In Monday’s post comments there was a lot of back and forth, but in the latter pages there was an interesting exchange I thought might make for an interesting weekend discussion. Commenter Kryptokate resurrected an old feminine social convention I recently covered in Validation Hunting & The Jenny Bahn Epiphany. The premise of this convention is that men seek out, and motivate themselves towards highly attractive women because they enjoy the validation or affirmation they receive from their male peers when they’re seen paired with an HB9 high SMV woman on his arm.
The “arm candy” trope is a useful convention for women in that it assuages her bruised ego and competition anxiety by converting a man’s natural desire for a high SMV woman into a perceived insecurity of his (really all men by association).
Kryprokate:
I’m sticking with my assertion that lots of guys love to show off a hot woman to other guys to gain their respect and increase their status. I’m not saying ALL guys want to do this and maybe you don’t, but lots of them do. I don’t want to “show off” a guy either — I’m an introverted homebody and don’t want a guy for anything but to stay home with, talk, have sex, watch movies, etc. But lots of men love to show off to their peers just like lots (probably most) women do.
Johnnycomelately:
Men don’t seek validation through females, men desire females objectively, tits are tits, don’t matter what the guys thinks. You think men watch porn to get validation?
Women desire to be desired, the process is completely about validation.
Problem with female desire to be desired is that it is not a very high bar to pass, I find it humorous that women brag-splain about getting sex from men.
“Heck, give me ten minutes to download an app and I could get a man to have sex with me in 30 minutes. Nothing to write home about.”
And from the Validation Hunting post:
The idea that men “seek validation” for their earned status or to ‘right’ past wrongs to their egos while they were working their way to that status is a social convention. The Feminine Imperative relies on memes and conventions which shift the ownership of women’s personal liabilities for their sexual strategy to men.
When men are blamed for the negative consequences of women’s sexual strategy it helps to blunt the painful truths that Jenny Bahn is (to her credit) honestly confronting in her article at 30 years old and the SMV balance shifts towards enabling men’s capacity to effect their own sexual strategy.
One of the unique aspects of the Feminine Imperative is its fluid ability to craft social conventions that obscure the worst misgivings of women’s dualistic sexual strategy (Hypergamy) and redirect the liability for them squarely on men’s shoulders. I covered many of these conventions in Operative Social Conventions, but chief among them is the utility of shame.
Shaming features in a majority of feminine social conventions used against men because women are conditioned to fear social ostracization as part of their same-sex peer socialization. Little girls punish each other by ‘not-being-friends-with’ another girl in their peer clutch. Using shame is a skill women learn early in life to effect the ends of their developing solipsism.
If men can be shamed into believing that their natural predisposition toward sexually desiring high SMV, physically ideal specimens of women is due to an insecurity with their personal status the effect would be one of leveling the SMP playing field. “Men only want hot women to feed their egos and impress other men” translates into shaming men (the more desirable men who can merit the attention of a high SMV woman) for being insecure with the perceptions of other men.
This carefully removes any negative association with women’s competitiveness for higher tier men, convinces women themselves that “men are just like that” to Buffer against rejection, and puts the burden of that competition on the man in the hopes that he’ll pair with a woman who is of lower SMV for fear of being shamed about his “insecurity” of wanting other men to see his status as higher than it should be.
Thus, the optimized ends of Hypergamy – a woman pairing with an SMV superior man – are better effected by a social convention.
I should also add that this social convention dovetails with another useful convention that relies on a similar dynamic – that of women complaining men sexually objectify women. The simple truth is that it’s part of men’s neurological firmware to see women’s bodies as objects. It’s a well studied fact that when men see an arousing woman’s semi-nude body it triggers the same area of our brains associated with tool use. Sexual objectification is a feature for men, not a bug.
I’ve gotten into this debate on other forums and comment threads, but it bears repeating. My N-count is a bit more than 40 women, and of those women never did I make an approach (or go along with a woman opening me) with a forethought of wanting to impress my male friends. In fact there were some women I got with I’d rather my friends at the time knew nothing about.
The debate usually spins from there about how men just “do it unconsciously”. That’s an easy fallback, but I’d argue that the limbic and visceral incentive of wanting to sexually experience a smoking hot HB9.5 supersedes any subconscious thought of how good a guy will look when he shows her off to his buddies. I’ve been with strippers, a girl who was in Playboy in the 90’s, and several other women most guys just fantasize about – half the reason I stayed with the BPD girlfriend for so long was because she was just so fucking hot – but not once did I have any thought of brandishing any of them to improve my status with my peers. In fact I preferred we just get after it at her or my place than make any conscious effort on my part to show her off.
This’ll sound facetious, but I’ve never thought of sex as being “validating” or ego-affirming. I honestly think a lot of that expectation comes from a feminized conditioning about “how sex should be” for men. I was, and still kind of am, more into sex as experience. It’s always been something fun to enjoy with a woman for me, not some meaningful act of cosmic significance. I’ve had sex with women I loved and women I didn’t, some were memorable, some were…meh. Even in my bluest of blue pill days my ‘validation’ came from other sources, not sex.
So the question for the weekend is this, as a man, do you give any headspace at all to considering how your status might improve with other men if you’re seen with a hot woman?
When you see a guy who’s physically an obvious 1-2 SMV degrees lower than the woman he’s with, do you think any better of him or do you presume the imbalance is due to some other external factor (such as wealth or fame)?
Do you see the method behind the madness of shaming-down apex Men in order to better optimize Hypergamy for “lesser” SMV women?
January 23rd, 2015 at 7:43 pm
@ Jeremy You are correct but this is a matter of economics and demographics, not biology. People are aroused by and want to have sex with people based almost entirely on physical attraction. I.e. women want to have sex with built, physically dominant goodlooking guys and men want to have sex with pretty women.
But people will MARRY for status and wealth. It is true that 95% of the time it’s women who do this, not men, but that’s only because for most of history, women had no wealth (and thus no status or power) of their own, so of course men couldn’t marry for those reasons. However, for the rare women who DID have those things (i.e. royalty, daughters of titans), men absolutely marry them for those reasons. Look back through history, those chicks have zero trouble marrying off and it doesn’t matter how ugly they are. Do you think John Kerry married the daughter of the Heinz fortune because she was the hottest woman he could get? Definitely not. And upper class men will have sex with hot but lower class women but no affluent guy is going to marry the hot chick who cleans houses for a living.
Women increasingly have their own money and men increasingly are factoring that into their relationships. It doesn’t effect who they want to bang, but it most definitely effects who they’ll tie their fortune to by marrying. In places where women have no economic power, then of course men marry only for looks because there’s nothing else to go on. In large urban centers, let’s say NYC or DC, you are not going to find an affluent professional man who would even consider getting married to an uneducated woman without a career with sufficient status. No one actually WANTS to marry “down” — why would they? — men have just been forced to for most of history because all women were “down”.
A lot of the dynamics people think of as gender based have much more to do with economics than people think. It’s no mistake that as soon as women started to gain economic power, they immediately started changing their behavior and became much more promiscuous and going after “alphas” (ie physically attractive) men more blatantly. In other words, they started acting “like men” and going after what they think is attractive rather than what they need economically. Because really, a lot of what people think of as “acting like men” is actually just “acting like someone who has their own money.” Being able to focus solely on things like physical appeal and desirability is a luxury that only applies to those who are already economically secure.
