The X factor

[ketostix]

This post was inspired in part by posts relating a story of the poster knowing a guy who has no discernable advantage to the poster, e.g., height, looks, "game", etc doing much better at attracting women. The other guy might actually be at a disadvantage in almost every noticable way, e.g, in height, fitness, style, game etc but still have much better success with women. And to also get to the nitty gritty of what really causes attraction to happen/causes atraction to not happen.

Attraction opens the door and is basically essential to getting compliance from girls and for getting anything you want from them. We can't say attraction is random and totally subjective because we all know that some guys have much more success constantly with women and the opposite is true for another guy know matter how hard he tries or what way he tries to go about attracting females. If attraction was random and totally subjective then one guy wouldn't constantly have more success than another would.


To say well attraction is dependent on looks and personality is too broad and nondescriptive, as is to just run down the list of every quality a guy could have that should attract women. Because we all know guys who are lacking in many of those areas and still do better than a guy who is lacking in few if any of those qualities.

Now that I've set the stage for my argument, I want to try to come to the realization of what factor is the fundamental factor that causes attraction or lacking it causes attraction to be very hard to get. Most people conclude it's confidence, but confidence is so subjectively interpreted. I would argue that this X-factor is either having at least above average facial symmetry or having good facial expressions. Maybe both are required, for example, at least slightly above average facial symmetry plus good facial expressiveness. But the issue is neither are easily to conscously realize or change for the guy. It's something a woman notices almost subconcously and responds to basically emotionally.

Let me give you a good example. What are people interested and like? They like actors. Actors tend to be very symetrical or photogenic and they are very expressive. Their expression communicate moods very clearly. Even if you turn the sound off you can still see the appeal. At one time movies were even silent yet still entertaining.

This also goes to idea in NLP that the other person models and feels emotions based on nonverbal cues and body language. And the rule of thumb that communication is 80% nonverbal. And the, "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." Now I know none of this is exactly new but the idea that attraction is mostly due to having "good" facial expression and facial symmetry I think is. And the idea that nothing you say or do nor any game will overcome a lacking in these areas.

I know there's more to attracting and closing girls but I think this is the necessary foundation that is needed. I think anyone who is having trouble with pick up needs to basically learn how to be expressive like a good actor. I realize there's not much you can do about facial symmetry however.

 

[ketostix]

No one has any feedback? I think I've made a pretty good case, and if my hypothesis is true then improving one's "x-factor" could be the holy grail to attracting more women. What, is no one really interested in attracting women here lol?

 

[Microphone Fiend]

No one has any feedback? I think I've made a pretty good case, and if my hypothesis is true then improving one's "x-factor" could be the holy grail to attracting more women. What, is no one really interested in attracting women here lol?

No i think you made a terrible case. You still try and correlate seduction to looks even though you seem to try and denounce other aesthetic qualities in your opening paragraph. Facial symmetry is correlated to beauty in the humans but it is not the X factor you speak of.

It comes down to your ability to seduce, plain and simple.

 

[ketostix]

It comes down to your ability to seduce, plain and simple.

So attraction is just dependent on words and it doesn't matter how you express them? Ability to seduce is just saying what, it doesn't say how or why.

 

[Microphone Fiend]

So attraction is just dependent on words and it doesn't matter how you express them? Ability to seduce is just saying what, it doesn't say how or why.

It matters how you express them in relation to emotion, but not in relation to your attractiveness. Sure things can probably be easier if you look like Brad Pitt, but as it has been said a billion times before, "Looks only get your foot in the door"

I guess it comes down to what you are gunning for. Attraction is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of Mid/Long Term relationships. If you are looking for a decent chick to stand next to at the bar than attraction is cool. If the chick is drunk out of her mind or in heat than attraction is cool. However, imo if, you are trying to take a sober chick home and you can't hold a conversation, attraction isn't enough. If she is the kind of girl who thinks that you should be in love before you have sex, attraction isn't enough. If she is not really really attracted, then attraction isn't enough.

What happens if you aren't the most attractive person in the room? Do you lose by default? Do you have no control over who you sleep with because of how you look?

