Quote: (12-10-2018 05:23 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:
Sounds like you have been internet dating for too long and have not been outside much. There's a lot of anti-Game going on lately on this forum too. It's all about "looksmax" with these people, I wonder if this has something to do with gay culture getting mainstream.
Women respond to dominance first and foremost. Always have been throughout history, and so do all female mammals. On a medium where men compete on looks (Tinder), of course they are going to pick the best looking i.e most dominant ones. Fortunately, real life offers infinite avenues where men can be dominant and attract women.
Some of my lifting partners look like Greek gods, they are the ones flirting with chubby girls at the gym, or dating older expired women, because deep down they are about as dominant as a mouse and as exciting as a bag of rocks.
If you have never seen regular looking men getting beautiful women, you haven't really lived much at all. It's the norm throughout the whole world and history of mankind.
This is an odd post. I'm not anti game at all, I've no idea where you got that. Game is a vital part of any man's toolkit. Both of my posts in this thread are about how Tinder is often a useful reality check for men who think they're more attractive looking than they actually are, because its an entirely visual medium. Thanks for coming in hot there though, sounds like you might need newer reading glasses in your old age.
"dominance" (which you've used to refer to multiple different things here, but you seem to be using it as a catch-all for 'game') is absolutely vitally important. Some good looking guys have terrible game, and will do awful with women once they need to speak to them. And vice versa, some average or worse looking men have amazing game and will do very well with women if they can actually get them engaged in a conversation. But at the end of the day looks (whatever combination of height, dress sense, physicality, and facial aesthetics) are always going to be the primary attraction feature in a normal social environment (a bar, a party, whatever) that will get your foot in the door. Theres a certain minimum threshold of looks a man needs to reach before hes going to be able to get very good looking girls consistently. There are obviously going to be rare exceptions, but in the vast majority of cases all the game, or 'dominance', in the world isn't going to result in an ugly, fat, badly dressed man scoring model looking girls regularly.
"normal looking men getting beautiful women" is absolutely not the norm throughout the whole world and history of mankind - its rarely anything but an exception to the norm. And its in most cases because the normal looking guys in question have other things going for them that compensate - either very good game, or lifestyle factors (wealth or social status mostly). In the vast majority of cases where those two contributing factors are missing women either date sideways, or upwards in looks. Hell, thats the biggest problem these days with Tinder - because its so heavily visual based women are almost exclusively dating up, and this is how its screwing average looking or worse guys.
Quote: (12-09-2018 08:23 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:
Attractiveness is not only determined by looks. I would say that when it comes down to looks (psysical appearance as in muscle, fat, face, hair, grooming, clothes) only a certain "treshold" needs to be obtained. Once this point has been reached other qualities get priority. And I do not see any evidence for this "threshold" to be particulary high.
Or to put it into other words: As long as you are "not bad looking".
Other attractive qualities that are important are: dominance, strength, pre selection, initiative taking, self confidence, risk taking, fearlesssness, social freedom, emotional control, etc.
In a real life face to face interaction these qualities become a whole lot more important than looks. And when it comes to sex these qualities become even more important.
To put it into other words: A "hot" submissive guy is unattractive.
I would even say that these qualities can entirely negate "uglyness". Or in the negative completly negate "hotness".
On other hand money and social status have little to do with attractiveness. These are simply practical considerations which belong in the "Beta Bux" category. If money or status where attractive, I expect girls to masturbate to pictures of Mark Zuckerberg.
But I do agree that Tinder gives you a good idea about where you stand looks wise. However as I said, this be a biased dataset. Biased towards looks primarily and biased for girls that primarily select based on looks.
I absolutely agree that the key is passing a certain looks threshold. Looks get your foot in the door, game converts that foot in the door to sex. But my point that looks are the primary consideration in most social situations is because without meeting that looks threshold all the dominance, self confidence etc in the world is, in most cases, not going to count for shit. Someone can have exceptionally good game (dominance, risk taking...etc), but if they're an aspergers looking, fat, fedora wearer then they're never going to get the chance to spit that game.
To be clear, I'm not advocating ugly guys just give up or anything. MGOTWs that think you have to naturally look like a male model to get laid are retarded. I've spent years posting here about how I went from a skinny, lonely, teenager to being very successful with women in my 20s simply by dressing better, getting in great physical shape, and getting my professional life in good order. My main point is that guys need to be realistic about their level of looks, and, if they're not attractive enough for them to regularly be getting hot women, they need to engage in some self improvement to fix that.