January 23rd, 2015 at 7:46 pm
Krypto, are you a natural born woman? if yes, have you ever had your chromosomas checked?
January 23rd, 2015 at 7:50 pm
A really hot chick isn’t going to improve my status. But a really unattractive woman… yeah… on some level my status might drop a few points.
January 23rd, 2015 at 7:56 pm
@ Yohami. Lol. Yes to the first question, no to the second. I do get told by guys all the time that I’m a dude in a woman’s body, or that I’m emotionless and overly logical. But I’m pretty sure my chromosomes are perfectly normal. My dad is a scientist and my mom was pretty cerebral as well so I think I just have a brain that skews towards the extreme of systemizing. This is likely why I’m fascinated by the topic of gender relations because my natural inclinations are more sympathetic to what is stereotypically “male” but I still have the plumbing of a woman and am only sexually attracted to men. Kind of a weird place to be. But I know some psychologically androgynous men, too.
January 23rd, 2015 at 8:03 pm
Or as my uncle said when the whole Bill Clinton/monika thing came out, “well why else would a man want power? It’s not like he’s the first leader in the history of the world ever to do that!”
Now one could argue Bill could have been choosier but…
January 23rd, 2015 at 8:04 pm
Krypto, atypical for sure
January 23rd, 2015 at 8:09 pm
@Kryptokate
And you think that all that history had no effect on the biology? So now we’re back to social constructs only?
It is interesting that you mentioned John Kerry, a career politician. Because I believe I said in my reply to you in the previous thread that…
You must have missed that comment.
So now we’re using examples of blue pill strongholds as examples of natural human behavior? Have we turned into HUS around here?
Really? Let’s ask Prince William, heir to the British throne, if that’s true. Or how about his father, who married Princess Diana…. I’m sure lots of ladies here would love to talk to either of those men, and they’re both bald with fairly paltry physiques.
Kate, I think you’re unable to swallow a truth about women. Here’s the truth.
To women, men are a tool of status.
To men, women are a trophy that comes with status.
The two are very different. I have trophies from things I’ve accomplished, but the accomplishment was what I was going for, not the trophy. Your example of the basketball player was an interesting one, because the point of playing basketball is the acquisition of trophies, the creation of perceived status through ornamentation. That’s quite different from how normal men survive and thrive, which is why professional sports is generally regarded as entertainment and not a truly masculine endeavor. Those guys are clowns, entertainers, they perform for an audience. And yeah, you can tell them I said that, I’m not exactly minced meat.
January 23rd, 2015 at 8:16 pm
One note on the girl standing next to Rushdie.
I know dressing up is considered high status but to me it makes women look old.
Rushdie’s woman has:
1) Caked on make-up
2) Long earings
3) Fancy dress
That’s what old ladies do in fruitless attempts to hide their flaws. It looks bad. Put away the make-up and the earrings. Throw away the high heals. Any effort spent on your appearance should be focused on your hair. Keep your hair long and beautiful.
When I see “done up” up women I think AARP.
January 23rd, 2015 at 8:41 pm
@ redpillgirlnotes
Now one could argue Bill could have been choosier but…
In a way Bill Clinton was choosy. He chose all the time. He nailed a thousand Monica Lewinsky’s over his lifetime.
This is a picture of Sherry Rowlands, the prostitute that Dick Morris (Clinton’s political advisor) was caught with. He had been boinking her for years before he was caught .
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/50375746.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A14B5769D13BE66928DC4DA530411A9480ADC06900C941FAE30B01E70F2B3269972
Any chubby HB4 woman who is willing to give away sex for free has instant access to the most powerful business and political leaders in the United States.
January 23rd, 2015 at 8:48 pm
Crap didn’t work. Here is the picture.
“To be sure, Mr. Morris, the former chief political strategist for President Clinton, hasn’t gotten off scot-free. He was forced to resign in disgrace after the tabloid Star reported that for a year he had retained Sherry Rowlands as a $200-an-hour call girl, allowing her to listen in on phone conversations with the President and to have advance looks at speeches by Vice President Al Gore and Hillary Rodham Clinton. But beyond making Mr. Morris and Ms. Rowlands the butt of jokes, virtually everyone — prosecutors, the taxman, feminists, Mr. Clinton — seems willing to give them a pass.”
January 23rd, 2015 at 8:49 pm
If you have Netflix check out the movie “Better Living through Chemistry”.
January 23rd, 2015 at 8:51 pm
That’s a man, baby.
January 23rd, 2015 at 8:52 pm
I´ll be honest, Yes,I would like to “show off” to my friends and the whole town (I live in relatively small town) a HB9 girlfriend, yes, but that would be just a thing to get off my chest and would probably get it out of my system fast, but thats because I never had that experience. I sometimes think I have a reputation of a sort of monk and to be seen with a desirable woman in my arm would be a true achievement for me being that I am 32 and never had a true girlfriend. But that´s my particular case. Just being frank.
January 23rd, 2015 at 9:07 pm
Lets just clear this up, women will decide who they’ll marry based on status and wealth, not “people”.
If a woman is smoking hot and good in bed, men will marry her if she’s a sandwich artist at Subway, an heiress to a fortune or a psychotic BPD.
January 23rd, 2015 at 9:19 pm
huh. $200 per hour? Really??? Well I take back the why would a man hire an unattractive escort comment! Guess there is a market!
Many of tigers wood’s barmaids were not all that really either. Who knows???
January 23rd, 2015 at 9:21 pm
Lagging from the last article but not OT:
myrealitie:
“A woman can be very attracted to a man like this for life EVEN IF she dated the more unreliable types in her teens and early 20’s.”
She is calling for that rare combination of AF/BB that optimizes hypergamy.
George and Glenn probably come off as much more alpha and BBucks than me with their confidence, energy, drive and success both socially and financially. It seems to me that they should embody that ideal combination much more than myself. And yet their wives used and abused them.
Something in common with G&G’s stories, many other horror stories, complaints of PUAs about crazy BPD sluts, and my experience is that the women involved were PAWs (highly Physically Attractive Women).
Now, with even men like G&G having these experiences, what might a more ordinary man expect in a relationship with a PAW?
Sure, I have a visual fascination with PAWs. But after being in a close relationship with them for some time, I don’t really notice it anymore. And the beauty doesn’t make up for shitty behavior or personality; those actually tend to cancel my perceptions of her beauty.
So now I value good personality and character traits more than HBness. As Sun Wukong said: “I’d be happy if I could find somewhere to regularly pull ass that I’m genuinely attracted to instead of just a live target to fuck”.
For me that genuine attraction mostly come from me liking the woman and feeling an emotional intimacy. Sexual attraction follows from that even if she’s not a PAW.
Unfortunately, good personality and character traits and lack of ability to draw men through beauty don’t actually cancel hypergamy. They just make it less likely that she will jump ship and less likely to be mean if she does so.
Since we don’t have crystal balls, the best we can do is max the probability of success based on statistics. Don’t start with the painting bullseyes where my arrow lands thing. What these horror stories amount to is shooting your arrows into a black hole.
