So What if Guys Only Care About Looks?

[the_rake]

Women give men a lot of stick for being focussed on looks, even if they are looking for someone around the same attractiveness level. Realistically, not only do women care about looks as well but when they are looking for personality factors they are not looking for anything much other than dominance and leadership. Most women, if they are looking for a hook-up, at least, do not really care if the guy is nice or intelligent so why should guys looking for a hook-up care if the woman is nice or intelligence?

This article lists some of the various ways in which women are just as shallow as men, and are just more subtle and insidious about it.

For example, girls look for appearance factors that communicate dominance (the colour red = power, a nice suit, etc.)

the colour red: communicates dominance. apparently in martial arts competitions such as muay thai matches, the fighter in the 'red corner' with the red coloured gloves is more likely to win the fight because his colours communicates dominance and power. in the picture, the red fighter is buakaw banchamek (formerly buakaw por pramuk): the best muay thai fighter in the world.

So what if men care about looks?

Women are less interested in men in subservient roles (e. g. a waiter, a stripper, etc.) and more interested in men that display power and dominance (e. g. a corporate executive).

Men in a suit indicate power and dominance. And this guy has the good looks to complement that.

Women want guys to be the initiator and dominant person in a relationship - paying for things like drinks, expensive gifts, etc.

Beautiful women all of a sudden do not care if you are the best looking or not if you have wealth and status. Of course good looks will still help your cause!

https://www.cracked.com/article_18866_5-reasons-women-are-as-shallow-as-men-according-to-science.html

Do I care if women are as shallow (if not more so) than men? No, not really. Just stop putting women on a pedestal and acting like they are the more virtuous and glorified sex. And stop acting like men are not entitled to their standards.

[redeyemindtricks]

Buying someone expensive gifts is "dominant"?

media.giphy.com/media/giqMoy2gF9lEQ/giphy.gif

[the_rake]

It depends on the frame you do it with.

If you are trying to get validation, no.

If it is more of a display of wealth and status then it gets perceived in a more dominant light.

[the_rake]

If you want a more general example, look at these mafia bosses on TV that buy expensive drinks and hand out cash like they are throwing away candy.

The key to their dominance is that it is not expected of them. When it is expected, they do not oblige. They might even kill you for showing disrespect.

[redeyemindtricks]

I understand you, and you are correct that most women will eventually look for some measure of financial support/stability from their man, but you've got to admit that yr specific examples ("drinks" and "expensive gifts") were pretty poorly chosen. Especially "drinks".

I've known quite a few people like the mafia bosses you mentioned. One of my girlfriends' fathers is the type who buys rounds for literally EVERYONE in bars.
When one of his employees (he owns a piping company) was late to work a couple Decembers ago, he asked why. The guy said his car had broken down... so my friend's dad just bought him a new car. Yep. Merry Christmas. "He was a good worker," was his explanation.

You see my point?
People who are GENUINELY like that are like that with LOTS of people.
You wrote "in a relationship" with yr examples -- that's the main reason that part didn't work so well. If some dude was only like this in a relationship, that would actually just be creepy.

[redeyemindtricks]

Also, I can't believe you actually continued to engage with grammar-nazi-girl for as long as you did. LOL Dude there's no winning with people like that. Just accept that they are time-wasters and bail.

[the_rake]

Yeah, the guy has to be like it with lots of people, not just the girl. I'm not like it by the way, but that's because I really hate all that wealth and status bullshit.

I had time on my hands, so I talked to grammar-nazi girl.

[BuchitaBuchys]

Lol, she has spunk

[redeyemindtricks]

@BuchitaBuchys ikr? most perfectest gif ever

[the_rake]

@BuchitaBuchys I see most girls looking just like this when guys come over to them in a club. When redeyes posted this it was nostalgic but not in a good way! Normally they're the ones asking for drinks not the other way round.

[ConsultantIsBack]

Damn you're good lol

[Chief16]

Picard Approves.
media2.giphy.com/media/aLdiZJmmx4OVW/200w_d.gif

[the_rake]

haha it is much nicer to see picard approving than to see picard face palm.

