Lately, a friend of mine has been bringing up a recently acquired belief that looks are everything, and everything else is nothing, when it comes to meeting and picking up women. I've avoided being drawn into the debate as best I can, but any time I mention anything women-related, I've been hearing it from him: “Oh, I don't even listen to that, because the only thing that matters is looks.”
Disagreeing with him gets one told one is in denial, and he cites a few examples of very good looking friends of his who get better results with women than anybody else he knows as evidence that only good looking guys can get good looking girls.
I've refrained from weighing in too much on this until now,
because I understand why he's thinking this way and why he's trying to
convince everyone that looks are all that matters. But I felt
like the topic is a good one, and that it'd make for good article
fodder and be something worth addressing here. The topic being:
Do looks matter to women, and if so how much?
And the answer I've got for you here will almost certainly surprise you, no matter which side of the fence you fell on prior to reading this.
From a young age, I realized that I had a curious deficit: I was unable to tell what was attractive in anything other than women.
I could tell with girls - I could tell you this girl was pretty, and this girl was not - but I couldn't tell you that a pit bull was cuter than a border collie, for instance, or that this baby was cuter than that one.
And I also couldn't tell which men were more attractive than other men.
It applied to myself, too.
Eventually I learned certain features that make some dogs more
attractive than others, or some babies cuter than others. But I've
never quite been able to figure it out with men. Every time I think
I've spotted a specific feature that good-looking men all have in
common, someone points me to a man with that feature that they claim is
ugly. I'm left flummoxed when it comes to men's looks.
As such, I've gone through most of my life completely ignorant about men's looks. Fashion sense and hairstyles I can only discover what looks good by monitoring others' reactions and trying them out myself and seeing how the reactions I get from women differ.
Growing up, I long heard that women didn't care so much about looks, and as I couldn't see any difference in attractiveness between men, I assumed that unless a guy was horribly physically deformed, he was probably about the same as most other guys when it came to looks. The only men I assumed were VERY attractive were Hollywood movie stars.
But when I heard someone comment that Jim Carrey was pretty ordinary looking when I was about fifteen years old, it was shocking for me. I'd simply assumed that just as the women in Hollywood are all more or less at least pretty cute, so must be true of the men. Not so, people told me. I'd had no idea.
Learning About Meeting Girls
In 2006, I dramatically dialed up my commitment to learning how to get girls. As a result of this, I soon began hanging out with the men around me who were the best I knew at getting girls.
I learned - only much later after meeting each of them - that these guys were pretty much across the board considered very handsome. Not being able to tell myself, I assumed they must be better looking than I was, because girlfriends would tell me they "wished I looked like they did." Which was fine with me - I felt quite excited to be able to learn from guys who were better looking than I was. Here was a guy with an innate advantage, who almost certainly got an earlier start than I did, was getting laid like crazy, and probably had way more experience than almost anyone else I'd ever meet.
I never spent much time learning from people in the pickup community, simply because it was hard for me to find men there who were getting the kinds of results I was interested in. I did find some - and I learned some amazing things from them.
But some of my greatest teachers were these men the guys there called "naturals" - guys who'd never studied "game," aside from whatever they picked up talking to women themselves, and yet had slept with hundreds of women and had tremendous amounts of success at young ages.
And there were two things I noticed in common with all of my "natural" friends who were doing exceptionally well with women:
They were all uncommonly good looking, and
They all had uncommonly good "game"
Thus, a chicken-and-egg problem emerged: what came first - the good looks, or the good game?
Because, as you no doubt realize, looks and game are both things that can be massively tweaked.
Playing with Looks
For some reason I don't quite understand, there are a lot of men who
hold that looks are fixed and there's nothing you can do about them. Au contraire.
I'm going to use female examples here, because I can tell good looks
from not with women but not men. I'm assuming there are some guys
reading this who are like
me and "disabled" in the "reading men's attractiveness" zone too, so
we'll use women's attractiveness as a proxy for talking about men's.
Have a look at these three women's faces:
Try and imagine them without makeup - no lipstick to make their lips look glossy, no mascara to make their eyelashes look full, no eyeliner to make their eyelids stand out, no foundation to make their skin look smooth, no plucking of their eyebrows to make their eyebrows look slim and svelte and sharp.
Imagine them too with their mouths not closed in a pouty look, or not slightly ajar in sexual poses; their eyelids not half open in sultry expressions. Try and imagine what these girls look like at work, in business suits, with professional hairstyles, in fluorescent cubicle lighting, in their gray workspaces.
