people put up some sort of 'front' to hide their true character. In short, you may never get to see if her character is good/bad/whatever because you never got through her "b1tch shield" even though you tried all the tricks.

You think people are rarely themselves? Wow... just wow. I'm glad I don't think or act this way.

I have heard super hot girls actually say out loud: "I'm everyones type, they're just not mine" Now, pretty much every guy would say that is indicative of poor character, right? I would defer to say it is not. Some people are truly mean on the inside and the fact that they choose to show their true self without hiding behind some socially acceptable "character" makes them more attractive to me.

And here you have it folks, the reason women can act like bvtches and get away with it. Some dude will think it's hot and try harder. LOL

You can have the b*tchy women... but I think after a while even you will tire of it when she lies, disprespects you in public, etc

Reminds me of the chump I saw at the bar the other night. Dude was a scrawny emo kid but he had a fairly hot g/f. He was obediently following her out the bar into the parking lot as she was throwing a hissy fit... he kept saying "what's wrong?" over and over. What's wrong is the b*tch needs to be dumped...

 

[Colossus]

Because it's the right goddamn thing to do.

Don't let people off so easily.

I was making an illustration regarding women and their behavior. There is often a lack of social justice when a gorgeous woman exhibits crap behavior. As Desdinova once coined, it's akin to rewarding your dog for sh!tting on the carpet.

 

[Duffdog]

You can have the b*tchy women... but I think after a while even you will tire of it when she lies, disprespects you in public, etc

Thanks, they are my favorite. The second part, where she 'disrespects me in public' does not happen because I am not a chump. If I were a chump, then I could understand where you are coming from because she would be walking all over me, which she is not. To me, theres nothing more comforting than knowing that you can leave your girl by herself in a packed club surrounded by 50 guys and not have to worry about any guy picking her up...because they can't. She is way too mean and dismissive to let anyone in, except when she isn't in the club, when she is fun and cute (but still kind of *****y honestly). I have dated a girl like this long term--we had no trust issues whatsoever, it was kind of nice.

So yeah, I believe that the default response of people is to be fake. But which would you rather have? A girl who is truly a ***** trying to being nice or a ***** who doesn't hide it at all? I would take the hot ***** that lets everything out because thats who I get along with. Again, I don't believe that there are any girls who think about pink clouds and bunnies all day long, they are either a ***** out loud or in secret. If there are these subservient, obedient, nice girls somewhere-- I don't want one, you can have all of those.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

To somehow claim that social "filtering" by acting poorly, snubbing men, speaking in an insulting way is excusable is absurd. It may be common and it may be almost tolerated (expecially by you guys in NTh Aterica) but it is still "being a b!tch"... A woman's behavior in ANY circumstance will still give you a clear grasp of her character, or lack of it . The circumstances surrounding "b!tch" behavior are irrelevant. What matters matters is how she conducts herself in a general sense under ANY social setting, not just when conditions suit her enough to be pleasant..

Excusing the "b!tch shield " is purely just making excuses for awful behavior..

By this logic then, any woman ready to accommodate a guy and spread her legs at a moments notice is of the highest personal character. Who knew your ƒuck buddies could be so hospitable?

 

[Vulpine]

By this logic then, any woman ready to accommodate a guy and spread her legs at a moments notice is of the highest personal character. Who knew your ƒuck buddies could be so hospitable?

Have you been sneaking MDMA into your Wheaties, RT?

We're talking about "acceptable behavior", meaning "civil" or "appropriate", not "reaching into a guy's pants and giving him a hand job just because he asked her for the time".

On the bitçh-o-meter...

( SUBSERVIENT..........|.CIVIL............BlTCH )

...I think ideally the needle should fall just left of CIVIL.

What we are discussing here is the tendency for the hot women to "redline" the bit¢h-o-meter:

( SUBSERVIENT...........CIVIL............BlTCH /)

I think your example is stretching it just a bit...

( SUBSER\VIENT...........CIVIL............BlTCH )

The logic is that the needle should start on "civil", not "subservient".

 

[Colossus]

Lol, nice Vulpine. :crackup:

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

And I'm saying a b!tch shield is every bit a well learned mechanism as a neg hit is for a skilled PUA. It would be nice if we could all be civil and mutually respectful, but that would be wishing things were easier.

