"Girls Only Want Good-Looking Guys or Young Guys" | Girls Chase

"Girls Only Want Good-Looking Guys or Young Guys"

Chase Amante

Hey! Chase Amante here.

You've read all the free articles I can offer you for this month.

If you'd like to read more, I've got to ask for your help keeping the lights on at Girls Chase.

Click a plan below to sign up now and get right back to reading. It's only 99¢ the first month.

Already a GirlsChase.com subscriber? Log in here.

girls only want young guys
The most attractive thing to women is neither youth nor beauty. So why do so many guys think girls only want good-looking guys or young guys?

Okay, I want to talk about the “girls only date good-looking guys” or “girls only date young guys” thing. I have more intellectual articles against these positions and I’ll share them with you in a moment. But intellectual arguments aren’t always the best way to get the message across, especially when guys are deep in a certain viewpoint.

First let me share a comment from a reader of my “When Do You Get Too Old to Party or Meet Girls?” article from last week:

Keep deluding yourself that youll be more attractive to women as you get older. I have never heard a younger woman say Kevin Spacy or Sean Connery was “hot.” Only older women. Women in the past had to settle down with older men because they didnt have the means of supporting themselves. Thats it. If she had the choice and the income theres no way she would choose him over a younger guy. Plus, do you think its right that older men had relationships and children with teenage girls? Its a pretty messed up system because a girl hasnt even lived her life, and you know if the girl could support herself theres no way she would go for that older man6. Girls go for older men because of convenience, not because of attraction.

To which I responded with a screen grab of a bunch of young chicks swooning over Old Man Connery on Yahoo Answers, plus a picture of Sean having a merry laugh:

Sean Connery sexy to younger women

There are loads of men everywhere, including in the West, which is an environment more shifted in favor of younger men than anywhere else on Earth, who remain very attractive to younger women even into quite old age. And there are loads of men everywhere, including in the West, which is an environment more shifted in favor of good-looking men than anywhere else on Earth, who are very attractive to women despite plain or terrible faces. This is undeniable. The only way you can pretend these men don’t exist is if you plug your ears and shut your eyes and make loud noises to yourself every time one of these guys crosses your path.

But this willful blindness/ignorance guys engage in about this subject runs deeper than just “I don’t think that ever happens or if it does it must be super rare.” It’s actually about guys with zero or very little experience with women, who do not understand women, trying to tell men with lots of experience with women who understand women very well that actually those men have no idea what they are talking about and in fact women are actually some other way.

The guys who say stuff like this are never guys you would take woman advice from in the real world. From 30 feet away you can tell these guys don’t do well with girls and don’t understand them.

I’m not trying to pick on these guys. There are a lot of men who don’t understand women, and it’s always been that way historically. Women are hard to fathom. This entire website is dedicated to helping men who don’t understand women come to have a better understanding of them.

But when you get guys who do not understand women trying to talk about how they know women so well and that actually all these things that are commonplace things that happen with women are in fact impossible and never happen, you get this weird bizarro world perspective on dating emanating from certain corners of the male sectors of the Internet.

And we need to talk about that.

Chase AmanteAbout the Author: Chase Amante

Chase woke up one day in 2004 tired of being alone. So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating. After four years, scads of lays, and many great girlfriends (plus plenty of failures along the way), he launched this website. He will teach you everything he knows about girls in one single program in his One Date System.

GET CHASE’S ONE DATE SYSTEM

Comments

stefxxxyyy's picture

love you chase: small typo here "The majority of older men – even the very attractive ones – don’t have the same drive to bed women that younger women have." you mean younger men?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

stefxxxyyy-

Thanks good catch. Fixed.

Although interesting to think how older men's drive to bed women matches up against younger women's drive to bed women...

Chase

stefxxxyyy's picture

jaja yes!

NeoLeone's picture

I never said girls only want young good-looking men. I shouldved clarified that. Girls want it all. They want looks, money, and status, and now that more and more women can support themselves financially, their standards for everything has gone up. A few decades ago women would settle for older men because these were usually more stable and more successful than younger men. His older age and looks took a backseat out of necessity. But now that women work and make good money, they desire a man who is good-looking and has more money and status than her; therefore, they have no need to date older men, unless he's in the 1% of the older men who are wealthy and high status, like much of the men you presented. Now, Im not saying you shouldnt work on bettering yourself in every way possible, but come on, lets be realistic here, most men will never reach those heights. Most men are average and will continue to be average. But being average in the west just doesnt cut it anymore. Even ugly leviathan women want to date up because of all the attention they get online from thirsty men. if youre below average you are, for the most part, screwed. Thats why most of the shooters you see are below average in looks. There's no need to dismiss it, most of these guys are facially unattractive. Its mostly always guys that are ugly/manlets.
You almost never hear of good looking Juandissimo or Chad going on a killing rampage like this. Even if he doesnt get laid much, he still gets attention and validation from women, so he knows he has the chance to get a girl if he gets lucky, tries harder, or lowers his standards.
Moreover, girls will only care about your game and walk and clothes and all that if they already find your face and height attractive. Thats why most couples consist of partners who are around their own looks level and age, regardless of "game", walk, style, etc. If she does end up with an older man its because he is unnaturally wealthy or high status, and nowadays shes probably going to be a gold digger/sugar baby parasite who isnt really attracted to you.
Chase, you dont really know what it's like to be an ugly guy. Youre 6 ft tall and probably above average to most white and asian women. If I made you 5'3 and gave you an uglier face do you think youre going to get the same quality of women? Youll be shut down so much youll have to resort to hideous women or prostitution. Nevertheless, I think the problem with these ugly incel guys is that they only want to date cute or hot women even though they themselves are ugly or short. They need to stay in their lane and date girls who are on their level. Yeah it sucks that you have to resort to ugly girls but thats the reality of life in the west right now. Girls wont even consider them unless they are at least as good looking as her or are significantly rich/high status, and if youre an older man, this becomes even more difficult.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

NL-

You are making a gross fallacy here called magical thinking. Magical thinking works like this:

Girls reject you. You don't know why girls reject you. So you search for a reason. You notice lots of girls with men who are much taller than you. So you conclude girls only like men who are tall, and reject all men who are small. Your new mindset becomes WOWTM ("Women Only Want Tall Men"). Superficially, this seems justifiable. You can point to all these incidents of it - it must be true! Yet it's inaccurate.

This works the same way as the sports fan who goes to the sports match in a pair of dirty socks, and his struggling team suddenly has a blow-out win. He comes to the facile, but wrong, conclusion that his dirty socks were the cause of the win. For the rest of the season (and perhaps beyond), he never washes those socks and instead attends every match with those increasingly pungent, moth-eaten stockings on his feet, hoping for more blow-out wins.

Confirmation bias kicks in to uphold magical thinking belief sets. If you see a hot girl with a short guy, you won't say, "Hey. Maybe it's about more than height." Instead you will say well, there must be some other reason. That guy is a rare exception to the rule. Maybe that guy is rich. Girls like rich guys. Not as much as they like TALL guys, but they like rich guys too. If you find out the short guy is not rich, you'll come up with some other reason, always something you do not have and cannot easily acquire.

Likewise, if you wear your rancid socks and the team doesn't win, you won't say, "Maybe these horrible socks DON'T win games." Instead you will say, "I must not have adjusted the seam correctly. Maybe the seam is supposed to be perpendicular to my toes on the left foot, and that's when the magic happens."

I know this is magical thinking because there are legions of men out there, like you, with exactly the same belief systems, like you, except about polar opposite things. For example, some guys think the only thing women care about is looks or height, like you (your belief set is seemingly actually marginally flexible; lots of guys think it is ONLY looks or ONLY height). Other guys think the only thing women care about is wealth. Some guys it's fame. Some guys it's muscles. Some guys it's race.

Girls Chase is one of the few websites on the Internet that will tell you, "Yep, all these things matter. But some matter more than others, and here's what a ton of sexually successful men and their sexually successful students have found. Also here's a bunch of science on it in case you need that to back up the claims." Many of us started out exactly like you, with magical thinking beliefs about why women didn't want us. I had this. I had to watch my 5'3" round ugly Puerto Rican sales manager slay sexy girl after sexy girl while I stood around dateless and sexless and come up with reasons for why he succeeded where I failed. You don't seem to realize many of the guys you're debating with have the same start point as you, and are instead here trying to proselytize the tired (and inaccurate/magical thinking) gospel of, "No it's only about X one thing! (or in your case, two)"

There is not a good way to communicate with you, because your belief system is a "hard" belief system. And you do not go out and seek large amounts of new reference points, or test technology, or do the other things necessary to overturn facile-but-wrong intuitions. Which is the only way to get good. I can't tell you how many facile-but-wrong intuitions about women I overturned my first couple years in seduction. You go out, you have all these things you believe women would never do, or never respond to, or this or that, you try something anyway, and women behave exactly opposite to how you expect. You get surprised, think it was a fluke, go out, try it again, and they do the opposite of your expectation again. Over time you come to a totally different set of beliefs than you started out with. But because you are not going out there and not testing, you have no way to overturn facile-but-wrong belief systems.

Seriously, if you want to completely change your life, one thing you can do: go out there and talk to girls. Try different things you DO NOT THINK and DON'T BELIEVE will work. Try them. See what happens. Don't necessarily look for "Did this line get me laid? No? Well I guess it doesn't work." Look for "Did women respond to this the way I expected them to? No? Well that's interesting; maybe there is more for me to learn about women."

That's what you're after. You don't have to listen to me, you don't have to take anything on faith.

But please. If this is something you want. If you'd like to have women in your life. Go out there and test. Ideally, improve your fundamentals as you do so, because the success of your tests will be influenced to large degree by how good your fundamentals are.