Also, I don't want to say it is impossible to get in a relationship off of something as meaningless as looks or money, I'm definitely not one to knock you for trying it. But in the world of seduction it would really be LITTLE challenge for someone to come in there and make your girl FEEL a connection like she has never felt before and like the two of them are destined to be together or whatever sh!t they pump her with and next thing you know, this LESS attractive guy has your girl. Then what of your hypothesis?

 

[Luke Skywalker]

I think attraction is more a function of controlling the frame and vibes you are giving off. The vibes you give off are your signature that people respond to subconciously. So it's possible an ugly person with no skill, but gives off some positive and sexual vibes may still be more successful than a confident good-looking guy that gives of some sort of creepy or brotherly vibe.

 

[wolf116]

Facial symmetry is just another showing sign of good genetics. The X factor is great genetics.

 

[ThunderMaverick]

What happens if you aren't the most attractive person in the room? Do you lose by default?

In a nutshell? Yes.

Do you have no control over who you sleep with because of how you look?

Bigger better deal comes into play. I'll explain (taken from my reply in the MM forum...)

The question you should be asking is what are we looking for in a woman?

A ONS? - Mutual sexual attraction comes into play here. Cannot be denied.

A month or so fling? - Sexual attraction is also very important here.


A dating situation? - Security comes into play more here I think.

A LTR? - Eeh. To be honest through my experience it can go either way. Some girls aren't dumb enough to be with a guy just because he can provide security. It won't last long if she doesn't have sexual desire for him. At the same time if he's sexing her good but is slowly starting to see that's all he can offer, it'll end sooner rather than later.


Attractive women want attractive men. And if those men aren't attractive then he'd better be one hell of a lover.

Tom Leykis looks like an ugly version of Larry Flint without the wheelchair, but best believes he knows what holes to kiss.


Women want smart, attractive men. Don't get me wrong, they have their preferences though. I've ask some girls what attracted them to me and many told me "because you're dark". I could stand a better chance with these girls instead of a white guy BECAUSE of a woman's personal preference. Sometimes a guy will be nice and funny, but there's no genuine attraction towards him. Of course he could game her and probably get her, but if i were in the same room she would be looking at ME before she looks at the other guy. Looks always get a foot in the door.

The X factor just might be a woman's preference.

Also, I don't want to say it is impossible to get in a relationship off of something as meaningless as looks or money...

It's a big mistake to underestimate those two. You like to have sex with women you don't find attractive? Women feel the same way.

I also posted: I don't approach a woman that I'm attracted to if she's not as attracted to me or more. Don't get me wrong, I've laid women that I've set my sights on, but if they weren't mutually attracted to me it became an uphill battle and I had to WORK to build that attraction. I could do it, but I don't like working for something like that. Lawlz.

I have no problem laying a girl I'm attracted to and is just as attracted to me. I find more harmony in that then just MAKING attraction.

I'm lazy. What can I say?

in the world of seduction it would really be LITTLE challenge for someone to come in there and make your girl FEEL a connection like she has never felt before and like the two of them are destined to be together or whatever sh!t they pump her with and next thing you know, this LESS attractive guy has your girl. Then what of your hypothesis?

Depends on what you're talking about. A LTR where he can provide security and sexual satisfaction? A ONS where looks come into play? If a girl saw two men, both providing equally the same things (security, humor, intellectual stimulation) but one guy was ugly and one guy was cute, who do you think she'd pick?

Or how about this! Same above scenario and BOTH guys are equally as good looking. One guy is black and the other is white. Who do you think she'd pick?

I don't know. It's up to her PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

 

[ketostix]

It matters how you express them in relation to emotion, but not in relation to your attractiveness. Sure things can probably be easier if you look like Brad Pitt, but as it has been said a billion times before, "Looks only get your foot in the door"

OK I eliminated all looks factors except facial symmetry. But I wouldn't say that is looks as most people understand it. I was saying you could be short, a little out of shape, and seemingly not particular goodlooking, but facial symmetry in partcular (and overall body symmetry) is a visual cue/marker for "good" genes and may cause attraction. Anyway, getting your foot in the door or not, is huge, huge, huge. It's basically all I was aiming for in this thread. I assume Brad Pitt has a very symmetrical face, I'm not sure. I've also heard that he wasn't that successful getting ladies before breaking into Hollywood. I don't know how true that is, but his looks or maybe facial symmetry got him into Holloywood. I don't know much about Brad Pitt, but my take is he's not that expressive or good of an actor.

