Why Men Don’t Need To Worry So Much About Their Looks

The online dating site OkCupid’s crack team of SWPLs analyzed user data and made some interesting discoveries about men’s and women’s looks and how their attractiveness, or lack thereof, affects their profile response rate.

First, they posted two graphs which show how men and women rank the physical attractiveness of the opposite sex based on profile photos.

The first graph is a superimposed comparison of male appraisals of female attractiveness and the actual messages men sent to women:

Men have a very realistic appraisal system of women’s looks that clashes with their less realistic self-appraisal system of their chances to get the hottest babes. As you can see from the graph, men accurately rate most fertile-age women as mediocre lookers, with smaller contingents of the very ugly and very beautiful. This assessment accords with reality. But then, men send most of their messages to the hottest 20% of women.

As we will see, men are more forgiving than women in their ranking of the opposite sex’s looks, but they are less forgiving in their message send rate.

As with women, by their actions ye shall know them.

The graph might convince some that men have an entitlement complex as entrenched and powerful as women do, but that would be a misleading conclusion to the data. Men value looks above almost everything else in women, and this is particularly true when men have little to go on except online profiles. The photo looms large in online dating. Since women’s looks are so incredibly important to men’s happiness as regards their sex and love lives, men’s decisions to shoot for the moon on the one female variable that really matters in an environment that is conducive to mass approaches, (something which would not be feasible in a real world context), makes perfect sense as a courtship strategy. There is little risk that a man who follows this online strategy will refuse to later date down if the first wave of messages he sent to the 9s and 10s doesn’t pan out.

It’s all about investment cost. It costs men very little in time or effort to send a message to one hundred 9s on OkCupid, so the fact that they do so is less proof of their self-entitlement than it is of their rational utility maximization.

It’s more insightful to say that men have less an entitlement complex (as the term is understood when applied to female behavior) than that they have a tactical complex.

Now let’s take a look at the superimposed graph of female appraisals of male attractiveness and female message sent rate:

This is where things get interesting. The first surprise that jumps out in this graph is how harsh women are in their assessment of men’s looks. According to women’s perspectives, 80% of men fall on the ugly side of the physical attractiveness spectrum. This is way out of line with a reality where nearly every human trait is distributed normally. Clearly, women have a skewed entitlement complex much larger than men’s in how they judge the attractiveness of the opposite sex.

Yet look around you and you’ll see much more than 20% of men either hooking up or in relationships of varying strength with women. How can this be if women think 80% of men are ugly? Well, it can only be if women don’t put as much emphasis on men’s looks. And the second line in the above graph is evidence that men’s looks simply aren’t as important to women as women’s looks are to men. Women’s message distribution more accurately reflects their ranking of men’s looks than does men’s message distribution reflect their ranking of women’s looks.

That is, women may be saying one thing — men are mostly ugly — but they are doing the opposite — sending messages to lots of ugly men.

Do we really need more proof that men should never listen to what women say they find attractive and instead should WATCH what kinds of men women fall for? If you are a stickler for reams of scientific evidence, there was a NewYorkBetaTimes article not too long ago about a study that essentially confirmed for all men who know the score that what women claim they respond to sexually and what actually causes their vaginas to tingle is COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED.

That one study alone probably affirmed more about the core concepts of game than any other. That is, affirmed for those who disbelieve the field experience of millions of men.

Back to the second graph: there is a big difference between men and women in the number of messages each sends to the more physically attractive members of the opposite sex. OkCupid doesn’t delve very deeply into the implications, but we here at the Chateau will, and by doing so a crucial component of female mate preference is revealed:

Women are messaging less attractive men (according to women’s own assessments) because the suite of male attractiveness traits that women viscerally respond to includes much more than male physical attractiveness.

Women are looking at and judging the ENTIRE PROFILE of men on OkCupid and sending messages based on a more holistic appreciation of attractive male qualities. And what we can see based on female message sent rates is that plenty of ugly men — as perceived by women — are bringing other, compensating, attractiveness characteristics to the table that women find desirable in a mate.*

This conclusion is perfectly aligned with evolutionary psychology theory.

Moral of the post: Men, work on your looks, get yourself looking as good as possible, but don’t worry so much if you’re not among the best looking men in the room. A lack of good looks is simply not the deal breaker for men that it is for women in the sexual marketplace.

*It should be noted that a secondary motivation for women messaging lots of “ugly” men on OkCupid has to do with women’s greater craving for ego assuaging, which is much easier to obtain in the online environment. Most men can handle a fair amount of rejection from hotties without crumbling into a puddle of self-doubt, and they don’t need a lot of compensating attention from less desirable women to make them feel better. Women, in contrast, cannot handle even a little bit of rejection from very attractive men, and they do get a thrill from receiving lots of “safe” internet attention from hordes of lickspittle betas. Yet another reason why online game is pointless for the huge majority of unenlightened men, but a cornucopia of cooch for those few men who know how to game the system.

It should be stressed that this is a SECONDARY motivation, as the graphs are showing women who are actively messaging these “ugly” men, (which indicates a desire to establish contact beyond that afforded by the quickie ego stroke), instead of waiting around for betas to message them. This is a critical distinction from the sort of attention that a hottie will get when her inbox floods with 50 boring unsolicited emails every hour.





Comments


  1. Is “fatness” included as a metric to “attractiveness”?

    Like


    • Weight is built into the attractiveness, which will eventually drive the conventionally distributed (objective) male assessment of female beauty in Chart 1 toward the typically female (delusional) assessment of male attractiveness of Chart 2. Fatness will account for the gradual leftward shift of the bell-curve (I’m curvy!) without sacrificing its objectivity. The female judgment of Chart 2 is the Ghost of Fatness Future, soon to appear in the clear-eyed and honest Chart 1.

      Considering the rapid onset of wide-spread (heh) obesity, it’s a shame that so many men, more objective though they are, still grade on a curve (heh heh) rather than against a more platonic standard of beauty. There is no way that 60% of our porkulous sperm-soaked square-jawed bow-legged overeducated American female populace is between 4’s and 6’s, except on a relative scale (heh heh heh).

      Eat, Pray, Eat, Love, Eat.

      Liked by 1 person


  2. First Red Pill effect – learning to ignore what women say and only act/react based on what they do.

    Once that effect has kicked, the rest becomes easy.

    Like


    • Ignoring what they say will strip you of valuable information. Simply don’t take it at face value automatically is sufficient.

      Like


    • That is so, so true. Game is not much of a challenge for me anymore now that I’ve internalized that. Case in point, had a girl over last night – this morning she found an empty condom wrapper from another tryst down the side of my bed – got a bunch of accusatory questions and looks. I just completely ignored them. She left in a huff, and then this afternoon I get a text message saying ‘Great to see you last night x’. It’s like I’m living in the fucking Matrix, I swear.

      Like


  3. An alpha can be fat, bald and broke and still land hot women. That’s been proven for a long time.

    The question is — does any particular individual alpha want to keep a certain individual woman long term, or is he looking for a one night stand?

    If you want to keep a woman in your life, say as a wife/mother, there are steps an alpha can take that can help for one major reason: if that alpha is attractive to other women, he has a better chance of chaining down a woman because women are competitive, and they need external validation of seeing that their man has options.

    If you’re just looking for a one night stand, looks/physique/dress don’t matter. For long term relationships, continued social proof is necessary for your woman to prove to herself that you’re a valuable good.

    I’m not a physically attractive man, although I’m in great shape (top 2%?), I have awesome posture and I get plenty of compliments from not just the women I date, but their family, co-workers, friends, etc. It’s that continued social proof that makes them stick like glue to me — and even tricks them into thinking I’m gorgeous.

    The woman’s mind is a hilarious contraption, but it’s run on social proof batteries.

    Like


    • Wise words. By the way AB, great blog. Looking forward to your next update.

      Like


      • Thanks, I appreciate it. I’m doing a ton of travel in November and December, so I haven’t had time to sit down and smash the keys, but I have a few pending posts to toss up there soon enough.

        Like


      • on December 2, 2011 at 5:44 pm Fake PUA Meme

        Claims not to have time to smash keys

        Consistently first comment on every single thread

        Like


      • That’s a sign of a competent businessman/multi-tasker, not an indication that someone’s got too much time on his hands. He saw the e-mail come in and he responded to it fast and efficiently and did the same with other e-mails. I’d note this even if I didn’t agree with what he writes.

        Like


      • Reading a blog and composing a post is a 120 second investment.

        Good writing, however, takes much time, even if it is only a short 750 word essay.

        Like


      • There’s the truth. Plus, I can respond to a blog post from my iPad or my phone, but writing an essay really requires sitting down at a full sized keyboard, plus I generally need a muse to start writing (emails from people with questions help).

        Like


      • lol @ anklebiters

        The farther one goes down the rabbit hole, the more good blogs one encounters, and the more new reading there is to pick and choose from each day. It does affect productivity at times, and the feeling of needing to cull is sad.

        Like


      • Spent some time on your blog a few weeks ago – couldn’t find a way to email you. Is that intentional? Other than that, nice blog.

        Like


      • Curious. I’ll add an email link — appreciate the compliments and the note.

        Like


    • @AB Dada–

      The woman’s mind is a hilarious contraption, but it’s run on social proof batteries.

      Funny. And tru dat.

      Like


    • Yes, “contraption” is le mot juste for the female mind.

      What a tragedy that the fathers of our generation didn’t drill this into their young sons’ minds, and that we had to confirm our instincts — that women are not the omnicompetent equivalent of a man — through trial and error. What a waste of precious youth.

      It saddens me that so few grown men among my peers are candidates for brotherhood. The feminist disease is terminal in them, and there can be no reeducation. I will weep for joy when the first men’s club reopens, sometime in my senescence. Before then, alas, there are many battles to be fought.

      Like


      • I’m not so sure.

        I’ve been warning beta schlubs for many a year, and it only shows up as truth to them once they’ve been seriously harmed by a woman they swear they did everything “right” for.

        I think, eventually, more than half of the betas can understand being a man, it just takes great pain and loss.

        “The Kingdom of Game is as if a man should cast seed on the earth, and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should spring up and grow, he doesn’t know how. For the earth bears fruit: first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the fruit is ripe, immediately he puts forth the sickle, because the harvest has come.”

        Like


      • True enough. That’s my despair talking, anyway. Too many jealous husbands and boyfriends giving me beta bravado lately, and I just want to say, Brother, what the fuck, man? We’re not enemies in this war, how can you be so whipped by such obvious female delusion? Fighting over women? We’ve got bigger fish to fry, my friend. But we don’t speak a common language anymore. It seems like I have to start at square one with these excitable chumps, and I would appreciate it had their fathers prepared them better.

        For all the power of the red-pill metaphor, we still have this noisome culture all around us that keeps tugging otherwise strong men back to the bad old habits and ideologies. Still, the change may yet be rapid and comprehensive, if not instantaneous, once we reach the tipping point. But when will that be?

        “How long, O LORD? Wilt thou forget me for ever? … How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?”

        When we elect a pregnant woman to the office of the presidency? Is that the straw that will break the camel-sized feminist’s back? Or when the Last Beta sees his wife break down in tears under the pressures of a man, and is moved to disgust and contempt rather than compassion, pity, and protectiveness? Will that be the moment of man’s redemption? And is that soon or in the far-off future?