Go test. Testing is the destroyer of magical thinking beliefs. It is the bringer of light, the ruiner of darkness, and the eviscerator of smelly, moldy socks that don't actually help teams win matches.

Chase

Author
Chase Amante's picture

NL-

Ah, whoops. I didn't address the earlier part of your comment. Just saw the "you don't know what it's like to have it bad" part and I guess that got a rise out of me. (also, weird the example you picked, since I actually was the sexless, desperate guy with 6' height and 'probably above average looks' stuck working with a round little 5'3" Puerto Rican guy who cleaned up with girls. Anyway...)

Yeah, so, sorry if I strawmanned your argument. Internet is prone to people over-simplifying other people's arguments; text doesn't capture nuance well.

I agree with your main premise, that 'being average doesn't cut it in the West anymore'. We can talk about why that is; there are a few key reasons in my opinion:

  • An overabundance of males you rarely see historically except in safe, wealthy civilizations (like ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and the 10th Century Islamic Caliphate, where the men had similar complaints about the men to what men have today, and likewise worked on game [see: Ovid's Ars Amorata]), due to no large male die-offs in war

  • An urbanized, atomized society in which women are freed from the constraints of social disapproval toward promiscuous behavior, which incentivizes them to go for the best men they can possibly get, which leads to lots of women hooking up with the top guys, trying to lock those guys down, while average guys have to wait for women to reach an age at which they realize they will not lock a top guy down, because other girls snapped all those guys up, and instead they will have to settle for someone lesser (like Joe Average)

  • Women who are supported by the state, in terms of financial redistribution, hiring policies (affirmative action, lawsuits against any employers that do not have enough women on the payroll, sexual harrassment cases), which reduces their need and willingness to play ball with men

I think you are somewhat vastly overestimating the importance of face and height, possibly due to online dating (are you an online dater?), where these are BY FAR the two most important characteristics. Still important in life, but much less so, and not too hard to overcome with various other qualities. If a lot of your reference points come from online dating though, or you have not worked much to improve your other fundamentals, then yes, it will seem like face/height are more important than they are. More to the point, the less you have on offer (in terms of other fundamentals and other attractive qualities), the more you will be judged on what little you DO have, and the larger roles in your evaluation these elements will play.

Also, the 'girls don't have to settle for older guys' thing misunderstands a basic aspect of the younger girl / older guy pairings. Which is that a lot of younger women want to hook up with sexy older guys. Some younger women (and it is not a small amount) actually prefer older men. Daddy issues or whatever you want to blame; I'm not so sure Freud has this stuff on lock. So it's just whatever the reason is, these gals love older men... some of them enjoy being taken care of and paid for, but some of them just like being with a man they feel is more experienced, established, and authoritative. Overall though, it comes back to the same thing: the guy feels powerful, and to her, powerful feels good.

Chase

SZ's picture

1. I understand what you're saying Chase, but I feel most dudes who are saying these things are guys who don't understand women like you said, little they are older men who never knew about this before.

I'll talk about older men, how would you think about older man would feel picking up women if he had no experience with them like that? He would feel his age would be a hindrance. Especially if he's new to approaching women, and the whole dating game, they would feel it's a young man's world to just start dating women.

It isn't acceptable for older men to not know these things, so they feel they have no shot with younger women if they are behind. I find it a lot harder for older men to start pick up than younger because you are supposed to have been there and done that. You look worse off as an older inexperienced man than a younger one. So I feel it would be harder for older men to progress because women would assume he would be better because of his age, since he's not he gets no slack.

Let me know your thoughts.

2. Most of the older men you used were very rich and famous people, I'm not understanding the age thing with that because one could argue that those men got those women because if money and fame, not just because they are older.

That part confuses me because we all know the men you picked would not get any women if they weren't rich and famous, maybe Sean Connery, not the other two.

I know you said it has to do with power, but most of these men who worry about this stuff do not have this, they are normal guys, I think there should be more examples of regular older men getting attractive women, even if you have no pictures and just tell us about men you know because we know those two guys you mentioned would not get women if they didn't have money and fame, regardless of age.

The message I got from that is is that you need to be rich and famous to have the power to get these women. I feel most people know that tho, so it really isn't an age thing.

Let me know you thoughts on that.

3. I know the superhero example is extreme, but I'm trying to understand the comparison with that. Are you saying that older men should have super hero bods, to build wealth like them? I know you used it as an extreme example, but since it's here I figured I'd ask what we would emulate from Batman in real life.

Thoughts please.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

SZ-

Agreed, inexperienced older men in Western culture often have limiting beliefs about age. There are a variety of reasons for this (and you don't see these beliefs outside Western societies), but they are there.

For examples, I wanted visual images with visceral impact. You're only going to get that with celebrities or stock photo models. I discussed non-famous men in my exhaustive articles on age:

I don't have photographs of these guys, nor do I have picture of their women (I don't have photographs of anybody... courtesy not being on social media)... nor would it be ethical for me to post private citizens' photographs online even if I did have them. Nor worth the hassle to run around and ask a bunch of people for permission to use their images in an article on older guys getting with younger gals. So for this article I just stuck with celebrities and stock models.

we all know the men you picked would not get any women if they weren't rich and famous, maybe Sean Connery, not the other two

Andy Dick and Harvey Weinstein? I have no idea. If they weren't rich and famous my hunch is they'd bust their balls to develop some other form of power and get women that way. Only point of using them was to say "Here are some weird/unattractive guys with cute gals because they have social power. Cute gals like power."

I think there should be more examples of regular older men getting attractive women, even if you have no pictures and just tell us about men you know because we know those two guys you mentioned would not get women if they didn't have money and fame, regardless of age.

Right. See the above two articles for that. This was the 'hit you in the face with it to either force you to accept it or make you explode in cognitive dissonance' article. Also a fun one to have fun posting dank memes. The intellectual ones with real life non-celebrity examples are above.

The message I got from that is is that you need to be rich and famous to have the power to get these women. I feel most people know that tho, so it really isn't an age thing.

Yeah, rich and famous can do it. So can a variety of other types of power. See the section titled 'Power in Men' for a brief rundown of the sorts of power you want to aim for as an older man to do well.

Are you saying that older men should have super hero bods, to build wealth like them? I know you used it as an extreme example, but since it's here I figured I'd ask what we would emulate from Batman in real life.

No, you are paying attention to superficial details. Look at cartoon images of ideal women - Disney princesses, for instance:


If I told a woman to emulate this (and I would, if this was a women's site, and not a men's site), I would not mean to get plastic surgery on their noses and bleach their hair blonde and become actual princesses in castles. I would mean behavior, mannerisms, comportment, attire (not necessarily the same attire, although I think it wouldn't look too dated considering current fashions... but just general tasteful-yet-conservative attire). I would mean how they interacted with others and treated men and fellow women. And I would mean the types of skills and abilities a woman like this has (cooking, sewing, nurturing, empathy, though also interpersonal strength, resilience, mental toughness without external roughness).

Working out and building wealth are both good for men, so if you can do them, do them. They contribute to power. But you do not need a Superman body or Batman's billions. If you can get them great; if not, there are plenty of other things you can work on.

Key point: the guy who is good in a lot of different areas is better than the guy who is legendary in one area and crap in all the rest. It is much easier to be good in a lot of different areas than it is to be legendary in a single area, too. Although the best is if you are legendary in one area and good in a bunch of others (most men won't have the ambition for this, however).

Chase

SZ's picture

1. Wouldn't doing all this make you look like a provider? Is that what you're supposed to look like when you're older?

2. I don't want to settle down for a long time, how can I keep the fire to keep doing this, and what gives you your fire to keep banging younger girls?

3. How bad does not having kids or not being married at all effect you?

I'm not gonna do these things until I want, but I keep hearing it benefits you and this article says the same. How can I still be attractive to younger women without having these things?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

SZ-

All things being even, yes. But keep this in mind: younger women aren't often thinking "I want to marry an older man," at least not in the West. Provider value allows an older man to show women he's made it - he is an attractive, successful older male. If he also has lover value, he is in a very good place - since many younger women will say, "He wouldn't choose me for a girlfriend. I'm just a little kid to him!" And when a woman rules herself out as a girlfriend for you, but still finds you sexually attractive, you get this situation.

I don't want to settle down for a long time, how can I keep the fire to keep doing this, and what gives you your fire to keep banging younger girls?

If you lack the fire, no man can give it to you. You must find it in yourself.

As for me, women in their 20s and late teens never lose their appeal... and I have had women in their 30s, including long-term relationships with women in their 30s, and ultimately decided women this old were a bad move for me from a moral perspective, from a life-alignment perspective, and from an "I'd prefer not to have a wrinkly chick" perspective.

How bad does not having kids or not being married at all effect you?

I'm not gonna do these things until I want, but I keep hearing it benefits you and this article says the same. How can I still be attractive to younger women without having these things?

I think you mean from an attractiveness standpoint, rather than from a quality of life standpoint, correct? Yes, wives / progeny make you more attractive. If you lack them past a certain point, then it's just sort of like being a virgin past a certain point - women are going to want to know 'why'. Unlike being a virgin, if you have a great story to answer the why you can be very attractive. See the stuff on Byronic character flaws; "the man no woman has been able to get to settle down" is such a man. You may have to spend some time in reflection to figure out what your reasons are for prolonged bachelorhood, to help women uncover these as they get to know you, and flesh out your character:

Chase

RezznT's picture

You started talking about this thing a few forevers ago. What's the deal? Where's One Date?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

RezznT-

I realize you asked this before your forum post on it. So likely already answered your question (well, sort of; still don't have a release date).

