I've come to the conclusion that women are as looks driven as men maybe more

I have made countless fake online dating profiles and I can tell you the difference in how women respond to average Joes and good looking guys is like night and day. Scratch that. Women don't even respond to average looking guys. The idea that women judge men on other more important less shallow criteria like personality and character and looks are "important but less important" is a myth. This is no joke and no exaggeration, they are even more picky about looks than men. Looks are literally the number 1 thing women look for.

I'm not the only one making these profiles. There are counless other men that I collaborate with on a day-to-day basis and together we make very realistic profiles of people from a variety of different walks of life: doctors, drug dealers, handsome men, beautiful women, average, disabled, deformed, rich, poor, musically gifted, boring, and articulate. In every single situation the good looking, disabled, selfish, piss-broke man won out against a charitable, educated, average looking, and articulate doctor/pilot/writer. It was no contest really. The good looking guy got 60 unsolicited messages in a day and the average looker got about 0 unsolicited messages. The model looking guy who was a cheritable, educated, and articulate got over 80+ messages/day. Looks = Everything.

I'm not faulting women for having these preferences. However, I am faulting them for telling guys bullshit about confidence and personality. An ugly guy with confidence is a creep she wants to get away from. This is the honest, brutal truth and it should be repeated. If you're ugly and confident, you're a creep. The halo effect is strong in women: when they see a good looking man they assume he has a good personality is intelligent and when they see an ugly man they assume he's stupid, boring, or even a rapist.

I know guys who are attending Ivy league schools in the U.S. They are intelligent, articulate, have high earning potential, responsible, hard-working, and appear to have some sense of humour over their dating situation. They don"t have gfs. They don't have sex. They might as well be eunuchs. Why are they in this situation? The simple answer is they're ugly.

The guys who keep going on and on about how women are attracted to assholes have no idea what they are talking about. I'm sure some women are attracted to violent men just as some men might be attracted to women who have body piercings. However, the attraction to handsome men is fairly universal and as much as people would like believe, the truth is looks are not "in the eye of the beholder". That statement is as useful as saying "the colour of grass is in the eye of the beholder".

Women's preferences are as follows from most preferable to least:

1)A good looking guy who treats her well and is faithful to her. This is the ideal catch. He is the prince women are looking for.

2)A good looking guy who doesn't treat her well. She's willing to tolerate his bull shit because he's good looking. A girl might have a few flings with men like this but she will(if she is smart) begrudgingly admit that he will never come around and become a man in the first category. A guy in this category can easily fuck his way through dozens of women by the time he hits his 30s.

3)A guy who isn't good looking but treats her well. If he's well grounded with good financial prospects, he looks like a decent marriage material. Women in their late 20s will start noticing these guys when they start thinking about marriage.

4)A guy who isn't good looking and doesn't treat her well. He's shit out of luck.


p.s. If you'd like me to post the chat logs of some of these conversations just ask.

 

I see your point, but I think for the men in category 2) they know how to move on when a girl is giving them the cold shoulder, because they aren't emotionally involved, they're just looking to get laid.

Do girls who are looking for meaningful relationships get caught up with men in category 2, absolutely and men should leave those women alone and SHOULD only pick up women who also only want flings. But they don't.

And it's these women who get used physically and strung along, when they want something meaningful that create the camp of women who become man haters. (the inverse of why some good guys become women haters)

___
But I should tell you OP that you should've just contributed to the conversation thread that "women think with their penis" because your hitting the same topic...

But nobody said looks don't matter for women, so the definition of the argument is a strawman.
Also even you said the "model looking guy, was charitable, articulate, and educated". So when women see that, they honestly think hey i'm not judging that guy on looks alone, in addition to looks he's got/does this this and this.

Also saying someone is articulate is vauge, are you describing how technical and large someone's vocabulary is when they speak or are you indicating how well the man can weave in emotional poetry in a complex way that creates emotional charm.


Because there are tons of good looking, rich guys, who are complete nerds but still have horrid results with women...why? Because they have jerky body language, and aren't charming, and are instead a nervous wreck. And they lack tact on what kinds of jokes to crack and when. (sidenote: body language might possibly be due to differences in the cerebellum in the brain)

 

????

You have way too much time on your hands. Obviously, you're in the average category. Sorry! But no, seriously, Women don't just care about looks.

How do you think Bill Gates got his wife? Do something to get rich and you'll never have to be good lookin!

One more thing... I know you said you're not blaming women, but you basically are. Guys do it just the same as women, have you ever heard a guy say "I want to meet an ugly girl today?"

 

well yeah women care about looks. but your ordering is slightly off and you barely hit on the money aspect.

1) the good looking rich asshole.
2) the ugly rich asshole.
3) the good looking rich good person.
4) the good looking poor asshole.
5) the ugly rich good person.
6) the good looking poor good person.
7) the ugly poor asshole.
8) the ugly poor good person.

 

Exactly! I told you- women drop their panties for money. (I guess I'm good looking cause I'm broke as hell.)

 

But girls who drop their pants for money really don't make the best wives though.

They might make good or even excellent bedmates, but sincerity and genuine loyalty being there...I really don't know.

 

I think this is one of those paid trolls we were talking about who wants you to email him so he can give you something to make you feel like you need to buy the next thing he offers you to help you get laid.

Also that's a pretty stupid survey because of course online dating is extremely different than meeting people in person.

Personality and tenacity is everything. For sure. You just have to know what you're doing, or actually get along with the person.

 

Many of us have made profiles of retarded, deformed, wheelchair-bound, 300lb fat, and disabled women and they all had 3-10 times the interest of an average guy.