Glenn wrote:
“Even worse? I’m too old to even pull a quality woman and start again if I did find the unicorn woman and maintained abs of steel, never fucked up, never showed weakness or vulnerability and constantly dominated her. It’s over for me. All I get are scraps.”
How are you defining ‘quality woman’ and ‘scraps’? If you open your filters and take the above into account you might be pleasantly surprised. I’m 58 and have had a number of passionate and enjoyable LTRs in the ten years since my divorce. Some were unusually attractive for their age and some weren’t. I enjoyed all of them. None were mean.
Glenn, I can relate to your story and I like your posts. I passed some of them onto my son.
The reason I asked you what is this prize you’re working so hard for is because it seems like you might still be stuck in the same mode you were in when you married. If you just jump through enough hoops to appeal to women, you’ll get one that will return your idealistic love. Like you’re still stuck in the anger and denial stage of the RP process and haven’t figured out how to integrate it in a way that can get you satisfying relationships.
If you want different results, you need to do different things. P&D of young HBs driven by anger and frustration ain’t it.
January 23rd, 2015 at 9:27 pm
@ redpillgirlnotes
Many of tigers wood’s barmaids were not all that really either. Who knows???
The equation is simple.
An HB3 offers easy sex = Within 8 hours she lands an Alpha male Vice President who works at Goldman Sachs and drives a Ferrari.
An HB3 wants marriage = After years of dating she finally locks down the janitor who cleans the parking lot at the building next to the Goldman Sachs building.
January 23rd, 2015 at 9:54 pm
@ Jeremy The past several thousand years of history may have had some effect on biology, but prior to 10,000 years ago, there was no such thing as accumulated wealth or property. So for the vast majority of our evolutionary history, physical factors (health, strength, fertility) and social capital (status, respect, and allies) would have been the only thing that mattered. And those are the things we still find are pretty hardwired. The last few thousand years has been an aberration of sorts, and people have adapted to fit their economic circumstances but I don’t think that stuff is as hard-wired. The mere fact that people rapidly change their behavior when economic circumstances change seems to me to be proof of that. Ironically, we’ve now achieved such an abundance of material wealth through technology that it has freed people from economic constraints enough that they are reverting back to their more primitive behavior.
I agree entirely with your comments about athletes. My one experimental foray into a relationship with one only confirmed that my negative stereotypes about jocks were not only true but that the reality was much worse than I thought. Dealing with him was really much more like interacting with an animal who’d learned to talk as a trick, rather than interacting with a person.
Last, does Bill Clinton not prove what I’m saying? He screwed lots of women, but he married the high status one. Hillary is most surely not the most attractive woman he could get. There are tons of counterexamples and you can’t just write them out of existence by saying they’re “blue pill”. They did what they wanted: Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, Bill Clinton…none of them married even close to the hottest woman they could get. They married high status women. Hell, even George Clooney did not marry a 22 year old model when he assuredly could have, he married a post-wall (though still beautiful) high status, highly educated lawyer from a rich family. Prince Charles could’ve married a Playmate and instead he chose the lovely but hardly “hot” Diana, an upper crust, well educated woman from a wealthy background.
Rollo, I disagree with you. The only affluent guys who would marry a hot chick who works at 7-11 are guys from places where there are no wealthy/high status women. There are lots of high earning men in my organization and not a single one is married to anything close to the hottest chick they could get. They’re married to adequately pretty/over the bangability threshold women who have some measure of status from education/family background/career. If they’re looking to cheat, is that what they’ll be looking for? Hell no. But marriage is a different matter, you guys are looking at very narrow circumstances rather than a wide swatch of cultures/time periods. And marrying purely for sex is about the dumbest possible thing I can think of. If you were raised in a culture where women had nothing to offer a man but sex, then my sympathies are with you because that is a horrid deal.
January 23rd, 2015 at 9:57 pm
Tiger Woods is one of the wealthiest and most famous sports figures in the world. His net worth is roughly $600 Million dollars.
This is what he was sleeping with. Keep that in mind the next time your office buddy tells you that he regularly bang 9s and 10s.
January 23rd, 2015 at 10:02 pm
^^^^^^
I’ll take the hula hoop girl from Arkansas over any of these broads. 8-)
January 23rd, 2015 at 10:05 pm
Krypto,
“The only affluent guys who would marry a hot chick who works at 7-11 are guys from places where there are no wealthy/high status women.”
Basically you’re saying men are hypergamous. Short answer, no. Long answer, fuck no.
Specially when you compare men to women and start talking about what “people” do as if the behavior had a lot of overlap. There’s no such overlap.
George Clooney married DOWN, his wife married UP.
January 23rd, 2015 at 10:22 pm
@Kate
I note you completely ignored my two fantastic examples, namely Prince William & his father Prince Charles. Both men married women far below their status, purely on their appearance. Yet you claimed that no one would ever want to “marry down”. Instead you’re throwing Bill Clinton at me, another career politician who enjoys social status purely for it’s own sake, and a man who has repeatedly demonstrated that he’ll screw anything that moves. He’s the male equivalent of America’s biggest slut. I consider that two examples against zero, since you keep referring to mentally damaged people who seek power over other people as their career (politicians).
January 23rd, 2015 at 10:24 pm
@Rollo – Kryptokate is right. Men DEFINITELY marry for status.
The thing is, in places like NYC and DC there are MANY really attractive, high status women (went to elite schools, rich parents, etc). So, the creme-of-the-crop men always go for these girls. And it is not just accidental and based on proximity. They want to gain in status through their marriage just as much as women do.
Now, what would be really interesting would be to see top men having to choose between a 6 who went to Harvard and whose parents are business titans, and a 9 who cleans office buildings for a living. In this scenario, I suspect that the man would choose the 9.
But the point is, again, top men don’t have to choose. They can get both (looks and status) and they absolutely want both.
January 23rd, 2015 at 10:30 pm
myrealitie, no.
“Men DEFINITELY marry for status.[…]They want to gain in status through their marriage”
As a bonus, yes.
“just as much as women do.”
No, that is ridiculous, as you point yourself:
“top men having to choose between a 6 who went to Harvard and whose parents are business titans, and a 9 who cleans office buildings for a living. In this scenario, I suspect that the man would choose the 9.”
Reverse the sexes and women will do the opposite choice, marry the high status man over the more handsome one.
Case closed.
“They can get both (looks and status) and they absolutely want both.”
Women also want both – status comes first.
January 23rd, 2015 at 10:33 pm
myrealitie,
“Krypto is right”
No, she’s wrong, as you point yourself:
“top men having to choose between a 6 who went to Harvard and whose parents are business titans, and a 9 who cleans office buildings for a living. In this scenario, I suspect that the man would choose the 9.”
Reverse the sexes and women will do the opposite choice, marry the high status man over the more handsome one. Time and time again.
“They can get both (looks and status) and they absolutely want both.”
Everyone wants all they can get, but some items come first.
For women status comes first, for men hotness comes first.
It is really not rocket science.
January 23rd, 2015 at 10:33 pm
@YOHAMI – yes, I retract only that one sentence fragment “just as much as women do.”
