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

One thing i genuinely had trouble understanding from the OP was, giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he wasn't here to troll.

Was he complaining about ugly guys not being able to get laid by women as often as handsome guys?

Or was he complaining about how ugly guys, in their prospects for marriage, have a smaller pool to choose from?

Because you can't lump both complaints for a sole reason at once, cause even he acknowledges the filters are different.

 

And in both cases, certain women would have the same difficulties as certain men. It all seemed very one sided. I'm all for discussing differences between gender, but we all have to be honest about it, and rather than lump 'blame' on one sex we ought try to understand both. Men and women should work to have mutual affection and purpose, both complimentary and cognizant of differing perspective.

 

Here is a thought experiment since you wanted me to delete the dozen chat logs I posted.

case #1 Imagine there's a man lying on the street. disheveled, haggard-looking, broken, broke, smelly, wearing dirty clothes, and can speak only in monosyllables. He's a bum but he has this guy's face:



case #2. A man has all the qualities from 2-12 in your list but he looks like this:


2. Gift of gab (ability to smooth talk) ----- As if anyone will listen to anything he says. Maybe if he's their boss or something. Then they might pretend to care.
3. Is related to #2, and that's how you can use the ability to talk create charm
4. Reading body language --- yes he reads them telling him to go away
5. Bedroom skills (related to #4) ---- when will he need these? The hookers won't care
6. Giving off body language ---- what body language do you suggest he should have?
7. Body scent ----- right... At least they aren't trying to get away immediately?
8. Hygiene (something you can't get an accurate read on by an online profile) ---- comb hair/brush teeth/wash/shave? Things 99% of people do anyways. This is superfluous.
9. Personal Ambition and Drive (not related to the relationship)
---- you now get ass raped in court by your lovely gold digging wife
10. Wealth and social class ---- you now get ass raped in court by your lovely gold digging wife
11. Culture ---- right?
12. Intelligence ---- How many girls do you know that are actively seeking men who are particle physicists/computer scientists/Engineers? How many girls do you know who dream of being with a famous good looking guy? Which group has more people?

Why does maxing one variable from your stupid list and leaving everything else at 0 produce an outcome that is > maxing 11 variables and leaving one variable at 0?

I can predict your next argument. "He doesn't look confident in his photo".

confidence = looks. proof:

 

Actually, my response is both of your examples will fail with women.

And as for your looks argument, we agree that it does matter to a point.

I've remained consistent that if you look like a 1, you aren't going to get a 10 most likely, I'm surprised if one in that situation does.

---
Also I hate to sound mean, but that guy is a prime example of a 2-3 in the looks department imho. I could see him having some success with women up to maybe a 5-6.


Is he going to get entirely shut out with women if he has the qualities of 2-12 in my list. I doubt it.

---
As for your good looking example, he will also fail. He can't really hold a relationship well if he's as you described.

But a main point being, you are not describing the mainstream phenomena.

If people with average looks, weren't successful with women, by your example in your first post (not the title of the thread), most of the world would not have made as many generations as it has.


Also you are tacking on the condition that all the qualities 2-12, need to not be there, to = lacking a nice face.

I did no such thing, when I made that list.

I swear if you smell bad despite all your efforts to change your scent (lacking quality #7) tons of women will not go out with you, despite looks. Luckily most people can solve this with a good bath and product, but still not any more or less important than looks.

 

I didn't think I could ever take a guy that numerically rates looks' opinion seriously on sexual matters, but this is probably the best put argument I've seen in this thread:

 

A very naive argument.

"

The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women?
It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes,every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children.
Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
I think this difference is the single most under appreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced."


http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm/

 

@Duck, thanks.

Well haha, I get your point on scientists bit, but I think you're going off a sterotype. I happen to have multiple friends who have a dad who is a scientist, they're parents seem to have a happy relationship.

Acknowledging the super brainy people failing with women though, well let's just say they miss one or more of the requirements on the list I made.
Also let's acknowledge that to a point being too involved in your career will hamper a relationship, and could make it fail.

 

^ ok taking that at face value though which is a stretch because if you want to start at the origin of the human race there are so many MORE variables to consider now other than my 12 factor list because standards for survival and who a woman would mate with have changed throughout time.

(you also have to acknowledge women were heavily treated as property and didn't have a choice either at various points in ancient history)

And again now you encounter #11, which is culture, which it appears you didn't understand what i meant by that when I listed it out.

 

I will try to find the paper but it compares the level of mutation in mitochondrial dna(passed down through mothers) with the mutations in regular cellular dna.

edit:http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/11/2047.full.pdf

humans have existed for about 200k years and most hunter gatherer societies are considered to be relatively egalitarian between genders.