Would any of them qualify there as "hot"?
Not really, right? They look pretty ordinary, don't they?
The girl on the left... her jawline is a bit too rounded. Her face almost looks fat. The girl in the middle has a nose that's too pointy, and a sort of shark-like look about her face. The girl on the right just has unexceptional looks - her cheeks sag a bit, and her nose has somewhat of a bulbous point.
All of them are cute, at best - and certainly not gorgeous.
They are, you might say, average
girls with makeup on and plucked eyebrows and sexy facial expressions.
But what do you think if you look at them like this?:
Wow! Really hot... right?
I'm sure you have a good idea, but before we go more into it, here's one more example:
That's the face of Florence Colgate, the winner out of 8,000 applicants to a contest that examined facial proportions to select the most scientifically beautiful female face in the whole of England.
You may or may not find her personally attractive - I have some friends who say they don't like her look at all. Personally, it's the perfect look for me - the girlfriend I had at the time this article came out even had a face nearly identical to Florence's. I sent out the picture of this girl next to the picture of my girlfriend to all of my friends then and said, wow, look at this, according to science my gal's at the top of the scientific beauty chart. (bragging rights, I suppose)
If you believe that friend of mine, of course, I can't get a girl like that
girlfriend of mine, since I'm certainly not #1 in the male looks
department. And I certainly
can't get a girl like that girlfriend of mine for a one-night stand -
even though that was, indeed, exactly how I got her. Apparently, I'm making the impossible possible.
But am I really doing anything exceptional? More on that in just a
moment - let's keep talking about
playing with looks.
Back to Florence Colgate.
Now here's Florence - that same girl who won the most beautiful face contest - at her day job:
quite the same stunning features as in the first picture, right?
Almost hard to believe they're even the same person, isn't it?
The point I want to make here with these images is this: physical attractiveness is about a great deal more than just your raw set of genes.
Yes, there are limitations. Steve Buscemi is never going to look like Fabio, no matter how hard he tries.
And there is something to symmetry and jaw structure - we're going
to look at some of the science on these below.
But, after studying women's attractiveness quite extensively, I can tell you that what I've found on this is a lot more similar to what I thought the case was before I ever really became all that aware of looks.
That is to say, that unless you're incredibly, unbelievably ugly, with the right hairstyle, fashion, attention to your face and body, and use of facial expressions, you can make yourself just about as attractive as you care to make yourself.
Even if looks matter... looks are pliable.
Your 10 is Not a 10
I noticed something a long time ago, when I first started paying attention to the pickup community.
The guys who rated girls' looks on a 1 to 10 scale NEVER got their "10s." I talked about this back in 2009 in "How to Get Perfect "10" Girls": the very first point of that article was this - stop rating girls on a 1 to 10 scale! So long as she's a "10" for you, you will never get her. Never. She's out of your league.
You place yourself in a hierarchy of looks when you use a 1 to 10 scale. I struggled more with beautiful women in the brief amount of time I adopted a 1 to 10 scale for rating women's looks than at any time before or since. It's hierarchical thinking, and there are always people "above" you and "below" you.
If she's below you on the looks scale, you expect her to work to get
you, and get angry if she gives you more resistance than you think she
should. After all, you're better
looking than her, and thus higher value. According to you, anyway... never mind the fact
that this is a 100% subjective valuation.
If she's above you on the looks scale, however, you subconsciously place her on a pedestal, and you act differently around her, put an inordinate amount of pressure on her, and you treat her differently than you do other girls.
She may or may not think she's better looking than you. But she can absolutely tell if you think she's better looking - and thus
higher value - than you are.
When you do it this way, there are two ways you treat women: there's how you treat really HOT girls... and how you treat all the rest.
When I moved to Southern California in mid 2007, the women were more attractive than what I was used to, and I struggled for a little while to get up to speed. The first thing I did was throw out the point scale. The next thing I did was to train myself to stop consciously assessing women's beauty AT ALL, and to simply just go for whatever girls I found most attractive.
The transition was gradual and largely unnoticed, and I hadn't even noticed this working until one day, at a social event in early 2009, after I'd been talking to this girl who really liked me for a little while, I suddenly realized, holy crap, this girl is absolutely breathtakingly GORGEOUS! I hadn't even noticed it. She had a perfect face, a perfect body, the slinkiest, most seductive bright red dress you've ever seen, and was probably the most beautiful woman I'd seen in months, and I was going out meeting loads of new women regularly.