Just in case though, I just added a new update to the thread on this:

Quick One Date status update

Chase

Carlos's picture

Here are 4 well-researched articles filled with empirical data and deep analysis which go against your claims:

- "Women Prioritize Status/Wealth or Attractiveness? Empirical Approach"
- "Do Women Prefer Older Men? Debunking The Myth"
- "Evolutionary Analysis of Game"
- "How The Entire Modern Mating Framework Has Shifted..."

Note that the author there has no ulterior motives (not trying to sell anything), so he has more credibility.

-

Is Power more important than anything?

The answer is that it's a GENERAL preference (people like power, people want to be around powerful people), mostly present in hierarchical, capitalist societies (not egalitarian communities).
In fact, it's something that will get MEN more excited than women. Girls swoon over cute teen heartthrobs, not billionaires [article]. Men 'swoon' over billionaire inventors and dictators and hate Justin Bieber.

Why men believe it?

Because potentially ANY man could become powerful. It's more likely that a non-powerful man will become powerful than that he will become a young 6'3" white male model. Your looks (face, age, height, race, frame etc.) are almost impossible to change.

-

Okay, I want to talk about the “girls only date good-looking guys” or “girls only date young guys” thing.

This is a strawman. Women do settle for non-ideal men, just like people settle for regular cars or other things. But that's not what they truly and ideally desire. A more realistic question would be "Are women sexually attracted to good looking guys?" or "Do girls swoon over cute teen heartthrobs?" or "Do women WANT to date or cheat with good looking guys?".

It's impossible for all women to date good looking men in a society that enforces monogamy. Women rate 80% of men as below average looking on OKCupid. Research from Tinder shows that only less than 5% of men can capture widespread female attention.

This is the reason why it might not seem women care about looks that much. It's because women have very high standards for male beauty.

The #1 thing women are attracted to is power. Power is the reason why:

Crazy serial killers like Charles Manson have scads of female fans

Nope. There are indeed criminals and serial killers with female fans. However, they tend to be good looking and those women are hybristophiliacs.

Few years ago, a good looking criminal Jeremy Meeks got a ton of female fans who offered to pay his bail and he is now dating a BILLIONAIRE heiress.

Check out popular serial killers like Richard Ramirez, Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer with female following. You will notice they are all good looking men.

Creepy weirdoes like Andy Dick and Harvey Weinstein can get cute/beautiful wives

You're confusing LUST and GREED. Harvey Weinstein financed Georgina's clothing line Marchesa and found celebrity customers. He also got her to be in his movies during her short acting career - she was likely on his casting couch.

That is barter-based prostitution.

People are willing to eat disgusting animals and do crazy things for relatively small amounts of money, like you saw on Fear Factor. So, it's not a surprise that opportunistic and mercenary women might date/marry a disgusting guy.

Women shag their bosses at such incredibly high rates (it’s not just about promotions)

What about women shagging their young, good looking students? Or women cheating with young, good looking men?

No younger guy seriously wants to compete against this guy.

For God's sake, you're using a photo of a male model with some grey hair to prove a point. Of course, if you put a good looking, tall white model with some grey hair (let's say he's 40-45 yo) against a bad looking, short, ethnic Muslim terrorist with dark hair (let's say 25-30 yo), the former guy wins because he's better looking.

Most men are not male models and don't have a massive halo effect from being a celebrity like Sean Connery.

This is like showing some kleptocratic African dictator and using that to prove how tens of millions of underlings live luxurious lives.

WHAT SHOULD YOUR TAKEAWAY BE FROM THIS?
I want you to understand what women are really after.

When it comes to genuine love, love at first sight, lust and sexual attraction... good looks (face, height, age, race, frame etc.) are almost everything. Looks give you a massive halo effect. Looks are largely outside of your control and things will get worse as you age, which is why there is such denialism about it.

All these other things like charisma, status, money, humor, game etc. are distractions and coping mechanisms that usually lead nowhere without looks and at best you get used as a tool.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Ah, at last! A real debate. It was starting to feel like beating up on the J.V. debate team. Although you couldn't resist the desire to go for an ad hominem credibility attack, instead of let your arguments stand or not on their own merits. Tsk, tsk. Sloppy form.

Well, let's unpack this.


Speed Dating, Online Dating, and Looks

Your first article throws out Buss by claiming self-reports are empirically invalid. Okay fine, I dislike self-reporting too. Unreliable. But next he goes on to state that speed-dating and Internet dating prove that women value looks most of all.

Everybody remotely involved in the modern dating world knows that looks are absolutely king in Internet dating. And that looks attain an absolutely outsize importance, particularly for men, in this realm. Using Internet dating and speed dating as your metric of what's important to women in dating/hookups/romance is like using text message chats as your medium to determine what people talk about in conversation, or surveying purchases at McDonald's to figure out individuals' diet compositions. These are not representative mediums.

Getting away from context-devoid scenarios where looks are mostly all you've got to go on, Bryan, Gregory, and Mahaffey (2011), in a study I have already discussed on this website, found the strongest predictor of one-night stands consist of judgments of "overall attractiveness", of which perceived physical dominance plays a large role, along with other things cited by the researchers, including but not limited to physical attractiveness measures like:

  • Hair quality
  • Oral health
  • Lively gait and movement
  • Facial averageness
  • Fluctuating bodily asymmetry
  • Height
  • Higher shoulder-to-hip ratios
  • High shoulder-to-chest ratios
  • Lower waist-to-chest ratios

Which brings us back to one of the main points of this website, and something that most of the 'looks purists' and 'height purists' and 'age purists' all miss: your appearance is largely within your control. Yes, some elements aren't, but those are by and large compensable. See this article on the adjustability of female physical attractiveness; it is equally as adjustable for men.

Again, Bryan, Gregory, and Mahaffey's findings were that 'overall attractiveness' is the primary preditor of one-night stands - and that includes appearance, it includes physical dominance, and it includes a host of other attractive qualities as well.

Even in the realm of speed dating and Internet dating - the fast food versions of romance, where all elements aside from looks are largely stripped away - appearance is wildly adjustable. Some of the you will find who do best at online dating are of average genetic looks, but have superior fundamentals anda very talented photographer.


Younger Women and Older Men

The second article presents excellent substantiation of younger woman-older man pairings, directly from the U.S. 2012 Census Bureau report:

age differences for USA spouses

If we put this in a pie chart, and assume anything over 5 years we can safely consider an 'older man' (I'd put it in this category; wouldn't you?), anything we consider +5 or -5 years we consider 'about the same age', and anything under 5 years we consider a 'younger man', we get this:

age differences for USA spouses

Which is pretty good for older guys pairing up with younger gals! Considering lack of access for many older guys, the number of women who marry men from the ranks of their coworkers, social circles, college classmates, all of which tend to be about the same age... older guys are doing quite well (actually better than I would have expected, to be honest, considering lack of access plus lack of motivation on the part of many older men).

If you only want to go by men who are 10+ years older, you get 7.6% of marriages, which is still quite good. 15+ years and it's 2.4%; just shy of 1% for men over 20 years. But how many of these men are even around young women in social situations, how many of these men are single (and not married with wives of 15 or 20 or more years with families), and which of the available older men are exceptional?

Remember: the point I am making is not "all older guys are attractive to younger girls lol", which is stupid and idiotic and obviously not true. It is, as I've stated in both this article and my complete exploration of the 'attractive older guy' phenomenon, that exceptional older men are more attractive than almost all younger men. Further, that while it isn't that hard to be exceptional as an older man (gym, diet, appearance, and a half-decent business or career are most of what's required, plus confidence/social savvy/game... and you have to actually approach younger women and hit on them, of coruse), few men put themselves in that category because, I suppose, men are just lazy.

The material on this site is for the men who want to be in that top 5% of attractiveness (which is not hard), or that top 1% of attractiveness (which is hard, but not super insanely hard. Super insanely hard is trying to get into the top 0.3% or 0.25% of attractiveness - that's where you start running into hard brick walls if you're very deficient on some unadjustable traits).

Your article author's article seems to be based on the premise that anyone arguing for the attractiveness of older men presumes older men are universally more attractive than younger men, and that women should find and choose older men much more than 19% of the time (or 8% of the time, or whatever your specific age cutoff is for 'older men'). I'm not saying that, nor is anyone I've seen in the manosphere saying that (I mean, maybe some of those guys are saying that. I don't think I've seen anyone make the claim you can be a broke obese older guy with terrible fashion who lives in a trailer home and have young girls be all over you).

Even as he knocks over his strawman, your article author supports the premise I've lain out here.

Here, by the way, is my original couple of articles on 'exceptional older men' (NOT "any older man will do"), which that census data bears out:

(also, I didn't include this in the article because it didn't seem relevant, but I would argue the number of women hooking up with attractive older men is in fact far higher than the marriage data suggests. While some women marry older men for resources, much of the time older men are ruled out of marriage for both practical [he'll be very old by the time the kids are in high school] and societal [frowned upon in many parts of the world] reasons; yet an attractive older man presents a proven gene package and decades of sexual experience in the sack, neither of which younger men have on offer; which is why you see attractive older guys who are good with girls hooking up with so many young girls, yet usually settling down with women closer to their ages; probably also because older men do not relate as well to younger women, and vice versa, and you'll be inclined to want someone you relate better to for a long-term commitment)


'Game is a Myth'

Your third article makes the argument that 'game' is a myth and a scam. Then doesn't define 'game'.

Which is like saying all racists are evil, then not defining what a racist is. Because we all know that a racist is whoever you say a racist is. So too with 'game'.

