Post: #226

What's the point with Tinder? I think you are overrating it. It's not the real world, and more likely like a candyshop for girls (attention and sex).

A case of a friend of mine:

I have a female friend. She is what you call SJW (here in Lima is not that usual this word). Feminist to her core, 27y.o., short (152-154cm), too big eyes (like goldfish), really irritating personality, selfish, although she could be kind sometimes. She takes medication (alprazolam and benzos). She likes going to shamans to do what here we tell 'amarres', 'fumadas', etc... and also believes in Hosorcope, etc... You know that profile.
Well, why is she my friend? She is well connected. She knows several producers, DJs, etc... and we can entry for free to some events, fests, etc... It's my contact due to I don't use facebook, so she keeps me informed. I don't argue any of her behaviors because she is not willing any change in her life. So, let's have some fun as friends.

She also tells me always her adventures in Tinder. For me is not interesting but I use this data instead. Every week she could go out with 2 or 3 men. How is the profile of these men?
One was an university's teacher, earn good money. He carried her to a nice restaurant, etc.. she then nexted him, not second date and he lost about 200 Soles (with this money I can pay 4 diferent sessions with a good Colombian or Venezuelian hooker, even anal included . For me, he's a 6.5.
Another is a 29yo Chef, well traveled, good money, I would rate him as a 7.5. Sex at first date in a good hotel in Miraflores. Then she became obsessed with this guy, but that's another story.
Another guy, an ecuadorian guy that carried her in his motorbike. Then at his place, he started to sing and play guitar. No sex, she said he is too romantic, but sweet so who knows, perhaps sex at second date.
Another 28yo guy in Pisco. A good looking coastguard, a 8-8.5. He carried her to the coast in his Suv, while she blowing him. Then she got impressed due to he is not using a condom. Well, she continues. Suddenly he tries anal, she denied. Then he introduces the bottle of wine they were drinking into her vag. She is not all confortable but, who cares, it's just a bottle.


These were the last 4 dates of her. She is for me a 4-4.5. In what refers to dating or sexual market, I wouldn't give a fuck for this girl in any environment!
I really wonder why guys like those 7-8.5 are giving too much importance to girls that are milk receptacles. She even gives herself the pleasure of choosing and discarding. With the money these guys spend in one date, I could pay a threesome with prettier colochas & venecas and peruvian coke with much more fun at the end.

For me, if it's this the ROI, it doesn't worth the effort. Social circle is better.

Post: #227

Corsega, if you don't realize that Tinder is there for the shareholders to make money, and not for men to get laid, then you really need to think about that.

Tinder before it's monetization was what real life is like, even today (before 2015 I think).

I would get matches with 8's, and it wouldn't be hard to get them out on dates. What's changed since then is that the algorithm makes people pay, and it gives ugly women nearly infinite matches from guys that swipe right on everything. It inflates their ego and thus they think they're actually deserving of a high value guy.

It's like you're an employer such as Facebook and you have millions upon millions of applicants for ONE job. Wouldn't you make ridiculous requirements for someone to get that job? Same deal here.


I'm arguably an 8 in real life (looks, demeanor, body language, fashion sense, wealth, body, etc) just from a visual perspective. I could probably fuck 80-90% of women if I aggressively pursued. But on Tinder? I don't have plus, I don't have gold, I don't have pictures in cool environments, pics with friends, etc (I like my privacy), and thus I get NOTHING. And rightfully so, because I don't pay for their service.

If you actually think that garbage ass women on Tinder not swiping on you means that you're a loser in real life, you're probably stupid enough to actually be a loser in real life.

Post: #228

Looks like you posted this in the wrong thread, but:

(12-08-2018 03:29 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  Corsega, if you don't realize that Tinder is there for the shareholders to make money, and not for men to get laid, then you really need to think about that.

Of course I realize that. I work in the app world.

(12-08-2018 03:29 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  Tinder before it's monetization was what real life is like, even today (before 2015 I think).

I would get matches with 8's, and it wouldn't be hard to get them out on dates. What's changed since then is that the algorithm makes people pay, and it gives ugly women nearly infinite matches from guys that swipe right on everything. It inflates their ego and thus they think they're actually deserving of a high value guy.

It's like you're an employer such as Facebook and you have millions upon millions of applicants for ONE job. Wouldn't you make ridiculous requirements for someone to get that job? Same deal here.

Of course it's gotten harder. I've been on it since May 2016 and have noticed the decline in match count/quality myself. If you read my posts, in no way do I contest this.