I hadn't even realized it.
And the moment I did
realize it, I started valuing her more highly, I started treating her a
little differently, and all the attention and attraction she'd been
giving to me before dried up... and she moved on to go talk with
(and flirt with) someone else.
Someone, most likely, who was more immune to her beauty than I, at the time, was.
Good-Looking Folks and Their Results
I had a couple of very good-looking (so I'm told) male friends in Southern California, and met a few others. Each of these guys was dating women far less attractive than the women I was dating. This wasn't just my opinion - other people said it too.
On the whole, they were sleeping with more women than I was at the time - they were racking up higher notch counts more quickly than me. But the girls they were sleeping with and keeping around left something to be desired in the looks department. In fact, they'd throw girls my way who were "their" types of girls, and all I could say was, "No thanks, man!"
I was apprenticing under them, but I didn't want to be exactly like them.
About half of the very good looking men I met struggled with women. Girls who weren't all that cute would approach them, and give them signals, but they'd miss those signals and the girls would storm off and find someone else. My female friends would giggle about this and tell me, "He is so hot, but he's so bad with women and he never gets laid!" One of these guys apparently complained to one of these girls about how he just couldn't get girls and didn't know why.
The other half did well, but their quality was all over the map. They were "quantity" guys who were sleeping with tons of women, but rarely together with girls who were all that attractive. One of them - a good friend with some of the best game I've ever seen, whom I learned and adapted a great deal from - was repeatedly sleeping with girls far beneath what he could get in terms of looks. In fact, when mutual friends of ours suggested he start going for hotter girls, all he'd say was, "Those chicks are too high maintenance."
I assumed what he was really saying was that they weren't as easy to get as the girls he was getting, and he'd rather go for the sure bet than the prettier but less certain one.
The weirdest head turner came when I started paying more attention to the men that my most beautiful female friends and ex-girlfriends went for. They didn't date or sleep with the most attractive men. They went for these... other guys, instead.
I even watched them choose between them. A girl would be making out with one really hot guy, but then she'd go home with a guy who wasn't.
This boggled my mind, because as much as I thought there was more to it than looks, I assumed that if a girl CONSIDERED a guy to be "really hot," that would mean she'd want him more than another guy she didn't think of that way.
Was there more to it then, than whom a girl found most physically attractive?
In late 2009, I spent a month and a half in Hollywood. I wasn't trying to become a star - earlier I'd spent some time up in L.A. auditioning for various movie roles, but I came up short on all of them.
Maybe I wasn't good-looking enough.
This time, I was there for work - I was on a project for the company I worked for, training various government agencies in Los Angeles on how to use a new piece of software they were adopting (that I myself hardly knew how to use - talk about learning on the job).
While I was there, though, I took the time to grab some meals and spend time with a friend and mentor of mine, from whom I'd learned a great deal about meeting women.
As was customary when spending time with one of my mentors, I made a point not to ever ask questions about girls or dating - men who teach this for a living get tired of talking about it, and tired of being in the teacher role. I didn't want to be seen as just another needy student - I wanted to be a friend and equal. So, I focused on providing good conversation, finding great places for us to enjoy a good meal at (that I could put on my corporate expense account), and trusted that, as usual, I'd soak up knowledge just by being in my friend's presence and watching him do what he did.
One night we were out at a nightclub, just sitting and talking. Multiple groups of women stopped by to try and engage us in conversation, and eventually he pulled one of them in to start talking to them. This usually didn't happen much to me - most girls waited for me to do the approaching when I was out alone, or with another of my friends. And this friend wasn't better looking than I was - in fact, he was less attractive than me.
Another night, we sat talking in a nightclub the whole night, never
talking to anyone. As we left at closing time, he peeled off and opened
a pair of beautiful girls in stunning dresses walking down the street.
I'd been picking up in nightclubs for years, but I'd never done nighttime
street game before.
The girls were cold to us at first, but I hung back and let him work
his magic. Every time they tried to walk away, he'd gently but firmly
insist that they'd stay, and stay they would.
Within a minute or so, we were walking together; a few more minutes and they were agreeing to come with us to an after party. 15 minutes later we were all in a car on the way there. Not long after we got back to his apartment - no after party in sight - he was having multiple rounds of sex with his girl in his bedroom, while I tried to figure out what to do with a beautiful girl I had no connection with in a situation I wasn't used to being in (very fast, zero connection pulls).
I had a lot to learn, I realized.