        “Of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

        Ours is the age of bastardy, of fatherless sons muddling through manhood. As Adam Carolla noticed on a recent podcast, your late-boyhood beard doesn’t compensate for the complete absence of manliness in every other area of your life; you’re fooling no one with your facial hair, hipster-pussy.

        Like


      • how can you be so whipped by such obvious female delusion?

        When one holds the same delusions, it is not so obvious. Therefore, it must be protected.

        Also, progressive have taught us to see the individual. Not the group. How many men have been seriously burned once, only to do it again with another woman? They can’t see that we are mostly the same in our heads (damn hamster). They see a different woman who must obviously be different than last time. Only it turns out that she is mostly the same.

        The only thing a man can do better is himself. He might be surprised that the people who choose to stick around do a fair bit of changing as well.

        Like


      • “Seeing once is better than hearing one hundred times.”

        Like


      • I used to live in a city in central Florida full of Greek nationals. There is one back street in the old center of town that comes alive at night with barren, smoky men’s clubs; old timers inside playing dominoes, young punks outside smoking Marlboros and setting up lays.

        I would avoid this street as it made me sharpy aware that I lack what these men enjoy, and shall for a generation yet: a people. Truth is, it made me feel like a lonely cur, and I avoided it after two or three passes.

        Like


      • That’s why I love Chicago and call it home even though I’m only in town 40-60% of the year — it’s the last remaining segregated urban area, with each Little Country area full of culture and spark that gets destroyed by integration or gentrification.

        Miami used to feel that way, but even Little Cuba has gone to pot.

        Like


  4. I online date quite a bit. My sucess level isn’t necessarily that great but it’s been good enough to establish that if you can get her to hit the ‘send’ button, you’re in.

    Like


  5. Cool graphs, but there are caveats. For one, good looking men don’t have OkCupid profiles.

    [Heartiste: Actually, they do. There are a couple examples right at the linked okcupid post for your masturbatory perusal.]

    Neither, perhaps, does god looking women, although I wouldn’t be so sure about that, since wealthy or otherwise eligible men may be cruising such sites.

    [The female lookers posted at that link are pretty hot.]

    Either way, women seem to spend the better part of their lives looking at magazines and TV programming featuring celebrity (generally very good looking) men.

    [The relevant male variable isn’t their looks, it’s their fame.]

    I’d be surprised if the men on OkCupid spend nearly as much time obsessing over corresponding bracket women.

    [Ever heard of playboy, internet porn, or anything else that features pics of hot chicks men jerk to?]

    Doesn’t make your conclusion invalid. Just pointing out some likely biases in the data.

    [okcupid, like any online matchmaking repository, isn’t without its biases, but neither is it wildly off the mark. The data clearly present some solid evidence that looks matter more for women’s dating success than they do for men’s.]

    Like


    • That’s total bullshit.

      I have a few friends in major metropolitan areas who are 9s or higher (guys and gals) who have OKCupid profiles. It’s a website that’s a great place for a late night hookup, and it’s also a solid place to make new friends when you’re in a new town and you’re not a barcrawler.

      For dating, it’s no different than any other dating website, but there are definitely pretty gals and handsome guys on there.

      I signed up for OKCupid and addressed myself in a small European city (under 100,000 population) because I’m visiting there in spring for a weekend and have no desire to get out — I just posted saying I’m visiting, need a host to show me around, etc. The women in this city on there are all 6s or better, and some are pushing upper 8s.

      I wouldn’t use a dating site in my town, necessarily, but it has advantages for making connections on-the-go, and not everyone is fat and old on some sites.

      Like


      • It probably works better outside the States than in them. I’ve done much the same things you’re describing and I’m pulling in pretty much bupkus.

        Like


    • Stuki wrote: “Neither, perhaps, does god looking women….”

      Where are these god looking women of which you speak?

      The deliverance of the skanks from their despond, revealed through typographical error. He works his wisdom in mysterious ways indeed. “Even the demons believe — and shudder.”

      Like


    • Stuki,

      You’re clearly ignorant about online dating. It’s ok, educate yourself. Perhaps look at the advertising revenue growth for this industry over the past ten years. Then review some of the various sites yourself. You can browse for free.

      Like


  6. 1) Online dating is for the guys who lost in the real life game.

    [Heartiste: Maybe at one time, but not anymore.]

    2) Every women knows that OkCupid (and whatever) is a catalogue of betas.

    [Irrelevant.]

    3) If she’s looking for a man there, then she’s seeking a beta provider.

    [Irrelevant.]

    4) Looks are not the main feature in a beta provider.

    [Looks are not the predominant feature in any kind of man a woman desires, and I’m including one night stands in this as well. A good looking man can kill his chances by acting or talking like a beta.]

    q.e.d.

    10s and 9s don’t need to go after men online. If she’s doing so, probably her intentions are machiavellian: find a nice puppy husband to settle.

    If a 10 want’s alpha cock all she has to do is go out and wait for the approach.

    And alpha means also good looking and in shape, as we can see in the post “DMV test for Men” at the top of the blog’s page.

    [Being handsome and fit are only two of many variables which in total contribute to a man’s attractiveness to women.]

    Like


    • What attractive qualities do the ugly beta’s have that the better looking beta not posses?

      None.

      [Heartiste: No one is claiming that men’s looks don’t matter at all. All else equal, it’s better to be tall, thin and hirsute than short, fat and bald. But all else is rarely equal, and in the domain of women’s attractiveness preferences, men’s looks are simply less important to women than women’s looks are to men. The data, not to mention real world observation, confirm this over and over again.]

      Like


      • [Heartiste: No one is claiming that men’s looks don’t matter at all.

        Of course male looks matter, but obviously not enough to have women message the good looking beta’s over the uglier ones. That’s the point I was trying to make to carioca.

        If all the men on dating sites are betas as carioca believes, then women would pick the best looking ones if males looks mattered all that much to women.

        Like


      • The response rate data in the blog post shows that male attractiveness actually matters a lot. The top 20% of guys have 2-3 times more responses and are the only guys who regularly hear back from the most attractive girls.

        However, the other 80% of guys are lumped into the ugly bucket and small differences in looks don’t seem to matter that much.

        [Heartiste: Misleading. You’re not comparing the relevant variables. You need to compare overall female send rate with overall male send rate. That’s where the data show that women value male looks less than men value female looks.]

        Like


      • The ‘success rate’ for men’s messages seems the most relevant because women rarely initiate conversations. (It’s something like 20:1 male senders)

        [Heartiste: Again, no one is disputing that men send more messages than women. This is totally predictable according to spread the seed, horde the egg EP theory. But it’s irrelevant to the point of this post, which is that women at all attractiveness levels underrate men’s looks yet, paradoxically, it doesn’t matter because women (including the hotties) don’t put as much emphasis on the importance of men’s looks WHEN COMPARED TO the emphasis that men put on the importance of women’s looks.
        This is an intersex comparison, not an intrasex comparison.]

        Like


    • OkCupid is a catalog of single moms who got knocked up by an alpha and now need a beta to raise their spawn. They absolutely flock to that thing.

      Like


      • Heh… I’m inclined to agree with you there Libertardian.

        Like


      • Yes, or childless, increasingly desperate, early-30s chicks looking to have babies and settle down. I got tons of responses to my profile when I dabbled in OKCupid, but it was too depressing to make the effort. I don’t find that sort of desperation attractive…

        Like


    • I recently talked to a woman who does online dating and she told me she is not looking for anything serious, just someone to have fun with.

      Like


    • 1) Online dating is for the guys who lost in the real life game.
      Perhaps some. Rather than excluding yourself from another venue to pull #s, give it a try. You can do it taking a shit.

      2) Every women knows that OkCupid (and whatever) is a catalogue of betas.
      Baseless assumption.

      3) If she’s looking for a man there, then she’s seeking a beta provider.
      Same as 2.

      4) Looks are not the main feature in a beta provider.
      Nor are they in an alpha fuck master.

      Like


  7. Aren’t there a lot more men than women on dating sites? My understanding was that an even average looking woman will receive plenty of mails. That could mean that many women don’t have to send messages first. Could it be that the women who are messaging the men are the ugliest or the ones who have issues that make finding dates hard (single mothers for example) maybe they contact the ugly men because that’s their best shot if they are thinking realistically. (of course not all women in the darting market are realistic.)

    Like


    • Depends on the dating site. OKC happens to have QUITE a bit of women- but they tend to not message back. I’ve found it to be more than a bit of a waste of time. The women are pretty much ranging from 4-6 with the occasional 7 (at least in the areas I’ve been in and trying to use the site…) with the impression that they’re this special little snowflake- and tend to not respond to any contacts to start up a conversation. No matter how witty, clever, alpha or beta you come across as…silence is all you mostly get back.

      Like


      • I’ve found this too. The OK Cupid women simply don’t respond even to friendly comments. I do much better on Craigslist despite the fewer numbers.

        Like


  8. Let me get my hands…

    Like


  9. you need to include male height in this assessment and see how that relates

    Like


  10. The most important thing to know about female perception of a man’s appearance is that it changes massively over time.

    You game her right and she thinks your ugly ass is just lovely. So there’s more than enough hope out there for you not very handsome devils.

    Like


    • Very true. Women aren’t going to perceive a not very good looking man who has tight game and high status handsome exactly, but rather will see him as masculine strong and sex looking. Examples in actors are Humphrey Bogart and Russell Crowe, neither of whom are really very good looking. Also Mick Jagger, who’s downright ugly looking as a static image.

      Like


    • The inverse also true. A man that looks very attractive at first sight who we later find out is very beta will then turn onto a dopey looking guy. I can’t stress enough that attitude (game) is SO much more important than looks. Looks might open the door initially, but they do nothing in the long term (long term being five minutes sometimes).

      Like


  11. Ok. I am a dull witted fool. How do we use this data to increase our chances online? Can you write a post or even a book on how to do online dating the right way? This is something people will pay for.

    Like


  12. I was in great shape when in college, and did ok with the ladies. Now I only work out for primarily for my health so I’m only in ok shape and yet I do great with the ladies.

    Feminists want men to believe that our looks matter as a form of revenge for all the cosmetic attention women need to give themselves for us. Of course such “self improvement” is a big waste of time for dudes.

    Stop drinking that light beer.

    Like


    • Ugh…light beer… Nasty assed stuff- and I try never to drink it. I would rather have a nice belgian beer or something from a decent microbrewery.

      In truth, I’m surprised to find that women actually DO message a bunch on OKC…guess I’m not ugly enough… 😀

      Like


  13. Alternate analysis: ugly guys

    [Heartiste: Except these guys aren’t ugly. The data show that women have a skewed perception of men’s looks in the negative direction that doesn’t accord with a normally distributed population. Now maybe there was a time when more men were ugly on sites like okcupid than in the real world, but the times have changed. Everyone and his brother is on these sites now.]

    get lots of messages because ugly girls shoot low out of fear of rejection.

    [Nope. Check out the link. Girls are shooting higher than their rankings of the opposite sex’s looks, just as men are, but the difference is that they don’t overshoot nearly as high as men do.]

    Hot babes send few if any messages and just let the messages roll in.

    [That’s true, but it’s irrelevant to this discussion. When hot babes do send messages, they are not overshooting based on men’s looks as much as men are overshooting based on women’s looks.]