(12-08-2018 03:29 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  I'm arguably an 8 in real life (looks, demeanor, body language, fashion sense, wealth, body, etc) just from a visual perspective. I could probably fuck 80-90% of women if I aggressively pursued. But on Tinder? I don't have plus, I don't have gold, I don't have pictures in cool environments, pics with friends, etc (I like my privacy), and thus I get NOTHING. And rightfully so, because I don't pay for their service.

With all due respect, that is impossible. A large part of your story is missing. Could be one or more factors:

• You are overrating yourself. Possible, though from the photo you posted of your physique an 8 would be a fair rating if your face matched your body.
• Your standards are too high. This is really common for guys I have worked with like you.
• Your definition of "NOTHING" is wrong. I am a 6/10 guy with a maxed out profile in the worst market in the US for Tinder (San Francisco) and I get about a match a day. I only swipe on 6.5/10 girls or better. If you are truly an 8/10, you should be doing exponentially better.
  

I am happy to look over your profile over PM and point out the "unknown unknowns" you might be missing. I have worked with several guys of your prototype. There is always something they overlook. Usually several things.

Post: #229

Quote:With all due respect, that is impossible. A large part of your story is missing. Could be one or more factors:

• You are overrating yourself. Possible, though from the photo you posted of your physique an 8 would be a fair rating if your face matched your body.
• Your standards are too high. This is really common for guys I have worked with like you.
• Your definition of "NOTHING" is wrong. I am a 6/10 guy with a maxed out profile in the worst market in the US for Tinder (San Francisco) and I get about a match a day. I only swipe on 6.5/10 girls or better. If you are truly an 8/10, you should be doing exponentially better.
  

I am happy to look over your profile over PM and point out the "unknown unknowns" you might be missing. I have worked with several guys of your prototype. There is always something they overlook. Usually several things.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, of course. I know lots of guys overrate themselves, but I'm very self critical to begin with. I wouldn't say I'm an 8 if I didn't think it to be reasonable. If I had to be extremely critical, sure, maybe I'm a 7-8 in the face. I have a solid jawline, high cheekbones, masculine look, clear skin, etc.

I don't have high standards. Hot women aren't even shown to me the last time I checked, and honestly I don't even use apps anymore. They're not worth the time, IMO. Real life is far better to me.

Post: #230

(12-08-2018 09:07 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  

Quote:With all due respect, that is impossible. A large part of your story is missing. Could be one or more factors:

• You are overrating yourself. Possible, though from the photo you posted of your physique an 8 would be a fair rating if your face matched your body.
• Your standards are too high. This is really common for guys I have worked with like you.
• Your definition of "NOTHING" is wrong. I am a 6/10 guy with a maxed out profile in the worst market in the US for Tinder (San Francisco) and I get about a match a day. I only swipe on 6.5/10 girls or better. If you are truly an 8/10, you should be doing exponentially better.
  

I am happy to look over your profile over PM and point out the "unknown unknowns" you might be missing. I have worked with several guys of your prototype. There is always something they overlook. Usually several things.

I don't have high standards. Hot women aren't even shown to me the last time I checked, and honestly I don't even use apps anymore. They're not worth the time, IMO. Real life is far better to me.

Sounds like you're misremembering then, or your profile was "shadowbanned". If you're an 8/10 it's impossible not to be shown to hot girls, if you have a normal profile. Tinder literally has an Elo score that shows you to hotter girls, and shows you hotter girls, the more attractive you are.

If everything you have told me is true, you could download Tinder tonight, make a new account, and do well. I know, because I have run profiles with 8/10 guys as experiments, and they have gotten tons of matches with the free plan. If you care to try it out, go for it, and you'll see that something is not adding up with your story here.

Post: #231

(12-08-2018 03:29 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  I'm arguably an 8 in real life (looks, demeanor, body language, fashion sense, wealth, body, etc) just from a visual perspective.

But on Tinder? I don't have plus, I don't have gold, I don't have pictures in cool environments, pics with friends, etc (I like my privacy), and thus I get NOTHING.

If you're an '8' in real life based on wealth, looks etc then how do you have no pictures of yourself in cool environments? More importantly, how do you not even have photos of you with friends? Do you not travel at all, or go to interesting places in your home city, or hell even just have a normal social life?

If your Tinder profile is all mirror selfies its going to scream some combination of loser/weirdo/psychopath to most girls, which is probably why you're struggling on it. That, or as corsega mentions, you're overrating yourself.