So, over the next few months, I focused on doing almost nothing but nighttime street game. I'd go out, hit the streets, and take girls home minutes after meeting them. It was surprisingly easy... much more than I thought it was, prior to watching my friend and prior to trying it myself.
And the surprising ease of pulling even gorgeous girls off the street at night made it clearer to me than ever before that there's a lot more going on with quick pickups than just looks.
Do Looks Matter?
That friend who's hung up on looks is right, to an extent - looks do matter.
But how much do they matter?
My friend and I have clashing beliefs and clashing experiences here - I know lots of good looking guys sleeping with lots of girls, but none I know of who are getting lots of really beautiful girls. My friend contends that the only men he knows getting really beautiful girls are very good looking guys.
The problem with relying on anecdotal reporting is that it's rife with small sample sizes and confirmation bias - in other words, you find what you're looking for.
When you're convinced that everyone drives Toyota Camrys, all you see on the road are Camrys. When you're convinced that everybody drives Honda Civics, all you notice are Civics.
Likewise, I notice LOTS of supposedly good-looking guys, and guys with gigantic muscles, and guys who carry themselves well and look powerful and clean-cut, with girls I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. And I also see loads of beautiful women with men who even I can tell are unattractive. But I'm looking for these kinds of couples. My friend is the other way - he only sees beautiful women with handsome men.
Most likely, we're both only seeing what we want to see.
The most balanced research I could find on the topic of physical
attractiveness and sexual desirability was a series of
meta-analyses of five (5) different studies on the role physical
attractiveness plays in mate selection published in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology in 1990 under the name "Gender
differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic
attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms." Here's
“Evolutionary and sociocultural theories of mate selection preferences contend that men place greater value on physical attractiveness than do women. Thus, meta-analyses were conducted of findings from 5 research paradigms that have examined the hypothesis: (1) questionnaire studies, (2) analyses of lonely hearts advertisements, (3) studies that correlate attractiveness with opposite sex popularity, (4) studies that correlate attractiveness with liking by a dyadic interaction partner, and (5) experiments that manipulate the attractiveness and similarity of an opposite sex stranger. The anticipated sex difference emerged in all 5 meta-analyses, although it was larger in research that examined self-reports than in research that examined social behavior.”
So, the findings here are that women's looks are more important to men than men's looks are to women, but that the difference between these two is greater in self-reported (i.e., what people THINK they want) results than in examined (i.e., what people ACTUALLY want) results.
Which... is vaguely confusing. How big of a difference is there, then? If the difference isn't that big, maybe looks actually are nearly as important to women as they are to men.
Going into the research further produces more fruitful, though not completely elucidating, findings:
“There were three major findings from the cross-domain comparison of effect sizes for sex differences. First, the hypothesis that more men than women value attractiveness received some support from all five research paradigms. Second, the effect sizes were appreciably larger in the paradigms that examined self-reports of partner preferences (questionnaires and personal ads) than in paradigms that examined behavior (dyadic interactions, the attractiveness–popularity relationship, and bogus stranger liking). Finally, although romantic popularity (e.g., dating frequency) was, as predicted, more strongly associated with physical attractiveness for women than for men, platonic popularity with the opposite sex (e.g., number of opposite-sex friends) was more strongly correlated with attractiveness for men, and this difference in gender effects was the source of contradictions in the literature. Related to this finding, meta-analysis has also found physical attractiveness is correlated with same-sex popularity for men but not for women (Feingold, 1990), and that matching for attractiveness among same-sex friends occurs for men but not for women (Feingold, 1988). Thus, it is only with respect to romantic attraction that women's physical attractiveness seems to have stronger effects on social behavior than men's physical attractiveness.”
Interestingly, the researchers found that:
Women's attractiveness matters more than men's in mating and dating
Men's attractiveness matters more in making same-sex and inter-sex friendships
Matching for attractiveness among same-sex friends occurs among men but not women
... which is why you'll see groups of girls that have pretty girls
ugly girls together, but groups of guys usually have men of
approximately the same attractiveness levels, and it's why you'll see
women wanting to be friends
with the hottest guys around.
When it comes to selecting for mates, however, the role of men's physical attractiveness is present, but not so clear cut.
Things That Matter Besides Looks
While looks do matter to an extent, looks aren't all that matters.
Not by a long shot.