    Like


    • Here’s a completely unrelated study:

      http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture/casual-sex-men-women-not-so-different-after-all-28451/

      If you look past the “men and women are the same” rhetoric and focus on the results of the various “Clark and Hatfield” scenarios, you’ll see that absent some additional context (such as: the guy is Johnny Depp), women almost unanimously reject offers for casual sex. In fact, women were more likely to accept a woman’s proposition than an unknown man’s.

      Game fundamentals would predict exactly this. A man approaching a woman requesting casual sex is inherently lowering his status, and leaving approximation of looks to the imagination of the woman suggests that the chances.

      The study also confirms that vast wealth is not inherently a turn-on, Donald Trump didn’t fare so well.

      [Heartiste: While the conclusions are inarguable, the title of that post is so misleading it’s borderline laughable as an example of PC suckuppery. “men and women are not so different after all”? Uh, no, that’s not what the study implies. If casual sex is more pleasurable for men than women, then that tells us that men are indeed very different from women.
      PC kills minds dead.]

      Like


      • bah, I meant to say that “leaving approximation of looks to the imagination of the woman suggests that the chances of success are essentially zero.”

        When women imagine an average man, they imagine a guy in the middle of that okcupid chart, a sexually unattractive man.

        Like


      • I’d file that study under “don’t listen to women”. College women would only have casual sex with Johnny Depp …. yeah, right.

        One of the game blogs had a story about a control study some guys did. They would walk up to girls in bars and say something like “Hi, I’m Fred, do you want to have sex?” and something like 5% agreed on the spot and a lot of the others struck up a conversation.

        Like


      • “College women would only have casual sex with Johnny Depp”

        … If that, and the proposition, was all they had to go on. There are a couple of differences with the bar scenario (as you describe it, anyway).

        First, is that simply answering yes to the question isn’t the same as actually agreeing to sex. Any woman clever enough to know she can always change her mind later can say anything she wants.

        Also, when a guy approaches in a bar, a number of variables may influence the response in his favor, which were (in theory) controlled for in the Clark-Hatfield study. In particular, his body language from the moment she first notices him to the moment he approaches, as well as his body language and tone of voice during delivery of the line.

        Also, a semi-response to Heartiste, the other suggestion the article makes is that since women aren’t likely to orgasm on the first encounter they’re less likely to agree to casual sex. While I’m sure that’s true to an extent, I don’t believe that’s the only or even the primary explanation.

        Like


      • It would take a lot of game to blatantly proposition someone – IMO the control study likely shows that intangibles such as body language, looks, and ‘social proof’ matter a lot more than routines, and you’re screening for horny chicks.

        The Clark and Hatfield thing just seems pointless because on Saturday night, those same girls will admit they’re out trolling for dick.

        And slutty chicks always have their hilarious stories about male sex dysfunction (couldn’t get it up, three incher, came in thiry seconds, etc), so that probably is a factor. Most women would rather bootycall an old ex or a well-recommended stud before they lay a random dude.

        Like


  14. How many bonafide female 9s and 10s exist within the realm of online dating sites? I’ve seen quite a few 7s and the occasional 8 but have yet to lay sight on the ladies of superior ranking.

    ( A “dolled up” 8 is not a 9/10)

    Like


    • How do you define personally a 9 and 10?

      Like


      • Not even an 8 in my book. Maybe a 7.5.

        First of all, she’s wearing makeup. Dada’s Maxim #7: “Thou shalt not judge beauty until it wakes up next to you, showers, and is wearing sweatpants.” Having a half naked gal wearing make up while posing in a photograph means nothing: show me the 25 other photos they deleted because they didn’t work right.

        Secondly, her boobs are too small for those hips. That gal is going to have a helluva FUPA in 5-10 years, too.

        There are other flaws that limit her 9/10 potential, but those are the two big ones in my opinion.

        A 10, to me, doesn’t need makeup and sexy clothing to be knock out gorgeous, and she’ll have a better tits:waist:hip ratio.

        Like


      • dada i was just about to call a 7.5 as well. face 8, bod 7. both are = importance to me so that makes it a 7.5. totally agree the key flaw is a tiny chest and a huge, huge set of hips an ominous pudge in the gut foretelling future fatness.

        guys rlly gotta up their standards. i see better looking than that during a 10 min walk on an given day in any major north american city. see better in <5 min if im in europe.

        Like


      • I think if I posted my photos of 10s, people would think I was more into women of average look, but for me the truest part of beauty is hard for plenty of men to decipher.

        I like women who don’t have black bags under the eyes, who have pouty lips but not stripper DSLs, who have perky T&A with not an ounce of belly pudge. Long legs, short torsos, no arm flab whatsoever, long straight hair and little-to-no-makeup.

        It’s subjective, for sure, but I can’t begin to count how often a guy friend will point at a gal in a bar and say “she’s a 10” and I’ll look over and shudder. Most nighttime 10s don’t pass the boner test for me.

        Also, a 10 can not be a 10 in my book unless she can cook. The hottest models in the world are capped at 9 because of their uselessness in the kitchen.

        How I weigh the ranking:

        0-3 points for body
        0-3 points for face/hair/lips/eyes
        0-1 point for ability to cook
        0-2 points for how she dresses/lack of tattoos or weird piercings
        0-1 points for her laugh/voice/outward displays of attraction

        That’s probably why I shun the gals who are most attracted to strong Game (i.e., the model types) — they tend to have incredible bodies (3), beautiful faces (3), dress well and don’t tattoo (2), but they’re 8s because they don’t laugh and they can’t cook.

        Like


      • What the hell kind of woman does not like to laugh?! I sit here and read about the women the men here meet and am sometimes stunned. I don’t hang out with many people and don’t know many women beyond casual acquaintance. I am missing nothing.

        Like


      • Tough crowd where Esti G. barely scrapes by with a 7.5.

        http://tinyurl.com/Let-s-take-another-look-at-her

        This girl is of an unusually high quality. Her skin, hair, and stature amount to something serious, even alarming.

        I don’t mind the smallish breasts and the beautiful hips: there’s nothing more brain-destroying than a tall beauty built just that way when she’s on all fours.

        Makeup in this case is doing very little — look at the structure. That level cannot be faked.

        Like


      • Here’s a tasty asian 10. Does anyone feel that this face is less than beautiful?

        http://tinyurl.com/yellow-10

        Like


      • Again — it seems we have here what standups call a tough room…

        Maybe we can agree on this:

        http://tinyurl.com/not-safe-for-work-or-sanity

        I think we can.–

        Like


      • You’re losing credibility.

        http://celebrityodor.com/galleries/2009/12/esti_ginzburg_personal_photos_leaked/esti_ginzburg_personal_photos_leaked_005.php

        http://celebrityodor.com/galleries/2009/12/esti_ginzburg_personal_photos_leaked/esti_ginzburg_personal_photos_leaked_010.php

        How can you tell if the Asian is a 10 with no ass/hip and tit photo link?

        Even assuming “me so horny” has a great ass and great rack at best she’s a 9. Good looking face, but not beautiful face.

        Like


      • 10 is rarefied atmosphere. you’re less likely to get agreement on a 10 than on a 7 or 8. some guys won’t give out 10’s on principle. i think we can all agree that she passes the boner test.

        byt she looks like she has the potential to balloon really quickly if she were to spend a couple of years in america.

        Like


      • I will repeat… to be a 10 a girl must have a great face, great tits and great hips/ass. The jap pornstar certainly has great tits, but the face is average. Can’t see the ass very well.

        Same girl right?

        http://postimage.org/image/1cg91ht50/

        Like


      • She’s a 7. Her three important body regions (face, breasts, hips/ass) are all good, but not one of them is great!

        Like


      • Review the 12/3 2:21 PM link.

        Like


      • With respect to Asami Yuma. Yes, that’s her in your pics.

        Her face is *very* cute; her ass is superb and her tits are unspeakable.

        It would be an interesting world in which that was the face of your average girl.

        Post your 10 — I’m very curious.

        Like


      • Agreed on the SMV assessment. There is always the initial public beautified one vs. the ‘real’ assessment that AB describes.

        My closest friends and I use the qualifiers “soft” and “solid”.

        For example I would give this girl a “soft 8” which means 8 at very best, but can see it sliding down to a 7.5. I’d give her soft 8 because of her youthful beauty, which will decline over time.

        All in all, the way I see SMV is that it’s a PERSONAL assessment for you to gauge your own attraction to a woman. Fuck what others think. And it’s important to be honest with yourself in your pursuit to bang more beautiful women. We all have certain archetypes/features of women we are more attracted to.

        I like to keep pictures in my phone of my conquests. Look back at them during different times, moods etc. Even your own mind can slide SMV around after the fact.

        Like


      • JEWESS ALERT. And an armed and belligerent one at that!

        http://www.forward.com/articles/110363/

        She even had the nerve to call out her fellow christkiller Bar Raefeli for avoiding compulsory service in the IDF. Somebody get uh on the phone, stat.

        Like


      • Looks like a 9 in that pic, 8 in the 2 previous pics.

        Like


      • Better MajikFireHornet, the master of insidious Ashkenazi succubi:

        http://seductivejewess.wordpress.com

        Like


      • I’d fuck it, but she wouldn’t be a 10 even if I were drunk. Tit-to-hip is awful, plus she’s tall; would be an awkward lay as that body type always is. Face is bland like a doll’s, eyes droopy. Looks obnoxious and self-important. She has an air of denial about her — denying she isn’t a slender 15 year old anymore.

        Like


      • WTF? Esti Ginzburg is so not a 10.

        Like


      • She’s definitely a 10. She has a cute/girlish face combined with a womanly body.

        Like


      • Lara,

        Tell me what you think of the girl in my 12/3 2:21 PM comment.

        Thanks.–

        Like


      • If we’re submitting nominees, then, of the current starlet crop, go with Amanda Seyfried, Amber Heard, Eva Green. Past beauties: Grace Kelly, Ingrid Bergman, Diane Lane.

        A ten has to transcend idiosyncrasy. There are plenty of beautiful women who are beautiful for their quirks, the realm of the nines.

        We will find more agreement over an assessment of faces than of bodies. Body judgment is heavily idiosyncratic, given the variety of equally important physical features, some of which cancel out the others: there is no golden mean between short mousy cute and tall statuesque stunning. Gorgeous sky-blue eyes and saucer-sized doe browns are equally attractive but of contradictory characteristic; the ideal cannot found in a blue-brown murk, but only in peculiarity. Now, relativists take this variety of ideals and extrapolate the mistaken assumption that beauty resides exclusively in the eye of the beholder.

        A ten transcends preference and unifies all men under a unanimous judgment, with only nitpickers and contrarians in (dishonest) dissent. This transcendent quality is impossible to convey in two dimensions. High-gloss production values make up for the deficiencies of the medium and can convey only a tarted-up artistic approximation of the sensation one gets in the presence of ineffable beauty.

        Like


      • That’s interesting — Emily does less than nothing for me — I see the Italian *boy* straining to get out of her demonish face.

        Bergman and Kelly strike me as good but not exquisite butter.

        The greatest by far of the old screen beauties was of course Kim Novak, untouchable in her prime.

        Diane Lane was very smokily and poutishly fuckworthy in Rumblefish. But hardly as sexy as the heroin-blonde that Dillon abuses on the fire-escape. Great film.