[Chief16]

You make sense man, I'm not gonna say otherwise.

[ManOnFire]

I don't really take it seriously when women say we're "more visual" than they are. Cuz it's not really true. In many ways women see looks as worth much more than men do. Women also are even paying attention to other womens' looks, and like calling other women beautiful or sexy, which they do as a defiant, arrogant way of saying "I'd much rather be visual with my own gender and say they're hot than to show any weakness by noticing looks in men and saying they're hot."

But women ARE being visual with men and noticing our looks, they're just not admitting it because they want to seem like they're above doing something they view men as doing. Also, women say how men will fuck even ugly women and that they won't fuck ugly men. If this is really true, it would actually mean that women are more visual than we are.

[Rawrzz]

Men are indeed more visual than women are. That's not to say that women *aren't* visual. Physical attractiveness is undeniably the most important quality males look for. There has to be physical attraction. Women are more readily capable of ignoring physical attraction for other qualities, like a big bank account or an extremely dedicated man.

[the_rake]

I just want to say people have a hard time understanding how women are less visual but this does not make them unshallow. That is basically the essence of the mytake.

[ManOnFire]

Women really aren't less visual, it's just a thing gender science has created, and women go with that because it helps them look like they're above being visual "like men." Some women even say they hate people saying they're NOT visual.

[the_rake]

but it's true, I could cite stuff that proves the hypothesis (e. g. https://www. amazon. com/Why-Women-Have-Sex-Everything/dp/0312662653) but actual experience shows this as well. look at when a guy hits on a girl in a night club: sure, she might be initially attracted to visual aspects but during the ensuing conversation, she will communicate varying levels of attraction in him based on how he composes himself (things like vocal tonality, posture, eye contact, smiling etc.) and how he reads and reciprocates the cues she gives him. I have had this experience myself where girls show interest one moment and then they are not so interested the next (hot and cold).

[the_rake]

[part 2]

it's because the intrinsic qualities they are attracted to (confidence) are extremely fleeting. they change all the time depending on the guys perception of himself and the perception others have on him. when he feels confident she will show attraction but this attraction will quickly diminish whenever arrogance or self-deprecation kicks in. some girls might be just as visual as men, just like some guys might prefer the inner qualities a woman has over their outwards appearance (as it happens, I am becoming more like this as I get older). but experience would suggest both groups are minorities.

[ManOnFire]

Dude, I've heard all this stuff before, and you could cite it from a million sources a million times and it wouldn't change my mind. It's just collegiate textbook pop science that doesn't mean anything when applied to the real world. Bar and club scenarios are just not the same thing as average every day life.

[the_rake]

'Bar and club scenarios are just not the same thing as average every day life.'

So you're rejecting scientific sources but also rejecting actual experiences? And I've done and seen this stuff in average every day life believe me (but what even is 'average every day life'? going to fetch some groceries? school? work? extra-curricular hobbies? what?).

[ManOnFire]

That is EXACTLY average every day life. Bar and nightclub scenarios don't cut it. That's just stuff that looks like it makes sense on paper, but doesn't when you apply it to the real world.

What intrigues me the most and would prove how visual women are is as I said initially in my comment: if it's true that women won't fuck ugly men that would mean that they're more visual than we are. I however, know the opposite: a woman will more commonly have sex with an ugly guy than vice versa. That COULD prove that women aren't as visual, but we'd have to see a lot of it.

[the_rake]

'That is EXACTLY average every day life.'

Then I've done it.

'Bar and nightclub scenarios don't cut it.'

Why not?

'That's just stuff that looks like it makes sense on paper, but doesn't when you apply it to the real world.'

My reasoning is based on both the theory AND the practice. I'm already aware some of the theory doesn't work. Some of it does work and is already based on experience (other people's experience who write up their tried and tested hypotheses). So with the theory and practice together, I already know - in as much as I will ever be able to know in my lifetime - that I'm good to go.

'if it's true that women won't fuck ugly men that would mean that they're more visual than we are. '

Unless they're going on looks AND status (looks first, status after, which they find out about based on the man's perception of himself and the perception of him by those around him).