I also think that most top men do cheat. And I suspect that a lot of them get married to the higher status, adequately but not smoking hot woman fully knowing that they will cheat if the itch gets strong enough with a series of more attractive women.
January 23rd, 2015 at 10:34 pm
duplicate comment
January 23rd, 2015 at 10:37 pm
@ Kryptokate
He screwed lots of women, but he married the high status one.
Bill Clinton was cheating on Hillary while they were in college. He married Hillary because unlike most women she didn’t care if he cheated. She was eager to work in politics and happy to let him bang an endless stream of floozies. For a guy like Bill she was the perfect wife.
January 23rd, 2015 at 10:38 pm
Again, I agree that looks are more important for men and status is more important for women. But the fact remains that there is a ceiling effect – there are MANY really attractive women who are also high status. So for this reason the “nice to have” (status) gets bumped up to “necessity.”
And this is the reason why some women are so hell bent on careers, btw. It is a legitimate way, in the current climate, to improve one’s lot and attract a better partner, and if that fails, to earn money and the economic ability have a lot of sex with desirable short term partners.
January 23rd, 2015 at 10:44 pm
myrealitie,
“And this is the reason why some women are so hell bent on careers, btw.”
If they really want to get married, the efforts are better invested in the gym, diet, clothing, grooming, developing a feminine personality, learning to embrace manhood, cooking, being very moderate / almost prude with their sex lifes (other than with real marriage prospects) and aiming to marry very young and have kids.
The woman who does that will triumph any hardward graduate who didnt care about those things, statistically speaking.
So
“And this is the reason”
I’d say that may be A reason. I think the real reason is feminism. On one way women think they can do without men / wanting or needing a man or trying to do what men like is oppressive, on the other hand projection, they think men want or should want the same thing they want, even with plenty of evidence of the contrary.
January 23rd, 2015 at 10:47 pm
@ Kryptokate
There are lots of high earning men in my organization and not a single one is married to anything close to the hottest chick they could get. They’re married to adequately pretty/over the bangability threshold women who have some measure of status from education/family background/career.
Wrong. They’re married to exactly the hottest chicks they could get. They couldn’t lock down anything better or they would have. Period.
Maybe they’ve got 2 inch wieners. Maybe they have really boring personalities.
Whatever the case may be the women they are married to are the best they could get at the time they got married.
January 23rd, 2015 at 10:51 pm
Ask Barry Dutter. He’s in the blue shirt on the exercise ball:
Ask Barry Dutter. He’s in the blue shirt on the exercise ball:
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:03 pm
@myrealitie
What a joke.
Donald Trump: Married a model
Prince William: Married a commoner who happened to be beautiful. He could have had anyone.
Prince Charles: Married a commoner who happened to be beautiful.
Kobe Bryant: Married an HB7 who happened to be a HS sweetheart, could have had just about anyone.
Men don’t give a flying fuck what a woman has accomplished or what her social status is. In fact, I think most men would prefer that a woman’s social group be lower class than his own. But according to the two women who can’t stop projecting their own thoughts onto male behavior, “Men will never marry down, and they definitely marry for status.” It’s hysterical.
Both you women keep repeating that “men of course will marry/screw the more attractive woman,” but then you turn around and say, “but men marry for status.” So which is it? Status and Beauty are completely uncorrelated variables. There are highly attractive accomplished women, and highly attractive couch-surfing moochers. There are also butt ugly accomplished women (Margaret Thatcher), and butt ugly pandhandlers. If men marry for status, Then where does this data fit in:
https://i.imgur.com/Ijgzwsk.png
Those plots are empirical data, taken from real people. It clearly shows that men find a specific age range the most attractive. Strangely enough, that age range is so young that there’s no possible way those women at 19-22 could have possible achieved anything of note yet. But according to you, men marry for status? It’s a joke. You’re self-deceiving if you really believe that. It makes me wonder if you have some small, isolated pool of ego over your own accomplishments that must be protected by believing the nonsense that men give two spits about it. We don’t.
Stop projecting your dualistic strategies onto how men think. We don’t think like you.
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:05 pm
Absolutely not… Couldn’t care less about eye candy. In fact, there are way many more intangibles for me than just a woman’s looks. The broad with Rushdie – Padma Lakshi – is indeed hot, but christ it was Rushdie’s 4th marriage and it only lasted 3 years.
There have been women I’ve been quite fond of and very sexually attracted to, who by objective standards others would consider quite plain. But something about them made them incredibly sexy. It may have been the way they smelled, or the way they carried themselves, or their attitude about life, or most often just their femininity.
A plain woman who has feminine grace and innocence is far sexier to me than the most beautiful Vegas bar slut.
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:06 pm
skill testing question: how attractive is this guy, and who tf is he:
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:10 pm
“how attractive is this guy”
He doesnt pass my boner test.
That picture is a good test for you. He signals high status with some color palette and accessories (that watch) so some women will find him attractive. Tell them he’s a billionarie CEO and that makes him even more attractive.
The reverse doesnt work for men – it just doesnt. If anything a chubby woman with an expensive watch starts looking even less attractive if she’s also the CEO of some company.
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:12 pm
women are hypergamous – men are lowergamous
complimentary opposites
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:12 pm
hipogamous?
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:15 pm
(btw this is guy that Rollo has talked about before but doesn’t know who he is)
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:17 pm
@KK, re: your examples of wives with status
You have it backwards. Each one exactly backwards. Gates’ Melinda was Ms. Bob The Paperclip. She worked for him, like twenty levels below. He gave her increasing positions at work to reward her for giving him sex.
Zuckerberg’s Priscilla was the high school chick he impressed by being a big college dude. He’s been her “sir yes sir” leader and sugar daddy since she was a teen. He wbecame a billionaire while she was still in college.
Of Clinton’s Hillary, “However, after failing the District of Columbia bar exam and passing the Arkansas exam, Rodham came to a key decision.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
that decision being “Hey, Bill’s gonna have some real status real soon, and I never will on my own. So I’ll try to ignore his peccadillos.”
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:21 pm
@redlight, re: Dave Goldberg
He is Sheryl Sandberg’s, erm, arm candy.
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:22 pm
@jf12 yes, he is the “nothing is sexier” husband of the woman billionaire
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:23 pm
@zdr01dz, re: “Bill Clinton was cheating on Hillary while they were in college. He married Hillary because unlike most women she didn’t care if he cheated. She was eager to work in politics and happy to let him bang an endless stream of floozies. For a guy like Bill she was the perfect wife.”
Yes. How can people pretend this was not well known?
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:25 pm
“Sheryl Sandberg”
ouch.
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:26 pm
@YOHAMI
hippogamous: what the #fatacceptance movement tries to shame men in to being.
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:31 pm
re: “So now I value good personality and character traits more than HBness.”
Could easily have been the cause of Rowland’s markup.
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:36 pm
@kobayashii1681, re: “Just a thought…you’ll find strong clusters/associations/gatherings of women with high status men/husbands, e.g. WAGS etc…BUT, do you find clusters/associations/gatherings of men with high status/SMV/Hot women?”
Good question. I presume the women share waxing tips and keep an eye on each other.