How is the author defining 'game'? Is he defining it as pickup lines and pre-scripted routines? Then I agree yeah; most of that stuff is bunk. It can be used to good effect, but having it as the centerpiece of any method without attention to the stuff women are actually attracted to is ineffective. Magic tricks don't make women want to hop in bed with you. Labeling the early date coaches 'scammers' though misunderstands the industry; these were guys with excellent fundamentals who by and large were less aware of the attractive qualities they'd developed over years of talking to women who misattributed their success to specific series of words they said or things they did. This is a common thing for men to do; naturals do it too. People attribute success to all sorts of things that don't actually contribute much to their success, but they think do.

The way I and other authors on this site use the term 'game' is to mean:

  • Your ability to approach a girl
  • Your ability to talk to a girl
  • Your ability to flirt with girls
  • Your ability to progress a courtship through the stages of courtship
  • Your ability to deal with hiccoughs, roadblocks, and social obstacles

Anyone who thinks these things are anything less than absolutely critical when it comes to dating and sleeping with women has a sub-10 lifetime lay count, probably all women that hit on him from social circle across a period of 10 or 15 years. You will never meet a man over 10 lifetime lays who will argue, "Pssh, that stuff doesn't matter!" in good faith.


Fourth Article

Your author's fourth article is all evolutionary psychology.

Which we can use to make say basically whatever we want.

I've already talked about this on the forums:

Re: Why Evolutionary Psychology is Pseudoscience

So I won't go into that since there isn't much point. I could argue against it, or just construct an equally plausible evopsych counterargument. Or I could agree with it. I didn't even read it actually, just skimmed it. After you've read 500 evopsych pieces, you've read 'em all.

So! Let's get onto your direct criticisms of the article then.


Direct Article Criticisms

Your first critique I'll address:

In fact, it's something that will get MEN more excited than women. Girls swoon over cute teen heartthrobs, not billionaires [article]. Men 'swoon' over billionaire inventors and dictators and hate Justin Bieber.

I don't want to speculate too much on why that is, but if I had to hazard a guess, if billionaires started crooning dopey love songs and got themselves positioned in front of women all the time, and had the mate-choice copying effect in full swing where everywhere girls looked, left and right, they saw other girls swooning for these guys, they'd enjoy similar popularity. In general, your average hearthrob has a much higher level of exposure, in positive sexual/romantic lights, than your average billionaire does to tweens and teens. I don't care who he is, but if she doesn't know him and doesn't have a good read on him, it will be very hard for her to feel much of anything for him.

Anyway, that's kind of a weird thing to debate about. It's also swooning from a distance, versus getting together with a guy in real life. So kind of a weird example. Let's get to your next item:

Because potentially ANY man could become powerful. It's more likely that a non-powerful man will become powerful than that he will become a young 6'3" white male model. Your looks (face, age, height, race, frame etc.) are almost impossible to change.

I think your argument here is that women prefer elements that are passed on in the genes, and power is not passed on in the genes, correct? I'm going to assume that's the argument (thus, why these elements would be preferred over power, in your argument, which I assume is your argument - "women want the stuff you can't change and don't care so much about the stuff you can").

An individual lever of power, this is true. Easy to stumble into. The nerdy/loser-y boss doesn't get a whole lot of play. She knows he's only there by chance or because it was 'his turn' to get promoted. But the more types of power you stack up (personal power, physical power, sexual power, social power, financial power), the less it looks like something you stumbled into and the more it looks like something you ARE: a man at the top of the gene pool, whose children are likely to find themselves at the top of the gene pool. Or at the very least, a very DRIVEN man, and drive is an extremely attractive trait to women (see: research on creativity, which we can use as a decent stand-in for drive; less facially attractive men who are a little bit creative are almost equally attractive to more facially attractive men who are not creative, and this is only looking at small doses of creativity, not the kind of outsize power and drive we see in powerful men).

Thus, why the confident, sexy, in-shape boss who dresses well and carries himself well has little trouble sleeping with the women who work for him, even though the confident, sexy, in-shape colleague of hers who dresses well and carries himself well has trouble getting with his female coworkers, and even though the nerdy/loser-y boss isn't able to sleep with his female underlings either.

A physically attractive face also offers neither the survival nor the replication value a man with well established, well rounded power has. A good-looking man with low/no power is a survival risk to a woman and her children, and has overall low reproductive value to boot: he will struggle to hold onto women, struggle to bed them, and will not be able to bed the quantity or quality of women a powerful man has (think a king and his harams; or, a more modern example, a powerful man, his beautiful wife, and his many mistresses. Tiger Woods, for example, who might be good-looking for an extraterrestrial but won't be for most women, certainly has had no trouble bedding plenty of cuties and, were we in less restrained times, likely would've fathered children with many of them and spread his genes far and wide).

Next item:

This is a strawman. Women do settle for non-ideal men, just like people settle for regular cars or other things. But that's not what they truly and ideally desire. A more realistic question would be "Are women sexually attracted to good looking guys?" or "Do girls swoon over cute teen heartthrobs?" or "Do women WANT to date or cheat with good looking guys?".

Ah, damn. Are we arguing past each other?

Are you strawmanning my arguments by misconstruing them as strawman arguments?

Although I think the commenter I was responding to actually accused me of strawmanning his arguments. So you may have strawmanned as a strawman my argument that strawmanned in a different way an argument that wasn't intended as a strawman.

I suspect this is a misread / miscommunication between us and not you arguing in bad faith.

Me saying "Looks aren't everything" is not me saying "Looks are nothing." We spend a huge chunk of Girls Chase talking about looks. Both how to upgrade them, and how to deal with (as best as possible) flaws in your looks. e.g., height:

Lots of other things. Main article on this is here:

But yes. There are all kinds of things women are sexually attracted to. Good looks are one of the bigger things! They're also a lot more adjustable than a lot of guys realize. Some aspects aren't. You control what you can control.

By the same token, they also aren't everything, as any good-looking guy who can't get dates will tell you, and any ugly guy who gets lays aplenty can (though if he's good, he usually will have upgraded his apperance to compensate for said ugliness).

Next point of contention:

Nope. There are indeed criminals and serial killers with female fans. However, they tend to be good looking and those women are hybristophiliacs.

Few years ago, a good looking criminal Jeremy Meeks got a ton of female fans who offered to pay his bail and he is now dating a BILLIONAIRE heiress.

Check out popular serial killers like Richard Ramirez, Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer with female following. You will notice they are all good looking men.

Some of them, no doubt. Good looks are an attraction factor; mix good looks + power (serial killer) and you'll get a double dose of attractiveness. I would expect a good-looking serial killer to have more female fans than an ugly one. Still:

age differences for USA spouses

Not quite the ideal of 'gorgeous'. Perhaps at one time he was. Or, I mean, maybe still now, I guess it depends on your standards. But anyway, still popular.

How about this guy, Jordan van der Sloot?

age differences for USA spouses

Not quite a serial killer (he's only accused of having murdered a pair of chicks), but he still gets 50 love letters a day. (I actually don't know if this guy is good-looking; probably not? Have never been able to tell with men)

Regardless, this isn't a 'only good-looking serial killers' phenomenon here. Here's a girl talking about how she feels more attracted to whatever guy she reads about who is a serial killer:

age differences for USA spouses

She's not too terrible looking, either:

age differences for USA spouses

Maybe hot girls have bad taste?

Next point:

You're confusing LUST and GREED. Harvey Weinstein financed Georgina's clothing line Marchesa and found celebrity customers. He also got her to be in his movies during her short acting career - she was likely on his casting couch.

That is barter-based prostitution.

Was this before or after marriage? Regardless, I have numerous friends who date all kinds of beautiful girls, and have helped their long-term girlfriends and wives to start fashion lines. I have done this myself, even. One friend helped his girlfriend of 2 or 3 years start a swimwear company; another helped his girlfriend of 3 years start a purse business. I've helped a girlfriend of over 2 years start her own real estate business. In each of these situations, the calculation is always "I like this girl, I care about her, it's pretty easy for me to start something up, and I want her to have something of her own." You never do it when she's trying to leave you (or at least I and my friends don't). Because at that point you'd rather just dropkick her and find a girl who actually wants to stick around with you. Instead it's a thing where you want your girl to be more independent (often because you want her to be less clingy/needy/dependent).

That said, I don't doubt Weinstein met his wife on his casting couch (haven't read anything about how they got together, but I believe it). When a guy has a standard way he meets women, that will tend to be his way to meet women. Though how did Andy Dick meet his wife, by the way?

Next point:

What about women shagging their young, good looking students? Or women cheating with young, good looking men?

What about it?

This is like if I write an article that says, "Yes, red meat is good for you," and you write a response saying, "What about eggplants? Are you saying eggplants are BAD for you? HUH??!? WHAT ABOUT IT??!!"

I think this goes back to your misunderstanding (or my lack of clear communication; take your pick) that this article is a "looks/age don't even matter!" apologia, rather than a "looks/youth are far from the only thing that matter, or the most important" piece.

Otherwise, red herring, and not relevant to what this piece is about. We've talked about younger guys and older gals elsewhere on Girls Chase:

(and actually, talked about it before we ever talked about older guys and younger women)

Next criticism:

For God's sake, you're using a photo of a male model with some grey hair to prove a point. Of course, if you put a good looking, tall white model with some grey hair (let's say he's 40-45 yo) against a bad looking, short, ethnic Muslim terrorist with dark hair (let's say 25-30 yo), the former guy wins because he's better looking.

Haha... delightful.

Yes. The commenter I responded to was making the argument that "WRONG, girls do not ever go for older men, they exclusively prefer younger men!" (or at least, that's how I interpreted it; he says that is not the case. Easy to cross your signals in text debates) The easiest, clearest counter to that argument will of course be: "Hey, look at this disgusting young guy. Now look at this sexy older guy. Who gets the shag?"

