Different men get different responses from different women.
Pease porridge hot, pease porridge cold,
Pease porridge in the pot, nine days old;
Some like it hot, some like it cold,
Some like it in the pot, nine days old.
Have you ever thought that these old folk songs might carry any analogous interpretation of something significant that would not be polite to discuss openly?
In recent years, such topics are not so taboo. For example, here’s an oldie moldy hit from 1985, Some Like It Hot, by The Power Station — a supergroup featuring Robert Palmer, Tony Thompson from Chic, and John and Andy Taylor from Duran Duran. It’s something to listen to while reading.
Is Female Attraction Digital or Analog?
Under the previous post, Looking at the Essentials (2020-6-12), Scott and DS discussed whether a woman’s strength of attraction for a man can change significantly.
Scott argues that a women’s attraction is digital, that it’s either on or off, and that there’s nothing in between. DS argues that women’s sense of attraction is analog, that it is subject to variance and context, and can move up or down a sliding scale. I’ve picked out the crucial points of their arguments as follows.
Addendum: Christianity and Masculinity has reviewed these same arguments in his post Jumping back to meet cute scenarios (2020 June 27). He has reached a few of the same conclusions. If you’ve been following these arguments and are already familiar with them, then you may want to skip over the next two sections.
The Argument for Digital Attraction
Scott offers an example of how a woman can move up the spectrum from a man’s point of view, and adds that this is how men fall in love.
“I have had several LTRs that developed over time with women for whom I had almost no regard for in the first place. It’s usually a coworker, or someone you see on a regular basis for whatever reason. She could be flashing giant orange flags that read “here I am come and approach. I will say YES” and I just move along with my life as if nothing is happening. Then, one day the thought flashes across your mind “I never noticed how cute her smile is.” And then you are toast. All of the sudden she is all you think about from the time you get up to the time you go to bed. You now have a crush on a girl who up until this point was just somebody you see as part of the scenery at work.”
Scott argued that men can think on a spectrum as described in the previous example, but it’s not women’s nature to be that way.
“At first glance, the idea of a spectrum of attraction (woman—>man) strikes me as wishfully ascribing male thinking processes to women.
In other words, men are projecting their own vectors of attraction onto women. That is to say, men have the mistaken notion that attraction works the same way for women as it does for men. Making this kind of assumption has long been known to be a blind spot for men.
Scott also says that analog attraction is a fiction necessary to monetize Red Pill content.
“I believe that the red-pill content creators (the big ones, Christian or not) are full of crap if they believe that true, visceral attraction can be created in a woman who never had it for you in the first place. Like within the first meeting.
Some of them have a conflict of interest in trying to create this fiction, because they sell books and have monetized YouTube accounts. It is in their best interest to make this seem possible.
In summary, Scott posits that DS is mistaken in assuming that women are analog, that women think and behave like men, and that this is a common type of misperception.
“I have never seen a woman go from being luke warm about a guy and then become [truly] hot for him. She may settle and convince herself that she is attracted to a man who is the best she can get, but hot crazy in love — no.
If you are not getting really obvious IOIs right from the start, move on. If that makes me “black pill” so be it. I want men to find women who cannot keep their hands of them, otherwise they risk terrible destruction later on.”
Scott offered this conclusion.
“I tend to frame this debate as one of a scarcity vs abundance mentality. Why put so much effort into squeezing juice out some prospect (a girl who was aloof to you at the start) instead of just moving on to the next one?”
Note that this argument is indicative of an abundance mindset. That is, there are other prospects to move on to.
The Argument for Analog Attraction
In response, Deep Strength argued,
“There are certainly both men and women who are marrying with varying levels of attraction, but very few have absolutely no attraction. These are probably the ones where you have the wives cringing away from physical contact with their husbands in wedding photos. There are a few, but they’re definitely not even a big minority.
If we’re using a 0-10 scale where no attraction is a 0 and crazy love at first sight is a 10, there’s a big range. The real question isn’t if we can take a 0 to a 10… it’s if we can take a 3-4 to a 7-8 in most cases. The “sort of maybe attractive when I’m ovulating” or “relatively dead bedroom but once were attracted to each other” to “I want to do him at least several nights a week.” You don’t have to be the 10 of “I want to bang like bunny rabbits all the time.”
I think the answer to that is yes in a good amount of cases. The results/field reports of husbands turning around their marriages on MRP (married red pill) and RPChristians speak to this.”
Here, Deep Strength outlines the hierarchy of women’s preferences in attraction.