Tinder is a good reality check for most men. If you're not doing well, its one of two things: either your profile is terrible (which might be the case for you from the sounds of things) or you're just not as good looking as you thought. Have a look at the various instagram megathreads here and try out a new profile using the information on them, it might change your experience massively.

Post: #232

Quote:Tinder is a good reality check for most men.

I do not agree with this at all. Tinder is the opposite. It is primarily based on looks. And even then you better make sure that pictures are high quality. In real life many more factors are involved and looks is not the primary factor.

Besides, Tinder only has a small percentage of the woman population on it. The whole dataset is biased towards certain demographics.

Post: #233

(12-09-2018 07:32 AM)BadBoyGamer Wrote:  

Quote:Tinder is a good reality check for most men.

I do not agree with this at all. Tinder is the opposite. It is primarily based on looks. And even then you better make sure that pictures are high quality. In real life many more factors are involved and looks is not the primary factor.

Besides, Tinder only has a small percentage of the woman population on it. The whole dataset is biased towards certain demographics.

That fact that Tinder is primarily based on looks is why its such a good reality check. Its the most honest feedback from large numbers of the opposite sex most men will ever get about how attractive they actually look. No platitudes, no easy let downs, no fake boyfriends to spare their feelings...just instant rejection if they don't meet the looks standard.

Looks are always the primary factor in real life too, you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Game, money, lifestyle etc are mitigating factors that come into play. But theres no getting around the centrality of attractiveness to getting laid. Its just even more immediate, and pronounced, on Tinder.

Post: #234

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.

Post: #235

Tinder is based on a photograph, not overall looks (which includes height, muscles, posture, voice, smell, etc), not even facial looks. Clever photography can work miracles for women, I know that, because I know women who look ordinary in person but look like super models in their social media profiles. Photography probably can work miracles for men too. I don't care because I think Tinder and online dating in general is a pathway to unhappiness, whether or not it helps you get laid.

Post: #236

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Originally it applied to economics and how us humans distribute wealth. Naturally as sex is transactional in a way and economic market forces apply in a similar manner in this market people apply this rule as well.

While I'm not in the camp that believes that the sexual marketplace works the same way as an economic marketplace(or even how most "economists" believe the economic place world the way it does), this principle and aspects of supply/demand are the only "economic" principles that do apply to the sexual marketplace and life in general.

Post: #237

What is this Chad meme people keep trying to use? Is it just a stereo-typically well put together guy?

Post: #238

^^ Read the topic.

Post: #239

Tinder is very much looks focused. It is a reality check in the sense that men are finally understanding that women are extremely shallow and have been lied too their whole upbringing on female behaviour.

But I wouldn't be too discouraged. Women on Tinder are punching well above their weight in matches. Chads are fucking down and ploughing very average looking pussy. Screws all the other men out of the market fighting for scraps/openings hence the 80/20 rule.

I enjoyed Tinder for a while, although I was mostly only fucking 4's and 5's and enjoying them adore me as if I were a Chad. I got over the delusion and have better success with more attractive women in real world interactions now.

Post: #240

(12-06-2018 03:34 PM)Teedub Wrote:  The vast majority of 7/10 middle class 22 year old women just want a nice boyfriend, not a drug dealer for one-off bangs.

Some of you guys read way too much Krauser etc. "Secret society" and so on is hilarious.

Edit: Krauser etc marketing. Marketing being the key word. Most guys who get into game get into it to get a girlfriend, those who don't simply want to make up for lost time because they didn't have girlfriends when they were teenagers and students. Very few men genuinely want to 'build a harem' and other such stuff.

Most 22yr old middle class girls have done shit you wouldn't believe.

I agree that ultimately they want an LTR, at some point. But every girl loves adventure sex, especially when ovulating.

Quote:A secret society exists. Around 52% of people on this earth are a part of it.

Of that 52%, 50% are women, 2% are men.

Of that 2%, 1% of those men are gay, the other 1% are players.

What I’m talking about is the sex secret society – and you are either *IN* or *OUT*.

If you're NAWALTing you might be part of the 49%.

Post: #241

(12-10-2018 08:32 AM)Oak Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 03:34 PM)Teedub Wrote:  The vast majority of 7/10 middle class 22 year old women just want a nice boyfriend, not a drug dealer for one-off bangs.

Some of you guys read way too much Krauser etc. "Secret society" and so on is hilarious.