The closer we get to nuance, the less clear the argument becomes. Let's say I post pictures of a good-looking 50-year-old man and a good-looking 25-year-old man, and ask, "Okay, who gets the girl?" If we exclusively ask 25-year-old women, we might get something like 85% of the women saying "The younger guy" while another 15% say "The older guy." I have no idea how accurate those numbers are; they could be different. But it's definitely not 0% or 1% for the attractive older guy, and it's definitely not 99% or 100% for the attractive younger guy, because there is a sizeable portion of women (including attractive and very attractive women) who prefer older men. And there will be another portion of women who for whatever reason will not like the younger guy's facial features and will not find him attractive, but will like the older guy's facial features and will find him attractive.

If we then throw other attributes into the mix (overall attractiveness is made up of much more than looks, as you recall... at least outside speed dating and Internet dating), it gets even more complicated. There are various things we can tell these girls about either man that will raise or lower his attractiveness. Either guy is an artist. Either guy is a successful business owner. We can show girls pictures of either guy's last ex-girlfriend, which has a big impact on his attractiveness (to the tune of +25% attractiveness if she's hot, and -5% attractiveness if she's average, and -25% attractiveness if she's ugly).

In any event, nuance was not the point of this article. That's covered in my intellectual articles on this. The point of this article was to wake a few guys up who otherwise would be hung up on the "aw but I can't because of this reason."

Next critique:

When it comes to genuine love, love at first sight, lust and sexual attraction... good looks (face, height, age, race, frame etc.) are almost everything. Looks give you a massive halo effect. Looks are largely outside of your control and things will get worse as you age, which is why there is such denialism about it.

Bzzt! Wrong answer!

Looks ARE the halo effect. So says the research:

age differences for USA spouses

(also, there is no good research on the cause of the love at first sight phenomenon. I've spent plenty of time looking for it. I used to think maybe it was looks - facial/genetic similarity, maybe? - and while I still think this might be part of it, I now think there are other elements involved, like microexpressions and possibly immune cell / scent elements)

Okay. There actually is a halo effect too, where looks make other things about you look better. It actually goes both ways. (too hard to resist dumping a bunch of research on you though - just want you to realize that while appearances has a halo effect, your other attributes have a halo effect of their own on your appearance. This street goes two ways)

Anyway. This is not to say looks are not their own piece of the puzzle.

Again! We spend a great deal of time on this website talking about appearance (we call it 'fundamentals'). This is a very important aspect of your approach. It's one of the major founding pillars of this website - Girls Chase began as, in part, a reaction to the broader seduction community which, in my opinion, did not spend nearly enough time focused on teaching men to improve their appearances, and focused too much on teaching men to say specific things.

So yeah. That was fun.

Not sure if it was necessarily the best use of time. A duplicitous individual like me with unscrupulous ulterior motives should probably not be wasting time writing out theses like these in the comment section, when he could be devoting that time to WORLD CONQUEST.

But, still fun.

I think the only point I glanced over was the "women aren't attracted to power in egalitarian societies" bit at the start of your article. 75% of the reason was because most of the early anthropological investigation into egalitarian societies was performed during the heights of the Marxist movement (1950s, 60s, and 70s) and has been revealed as flawed, biased, or outright shams in some cases. And I am disinclined to spend the time digging through research on egalitarian societies, pulling up all the old sham stuff, and citing a bunch of more modern investigations that show that actually people are pretty much people and largely want the same things, whether they're in an egalitarian tribe of 50 people or a capitalist republic metropolis of 10 million people. (the other 25% of the reason was because we don't live in an egalitarian society and never will until after Jesus comes back or we all reach Arahant levels of enlightenment)

So I guess that's it. Thanks for the debate. Even if you don't necessarily consider me to be arguing in good faith, you seem to be (other than the ad hominem, which I gave you a bit of a hard time about), and I enjoyed it.

Chase

Jimbo's picture

The reason popstars are more popular than scientists among teenage girls is because music is more popular than science among teenagers. So those will be their idols. And aren't these teen hearthrob popular with huge amount of preselection, and therefore powerful?

I mean look at Andy Dick! A complete degenerate who's either drunk or wasted 50% of his waking hours, and yet has (or had, don't know if they're still together) such a pretty and cute woman like Lena Sved. And he's not even a degenerate in a masculine way like Weinstein, but more in a bizarre quirky faggy one. When younger he looked like a nerd, and ten years ago he got the shit beaten out of him by Jon Lovitz, and then later he was dragged out of a late night show by the host and some old security guard by his feet because he wouldn't quit groping Ivanka Trump. He also comes on to dudes. And yet all of his chicks have been either beautiful, pretty, or sexy, and all were younger than he was. Not only he's got a pretty redheaded partner, he even had smoking hot latina Jennifer Gimenez as a side chick while with the redhead, and get this, he had her live in a trailer next to the driveway of where Lena, the mother of his children, lived. And before that he married beautiful Ivone Kowalczyk, then dated Lisa Donatz, Wendy Maddix, all attractive.

Now tell why would so many beauties who don't look like they were starving or poor fall for that effeminate weirdo who's average looks-wise? He's popular and has juice, nothing more nothing less. He must also be fun to be around.

Chase put a snapshot of a girl attracted to serial killers. Same for those, for better or for worse, we make icons out of them, they fascinate us, and so they become very attractive.

On a separate note, that Saipov dude must be one of the most terrorist-looking people ever.

JJ's picture

How antiquated, misconceieved & insecure can human'kind' be to still believe high quality young women in their prime outside of their teens bc they don't count (most are ignorant children) only want feminine baby faced Justin Bieber & Niall Horan types. The most attractive, accomplished, sophisticated, educated & top quality ladies want older men. Men over 30 exude masculinity, maturity, sex appeal, wit & worldiness. Men like this guy ☆ https://media.giphy.com/media/l1LcdjqAbbru0sOn6/giphy.gif fit the ideal type women like her https://media.giphy.com/media/xT4ApdY3zIj1E83oHe/giphy.gif want to have kids with & would choose over any 20 something old guy any day. At 26 yrs. old (almost 27) my first choice in men has always been & remains older males. My dozens of girlfriends around my age prefer older men too. It's mostly poor quality, bottom of the cesspool females who will pursue younger guys in favor of older men. For example, greedy untrustworthy uneducated teenagers from foreign countries (Latinas,southeast asians etc.) those girls are tarantulas or hard lived older Courtney Love types. I pity young guys they get the worse pairings, not necessarily physically, but intellectually they get stuck w/ all the lunatics.

Anonymous 's picture

Is it true that older men who are married to younger women divorce more the bigger the age gap?

What should an older man do (40-50s) if he wants to settle down, but has no kids. How low can he go down in age? I ask because I read in your comment an older guy would want to settle down with a women his own age, but by 40 or 50, they will definitely have a kid. If you want kids and to settle down as an older man what would you do in this situation, to settle down with a girl who is around your age with no kids or drama? Let me know.

I also seen you wrote something about world domination. I want to dominate the world too, let me know what I have to do!

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Anon-

Yes, it is true. Although I don't have the research in front of me so can't tell you how significant it is (e.g., are you 5% more likely to divorce with a 20-year gap than a 0-year gap, or are you 25% more likely?).

Every guy has to make his own call. And I am not 40 or 50, and don't want to project out to a future me - your future you won't always want what present you thinks future you will. But 35 y/o me would pick a girl 22 to 26 to wife up if he had to do it right now. And as best I can imagine myself as a 40 y/o or a 50 y/o the age range would still be the same; 22 to 26.

But also in my case I am not worried about the woman leaving. So that may color things (women tend to not want to leave me, on the whole. And in the event one did, I'd either enjoy my bachelorhood or go get a replacement if I wanted another relationship. So maybe I'm not the best guy to ask this?).

Re: world domination, well, there are various paths to this. But at some point you need a military, and an economy to feed that military. So I would start with "How do I get those?" and go from there.

Chase

Anonymous 's picture

Helping your girlfriends build businesses, you do that for them to be less clingy and make then more independent?

I would never help a girl build a business because she might think she's the shit and will leave me and I did all that work for nothing.

How can you tell that won't happen?

And since you help so many people make businesses, how can I make one? Sounds like it could be easy enough if you can get girls to make them just to not be clingy haha.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

I would never help a girl build a business because she might think she's the shit and will leave me and I did all that work for nothing.

How can you tell that won't happen?

Well, obviously if you fear that happening, you wouldn't do it.

In my case, if a chick thinks she's the shit and leaves, that's cool with me. I enjoy being with quality women, but if a woman wants to leave, well, I also enjoy finding and seducing and commencing new relationships with new high quality women as well.

I already went through my "How can she leave me?!" phase when younger. At this point I regard relationships in a very different way.

And since you help so many people make businesses, how can I make one? Sounds like it could be easy enough if you can get girls to make them just to not be clingy haha.

Spend a few years failing your way to the required skill sets, until you figure out how to build the sorts of businesses you want to build and get them profitable, and presto! Now you know.

And I cannot "get girls to make them" - to do that I'd have to spend half a year training a woman how to build a business. Instead, when I've done this, I made the business myself, then trained her how to maintain it, and handed it off to her. Look up "turnkey business" - this is what I have built in the past if I want to help a girlfriend have a business (haven't done it in a while though... I do not have the time these days).

Chase

Mischief's picture

Well, men don’t have waist-to-hip ratio as a thing girls care about. There’s the V-shaped physique I guess, but this is a pretty minor attraction factor. What women really care about is power.