Big, the Rich, and the Powerful: Physical, Financial, and Social
Dimensions of Dominance in Mating and Attraction," published in the
March 2011 volume of the Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin:
“Dominance is a key feature on which romantic partners are evaluated, yet there is no clear consensus on its definition. In Study 1 (N = 305), the authors developed scales to measure three putatively distinct dimensions of dominance: social, financial, and physical. In Study 2 (N = 308), the authors used their scales in a mate-selection paradigm and found that women perceived physical dominance to be related to both attractiveness and social dominance. For both sexes, attractiveness predicted desirability for a one-night stand, whereas attractiveness and agreeableness were predictors of desirability for a serious relationship. In Study 3 (N = 124), the authors surveyed romantic partners in monogamous relationships and found that although aspects of a partner’s dominance—financial for women and social for men—played a bivariate role in relationship satisfaction, agreeableness was the strongest predictor of current and future relationship satisfaction and the only significant predictor of relationship dissolution.”
Don't be confused by the use of the word "attractiveness" here - the study isn't talking about physical attractiveness, but rather what qualities women look for in men they want to sleep with.
In this case, dominance plays a very large role. That is to say, perceived physical dominance impacts attractiveness, which predicts desirability for a one-night stand.
The more physically dominant you appear, the more one-night stand worthy you become.
Just what constitutes "perceived physical dominance," you might ask?
- Movement speed (slowness)
- Effort levels (obeying the Law of Least Effort and using sprezzatura)
- Powerful body language that takes up space
- A powerful, sexy walk that exudes confidence
- A deep, resonant voice
That's all stuff a bit beside the cut of your jib.
Next on our list of interesting findings, we have this piece of
research, from the Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, entitled, colorfully enough, "Peacocks,
Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: conspicuous consumption as a sexual
“Conspicuous consumption is a form of economic behavior in which self-presentational concerns override desires to obtain goods at bargain prices. Showy spending may be a social signal directed at potential mates. We investigated such signals by examining (a) which individuals send them, (b) which contexts trigger them, and (c) how observers interpret them. Three experiments demonstrated that conspicuous consumption is driven by men who are following a lower investment (vs. higher investment) mating strategy and is triggered specifically by short-term (vs. long-term) mating motives. A fourth experiment showed that observers interpret such signals accurately, with women perceiving men who conspicuously consume as being interested in short-term mating. Furthermore, conspicuous purchasing enhanced men's desirability as a short-term (but not as a long-term) mate. Overall, these findings suggest that flaunting status-linked goods to potential mates is not simply about displaying economic resources. Instead, conspicuous consumption appears to be part of a more precise signaling system focused on short-term mating. These findings contribute to an emerging literature on human life-history strategies.”
The researchers here found that throwing money around actually does work in making you a more attractive one-night stand candidate.
Which I've seen from experience - I've watched guys in VIP with bottle service outcompete better-looking men with equivalent levels of game for women in nightclubs. Hard to say if conspicuous consumption always beats looks hands down, but it's certainly a toss up.
For my money though, dominance is what rules the coop.
Of course, that last is anecdotal... my experience has been that, the more dominant I've appeared and the more dominant I've behaved, the greater my success with women has become, and the higher the caliber of women I've been able to get has gotten.
There's also the case of mate poaching, discussed in the article on preselection; the research on that indicates that single women are much more interested in men already having success with women than men who aren't.
Ultimately, all in all, whether we're talking one-night stands or long-term relationships, there's a great deal more at play than just what your face looks like.
Are You Hookup Material?
I sought for a long time to change myself into hookup material. I was very much "boyfriend" or "husband material" before - until late 2010, in fact, many of the girls I slept with would be talking about marriage either the first night we were together, or the second. It was something I struggled with for a long time to rid myself of.
To me, the keys to being outstanding hookup material - even for very beautiful girls - have long boiled down to these points:
Look as good as you possibly can. Just like the "10s" you see in nightclubs are usually just somewhat cute or even average girls with exceptional hair, clothes, makeup, and sexy facial expressions and command of their bodies and vibes, you can do this too. Get your fashion sense handled; get your body handled; get your hairstyle and facial hair and facial expression down cold. Look edgy and look good. If you aren't killing it in every one of these departments, you don't get to talk about looks.
Become very noticeably physically dominant. That means sprezzatura; that means you look effortless in everything you do. Watching your movement is like watching a piece of art. That means slowness, gracefulness, and power. That means you command attention with the slightest gesture. That means you command women and tell them what to do and they listen. That means you can open women you've never spoken to before with things like, "Hello there... would you come here for a moment?" and immediately have them sucked in and flirting with you and attracted to you.
