If you are talking 7+ women dressed like models who are age 25+ and out-and-about with straggky, older guys, then that is nothing new. Who do you think paid for those modelesque clothes? I mean, Anna Nicole Smith loved her husband for his kind heart, eh? (OK, an extreme example for illustration).

Secondly, I do see a fair number of good looking guys who are not with hotties but of the ones I know, they were more beta and/or relationship oriented rather than runabout pussy slayers. One friend is this 6'4" viking. Back in the day we hung out, worked out together and such. I don't ever recall him dating even though girls adored him (they told me so). He married a Brazilian woman who was slight older than him but slim, fit and good looking.

Guys who are banging a stream of hot women won't be parading around with them in the park. They will be at social events or in their homes.

As for the 80/20 Rule, you have to be creative in the way you frame it for the numbers to work out. The reality seems to be that there is a core group of playboys and party girls who do the rounds and fuck each other, as well as a few people not normally in their social circle or of the same mindset. Chadly McFuckstick might have an n-count in the triple digits but likely not a virgin among them. In fact, many if the girls have higher n-counts than him. That's one of the few explanations why median partner counts are higher for men when on average they should be-by definition, exactly the same.

The idea that most girls are not sluts but those who are become way sluttier than their male counterparts also explains why guys wiith moderate sexual success find themselves in bed with a disproportiionate number of really loose women.

Quote: (11-23-2018 09:46 PM)mpr Wrote:  

Quote: (11-23-2018 09:19 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Quote: (11-23-2018 08:15 PM)mpr Wrote:  

I'm surprised at the amount of RVFer's saying things like: 'you shouldn't take the 80/20 rule literally'. According to the data we absolutely should take the 80/20 rule literally. Above is a graph from data collected by OkCupid where they ask female users to rate men according to their attractiveness. The results showed that the women using the site rated 81% of male users as less attractive than average. Which is mathematically impossible, and corresponds exactly to a gini distribution. Males on the other hand rated female attractiveness on a normal bell curve. With roughly have of the women being more attractive than average and half being less attractive than average.

According to all of the research data I've seen dating markets mimic unregulated financial markets. With the gini distribution (80/20) in full effect. If anyone has some reliable data (not personal anecdotes) to contradict this I'd be interested in seeing it.

No, we should not take the 80/20 rule seriously. And if we do, it definitely shouldn't be because of the professional propagandists and social engineers at OKCupid.

This survey is deeply flawed for reason I'll explain below. First off, it was commissioned by an online dating service, not the National Institutes of Health. Even professional groups are known to fudge numbers and OKC is far from professional.

The survey is flawed because it views people in a vacuum. It looks at one thing: How people view PHOTOS of the opposite sex. Not actual humans, mind you. But PHOTOS of humans.

When it comes to photography, the best subjects have always been women. People like to look at women. Look at all the magazine covers. Women's magazine covers feature women. So do men's mags. Ever wonder why? Also look at how Playboy set the standard for photography but Playgirl was a laughingstock.

Sociologically speaking, women look best while posed and men look best in-action (i.e. the "Mona Lisa" vs. classic Greek sculptures of men). This reflects our roles in real life. So, photos themselves are more forgiving to women. As were paintings.

Go a bit deeper into all this and you'll notice women take a lot of time with "staging" their pics. For that matter, women take more time staging their houses. Women (most of them, anyway) are more about presentation than men.

Conversely, men tend to be less discriminating about how they present themselves. Why? Because women know their being judged mostly on looks and men know they get judged on what they do. Men tend to think 1). "I'm successful! Why the hell do I need to get dolled up like a pretty boy?" or 2). If I do myself up too much I'll look gay.

So, when all is said and done: Photos lie and women are deceptive. Hence the results of this self-serving survey.

I'd like OKC to conduct a survey how their users viewed each other out in the real world when they finally meet. My guess is that the results would swing the opposite way.

From what I see, it's mostly the men who have the "OMG! NOOOO!" moments when they meet women in real life. I've read stories on blogs about going to meet "hot" chicks from OKC who turned out to be so fat they could barely get through the front door.