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:40 pm
Some years ago I realized that sometimes women I dated were using me as a fashion accessory. I was quite offended, and it had not occurred to me that such a thing was possible. Personally, that tells me how far from the male mind such status presentation really is. It honestly hadn’t ever occurred to me, let alone using a woman as a status symbol
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:41 pm
One of the top 10 hottest reasons for Rushdie splitting with Padma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riya_Sen
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:43 pm
@Malcolm, re: “Some years ago I realized that sometimes women I dated were using me as a fashion accessory. I was quite offended”
I thought it an upgrade. I thought I was more like furniture, a purse-holder, etc.
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:44 pm
I agree w kreptokate is this one:
” Jeremy You are correct but this is a matter of economics and demographics, not biology. People are aroused by and want to have sex with people based almost entirely on physical attraction. I.e. women want to have sex with built, physically dominant goodlooking guys and men want to have sex with pretty women.But people will MARRY for status and wealth. It is true that 95% of the time it’s women who do this, not men, but that’s only because for most of history, women had no wealth (and thus no status or power) of their own, so of course men couldn’t marry for those reasons. However, for the rare women who DID have those things (i.e. royalty, daughters of titans), men absolutely marry them for those reasons. Look back through history, those chicks have zero trouble marrying off and it doesn’t matter how ugly they are. Do you think John Kerry married the daughter of the Heinz fortune because she was the hottest woman he could get? Definitely not. And upper class men will have sex with hot but lower class women but no affluent guy is going to marry the hot chick who cleans houses for a living.Women increasingly have their own money and men increasingly are factoring that into their relationships. It doesn’t effect who they want to bang, but it most definitely effects who they’ll tie their fortune to by marrying. In places where women have no economic power, then of course men marry only for looks because there’s nothing else to go on. In large urban centers, let’s say NYC or DC, you are not going to find an affluent professional man who would even consider getting married to an uneducated woman without a career with sufficient status. No one actually WANTS to marry “down” — why would they? — men have just been forced to for most of history because all women were “down”.A lot of the dynamics people think of as gender based have much more to do with economics than people think. It’s no mistake that as soon as women started to gain economic power, they immediately started changing their behavior and became much more promiscuous and going after “alphas” (ie physically attractive) men more blatantly. In other words, they started acting “like men” and going after what they think is attractive rather than what they need economically. Because really, a lot of what people think of as “acting like men” is actually just “acting like someone who has their own money.” Being able to focus solely on things like physical appeal and desirability is a luxury that only applies to those who are already economically secure.”
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:58 pm
Cheating bitch!
January 24th, 2015 at 12:10 am
@Jeremy,
I wish women would focus more on being attractive to men. IE being thin, being fun, demure, coy, staying off the CC, proving they know how to say no to the men who run game on them. Though as we see Kate can’t stop a man’s cock from getting inside her. She doesn’t know how. I get it. She has cheated on so many men that she is incapable of accepting that she’s a slut and has to make excuses. *Everyone would cheat in my circumstances! It’s not that I’m a shitty person! Everyone would cheat!”
Kate you sound just like my ex-wife.
And that girl Zukerberg is with? I wouldn’t even bother to plate her up. If she asked me out and plated herself I’d fuck her when I was bored but that’s about it.
Sad that he has no game.
He should dread that girl into losing 15 pounds and hitting the gym. She better deep throat.
January 24th, 2015 at 12:22 am
I always thought Wolverine marrying like a 3 was interesting. Any thoughts?
January 24th, 2015 at 12:27 am
January 24th, 2015 at 12:44 am
Having not gone through all the comments to see if this is a repeat because your considerable following manages to fill comments to tl;dr level on the day of posting, I’ll say this:
I’ve not met any men that I’ve suspected of using the attractiveness of their mate as validation among other men (outside of a gay guy I knew in high school who was using her as a beard).
However, I have known many men, and myself included among this, who have after being broken up with by a woman, made damn sure that the next girl they were in a relationship with was hotter than the one that broke up with them. Of course that was never motivated out of external or even internal validation, but rather a way of flipping the proverbial middle finger to the woman that dumped them.
January 24th, 2015 at 1:02 am
@zdroidz I have to disagree with your “men will marry the hottest women they can get” theory. Men will marry the hottest women they can get in whom they have a sufficient degree of confidence in the fidelity of. The problem with marrying the hottest woman you can get is that those men may discover at some point that their SMV is below that of their woman, and then they become exposed to the various and sundry risks of feminine centric society.
January 24th, 2015 at 1:05 am
It really was a shock to me the first time I read guys don’t care about a woman’s education or career. What? How could that be??? But it’s true. Women care about education and career, so they project men do too. But it’s not an attraction factor. In fact it can work against a woman, and I have seen that myself. On one date I was talking about my career and biz, thinking it would be impressive, but I could almost see him thinking, “how does this fit into her being a potential wife? Mom? How will she have time for me?” (He was a doctor.) Sure enough he was shopping for someone with goals to run a home and a family, not a career equal. Sexist? I dunno, but he was looking for a mate to build a home and family with, which is why most men marry. It’s not rocket science.
January 24th, 2015 at 1:27 am
@RPgirlnotes,
It’s because we can’t do everything. No one can do everything. Yin and yang. No one can do everything. But we can support each other. I do believe we can hold each other up. We just have to accept what we have been born to do. And accept that we aren’t going to be able to do what we aren’t born to do.
Easy for a man. I can never birth a child. Pregnancy is amazing to me. Yet so many women have been conditioned to believe that creating a unique life is somehow wrong.
All women can create a masterpiece of art in a child. Devaluing this is so wrong. Because it is incredible and so amazing to be able to sacrifice your body and your life to create a *human being*. So god damned amazing. Why don’t people realize this? Is incredible. Just incredible.
January 24th, 2015 at 2:11 am
Only ugly short men wants that.
January 24th, 2015 at 2:17 am
Only pathetic young ugly little boys want a HB on their short arms.
January 24th, 2015 at 2:17 am
I don’t understand why people still reply to Kate. She’s looking to butt into men’s discussion to seek attention, not discuss what is right and wrong or anything related to the subject matter.
Even if you men were talking about KFC and PF Changs instead of Red Pill, she’ll still butt in.
January 24th, 2015 at 2:26 am
@Mr T.
January 24th, 2015 at 2:41 am
That’s an interesting question. Undoubtedly the biggest reason men pick a hot woman is attraction to her, but I’m not sure men don’t care about peer validation at all. I mean, why wouldn’t a man care about pre-selection at all? I think an interesting question would be this:
“If you could have a really hot woman, but never be able to show her off, would you be as happy?”
Although it would also be interesting to ask “If you have sex with a woman who is hot enough for you, but is considered a 5 or something, would you be just as comfortable sharing her pics as if she was considered a 7?”
January 24th, 2015 at 2:56 am
jf12
January 23rd, 2015 at 6:18 pm
re: scientists/engineers vs physically dominant males
Now if you can combine both….
The fm was commenting on my physicals tonight. “You’re still a hunk”, says she. Maybe she was just buttering me up. But I am over 6′ and have only a mild paunch. Back in the day I was trim, slim, wiry.
============
I never considered status when chasing women. The only question was could I get in. Funny enough 7s, 8s, 9s, and the very occasional 10 was what I did. Mostly. Maybe women self qualify. If the man is too far from what she thinks her value is they don’t try. Not that they are not interested. But like any efficient animal they put their effort into areas where they are most likely to get results.