I categorically disagree with this. A V-shaped physique is a very specific arousal queue for horny women. Men respect it too because it communicates physical dominance. I would even go so far as to argue that an optimally shaped male body communicates a precious form of pre-selection (note physique of man in first article picture) – precious because women instinctively know other women find you as arousing as they themselves do and therefor assume you have options… without the necessity of actually having any.

I am curious as to why you would marginalize this… or maybe I'm not since we both know a scrawny guy like Neil Strauss can shag countless beautiful women with superior game skillz (intentional 'z' for added internet awareness). I also happen to think a scrawny guy is more likely to end up emotionally traumatizing himself than the man who takes a more physically raw approach to self-improvement.

The muscular guy will always have an edge when it comes to fast sex, especially with women in their ovulation phase. I'm not talking about the chunky meathead – I mean the sleek chap who has a golden ratio from shoulders to waist.

See: Why Is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the
Fitness Indicator Hypothesis

My new goal is to build up a high lay count based as solely as possible on raw, visceral arousal and rely as little as possible on 'deep' emotional connection. When a man takes the usual approach (prioritizing emotional connection over primal), he ends up in dangerous waters for himself psychologically. She ends up with the power to rock your mental world in some pretty nasty ways. You could call me a 'red pill' guy, but I do not consider myself bitter (okay, maybe a little bit). I discovered by lay three that women have the potential to evoke suicidal urges the likes of which I had never before experienced in my life. I also discovered I am far from alone in these feelings by how widespread this phenomenon appears to be with men on the whole. I finally started to get laid thanks to GirlsChase (sincerely), but the problem then became one of emotional turmoil on the inside – the price was shocking and unbearable.

"In our times, too many men are committing suicide because the woman he loves has lost her genuine desire for him," Sam Botta, Forward to Preventive Medicine, a book dedicated to the memories of the 22 American veterans who took their own lives every day in 2015. I would extend this to include the agony men experience over not giving a woman the commitment she is hard-wired to seek post-sex. If you give in, you feel like a chump as you observe her feral desire for you drop like a rock. If you don’t, then you have broken her heart and “punched her in the ovaries.” Either way, the post-sex fallout from emotionally driven courtship results in undue pressure on a man.

In my case, I was not even 'in love,' or so I had thought, until a girl coldly walked out on me from the coffee shop – the last time we would ever meet. I never imagined a three week fling could end with a chill down my spine like that.

Now, after lifting weights religiously for almost three years, I am proud of my 15 1/2 inch arms and shredded abs today, inspired by Hector's lay reports. This Halloween, I went as Thor, dressed in a $200 Marvel costume, let down my long blonde hair (about as long as Hector’s), and cut off the sleeves to sport my goods. Women left and right were either grabbing my ass or pressing their breasts into me all night. It was intoxicating. I got asked for at least a dozen photos. I ended up with a same night lay only ten minutes after meeting the girl and right as the lights came on in the lounge for closing. I’d say she was about an HB 7-7.5 – reminded me of Leah Thompson (Marty McFly's hot mom for the old schoolers). This makes nine total lays for me now, and I'm chalking this one up to peacocking, of which my physique is a corner stone. I even won a $50 cash prize for 2nd best costume that night, and the funny thing is, I can't really decide which of those two successes I am more proud of right now. You could say I did nothing to get that girl and was therefor just lucky. I would say I prepared three years for an opportunity like that, and it paid off with no emotional price on my part. That night, I was a beast, pure and simple. I came in her raw and also had her squealing with delight the morning after.

As far as I'm concerned, physique is the most powerful asset in my game toolbox, at least insofar as relates to the goal of getting feral sex with horny women – women who will more likely continue to respect you as a superior man even after you expose, either accidentally or intentionally, any chinks in the armor of your manly character.

I am not trying to say that muscles alone will get any guy laid. The world is filled with plenty of buff chumps. It's physique plus game that make a deadly combination. I am only advocating for the order of physique coming first. Lifting weights adds to your emotional resilience in a way no social or financial prowess can compare, a true signal of your power.

Best of all, reshaping one's body is actually the easiest thing to achieve: no one has to agree with, like you or give you permission. It's all on you and only you. You naturally accrue more approach invitations, opening more opportunities to practice your game on girls who already like you. Every item on that laundry list of power-related items (wealth, social status, leadership, confidence, charisma) then become more accessible.

Always,
-M

P.S. I want to step up my participation in this community because for starters, my sexual journey began here four years ago. I realize we all benefit tremendously in reviewing each other's experiences and the feelings that go along with them (god, did I just used the 'f' word?).

She enters your world… not the other way around.
Manners. Maketh. Man.

Mischief's picture

I have a habit of over thinking my own comments and re-editing them endlessly. If anyone intended to reply, only to see I switched it up on you, I am sorry for that. I will try to leave it as is from now on.

-M

edit: Added bit about pre-selection in beginning… brain just keeps coming up with new thoughts and/or better ways of putting them into words — 11/3, 12:58 EDT

*again* @ 2:13 P.M.

She enters your world… not the other way around.
Manners. Maketh. Man.

Mischief's picture

I realize it probably sounds ridiculous that a man with my limited experience with women comes to your articles with such strongly worded comments. I am sometimes too emotional a man, a fact that makes me a good stage musician but with some pretty rough on occasion. Some men are more at home in solitude, yet that can be used as a strength. I have an inkling that social proof can be fabricated with tight enough fundamentals.

I actually support your premise on the whole that older men in fact have the potential to do better with women than our younger counter parts, considering the older sort get their fundamentals on lock. I for one never imagined some of my recent sexual experiences actually happening as a man ten years my junior. Adding to that as far as I'm concerned, things will only get even better. :)

-M

She enters your world… not the other way around.
Manners. Maketh. Man.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Mischief-

The v-shape is very popular among image focused men; it's one of the five areas of the physique men rate as most important (along with being overall muscular, being overall lean, being tall, and having abs). The most important aspect of a v-shape body though is its effect on the man. See how you describe yourself? A beast, with arms and abs three years in the making... (nice job on the girl btw - and the costume! Sounds like it was a tight costume if you took 2nd place)... this is pride, pure and simple. And pride is extraordinarily attractie.

Women are attracted to healthy bodies (some women more than others... some girls really want to sample a guy with big muscles). Men tend to overestimate the importance of their physiques though (and humorously eough, according to the research, men "distort women's preferences in such a direction as to bring them in line with their own current figure").

If we set aside the research, I've known well two extremely huge, jacked men with zero visible body fat and colossal v-shaped physiques. One of them had a cool, laid back, confident demeanor and did well with women. The other was angry and moody and both burst out in anger around me and also broke down in tears around me - he did not do well with women at all.

On the other hand, I've known many very prolific seducers. Only a fraction of them have been muscular or had v-shapes. One of them who has a v-shape now used to be skinny, and when he was skinny he did a much higher volume of lays than he has done post-muscle (his muscles didn't hurt him, he just got tired of plowing his way through heaps of girls and cut down on his ONSes).

This is not to take anything away from an awesome physique. It's a terrific point of pride, takes a lot of discipline to build, and is a great way to peacock. So long as it's supplemented by strong internals and other good fundamentals it will only help your success rates.

(I've wanted to get back to the gym for some time, though have dallied due to the inefficiency of lifting weights. However, now that they have non-harmful ways to build muscle faster than steroids, I plan to get on that once I am done with One Date and have a little more time to burn again. Don't expect it to help much with women - it might get me opened more - but I lifted for 10 years and would like to get back to it. Miss it, and have more weight goals to knock off)

See also: William's article on this: "The Truth About Big Muscles and Getting Laid"

Chase

Ezequias's picture

Sorry Chase, but i'm really skeptical about this cooling glove thing - i'm always up to date with the latest research on such things because i follow globally renowned, non-biased scientists/physical educators, such as Paulo Gentil, Antonio Paoli, James Steele and they always say - building muscle is a slow proccess and there'll never be a magic pill (without consequences that is...).

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Ezequias-

The research on results/benefits looks superficially good. The glove's being used by professional sports teams, World Cup winners, etc. at this point now. Not that that's a guarantee of effectiveness; those guys also have lucky dirty socks they wear.

There's also the point that harmful effects to something are often not discovered until years/decades after it hits the market. I was a huge Xenadrine fan in the early 2000s until they outlawed it for killing a couple hundred athletes. (must admit, I used up the rest of my supply anyway and was sad to see it go away - the stuff packed kick)

Was that your concern here - hidden/unknown negative side effects? Or you're skeptical about its effectiveness? Or both (maybe it just isn't researched enough, by enough people)?

I haven't picked up this glove yet, since I'm still knuckled down in this endless march toward product launch. You sound like you're informed in this area, so if you have thoughts / concerns / counterpoints to it I'd welcome any you'd share.

Chase

Mischief's picture

Geeze, when I go back and re-read some parts of my comments, I want to slap myself…

It was almost surreal to sport that costume this year and get a ONS out of it. The way women were fawning over me caught me by surprise… it was like a dream (come true). I had actually worn it two years earlier and got nothing, heh! I was a bit smaller then and had a lot less hair (just started growing it longer).

I see your point about pride (the ‘beast’ part was leftover zeal from reading Hector’s articles). Pride is a lot easier to manifest when a man has tangible results to back it up, and I admit muscularity is not the be all (realistically, I am not even that big… just better than the average guy. Visible muscle is still a pretty new thing for me – first 34 years of my life was either fat or skinny fat). For that matter, I could (and should) take a lot more pride in my musical accomplishments considering I actually earn an ok living as a classical violinist – just doesn’t come off very manly (or even popular) but I may be overlooking something!