The "standards for survival and who a woman would mate with" have not changed through time. There are two basic criteria:

1) Is he attractive? Attractiveness signals good hormonal balance, symmetry, high testosterone/estrogen ratio (implying good immune system because testosterone has immune system suppressing effects), HGH levels and a hundred other things.

2)Is he willing to and capable of providing for me?


What other standards are there?

 

What it means to be provided for has changed because society has changed. It isn't a simple hunter and gatherer world for the developed nations.

Those are all good theories as to why looks matter and why we ARE critical of it.
---

Now again I will state this again:

I do believe if your good looking and have some of the other 11 factors I listed are you more likely to get laid overall compared to someone who has those same qualities and isn't as good looking? Absolutely!

In some cases you are outclassed. But its not based on looks alone or any more or less than other factors.

 

Isn't it obvious? If women don't need provisioning they will choose men who are physically attractive and won't care about the second category. It's well correlated in hunter gatherer societies that more food in an area --> more polygyny

I think you greatly understate the situation.

There's a reason why women only ovulate a few days per month. Most animals have a "breeding season" but people don't. It's because children, in most of human history, required years of provisioning. Most people can provide but most can't be physically attractive.

Women are most likely to cheat when they are ovulating and they do so with more attractive men than their partners. ie the sexy son hypothesis.

 

All I've seen you argue here is that monogamy isn't natural.
A totally different topic altogether.

 

You brought up the monogamy is natural situation right here:

"
If people with average looks, weren't successful with women, by your example in your first post (not the title of the thread), most of the world would not have made as many generations as it has."

Just because someone is married/has a partner, it doesn't mean they are successful with women. I disputed your claim and now you say it's off topic. you are full of shit you know that?

Every time I challenge something that you bring up, it's off topic?

 

Do you ever go outside to see the sunlight and meet some real people?

Do they also live in basements?

 

No I didn't. My post mentioned marriage but I did not mention monogamy. You took liberty with my post and argued another strawman.

Also you don't make sense saying men who are married don't have success with women.

Not every guy is going to be a player.

---
Also in the past might I mention there were arranged marriages which in which the woman may not have married whom they desired or wished to have children with.

 

Also people can survive just fine without having kids in the modern age.

Look for simplicity's sake, I'm arguing that a handsome guy who say for example smells bad will also have trouble picking up women. I'm saying looks aren't going to make women overlook things like personality, if she's looking for a relationship. If she's just looking for sex personality might not matter.

I don't know if you noticed or not, but you make it sound that playing around is the better option than settling down in a good long term relationship, if you like monogamy, if you don't well your looking for a girl who won't mind an open relationship.

 

There is no bullshit about confidence and personality. They are essential for a working, lasting serious long-term relationship. They aren't essential for a good one night stand though. Which is common sense.

For a long-term relationship looks definitely aren't the no. 1 priority. At least not for those, whose relationships actually work.
We(women) ultimately choose someone, who gives us what we need. Which can be very different from what we want. We might want an athletic, great looking guy with amazing personality, successful job and enough money to last for a lifetime. What we actually need is friendship, trust, support, emotional connection, good vibe, humor, nice sex life. If there are more guys we can have that with, we will choose the best looking one.

(I know, don't feed the troll..but still..)
To OP: Shame on you for misleading people on online dating sites. And don't give me the "research" excuse, because the whole concept has too many flaws to count. Mentioning there are other people involved just makes it worse. Haven't you outgrown the "let's do what we saw on TV" stage yet?

 

Thanks lively for siding with what I'm saying.

But I will say the OP does have a point, that looks do matter, it's just he oversteps his arguement he says it's the only thing that matters and then goes on to say being in a marriage doesn't mean your successful with women.

So I guess the OP never really defined what "success with women" is exactly.

So I'm gonna define it.

I think looks matter MORE if you're a handsome guy that is just playing around. But girls who go with these kinds of guys also are just looking to play around, they aren't necessarily even looking for commitment at all.

Women don't settle for marriage exactly, as if it was a business arrangement in modern day, if they do I'd question the health of that marriage.

 

^
I totally agree .

 

i might break your little rubrick because I am not attractive and have done well.

though the problems might be the dating sites, girls on those may be different and I have had problems in the internet but in person one can "work it"

though no duh women are driven by looks. my first advice to egible but unluky bachelors is to work out lose weight dress nice shower often and clean your car and house.

I fail to do those things, because am I lazy and have found that kindness, heart, and intelligence mixed with constant trial and error require a lot less discipline.