January 24th, 2015 at 3:12 am
Lots of great information in this thread. Thanks @jeremy.
Starting to solidify my thoughts: Let me put it in narrative….
Plate or SO, you have to go to a Vegas Casino and on your arm and presence for the night is a HB5… Most importantly she’s 2-3 SMV points BELOW yours.
Conversation ensues at the blackjack table ( she’s not generating any attention ) and you get questions like, “are you guys related?” or “do you two work together.” Minute it becomes clear to anyone she’s your date, all the girls hamsters start running.. Does he have a really little dick? Is SHE rich? What is WRONG with him where he has a lower SMV woman??
Fact, as my SO has had these conversations with me when she’s seen that dynamic.
Lets talk about the inverse:
I’ve been out at trade shows or parties with my wedding ring, and strike up conversation with a HB8-9 and start gaming. When the inevitable shit test comes out on the wedding ring, I agree and amplify. Yes, and she’s lovely, here, let me show you a picture. The minute they see a HB9 with me the hamster starts in the opposite direction.
What is so good about him where he has such a high value woman.. What does he have that she wants?
Next thing you know, I’m getting major IOI’s and flirting. I don’t close deals but it keeps me polished for dread game.
Having high SMV RPW eye candy keeps your SMV high and is a valid game strategy.
January 24th, 2015 at 3:39 am
It’s interesting how many ‘status marriages’ involve a mistress on the side.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/madison-ashtons-children-join-fight-over-richard-pratts-estate-20131128-2ydf4.html
January 24th, 2015 at 3:41 am
I will be honest here… back in the day when I used to use game a lot to fuck a girl. Probably use game still to be fair, it’s difficult to know because I have been having sex and easily predicting the woman’s response to my advances since that time. Anyway side tracking…
Back in that day, I would sleep with a hot chick to just prove to my peers that it’s all about game. And I took very closely to my heart the challenge accepted rule that Barney used in HIMYM. I felt like one I needed to prove to myself that I could do it, and I wanted to show those women too that you know what no matter what you think you like, you might think you know what you want in your life, but in reality you want an unfit man with a fucking hairy ass pumping your ass till you cum time and time again.
I made a lot of my friends start seeing the bigger picture and I started being disappointed time and time again when I started to understand more and more how women think and how they operate. The more I aged, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what other men thought. But to be fair I would still fuck a girl that everyone is hitting on just to show them who is boss. Probably got issues… and I know I got issues because I fuck girls that annoy me so much at times I hate receiving a txt from them as I can hear their voice in my head when I am reading the txt.
But yeah, I have fucked girls in my teens and probably up to my 22 years of age to prove to people that your preconceptions about how the game is played are completely invalid. And I have dated a psycho for a good long time because all of my friends had her in their list… I don’t know if it’s just for showing off or just to challenge myself with a girl whose SMV is 2 – 3 points above mine.
January 24th, 2015 at 4:25 am
“If you want to see a man gain social status amongst men because of his woman then look at the man with the good, loyal, pleasant, demure, feminine, cheerful, obedient, supportive wife. If she’s all those things and a 6 or better that guy gets added respect, status, and even envy.”
This is an excellent insight from Badpainter.
Furthermore, I once had to choose between two seemingly identical candidates for a high-level position. I was at the point of having my dog decide, until I invited them and their wives for dinner.
One wife was a sophisticated 9/10, while the other was a simple, “good, loyal, pleasant, demure, feminine, cheerful, obedient, supportive” 7/8.
They arrived together, since I had sent the same car to get both couples, just to keep everything completely equal.
The dock was rather long, and there was no reason for them to think that I could see them. But I didn’t have anything better to do, so I was watching them through powerful binoculars as they walked together, and the difference in attitude was truly amazing.
The gorgeous fembot was an obvious sucking energy sink. I could see it in her self-centered mannerisms, and in his face.
The pretty wife was an indisputable energy source, and they both virtually glowed as they walked together. They would occasionally hip-check each other, and the fembot would glare.
I had pretty much made my choice before they boarded the boat, but I decided to test the women as we ate, by giving them leading opportunities to disparage their men while maintaining plausible deniability.
The fembot had a good old time being clever and rolling her eyes, but the supportive one turned out to be much more interesting, because she managed to subtly twist everything into something positive for her man.
I selected the man with the good wife because I knew that, with her positivity in his corner, I would be getting one and a half men, but especially since I knew that I had to have missed something big and important, to have thought them initially identical.
January 24th, 2015 at 4:37 am
@Kryptokate
Sincere question here: if that man you were once in love with were to submit his potential to God, and all that that entails, all else equal, would you still (hormonally) want to follow him through the narrow thread of that ¬needle into a life together. Or would you still pine for the flesh outside of that, to the exclusion of a long-term building project.
What if he was able to make that transition, and still loved you just the same as he did previously, only this time without the carnal distractions, other than you (mostly). Is that something that you would find sustainable for your existence here—a real bona fide spiritual, sexual, emotional, intellectual, and physical relationship with the man you want to be bonded to, henceforth.
In other words, what if he were to just say, ‘fuck it’, put it on the line, and live his clear intent to make you his female.
Thank you for your open sharing here. Whether you are truly a hot female or not, and whether others here accept you or not, your testimony reflects my own reality of relationships with females, many times over—expressed, granted, in a male’s language. Nonetheless, I hear you.
Tldr: For example, if I were to submit to God, and constrict myself to His will, is that something that you could/would follow with fidelity, ie, is there a potential future there for you, in what you envision for your life. Or would that send your ‘beta’ hairs a’tingling, bedroom energy notwithstanding.
Hypothetically, of course. (The future of the human species rests upon your answer… or maybe just some happiness filled days )
Postscript: this is not about religion, per se.
January 24th, 2015 at 7:17 am
My answer: No
January 24th, 2015 at 7:52 am
I really wonder why Aristotle Onassis wife’d up a middle age widow with 2 kids.
The guy must have had inner demons of low-self-esteem.
January 24th, 2015 at 8:07 am
If I was looking for approval from my buddies in getting beautiful women then I am an extraordinarily stupid man because they were all about 7000 miles away when I got my most beautiful girls. And I hate cameras, so no photos.
It reeks, and reeks badly, of latency if a guy gets an attractive girl and the primary or secondary or even any minor payoff is approval from other men.
January 24th, 2015 at 8:18 am
zroidz,
Tiger Woods was very likely in a whirlwind of HGH induced perma-wood. I don’t think his worldwide fame and Thai-Afroid-HGH super libido is going to add any information to anything. Dude is THAI-AFRICAN, took HGH and is the wealthiest, most recognizable athlete on the planet.
January 24th, 2015 at 8:59 am
“he was looking for a mate to build a home and family with, which is why most men marry”
this was the most important criteria when I was marrying
I rated her a 10 as a potential mother (yes, at the time I assigned a number), which included she loved children, could be a stay-at-home mom, and had a lot of common sense
January 24th, 2015 at 9:13 am
The “male validation” assertion of showing off a hot woman to other men is clearly projection of female SMV values onto men.
Besides, Dr. Hook said it best.