Edit: Krauser etc marketing. Marketing being the key word. Most guys who get into game get into it to get a girlfriend, those who don't simply want to make up for lost time because they didn't have girlfriends when they were teenagers and students. Very few men genuinely want to 'build a harem' and other such stuff.

Most 22yr old middle class girls have done shit you wouldn't believe.

I agree that ultimately they want an LTR, at some point. But every girl loves adventure sex, especially when ovulating.

Quote:A secret society exists. Around 52% of people on this earth are a part of it.

Of that 52%, 50% are women, 2% are men.

Of that 2%, 1% of those men are gay, the other 1% are players.

What I’m talking about is the sex secret society – and you are either *IN* or *OUT*.

If you're NAWALTing you might be part of the 49%.

Most and every are massive exaggerations.

One of the problems with red pill is that when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Promiscuous women self-select to be around red pill guys. All the girls I fuck are sluts and I know it. That's what I go for. Even girls whose virginities I've taken have turned into sluts.

In the 20-24 age range, over 60 percent of women (e.g. most women) have had between 1 and 4 partners: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5795598/

Think your average bookworm religious type chick living in Utah. Yeah, you may not be going after her, but this is the prototype.

The other 40%? Sure. They're getting down and dirty. But be careful when you use words like "most" and "every".

Post: #242

(12-09-2018 07:44 AM)zatara Wrote:  That fact that Tinder is primarily based on looks is why its such a good reality check. Its the most honest feedback from large numbers of the opposite sex most men will ever get about how attractive they actually look. No platitudes, no easy let downs, no fake boyfriends to spare their feelings...just instant rejection if they don't meet the looks standard.

Looks are always the primary factor in real life too, you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Game, money, lifestyle etc are mitigating factors that come into play. But theres no getting around the centrality of attractiveness to getting laid. Its just even more immediate, and pronounced, on Tinder.

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.

Post: #243

(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.

(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.

Post: #244

(12-10-2018 05:23 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  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.

Give us some examples, then.

5s with 9s.

Status can't be at play, money can't be at play, social circle can't be at play.

Cold approach only.

I've issued this challenge to dozens of guys... still waiting on the first bit of evidence. It's the Game equivalent of arguing with guys who claim they're psychics.

Post: #245

I am actually one such example, but I can't give you evidence over the Internet as that's just stupid. I can and have shown men who've met me in person the examples. RVF does not lack successful men who are just regular looking blokes, and as they have had extensive life experiences, I'm sure they've seen similar guys who do well with women who are nothing like what the Internet theorists claim.

In saying that, why would you downplay status, money and social circle? Do you think there is no Game involved in acquiring those? In order to build a good fertile social circle, to achieve status and to make decent money (inheritance aside), a man needs to have tremendous social skills aka Game. I have a feeling that you have never built a successful social circle, made good money or achieved some form of status through those things. There are men here who are successful entrepreneurs and social circle Gamers, I can hear their laughter already. Take a look at those threads on RVF, educate yourself.

You guys are essentially living a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more you invest your time and effort online, the more confirmation bias you receive from your "looksmax" point of view. Online dating is an abnormal way for men and women to meet, to draw conclusions from there is to give yourself an abnormal and skewed perspective.

Post: #246

I've known at least two short, bald morbidly obese guys with beautiful wives (also short). Facially the guys were fine, 8 or above. But short, fat and bald should knock their score down right? Neither was more "dominant" than the average male, though I really don't know what that word means. Met their wives through social circle, the way most people used to meet. Both guys were exceptionally gregarious, talkative, outgoing. Far from "dominating", they were very friendly to everyone. The wives were shy types and probably these guys were the first to break through their shyness.

On the other hand, I've known plenty of short, fat bald guys with what appears an aggressive "dominant"' personality who were not particularly successful with women.

I think we can safely throw "dominance" in the garbage can with "alpha" and replace with the term "good social skills, appropriate for a man interacting romantically with a woman".

Looks matters, but only to get past a threshold. 80% of men can get into the top 20% if they try, because most of the competition is not trying. Look at the photos on this thread, about the middle of the page:
/thread-70549-page-27.html
That's your competition. Guys who looked like they pooped in their rumbled jeans, fat slobs, short pants wearing neck beards, etc. Guy carrying the orange bag is nicely dressed but he might be "swish", my gaydar isn't good enough to tell for sure. Photo of Roosh also looks good.

Short guys can get into the top 20% of guys their own height, and then go after girls their height or below. Yes, those girls could and sometime do hook up with much taller guys, but many prefer men their own height. Also seen that with my own eyes.