Is a Man of lesser character if he uses C&F or Negs?

 

[Vulpine]

Is a Man of lesser character if he uses C&F or Negs?

For ****y & Funny not really, for negs, possibly. C&F is more of an internal (****y?) thing for a guy, not as much "outward", or confrontational, as a Neg is. C&F is like "joking around about how awesome you are", so it's (if done correctly) non-confrontational, or at least, non-offensive... it's supposed to be funny.

It could mean a man is of lesser character if he crosses over from civil to the A-hole on the d¡ck-o-scope, sure. If he was OUTWARDLY a d¡ck, yes, definitely. It depends on the intent and delivery.

Let me give an example. Last night, a chick asked me if I "liked the red". She was asking my opinion on her new highlights.

Now, I could have said "it sucks, cünt, buzz off", or, "it looks like sh¡t, b¡tch", perhaps even "you look like a dyke" right off the bat and attacked her. That, of course, would be a d¡ck move and spike the meter. That sort of response wouldn't have been appropriate for the situation.

( SUPPLICANT..........CIVIL..........DlCK /)

Or, I could have said "I love it, it looks great! I want to marry your hair!" regardless of my actual opinion. Then, the d¡ck-o-scope would have been pegged on supplicant.

( \SUPPLICANT..........CIVIL..........DlCK )

Instead, I tilted my head, looked, and said nothing, after a while I grimaced a little and released it. At which point she went on to point out that "it's kind of hiding under here, see?" *starts messing with her hair*

V: "Yeah, I like that it's subtle, but... *pause for grimace* ...with the other highlights you've got, I think it's getting a little 'too busy'."

Was it a neg? Yeah, but it wasn't intended to be malicious. I wasn't trying to neg her, either. I was just giving honest feedback (those are the best negs, IMO), I wasn't forcing anything. And, I delivered the feedback with civility and respect.

So, you could imagine the d¡ck-o-scope wavered right around in the middle, right around "civil".

( SUPPLICANT..........CIVILl..........DlCK )

I nearly mentioned that there isn't really a double-standard in this. Men and women could both stand to be more conscientious of how they treat each other. I appreciate your point, RT. Ultimately, I think the "b¡tch sheild" device can be, and is, employed without the woman actually being a b¡tch. Fuglies use the b¡tch shield, too.

 

[ketostix]

And I'm saying a b!tch shield is every bit a well learned mechanism as a neg hit is for a skilled PUA. It would be nice if we could all be civil and mutually respectful, but that would be wishing things were easier.

Is a Man of lesser character if he uses C&F or Negs?

This is a good point. The argument that less attractive women have to to try harder is no guarantee that what they're doing is of high character. Think more manipulative. Maybe this thread should've been titled "The Inverse relationship between looks and ease to PU", then I could agree with it. Even A 5-8 will give a b!tchsheild to a guy she's not interested in. It's just hard to find a guy she doesn't have a tentative interest in. Same thing with dating, a 5-8 can give you as much and usually more grief than 9+ if she isn't interested enough.

Now the argument is getting changed from character to civility and respect. But what good is that if it's just a facade. A HB6 might act more civil and respectful, but she might also be cheating, lying, and talking crap about you behind your back to other people. Civility and respect is nice, but it doesn't mean good character per se. Besides I've run into hot girls that were civil and I've ran into UG's that were uncivil and disrespectful.

I think the bottom line is it's easier to get attraction with a less attractive girl.

 

[jophil28]

Have you been sneaking MDMA into your Wheaties, RT?

We're talking about "acceptable behavior", meaning "civil" or "appropriate", not "reaching into a guy's pants and giving him a hand job just because he asked her for the time".

On the bitçh-o-meter...

( SUBSERVIENT..........|.CIVIL............BlTCH )

...I think ideally the needle should fall just left of CIVIL.

What we are discussing here is the tendency for the hot women to "redline" the bit¢h-o-meter:

( SUBSERVIENT...........CIVIL............BlTCH /)

I think your example is stretching it just a bit...

( SUBSER\VIENT...........CIVIL............BlTCH )

The logic is that the needle should start on "civil", not "subservient".