        Like


      • King A,

        “A ten has to transcend idiosyncrasy. There are plenty of beautiful women who are beautiful for their quirks, the realm of the nines.”

        is the best definition of a 10. Thanks. I could always recognize beauty of consensus 10, but never actually felt attracted to them. Now I realized why – their looks lack those quirks, idiosuncrasities that make a picture “human”. In face-to-face interaction those human quirks will come through, however.

        Like


      • I would never rate a woman a 10 based on photographs, especially those self-selected or selected by her publicist. One needs to be in the presence of the woman to rate her attractiveness, especially in the higher levels.

        Of course, photos are more useful for sorting out the war pigs although even I get fooled at times.

        Like


      • A ten is a nine that swallows.

        Like


      • Defining a 9 or 10 is not a function of listing specific physical criteria or referencing a renowned beauty. It is something you know when you see it further reinforced by its rarity.

        Such has not been my impression of those (women) in the domain of online dating.

        Like


      • I don’t think you can tell a 9 from a 10 in pics; that’s about how photogenic she is.

        Like


    • On OKC, they range from about a 3 to a 7 with the typical bell curve in the picture between the two. Typically, the ladies of superior rating don’t do dating sites as best I can tell.

      Like


      • I agree mostly, but I had no less than 2 8s initiate contact with me, both in my home town, and I dated one for well over a year (she moved to the West coast) and still see one regularly enough (a few times per season). One of them has jumped on the primal/paleo wagon and I’d say she’s even an 8.5 now, even though she’s 2+ years older.

        For both of them, they’re not drinkers, don’t go to bars and clubs at all, both have their own small businesses so they’re busy during the day (and don’t date clients or have an office to meet new people), neither finished college and both prefer to spend their money traveling versus buying shitty Chinese made junk.

        I think there are probably more of them out there, but I was “active” on OKCupid for about 2 weeks back in 2009 when everyone I know was talking about it. Every so often I’ll get an email saying someone has contacted me, but 9/10 the gals are fat, ugly, tattooed, attention-whoring or just boring.

        Like


  15. on December 2, 2011 at 3:27 pm (r)Evoluzione

    Good post. The OKTrends blog has significant useful and enlightening information, but hasn’t been updated in way too long.

    What about OK Cupid’s red/yellow/green light indicator of how often a user replies to messaging, and its implications in preselection & qualification?

    Like


    • If you want to succeed as a guy on OKCupid, limit your responses so that you show up as a red indicator. That’s definitely one way to preselect.

      Like


      • on December 2, 2011 at 7:10 pm Days of Broken Arrows

        Brilliant! I did this by accident because so many older women were messaging me and creeping me out. Of course, I got off the site because of that too, I should mention. I found it filled with weird women who will send you messages that ignore the age limit you specify and the fact that you say “no women with kids, please.”

        Oh well.

        Like


      • I find it very hard accomplish that and still interact with a reasonable number of women. I’d really wish they’d get rid of that feature, it doesn’t really help anyone.

        But I’ve found much more success just applying standard game concepts.

        Make a go/no-go decision within a few minutes of reading a profile. Message lots of women but don’t spam boring crap. Use creative, playful openers. Neg freely but be careful since you don’t have body language. Openers can be based on the profile, but try to make them easy and fun to answer. If you recognize a book she’s read, tend towards specific like ‘which character do you like most?’ Qualify her and DHV as opportunities arise.

        Arrange a date sooner than later. Don’t ignore rapport, but don’t waste too much effort on it because you’ll have to start over in person anyway.

        Like


      • Yeah, though I’ve never done any online dating, I imagine a lot of cold reading, push-pull, and negs would do the trick. It probably wouldn’t hurt to misspell some obvious words to make it look like you really don’t give a shit.

        Like. Hey I say your online profile you seem like a smart girl, but you gave me the feeling that you try too hard making a first impression. You looked cute in thta third picture, but you have sad eyes.

        I may try something like this soon just to see what happens.

        Like


      • Never done this before. So I put in my profile at Hot or Not, because surely that’s were all the vain HBs gotta be right and it’s free.
        I put up one photo with my “what’s up” pose with my nostrils exposed and it’s rated 8.9 from like 15 votes and I have 6 hotmirers, which is when a girl rates you really high. I consider myself like a 7-7.5, but I guess the photo really hit the right preselection triggers. I put in a little blurb for my about me comment about pancake butts and thick thighs, some nonesense
        funny though I think. 2 comments on the photos from these 2 lasses. One was 🙂 and the other “nice.”

        http://asset0-cdn.hotornot.com/photos/018/249/220/18249220/large_Photo_00093.jpg?1323039576

        http://hotornot.com/photos/018/049/653/18049653/small_DSCN3571_resize.jpg?1313319067

        Here are the other hotmirers:

        http://asset2-cdn.hotornot.com/photos/018/241/591/18241591/medium_chrisi2011nov.jpg?1322628161

        http://asset3-cdn.hotornot.com/photos/018/242/967/18242967/medium_267312_1668016177327_1144980747_32306910_7815.jpg?1322701954

        http://asset1-cdn.hotornot.com/photos/018/247/308/18247308/medium_IMG_20111128_2030281-1.jpg?1322943095

        http://asset1-cdn.hotornot.com/photos/018/194/928/18194928/medium_P1050103.jpg?1320278242

        I think one is married even.

        I also sent out 3 emails with the above lines to random women, because 3 free emails is a limit in a month. No replies so far. Will try to contact the hotmirers next month.

        I’m thinking this is a waste of time for me, considering I don’t need technology to meet women, but it’s an interesting experiment.

        Like


      • Heh… The thing is, that thing doesn’t show red unless you get a LOT of messages and reply seldom. If you’re an AFC on there (and there’s a lot of those…) you’re going to show up green or yellow on that indicator because you don’t have the message volume to show it red yet.

        Like


    • I think they stopped doing the blog after match.com purchased OKc. They even removed one post stating that you should never pay for online dating. Post was written by one of the Harvard dudes who created OKc. All sorts of cost/benefit calculations were involved. Google search and use wayback archive to read the ugly numbers.

      I have a OKc profile with a profile text from some english PUA’s website. A hugely arrogant profile. I never approach, but have been approached by women intrigued by my arrogance. The best one, a korean 9 who wanted to find out if i am an arrogant asshole or gentleman. ( I am neiher, hah, but she will be mine to play with).

      I have to say that i received the mail stating i have been rated as hot by the special snowflakes that dwell over at Okc. Still, usually the girls and women who write me are 4 to 6. Summa summarum, I think you can get one 8 or 9 in a year (if lucky) by merely having a profile and answering the mails.

      Like


  16. on December 2, 2011 at 3:32 pm BiGuyForAdvice

    I’m seeking advice here…I have a sort-of ex gf but we still fool around sometimes when we meet. Right now she has a new fuckbuddy though. I want to convince her to let me watch them together, or at least to give me details. He’s muscular and handsome and I’m a little bi how do I convince her to do this for me??? I tried to talk about her past sexual experiences before but even when we were intimate she was reluctant to give details. She gets shy. She wants me more than I want her, but not sure how to manipulate that.

    Like


    • on December 8, 2011 at 6:17 pm Obstinance Works

      Just ask the dude if he wants to DP her. I avoid to the extreme seeing another man naked but am not surprised at the gayness of most dudes. You could also suggest to her then she can try to convince him.

      Like


  17. I agree that good looks are far, far more important for women than men.

    But I can tell you from personal experience that a guy’s looks are a factor, and that good-looking men have an easier time of it because they have broader pool of women initially interested and those women tend to be a bit more forgiving of betaness—if you’re above a certain threshold in the looks game.

    It’s really a question of trade-offs. If a guy is currently a 5 and with a lot of effort he can raise his looks to a 6, then he’s is definitely better off focusing on Game. But if a guy is a 7 and with some effort he can raise his looks to a 9 or better—then working on his looks is at least as good an investment as working on his Game. If you can get to the extreme right tail of the looks curve, you’ll find that things are a bit different.

    It’s really about bang for the buck. Assanova and Aaron Sleazy back me up on this, as well as my own personal experience.

    Alright, go ahead and flame me…

    [Heartiste: This has to fall under the category of “true, but practically useless”. The percentage of men that women rate extremely attractive is very tiny, certainly much smaller than the percentage of women that men rate highly attractive. For a man to get into that rarefied atmosphere, being simply good-looking won’t cut it. As the data show, women downgrade men’s looks across the board, so attempting to go from a 7 to a 9 is not only unrealistic and harder than learning game, it’s going to give you less bang for your buck than you would think based on projecting your male preference for looks onto women.]

    Like


    • Okay, pretty boy.

      Like


    • It really depends on what you’re working with, and I’ll use myself as an example.

      I’ve always been tallish (6’1) and athletic, nice build…but I had acne, shitty posture, dressed like crap, and was super skinny. I got on accutane, went from 160ish to 205, got my bodyfat under 10 percent and started wearing nicer clothes. The results have been ridiculous. It really depends on the raw material. You just have to be realistic about where you’re starting from and what you have to work with.

      And it also depends on the competition. It’s easier raise your looks quotient if most of the guys around you are schlubs, so it’s probably more worth it in those scenarios. I think it’s case-by-case, but reflexively dismissing looks isn’t a good strategy.

      But we agree that Game is king.

      Like


      • “The percentage of men that women rate extremely attractive is very tiny, certainly much smaller than the percentage of women that men rate highly attractive. For a man to get into that rarefied atmosphere, being simply good-looking won’t cut it. ”

        Yes, every girl I’ve been with calls me good-looking, cute, attractive, nice muscles, etc. But when I walk into a bar, I still have to work. Simply being good-looking is not the same as “attractive”, which most women define as being the type of guy that turns women into putty just by showing up.

        Probably the only benefit of simply being good-looking is that women don’t instantly recoil in horror, which gives you time to work.

        [Heartiste: A commenter once posted a link to a study proving that women are much more stringent than men in what they define as extremely attractive. Basically, you need to be in the top 1% of male looks to get the kind of instant doggy dinner bowl attention from women that the top 30% of women get from men.
        Conclusion: the average man gets a LOT LESS bang for his buck trying to improve his looks than women get.]

        Like


      • Not sure about the 1% to 30% ratio, but otherwise I don’t disagree.

        Look, I definitely still have to work to get laid. But my looks mean that my Game simply doesn’t have to be as tight as most other guys—and it isn’t. My Game consists mostly of inner game/frame control and physical escalation. A little comfort building when needed. I mostly just try not to make mistakes and play defense. Being good-looking and physically imposing means girls are less inclined to shit test or challange me—I haven’t had to neg a girl in years and I get away with ignoring most shit tests that do actually come my way. Sure I have to work, but I work a lot less.

        If you can improve your looks to significant degree–and take some pressure off your Game–then it’s worth it do so. Most guys can’t—but I think a not-insignificant minority can.

        It’s worth the rewards.

        [Heartiste: A not insignificant number of men can improve their looks if by looks you mean their physical fitness. Since a near majority number of men are overweight, they could do a lot for themselves by simply trimming down. But if by looks you mean improving their facial bone structures so that they are in that top 1% of the male looks ranking where it makes a significant difference to their ease of getting laid… well, not even plastic surgery is going to get them halfway there. For most men, it’s better to put more of their energy into improving other attractiveness traits that women find desirable.]

        Like


      • We need to remember that by “looks” we mean how we fit the specific woman’s ideal of a desirable, sexy character.