That glove looks intriguing, but I’m with Ezequias on this: building muscle is realistically a tedious process. Slow and steady wins the race. I probably hold this view due to the correlation with violin practice. Maybe I just have high faith in long-term, solo-oriented self-improvement… which is a bit of a pickle for improving one’s social life (as I sit in a bar loaded with cute girls while writing this comment :p). I’m hoping my single-minded solo style can translate into more lays, which is kind of happening at this point… of course, more is always better :)

Cheers,
-M

She enters your world… not the other way around.
Manners. Maketh. Man.

Mischief's picture

Just thought to add that regardless of efficiency, I don't think I've ever done a workout that didn't leave me feeling stronger, more grounded emotionally, and feeling like I naturally deserved the best women around me (of those who make the choice, of course).

Those reasons make lifting totally worth it, no matter any specific benchmarks I may or may not be hitting.

-M

She enters your world… not the other way around.
Manners. Maketh. Man.

olderman100's picture

As a 45 year old man still enjoying game and sleeping with multiple women, I want to share my experience wrt this topic.

For context on my comments, let me start with a brief description on me: I am not a billionaire, but I do own my own business and do decently. I have good fundamentals and intermediate level game. I am 5'11, still have a head of brown hair and brown facial hair with a tad of grey in it. I am not muscular, but not fat. I have a good frame, I feel I look good dressed, but could probably lose a few pounds for the pool (I admit i let working out slip when my business gets busy).

Bedding women in their 20's has not been a problem for me. I would say maybe 1/3 women in their 20's I approach express reservation/surprise when they learn my age, but only at most 1/5 walk away solely for that reason (eg. "ew you are close in age to my dad" type response). Even given that, I still find it much easier to sleep with women in their 20's, than 30+ due to the high levels of anti slut resistance with older women. From my experience, LMR appears to be epidemic at 30ish+, and therefore I try to avoid that age group as much as possible. Of course there are always exceptions to this, but I feel almost all of the women who have come home with me and, refused or resisted intimacy, are over 30.

I read another blog that I feel sums up my experience quite well, classifying very young women into 3 buckets: 1. Young women who are very attracted to older men (15-20%), 2. Young women who tends towards men in her own age group but wouldn’t mind dating a much older man if he was desirable enough, not creepy, and had strong enough game. (50%), and 3. Young women who are disgusted at the thought of having sex with a man 5+ years older than her. See references here: http://www.blackdragonblog.com/2011/11/27/dealing-with-the-youre-too-old...

There are no statistics, or articles to this comment, just my own personal experience. I don't do online gaming, mainly night game, and rarely day game. Finally, I will add that I feel it has gotten easier to bed women as I have gotten older....although I would probably attribute this more to reading (and following the advice from) sites like girlschase over the last few years, vs. being older.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Thanks for sharing, olderman. Good details here. And nice share from Caleb's blog.

Yes, over-30 women have much bigger walls against sex, that's been my experience too. Was part of why I adopted 30 as my age cutoff... these women are significantly more demanding, especially if you are older than them (boyfriend/husband prospect). They also have a much stronger element of ego protection in play... seemingly mostly due to insecurity about not being as desirable as they used to be and/or a great number of experiences being burned by men due to more years in the dating market.

For a lot of guys (and it was certainly the case for me), it is easier to bed older women when you are younger. And easier to be younger women when you are older. Various factors involved in it, but a lot of it is down to boyfriend disqualification (if she's 33 and you're 24, she knows you won't be a boyfriend; but you might be a sexy fling... or if you're 46 and she's 21, she's not going to have a relationship with you, but if you're sexy and put together she might just like to see what it's like to bed a guy like you). When she doesn't have to wonder if she needs to slow game you to make you a potential boyfriend or not, it's a lot easier for her to move fast with you if she's into you.

Chase

Jimbo's picture

... or if you're 46 and she's 21, she's not going to have a relationship with you...

I don't know about that. Some do seem to want to genuinely date them: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171130171817AAzRY1Z

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Well, yeah! Definitely loads of exceptions. Going both ways.

There are women who desire LTRs with men 10 years younger. And plenty of women who desire LTRs with men 15 years older.

However, in general, when a girl first meets you and you make that first impression, she's much more likely to think "potential boyfriend" if you are her age or 1-4 years older than she is if you are 15 years older. If you are a sexy older guy, you'll meet a few much younger women who are thinking "boyfriend" the moment they see you, but much more who are thinking "well, we couldn't probably date, but we COULD hook up."

Of course, once you've made love to a girl and she's had a great time with you and you've converted her to a regular sex partner, relationships get fairly easy to get, even if she wasn't thinking "boyfriend" when she first met you (assuming you do have and show decent boyfriend value).

Chase

Jimbo's picture

I don't know Chase. You seem to suggest these are rare occurrences, the first preference of a small percentage, but I think they're only so because most girls don't want to be seen as deviating from the predominant norms. I'm saying this because I hang on Yahoo answers pretty regularly, though sporadically, and on the dating sections you'll come across these way too often: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171203175954AA7ua2L&ap=2&... -- Mostly girls who prefer older guys, as in their first dating choice, but are hesitant to act on it because of how they might be perceived.

B's picture

"You’re going to have a temptation to project your own preferences onto women. That inclination is almost always going to give you skewed, incorrect presumptions about what women want."

John Greco's picture

Hey Chase,

For starters...your article was spot on (as always?) and your sense of humour impeccable. You had me cracking with the joke about the Halloween) Also, quite thought provoking (the facets of power).

In my opinion, your debaters cannot understand that good looks are NOT the same with appearance. Appearance is a big set of properties that we have and women experience the sum of it. Good Looks(TM)(We define good looks as things we cannot change, like facial symmetry or crooked nose) are a SUBSET of that. So yeah..they do add to better appearance, but so many other things also do, that you really can fix.

Also I have a question for you: How do you decide this for a woman you're dating: Her testing, drama and demands, stem from her high value(so she's high maintenance) or her craziness?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

John,

Indeed. All the guys who believe it is exclusively a man's beautiful face, or towering height, or burgeoning bank account that gets him women, and nothing else, make the error of tripping up on one single element in attraction and inflating its importance in their minds to the point it crowds out all the other things women care about.

It's an easy mistake to make. People look for explanations for why things happen that they can't explain. If there's thunder it's because Zeus is angry and hurtling lightning bolts. Then once you believe this, the belief becomes self-reinforcing; every time there is thunder, you think about things that have happened recently and figure out which one probably pissed of Zeus. Likewise, if women do not pick you, but they do pick some other guy, you will look for a reason. Once you've decided on one, it becomes self-reinforcing after that, due to the magic of confirmation bias :)

As for "is she high value or just crazy?" well... hotter girls are higher maintenance, but at the same time plenty of girls who are just nuts too. The best rule of thumb is to look at the sort of drama you get:

  • Is it a sort of disgusted "I'm too good for this B.S." type of drama? This is usually indicative of a girl who is or at least perceives herself as high value (desired, in-demand, someone who has enough options to not have to tolerate suboptimal situations)

  • Or is it a sort of paranoid or panicky, overly neurotic or controlling type of drama? This sort is indicative of women who are nuts. The delicate side of this sort of drama is that this is the drama any girl in an unstable relationship will give. The problem is that crazy girls feel like they are in unstable relationships all the time, and you can set them off with the slightest thing. Meanwhile women who aren't nuts require you to create a much more unstable relationship before they start to act this way

That's the primary indicator. If you're seeing disgusted/impatient "Whatever, this isn't worth my time" drama, she's high mate value. If it's neurotic or paranoid drama, then either she's nuts, or you've made her nuts by creating a too unstable relationship (though be careful, because women who are genuinely nuts will blame you for their nuttiness and tell you it's your fault you're acting this way. It's part of how they get men to lop their balls off for them and become weak/controlled).

Chase

Jimbo's picture

I like chubbier chicks actually, especially when they're heavy on the T&A and the hourglass remains discernible, though I realize I'm in the minority (among white dudes).

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Spend a little time outside the West, Jimbo. It will cure you ;)

(seriously. It changes your perceptions on what sort of body type is attractive/acceptable/healthy. The lifestyle isn't really different outside the West... women in Eastern European and Asian cities are just as sedentary as their American counterparts, but significantly thinner, and they never go to the gym for it. It's 100% Western diet - loads of chemical preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, plus insane portion sizes. You don't realize it when you've always lived around it, but once you've been out of it the level of unhealthiness becomes something you really cannot get out of your head when you meet people who have that extra fluff and aren't otherwise middle aged or older)

-C

Jimbo's picture

Yeah, could it be that overweight's becoming so common and almost the norm that I've grown to like it and get aroused by it? I guess it could.

Mischief's picture

A duplicitous individual like me with unscrupulous ulterior motives should probably not be wasting time writing out theses like these in the comment section, when he could be devoting that time to WORLD CONQUEST.

Sarcasm or delusions of evil grandeur?

Can a man hold himself together in this state indefinitely? I suppose we only need to last as long as fate would have it…

She enters your world… not the other way around.
Manners. Maketh. Man.

Mischief's picture

…when he could be devoting that time to WORLD CONQUEST.

Have you noticed what U.S. presidents look like after just eight years in office? …and you would want to run the whole world??

That sounds like a whole lot of paper work, meetings, and endless other bullshit I would pass up in a heart beat.

You can have it! :P

-M

She enters your world… not the other way around.
Manners. Maketh. Man.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Nah, but it's fun to say.

The only practical way to do it is with a revolutionary military breakthrough. If you look at all partial-world conquests, they came as the result of military breakthroughs. Namely, you have Alexander's phalanx, Genghis Khan's horse archers, and gunpowder on the part of the greater European colonial conquest. Even with these massive military advantages, the conquerors were only able to conquer a fraction of the Earth. And after the conquest, their empires quickly splintered into separate pieces again. The one exception - to a degree - was the British Empire. Though even that did not really last.