I guess it comes down to what you are gunning for. Attraction is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of Mid/Long Term relationships. If you are looking for a decent chick to stand next to at the bar than attraction is cool. If the chick is drunk out of her mind or in heat than attraction is cool. However, imo if, you are trying to take a sober chick home and you can't hold a conversation, attraction isn't enough. If she is the kind of girl who thinks that you should be in love before you have sex, attraction isn't enough. If she is not really really attracted, then attraction isn't enough.

My point is initial attraction is alway necessary in the beginning otherwise you're just going to be in the friends zone.

What happens if you aren't the most attractive person in the room? Do you lose by default? Do you have no control over who you sleep with because of how you look?

Well to a degree yes, you always lose to the most attractive guy. But you are trying to make this into a looks thread when it's more of a facial expression/being an expressive actor thread.

Also, I don't want to say it is impossible to get in a relationship off of something as meaningless as looks or money, I'm definitely not one to knock you for trying it. But in the world of seduction it would really be LITTLE challenge for someone to come in there and make your girl FEEL a connection like she has never felt before and like the two of them are destined to be together or whatever sh!t they pump her with and next thing you know, this LESS attractive guy has your girl. Then what of your hypothesis?

I think you are totally misconstruing the focus of my thread. What I'm saying is there really isn't a shortcut to attraction if it's caused by either/or or some combination of facial symmetry and facial expression. I'm just trying to come to a realization of what's fundamentally necessary to create attraction. I think you're taking it on a tangent.

 

[ketostix]

I think attraction is more a function of controlling the frame and vibes you are giving off. The vibes you give off are your signature that people respond to subconciously. So it's possible an ugly person with no skill, but gives off some positive and sexual vibes may still be more successful than a confident good-looking guy that gives of some sort of creepy or brotherly vibe.

Right this is basically what I'm getting at. And how you give off these good vibes and controll the frame is mostly through your expressiveness and her reading your facial expresions.

 

[ketostix]

Facial symmetry is just another showing sign of good genetics. The X factor is great genetics.

This is what I'm meant about facial symmetry being a cue or marker. It's not really about looks. You could be tall, fit, have a clear complexion but if you lack facial symmetry you aren't really as good lookin as the shorter less fit, "less good looking guy". I'm not willing to say the X-factor is truely greater genetics, but it's factors facial symmetry and expressiveness seem to be highly selected for by women.

 

[wolf116]

This is what I'm meant about facial symmetry being a cue or marker. It's not really about looks. You could be tall, fit, have a clear complexion but if you lack facial symmetry you aren't really as good lookin as the shorter less fit, "less good looking guy". I'm not willing to say the X-factor is truely greater genetics, but it's factors facial symmetry and expressiveness seem to be highly selected for by women.

I've seen too many scientific experiments on this, and all are massively in support of the genetic advantage. Girls can sense good genetics simply by smelling old cloths or shaking his hand (without seeing the guy). Higher T levels at a young age can only be supported by very healthy babies with good genetics. Symmetry is associated with health of the fetus and baby.

Many of the markers of good genetics can be faked, so it's not all doom and gloom for the genetically inferior. Just more work.