Something tells me you won't see OKC putting out survey results about that anytime soon.

That would be fine if the only data I was relying on was from okcupid. I've seen multiple other statistical analyses that all come to the same conclusion. I posted a link to one in my original post using data from tinder. There have been other studies done using photo's taken independently by researchers, and then rated by both sexes that come to the same conclusion.

I agree that women are more likely to be SIF's. Perhaps that does change the overall dating market. But I doubt it. Especially considering that almost all other unregulated markets seem to adhere to a Pareto distribution. In any case it seems most reasonable to base one's beliefs on the empirical findings that we have. Regardless of their potential shortcomings. Incomplete knowledge is better than no knowledge at all.

Did you read my post? I said photos per se can't tell you the story between men and women. You responded by claiming there were yet more studies of men and women studying photos. Um, no. That just means more inaccuracy.

I don't care if the photos were taken "independently by researchers"or by Ansel Adams. They're pictures, not people. They're simulations, not real life. And you can't go by what people say about them. Have people meet IRL and sit down for coffee, THEN let's see how they judge each other.

Incomplete knowledge is not better than no knowledge because "incomplete" often means wrongheaded. That's like saying bad map is better than no map. With no map, you figure your own way. With a bad map you drive off a cliff or into a wall.

Finally, not only do Secret Internet Fatties matter in the dating market, they help shape it (pun intended). The amount of overweight women raises the value of the few that are thin. This dramatically skews the dating market it favor of those sought-after women, which is a detriment to men.

Of course, if you insist on only judging people by photos, then that doesn't matter.

Quote: (11-23-2018 08:25 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  

Explain this to me - let's say a guy is a famous actor, for example, like johnny depp. except he's literally a 2 or 3 out of 10. ugly facial features, small pecker, 25-30% bodyfat, balding, poor fashion sense, yellow teeth, bad breath, etc. But he's extremely famous, has hundreds of millions of dollars, great personality as well.

from all that you could conclude that his SMV when considering looks alone is very low, but with all the other things, it's very high - however, are you telling me that when this guy decides to sleep with a woman, she is actually sexually attracted to him? you're telling me she would give him a rimjob, swallow his cum, let him facefuck and degrade her etc, as if it were brad pitt or johnny depp? and if she would just because of who he is, do you think deep down, she actually enjoys it, or is she actually disgusted by it but lets it happen because of who he is?

THAT'S what I really don't get. You can say a man's SMV is high because of game/status/money/personality despite his shitty looks, but for a woman who dates him, is she actually physically attracted to him during the act? or is their attraction methodology completely different? Is it that because of all his other attributes, she actually isn't repulsed by the idea of doing disgusting things in bed for him? does his dick taste better to her because of his other traits?

For me at least, I don't care how much money or status or game or personality a woman has, if she's a 2/10, you couldn't PAY me to go near her and eat her out, for example.

I just know most of the dudes I see have terrible hygiene, bad breath, out of shape bodies, etc, and I just don't understand how women are attracted to them sexually.

Men and women are hotwired differently (this is science). Men and women, for the most part, want different things. You can even see this in LGBTWERED couples where gay men are more focused on looks and couldn't really care less about money and things and lesbians care about a large range of things.

Men- have a 1-10 scale but it boils down to WB or WNB (would bang or would not bang)

Women-Have a 1-10 scale that incorporates a wide range of things and your looks can be boosted by things such as fame, charisma, or mainly money.

IN MY OPINION, both men and women are hypergamous (atleast in my understanding of the word) Men are a bit more loyal but it might be due to how hard it is for a man to get sex. A man usually cheats because he found a better-looking woman. Women, on the other hand, would cheat because they found a cooler man, a man more in tune to her emotions, a richer man, etc etc. The reason most guys say women are *more* hypergamous is because a woman would completely leave a man due to those things whereas a man would just cheat.