Plus there is also other considerations. If you conquer the world you are going to kill a LOT of people - 10s of millions at least; possibly 100s of millions - and for what gain? An enormous amount of (probably pointless) pain, suffering, destruction, and loss of life. You get to etch your name in history, but odds are you end up like Alexander, dead young (possibly by assassination), heirs murdered by your successors who were nominally your friends but actually just waiting their turns for a shot at the throne.

More practical if you want to do it is to start a new country and build it as you want. But even then, you are not going to do it by yourself, and are probably not going to be an absolute monarch. However, unclaimed land is hard to come by, and building an interplanetary empire is still a ways off (unless you're Elon Musk).

There is also the "what exactly is the point of conquering the world?" argument. There's not really any gain that comes of it you can't get an easier way. Want to be filthy rich? Go be an investment banker. Or launch a startup and get Silicon Valley investors. Hard, yes, but orders of magnitude less hard than world conquest. Want to father 10,000 children like Genghis Khan? Donate to sperm banks, and become a beloved celebrity and bang two women a day without condoms. Hard, yes, but again orders of magnitude less hard than subduing 195 countries. Need to validate your ego? There are plenty of ways to do that that are extremely hard, yet still nowhere near as hard as world conquest.

(And I would never, ever want to be a U.S. president. The president has very limited power to do/change/affect anything, and has numerous powerful groups and agencies leaning on him at all times pushing him to do what they want. Look at Obama - he was a man on a mission, with an incredible vision, who campaigned on really awesome, inspiring things - and after 3 months in office he'd abandoned every one of them. Not because he wanted to - he wanted to do all those things. But because once he got into office, I presume D.C. came to him and said "Welcome Mr. President. Let's get started. First, those things you said you were going to do, they sounded great, but we're not going to do any of them. Here, we have an itinerary for you to follow now." Or look at Trump - he's tried to stick to his campaign promises, but the Republicans in Congress block him at every turn, liberal advocacy groups file legal challenges to every executive order and regulation he passes and run them through liberal-stacked courts that block the order/regulation until the administration can get it in front of the Supreme Court, and the Obama-staffed executive branch often operates like a bunch of rogue agents. So whether you flip the president, like D.C. flipped Obama, or you block the president, as D.C. has blocked Trump, the president ultimately gets to be a ceremonial figurehead (Obama) or an impotent would-be change agent (Trump).)

Also, the more I study governance, the less confident I feel trying to devise a system to manage anything larger than a business empire. In state governance, there are two sides to everything, and it is impossible to keep things balanced; often it isn't even ideal to keep things balanced. But you go too far to one side or the other, and you get authoritarianism or anarchy, both of which will collapse your system. I'm also less and less confident there is any one system that is better than any other; every country propagandizes its youth with messages that its governmental system is the best in the world for X number of reasons, yet all nations follow the same historical trajectories, regardless their systems of government. When everything ends up the same way, this makes me skeptical there's much I could offer that would improve the outcome.

Chase

Mischief's picture

I had not thought about military conquest being a function of then-recent technological advancements. We could add Hitler's Blitzkrieg to that list. Scary to imagine what the next might be…

I never meant to imply you would want to be a U.S. president, haha! I seriously cannot imagine a man the likes of Trump wants that job for any other reason than to etch his name in political history. I wonder (with a smile on my face) how meetings between him and the 'powers that be' must look like…

I think this is why we have mafias, gangs, and multi-national corporations. These organizations become powerful only because the public does not perceive them to have any power. They are free to operate under our very noses with little attention given to their deeds. In many cases, this actually allows them to do some good that might otherwise never happen under the pressure of a political spotlight.

Speaking of the Matrix, I am guessing you might fancy the Merovingian. No matter how many times the system falls and gets rebuilt, he is always there, carving out his secret empire and doing as he pleases.

Cheers,
-M

She enters your world… not the other way around.
Manners. Maketh. Man.

Salesian's picture

Terrific article.

I am a new subscriber to GC. I've subscribed because I want to cultivate a positive mindset towards dating and relationships versus the defeatist attitudes of 'The Red Pill.'

In my experience it's the over-reliance of young men on online dating apps such as Tinder and Bumble that accounts for the prevalence of this notion that young women only want good-looking men.

In real life, women can perceive and dig a dude's power and dominance in all its myriad forms: charm, artistic ability, height, muscles, booming voice, popularity.

On these apps, the only show of power or dominance possible is visual dominance -- or attractiveness.

Since these guys lack real world experience, and only have had exposure to dating via apps, they overgeneralize the behavior of women on these apps to all women in the real world.

Because these embittered dudes harbor and reinforce this defeatist attitude by aggregating in such toxic echo chambers as TheRedPill or SlutHate, they fail to cultivate real qualities that might make them more attractive. Or worse, they obsess over steroids and plastic surgery.

It's all pretty sick shit. I'm glad I found GC, the safe harbor for dating advice.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Salesian-

Ah yes, good point. That's true - of guys who throw this point out much, when you get them to talk about where they're meeting women and how they've arrived at this conclusion, most of the ones who give you an answer talk about online dating.

Of the ones who aren't doing online dating, they're usually focused on specific types of women who are extremely looks obsessed - like bleached blonde gym bunnies, for instance (if a girl spends 5 hours a day on her appearance, you know what she values most in life).

So, a slightly belated welcome, Salesian. May you continue to find Girls Chase a useful, optimistic way to get what you want with girls while giving them what they want too :)

Chase

Gil's picture

In other words, "stop trying to fret about the primary sexual attraction traits you don't have control over and seek secondary sexual traits that you have some control over."

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Gil-

Hmm, well, not really.

Men have a huge amount of control over their physical appearances. And physical appearance is a 'primary sexual attraction trait'. Aspects you do not control include:

  • Facial structure
  • Facial features
  • Hair type
  • Skin color
  • Skin complexion
  • Height
  • Age
  • Physical deformities

Aspects you do control include:

  • Hairstyle
  • Facial hair
  • Clothes
  • Posture
  • Facial expressions
  • Mannerisms
  • Movement speed
  • Musculature
  • Fat levels

Beyond physical appearance though, there are numerous other primary sexual attraction traits:

  • Voice
  • Eye contact
  • Social dominance
  • Physical dominance
  • Confidence
  • Sexuality
  • Wealth (when displayed conspicuously)
  • Preselection (on average the largest single attraction trait, by percent)

... plus more I'm probably forgetting, but those should be most of the major sexual attraction switches. Full article on attraction switches here.

Each of those has numerous sub-aspects of their own, just like physical appearance does.

In general, the poorer your fundamentals are, the worse you will do without a standout trait. So for instance, if you take a bunch of men with crappy fundamentals, but one of them also has a beautiful face, the beautiful face guy will get shots with a lot more girls. Or if you take a bunch of guys with crappy fundamentals, but one of them throws a lot of money around, that guy is going to do better than the other ones. Each of these guys has something to let him stand out in a big way.

As fundamentals improve, the relative importance of a big leg up in one of these departments declines. i.e., if you take a bunch of men with world class fundamentals, and one of them also has a beautiful face, he will get somewhat more attention from some girls but it won't be anywhere near as huge a difference as it is among the crappy fundamentals group. Likewise the big spender in a group of men with world class fundamentals.

If you want another way to think about it, here's a graphical way:

looks vs. fundamentals

Say we have four guys, Abel, Chris, David, and Beautiful Bill. If all four guys are average in these other areas:

  • Voice
  • Eye Contact
  • Social Dominance
  • Physical Dominance
  • Confidence
  • Sexuality
  • Appearance
  • Wealth
  • Preselection

... except for one difference: Beautiful Bill has incredible genetic looks, then Beautiful Bill gets a huge boost on the dating scene, and cleans up in a big way.

Now take these four guys, have them work on their fundamentals for a few years and get them honed to perfection. And now compare them. Everybody's general attractiveness has gone way up - including Beautiful Bill's - but now it's a lot closer. Because each man has so much going for him, Bill's genetic good looks play a much lower role in his overall attractiveness, relative to all the other things going on for him. They also give him much less of a leg up over the competition - in fact, Chris is now dead even with him (both men are 10s).

Also remember: these ratings are subjective, and will vary from girl to girl. Even if 60% of women think Beautiful Bill is a 10, 20% of women will think he's only a 7 or 8, 10% of women will rate him 5 or 6, and another 10% will think he's ugly. So we're talking averages - on average, Beautiful Bill rates higher than the other guys (i.e., more women rate him higher more often).

One final aside: incidentally, men with poor fundamentals often count men with comparable or worse genetic looks to them but superior fundamentals into the "better looking than I am" camp. Especially with online dating or in bars/parties, where appearances are at their most deceptive. It's not always the case - there are plenty of genuinely very pretty men - but something to chew on the next time you want to attribute a guy's success to his 'natural good looks' - don't forget to stop and ask yourself how natural those looks really are.

Maybe he was born with it. Maybe it's Maybelline.

Chase

Jimbo's picture

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Obviously, Mick's an exceptional case. But he is a sure example of "he keeps getting older, but they all stay the same age."

Although wow, look at him at 34 years old...

I know men in their 60s who look more youthful than that.

Not sure what kind of drugs Mick does, but he definitely has that "too much meth" look going for him, no?

Chase

Jimbo's picture

Yeah looks like he did most of the aging in his 30s, and then took it easy ever since. Could be meth, or could be too much sun exposure. Methheads tend to have sort of face pimples too, though that's not a rule. The guy's an exception in many other ways, so why not this too?

Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com