This MyTake is for all the men out there who think a woman only cares about money and looks.
My hope is that by the end, you’ll have a better idea of what women really want and expect from a man, and HOW they act upon those wants and expectations.
You’ll have a better sense of your own influence in that process, and will see yourself as an ACTIVE force to be reckoned with, rather than a PASSIVE reactor to women’s seemingly “never-ending demands” of men.
But before we can get to that, we need to cover some fundamentals about how sexual attraction works for men and women…
Sexual Attraction: One Ruleset For Thee, Another For Me...
Think of how men get attracted to a pretty woman.
He sees her from across the room/ street/ wherever. And he instantly feels a sexual attraction.
He gets turned on by the curve of her hips, or the flowing locks of her hair, or the youthful brightness of her eyes.
He also may notice the way she carries herself, her poise, her comfort in her own skin, her own recognition of the effect she has on guys. He notices her femininity, in whatever form it manifests.
The attraction is instant. Like a light-switch-- it's either "on" or "off", with very little in-between.
Now here's the key difference in how this attraction works for men:
For men, sexual attraction is determined BEFORE social interaction with the woman in question.
This tracks with what we know about Darwinian sexual selection theory:
Women are the ones who can have babies and raise them.
Men are the ones who provide the sperm that makes the babies.
So a woman wants the best sperm (genetically speaking) available, and to be protected by a strong, adaptable male during and after her pregnancy— because the cost of raising a child are high, and so are the risks (eg: 9 month pregnancy leaving her vulnerable to predators, unable to till the land for nutrients, etc.).
But a man can shoot his load multiple times a DAY— so all he needs is a willing recipient for his genetic baby-making materials.
As such, he makes his mind up fast about who to pursue sexually. He “covets what he sees”, and what he sees are the physical signs of a fertile, healthy female with good genetics and baby-making potential. The facial symmetry, child-bearing hips, milk-producing breasts, collagen-rich hair, etc.
For him, those visual cues are all the ‘information’ he needs to trigger a sexual arousal response.
But not so for women.
As I said, the “cost” of sexual attraction is much higher for a woman.
So she has to figure out:
“What’s this guy’s deal? What’s he all about? Will he be the man to step up when it’s time to protect and provide for his [baby-making] investment? Will he be regarded well by other male rivals in the tribe, who may otherwise seek to move in on his territory?”
In other words, she needs to gather certain ‘information’ about the man approaching her… that’s not readily available from looks alone.
So how does she gather this information? She INTERACTS with him… and STUDIES his behaviour over time.
I mentioned before how a man’s attraction to a woman is determined BEFORE social interaction. But for women it’s the reverse...
Women's sexual attraction to a man-- or lack thereof-- is determined AFTER social interaction, NOT BEFORE.
And yet, this is the fact that is handily ignored by so many single, frustrated guys. And the ignorance of this fact leads to key misunderstandings that HURT these guy’s chances even more...
The Costs Of Not Knowing "The Rules" Of Attraction
Let’s examine some of these misunderstandings in turn. If you’ve paid any attention to GaG posts and such, you’ll see these complaints leveled constantly— especially by men who identify with movements like “MGTOW”, or “Red Pill”, or even “Incel/ Black Pill”.
(Not to say these movements are alike though— they have key differences between them— yet some of their frustrations seem to be based on a common misunderstanding about women’s nature.)
“I Saw a Tinder Experiment Where A Good-Looking Guy Got Hundreds Of Women Throwing Themselves At Him— But An Average-Looking Guy Go Zero Responses. Therefore, All Women Only Want Good-Looking Guys, So I Should Give Up Because My Looks Are Average.”
This misunderstanding really says more about the inherent design flaws of dating platforms like Tinder… rather than anything intrinsic about female sexual selection.
After all, “the medium is the message”, and Tinder’s message is one which encourages people to sit idly at their phones and swipe, swipe, swipe— with almost zero social interaction... or any of the usual ‘reconnaissance’ that women instinctively do when exposed to an unknown male in a social setting.
Tinder reduces your value down to a profile picture and— if you’re lucky— the first couple lines from your bio. So the behaviour follows the design of the platform itself. In that artificial environment, OF COURSE good looks are the #1 male advantage, because the platform is designed to render all other advantages IRRELEVANT.
It’s like that dating “reality show” where men and women choose each other based only on seeing each other’s genitals. In that environment, genital appearance is all that matters, because all other information about the potential mate has been purposely obscured.
The very act of the Tinder’s obfuscation of all information except physical appearance… should tell you all you need to know about its validity in assessing the true nature of sexual selection.
But if a man approaches women IN THE REAL WORLD— unconstrained by Tinder’s obfuscations— then he’ll quickly realise that women’s interest in him can vary wildly based on the quality of his interactions with them.
Which brings us to our next exhibit…
“Women never check me out on the street or in the workplace or out at the bar on Friday night— so I must therefore assume no women are interested in me.”
Again, this relies on the assumption that women select male partners the same way that men select female partners.
But in reality, only the top 5-10% of good-looking guys get openly checked out by women they’ve never previously interacted with. Those guys are the outliers, not the norm.