Money to a woman doesn't just equal resources but the freedom to excitement. A rich man can take a woman out to adventures that in turn gets her all moist and ready. Those emotions take a toll on women and are like a drug. If a guy is rich enough and fun enough that woman would do ANYTHING for him. Fun is a often overlooked part of SMV, You can have all the money, looks, fame, etc etc but if you're boring and not exciting then you'll still lose her.

To the average man looks come first then femininity then after a long margin other things come to play and usually at the end money comes to importance. There's a reason oprah was never one of the most beautiful women on earth and you never heard about thousands of guys trying to get with her.

Quote: (11-23-2018 11:15 PM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  

Quote: (11-23-2018 08:25 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  

Explain this to me - let's say a guy is a famous actor, for example, like johnny depp. except he's literally a 2 or 3 out of 10. ugly facial features, small pecker, 25-30% bodyfat, balding, poor fashion sense, yellow teeth, bad breath, etc. But he's extremely famous, has hundreds of millions of dollars, great personality as well.

from all that you could conclude that his SMV when considering looks alone is very low, but with all the other things, it's very high - however, are you telling me that when this guy decides to sleep with a woman, she is actually sexually attracted to him? you're telling me she would give him a rimjob, swallow his cum, let him facefuck and degrade her etc, as if it were brad pitt or johnny depp? and if she would just because of who he is, do you think deep down, she actually enjoys it, or is she actually disgusted by it but lets it happen because of who he is?

THAT'S what I really don't get. You can say a man's SMV is high because of game/status/money/personality despite his shitty looks, but for a woman who dates him, is she actually physically attracted to him during the act? or is their attraction methodology completely different? Is it that because of all his other attributes, she actually isn't repulsed by the idea of doing disgusting things in bed for him? does his dick taste better to her because of his other traits?

For me at least, I don't care how much money or status or game or personality a woman has, if she's a 2/10, you couldn't PAY me to go near her and eat her out, for example.

I just know most of the dudes I see have terrible hygiene, bad breath, out of shape bodies, etc, and I just don't understand how women are attracted to them sexually.

Men and women are hotwired differently (this is science). Men and women, for the most part, want different things. You can even see this in LGBTWERED couples where gay men are more focused on looks and couldn't really care less about money and things and lesbians care about a large range of things.

Men- have a 1-10 scale but it boils down to WB or WNB (would bang or would not bang)

Women-Have a 1-10 scale that incorporates a wide range of things and your looks can be boosted by things such as fame, charisma, or mainly money.

IN MY OPINION, both men and women are hypergamous (atleast in my understanding of the word) Men are a bit more loyal but it might be due to how hard it is for a man to get sex. A man usually cheats because he found a better-looking woman. Women, on the other hand, would cheat because they found a cooler man, a man more in tune to her emotions, a richer man, etc etc. The reason most guys say women are *more* hypergamous is because a woman would completely leave a man due to those things whereas a man would just cheat.

Money to a woman doesn't just equal resources but the freedom to excitement. A rich man can take a woman out to adventures that in turn gets her all moist and ready. Those emotions take a toll on women and are like a drug. If a guy is rich enough and fun enough that woman would do ANYTHING for him. Fun is a often overlooked part of SMV, You can have all the money, looks, fame, etc etc but if you're boring and not exciting then you'll still lose her.

To the average man looks come first then femininity then after a long margin other things come to play and usually at the end money comes to importance. There's a reason oprah was never one of the most beautiful women on earth and you never heard about thousands of guys trying to get with her.

Appreciate the input, but this still doesn't explain the pure sexual part of it. I'm being completely serious when I say - does a 2/10 dudes' cock taste better because of his personality/status/confidence/etc? Does a woman actually enjoy his rank breath, yellow teeth, 30% bodyfat physique, and norwood 7 haircut?

Think of it like this, IF you have a woman who hates sport but you love sports would she put up with you? Depending on how much she likes you, she might even watch a game with you.

Better yet if a woman hates your hair cut or your tattoos would she stay? depending on how much she likes you yes.


Or see it like this.

Lets say you want a massive home theater but your wife thinks its a bad idea and a waste of money. Well if you buy her a necklace or a ring then she'll get over it and might even come to like the home theater.

