Top 10%

[zekko]

They talk a lot here about the top 10% elite guys. Is there any way to define who these men are? What puts you into the top 10%?

Are they the top 10% best looking guys? The top 10% most wealthy guys? The top 10% most famous guys? The top 10% most social guys? The top 10% most muscular guys? The top 10% players? The top 10% starving artists? The top 10% guys with the most alpha mindsets? The guys who care about women the least? The guys who have the most motorcycles?

You would have to think that it must be some sort of undefineable mix of the above characteristics. Otherwise, you definitely would not get any poor guys at all into that mix, yet we always hear about the pool boy who makes the gina tingle.

Problem is, if it is a mix of characteristics, then it follows that each female would probably have their own top 10 list. Each characteristic is most likely weighted differently for each female. They always say "looks, money, and status" are the main attraction factors, but maybe looks alone are enough for some? Other guys might argue it's all money. And a lot of guys here seem to think the only thing that really matters is the alpha mindset - as long as they have some looks, money, and/or status, presumably.

 

[Jitterbug]

It's a way to say women love winners and are only satisfied with the best. A man would need to stand out as a top dog in whatever measurement that women care about to do well with them. The rest fight over scraps.

Don't get obsessed over the numbers and definitions.

 

[nismo-4]

That's just the most physically, financially, famously, and socially fittest of men. They get the most women. Any of these fits puts you in Alpha territory, in women's eyes.

Notice how confidence, game, personality, swagger, body language, vibe, sense of humor, and intelligence didn't make that list. Yet those qualities are marketed through media outlets (sitcoms, magazines, radio, internet, etc.) as what women like most in a man. What the media DOESN'T mention is the fine print, which reads MAN MUST BE PHYSICALLY AND/ OR FINANCIALLY FIT.

Women have the option of accepting or rejecting you most of the time. The game is much easier for an alpha, but sucks ass for a beta, because he has to rely on game, personality, and luck. If she doesn't find you attractive, she labels everything you do as unattractive. Conversely, if she finds you attractive, suddenly your high score in Pac-Man is sexy to her.

Zekko, like I've been saying, all women of all ages desire a man who is a muscular millionaire with marriage on his mind, a Mercedes or Maserati, and has lots of time to spend with her instead of the office. Sadly, not every man in the world is like this. Women get attached to beta males if they somehow f**ked and then the woman promotes him to boyfriend status, if she wants to.

What women do is make themselve look as attractive as possible so that a man in this top 10% will notice, and hold out as long as they can. Even when the looks fade, they still will hold out because they think (thanks to the media) "I have a pu$$y and every guy wants it." That's why cougars and milfs feel like they still deserve a top 10% guy

Losers barely win. Winners win, and can win bigger than a loser. Like they say, it takes money to make money. Success breeds success. The rich get richer. All the same.

If a man has at least ONE woman on his arm, he's more desirable. If not, he tends to get shunned.

These days, even the scraps that guys fight over think they're dimes because of pu$$y worship, desperation, facebook, etc.

You have to win in order to win.

 

[Boilermaker]

^^

That's a brilliant way of putting it and resonates perfectly with OP's question.

Very nice.

 

[backbreaker]

The top 10% of "tinglers" is how I would refer to it.

And I don't think there is a hard rule on what constitutes them aside from a combination of confidence and other factors.

You mentioned a lot of criteria, but think of it like stats.

For guys judging girls it may be something like the following.....

Boobs: 1 through 10
Legs: 1 through 10
Face: 1 through 10
@ss: 1 through 10

And any girl who scores a 30 or more on the total is someone he would fvk.

For women, it probably is something similar. Anything over a certain number generates "tingles". So a guy may score 0 in the motorcycle department, but he scores a 10 in the confidence area. Thus getting him a good deal towards that 30 minimum.

It doesn't have to be exactly like that, but you get the point. The sum of the parts is what gives the tingle. As long as the sum is high enough.

gives the mendoza line a whole new meaning

 

[FairShake]

Problem is, if it is a mix of characteristics, then it follows that each female would probably have their own top 10 list.