When you’re in love with a beautiful woman
You watch your friends
When you’re in love with a beautiful woman
It never ends
You know that it’s crazy
You want to trust her
Then somebody hangs up when you answer the phone
When you’re in love with a beautiful woman
You go it alone
January 24th, 2015 at 9:31 am
Seeking validation has been one of the things black women have used when complaining about a black man with a white woman. Especially when he has what’s considered a good job or income.
Haven’t seen the show yet but I wondering if it will enter into the narrative of a couple of the characters on that show “empire”.
January 24th, 2015 at 9:48 am
@Karl – Stop shaming him!! lol
January 24th, 2015 at 9:55 am
Regarding Tiger Woods, he was a awkward dork with a dork sense of humor who became rich and famous through being good at golf. The wealth changed, the dorkiness didn’t.
If any girls he got with aren’t that great looking, he did run in circles with other high status men, both in wealth and athletic ability. So maybe he wasn’t always the first one the gold diggers were digging on. He’s still dorky after all.
That’s why his game still hasn’t recovered since Ellen slapped him upside his head. It took the dork who thought he was the coolest right back to the days he was the dork trying not to look uncool. So now instead of dominating on a golf course, any mistake he makes gets internally amplified because he’s paranoid about looking bad. All because he got beat up by a girl.
But I’ll also add that the most likely gold digger to get in front of a camera or microphone are the ones that aren’t the best looking. So he could have gotten with some really good looking ones that have kept quiet. It’s that biting the hand stuff.
January 24th, 2015 at 10:35 am
Well it does tell me that this man is good at atracting beautiful women.
But then, it doesn’t tell me what causes his success – even if I can to some extent deduce it from his overall circumstances and behavior – or if adopting some of his mentality would benefit me, or if it is even feasible at all.
So as an indicator of a man’s value, it is simply overrated. But I would watch them interact anyway, for hints and of course for the beauty of his companion.
January 24th, 2015 at 10:47 am
@ Water Cannon Boy
There is a problem with your hypothesis.
Not this woman but a woman who looks roughly similar lives across the street from one of my employees. I’ve seen her.
She is a prostitute and lives in government subsidized housing with her 3 children. For some reason she stole a half dozen Target shopping carts and lined them up next to her garage. My employee called Target and they did nothing.
This disgusting, vile creature is visited by a string of men at random times during the day and night. They range from poor laborers to the very wealthy. There is a reason that wealthy guys will stick their meat in something this filthy. When a man is looking for easy sex, in most cases there isn’t a lot of quality available.
Tiger Woods plugged a string of HB6s and HB7s because that was the best he could get at the time. If HB10s were available he would have picked them instead.
January 24th, 2015 at 10:50 am
knee candy
“3-foot-11-inch woman found life and love stripping … helped her find true love in the form of her 6-foot-tall army sergeant Eich Bushner, 34, who wanted to meet her after seeing her pictures online …The height difference does pose some problems, but nothing too big that we can’t handle”
http://nypost.com/2015/01/23/3-foot-11-inch-woman-found-life-and-love-stripping/
January 24th, 2015 at 10:57 am
BTW I’m rating Tiger Woods’ mistresses on a scale. Since most women are fat and obese his chicks get a bonus point or two. In a world where every woman is thin and healthy (as it should be) those women are dead-assed average HB5s. The one with the fake tits is an HB4.
January 24th, 2015 at 12:29 pm
one thing about women wanting height
it is not just the guy’s height relative to her, it is the guy’s height relative to other guys (likewise does he have more smarts than other guys, more money than other guys, stronger than other guys …)
“I want the best looking
furnitureguy for my living room”January 24th, 2015 at 12:36 pm
@Rollo;
“If a woman is smoking hot and good in bed, men will marry her if she’s a sandwich artist at Subway, an heiress to a fortune or a psychotic BPD.”
Women can’t grasp this, which is why FI manipulates social convention to shame men into BP thinking, e.g. ‘quality women’ and so forth.
Like you said, there is no one(or 2, or 3…) you make the one!
January 24th, 2015 at 12:41 pm
@zdr01dz, re: “In a world where every woman is thin and healthy”
Oh, THAT world. I thought we were talking about some other world.
January 24th, 2015 at 12:42 pm
@redlight, re: “I want the best looking furniture guy for my living room”
Exactly. In the life-accessory competition it’s not about having the biggest purse, usually, it’s the one that Goes Best with everything.
January 24th, 2015 at 12:49 pm
re: knee candy.
Aww. She looks friendly, and probably as it says the necessities aren’t too small. But I couldn’t get past the child-size aspect mentally. In my imagination I find great big tall Amazon girls amazing, although average size seems to work best in reality.
January 24th, 2015 at 12:51 pm
@Jeremy: “Stop projecting your dualistic strategies onto how men think. We don’t think like you.”
Well said.
January 24th, 2015 at 12:57 pm
@jf12: “Good question. I presume the women share waxing tips and keep an eye on each other.”
hehe…that and looking for the next opportunity to…uh…optimise, no?
January 24th, 2015 at 12:57 pm
I can’t help but notice that over the last couple of months, I’ve been seeing a lot more bitterness from Rollo. I like some of your posts where you argue commentators but often times you don’t take the whole message from the opposition. You take a small excerpt that you don’t agree with, flip it into your liking, and put it on display for everyone else to say, “Ah yes! Excellent post!” In other words, the more a movement is filled with “yes men” or “yes women”, the more fundamentally bias it is.
That kryptonite girl made some interesting comments about desire and how many women will submit eventually to other men (even if she’s in a relationship). But instead of acknowledging this and asking questions, many commentors got angry that women have this power of accepting new mates (or rejecting) and went all out with the ad-hominems. I know someone is going to say, “Don’t believe what women say, believe what they do.” While that’s obvious, if you read between the lines and you’re listening, you will get the truth out of women. They just have an covert way of saying it.
I get that many men in the manosphere have been hurt or carry some bitterness towards women but we can’t move forward as a group/movement unless we take all sides into consideration. Sure, argue with them when they’re obviously wrong, but don’t take out your anger on them simply because they’re telling you their perspective and it matches with what some men have witnessed (namely, when they give in to Alpha Fucks).
In the end, hypergamy doesn’t care about your bitterness, so why show it to them? It does you no good. It’s best to understand and seek the complete truth on things. I’ve noticed that men who become to immerse into the RP, become very jaded towards life. If this starts to happen to you (as it did to me) I suggest you take a break from it and re-visit after some time. Take some time to build on your craft, follow your curiosity, or spend some time on another hobby of yours.
Most men in the manosphere already understand the fundamentals and when that happens, it’s time to taper off the RP and revisit it sparingly. It starts to become too much mental masturbation after some point. I’ll witness or experience a red-pill truth in my day-to-day life and while I’m thankful for my awareness, I don’t let it mentally consume me as it’s done to others.
January 24th, 2015 at 1:19 pm
@ jf12
Oh, THAT world. I thought we were talking about some other world.
I can dream. 8-)
January 24th, 2015 at 1:23 pm
I was embarrassed to be seen in public with a morbidly obese girl every time it ever happened. Wish it didn’t, but it did.
Although I also didn’t have to worry about other guys oogling her.