Quote: (11-23-2018 11:51 PM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  

Think of it like this, IF you have a woman who hates sport but you love sports would she put up with you? Depending on how much she likes you, she might even watch a game with you.

Better yet if a woman hates your hair cut or your tattoos would she stay? depending on how much she likes you yes.


Or see it like this.

Lets say you want a massive home theater but your wife thinks its a bad idea and a waste of money. Well if you buy her a necklace or a ring then she'll get over it and might even come to like the home theater.

So you are saying it's transactional; still doesn't answer the question.

On second thought maybe it does - you're saying a 2/10 dudes' penis tastes better because of what he provides her, or because of his other attributes?

1938 v 2008 women

Quote:Quote:

The greatest gains observed came in the form of Education/Intelligence that went from 11th place in 1938 to 4th in 2008. Sociability, rising from 12th to 6th place, Good financial prospect,rising from 17th to 12th place, finally good looks rising from 12th place to 6th place.

Perhaps one of the more interesting takeaways from this was that one would have expected the would-be housewife of 1938, who would depend on her man more to provide for her and their children to rank education and good financial prospect higher within the rankings, however this was not the case. The 2008 women consistently ranked a man being a good financial prospect as more important than their grandmothers/great grandmothers. Another interesting observation was that the 1938 women ranked the man being a good cook/housekeeper as more important than their 2008 sisters, despite this generation relying on traditional gender roles. Finally, in 1938, women ranked desire for a home/children as 9th most important, while women of 2008 ranked it as the 6th most important quality, which is interesting given dropping fertility rates around the Western World.

https://blacklabellogic.com/2016/11/02/g...ook-value/

I think the old dividing line between photographs (online SMV) and what used to be called “real life” is gone.

In the smartphone era, the media is the message. The media is tinder, bumble and especially Instagram.

The OKCupid data is probably valid as it was compiled before the tinder era. The former owners of okc had no benefit in admitting that the demographic which pays the bills, has no real prospects.

Another thing about photographs and real life: most men don’t abort dates when the online 7 turns up as a 5 out of gentlemanly responsibility or for the opportunity to get laid. This revalidates a 5 as a 7 and also creates another “fuckboi”.

I was chatting to an older woman who is in her 40s because of her sexting. As I’m over 35 she saw me as relationship material. But she’d already told me of the amount of 20 year old men she’s banged off dating apps. Presumably she divulged this as a proof of her attractiveness. This woman is a 5 with two kids and overweight. I shouldn’t have been chatting to her, yet I was but I’d never meet her but who cares, young men would and do.

The smartphone influence on the real life dating market is such that while I’m at an age of peak Male SMV, older women’s decline has propped up by the surplus of thirsty young men.

Once the very separate online and RL dimensions reach total eclipse, we will see a crash of the sexual free market as it would mean the bottom 50% risk inceldom (defined as less than 2 sexual partners per year).

>>does a 2/10 dudes' cock taste better because of his personality/status/confidence/etc? Does a woman actually enjoy his rank breath, yellow teeth, 30% bodyfat physique, and norwood 7 haircut?

Women are naturally passive and receptive. Fellatio (blowjob) is an inversion of the natural order of things because the woman is active and the man is passive. The most natural thing is for the woman to get on all four and take it doggy style like our ape ancestors do it. Apes don't do oral sex. Natural women don't much care about their own orgasms:, if it happens it happens, if not that's okay too. Natural women's physical attraction is focused on her children, not men. Natural women let themselves be mounted by men with good genes (if she is ovulating) and/or ability to provide for her children (if not ovulating). 30% body fat is a sign of a man with lots of.access to food and don't give a fuck attitude about his looks, it says nothing about his genes. Norwood 7 just means he's older.

We modern humans have completely messed with the natural order of things, which is why you are focused on blowjobs, where the man is acting like a passive woman. Modern women are primarily interested in impressing other people. This was Mystery's great insight: women like guys who other women like, so fake it till you make it is the way to go. Like celebrities who are famous for being famous. So if a bunch of beautiful women somehow get attracted to some fat norwood 7 guy with yellow teeth, then all the other women fall into line and he's now a sex God. Modern women cannot think for themselves, they are herd followers. Sadly, modern men are also like this.