“There are definitely some reciprocal indications in terms of attraction itself. For instance, women can pick out attractive features on men just like men can pick out various attractive features on women. If they have particular unattractive features that knocks them down. Most people are not models so they have a relative mix of attractive or unattractive features.
In general, male sexuality operates on some lines of physical attractiveness: “would bang but wouldn’t date” to “would bang and date” to “would bang and marry.”
As we know though, female sexual strategy is relatively dualistic: AF/BB. Ideally, a man has both AF (dominant, handsome, charismatic, masculine, high status, successful leader,) and BB (money). Women’s hierarchy is AF + BB > AF > BB > None. Or if they are their own BB with a good job then it’s AF + BB > AF > None > BB.
It’s a spectrum and not a yes or no. Women who can’t marry an AF + BB or AF will try to get a man who has some AF with a lot of BB, and so on down to only BB. But they will be less and less happy about it.”
He offered this example to illustrate how attraction can be analog.
“Lemme give you another example. I’m maybe average attractiveness (not unattractive but not attractive). A couple of my friends have called me a 6. I don’t normally get women to look at me twice. However, I’ve TAed a few classes where there are multiple TAs working together with a large group of students. What usually ends up happening is that a lot of the students (including the women) start to gravitate toward the more attractive men first. However, I know my stuff down pat, and I usually challenge the students and tease the girls. My professor later told me that a large majority of the students told me that I was their favorite TA. I was getting IOIs from the women whereas I had none before and even asked some out later and said yes.
This is the power of being in a position of relative authority and being charismatic with the students. I think it’s also true that first impressions are the most important, and it’s relatively rare(r) that a woman will like you, sans not being attracted at first impression, but it’s been my experience that there are chances to subvert that notion but it has to be in specific circumstances.
YMMV. But I’ve had that happen several times throughout my life like I described in the Meet Cute article on my site [Meet Cutes – Are They Common? (2020 March 13) so] this is not an isolated incident. Some other commenters chimed in saying it was the case for them too.”
Deep Strength’s argument is summarized here.
“From what I’ve seen it depends on fairly specific circumstances to set men up to be successful when there is not a lot of initial attraction. We discussed some way back when here: Understanding the Friend Zone and Escaping it (2015 April 10)”
Both men have a pretty solid case. Both men have experiences to back up their arguments. But how could both men be right?
Women are always “ON”
In my view of the way it is, women are always “on” sexually. They have an ego investment in being able to receive attention, usually by being attractive. They are always intensely conscious of their sexual value, and they tend to interpret everything through a sexualized lens. But the thing is, women are also genuine virtuosas in hiding their fertility and arousal.
As an example of this, let me say that it is common for a man, while having no motives whatsoever, to speak to a young woman about something benign, and then get an indignantly hot retort of, “Sorry, I have a boyfriend!” In this, she is subtly insinuating that the man is making a sexual advance, which she then decides to reject. Such instances of self-centered solipsism betray their deeper nature.
The challenge that women face is not in masking their sexual instincts, but for them to find a way to express that part of their nature without any negative repercussions. They are finicky in the selection of the man they will express their sexuality to, and they can be extremely particular about the social setting as well.
But once a woman can open herself up fully in the presence of a man, the crazed, animalistic intensity of female’s raw c0ckamania spews forth. (Some men don’t actually want to know how insane this craving can be, because it would disrupt their sense of order and their respect for humanity.)
Now, I’m oversimplifying ten years worth of Red Pill praxeology here, but the idea is that women are sexual beings by nature, and it simply awaits to be revealed. The modus operandi of Pick-Up Artistry is all about understanding and maneuvering the complicated processes required to reveal the feminine sexual nature.
Modern culture has also made it easier for women to abandon agency and express their sexual nature. See Heartiste’s exposition on The 6 Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse (2012 November 2).
In general, women gravitate towards any man or situation that allows them to lower their guard and freely abandon the responsibilities of having any moral agency. Bad girls will even insist on their “right” to exploit this state of being. The aphorism, “girls just wanna have fun”, rings true here. As we already know, women find this easy to do with certain men, and the qualities of such men have been discussed before. (We give these high SMV men convenient labels such as AF’s, chads, studs, and the like.) But one noteworthy characteristic of these men is that they are self-sufficient and so they have many options because they are not beheld to various personal needs.
Some women (too few in my opinion) have additional qualifications about choosing a man for additional purposes, i.e. marriage, and therefore, these women have additional ramifications to consider in their process of opening up.