One time I was with my “friend” (LJBF), who’s super hot, and a bunch of teenage kids walk by and said “Way to go, dude” and “You are my HERO!”
I was such a giant beta pussy at the time I just acted like I didn’t know what they were talking about and blew it off. Just shrugged and went “What do they mean?” And played dumb. I was embarrassed because we weren’t dating or anything, or something, and people thought we were — how could a girl like THAT ever go for a guy like me? I had no confidence.
What a fucking retard. No wonder I didn’t bang her. Oh well. That was probably over 7 years ago.
But that about sums up my experience with ‘status’ in relation to ‘arm candy.’
“Status” for arm candy…..to me, that would mean a threat. “Status” doesn’t enter the picture. It’s knowing innately that hot girls are hot and more guys look at and want to fuck hot girls than other girls.
And “My girl” would probably end up slutting it up with a random Alpha if she was hot enough. If they have the capacity to do it, they’re going to do it, and if not, they’re sure as hell going to try. And in a bunch of ways you won’t even see if you’re still plugged into the Girl-World Matrix.
Guys don’t care about status. If I see some dude’s girlfriend and she’s really hot, I’m not giving two damns about him. You think I care? I’m checking her out and wondering what it would be like to fuck her. A lot of times I’ll catch the boyfriend/husband glaring at me and it’s like….hey, don’t mind me, just window shopping.
All those guys going “Way to go dude” are thinking the same thing. No guy is happy for another guy with a beautiful girl. The guy doesn’t even enter the picture. It’s not even a matter of envy or jealousy. They just want to sink their cock into that fine ass. That’s it in a nutshell. Yes, it is really that simple.
That’s how I am. That’s how guys are. The status thing is laughable. Like any of us care. Show me a guy that says he feels good for another guy for ‘beating the game’ and getting a girl ‘way out of his league’ and I’ll show you a plugged in mangina who is in complete denial about his sexual urges.
Yet another reason to never commit to a woman. Only reason ever to commit is if you plan on having kids. Period. And even then you’d better be up on TRP and have your shit together unless you’re okay with putting a gun to your head somewhere down the road.
“Status” does not apply to men. Sex matters. The only reason I’d want to have a hot girl for arm candy would be to pull more hot women. It would have nothing to do with enjoying the “status” — it would be enjoying the idea that my options are opening up, and any rush I’d get would be in direct proportion to the fresh amount of hot girls I’d think I could pull as a result of having a hottie or two with me.
More sex with more women. The more attractive the better. Male imperative. Women applying their hamster logic to theorizing about how men think is HI-LARIOUS.
“Yep. I’m loving the jealous vibes I’m getting from all those good looking men. Just knowing I’m better than them because I could land a girl like you and they couldn’t. Yep. Loving it. It’s what I’m alive for. Now excuse me while I go hit on that HB10 that just walked in the door with her HB8 and HB9 friends. They look like they’re well educated. Would you mind if I had them over for tea with us sometime?”
January 24th, 2015 at 1:23 pm
@zdr01dz, re: grading on a curve
I have to admit I automatically correct for a woman’s age. I think I calibrate by mentally deconvoluting with Rollo’s age-based relative SMV curve. In other words, I have no problem calling some 40 yr old babe a 9 even though an average 20 yr old is probably superior objectively.
January 24th, 2015 at 1:37 pm
Oh yeah! I remember my old boss dropped a few notches on the status bar when we found out he was married to a hag.
About 15 years ago when I was a web developer I had an awesome boss named Kevin. Kev was an ex-Marine. He had the typical Marine look. He was handsome, tough looking and all Alpha. We loved him because he kept the asshole upper management off our backs. Kevin was a man. We worked our asses off because we liked him and respected him.
Then at the company Christmas party we got to meet his wife. Holy SHIT! She was an HB2. Fat, pasty, pig faced and not even friendly. We couldn’t believe it. They had been married about 10 years. From that point on we figured Kevin must have a crooked dick and that was the best he could do. It didn’t make any sense.
So yeah, when an SMV8 man marries an SMV2 woman alarm bells go off.
January 24th, 2015 at 1:39 pm
regarding Padma Lakshmi and the three girls attributed to Tiger Woods:
Every single guy on this board would do Padma in a heartbeat. She still looks damn good.
And every guy here would fuck any of those three “Tiger” girls, no questions asked. Or, as we used to say in school, “There’s no way you’d kick her out of bed, and you know it”.
There’s no point in running down women who are older but still have some good looks left in them. All four of those women are objectively, universally attractive.
January 24th, 2015 at 1:42 pm
@redpillgirlnotes
Here’s an example that perhaps women can understand, or at least see how they are fully projecting by believing that men marry for status.
Women… Would you ever marry a man solely on his appearance? Think hard. Let’s pretend you knew absolutely nothing about a man, but you knew he was the hottest body/face you’ve ever seen in your life. Would you marry that? I would imagine that you actually cannot imagine a male appearance that is to good for you that you would commit to him (though commitment in the developed is risk-free for women, so that’s not even a fair question from my side).
Let’s go deeper… Would you ever completely disqualify yourself from marrying a billionaire if he were the ugliest man alive? Would you ever absolutely say that you would not marry the richest man in the world, regardless of what he looked like?
I’m guessing the answer to all of those question is NO.
BUT! BUT!! I’ll bet all of you women would readily admit that the average situation, with the average ugly man, or average dirty, unkempt man, and you would absolutely disqualify him from intimacy based on his appearance.
So appearance actually does matter for women, but it’s a DISqualifier, not a qualifying condition.
Same with men and status. Your status is ultimately a secondary consideration. IT CAN DISQUALIFY YOU, but it can never qualify you, it is not a positive deciding factor. It’s not what we look for. It is, however, a potential dealbreaker once we’ve seen under the hood.
Some examples I can think of quickly are:
Don’t get into large debt you can’t easily pay off, guys will disqualify you.
Don’t lack common sense so badly you appear to need help to survive, guys may disqualify you.
Don’t have high expectations on funding your lifestyle, guys will disqualify you.
Don’t make your career/status more important, guys will disqualify you.
It’s fine to have status as a woman, but it’s likely an anchor for many thousands of women who flaunt it with the belief it somehow makes them more attractive.
It just doesn’t.
January 24th, 2015 at 1:43 pm
@ jf12
I have no problem calling some 40 yr old babe a 9 even though an average 20 yr old is probably superior objectively.
Subconsciously I do the same thing. I see an attractive 35 year old woman and then it dons on me. Holy shit when I was young I wouldn’t have looked twice at her. To a young man she looks old an undesirable. And objectively they are right. And that’s when I realize I’m getting old, hehe.
January 24th, 2015 at 1:47 pm
@jf12: Biological male. Though I have always seen him as more like my little sisters than any other men I know. He will date a girl who is having sex with other people and not himself and not care as long as she dresses up, holds his arm and looks the part when they go out. It’s odd, but that’s now the sort of person who comes to mind when people say a guy wants “arm candy”.
January 24th, 2015 at 1:54 pm
High status women are usually a pain-in-the-@$$. Who wants one if they don’t help your mission?
Hillary gave Bill some political access. She helped his mission.
It isn’t rocket science.