"Girls Only Want Good-Looking Guys or Young Guys" | Page 2 | 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.


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?

Pol's picture

You can't take this seriously due to obvious conflict of interest. Author primarily writes about and promotes what benefits him financially, not necessarily what is true.

Chase Amante's picture

Ah, an ad hominem attack. Great friend to the losing side of any debate: "If you can't beat the argument, slander the man."

simon r.'s picture

The point of the comment is to alert the readers. Notice I didn't write that everything here is false because you have incentive to push something.

Exposing conflict of interest is done everywhere, including business, finance, politics, science etc. and is even mandated by law (disclosures, ad signs, list of donors etc.). Main goal of that is to get people to scrutinize things harder and consider alternatives (i.e. not take it seriously).

When it comes to credibility, having conflict of interest obviously diminishes it.

Speaking of fallacies, you have made many in this article:

1. Fallacy of anecdotal evidence. You posted few examples of Hollywood celebrities and some personal anecdotes.

2. Ad hominem. You have called people who have different views 'angry opinionated virgins' in an attempt to invalidate those views.

3. Cherry Picking. There's plenty of scientific evidence against your statements, but you don't present it.

4. False Dilemma. Slightly younger ugly ethnic terrorist vs. somewhat older male model.

5. Red Herring. Random 'jokes', statements on how women are crazy liars, insults etc.

6. Middle ground. Some people say that looks are by far the biggest factor in sexual attraction. You list other things. Let's just say that truth is somewhere in the middle and that everything matters equally.

7. Equivocation. You can get women if you're ugly & old and you can get women if you're hot and young [women = women].


Chase Amante's picture

What's your argument? "Don't listen to this guy, he has a vested interest"?

I talked about all this stuff first. The business came later. Everything you are reading here comes from positions I had and discussed online for half a decade (beginning in late 2005) before I ever monetized any of it. I had a high paying role with one of the world's most prestigious business consultancies, zero aspiration to leave my industry or start a company or sell anything on the Internet, but my stances on these issues were the same. You will need a better credibility buster than that.

Listing out logical fallacies... yeah, sure, okay. If you want a careful, intellectual debate, see my comment above (Rebuttal: Reality Check). If you take issue with anything in that comment, address it directly.

I'll bite though:

  1. Well yes, we need anecdote. If you ask Bill Gates or Warren Buffet how to become a billionaire, then instruct them they may not use anecdote and can only cite peer reviewed scientific studies on entrepreneurship and investing, all you will get is a useless platter of statistics. Unfortunately, peer review is less useful the more complex the subject matter becomes. There is a big difference between studying whether man can read whether a woman's walk changes when she is ovulating (easy to run controlled studies for that), for instance vs. studying whether opinion openers or compliment openers result in warmer receptions from women in the field (hundreds of variable to control for, many of which you cannot accurately control for). Until we can figure out a good way to run controlled studies on becoming a multimillionaire, or going on a hot streak where you pick up lots of girls over the course of a few weeks, or other complex processes, we'll be largely reliant on anecdote, supplemented with peer review when we can get it.

  2. If you think referring to some of the people who hold this view as 'angry virgins' is an ad hominem, you clearly are not familiar with the incel community (there was a Reddit for these people, but apparently it was just banned yesterday - I guess they got too angry). There is literally an entire community online of men who are angry virgins, many of whom blame the reason for their angry virginity on lack of good looks (or other things; sometimes it's because they're not rich, or not tall, or not white, or whatever the reason is).

  3. No, I'm not aware of this counter evidence. Care to cite it?

  4. I addressed the false dilemma within the article. Used for impact, then we moved back into a nuancd discussion. The problem of course is that the entire complaint I am addressing in this article is in and of itself a false dilemma: "Women only date younger men, they do not date older men." "Women only want good looking men, they do not want ugly men." Both of these are false dilemmas. What about an attractive older man who is charming and confident? Will a woman choose him over, say, the nerdy unconfident younger men she usually socializes with in her social circle? I have, however, already addressed in nuanced detail the false dilemmas subscribers to the "good looks are #1" and subscribers to the "age is #1" positions advocate. This article was designed to be a little more fun - and yes, sometimes that means slapping guys yelling about false dilemmas in the face with a counterveiling false dilemma certain to aggravate them.