RT can get his panties in a twist when anyone expresses a contrary view to his golden wisdom.

Women who do not welcome a man's advances have other options available to them than to act " baitchy" toward him. A polite refusal of his offer to buy her a drink, or a "no thank you " in reply to his offer to go with him to sit on the balcony.
Perhaps, " I have a great boyfriend " would be fine in response to a request for her phone number.

Thr "b!tch shield " is a hostile, arrogant device deliberately aimed at belittling a man who has found the courage to approach a hot woman.He has paid her a compliment by approaching her and in so doing acknowledges her attractiveness as well, HE is not deserving of a humiliating response. IT is socially poor, and totally uneccessary, and it is a CHOICE. As my old English grandma would say when referring to such a woman's behavior in public, " She is a such a 'common' woman...she shows bad breeding. " Ha, you got to love the Brits.

Hot women have alternative responses available to them. " Quality" women choose those options.

 

[jophil28]

Now the argument is getting changed from character to civility and respect.
.

Civility are respect IS a manifestation of a person's character. Plain and Simple.

" Character", as we are debating it here, cannot exist without civility and respect.

 

[ketostix]

Civility are respect IS a manifestation of a person's character. Plain and Simple.

" Character", as we are debating it here, cannot exist without civility and respect.

I agree civilty and respect is part of character, but just one part. If the only reason a person is being civil and respectful is for an ulterior motive then of itself it's not worth much. I learned long ago from dealing with people at church that civility and respect is not only not worth much but can be deceptive facade to hide a real lack of character, a wolf in sheep's clothing basically.

I agree that a woman who puts up a b1tchshield to a guy that hasn't done anything but said hello just because she's not interested is not good. But there are worse character issues than b1tchshields. And to be honest, I haven't really seen hot girls put up more b1tchshield on the initial approach, maybe if a guy keeps pursuing her. What's far worse than a b1tchshield though is a girl who will lead a guy on and these tend to be 6-8's.

 

[STR8UP]

Thr "b!tch shield " is a hostile, arrogant device deliberately aimed at belittling a man who has found the courage to approach a hot woman.

Absolutely false.

He has paid her a compliment by approaching her and in so doing acknowledges her attractiveness as well, HE is not deserving of a humiliating response.

Absolutely true.

But there is a difference between a humiliating response and a cold response, which is really what happens 95% of the time when the chick isn't interested.

 

[poster_guy03]

This, in my opinion (note: opinion) is classic SS thread. It's a cool debate, but there is certainly is no clear cut basis in fact identified. Don't misread me, the debate stimulates many of us to think more critically about the subject at hand.

It's not that we don't have factual experiences to draw on, it's that we make the leap from our own personal experiences (anecdotal) to statements that indicate that our beliefs and experiences are the "truth" (subjective as it may be). In other words, most of the statements here are expressions of opinion rather than applications of proven theory. And we all know opinions are like a**holes, we all have them, me included.

So much of pop psych literature that we read is, in my view, not grounded in research. I wonder how many social psychologists actually visit this board, either as lurkers or contributors? They would get tons of ideas to research.

It strikes me that if one pursued an academic career in social psychology one may be able to focus their research on the male/female interactions we debate here and deliver something backed by research (as RT frequently delivers). I wonder if one could then parlay that research into some serious money by publishing "how to's" backed by proven theory? Where's that book RT?

If you know some serious researchers who have explored and published on the relationship between "looks" and character/behavior development please point me in the direction of their works. Similar to, for example, interpersonal attraction theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_attraction#References

For now, let's get back to the discussion......

 

[Colossus]

This, in my opinion (note: opinion) is classic SS thread. It's a cool debate, but there is certainly is no clear cut basis in fact identified. Don't misread me, the debate stimulates many of us to think more critically about the subject at hand.

It's not that we don't have factual experiences to draw on, it's that we make the leap from our own personal experiences (anecdotal) to statements that indicate that our beliefs and experiences are the "truth" (subjective as it may be). In other words, most of the statements here are expressions of opinion rather than applications of proven theory. And we all know opinions are like a**holes, we all have them, me included.