        Beatnik poet, cowboy, Silicon Valley venture capitalist, wise professor, cave man – some ROLE will come naturally to you and reflect who your really are – just be confident in them, get your grooming and posture to match then GET A GREAT COSTUME – “for clothes oft do proclaim the man!”

        Like


      • I met a real caveman in France. A blacksmith in hard mountains of the Ardèche.

        He didn’t have a woman, and as far as I knew was celibate, but the man threw off great waves of natural alphahood. As I watched him pound an axe-bit on his forge, sparks everywhere, his black hair thrust behind him like a lion’s mane, and a great black beard over which his bright green eyes peered intently, I was as near to homoerotic arousal as heterosexuality permits.

        Like


      • I’ve seen you post at Susan Walsh’s http://www.hookingupsmart.com/ Hooking Up Smart website as well. I don’t know where to find it, but she had an article with study done concerning typical university age students, 18-25. They showed pictures of other typical university age students to the opposite sex who were presumably all or mostly heterosexuals or at least bisexuals. Her article confirmed exactly what Heartiste wrote. Men considered 80% of the women to be physically attractive to one degree or another. Women only considered 20% of the men to be physically attractive. When comparing the percentages and intensity of reaction men and women give to eachother over physical attractiveness, it is advisable to multiply or divide by 4. Here is what I mean. A man must be in the top 5% of looks in order to get the same percentage of women who find him physically attractive and the intensity at which they find him attractive as the top 20% of women. The top 10% of men get the same response as the top 40% of women and the top 20% of men get the same response as 80% of the women who are typical university age. The average woman is defintitely at her physical peak at this age. Men are near or at their physical peak as men are on average 2 years behind women in physical maturation. For example women’s bodies except for their brains are finished maturing on average at age 16 while their brains are finished physically maturing(or hardening) on average at age 18. For men the average ages are 18 and 20 respectively. Newborn baby brains are soft, mushy and watery while adult brains are harder and more solid.

        Like


      • “Basically, you need to be in the top 1% of male looks to get the kind of instant doggy dinner bowl attention from women that the top 30% of women get from men”

        So fucking true. If you’re not Josh Holloway, your looks don’t mean shit.
        Stay in shape and sharpen your game, that’s all you need to keep the pussy flowing.

        Like


      • You’re making a good point, but I wouldn’t dismiss the new clothing factor. Shoes for example make a huge difference to women, but they certainly don’t much make you better looking.

        Like


    • Men and women approach physical attraction differently as the side effect of two very different kinds of risk playing out between the sexes. Women are like gamblers down at the racetrack, clutching their entire life-savings to their bosom, poring over racing forms and talking to jockeys and insiders and bookmakers to figure out which single long-shot horse to bet big on. Meanwhile men are chilling in the penny slot parlor with a bank vault full of coins. A guy might be temporarily captured by the bells and whistles of this or that machine before sliding down to the next one: little ventured, little gained. But a girl has to be smarter than betting on the tallest or cutest or even healthiest looking horse. All that matters is which one of those ponies can flat-out run and make her risk pay off.

      Quantity > Quality. Physical attractiveness is a factor in the sexual transaction, but mostly limited to the introduction. The introduction is a much more high-stakes environment for women. Attractiveness helps with first impressions because it is the instant and certain indicator of a person’s virtue. Unfortunately for girls, the superficial virtues are nearly irrelevant to a woman’s ultimate sexual success, whereas men are free to indulge superficiality at the outset because quantity can roughly substitute for quality and still win him the breeding sweepstakes. Men possess enough quantity to endure many failures; women are given only few chances at quality, and a single failure can spell total loss.

      Familiarity. As the night (and the relationship) carries along, familiarity begins to assert itself along with the non-visual virtues. Familiarity can encourage exhaustion even among the best-looking — I love bacon and eggs, but I had them for breakfast every morning, I’d hate them. At the same time, familiarity encourages deep affection for the virtues that take time to express themselves (such as confidence, success, strength, prowess, your way with other women) beyond the unreliable superficial indicators with which we create our first impression.

      Speed varies. Yes, there is a marked difference between the sexes in their response to physical attraction, but this is largely due to the different speeds of courtship. Men are more impatient and seeking same-night results. Women are more patient and seeking the virtues that last because, right or wrong, they intuit themselves to be precious holders of the expensive gamete, with access granted only to the men whose virtues are verified (in her pretty little credulous mind) as true to the bone, and not just skin-deep.

      Instantaneity. Game works like female beauty because they are both instant-effect. A girl getting gamed believes she has verified a man’s long-term virtues instantly, because the alpha mimicry and trickeration of game fools the mark long enough into giving up her slot (which, these days, doesn’t take much). A woman’s virtues are confirmed by looking at her without make-up the next morning, and even if we’ve been had, who cares, we have sperm to spare and then some. NEXT.

      Availability + Exclusivity. Men care about the long-term virtues in women as well, such as loyalty and constancy, which is why proof of sluttiness can be compulsively attractive to us (“That chick is easy, I won’t have to work hard to get her”), but quickly devolves into disgust (“My girlfriend is easy, no man has to work hard to get her”) and abandonment (pump and dump). For this reason, women must master projecting the contradictory signals of availability and exclusivity: I’m available, but only to the most exclusive men. So their default safety pose is bitch shield, independent of what a man looks like.

      Small window. Game theorists interpret all this as “physical attractiveness is more important to men than to women” as a shorthand way of expressing the deeper truth, “women have a much smaller window for sexual success than men and therefore accustom themselves to seeking virtues beyond the superficial.” Women instinctively intuit that they can only be wrong a handful of times, whereas men can fuck-up (and fuck on down) pretty much on a nightly basis.

      Half judgment. If a man is wearing his virtues literally on his face (he’s handsome), or he gives indicators of deep and abiding virtues (he’s got game), the woman’s process of discernment is halfway done for her. His strong presence can be just as much of a visceral factor as his ugliness in her high-stakes, calculated gamble. In the same way, women wear their virtues on their faces and give silent indicators of long-term value (girl game!) like modesty, poise, and exclusivity. And the male process of discernment is similarly halfway complete by looking at her. But only halfway. The difference is, the other half becomes relevant in the long-term, when men are far less invested in the truth behind first impressions.

      Loss vs. tragic loss. Genetically speaking, men have trillions of bullets in their arsenal, compared to the 400 in a woman’s clip from menarche to menopause, a third of which occur outside regular mating years, and only a tiny fraction of which obtain the optimal conditions for genetic success. One loss is not devastating to a man. In fact, men hone their game on losses, whereas women fritter away their soul with each failure. Sexual pursuit is a man’s knife against the woman’s whetting stone, the blade getting sharper while the rock slowly erodes into dust.

      Which is why women are born into a defensive crouch, while men hump anything that moves. Which is why the battle of the sexes is not a battle so much as a slaughter. Which is why women will always depend on the good graces of men. Which is why their feminist rejection of those good graces blew up in their faces, while providing an unprecedented sexual bonanza for men.

      Like


      • Tight game–and prose–from a guy who writes this, and some seemingly antigame sentiments. Inscrutability is alpha. I commend you.

        Like


  18. Maybe I’m bad at interpreting but the graph indicates that a 1 guy would get more messages than a 5 guy or at least on his level of messages. Am I right? If so I find that hard to believe. Maybe its simply anecdotal evidence but I’ve seen plenty of decent dudes getting flooded by messages from women while guys who aren’t as fortunate looking like me get a message from a female like once a month.

    Like


  19. There is a glaring error in your analysis. women send many fewer messages than men do. Or another way of looking at it: the attractiveness distribution of the women sending the messages is not normal.

    Men send well over 90% of the messages. Women on the top 60% of the attractiveness get more messages than they can handle – so the hottest women send — no messages.

    [Heartiste: Incorrect. I didn’t include all the graphs. Go to the link provided. Hot women are represented among message senders, and the pattern holds.]

    The women sending the messages are the fatties that are getting no messages, and they are shooting for the less attractive guys they think they can get.

    [This is an unsubstantiated inference. We don’t know that the women sending messages are all fatties. To conclude that, you’d have to conclude that every woman on okcupid is a fattie. That’s clearly not the case.]

    This jibes with my experience. I’ve signed up for these services – and then stopped using them. But I check my messages once in awhile – and the messages I get are universally ( 90% of them or more ) from women over 35, and at the lower end of the attractiveness scale.The ONLY messages I get from attractive women are from eastern Europe and they have ulterior immigration and gold digging motives.

    [No one’s saying ugly women aren’t going to send more messages than hot women. What is being shown by the data is that women universally misperceive male looks in the negative direction and that women don’t overshoot in messaging men based on a physical attractiveness criteria to the same degree that men overshoot messaging women.]

    Like


  20. I’ve worked the web pretty effectively over the years.

    Thoughts on being successful:

    1) Don’t whine on about what YOU want (Marketing 101)
    2) Be funny and witty – or at least entertaining and different
    3) Titles/headlines COUNT – they won’t bite unless they see the pretty lure
    4) Women shop seasonally – late Fall, early Winter best shopping!
    5) Don’t apologize for being a horndog, ie a virile man and proud of it
    6) Catch and release until you find a keeper
    7) No dinner on first date – strong cocktails on an empty stomach best

    Like


    • Every one of those is a bull’s-eye. Follow 1 – 7 to the letter. I would add heavy emphasis to “entertaining and different”. This after all is the surest method of snagging just about any cunt, anywhere.

      What I found however, to my dismay, is that Americans have become so “ironized” that if you hit the mark with “entertaining and different”, keeping it up with them is a real chore as they respond in kind. Life’s too short to act like you’re the star of a sitcom, writing script on the fly.

      Unless you are Citizen Renegade, that is.

      Like


      • Another concept from MBA marketing that applies –

        Benefits, not Features. What’s in it for the woman?

        Also, I never bother respond to a woman’s posting on CL. If she is halfway attractive, she’s got plenty of desperate guys writing her. As is more likely, she is NOT attractive or she has personality issues and you probably wouldn’t want her anyway. Too many feminists here in the SF Bay Area.

        No, let the woman pre-qualify herself as looking for a a sex partner by her writing to you. Gives you immediate hand.

        I agree with “Uh” that putting out the charm long-term is work but unnecessary. Once you’ve banged her hard a few times, dominance works and is more efficient nd in your interest.

        Like


    • I approve this wily fellow’s last point.

      7) No dinner on first date – strong cocktails on an empty stomach best.

      In Finland (like with roosh in Iceland) works like a charm. Like shooting fish in the barrel. Finnish girls have no conversational skills nor are they familiar with arts of seduction so you just have to drink with them and not cock up. It is that easy and boring.

      Like


  21. Yes, looks aren’t that important to women. As long as you are not objectively ugly, you should do fine.

    As for women ranking most men as “ugly”, it’s only because women are utilizing the equivalent of same test we men are also using, The Instant Turn-On Test, a.k.a. THE BONER TEST:

    Does a picture of that naked person turn you on INSTANTLY? If so, they are “attractive”. If not, they are “ugly”.

    A naked cute girl WILL give most men an instant boner, therefore most men will rank her as “attractive”. On the other hand, a naked cute guy WILL NOT make most women instantly wet. Therefore, they will rank him as “unattractive”.