And even then, their looks may get them a cursory glance at best. Sooner or later, they will have to INTERACT. And it’s the social interaction that makes or breaks the impression they make.
If their interaction is weak, then any initial “looks advantage” they had will be erased. It would be like if you saw a girl who looked hot from behind, then she turned round and had a face like Quasimodo.
Most women instinctively will know what I mean by:
“He seemed so hot… until he opened his mouth.”
So the good news is… it doesn’t matter if women don’t openly check you out as you pass by. Because even if they DID, it would have very little relevance to their ultimate decision of whether or not to hook up with you.
In her mind, she may or may not dig your looks right away. But she still has to do her ‘reconnaissance’ by socially interacting with you.
And she instinctively knows that men who possess only average looks… may nonetheless “step up” in other ways that make looks irrelevant.
She may want to know things like:
--Can you “hold court” with her group of friends?
--Will you say embarrassing, awkward shit that lowers her social value by association?
--Can you be witty, interesting, have good stories to tell?
--Are you living your life with passion and purpose?
--Are you secure in who you are?
--Do you need her approval, or do you provide your own emotional nourishment?
--Will you defend her if she’s attacked?
--Do you move through different situations with a sense of ease and confidence?
--Do you ask permission from others, or do you “take what you want” in life?
None of this is apparent from looks alone. She has to learn it from just two ways:
1) DIRECTLY— by interacting with you; or
2) INDIRECTLY— by watching how you interact with others.
Everything else is just “vanity points”. And vanity points to a woman are like Monopoly Bucks— they have no actual value, unless she’s playing a very particular game.
(Some women DO play this game, going only for the best-looking guys so she can beat her female rivals also playing that game. But those aren’t the women you would want anyway, right?)
“Well, even setting aside looks, we all KNOW women just want a man for his money— they’ll marry you then divorce and take half your shit, or they’ll make you think they love you but only as long as you provide a certain lifestyle.”
Okay, look, I get it.
Shitty, manipulative people exist.
About 50% of those people happen to be female— and will be uniquely shitty towards the males in their lives... the way only a female can— by using her feminine wiles to “bleed him dry” financially and emotionally, until he’s left a hollowed out shell of his former self.
It happens, and it sucks, and men and (good) women alike should rightly condemn this behaviour.
But the simple fact of having XYZ-sized bank account… doesn’t in itself CAUSE a woman to become sexually attracted.
She still needs to do her reconnaissance about the man’s character… by interacting socially with him over time.
If he just HAPPENS to have good looks… and just HAPPENS to have a large bank account… and he ALSO makes a good impression through social interaction over time… then of course he’s gonna start looking like a worthwhile sexual investment.
But for every man who ticks all those boxes… there’s a DOZEN men out there who can get a woman attracted… DESPITE having only average looks and wealth.
Because they actually went to the effort to INTERACT with a woman— rather than simply ASSUMING she’d already made up her mind based on his looks or his bank balance.
The Golden Rule Of Sexual Attraction: "NO ASSUMPTIONS!"
When you make those assumptions on a woman’s behalf, you’re really stripping her of any choice in the matter.
Why not give her the OPTION of liking you based on the quality of your interaction with her?
Why not give her the OPTION of deciding for herself whether you “tick enough of her boxes”?
If you refuse to interact based on an assumption that “she’s already made her mind up about me based on XYZ”... then all you’ll achieve is a reduction of her options down to the men you EXPECTED her to get with all along.
If enough men of average looks and wealth REMOVE THEMSELVES from the dating pool by refusing to interact with women… then you can’t act surprised when women take the remaining choices available— you know, those rich good-looking guys who feel entitled enough to ACTUALLY INTERACT WITH HER.
In the end, it doesn’t matter who makes more money or has better looks. All that matters is who DOES interact with her, and who DOESN’T.
If you’re there in front of her having a real interaction, then by definition you are a potential mating candidate.
If you weren’t, she’d simply make an excuse to leave your presence altogether.
(And even then, you’d only find out as much by ACTUALLY TRYING TO INTERACT WITH HER.)
She will perform her reconnaissance the same way, regardless of your looks or wealth.
After all, the whole point of that recon process is to figure out those things about a man which cannot be gleaned from his looks or income.
Looks and income represent just two ‘data points’ about a man’s “sexual market value”. But to really make a decision about you, she may need to process upwards of SEVERAL-DOZEN data points about you, most of which are only visible from social interaction over time.
So the takeaway from all this— if you hadn’t figured it out already— is simply this:
If women need social interaction to figure out their level of attraction towards you… THEN YOU MIGHT AS WELL GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT.
As your social interactions with women improve, you’ll find an upwards correlation with the signs of interest women show towards you.
And that in itself will create an upwards cycle where you’re less and less affected by erroneous beliefs about “women only wanting looks and money in a man”.
But of course, it takes an initial leap of faith. You have to first decide not to write all this off as “bullshit”.
You have to take those steps into the unknown, and get enough interactions under your belt… so you can start drawing some reasonable conclusions about the effects of your social behaviours around women.
Girls, what do you think of all this from your side of the equation?
Guys, what do you think of this from the side of (typically) being the one who’s expected to initiate and lead those interactions?