Quit placing yourself in a looks hierarchy. If you're rating girls on a 1 to 10 scale, knock it off. Trust me on this one - you're placing a cap on the level of attractiveness you can get in women by messing yourself up because you've placed certain women as "above you" in looks. Try it for a year, then take a few moments to compare the looks of the women you've gotten in the past year to the looks of the women you got in the past when you used to use a 1 to 10 scale - I guarantee you you'll find you got significantly more beautiful women after abandoning the scale than you did before. If you think a girl is superior to you, you cannot get her. Case closed.
Get preselection. This must look natural, and it must look like the girls are chasing you and you're fending them off, for best results. If you get this one going on though, it makes everything else easier.
If you can afford it, conspicuously consume. I've only played around with this a few times - I'm not rich, unfortunately. But when I have - when I've, say, gone out with investment banker friends and we've bought bottles of champagne and started pouring drinks for random girls walking around - I've had some of the fastest pickups of my life.
Get out of boyfriend territory. I haven't seen the research on this one, but I don't even need to; it's been so central to my success upgrading my effectiveness with women. If you want to read more on this, see "Telling Women You're NOT Boyfriend Material."
Looks get you in the door. Dominance gets you in further, or sometimes supplants looks altogether - that friend of mine I mentioned who I picked up girls off the street with in L.A. uses very firm dominance to succeed with women far more beautiful than he is handsome despite his lack of "looks" (he does have great fashion and attractive facial hair and hair styles, however). And the more I've added getting more and more compliance and investment into my game, the stronger and better and faster and more consistent results I've gotten, and with more and more beautiful women.
To make things easier on yourself getting in the door with a warm reception, up your looks. To close better, up your dominance.
The Good News on Looks
If you've got 'em, you've got an advantage.
If you haven't got 'em, there's plenty of other stuff you can focus on instead.
Back to those guys I've always learned from - the "naturals." Why were they all good looking? When my friend and I were talking about who we've learned the most from, and I mentioned a number of guys, all naturals, he automatically dismissed them as irrelevant because they have handsome faces and/or buff physiques, and therefore what they know and what they do do not apply to "regular people."
I beg to differ.
I've found learning from guys who are naturally good to be far more effective than learning from most of the other guys who had to learn how to get girls. Why? Time in field.
In the book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell cites the curious case of hockey players born in January, February, and March far outnumbering all other hockey players in the Canadian Hockey League, while players born in October, November, and December are very underrepresented in the CHL. Why is this so? Are people born in the first three months of the year simply born more gifted at hockey?
As it turns out, the way the cutoff dates are established for Canadian schools, students born in the first three months of the year are always the oldest, biggest kids in each grade, and thus have a slight size advantage in hockey early on. Due to this early size advantage, they do a bit better at hockey, and thus have more early success, get put on the better teams, get more practice, and learn faster, get more time working on hockey, and build more and more on that early success.
That small early advantage has a snowball effect that gets them more and more time to practice and improve at hockey. By the time they're ready to go pro, men born in the first three months of the year have simply had tremendously more experience playing hockey than men born in the last three months of the year, and thus make up a far larger portion of the men who actually make it into the CHL.
I believe that good looks can be a bit like this.
The better looking you are, the more early advantages you have. The more likely you are to get somewhat warmer receptions from women early on; the more likely you are to have sex sooner; and the more likely you are to get more dates.
These successes under your belt, you then build on this, and get more, and more, and more.
The "naturals" I know who do the best with women aren't just pretty faces and nothing else. They're handsome, yes... but they also have far better game than any pick up artist I've ever met.
The reason why? More time in field.
More practice, to hone their vibes, get more comfortable, more smooth... more natural.
To develop sharper wits.
To become more unshakeable, and more undaunted.
To experience more crazy wild unusual scenarios with women, and be more prepared for anything.
Their looks do give them a bit of an edge, yes.
But what's really doing it is the snowball effect.
If you want to look at a difference between you and a good-looking guy you know who's getting crazy results with women, don't spend so much time focused on his looks.
Instead, focus on his experience. I can almost guarantee you'll find all your answers there.
Looks do matter.
But so do a lot of things.
Don't be so busy trying to find a way to explain why you aren't getting the girls you want that you never stop and find a way to GET the girls you want.
There's more than one way to skin a cat - and in this post alone, you've got a whole lot of different ways.
So... not getting the girls you want?
Quit whining about it and go get