    Probably, only the top 0.5 to 1% of men can pass women’s Boner Test and be considered “attractive” by women. You can see this effect in clubs, where you may ocassionally see women instantly go nuts over that one guy who really isn’t doing much other than standing there being extremely good-looking. Usually though, the women going overtly nuts are the fatties. Regardless, guys not in the top 0.5 to 1% of looks are still bringing chicks home.

    If you are not in that top percentage, wonem won’t get INSTANTLY turned on by you just standing next to them. But that is what game, confidence, experience, alphaness, etc. is for.

    Like


  22. Two questions –

    (1) what are a few things in a profile that cause women to respond much more? I’m relatively attractive, professional, have a profile and it doesn’t get many responses, and certainly no first messages from women.

    [Heartiste: “relatively attractive” and “professional” mean nothing if your profile is boring. Suggestion: post your profile here (minus identifying info of course) and we’ll judge its merits.]

    (2) why do attractive, non-crazy women need a dating site in the first place? shouldn’t they have the friends/network to meet guys that way? most of these women probably just want the ego fed.

    [I agree, but online dating has infiltrated every corner of society. It isn’t just for fatties anymore.]

    Like


    • 1) the opposite of you now: you’re boring, unoriginal and think a dress shirt and a 7.2 hotornot score make you desirable.

      2) probly similar reasons that people regularly engage in e-commerce rather than going brick & mortar all the time.

      Like


    • Disagree. They don’t truly need it — they make profiles one night they have absolutely nothing going, and it lies untouched thereafter, or at most is checked sporadically with messages going unread or unanswered. It isn’t even an ego feed. It’s just another trend to follow.

      Like


  23. Another interesting thing they should look at is the May-December response rates, the rates at which older men/younger women contact and respond and vice versa.

    Like


  24. If one is to do online dating – which site is the best? I gave up on match – too much work for really low quality dates. I’m thinking of giving it another try.

    Like


    • When Yahoo had a decent – and free – personals, it was useful.

      Today, I just use San Francisco Bay Area Craigslist when I need some fresh ‘tang. However, the format make the headline you use very important. Also, post in “long term relationship” even if you (or her) don’t mean it. “NSA” gets nothing but spam since few women want to think themselves “that kind of woman!” even if that exactly what they are.

      See my post above for other specifics but the keep point is that THIS IS MARKETING!

      That means, think about what the chick is looking for and subtly weave those qualities into your message. Also, give her the feeling that when she responds. she is validating her own value. I usually do that by saying I’d like a “smart woman.” Few people don’t THINK that they’re smarter than average so its an easy win.

      Like


    • ChatRoulette, bro. Pay for the premium. Forget meeting American white girls, they don’t want you. But the Asians are all over it.

      Like


  25. Submitted as another data point (and god knows not to brag), FWIW, back in the early days of internet dating, when I was a very attractive, yet gameless beta, two very attractive girls: a slutty, older 8-9 and a very young and amazing 9-10 both contacted me, claiming that my profile (pictures and writing) led them to sign up to contact me. They even complained that I better be worth the $35. So…hot bitches… at least back then, did use match, and it seems would go out of their way to contact guys, if it was worth their while. So, for Jack…you never know, maybe you need to up the fun content on your profile. Or, maybe the market is fully saturated online now.

    Like


  26. Heartiste, you aren’t reading the graphs correctly.

    What the graphs show is that a universal opinion of what counts for male attractiveness is very, very small.

    [Heartiste: Right, I said that.]

    The women who message men first do not believe the men they are messaging are ugly.

    [No, the data do not support this inference. The women message men they also rate as “ugly”, if we take their perspectives at face value, and this female messaging distribution is significantly shifted to the left (in closer approximation to how they rate male looks) compared to the male messaging distribution.]

    They measage them because they find them interesting or cute.

    [Also what I said. Women are messaging men based on characteristics aside from their looks. “Cute” is just female code for “charismatic”.]

    But those women are a minority, as the rest of the women find the same man ugly.

    [Again, I said that it’s a given men message more than women. But that’s irrelevant. The comparison you want is the message distribution between men and women, not between women who message and women who don’t. Naturally, fewer women at all attractiveness levels are going to message men because women are the more discriminating sex. If you want a proper breakdown of messaging women vs non messaging women, you’ll also need to graph the male looks rankings of both groups against each other. If they don’t differ (and I doubt they do) then the conclusions in this post are strengthened.]

    This is nothing more than hypergamy in action, as hypergamy means that there will be extreme diversity of opinion; every woman has a differentt appraisal on each man, with small exceptions of the men at the top.

    [Hypergamy can be in play even when women don’t value looks as much in men as men value looks in women. The key distinction is that women judge based on a multitude of attractiveness traits, whereas men judge based on pretty much one trait.]

    Like


    • Online sexual selection = hyper selectivity bias.

      Like


    • “No, the data do not support this inference. The women message men they also rate as “ugly”, if we take their perspectives at face value, and this female messaging distribution is significantly shifted to the left (in closer approximation to how they rate male looks) compared to the male messaging distribution.”

      The woman (singular) who messages a man does not hold the same opinion as the women (plural) about that same man.

      [Heartiste: Neither does the man (singular) who messages a woman hold the same opinion as the men (plural) about that same woman. And yet the differences in the aggregate between men’s (plural) messaging distribution and women’s (plural) messaging distribution matter, and tell us something nontrivial about the desires motivating each sex.]

      “Also what I said. Women are messaging men based on characteristics aside from their looks. “Cute” is just female code for “charismatic”.”

      I don’t agree with this interpretation at all. When she says cute, she means cute.

      [If you’ve been around young women in any large number, you’ll know that they often use “cute” as a catch-all phrase for “loaded with alpha characteristics that turn me on”.]

      I don’t think women are so crazy that they cannot understand when they find a man attractive or not.

      [Strawman. No one is claiming that women don’t consider looks at all. But the data show that women consider looks less than men do.]

      Like


  27. We need a series on Profile Game.

    I have an OKCupid profile that garners very little action so I completely rewrote it – replaced the “About me” with a fairy tale (“Once upon a time…”), removed most of the factual information from the other sections, and in the “You should message me if” section basically wrote “if you’re pretty, slender, and not a bitch.”

    Messaging rate is up x10. Why? I truly do not understand any of this.

    Like


    • Yea, I’ve done that as well. Fact-based approach doesn’t work at all. You have to be charming, absurd, mysterious, whimsical, blah blah. A childlike cunt, essentially, with some edge … perfectly delivered by your last line.

      I gave it up. My only game now is bumming cigs from lone girls at clubs (though I have my own pack for girls who ask, of course). Easy ice-breaker, pass straight into discussing brand, blah blah blah. Sometimes I use an accent to snag their interest right off — regional Scots, Irish if I’m feeling up to it, Russian if feeling lazy, French or even Israeli. I have a routine in which I talk them up this way for a good ten to fifteen minutes, then tell them I’m a trained actor, and not really whatever nationality I am pretending to be, still with the accent.

      Could even tabulate level of interest, say 1 to 5, by accent:

      Scots: 4
      Irish: 5
      Russian: 1 (live in Miami, it’s common and I don’t look it)
      French: 3 (the girls here are illiterate swine)
      Israeli: 4 (have to be careful here — Israelis about)
      German: 2 (in whiter cities this would rise to a clear 5)

      I’ve gotten laid with Irish (here) and German (elsewhere). I don’t blame the routine; I blame my fundamental dearth of patience for female company. After that sweet twenty minutes, I’m envisioning my hands round her neck in a vice grip. Or if drunk I just start babbling suggestively about You Know Who, testing how long it takes for their alarm to go off.

      Anyhow,
      Profile game can’t be fact-based. One must be whimsical in some fashion — even if your angle is “asshole”, make it like you’re taking her along for a story. She wants to be amused, not informed.

      If women were motivated by facts, women would have written the encyclopedia.

      Like


    • “You should message me if…’you’re pretty, slender, and not a bitch.’”

      A+

      Like


    • Can you imagine how weird and useless that would be — encyclopedia written by women?

      Like


    • “We need a series on Profile Game.”

      Fuck me. If there’s anything the guys reading this blog DON’T need, it’s another way to justify avoiding going out and approaching girls in person.

      Like


    • Hm… Why? Women. Got to wonder if my profile’s just got too much stuff in it…got the same problem you had.

      Like


  28. Off-topic, I heard an interesting shit-test a couple nights ago. Hot chick, quite drunk, approached by an ordinary guy. She said: “I’ve already got a cunt in my panties, why would I want another?” The guy slunk away.

    This has stuck in my mind and I’m interested in your thoughts as to a suitable rejoinder. My initial thought is something like: “A threesome. ‘Course, I can always scratch your cunt-itch by myself.”

    [Heartiste: A rejoinder I use for just such bitchiness from women is:

    “Don’t flatter yourself.”

    Works every time, and it’s often true.

    Another good rejoinder: “So you’re calling yourself a cunt? Hey, if the shoe fits…”
    Doesn’t matter if it’s not quite logical. Chicks in the heat of the moment don’t require perfect logic. Just zing them emotionally and you’ll have hand.]

    Like


    • “I haven’t proposed a threesome. Yet. Hey don’t knock them tell you’ve tried them. Though that isn’t were I normally like to start out.”

      Like


    • Didn’t refresh to see Heartiste’s edit response. His is better.

      Like


    • If you are responding to her directly, you are feeding her frame and abandoning your own.

      You stand on the inside of the plate and take your HBPs, especially when the pitcher is trying to intimidate you off your position. That’s how you knock the next, outside pitch out of the park.

      Life isn’t the cute rom-com all women think it is, where the exchange of witty one-liners dictates the progress of the seduction. The clever does not work here. She is making a power play and you have to stand unmoved.

      How did this poor shmoe precipitate such an epic fail? Did he go up to the falling-over-drunk slut and say, “Pardon me, madame, but might I prevail upon thee for the pleasure of the next dance?” Smells like bad recon.

      Like


    • That’s a “shit test”? She fucking flat-out insulted him. The correct response would be a bitchslap.

      Like


    • There the shit test and then there is plain ole shitty. The correct answer to this bitch is.

      Hmmm… to mask the smell???

      Like


    • “Yeah well that cun of yours t is a bit like you – it reeks”…said back to the little bitch while holding my nose.

      Like


    • Thanks guys. You remind me, the idea at the start isn’t to get into a slinging match with ’em. It’s to get through the shield.

      @IHTG – maybe he stank of Beta. He sure looked it as he slunk off.

      Like


    • There is the shit test and then there is plain ole shitty.

      The correct answer to this bitch is…

      Hmm. Because yours smells??

      Like


  29. Excellent points on both graphs, thanks!

    Like


  30. I find it amazing how few men received a rating of 5/5. More than 5% of women were rated 5. For men, it looks like either zero, or a number so small that it’s statistically insignificant.

    Women simply will not judge a man to be highly attractive unless they have him in some context.

    Like


  31. Also, I think the most important chart in the entire OKcupid post is the one that shows the message success percentage for men. It does show that better looking men have an advantage when messaging good looking women. BUT…even the least attractive men get a reply from the most attractive women more than 10% of the time. They are NOT getting blown out automatically because of their looks.

    Like


  32. on December 2, 2011 at 7:56 pm flyfreshandyoung

    Maybe someone said this and I missed it, but notice the massive dropoff of male to female messages once the chick gets very hot.

    Talk about massive self-disqualification. Or realistic seld-appraisals. Either way, it’s interesting.