Different Men Attract Different Women
With these things in mind, we have to consider the visceral appeal of the man in question, and his overall suitability for a given woman’s intended purposes for pairing up with him. Here I’ll use Scott, DS, and myself as examples to illustrate how different women react to a man’s SMV.
- Scott is (or was) at least a 9 on an SMV scale, so he shines out readily and many hot women are quick to open up to him. Thus, these women’s inherent sexual nature is expressed almost immediately.
- I would put myself somewhere between 7 to 8 (maybe a 9 at my peak). So my experience resonates with Scott’s, although it is not as scintillating. I drew the frantic attentions of a lot of women who had a lower SMV than I did. But I would never get IOI’s from extremely attractive women (unless they were desperately looking for short term thrills). I still get a very positive reaction from many women, almost daily, but I wouldn’t necessarily interpret this as a meaningful IOI. It just means that some women find it easy and enjoyable to open up to me.
- DS stated that he is a 6, so we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that fewer women open up to him, and only under certain circumstances that allow his inner qualities to shine forth. DS doesn’t have a lot of frenzied females calling him in the middle of the night to come top her off. But on the other hand, it might be easier for DS to find a deeper, more meaningful relationship, simply because only those women who are attracted to his inner qualities come forth showing interest.
- We can assume that a man who is not self-sufficient, or less than a theoretical threshold, would not get any attention at all from women. Within a patriarchal society having moralized norms, this threshold would be very low. But as the acceptance and ease of promiscuity increases, so does this threshold. Herein lies the widespread appeal among men for the patriarchal system. It is also one reason why rebellious, promiscuous women despise the patriarchal system.
All of this seems to support the claim that women are opportunistic in the mating game, and that men don’t have a clue, which renders them idealistic.
Different Women are Attracted to Different Men
Going off of the previous section, we can see how there is a vast difference in the kind of women that each man attracts.
- Scott attracts women who are expressly looking for a handsome man. He obviously knows that “girls just wanna have fun” (i.e. sex), and that they are only open to those men who are conducive to this experience.
- I can attract a number of women for sex quite easily, but they are not the type of women that would be so gorgeous as to be beyond my threshold of temptation. I can attract women for relationships, but things tend to go slower for me than things go for Scott, which is more like what DS experiences.
- DS attracts women who are more reserved and self-controlled, and probably more marriage minded too. These women are also those who tend to be more sophisticated in their selection process.
For those girls that DS describes as having no apparent attraction in the beginning, but who slowly “warm up” to the man (given the right social setting), I think one of two events can be safely presumed, and either of these would jive with Scott’s arguments.
- The girl always had a soft spot for that man from early on. But the girl has to wait for the relationship and the social setting to develop before they can feel free to express their deeper feelings.
- The girl is turned on by the social structure itself. A man exercising authority and displaying competence is what turns them on, and not the man himself.
As I mentioned before, women are extremely skilled in hiding their own feelings of attraction and fertility cycle, and this is “built in” from an evo-psyche perspective. As Rollo says, women have an existential fear of wasting their reproductive potential on a sub-optimal man. They don’t want to choose poorly, waste time, or look like a fool. In other words, the “gathering” instinct of the woman finds a large number of choices of men whom she is attracted to, or turn her on, and so she has the luxury of choice, making her very relaxed and selective. She waits until one man shines out before opening herself up.
On the outside, it all looks the same to the man. But a discerning man can figure out which of these inner mechanisms is at play if he is aware of it. The difference in the woman’s motivations behind her response is largely determined by her personality. In general, introverted girls follow the first approach listed above, and extroverted girls follow the latter.
So going back to the debate between Scott and DS, I think they are talking past each other due to their different life experiences caused by their contrasting SMV’s.
The takeaway from this excellent discussion is that…
- Different kinds of men attract different kinds of women.
- Different kinds of women are attracted to different kinds of men.
- Hawt men can easily attract attention from those women seeking hawt men.
- Women who are more selective, more sophisticated, more demanding in their expectations, or who have the luxury of choice will be more choosy and careful in selecting a man.
- Both hawt handsome men (like Scott), and men who display authority and competence (like DS) are able to create attraction.
- The social structure and setting is often what allows each respective man to showcase those unique characteristics of his which can attract those individual women who happen to find those things to be attractive.
- I should also add that libido and testosterone (T) presents a significant difference among men. Libido causes the sexual interaction to become a significant motivator in determining the preferred relationship structure. It is also known that women, in general, are highly attracted to high T men.
Some like it hot, some like it cold.
- Σ Frame: DTF Cupid (2017 December 17)