I think you have it right here. Different girls like different things. I am close friends with several girls and ALL OF THEM have or have had guys that all their friends and family are constantly wondering what she sees in them. Some of the guys are too obnoxious, too criminal, too nerdy, too ugly, what have you. But she digs them because they have the undefinable mix of traits that set them off. And the conversational skills and confidence to convey that undefinable mix of traits to her.

 

[Zarky]

LOL I don't think there's any way to tell who the "Top 10%" are. Some big name stars are complete p*ssy whipped losers. Some rich guys can't get laid without spending big bucks.

The only way you could look at it would be to see the number of chicks who are totally into a guy and how desirable those chicks are. No real easy way to tell. I bet there are some 10%ers who are super rich and famous and some who are ghetto dwellers with no cash but with supreme confidence and game.

 

[guru1000]

The whole is a sum of its parts, and within this context we could designate the whole as the individual male, and each part tantamount to a desirable male trait. It follows then that if only one part of a machine were entirely defective, then the machine would be rendered ineffective, and thus if a desirable male trait is absent, the male is nugatory by virtue of his faulty part, sentenced to a life replete with valueless female contenders.

The male, thus, must possess all desirable virtues, at least at a minimum functionality.

 

[Dedication]

In starcraft 2 its easy, when you're masters league you're at the top. It goes something like this:

20% = Bronze
20% = Silver
20% = Gold
20% = platinum
18% = Diamond
2% = Masters

Then you have the Top 200 of each region, they are in a special league called Grand Master. I figure that in real life its the same way with chicks.

 

[Boilermaker]

^

Same in Chess.

Except that in Real Life you are not conveniently assigned a "rating" or a "Class" to rank you among fellow travellers.

That seems to cause a great deal of confusion as you can see.

 

[Down Low]

^

Same in Chess.

Except that in Real Life you are not conveniently assigned a "rating" or a "Class" to rank you among fellow travellers.

That seems to cause a great deal of confusion as you can see.

Ah, but you are!

And that is: how well do you treat others? Manners, courtesies, concerns, social responsibilities, and so on. Are your deeds and words first and foremost to what others need, or are they selfish? Trying to be gentlemanly is, was, and always will be, the only meaningful measure of a man.

 

[Zarky]

To you perhaps. But don't assume your subjective tastes are universal. Success is measured in different ways. But here we measure success with women. If that doesn't interest you, then there are one million other internet forums you may like more.

 

[Die Hard]

Ah, but you are!

And that is: how well do you treat others? Manners, courtesies, concerns, social responsibilities, and so on. Are your deeds and words first and foremost to what others need, or are they selfish? Trying to be gentlemanly is, was, and always will be, the only meaningful measure of a man.

He said with much conviction.




And stupidity...

 

[Down Low]

To you perhaps. But don't assume your subjective tastes are universal. Success is measured in different ways. But here we measure success with women. If that doesn't interest you, then there are one million other internet forums you may like more.

An awful lot of the posts here are about how women are fvcked in the head due to repeated cycles of abuse and neglect from the men in their lives. The "universal" solution here is to be the best abuser. While I agree that to do so will up your notch count, it is also certain to diminish your self-respect in the long run. Here I'm speaking from personal experience. Improving yourself is success. Knocking down others is not success.

There is nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by associating with trash, or by acting trashy yourself. At the very least, consider your repution, which precedes you. A womanizer is never thought of as a strong or wise man.

 

[Die Hard]

You think in extremes.

The "universal" solution here is to be the best abuser. While I agree that to do so will up your notch count, it is also certain to diminish your self-respect in the long run. Here I'm speaking from personal experience. Improving yourself is success. Knocking down others is not success.

As if there's no common ground between being a bad boy and improving yourself.

There is nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by associating with trash, or by acting trashy yourself.

As if we all want to associate ourselves ONLY with trash and nothing else. As if we all want to act trashy 100% of the time to 100% of the people around us.