Quote: (11-24-2018 04:16 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

Once the very separate online and RL dimensions reach total eclipse, we will see a crash of the sexual free market as it would mean the bottom 50% risk inceldom (defined as less than 2 sexual partners per year).

What does this look like in real life? It seems we will see it by 2030.

Quote:Quote:

I think the old dividing line between photographs (online SMV) and what used to be called “real life” is gone.

In the smartphone era, the media is the message. The media is tinder, bumble and especially Instagram.

No.

Being active in real life has become more powerful than ever before. While everyone is addicted to online crap, girls crave for real life contact.

You see 80/20 in niche game and I saw it in bars, clubs, the Army, construction ...and it wasn't always the best looking dude that got all the pussy.


It was pre selection like one guy that some chick thought was hot .But most of all it was the dude who could read the signals and closed on those IOI or signals....which caused pre selection...Guys get a rep and chicks want to fuck the guy all the other women are fucking...they don't want a sweet virgin.

In niche game when I worked as a bar man in Spain..The guys fucking most of the chicks were the barman not the other male tourist...This includes married ,engaged and chicks with bfs..I think they make up the highest amount of chicks looking for a quick fuck not single chicks..

OP, the 80/20 rule and all the stories about "Chad" are irrelevant for your love life.

Even if they are true, which I get to in a second, it's statistics. There are thousands of women in your near vicinity and you only need one right now. With enough effort you'll meet women that want to fuck you or become your girlfriend, because they perceive you as attractive. All that theory you can just throw out the window: for the pursuit of love or lays it's useless.

The pursuit of women as a mediocre man is way easier than trying to live the life of a man with very high SMV. If you come from nothing, you have to dedicate your life for years to reach a position of high SMV. If you only do this for the chicks, it's an unjustifiable sacrifice when
as a guy with mediocre SMV with enough dedication to learning game will get you very similar results.

If you go for the high SMV route, you will never be able to live life on your own terms. You have built a prison where you are constantly performing for the guards: your high-class friends and the women you want to fuck. You drop the performance, they will drop you.

If you desire status, fancy cars or whatever might bring you high SMV, pursue it for it's own sake. But if you don't, you are better off learning game.

Unfortunately, the whole 80/20 Chad thing is making guys lazy.

To answer your initial question: is there truth to it?

The 80/20 rule is only true in the context where it has been scientifically proven. You can't extrapolate those results to the whole dating market.

If your observations about Chicago are correct, you know that the 80/20 rule is not at play there.

As mentioned, the Chad character is a stereotype. One you can easily play.

Not by becoming him, but by faking a mindset of an alpha bad boy asshole sociopath. Girls that are dating a nice guy and are getting bored will love you.

However, you might get sick of yourself after you discover those girls left their perfectly OK boyfriend for a few nights of sex with you. There will come a day when you have a girlfriend and you see a younger you trying to weasel his way in by throwing Chad-game on her.

You have to be brave enough to not become Chad if that's not who you want to be.

The alternative is taking the initiative with women, learning how to deal with rejection and decide to be a moral and determined man. The latter won't give you easy pussy but it will give you self-respect, something that young guys easily trade in for female attention.

All that pickup writing emphasizing that you should become an "alpha male" does a lot of damage. You don't have to become anyone else than you are now. You just have to get off your ass and start approaching women.

What does Chad look like in your mind?

I suspect for someone under 22, where inceldom is most likely to feature, Chad is the jock lad who is on a sports scholarship.

From my more aged perspective, Chad plays polo, has a yacht and could be featured in a Ralph Lauren ad.

Quote: (11-19-2018 12:53 PM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  

.
You need to reed the Rational Male blog. Nobody explains better than Rollo.

The guy you refer to as "Chad" is a stereotype. And a bad one. Forget him.