 

[schttrj]

i dont know why, but i really like living in reality. so, my answer is there needs to be the x-factor and how do i say this? because, if i say taht i am mostly rated a >7 in a scale to be modest by the girls. man, believe me, i am damn shy and freeze everytime i speak to girls. but it def gives me an edge over others because i get attention wherever i go. even i have girls give me IOIs and even hitting on me at times. so u see i think looks are important to some extent when GETTING A GIRL'S ATTENTION. but one thing, having looks needs a congruent personality. so teh basic rule in general is STAND OUT BY PEACOCKING OR ACTIONS AND HAVE A CONGRUENT PERSONALITY. this is what u need and i think this is the x-factor. and please note another thing, GOOD LOOKS ACTUALLY ACTIVATE A WOMAN'S DEFENSE SHIELDS, SO YOU GOTTA HAVE EVEN A STRONGER GAME THAN WHO ARE NOT BLESSED WITH SO. so the average looking guys actually stand a good chance in picking up because they dont get caught in her radar quickly. HERES A SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT: EQUALLY GOOD LOOKING PEOPLE BOND QUICKLY AND STRONGER, SO RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THEM ARE MOST STABLE. you get me? good. rectify me guys if u will.

 

[ketostix]

i dont know why, but i really like living in reality. so, my answer is there needs to be the x-factor and how do i say this? because, if i say taht i am mostly rated a >7 in a scale to be modest by the girls. man, believe me, i am damn shy and freeze everytime i speak to girls. but it def gives me an edge over others because i get attention wherever i go. even i have girls give me IOIs and even hitting on me at times. so u see i think looks are important to some extent when GETTING A GIRL'S ATTENTION. but one thing, having looks needs a congruent personality. so teh basic rule in general is STAND OUT BY PEACOCKING OR ACTIONS AND HAVE A CONGRUENT PERSONALITY. this is what u need and i think this is the x-factor. and please note another thing, GOOD LOOKS ACTUALLY ACTIVATE A WOMAN'S DEFENSE SHIELDS, SO YOU GOTTA HAVE EVEN A STRONGER GAME THAN WHO ARE NOT BLESSED WITH SO. so the average looking guys actually stand a good chance in picking up because they dont get caught in her radar quickly. HERES A SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT: EQUALLY GOOD LOOKING PEOPLE BOND QUICKLY AND STRONGER, SO RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THEM ARE MOST STABLE. you get me? good. rectify me guys if u will.

You bring up a good point. I'm quessing a big part of you being physically attractive to women is that you are probably very symmetrical. But we all know that looks alone will not get a girl in bed with you, a date or whatever you're wanting. It's all women need if that, but a guy has to convey "personality". This is where I'm saying the most effective and believable way to convey an attractive personality is dependent on your expressiveness and your voice intonation. Like you were saying you freeze up and probably become very stiff with your expressions and your voice is stiff too. It's also a good point that your looks cause attraction but if you aren't outgoing and expressive, this comes acrossed as STUCK UP. But had you been ugly AND not out going you would be even at a worse disadavantage because now females would consider you WEIRD AND CREEPY and they wouldn't approach you or give IOI's in the first place.

What a good looking guy needs to do is act friendly and interested more and needs a little less game than a less good looking guy. If he's really uncomfortable talking to women he could just try to give eye contact and smile and just statement of intent (SOI) the girl. For example, "Hey HB, you wanna do xyz?" And you're more likely to get compliance than a less than good looking guy.

 

[schttrj]

very rightly said, keto. i like the term "Stuck Up" because it actually describes me. it can actually ruin my game in two ways. one, if the girl is really beautiful, then it will lower my value if im stuck up. and if the girl is average looking, then it will increase my value to such an extent that she thinks im outta reach. guys, get a good personality that congruent with ur looks and game. but being the cool guy, even if u dont approach certainly stands a good chance, as u said!

 

[Microphone Fiend]

I'm not here to defend my views or convert people into believing that looks are not super important so after this response I'm finished with this thread

I don't know. It's up to her PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

This is how you talk yourself out of the getting the girl. Personal preference is either

a) what is acceptable in society
or
b) What she has had in the past or would like to have in the future.

If I ask you what is the best ice-cream and you say vanilla yet you haven't even tried the other flavors then I would be out of my mind take your word for it. Personal preference should not factor into seduction if you cannot cater yourself to be that individual initially. If she likes black/white guys im going to find out what she looks about black/white guys so much and emulate it until I get some pvssy while guys like you have bowed out long ago.

I'm just trying to come to a realization of what's fundamentally necessary to create attraction. I think you're taking it on a tangent.