So much of pop psych literature that we read is, in my view, not grounded in research. I wonder how many social psychologists actually visit this board, either as lurkers or contributors? They would get tons of ideas to research.

It strikes me that if one pursued an academic career in social psychology one may be able to focus their research on the male/female interactions we debate here and deliver something backed by research (as RT frequently delivers). I wonder if one could then parlay that research into some serious money by publishing "how to's" backed by proven theory? Where's that book RT?

If you know some serious researchers who have explored and published on the relationship between "looks" and character/behavior development please point me in the direction of their works. Similar to, for example, interpersonal attraction theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_attraction#References

For now, let's get back to the discussion......

Great take.

I always try to make the disclaimer that what I say is my opinion, based on my own experiences; unless I am citing some empirical proof.

The cool thing about this board is that we can share and debate our own theories and experiences without necessarily having to back it up...sort of like a testing ground.

The UNcool thing about this board is often the same: opinions and anecdotes often become accepted as truth because of someone's own persuasive ability, or because by relating to a common experience you can convince yourself that it's just "the way it is", without a critical examination.

The MM forum is unique in that we discuss things on more of a philosophical/academic level, or at least have more of an inclination to do so. It's really a separate forum IMO.

 

[STR8UP]

So glad we are all (including Rollo) in agreement that Quality is not a myth.

It is not a myth in the sense that it is impossible to find a woman who is happy with you and you with her, who will conduct herself with honor and integrity.

It IS a myth in the sense that you can't make this a black and white, cut and dry thing, which a lot of guys try to do. It's a sliding scale that most women fall close to the center of. In other words, very few women are worthless, lying, cheating b!tches, and even fewer are absolutely pure ANGELS....ALL women are human, and are subject to emotional influences even moreso than men, which makes them susceptible to "slipping up", for which they have a mechanism that allows them to justify all sorts of behavior.

 

[Papillon]

He speaks the truth. I've dated all around the world and American women are generally the worst. European women lack the entitlement attitude and you'll rarely encounter a "b1tch shield" overseas. Women outside the US are just warm and open to conversation virtually anywhere you go.

Ok guys.My first real post after my introduction I made this morning.
A quick remark then I will move on with my inopt on looks/character relationship.
I have to disagree here.I am born in Esatern Europe, lived 8 years in the US and now returned in Eastern Europe.I noticed there is assumption that European women lack the entitlement attitude that American women have.
That is not true in my opinion. European women might "seem" approacheable however status/wealth plays a more important factor with them than with American women. Unless you have that or you are within her social circle your chances are lower to progress with her than with an American woman.
Keep that in mind when considering dating a European woman in general (Eastern European in particular). Wealth/status matters!!! They are more traditional and will expect you to provide in a way or another for her (even for a short run).Eastern Europeans will not spread their legs unless they know you well enough or you show status/wealth while Americans will.
Eastern Europeans are more materialistic (well disguised under false traditionalism) than Americans period!
Now looks and character. The inverse relationship is obvious here for most of the cases.Howevevr I have to say that this is caused by some sort of Social Darwinism. Hot women do not NEED to be nice.They will get many things they want by just looking hot.The average or ugly ones NEED to be nicer ot APPEAR NICER in order to sell themseves.Notice my capitals. APPEAR NICER. Very import here. Many not-so-hot women false advertise their true character because they NEED to. Otherwise who would be interested in them?
I belive the most women (hot ot not sot) are not GENUINELY nice unless they want something in return (remember women were gatherers/keepers back in caveman times. Gatherers or keepers of the food! That means more egotistical than not)
My advice is simple.Always go for the hot ones.If she seems nice is because she maybe be indeed nice.She does not need to fake it.There is always another chump behind you ready to kiss her ass. Be aware of the "niceness" of average or ugly ones.It may be as well "false advertising" and by the time you are "hooked" in a LTR or marriage she may reveal her true colors. Always stay alert for red flags.

 

[reset]

Although men and women are fundamentally different, I think we have to see that by simply being human beings we have the potential to have some similarities. People are not static. People change. And usually, it's result of pain.

But, by the same token, we are discussing "values" from a male standpoint. We are expecting women to look at these issues the way a man would. That doesn't make sense either.

 

[reset]

dupe