  5. Jokes and talking about women lying (I did not call them crazy) are not red herrings. Women lying is an important point to address, since women give all sorts of reasons to men for why they don't want to date them, and these reasons are rarely the actual ones. Jokes, I mean... I guess you're autistic? We get a lot of autistic readers here. I get you don't like jokes if you're autistic. You don't really laugh, sense of humor is wasted on you, that sucks. Humor has a purpose it is serving here, and it is not to be a red herring. (I'm not going to explain it though, because explaining the purpose of jokes/humor to someone who has difficulty processing jokes/humor is a torturous process and I don't think the situation much calls for it here either)

  6. You've completely strawmanned my position. I presume you are a new reader here and are unfamiliar with my writing or Girls Chase. Read this for a better understanding.

  7. Your argument seems to be that when an old and ugly man gets a woman he is happy with, this woman is necessarily inferior to a woman a younger and hotter man gets a woman he is equally happy with to the older man. Are you arguing that the women older, uglier men get are objectively lower quality than the women younger, hotter men get? I presume you are. If a man is 42, well-dressed, trim, in-shape, charming, confident, and wealthy, yet facially unattractive, and another man is 24, poorly dressed, unhygienic, chubby, uncharismatic, unconfident, and poverty stricken, yet facially attractive, which man gets the objectively higher quality girl? If it is the older uglier man, where does the line lie where, as these men's qualities in other areas draw nearer to one another's, that the younger, facially better-looking man suddenly starts to get the higher quality woman? Is it when they are fairly close to one another? Is it only after the younger man surpasses the older man in these qualities? Or is when the older man is still fairly advanced in these qualities but the younger man draws just a bit nearer? How big a difference do a few years make - if the older man is 39 instead of 42, will it make a difference? How about the younger man? What if is he 19? Or 26? How about looks? What if we raise the older man's looks from a 4.3 to a 5.2 - does it increase the caliber of woman he gets by 21%? Or only 9%? Or some other percent? How much does a woman's subjective rating of both men's looks come into play here? Is there a level of age or ugliness at which a woman who strongly prefers men with the older man's facial features (jaw type, nose length and tip, eye positioning, eyebrow type, cheek bones, ears) chooses the younger man even if his facial features are not attractive to her? How closer or how far apart do they have to be before she swaps her decision? Can you answer these questions, or shall we just stick to "Yes, you can get girls, and they will be quality girls, but you may have to work a little harder in other areas if you have shortcomings to compensate for" for now?



Motiv's picture

This just hit me…

"The term Power has a lot of misapplied connotations to it. When we think of Powerful people, we think of influence, wealth, prestige, status and the ability to have others do our bidding – all of these are not Power. And as much as we’d like to convince ourselves that women are attracted to this Power, this is false. Because what I’ve described as aspects of Power here are really manifestations of Power. Here’s a cosmic secret revealed for you:

Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives." —tRM

I imagine Chase might consider this definition fluffy idealism. I'm getting he's a pretty pragmatic guy. Too much pragmatism drives my emotional state into the mud. When that nose dives, my practical abilities quickly follow.

I would say: the less busy you make yourself, the more potential you posses for real power. Consider how this could impact an 'average' man's attractiveness to women, let alone his total success in life — the path out of average.


She enters your world… not the other way around.
Tweak your way to the top ;)

simon r.'s picture

Where did you get this silly idea that male equivalent of some female physical attribute is money or status?

You might be correct that V-shaped torso is slightly less important than whr, ass, boobs combined. Although it varies from person to person. You know what is more important in males than in females? Face & Height.

Here is a quote from research [1]:

"For both sexes, face attractiveness predicted overall attractiveness more strongly than did body attractiveness, and this difference was significant in males."

- Women care more about face & height and less about bodily features.
- Men care less about face & height and more about bodily features.

Back to money or status. Anyone can attract younger and/or beautiful mates by using those things, including women and gay men. The only reason heterosexual men are able to do it more frequently is because they are statistically wealthier than other groups and more willing to use money/status to get mates.

Examples of wealthy older women getting hotter and younger males:

- Wendi Deng + Bertold Zahoran
- Ivana Trump + Rossano Rubicondi
- Madonna + Kevin Sampaio

There are even older gay men who get hot, young lovers:

- David Geffen + Jeremy Lingvall

How would you explain the fact that all those female teachers are getting caught sleeping with powerless hot, young men? Or that wealthy women in developed countries go to places like Tunisia or Jamaica to sleep with impoverished hot, young men and even pay them? Or the appearance of financially independent cougars, recent divorcees, career gals who chase after hot, young guys?