[the_rake]

'I however, know the opposite: a woman will more commonly have sex with an ugly guy than vice versa. '

Girls do have sex with ugly guys though - the ones that are confident in themselves.

In this video, Owen Cook - a short, ginger dude - shows the difference in his results when he approaches women, first with a negative frame of mind and second, with positive beliefs about himself and the girls he goes up to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx3rkgqTWJ8

At various points in the video, he is groping and making out with two girls and right at the end he goes back to his place part of a threesome.

[Bandit74]

I agree.

Id also add that women are pickier about looks when it comes to casual sex while men are more willing to accept casual hookups from less attractive women. Its only relationships where they lower their standards on sexual attraction. Men however, have higher standards on looks for long term relationships but only if the guy has the personality and financial stability to compensate.

A woman will compromise on looks or money but usually not both. Its rare to meet a girl who will be with a guy who is both less attractive AND less wealthy.

[frozenhorizon]

How come my friend who makes 100k and is extremely good looking has trouble finding a girlfriend?

[Bandit74]

@frozenhorizon
Shitty social skills?

[the_rake]

@frozenhorizon you're missing the point. I never said it was as simple as looks and money. Dominance plays an important role, as does many other things. The point is that men are totally entitled to their standards.

[frozenhorizon]

Oh yeah I know, I was only half serious actually lol.

[shortandsweet24]

This is only somewhat true and for some women. I mean, it does help if a guy is attractive. But, if the personality isn't there, the relationship can't work either.

I recently dated a guy who had a good job at his father's company and every woman around him found him to be attractive. However, I grew to dislike him more and more after things ended because he lied to me, he was judgmental and he was a selfish jerk. He was so concerned with looks and still is...

So, while this is true. Some women do look deeper. Even if the appearance is the initial point, personality holds incredible standing...

[the_rake]

I'm not exactly sure why everyone read this and thought it was all about looks in men. In the take, I said,

"Realistically... women care about looks "

but also,

"when they are looking for personality factors they are [looking for] dominance and leadership"

I elaborated on this:
"if they are looking for a hook-up, at least, do not really care if the guy is nice or intelligent"
"girls look for appearance factors that communicate dominance (the colour red = power, a nice suit, etc.)"
"Women want guys to be the initiator and dominant person in a relationship"
"Beautiful women all of a sudden do not care if you are the best looking or not if you have wealth and status"

And in the comments I explained to redeyemindtricks what I meant by wealth and status also. She asked me if buying someone expensive gifts was dominant, so I explained that it depends on the frame you do it with (not trying to get validation but as a display of power).

Just to be clear :-)

[Rawrzz]

Women also desire dedication. It ultimately boils down to protection and provision. Not dominance and leadership, in my opinion. Just the various ways that a man could provide and protect, dominance and leadership are generally seen as good qualities: but not the ultimate top of the umbrella.

In short's case, this man was undeniably capable of great provision, but he lacked protective qualities, because he wasn't dedicated to her; he was dedicated to himself.

"Looking deeper." No one "looks deeper". They just don't understand what their genitals want, then delude themselves into thinking they're looking at someone's soul and not their reproductive or survival capabilities.

[FatherJack]

Bateman's Principle in action here , as the female has the far greater reproductive role , she is nearly always the chooser , this is why a man has to tick far more boxes to be chosen by a woman , this is why dating is much harder for a man as much more is expected of him , that's life guys !! The only way to even the odds , is for the man to forge himself into a man of drive & character , a man's character makes or breaks him in the dating world , men have to work on themselves to be attractive.

[the_rake]

Yeah I get that. The point of this take is that men should be entitled to their standards if women are.

[lolatyou]

So basically "standards" now means being overly superficial and a gold digger. Why not just let these fake acting people have their fake relationships while the rest of us focus on things that actually matter when it comes to loving someone or being in a meaningful relationship.

[the_rake]

Well, you missed a few points if you thought I was talking about gold diggers. I'm not. It was about POWER, and the power that is communicated through wealth and status.

[lolatyou]

Were you not saying that it's ok for men to be superficial because women also expect wealth and status?

[the_rake]

Yes, I was.