Are you seriously implying that I need to make 40 billion dollars as an average guy to get a wife who looks only slightly better than me? Are you fucking kidding me? That's your argument?

Bill gates and wife:

Nope. I offer no solutions.

 

I guess what's good for the gander is good for the goose. I mean, fuck. Come on. How does this help or do any good for anyone? No one can agree on what's universally attractive, because there's no such thing. Tastes vary enormously, and let's face it - dudes look kind of fucking universally dorky and awkward when compared to women. Yes, that's a result of social conditioning, just like every other damn preference or fetish we stupidly call our own. It ebbs and flows, it waxes and wanes, it's transient as hell and it's never going to change. I say, so fucking what? We all know it's fucking stupid and irrational and misguided to judge a book by its cover, but as long as there are covers on books, we're going to be judging them. We're human beings - we're big stupid, mean, selfish, eating, shitting, smelly naked apes - all of us.

 

OP had to do research to figure this shit out?

 

I agree upon further analysis of the argumentation setup. Troll for sure.

The OP doesn't acknowledge the very real result that some of his "hits" are done by jokersters or even non-humans (bots).

And so the hits that come from his "study" might not even be genuine.
---
I had a group of guy friends in high school and we were absolute pranksters and trolls ourselves and I don't think it's outside the realm of what they'd do, cruelly getting people's hopes up for romance only to shut them down to see if they'll become emo (a sign of weakness among guys a lot of the time, and a ego power boost for some people).

Anyway so this entire "study" being online...not credible enough to make a conclusion given other factors. Sorry.

 

"Study finds women are attracted to good looking men."

Sounds like an onion headline

 

No. study finds women are only attracted to good looking men.

Key word only. Not personality, not money, not occupation, not interests, not inelligence, looks. Only looks.

Not all that different from men really. Women just tend to talk about looks in a very roundabout way by using words like chemistry, personality, confidence.

 

I meant Trump... But no, my argument is to stop whining. Life's not always fair. If you're not good looking, you need 5 X the personality.. or, yeah, 16 billion dollars.

 

my argument is to improve your looks as much as you can through whatever means you have at your disposal gym, surgery, etc


If that doesn't work it's better to spend that money on hookers. This is essentially the logical conclusion of your argument. Ofocurse live in a country where it's legal. lucky me.

 

So, I'm lost. Is this spam? I'm not trying to be an asshole (although I can be.) I've dated a lot of fine women, and I can agree to an extent. But you're saying I only get good looking women because of my looks, and I tend to disagree.

Also, most women I've dated are older than I am. My ex girlfriend was 28, and this girl I'm talking to is 32.. that isn't primarily about one's looks but rather their personality and sometimes even just confidence.

There's someone out there for you, man. I mean she might not be a 10/10 supermodel, but isn't judging based on looks what you don't like to begin with?

 

And your wrong troll! Don't feed him guys, he's not being a realist, but an idealist to get reactions from people. And he's got tons of strawman, and over generalization fallacies that won't help anybody. But make average men shell out tons of $ for surgery (which might kill them or leave medical equipment in them) and offers no advice on how to get emotional fulfillment from a real relationship. (something hookers cannot provide no matter how much $ you have)

 

Where are my overgeneralizations and strawmans? You just called me a troll and you've made many uneducated "generalizations" in this very post.

Do I have to provide advice on how to get emotional fulfillment from a "real" relationship in order to post here? Do my posts need to help people?

Is there something unique about cosmetic surgery that makes it more dangerous than ordinary surgery? I have not had surgery myself but it's an option I'm willing to leave open. If women aren't interested in you, the most likely reason for it is that you're ugly. Then shouldn't you take reasonable steps to a) find out if you're ugly and b)make yourself not ugly? My argument is logical.

 

Here is a thread where the guy says this:

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=454552&f=65

and I basically said that isn't true. Women aren't attracted to any of that. They just tolerate it to be with a good looking guy and I'm the troll here? Did anyone call this guy a troll.

The things he says in this thread are 10 times more ridiculous than anything I said here.

 

1. If you know what a strawman and over generalizations are, you'll know that when I say you've made some, it's because you haven't fairly addressed other factors/details that give the results of your supposed "online study". And from that skewed study you went on to make the case that looks alone matter. <Strawman argument.


I conceeded that women DO take in looks as a factor, but you took the position of ONLY matter. < Over Generalization


Also if you read through the entire thread that you cited, you'll know notice myself and others took every effort to dissect the logic of the OP and other commentors there as well and it turned into a very good conversation. But we pointed out over generalizations in that thread, which if you had read EVERYTHING in that thread before trying to use it in a counter argument against me, you'll see why I think your just a troll that doesn't spend time crafting good argumentation.

I doubt the sincerity of you trying to start legit discussion, and instead just be a shock jock equivalent in a forum.

No your posts don't have to benefit anybody, but it shouldn't be a place to insult people on because of the fallacies.

---
Also if looks ALONE mattered, the guys who are physically handsome only should getting tons of girls. And you would see no girls that look like 8's and 10's being with guys that aren't underwear models. But yet you see this all the time.

And you would see this happen if you weren't so busy trying to do litmus tests through dating website profiles.

I also pointed out 3 qualities you lumped together with physical attractiveness so that skews your results as well because the women are responding to all 3 of those qualities as well as looks. BUT NOT LOOKS ALONE!

---
(sidenote: and yes specifically in the USA with the healthcare system and staff as overworked and stressed as it is, surgery can be quite risky)

You don't consider how advocating surgery as if it's a solution to insecurity with women for men, just feeds the inner confidence problem for average guys who think they're only problem is looks when their failures with women go much deeper than looks. You over simplify the problem, and I take issue with that.