Post: #51

(04-05-2012 09:14 AM)Moma Wrote:  You are letting the media determine what is handsome for you.

How is that wrong? Women are highly influenced and brainwashed by media propaganda. It absolutely effects their hypergamy and what they deem attractive.

Men don't decide what is handsome, women do.

Post: #52

(10-14-2016 12:56 PM)Unchained Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 09:14 AM)Moma Wrote:  You are letting the media determine what is handsome for you.

How is that wrong? Women are highly influenced and brainwashed by media propaganda. It absolutely effects their hypergamy and what they deem attractive.

Men don't decide what is handsome, women do.

The thing you don't understand is that a man's physical attractiveness is based on his other value as well. A woman's physical attractiveness to a man is nearly entirely static, a man's physical attractiveness to a woman is much more fluid.

Post: #53

(10-14-2016 03:06 PM)AneroidOcean Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 12:56 PM)Unchained Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 09:14 AM)Moma Wrote:  You are letting the media determine what is handsome for you.

How is that wrong? Women are highly influenced and brainwashed by media propaganda. It absolutely effects their hypergamy and what they deem attractive.

Men don't decide what is handsome, women do.

The thing you don't understand is that a man's physical attractiveness is based on his other value as well. A woman's physical attractiveness to a man is nearly entirely static, a man's physical attractiveness to a woman is much more fluid.

No. A man's general attractiveness is relatively fluid. His physical attractiveness is easy to predict and rate.

Height, jawline, symmetry, cheekbones, etc are objective factors for physical attraction. There are men who wet panties and demand female attention without ever opening their mouths. They're simply genetically gifted.

Things like money and attitude and social status only add to general attractiveness. There's a difference.

Post: #54

Immediate physical attraction (looks) is different than overall attraction (money, career, lifestyle). Most women want a provider type they do find attractive, but in the nightlife game, they are going to be most receptive to guys they find immediately physically attractive, regardless of how expensive his watch is. There's some variance in this, some like hipsters, some like tatted-up bad boys, some like preppy-types, and some will go out of their "type" on occasion.

The reality is not what the old-school PUA's preached regarding just be yourself, feign alpha, etc.. It seems like the manosphere is finally starting to admit the obvious.

Post: #55

Height is the most important factor, as long as you're relatively tall then even bad facial aesthetics will look attractive. There is such thing as being ugly charismatic, and some chicks dig that.

Good example of it, the guy in the front.

Post: #56

Height is part of attraction, but sometimes gets overemphasized. Some women will prioritize height over everything, but average height/good looking guy (especially if very attractive) will be more noticed than tall/average looking guy.

Post: #57

(12-12-2016 07:44 PM)torero Wrote:  Immediate physical attraction (looks) is different than overall attraction (money, career, lifestyle). Most women want a provider type they do find attractive, but in the nightlife game, they are going to be most receptive to guys they find immediately physically attractive, regardless of how expensive his watch is. There's some variance in this, some like hipsters, some like tatted-up bad boys, some like preppy-types, and some will go out of their "type" on occasion.

The reality is not what the old-school PUA's preached regarding just be yourself, feign alpha, etc.. It seems like the manosphere is finally starting to admit the obvious.

Good point. I think some of the strongest proponents of the "looks don't matter, social skills are everything" idea are guys that were already good looking but didn't have the social skills to capitalize, and once they learned some social skills, the damn broke, so they attribute their success to it, not realizing it was simply the last piece of the puzzle.

Post: #58

(04-05-2012 12:09 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 11:57 AM)Tresor Wrote:  I guess this guy at the center has what you could call a « classic » manly face from the 50's and the 60's.

Manly face and the body of a 10 year old (any gender).

Do you know who he was at that time? Do you know what he did, with his "10 year old body (any gender)"?

Americans and their stupid gym culture (and unbounded ignorance and arrogance). Proteins, muh.

It was not long time ago, that the only ones in Europe who hit the gym were the faggots, who cultivated their "masculine bodies" for you know what
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

Have a nice day.

Post: #59

Appearances can be deceiving