ATTRACTION IS NOT JUST FACIAL EXPRESSIONS. People with fvcked up faces but killer bodies still get action. People with average looks and killer social proof get action. People with mediocre looks and 11' ****s get action. These people are attracted to them as well, they are not just throwing them a bone out of pity

Well to a degree yes, you always lose to the most attractive guy. But you are trying to make this into a looks thread when it's more of a facial expression/being an expressive actor thread.

So are you suggesting that we practice looking symmetrical in the mirror? I do not understand how your hypothesis can benefit anyone other than giving the defense of "Oh, it's not your fault you can't get girls, you were born with an asymmetrical face". I'm not trying to be a d!ck, I just don't see how this kind of thinking can benefit anyone. What if there are ugly people on this site trying to overcome their unattractiveness and people like you keep posting threads on how they will ALWAYS lose the girl to the more attractive guy.

How does this info help anyone? It is counterproductive imo and generalizations based on no solid evidence. Women are not just attracted by looks and that is where the problem with your argument lies imo. You can say what if they had the exact same personalities and EXACTLY the same build and one had a slightly more symmetrical face but *NEWSFLASH* people won't be exactly like you when you are out hunting.

I'm not responding to this thread anymore because I've voiced my opinion and if you guys choose to belief in "essences" and emphasize seduction ability with genetics and other things you have no control over, then that is your limiting belief and I can't wait to capitalize on it if we are hunting together in the field. It's the other guys that read this that I'm angry for. Because of advice like this little Jimmy Tanner is going to choose facial exercises in the mirror over learning to seduce a girl. Congrats

 

[schttrj]

I'm not here to defend my views or convert people into believing that looks are not super important so after this response I'm finished with this thread

This is how you talk yourself out of the getting the girl. Personal preference is either

a) what is acceptable in society
or
b) What she has had in the past or would like to have in the future.

If I ask you what is the best ice-cream and you say vanilla yet you haven't even tried the other flavors then I would be out of my mind take your word for it. Personal preference should not factor into seduction if you cannot cater yourself to be that individual initially. If she likes black/white guys im going to find out what she looks about black/white guys so much and emulate it until I get some pvssy while guys like you have bowed out long ago.


ATTRACTION IS NOT JUST FACIAL EXPRESSIONS. People with fvcked up faces but killer bodies still get action. People with average looks and killer social proof get action. People with mediocre looks and 11' ****s get action. These people are attracted to them as well, they are not just throwing them a bone out of pity



So are you suggesting that we practice looking symmetrical in the mirror? I do not understand how your hypothesis can benefit anyone other than giving the defense of "Oh, it's not your fault you can't get girls, you were born with an asymmetrical face". I'm not trying to be a d!ck, I just don't see how this kind of thinking can benefit anyone. What if there are ugly people on this site trying to overcome their unattractiveness and people like you keep posting threads on how they will ALWAYS lose the girl to the more attractive guy.

How does this info help anyone? It is counterproductive imo and generalizations based on no solid evidence. Women are not just attracted by looks and that is where the problem with your argument lies imo. You can say what if they had the exact same personalities and EXACTLY the same build and one had a slightly more symmetrical face but *NEWSFLASH* people won't be exactly like you when you are out hunting.

I'm not responding to this thread anymore because I ve voiced my opinion and if you guys choose to belief in 'essences' and emphasize seduction to genetics and other things you can't change, then that is your limiting belief and I can't wait to capitalize on it. It's the other guys that read this that I'm angry for. Because of advice like this little Jimmy Tanner is going to choose facial exercises in the mirror over learning to seduce a girl. Congrats

well buddy, im not at all egoistic kind and i kinda like having healthy discussions and maybe come to a conclusion.

suppose an example, u stand at the edge of the cliff and u think "if i jump, i will fall, i will fly" and u completely believe that. can it ever happen unless u have attained salvation through karma? i think we are missing the point here. Looks are important, guys and mind it, i tell u, looks are important but at the same time, UR GAME gotta be solid too. but whatever u r, even if u have a solid game, u will always get defeat to an ALPHA MALE with LOOKS. its the way it is! it is not one thing that gets u girls but a whole package. but to get taht instant attraction, u need looks.