[lolatyou]

I think I understand it then. I just don't agree with it. It all seems fake to me, worrying about such petty stuff. I kind of feel like people should hold themselves to the same standards that they set for others. If wealth and status means so much to you, then do it yourself.

[the_rake]

Well it's wealth status and a bunch of other stuff but yes, I was agreeing that I'd women are entitled to their standards men are as well. What I thought you did not understand though was that you did not understand how this condition is rooted into the female psyche in many ways.

For example a woman will believe she is looking for a mean with a good personality to have a relationship with (love) but actually, she is looking for attributes that communicate dominance, high levels of confidence and power, etc. Basically this is the kind of man she believes will look after her and her offspring the best. He does not have to be wealthy or good-looking: those are just factors that might communicate dominance.

[lolatyou]

I guess I was just hoping that most people, at this point in life have evolved past being so superficial and hopefully women have evolved past needing a "dominant" male to support her life as a future baby factory. Maybe that's just wishful thinking though lol

[the_rake]

At what point in life? Mine, or yours? Most guys are willing to loosen up their standards a bit when they've achieved their goals at least once. When they are older, they are even more willing to commit and suit really give a shout what she looks like anymore. For me when I am older, I want a good strong woman that has meet played these games with men in her life, I don't care what she looks like. But while girls are still playing their shitty games, my standards remain in tack.

[the_rake]

*that has never played

[lolatyou]

Well I meant this point in time- like 2016 lol. I just don't find being a superficial jerk and a gold digger/status chaser- "standards" exactly. If anything it just screams immaturity and selfishness, so like I said before let those people have fun with their fake relationships.

[the_rake]

tbh, I am a 'superficial jerk' not because personality does not count but because looks do count to me also. and sorry but I do not think I am all that superficial - I only really chase girls I think to be around my league looks wise. it's a pain for me that women go for high status because I am not really high status apart from being financially independent but I try to keep this secret because I do not want problem with gold diggers. I can understand women that want confidence and dominance but I still perceive this as superficial and yes, I will be 'fake' or 'petty' about it until I get what I want, then I will be more willing to relax. I think this is justified but then that is subjective and I know that the world does not owe me as much as I would like it to.

[the_rake]

but I digress. if you want to continue through message we can.

[lolatyou]

I just think it's a difference of opinion. I think being attracted to someone is important, just like them being able to provide for themselves is important. I just think it's "fake" when it's not in moderation, like pretty much only dating supermodels or rich dudes.

[the_rake]

even girls that are not outright gold diggers only date and sleep with a selectively small pool of men. it's difficult to explain and I'm tired but even guys like me (I would consider myself reasonably attractive, assertive because I don't really know what confidence is supposed to mean) will have a hard time just dating pretty but basically average girls because what they are looking for is not superficial per se but they are looking for extremely particular traits that are VERY difficult to pinpoint. it's hard to be angry at them, just frustrated because they don't seem to realise what they are doing. but whatever like I said I'm tired. if you have more questions then message me but right now I'm going to sleep.

[Under_The_Sun]

There's nothing shallow about going for looks or even thinking its more important than "personality' and stuff like that. But I also see many, many, many bitter men here complaining about women going for the hot guys instead of the "sweet guys". Bitter as fuck. That's pathetic.

[the_rake]

Yeah, there are two ends of the spectrum. In all fairness to those men, they have been lied to and told women are not superficial. Now they are told that they are faking niceness etc. rather than just being honest and saying that women are superficial also and that guys just need to improve their attractiveness to be not successful (attractiveness = looks, confidence and status because nobody wants to date a gold digger).

[Anonymous]

Most women, if they are looking for a hook-up, at least, do not really care if the guy is nice or intelligent so why should guys looking for a hook-up care if the woman is nice or intelligence?

Learn how to spell.

Also, this was utter bullshit.

[the_rake]

Ah right. Sorry, I said 'intelligence' when I meant 'intelligent'. Way to nitpick.

(By the way, since formalities are evidently more important than content to you, maybe you ought to place that quote from me into quotation marks).