Looking at other animals can give you a clue. Peahens don't need any investment from a peacock for themselves or their progeny (wealth is irrelevant) and they don't live in a hierarchical social organization (status is irrelevant). How do they pick mates? They pick the most beautiful mates and you already know how flashy peacocks are.

What would you do if money were no longer an issue? That's a good question to explore if you want to see people's true desires and dreams.

You need to ask who women would pick absent socioeconomic pressures. All the evidence points to -> hot, young guys.

You make this seem as some eternal, 'natural' thing when it's simply a result of a particular social setup. Imagine you live in a country with big wealth inequality where women are generally powerless. You would see gold digging tendencies, but that's not because women are gold diggers like clueless men assume.
If you lived in a country where wealth was shared, activities were comunally organized and women were at least equal, then you would see different female preferences and behaviors. Interesting read about RooshV in Denmark [2].

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347207000565
[2] https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/cockblocked-by-redistribution

Jimbo's picture

- That research only shows what we already knew: that good looks and height for a man are two factors of attraction, not that they're the only ones

- Those women you mentioned are fairly attractive, wake me up when an Elizabeth Warren or a Hillary Clinton locks a hot younger dude in a relationship

- Older men are actually a fetish in a of itself in the gay community, so yes, so gay men will date older men

- Re: female teachers, you're making that fallacy again; wealth and status aren't the only factor of attraction. And women have sexual needs as well. And most dudes will bang an older woman, because it's includes banging and woman.

- Wealthy women going abroad for men lends more weight to the "men aren't attracted to your wealth" argument. These women have all the money in the world yet couldn't attract a man in their own country to save their lives, usually because they get old and fewer men care about them.

- Most older women prefer men their age or older, but yes, there are "cougars". Banging younger men doesn't mean they don't desire men their age anymore. Women are attracted to men who are more powerful or important than they are. And when you're rich yourself, fewer men around you impress you. So you'll be focusing on other things, like looks.

- Money and status will always be an issue and factor of attraction, and have always been. Some men always had more resources (financial or other) and status (in the pecking order) than other men, and women will attracted to those high in that order. Same for countries that are socialistic. What you call "socioeconomic pressures" is just nature, a pecking order exists in all primate societies even though they don't have fiat currency like we do. That's like saying what if everyone had roughly equal looks, then yeah, of course you'll see a lot less "chiseled-looks-digging" women, they'll just base their mate picking on other things they're attracted to.

Chase Amante's picture


Since you've targeted my female physique example and don't like it, I think the argument you're making is that face and height are more important to a woman than power, correct?

So for instance, an average-looking, average-height rock star would have less choice with women than would have an otherwise-ordinary man with a beautiful face and very tall height, in a Simonian 'face/height trump power' model.

It's rather an odd argument to make, honestly - it goes against what most men's experiences are, what women themselves say they want, and almost the whole of scientific investigation on the subject (where women are generally found to value a male's social rank, as well as his confidence [both manifestations of what I dub 'power' here], his most attractive qualities). Have you done much meeting of women in the real world? If you've been doing a lot of online dating, you may have arrived at a rather skewed perception of how women in rich context scenarios choose their mates.

Wealthy older women with hot younger men happens, but is far rarer than the alternative. Citing uncommon exceptions, like the three romantic combos you did (leaving aside the homosexual example - apples and oranges), doesn't bolster your argument - it undermines it.

Nevertheless, moving on...

How would you explain the fact that all those female teachers are getting caught sleeping with powerless hot, young men? Or that wealthy women in developed countries go to places like Tunisia or Jamaica to sleep with impoverished hot, young men and even pay them? Or the appearance of financially independent cougars, recent divorcees, career gals who chase after hot, young guys?

You're arguing the position you want to argue, not the position I've lain out. You're attacking the "he said looks don't matter" strawman. Of course looks matter - they're a major attraction factor! To argue otherwise is absurd.

You must've mistaken me for one of your fellow extremists, on the opposite side of the aisle :)

HIM: Looks don't matter!

YOU: Looks are the trump card!