tell me something, havent u seen such instances where a cool guy walks into a place and doesnt even approach anyone but all the girls turn their head! why taht happens? but i dont know who said that here in the forum, but it is damn right, looks takes to the door faster tahn a average looking one but to open it, u need the game. tahts it. theres nothing like expression or symmetry, what girls say "chiselled face, muscular body, deep eyes that none can help but fall in love with"...

and i think one thing too, some of the advice given here are also to keep teh confidence of the average looking guys up. but then again, some are born attractive and tehy dont even have to try, man. tehy just get it at hand.

so ultimately if i have been too confusing the equation is like this:

chances of an average looking guy with solid game < chances of a good looking guy with solid game

chances of an average looking guy with solid game > chances of a good lookng guy with weak game

any replies?

 

[Mad Manic]

Primary: Ethnicity, Class, Social Proof etc
Secondary: Height, Looks, Health etc
Tertiary: Muscles, Game, Intellect etc.

MM

 

[ketostix]

I'm not here to defend my views or convert people into believing that looks are not super important so after this response I'm finished with this thread

This is how you talk yourself out of the getting the girl. Personal preference is either

a) what is acceptable in society
or
b) What she has had in the past or would like to have in the future.

If I ask you what is the best ice-cream and you say vanilla yet you haven't even tried the other flavors then I would be out of my mind take your word for it. Personal preference should not factor into seduction if you cannot cater yourself to be that individual initially. If she likes black/white guys im going to find out what she looks about black/white guys so much and emulate it until I get some pvssy while guys like you have bowed out long ago.

Being a chemeleon can only go so far. If a girl is standing there giving you the time and explaining what she likes about this type of guy or that type of guy she must be attracted anyway and you're just making conversation. Women don't treat who/what they allow in their pvssy like it's their appetite for different flavors of ice cream.

ATTRACTION IS NOT JUST FACIAL EXPRESSIONS. People with fvcked up faces but killer bodies still get action. People with average looks and killer social proof get action. People with mediocre looks and 11' ****s get action. These people are attracted to them as well, they are not just throwing them a bone out of pity

You show me a guy with a fvcked up face and who's expressionless and I'll show you the worldest greatest "creep".

So are you suggesting that we practice looking symmetrical in the mirror? I do not understand how your hypothesis can benefit anyone other than giving the defense of "Oh, it's not your fault you can't get girls, you were born with an asymmetrical face". I'm not trying to be a d!ck, I just don't see how this kind of thinking can benefit anyone. What if there are ugly people on this site trying to overcome their unattractiveness and people like you keep posting threads on how they will ALWAYS lose the girl to the more attractive guy.

You are trying to turn this into it's all about looks. No, what I said is if a person can have the congruent expressions and poise of an actor they will be attractive. I never made claims on how to do this. I am not an actor.

How does this info help anyone? It is counterproductive imo and generalizations based on no solid evidence. Women are not just attracted by looks and that is where the problem with your argument lies imo. You can say what if they had the exact same personalities and EXACTLY the same build and one had a slightly more symmetrical face but *NEWSFLASH* people won't be exactly like you when you are out hunting.

OK if you're going to make everything into looks, then I'm going to say you make everything about words. And I'm pretty sure there's no particular words or lines alone that will instantly make a guy go from zero to hero. Communication is mostly nonverbal.

I'm not responding to this thread anymore because I've voiced my opinion and if you guys choose to belief in "essences" and emphasize seduction ability with genetics and other things you have no control over, then that is your limiting belief and I can't wait to capitalize on it if we are hunting together in the field. It's the other guys that read this that I'm angry for. Because of advice like this little Jimmy Tanner is going to choose facial exercises in the mirror over learning to seduce a girl. Congrats

Fine, don't post in this thread if you're going to misconstrue it and misunderstand it. You're basically saying that it's impossible for a person to become a better actor. It has nothing to do with talking in a mirror. You really haven't offered a better way to be more efficient and successful while interacting with women.

 

[DonGorgon]

We are not allowed to talk about looks ...