[Opinion Owner]

That wasn't really necessary though was it? I stated it in a completely separate paragraph... lol

[the_rake]

Well, the format would have looked better and clearer, technically speaking. Personally though, I would tend to focus on content rather than formality.

[Opinion Owner]

So it's just that YOU didn't like it, not that it was incorrect, correct?

[the_rake]

Proper format includes quotation marks, unless it's an academic paper in which case you are meant to indent the paragraph so that another person's content is clearly separate from your own. This is both a technicality and a formality.

[Opinion Owner]

Which is precisely what I did, your quote is separate from my words. You're digging your hole deeper.

[the_rake]

Evidently your reading comprehension needs working on also because you either missed the part where I said 'indent', or you don't know what that word means.

[Opinion Owner]

Clearly you're just trying to argue about my wording because you're pissed you got burned.

[the_rake]

Clearly, you don't know how to construct a logical argument when you disagree with something which is why you resorted to arguments by technicality rather than argument by content. Hardly a burn, reading this comment made me chuckle a little in fact - a teenager telling a college graduate that's recently been accepted onto an MA course his spelling needs work on.

[Opinion Owner]

I love how people always use the fact they go to college as an argument for why they're smarter. Education is not intelligence, and I know plenty of dumb people who go to college. Also, I'm currently going to college, so what's you're point?
Funny, I got a thumbs up, huh? It obviously bothered you too because you've been arguing about it for so long. My job is done pal lmfao

[the_rake]

Yeah, you got an idiot to upvote you and no downvoted because you're so smart... Oh wait, no: GAG admins removed that function, my bad. And lol yeah, you are right about one thing: probably better not to lower oneself to the stupidity of the critique with nothing informative to contribute. I guess I just mistakenly believed I could bring some sense or rationale into the discussion... Oops, my bad.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes, it would seem you're oh so (un) sophisticated self has lost their shit, and I'm happy to have made your day a little bit more irritating. Byee!

[Opinion Owner]

your*

[the_rake]

Not at all, you brought a little spark and comedy valued sunshine into my life while I was waiting for my dinner to cook in the oven... I wouldn't sweat anything at all my dear. Now run along and tell some other college graduate how he used a colon when really and truly, he should have used a semi-colon. And don't forget to avoid colloquialisms like LOL because they are not standardised English, sweetie.

Hugs and kisses XOXO

[Opinion Owner]

xoxo? Are you a queer now?

[the_rake]

Homophobic AND unimaginitive... Who'd have thought? No I'm not gay (queer is something of a derogatory label, by the way), I'm just using informalities because I know how much you love them. By the way, you don't need to be homosexual to use a term of endearment (regardless of whether it happens to be in an ironic context or not). By the way, I notice you are resorting to insults because you have nothing else intelligent to say.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes, definitely gay. It's okay, don't be upset about it.

[the_rake]

Definitely a bigot (which is to be expected in someone who demonstrates such a low level of intelligence). No worries: I'm sure it is your lack of upbringing and genetic incapabilities that are to blame for your lack of perception. I don't blame you as a person or anything.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes, I know you're a bigot as well. It's in the anger and frustration behind your words that really lets people know you lack the intelligence of a typical fifth grader.

[the_rake]

Talking about anger and frustration, you must have needed to vent some steam to make a pretty attack on spelling typos after you read an article that got you so wound up because, *shock*, *horror* it was true, oh mighty anonymous keyboard warrior.

[Opinion Owner]

What was true about it? Everything in it is retarded 😂

[the_rake]

Well ' retarded ' is a great word if you can't think of any specific objections, but in any case, I will word it out for you. What was true is that women's standards can be as high and superficial as men's (if not more so) and that they should not reprimand men for having their own.

[Opinion Owner]

I disagree, as do almost all girls. Men are obviously the most superficial and you'd need to be blind not to see it

[the_rake]

Not surprising that most girls would agree. Anyway, like I said in the take, women's superficiality is far more subtle and insidious. That's because they are looking for factors like dominance and charisma over things like niceness or intelligence. for example, they so not care about or respect a man that comes out with a rational perspective or actually cares about feminism or egalitarianism. they are more likely to hookup with the traditionalist guy that does the sexist things like buying expensive gifts and things or the guy that does not care about logic but just gets his views across, e. g fallaciously or by being shouty or dominant.