Quote:Quote:

Women that dress like models (7+/10) holding hands with guys with ZERO fashion sense, chubby, balding guys who don't work out. Wearing basketball shoes and snapbacks.

These are your average Beta men. Average Beta men can have hot girlfriends. Nothing special there. You do not want to be a beta and have a girlfriend.

You want to be the other guy. The Alpha.

Quote:Quote:

You know how many "Chad" looking guys I see with beautiful women?

Chad is a fictional character used to illustrate a point. Most guys here do not get the point and thus do not get Chad. Forget him. He is fictional.

Quote:Quote:

This entire concept that women are looking for millionaires with extremely high social status as well as 6'4'' Chad looking guys is completely foreign to me.

This "concept" is wrong.

You do not need ANY money to fuck a hot girl. You can be homeless and still fuck hotties. You can be ugly and have a burned face and bang hotties. You can be a complete loser and still bang hotties. You can be short. You can wear a garbage bag for clothing and still bang hotties. You can smell like piss and bang hotties.

Anyone who says anything different is an idiot.

You need SEXUAL Market Value! (SMV):

Power, Dominance, Risk taking, Rule breaking, Strength, Sexual Confidence, Pre Selection to name just a few of the qualities.

I wrote a topic about it. Guys have trouble believing it. Truth is painful.

thread-71038.html

You need to read that blog (Rational Male). I suck at explaining.

I'm sure (or I hope) someone called this out but like, no. You cannot smell like piss, be short, a complete loser, wear garbage bags and slay sexy chicks.

I'm sorry idgaf how "tight" your game is that's not happening with any modicum of consistency

Quote: (11-27-2018 01:46 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

What does Chad look like in your mind?

I suspect for someone under 22, where inceldom is most likely to feature, Chad is the jock lad who is on a sports scholarship.

From my more aged perspective, Chad plays polo, has a yacht and could be featured in a Ralph Lauren ad.

I mean, they're both getting laid. One is just older. Could even be the same dude.

"Power, Dominance, Risk taking, Rule breaking, Strength, Sexual Confidence, Pre Selection to name just a few of the qualities."

These are the qualities that attract girls. And if you have enough of these qualities and project them strong enough you can get away with dressing in a garbage bag.

I do not reccomend wearing garbage bags.

The problem of most guys here is limiting beliefs. The belief you need to be rich, handsome, wear expensive suits and have a some sort of amazing life. Truth is that none of these things matter.

I do not say these things cannot be useful.

The topic about the 'rat' I made demonstrates this perfectly. The guy was a complete loser and he got semi decent girls consistently. And he never heard or read about Game. He be too dumb for that.

The idea is that 20% of the guys are getting 80% of the girls. "Getting" in this context does not mean dating. It means fucking.

Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

If some of the #s in the "I just had sex" thread are to be believed, then many guys on this forum are fucking upwards of 50 girls a year. That's a lot of girls for one man to be fucking. The math checks out.

Of course, some guys read shit like that and start crying about how they're 5'4 and poor and they self-select out of the game. Oh well. Can't be helped.

The other thing is that it really doesn't take much to be in the top 20%. It's not hard to be in good shape, make decent cash, take care of your appearance and not be a fucking bore.

Quote:Fortis Wrote:

The idea is that 20% of the guys are getting 80% of the girls.

Ha....it is even less guys than 20%. Perhaps something like 10% or even 5%.

Quote:Fortis Wrote:

...it really doesn't take much to be in the top 20%. It's not hard to be in good shape, make decent cash, take care of your appearance and not be a fucking bore.

It is even easier than you think.

Only thing you need to show is that you are sexual. That you are the kind of guy who will fuck her brains out and make her beg for more, without making any fuzz about it. Just displaying this one quality lifts you into this top 20%/10%/5% instantly.

And now I am imagining some dude going outside, naked and screaming to all the girls on the street: "I am going to fuck your brains out!" in the hope this will display some sort of sexuality. *waiting for the youtube video of his arrest*

Guys need to raise their SMV (Sexual Market Value). Some of these qualities I described in my previous comment.