    Like


  33. on December 2, 2011 at 8:13 pm flyfreshandyoung

    While I agree that Game >>> Looks, it may not be wise to put too much stock in this particular study.

    Although the study didn’t measure the attractiveness of the message senders, IMO it’s almost entirely fuggos that do most of the “first messaging”. Hence, the apex at the messages-sent-to-rate for somewhat-bad looking dudes. The fatties and fuggs are just being honest with themselves and their chances, to their credit.

    Like


  34. Women have led such incongruent lives in terms of what they say they are attracted to and how they act that it may actually be impossible for them to identify it rationally. Surely guys out there have had the same absurd conversations I have w/ girls who insist that they’d never sleep w/ Bruce Willis for some flimsy reason or George Clooney is “old” or they don’t find Brad Pitt or Tom Brady attractive “at all”. It’s obviously laughable and we all know that panties would be around ankles in record breaking fashion given the chance.

    Other reason these rating charts make sense is I would also suspect that the pool of highly good looking men who use online dating sites is small, and most men aren’t as deceptive as women in angle shooting and photoshop chicanery to come up with photos that seemingly put them on the far right scale of attractiveness. I’ve met up w/ girls who were dumpy 5’s who somehow managed to create photo imagery of themselves that was a solid 8. Also, it stands to reason that even an objectively very good looking guy who uses a dating site probably gets a point or 2 deducted for lowering his perceived value by participating in something that deep down women think is pathetic and desperate even as they sign up.

    And if all else fails, if a man is someone a woman instinctively recognizes she has no chance with, she might as well say she was never interested anyway and dock him a few more points.

    Like


  35. It could be that the most attractive men are # closing fast and the beta 2s fluff her until the 4-5 closes in 4 messages.

    Like


  36. Online game is retarded. Go out and talk to girls instead. At least
    then if you run into an over-entitled single mom with a bunch of drama
    weighing her down you’ll be able to see if she’s fat or got crooked
    teeth right away instead of after a bunch of emails and a meet-up lol

    And ya I’ve fucked a bunch of online chicks in my time, it’s easy
    shit. If they respond at all, they want to fuck. next message is
    “chatting on this site blows what’s your #?” to isolate the two of you
    from the lame online people, txt flirt a bit, turn things sexual, then
    tell them to come over. They show up, you greet them with a hug and
    lip kiss to set the tone, then just escalate to sex after the
    customary tour of the place. If you can’t work things that fast with
    an online girl, the easiest and most desperate of all girls, you need
    to go work on your skillset and THEN come back to online dating.

    The problem is guys avoid getting real game skills to try online game
    because they think it’s a lower risk approach and they can be the same
    loser chumps they normally are but hide behind being able to think out
    and edit responses so they think they have the upper hand compared to
    real life where they couldnt even say hi to the girl.

    Here’s when you do online game: ***when you can already get laid
    consistently in real life*** and are just extra horny or visiting a
    new city or moving to a new city or it’s winter and you don’t want to
    go out in the snow or you’re suddenly too busy with work to go out
    much. ***The being able to pick up in real life is the important
    part.***

    Online game should be a supplement to going out, not a replacement.
    If you have an online profile and you’re not going out at least twice
    a week and approaching girls, you might as well quit reading this blog
    and just marry a fat single mom.

    There are no 10s online. The 10 profiles you see are either dudes,
    chicks who need to drum up webcam customers, or girls who don’t give a
    shit at all about online nerds but who are too hot for guys to
    approach them confidently in real life so they’re shooting the
    tentacles out in all directions including online hoping for a guy to
    rock their world. Unfortunately even if you shoot a brilliant email
    her way it’s lost amongst the other 500 a day she gets.

    Go out and stop that 10 on the street or at the bar and save yourself
    time while building your skillset. You’ll get more experience and
    tighten your skills more out of a night approaching girls than you
    will out of a month of tinkering with your gay “i love adventure and
    go skydiving on the weekends” profile.

    Like


    • “Online game should be a supplement to going out, not a replacement.”

      So random, I just said that in a different post above.

      However I don’t look down on online game. I have much success with it. And it’s entertaining. It also sharpens your TXT game since you are basically doing the same thing. With smart phones these days you can online game anytime you want.

      Overall, your online game is: JUST ANOTHER SOURCE FOR #CLOSES.

      Get them into TXT game rotation ASAP. Then to a Day2.

      Like


  37. If you’re a 6’4″ stud with game, play online, go ahead. Every girl on
    there thinks she deserves you so you’re in by default. I have a buddy
    like this who literally just messages girls his phone number and they
    txt him “hi” and he fucks them later that night/weekend/week. He’s
    gotten some decent looking chicks out of it too.

    But online is where girls are thinking logical and rational, not
    emotional. The whole basis of PUA working for guys who aren’t rich
    tall and handsome is that we speak to the girl’s emotional side not
    her logical side. My tall good looking buddy gets approval from the
    girl’s logical side so he slays online girls.

    If you’re under 5’9″ you probably don’t even show up in most of the
    girls’ searches, let alone if you’re under 5’6″.

    In person, you could’ve worked the room and demonstrated social proof,
    led your group, befriended high status people, and had her wondering
    who you are when you approached her.

    If you’re ugly or fat, she won’t even open your profile or email.

    In person you could’ve approached with confident eye contact, charmed
    her friends, teased her with a neg or two, and had her thinking “he’s
    not hot but god am I turned on right now…”. I’ve tapped chicks
    who’ve told me after that looks-wise I’m 100% not their type but there
    was just “something” about me.

    If you’re over 30, you’re not going to get 18-24yo poon online with
    all the “if you’re old enough to be my dad don’t bother” girls (unless
    they happen to love older men, but then they usually come with daddy
    issues).

    In person, you could have built attraction before the question of age
    even came up and had that very same “no one 25+ plz eew” girl falling
    over herself trying to qualify herself to you that she loves older men
    and isn’t too young for you.

    Are guys reading a blog about attracting women 6’4″+ rich young studs?
    Or are they more likely average to below average? Don’t waste your
    time with online game. Go out.

    Like


    • Truly excellent comments. Cheers for saying precisely what we all know.

      It’s Saturday night though, and I have to catch up with South Park.

      Like


  38. The higher up the food chain men are the more exogamic dating pattern needs to be. An alpha will quickly plunder whatever local talent is available and then move on. Furthermore, most men who are considered alpha are going to have some position within the social hierarchy they need to protect. That means staying away from subordinates (just ask Herm Cain), friends, and people they would ordinarily hob nob with.

    Like


    • So true! In my ads I always put a hard limit that the woman be >25 although I still get replies younger women on rare occasion. I disqualify them – in writing!

      And I have a position of authority in my community and in my professional field (been in the NYT, on Fox Business, ABC, Rush, etc). So I post with a pseudonym.

      Just cruising for poon is time-consuming and inefficient. I’ve got responsibilities and I need my sleep and good health on business trips. The corporate office is a no-no anyway, if only from lack of targets (engineering office.) I’ve got ONE decent neighbor but her hubby is a motorcycle cop and I’m no fool.

      Like


  39. It’s baffling why women are so neglectful of their primary asset. Or why, when they do try to get in shape, they fuck around so much.

    It should be easier for women to get in shape. All they need to do is lose fat. Men need to juggle two often conflicting goals: fat burning and muscle gain. Women only need to do half the work. But their baseless fear of ‘bulky muscles’ prevents them from doing any meaningful (heavy/intense) work at all.

    Like


  40. So what’s the moral of the story – if you’re an EXTREMELY ugly guy, don’t bother using dating sites?

    Like


  41. I wrote some additional thoughts on my experience with online dating when responding to A. B. Dada above, so I figured I would share them all. I am not an expert, just a guy who has used online dating services way more than he would have, had he learned game 10 years ago. Most of this will be obvious to anyone who reads this blog.

    Make a go/no-go decision within a few minutes of reading a profile. Message lots of women but don’t spam boring crap. Use creative, playful openers. Neg freely but be careful since you don’t have body language. Openers can be based on the profile, but try to make them easy and fun to answer. If you recognize a book she’s read, tend towards specific like ‘which character do you like most?’ Qualify her and DHV as opportunities arise.

    Arrange a date sooner than later. Don’t ignore rapport, but don’t waste too much effort on it because you’ll have to start over in person anyway.

    Use the picture rating service to find out which one of yours is best. Stick that as your main profile picture and leave it. My main photo is 7 years old and I’ve never had a complaint, though I do include more recent pictures and many women do want to see full body pictures.

    Pictures that DHV are probably helpful. Skiing, hiking, dancing, being on a boat, whatever. Avoid too many self photos and use low angle shots.

    Women often complain about guys showing off their abs and refuse to respond. I don’t know if the ab-revealers care, or how often the women stick to their word. But if you’re interested in classier women you will probably want to peacock with more subtlety.

    For profile summaries and information, use “show don’t tell” liberally, in place of body language. The poster above who mentioned using a “once upon a time…” story demonstrates creativity and willingness to ignore the conventions. Sometimes you will see a woman’s profile that is so bland you can’t think of anything to say… your goal should be to make yours exactly the opposite. He also demonstrated standards with “message me if you aren’t a bitch.”

    One other thing I’ve tried is including conversation bait. Simply listing your favorite books/movies/music isn’t provocative. The worst thing is probably to post something general like “I like everything except country”. Instead, make some topical assertions that might encourage her to share opinions, feelings, or even ask questions if it’s something she’s curious about and you demonstrate knowledge. I’ve even had some success with “if you want to message me but can’t think of anything, here are a few ideas: [list of various playful questions]” Even if most girls don’t take the bait, this will probably still make your profile stand out.

    Don’t wink, ever. Don’t tell her you’ve added her to favorites. The rating tool is better but can raise her status relative to you so be careful.

    Update your profile occasionally, especially uploading new photos, and you’ll probably see increased traffic to your profile due to okcupid marketing.

    Sometimes, if a woman seems interested at first and doesn’t respond for a week or more for no apparent reason, you might be able to skip right to “let’s meet for drinks.” She may have misread you or something and is bored and procrastinating the reply. It’s hard to fault that behavior when you haven’t even met. You don’t have anything to lose.

    Beware of beta bait in her profile.

    Mostly ignore her listed age range, although unless you lie about your age you can’t play the “guess my age” game.

    Only read the “you should message me if…” to find conversation fodder or reasons to disqualify her. That’s often a section where women will showcase selections from her 463 bullet-point checklist, or complain about the lame or creepy messages she gets from other guys, or insist on “friends first”. It’s like a preliminary shit-test.

    As the data shows, 9s and 10s get an enormous amount of attention. I’ve gotten some initial responses and lots of profile visits using negs and good creative openers, but not much more than that. I suspect to get 9s and 10s on okcupid with any degree of reliability you need to be physically attractive, a good writer with really high implicit DHVs in your profile. But you can always get lucky and there are very few downsides to trying. However 8.5 and below all seem to have more sane response rates.

    I haven’t measured my personal success rate lately but it’s a lot higher than the average response rates they posted a few years ago.

    When I compare my pre-pua to post-pua online strategies, the primary difference is the average attractiveness of the women responding and dating. Instead of lots of 5s-6s with the occasional 7 or 8, I strictly focus on 7+ and will respond to 6s if they message me first or seem especially interesting.

    It’s enough that I usually have more options than I can exercise, which is all I really need.