[Opinion Owner]

*Disagree

And if anyone would know how shallow or deep we are, it's us. We don't need an egotistical male telling us what we are and what we aren't. Get over yourself, and get over it.

[the_rake]

I meant that they would agree with you (because they had the same basic attraction dynamic: d'uh!). And I am not that egotistical, and sure women probably DO know how shallow they are (though it is hidden from men because of the particular intrinsic qualities they are interested in) I DON'T need to tell them. Evidently though, I do need to remind women that men are entitled to their own set of standards.

[sp33d]

It's common sense the first thing we see is looks. There is nothing shallow about that. It's just how things are. Whether one is bitter, because they don't like themselves is their own problem.

[WhaChaChaKing]

Men are also attracted to the color red so are they just looking to be dominated as well? I admit I am shallow but I'm not looking for someone to lead me at all. Maybe some girls feel that way but I certainly don't.

[the_rake]

I think the overall sentiment of the article was that women are more likely to be fickle about weird things they find attractive or not. e. g. a man might find a woman sexy in a suit but because he finds her sexy regardless, it does not matter if she is wearing the suit or not. for a woman, she might find the idea of a guy in a suit so sexy, that she even finds ugly guys attractive for some weird reason just because they wore a suit. or she might find the guy that is potentially the man of her dreams unattractive just because when he presented himself, he was not wearing a suit.

similar facts hold true about body language, voice tone, expressions and general mannerisms.

the colour red is just one example of many weird and fickle nuances that trigger female attraction - a strictly irrational phenomenon.

[Rawrzz]

Uniforms portray social status. They're not attracted to the clothing. They're attracted to what the clothing represents. Power and respect.

[the_rake]

@Rawrzz yes and this. basically the symbolism is something that can stay the same regardless of the man in question. It could be the fact he's the d. j. at the club or that he's the boss at work. It's not even about money (although their certainly are gold diggers out there!). It's about status and his use man holds himself. Biologically this could be rooted in the desire for men that can provide but in the modern day women looking for high status men are just wanting one night stands for the most part. He may have a high capacity to provide which may attract them but provision isn't necessarily what they're going for. I think people DO look deeper. Just not until they are older, more mature she they have gotten these wild flings out of their system. Then at this point they are more likely to develop deeper connections. (I addressed some of your other points on this message).

[Rawrzz]

I don't know. Thanks for the compact instead of split up thing.

[the_rake]

@Rawrzz it's difficult to ever know for sure. both genders have their 'inliers' and 'outliers' and it is impossible to determine what the the respective groups prefer based on simplistic questionnaires, surveys and other forms of empirical testing. in fact, we don't even know if there is such a thing as an 'inlier' or an 'outlier'. every individual simply has their own array of subjective preferences that are informed to some extent by social pressures but also their own biological leanings. all I can say is that I look for trends personally because trying to be a methodological individualist just leads to insanity when you try to analyse these things by the complex of every single individual interactions, beliefs and interactions. not that I am an expert on empiricism, far from it (though I would like to be :P ).

[WhaChaChaKing]

@Rawrzz girls are also attracted to guys in a T-shirt and jeans but I guess that's social status too.

[the_rake]

@WhaChaChaKing

It's about what is being communicated. A guy wearing just t-shirt and jeans can communicate status through his body language, his popularity and all the other stuff the same way a man wearing a suit can. In fact, a man wearing a suit could appear too try-hard in certain circumstances. I use the example of the suit because when we're talking about dominance, social status, confidence, whatever we are talking about amorphous, abstract and intangible qualities. Using symbolism helps to describe the characteristics in the type of high status alpha male that I'm talking about. An alpha male might even have his moments of doubts or insecurity (moments when he is not so 'alpha') that make him seem unattractive to women. Regular guys may also have moments of euphoric confidence when women suddenly see his true alpha male potential, even if it is very subtle and fleeting: not enough to elicit attraction.

[WhaChaChaKing]

I think you're putting too much thought into it. All the women I know aren't even close to being attracted to "alpha males".