Too many guys think they need to be like James Bond or something. Just take look in fashion threat. All kinds of fancy suits, fashionable jackets and cute shoes. And none of these things display sexuality. The opposite in fact; it displays provider qualities. It is these guys who are doomed to stay in this bottom 80% while thinking they be improving them self.

In a way it is tragic. But tragedy always makes the best books and movies.

Quote: (11-27-2018 08:23 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  

Just take look in fashion threat. All kinds of fancy suits, fashionable jackets and cute shoes. And none of these things display sexuality. The opposite in fact; it displays provider qualities.

No

Quote: (11-27-2018 04:50 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  

"Power, Dominance, Risk taking, Rule breaking, Strength, Sexual Confidence, Pre Selection to name just a few of the qualities." These are the qualities that attract girls.

None of those psychological traits mean a damn thing unless you can "pass the physical" first.

Quote:Quote:

And if you have enough of these qualities and project them strong enough you can get away with dressing in a garbage bag.

I do not reccomend wearing garbage bags.

Why not, if your "look" doesn't matter? Can't the target see your rule breaking attitude behind the Hefty yard bag?

Quote: (11-27-2018 10:08 AM)scrambled Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2018 04:50 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  

"Power, Dominance, Risk taking, Rule breaking, Strength, Sexual Confidence, Pre Selection to name just a few of the qualities." These are the qualities that attract girls.

None of those psychological traits mean a damn thing unless you can "pass the physical" first.

It is the other way around. Your appearance means very little if you cannot display some of above mentioned qualities. Good looks is more like a bonus. A good bonus. I do not discount it.

Quote: (11-27-2018 10:08 AM)scrambled Wrote:  

Quote: (11-27-2018 04:50 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  

And if you have enough of these qualities and project them strong enough you can get away with dressing in a garbage bag.

I do not reccomend wearing garbage bags.

Why not, if your "look" doesn't matter? Can't the target see your rule breaking attitude behind the Hefty yard bag?

Wearing a garbage bag can certainly be effective form of peacocking under right circumstances.

Quote: (11-27-2018 08:23 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  

It is even easier than you think.

Only thing you need to show is that you are sexual. That you are the kind of guy who will fuck her brains out and make her beg for more, without making any fuzz about it. Just displaying this one quality lifts you into this top 20%/10%/5% instantly.

And now I am imagining some dude going outside, naked and screaming to all the girls on the street: "I am going to fuck your brains out!" in the hope this will display some sort of sexuality. *waiting for the youtube video of his arrest*

Guys need to raise their SMV (Sexual Market Value). Some of these qualities I described in my previous comment.

Too many guys think they need to be like James Bond or something. Just take look in fashion threat. All kinds of fancy suits, fashionable jackets and cute shoes. And none of these things display sexuality. The opposite in fact; it displays provider qualities. It is these guys who are doomed to stay in this bottom 80% while thinking they be improving them self.

In a way it is tragic. But tragedy always makes the best books and movies.

This is over-simplifying the game, but it has its merits.

Regarding the fashion thing, it is understood by most people who post there that this is more like a personal hobby/preference, and has little to do with girl. If you want to dress to get girl, the uniform is leather jacket + good jeans and v-neck/black shirt. Problem solved.

Funny comment about James Bond. Every guy who worship James Bond I've met turns out to be very socially uncalibrated. Using a movie character as the idol for getting with women, and the idea that such a personality can be recreated in real life, is about the most delusional and lame thing in my books.

What is the proof that 20% guys are fucking 80% girls?

Fellas, even if I have a group of 100 random girls, most probably I would find hot and fuckable just 20-30, being generous.
So, I would not want to be in the 20% of guys that are banging not so pretty girls.

For this 4-6 girls, I would prefer P4P.

^ I would have liked your comment, I just couldn't like a comment here that suggests I would P4P

I set the USA 7+ rating at max 8 out of 100. Seems we agree. I don't believe there is a bell shaped distribution anymore, when you consider walking around, I rarely see 1 out of 10 women I would say is attractive beyond 6. In the days of no weight issues and femininity, of course 7+ would be 20 or more.