This article is targeted at men who believe female-to-male attraction is predominantly looks-based (so yeah, you). However, unlike your normal debate partners, its premise is not "looks don't matter", but rather "looks matter, but their importance is somewhat lower than the pedestal you (the 'looks are the most important' crowd) have placed them upon."

Your examples in the quoted bit above are perfect examples of when looks come to the forefront:

  • Married women with boring husbands (teachers, wealthy women)
  • Cougars stacked with money, recent divorcees, and (particularly older) career women

In general, the older she is, and the more well-provided-for-yet-bored-and-lonely she is, the more likely she is to pursue men on a looks basis. If you're in the market for desperate housewives, good looks can give you a bigger leg up than they will with almost any other kind of girl. Ditto if you're looking for bored older rich women.

Of course, most of the men these women get together with overall still tend to be men who are older than them and more powerful than them, both for flings and for relationships. But they indulge in sexual connections with younger, hotter men at a higher percentage than other girls do too (I know you know this, because you picked exactly the same examples I would've picked).

You need to ask who women would pick absent socioeconomic pressures. All the evidence points to -> hot, young guys.

Have you spent much time in areas all but free from socioeconomic pressures? The competition among men becomes fierce in all kinds of different non-height, non-face ways:

  • Australia / Vancouver: huge muscles, physically dominant caveman ways
  • San Francisco: wealth building and status signalling
  • Scandinavia: sexual prowess signalling

All of which would be wildly foolish in a Simonian world, where face and height are the trump cards. When a month of recovery and $20,000 can turn your face from a 6 to an 8, and $30,000 and 5 months of bedrest can add 2" to your height, why would you do anything else in a world where these two things alone can get you laid more than the wealthiest, muscliest, coolest, most powerful men?

(to folks reading this comment who need it spelled out a bit more, the reason you don't do those things is because plastic surgery and leg-lengthening surgery aren't the pussy bonanza they would be in a world where face/height are trump cards - and the very fact that "face/height is all that matters!" men haven't immediately headed to their closest plastic surgery and leg lengthening clinics to have these procedures done at once is everything you need to know about how deeply they believe this in their heart of hearts)

Roosh's experience in Denmark is whatever it is. However, we happen to have a Girls Chase author in Denmark right now, who does very well with women there. He also happens to be a pretty normal looking guy, looks-wise. The reason he does well there is because his approach, unlike Roosh's, is adapted to the current Scandinavian mating environment - where women pick mates not for wealth or for looks, but for sexiness and sexual prowess.

Face and height can add a lot to your attractiveness. But they are two in a sea of attraction factors, and rarely the biggest (major exception: online dating. How good you look in pictures [face plays a big role here] and your height are the two biggest factors).


EDIT: posted this comment without seeing Jimbo's response - it hadn't loaded (was on the next page). Jimbo, nice comments there - especially the perspective on what wealthy women going abroad for flings actually says / actual reasons for them doing this.

rico's picture

Girls definitely do NOT care about looks- at all. I have been good looking all of my life, and still am. I don't care how that sounds- it's true. Anyway, I can submit to you all that it has never, ever, ever helped me AT ALL. While it certainly did not 'hurt' me, it most definitely, positively did not help at all. I still am looking good, muscular, etc., but I do that for me, not for the ladies. Oh yeah, and that in itself is supposed to be oh so "attractive" right? Pshaw! Good look out their good looking guys.

militarybrat51's picture

I'm 60 and back at dating after a 35 year marriage ended in divorce. I'm glad I found GC it has filled in some gaps for me. I now have what I call witches eyes thank you GunWitch! Thank you Chase for the Olive Rule one should seek peace instead of compromise! I am a strong leader I have always led by example. I date 50 + women as most know what they don't want that is a good thing. I have a deep voice and thick Texan drawl, I dress Texan, and live in the North East. I have discovered that I am exotic to the women here young or old because I am authentic it's just me as I am Texan. "Age and treachery will always overcome youth and exuberance"


Leave a Comment

A girl

Get The Girl In Just One Date

It only takes one date to get the girl you want. Best of all, the date's easy to get...abd girls love it.

Inside One Date, You'll Learn

  • How to build instant chemistry
  • Ways to easily create arousal
  • How to get girls to do what you want
  • The secret to a devoted girlfriend ...and more great Girls Chase Tech