Tinder and an online dating is poison. Even if it gets you dates and sex, it will make you miserable in the long run. Just say no. There WILL be a resurgence of night game venues at some point as people get sick of everything associated with social media, and it will happen first in the Bay Area. But probably different from nightclubs of the past.

Post: #247

(12-08-2018 09:15 PM)corsega Wrote:  I know, because I have run profiles with 8/10 guys as experiments, and they have gotten tons of matches with the free plan. If you care to try it out, go for it, and you'll see that something is not adding up with your story here.

Care to elaborate more on these experiments?
Something I've been thinking of doing for some time but have been simply too lazy to get started.

Post: #248

(11-19-2018 12:31 PM)quaker13 Wrote:  

(11-19-2018 12:13 PM)tugofpeace Wrote:  I live in Chicago, downtown, and every time I walk outside, I see beautiful women with average to below average guys. 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 aren't young women either, I'm talking 25+. I see this DAILY.

You know how many "Chad" looking guys I see with beautiful women? ZERO. Let alone the amount of "Chad" looking guys that are actually out there. I pretty much never encounter these guys, and if I do, they don't live up to the stereotype. In my 6 years living in Chicago I've seen ONE dude that literally caused me to gawk and think in my head "holy shit that dudes a 10/10".

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.

I know what it's like to be very attractive to the point where women will many times make the first move, and stare or try to talk to me to the point where it's borderline harassment. I don't doubt that for some guys, getting women is childs play. I have no doubt that online, this chad theory may play out.

But in real life, where are you guys getting this perception? I"m honestly curious because it's completely contrary to what I've experienced. I read online a lot and it's affected my beliefs a bit, but when I step outside it's like a complete 180. None of this stuff seems to be real.

I havent been to Chicago in years but I think you might be dealing with some selection bias. For starters, i'd bet the men you see with these women ranging from 7-10(though i find it hard to believe there are scores of 10s in chicago) all likely make significantly more money than the woman they are with. Like a whole lot more. Second, we frequently discuss on this forum how attractive men can be pussies when it comes to approach and often they take what ever scraps they are dealt because of their crippling fear of rejection. Granted their scraps are likely 7s but they aren't living up to their potential no matter how you slice it.

I will second that there are plenty of 10s in Chicago.
----
Or, perhaps they are manwhores and are tapping everywoman in sight? It is pointless to make assumptions about some random person. I can't be the only good looking guy trying to outperform Gengis Kahn: https://bumpreveal.com/blogs/statistics/...escendants

A dude that looks like a 1 and is a pussy will never get laid.
A dude that looks like a 10 and is a pussy will still get laid.

You can't tell how many good looking men, or ugly men are pussies.

I can tell you from being in plenty of relationships with 9/10 (and hanging out with their hot friends as a group) hot women that good looking men approach hot women more often than ugly dudes do.

Post: #249

(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.

Oh boy. I like your posts and I like your logical approach to the game, I really do.
In fact I even recently gave you a rep point a few days ago.

So please take this sincerely when I tell you that you have it completely wrong. The first part of your post was ok, but then you started losing me. I have a feeling you're wrong because you are basing too many things in the theoretical world in your mind, and you still don't have enough real world experience of the game (high notch count, experience with harems / LTRs with hot girls, etc).

Social status, to some girls, can be KING when it comes to attraction. Especially the young hot party girls that are being picky on tinder. And status is certainly not a "beta bux" trait. Keep in mind, when I say status I am talking about the status that girls care about: popular, cool guy, at the top of the social food chain, with lots of fun connections. Not the department chair at the astrophysics society. And even then, the department chair of astrophysics has enough relative status in his little niche that he can actually be killing it as well - just not with the young party girls but obviously a much more different demographic of women.

Also keep in mind that some of the best looking guys are usually the high status guys in their social circles. Yes, yes exceptions exist. There's stories of ugly guys killing it and good looking guys shooting themselves in the foot and never getting pussy. But let's get the extreme anecdotes out of the way and look at general trends.
Physical attractiveness and status are tightly related and intertwined, and it's no surprise girls very much care about those two things when it comes to pure attraction.

Post: #250

(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 agree 100 percent. Also, the people that choose to use tinder versus the ones that don't. I know many women that do not have tinder profiles.

Here is a good way to get your rating per picture on Horornot website (if anyone still uses it):

https://fb-eu1.hotornot.com/