[the_rake]

@WhaChaChaKing

How do you define alpha male?

Because the common definition is 'an arsehole, a reckless bad boy'.

My definition is just 'a leader, somebody that invokes change', etc.

An alpha male can be good or bad. Either way, I think it is a good thing to aspire to for anyone that identifies as a man, especially somebody that sees themselves as 'masculine' or wants to be perceived as 'masculine'. People that think being alpha male is a bad thing, that is usually because they go by the common definition, OR they have no ambition and feel envious towards people that are constantly taking steps towards realising their goals. I have ambition, I want to be a leader, I want to invoke change. I know that feeling envious towards alpha males hinders my own path of self-development, therefore I am quick to encourage and praise people when I perceive an alpha male trait, even if it's a little subjective.

[IainG81]

For me looks are important I can't perform or get excited if she's not attractive.

[Jose_R]

Well duh. Most people today hook up with people on their level of attractiveness.

[the_rake]

Well then, you are missing the point competely because what women are attracted to is a LOT more complicated than that.

[GreatnessRevamped]

You can substitute the suit with any traditional garb that signifies power and status.
Japan have the hakuma and Africa has the dashiki.

[the_rake]

Yes, any man of high status will be attractive: that is why I also showed a picture of the Thai boxer, Buakaw Banchamek. But those would have certainly been interesting things to incorporate.

[Revengercm]

if looks it's all that matter. I would kill myself even if I can appear 10/10 to a few girls. It's just not a happy world to live in.

[the_rake]

well, women may not be interested in just looks but there are many other factors that they are attracted which are not much better.

[Revengercm]

No I mean girls chose 100% on guys for the looks. like nothing else matters.

I could end up with some but meh. Worthless world by then.

[pavlove]

Brother, I think you've finally found your balls in your writing. #proudpop

[the_rake]

Thanks man. Recently wrote this, it's better I think:

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a26565-the-i-don-t-owe-you-you-don-t-owe-me-game

[Misandristrules]

women are superficial. Men are just bunch of wicked superficial pervs.

[aliceinwonderland69]

You live up to your name.

[the_rake]

Well, there we have it: women are superficial and manipulative, men are superficial and perverted. Let's leave each alone to their own devices now, shall we? There is no point criticising once gender fire sharing the same flaws as the other.

[ShayanMortazavi1]

@aliceinwonderland69 Yaaasss she's no longer active!!!

[aliceinwonderland69]

@ShayanMortazavi1 I did not mean to get rid of her. But her posts strange.

[ShayanMortazavi1]

@aliceinwonderland69 It's good that she's gone, she's a misandrist

[Rawrzz]

You must be a feminist.

[Rawrzz]

Oh she's gone. A 1 Xper. A gager created a false account just to say this.

[idiotmanchild]

They also look for height which is dominance in its physical manifestation.

[the_rake]

true: muscularity is another form of dominance. so this means that for a woman she could be interested in physicality but she would see it as a display of social status rather than from a point of aesthetic appreciation. but because of this inclination towards physicality (height and muscles) a lot of guys would assume it's about looks rather than the specific aura or vibe that the guy gives off. and you see a lot of guys on this site are totally adamant about LMS (looks, money, status!).

[idiotmanchild]

Yea, that's why pretty unattractive guys that are tall and masculine, if not muscular, do get girls as long as they also act like their size.

[the_rake]

yep, I've seen bald guys, hairy guys, facially unaesthetic guys talking to and pulling hot girls in clubs. what they have in common is masculinity and aura (charismatic vibe).

[idiotmanchild]

Yea and often times these guys have neither money nor status, it's funny how guys even make those arguments anymore.

[skeptic007]

true i fucked a girl just cause she was cute
but she believed a lot of lies and wasn't very smart
don't really care honestly

[Anonymous]

I like the second photos style. I have a suit like that but it's charcoal in color.

[the_rake]

yeah, I like it also. that picture symbolises my ambitions in life in more ways than one.

[Anonymous]

you can fuck "just looks" but you can't date just looks.

[Anonymous]

If they think it is women right expect more effort from men then you buy them with drinks and so and can only think about sex.