A womanizer is never thought of as a strong or wise man.

Again, you speak as if we all want to be 100% womanizer above everything else. It is very much possible to be a strong and wise man and incorporate "womanizing" in your behavior at the same time.

Go read 'The Book of Pook' (chapters 'the secret of the jerk' and 'Be a Man!' would be a good start) and delve into the many threads on this forum. You still have a lot to learn...

 

[5string]

As a top ten percenter I don't have much money, no car, no motorcycle, and I'm not super muscular or model-quality handsome. All I can tell you is I have a huge dong.

You need lasik samspade

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

From The 16 Commandments of Poon:

XII. Maximize your strengths, minimize your weaknesses

In the betterment of ourselves as men we attract women into our orbit. To accomplish this gravitational pull as painlessly and efficiently as possible, you must identify your natural talents and shortcomings and parcel your efforts accordingly. If you are a gifted jokester, don’t waste time and energy trying to raise your status in philosophical debate. If you write well but dance poorly, don’t kill yourself trying to expand your manly influence on the dancefloor. Your goal should be to attract women effortlessly, so play to your strengths no matter what they are; there is a groupie for every male endeavor. Except World of Warcraft.

ZEKKO, that top 10% is contextual. The first recourse of Game denialists is to attempt to qualify or quantify abstract principles according to our capacity to be what we think is that ideal. In other words, we believe we are that top 10% by our own definition. So if another definition contradicts that self-impression then the qualifications or quantifications become suspect to preserve our ego.

The good news is that it's a much simpler abstract concept when you look at the 'elite' set in terms of different contexts.

 

[Colossus]

"Top 10%" only exists in people's minds.

It's relative, or contextual as Rollo said. It's really, really easy to envision yourself as a top 10%er because of some vague set of attributes you think you possess. But that is loaded with assumptions: you assume all those attributes are prized equally by women, you assume you are unique and have what other men do not, you assume that your combination of these nebulous things is what sets you apart from other men in the eyes of women and society.

The truth is, it may only set you apart in some women's eyes, and not necessarily the ones you want.

You can only be a top 10%er in a quantifiable category, like income or some measured ability. Even that, though, is useless. It only would serve to pump up your own ego. Women dont know (or care) where you statistically stand amongst other men, they only perceive where you measure up to the other men they have encountered, or to their imagined ideal.

So really, it amounts to an intellectual jerk-off, kind of like calling yourself an alpha or some other PUA self-stroking title.

You choose women by their interest level, and your assessment of their value. Forget everything else.

 

[Down Low]

You think in extremes. . . . As if we all want to associate ourselves ONLY with trash and nothing else. As if we all want to act trashy 100% of the time to 100% of the people around us. . . . Again, you speak as if we all want to be 100% womanizer above everything else. It is very much possible to be a strong and wise man and incorporate "womanizing" in your behavior at the same time.

I've done that stuff before where I bed one or two women regularly, and other women help hide the secret that I do them too. At your age, that affair stuff seems really clever and sophisticated. It isn't. (But it's fascinating how the woman with the best mental state just towers over the others when there's a confrontation. You'd think that the prettiest one would mop the floor with the others. Not so.)

It's regretful -- a negative, not a positive -- that we have to make moral compromises. Do what you have to do, but don't use chick logic and say that cheating's OK because you've done it a lot and you've gotten good at ignoring its psychological harm.

 

[Die Hard]

I've done that stuff before where I bed one or two women regularly, and other women help hide the secret that I do them too. At your age, that affair stuff seems really clever and sophisticated. It isn't. (But it's fascinating how the woman with the best mental state just towers over the others when there's a confrontation. You'd think that the prettiest one would mop the floor with the others. Not so.)

It's regretful -- a negative, not a positive -- that we have to make moral compromises. Do what you have to do, but don't use chick logic and say that cheating's OK because you've done it a lot and you've gotten good at ignoring its psychological harm.

Read up on Plate Theory...