    Like


  42. I found it interesting how there’s a dramatic drop-off in male to female messages when the female is in the 8.5-10 range. If anything, I think this builds a case for men realizing their limitations and not bothering with the supermodel types. 6-8 is the good range where they usually don’t have an outrageously inflated ego from being the absolute prettiest girls their whole lives but they’re still hot and stimulating. Usually a better ratio of low maintenance/still hot in the 6-8 range, dating girls hotter than that is usually just a hassle and not worth it.

    Like


  43. It’s interesting how we project our own values on the opposite sex. For example, when Kat Von D found out (surprise) that Jesse James was cheating on her too, she said:

    “I think it just made me sad today to imagine him still in that dark place – where seeking validation through the attention of women takes precedence over being a good father, a sincere friend, a better coworker, and a happy individual.”

    Hhahaha, if getting easy poon from lots of celebrity chicks is a “dark place,” then bring on the night!

    Like


  44. Another aspect to consider. Both men and women send 80% of their messages to the top 20% of the opposite sex. It does not seem true, since it does not make sense that men who rank below a 2.5 should be in the top 20%, but that is how it is.

    What is more valuable for me to know is how much more attractive I am than I thought. In OKC’s ranking, I got a 3.2. I felt kinda down that the best I could do is a 3.2…roughly a 6.4 in the 1-10 scale.

    I thought men should try to shoot for equivalently ranked women…at most a point or two higher with good game. I considered walking away from learning game altogether since if the best I could ever get was an 8. 8s are nice and all, but they still get approached enough that their bitch shields are always up, and I just don’t want to work that hard.

    But, looking at the graphs, a 3.2 rating for me puts me in the same area of the curve as a 9 for females. That means I can get 10s by amping my game, and they are well worth the effort, and 9s when I feel lazy.

    Now, I just need to change my profile to something better than what I wrote.

    Like


    • I’m curious — how did you come up with that number of 3.2?

      I’m assuming that you used the final graph with message reply % and calculated the amount of messages sent with the number of replies. If so, then my number does not really make much sense.

      Anyway on a semi-unrelated note: when I put my income on my profile (60-70k) I noticed a lot more visitors and replies. Also, the amount of women that message me out of the blue increased as well. Before I had just left the income blank. It was literally the only thing that I changed.

      Like


  45. Kirsten Dunst:
    “I thought when I reached 30 I’d have a lot more figured out,” she tells Lucky Magazine. “Until you have a kid, you’re just looking for your partner. And guys have a Peter Pan vibe. They’re 35 and they act like they’re 25. That’s what scares me about being in my 30s: not finding someone to have kids with.”

    http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/kirsten-dunst-i-thought-a-lot-figured-life-time-i-turn-30-article-1.985605#art_comments_tab

    Like


  46. I’d like to hear from GBFM on the subject of online dating. Paging GBFM!

    Like


  47. OK Cupid data validates many (all?) of the Chateau’s teachings.

    http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-case-for-an-older-woman/

    Here’s a direct quote:

    “we can see that women have more pursuers than men until age 26, but thereafter a man can expect many more potential dates than a woman of the same age. At the graph’s outer edge, at age 48, men are nearly twice as sought-after as women.”

    Like


  48. Hi. I just started a new blog ForbesWoman Game, where I blog at the intersection of global feminism and Millennial Masculinity, as well as provide gaming tips acquired through the decades and demonstrate them live, in real time! It’s a whole new approach the the Game Blog genre :

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/12/01/outrage-mounts-as-forbes-woman-tries-to-export-millennial-burnout-syndrome-mbs-globally/

    Like


  49. Ah hem…

    Heartiste, I posted a link to this very OKCupid article in the comments section of this post:

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/overselectivity-and-anti-game-like-oil-and-water/

    This ‘over-selectivity phenomena’ is rampant among women in online dating. To beat it I highly recommend reading some of the other OKCupid articles on creating profiles, message lengths, pictures etc.

    As the post eludes to, many women just use online dating to flirt, have fun and stroke their ego with no real intention of meeting men. This is important to know if you are just starting out. You can save yourself truck loads of time.

    It is of extreme importance to know that the “dateable/fuckable/etc.” pool of women (let’s be honest: SMV 6+ age 18 to 35) is very small relative to the # of men messaging them. I have women friends that are average looking and within 2 days of signing up on Plenty of Fish (www.pof.com) they had over 500 new messages. Ive even seen some with over a 1000 new messages in just a week. This creates this ‘over-selectivity phenomena’.

    Lastly, as I’m helping some friends get their game going I force them to cold approach and learn cold approaching IN ADDITION to online game. Online game is best when it is used to supplement your #closing from cold approaching. Simply because it is so convenient.

    Like


  50. Online dating is huge, and growing.

    Don’t limit yourself, might as well take advantage of some of the FREE resources that allow you to pull pussy at any given time.

    Some stats to chew on:
    http://www.datingsitesreviews.com/staticpages/index.php?page=online-dating-industry-facts-statistics

    Like


  51. Your analysis assumes that women message the men they would most want to interact with (rate highest). This could be the case. But your analysis is lacking as it doesn’t account for other scenarios, for example:

    Selection problem. Women respond to messages, don’t initiate they get b/c they are lazy, risk adverse (want someone ‘in’ to them), like their ego stroked, etc. They don’t initiate/reach out to their top choices (they get 10M messages everyday anyways, face fear of rejection, love of sycophants). The messages they get are largely from unattractive men (majority, attractive men may only reach out only to attractive women, or fewer women, etc). Thus they send most of their messages to unattractive men, because that’s what’s there/easiest for them, not because its their top choice. This could apply to all other attributes as well (alphaness, etc)..

    Your case would be stronger if the data you present was ‘women initiated messages’ (messages initiated/sent from women to men, thus excluding replies).

    Like


  52. Younger women care a LOT about masculine looks. The younger they are, the more they care.
    Older women care less, because they want commitment. Money is better for marriage.

    Like


  53. Divorce probably leads to early death; another reason not to get married to a western woman.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-hughes/will-divorce-increase-you_b_1110792.html

    Like


  54. I get told I am good-looking quite a bit in person and am 6’1” and thin. I have found the response rate on OkCupid and other sites to be around 1-2% (on OkCupid alone I sent out over 400 messages). Digging a little deeper, I have found that this rate is normal. I think OkCupid hypes their female response rate.

    As an experiment I set up a profile on OkCupid & also one on POF as an average looking woman. Within a week I had 75 e-mails on POF and 25 from OkCupid.

    Like


  55. To sum up everything: if you’re a guy, post a solid profile and let them do the work. This advice was given when in the late 90s when you signed up to Match.com. And Match.com was still part of AOL. They laid it out. Hot girls get slammed with responses. As a guy, you’ve got much better odds if they preselect you, and they will.

    Like


  56. Candace Bushnell, the original book writer and producer of “Sex and the City,” has always been the real-life embodiment of her Carrie character as well as the Samantha character.

    She’s been the cultural sharp-edge of the cougar movement, much more so than Demi Moore.

    It’s just been announced that the 53 year old’s marriage to a man 10 years younger has ended:

    http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/sex_scribe_dancer_split_up_tOU664cpWqi1Spn7T6iiJI

    Note he was not good looking nor masculine in appearance.

    Like


    • Why do you guys think they got divorced? Is it because of her personality or because men just can’t stay in love with women who are that old?

      Like


  57. The below profile was created prior to the discovery of this wonderful blog.The most common, unsolicited, message I receive from women, is: Your profile is so refreshing 🙂

    My online mating strategy is to email blast as many women as possible, with a short, pithy, assumptive, sales pitch, then sit back and wait for the responses. Over the course of each month I’ve dated online, my response ratio hovers, consistently, above 50 percent, of which I am satisfied considering my messages number in the hundreds.

    I will send The Chateau my online username should the proprietors wish to make a more informed analysis of my actual profile, as it relates to the content of this blog entry.

    Some background info: I’ve been sexually active for 17 years. I’ve been online dating for five-months. I’ve, by-and-large, used beta tactics to snare woman. I do not know the actual number of pussies I’ve slayed … an honest guesstimate would be in the range of 70-80, the vast majority of which have been flings and one-night stands.

    Online dating is wellspring of pussy that every man should explore, including the Lothario himself: Heartiste.

    Anyone who doubts hot women aren’t online, you are [w]rong, in the extreme.

    I look forward to the responses …

    ********************************

    I am not one to play games so I will play it straight with you: I’m caring, dedicated, loyal, grounded and adventurous. I very much enjoy the simple pleasures of life and I try to find enjoyment in all things I do.

    I’m looking for a stable, loyal, caring, dedicated and self-confident woman who knows how to be happy.

    Integrity, dignity and honesty form the foundation of your character.

    You give presents with your presence alone – if I may rip a lyric from a great song.

    Your life is already filled with happiness … you’re just looking to add more.

    I love your hands, your hair, your eyes, your lips, your smell, your voice, your touch and your deep-seated affinity for romantic comedies.

    You can take me home to your mother – moms dig me.

    I like it if you have some flaws.

    You’ll find it’s nearly impossible not to like me.

    You know the differences between to, too, two, there, their, they’re, your and you’re.

    If anywhere in your profile you use the adjectives: hot, aroused, loud or extreme to describe yourself, I will respond, but only to explain why you will continue to be single.

    I loathe the smell of cigarettes … if you smoke, I’m so sorry, but the fairy-tail ends here.

    I like whiskey, preferably Jack, though I don’t drink that often.

    I’m really itching to visit the Louvre.

    I dork-out over ancient history and art.

    I’m cool spending time alone. I have solid friends and activities that I like to do which keep me busy.

    My being on XXXXX means I’m looking to meet a decent girl, in cyberspace or real life.

    And yes, I absolutely believe you exist.

    I am athletic and I am in-shape … however, I refuse to be ‘that guy’ who poses shirtless with a camera phone in the bathroom.

    If you’re super hardcore with your running, biking, rock climbing, hiking, camping, wakeboarding and knitting, I salute your physical prowess, but don’t expect me to keep up. I will, however, do all of these things and then some, but if you want me up by 4am to get fifty runs in before noon, it ain’t happenin’.

    I’m honest, tolerant and entering my prime.

    How would an ideal first date be for me: fun.

    If anything I wrote offended you: good.

    If you liked what you read, join my gang.

    Like


  58. 357

    The below profile was created prior to the discovery of this wonderful blog.The most common, unsolicited, message I receive from women, is: Your profile is so refreshing

    I do not know the actual number of pussies I’ve slayed … an honest guesstimate would be in the range of 70-80, the vast majority of which have been flings and one-night stands.

    Dude, you ARE amazing. You must’ve wrote the book on how to slay poon with Brad Pitt Game.

    Like


  59. So on OKCupid I received an email saying I was upgraded to the “Attractive Users List” because enough women voted me 4 to 5 stars. In the email they explain that I would be more visible to higher rated females.
    I thought that this would increase my messages and response rate, but turns out they actually declined. I still have a lot of visitors but none of them drop me a line. On the other hand it might have just been a scam to get me to pay for A-list. God online dating sucks.

    Like


  60. Steve

    On the other hand it might have just been a scam to get me to pay for A-list.

    Like 357 – YOU are also amazing. When tshtf, I want YOU as my ally.

    Like


  61. No way did the OKCupid survey include Colombian women: they think nearly every guy is hot.

    Like