Something’s not right… (about Sexual Authority)

“Falling in love” with her places you at her behest.

Readership: Christian Men

Introduction

Oscar wrote,

“Hot chicks tend to be more rebellious because they can get away with it. On top of that, rebellious women (whether hot or not) tend to be more sexually available, and sexually adventurous, which – let’s face it – is exciting to most men.”

In this post, I’ll relay a case study I found at reddit/RPChristians about a man who “fell in love” with a woman who is unsuitable for marriage, and then I’ll Frame this man’s experience from a Red Pill perspective that will make it more easily understandable from a Christian viewpoint.

Actually, RPChristians is full of stories like this – Christian men who “fall in love” with a hottie, and then suffer from confusion and have doubts about their faith. Then they come to RPChristians looking for an answer. Unfortunately, a rational explanation and some good advice is not going to solve their problem, because it’s too late. They’ve already gotten high on the p00n hooch.

So first, here’s the story.

Case Study: Husky Viper

A younger man (husky-viper) posted this story on reddit/RPChristians about a month ago.

He has a follow up post here.

TLDR: He “fell in love” with a young woman who is obviously an unbeliever and is therefore unsuitable for pursuing a marriage with. Now he’s in a quandary because his ego is invested, his libido is entrenched in the relationship, and he’s psychologically obsessed with her.

Most of the responses there have been about how he should get away from her, and this would be the standard Christian advice.

The secular RP response would be [my paraphrase],

“Don’t be lame. Hone up your game, maintain frame, bang the dame, and don’t take the blame!”

The Reframe

Men will usually expect to feel for a woman what Husky Viper feels about this woman. Men are just like women in this sense, in that they strongly desire to follow their feelings, instead of their faith. Then, like Husky Viper, after stumbling into this, they are faced with the difficult task of playing the mate missionary, trying to “make her become a Christian” and so on, or otherwise, at least someone worthy of a Christian marriage. It’s just like Christian women who want to take the same approach with Chads.

Good luck with that!

But the reason why she is unsuitable is not the reason he, nor anyone else thinks. The reason she is unsuitable is not because she is worldly, an atheist, a Mormon, a feminist, has blue hair, has had N partners in the past, is a single mother, or whatever other reason might be posing a psychological roadblock — all the things that come to mind whenever we are warned with the verse, “Do not be unequally yoked” (2nd Corinthians 6:14) in church, or from reading about vetting qualifications in the Manosphere, and so on.

No. All that tripe is hogwash. The real reason she is unsuitable is simply because he’s obsessed with her, and she is not obsessed with him. It needs to be the other way around.

The reason it needs to be the other way around is because if she is really into him, then there’s a chance that she might change her mind about any belief that she holds, and change her ways about any habit which doesn’t fit the stereotypical Christian life of faith.

Another reason it needs to be the other way around is because that would make it a Headship or Tingly Respect type of relationship structure, by definition, which is what would be necessary for the relationship to have a chance at glorifying God.

In marriage, it is more important for a man to have sexual authority over his wife for several reasons, including,

  • It satiates her fleshly nature, leading to less drama and more peace in the home.
  • It reduces the wife’s inclination, willingness, and overall ability to stray or rebel.
  • It makes it easier for him to rule over his household.

But the way it is with Husky Viper (and others like him), we’re looking at some type of relationship structure that is below the Male Submission line (in the graph below), and who knows which one it might develop into?

Intrinsic Sexual Authority

Scott’s description of the Meet Cute phenomena is a situation where the man has sexual authority over the woman.

In contrast, Husky Viper’s experience is a great description of how a woman has sexual authority over a man.

I talked about Sexual Authority before.

“Sexual Market Value (SMV) as the Manosphere has described it, is a subjective, backward way of attaching a quantitative handle on one’s intrinsic sexual authority, for the convenience of discussion.  That is to say, when we speak of someone’s SMV, we are basically talking about how much sexual authority that person can command.

Sexual authority is not explicitly limited to sexual intercourse and sexualized intersexual liaisons.  It also extends to envelop one’s ability to garner attention, investment, popularity, and favor.  Sexual authority enhances one’s social prowess and enhances one’s overall quality of life.”

The difference between sexual authority and SMV is that SMV is a generalized rating that most men will intuitively agree upon, while sexual authority is the overpowering emotional and visceral effect that one person has on another. Thus, it is quite possible that a person who is ostensibly a poor choice of a mate could have sexual authority over a Christian. We see this dynamic all too frequently, as all the stories at RPChristians show.

In addition, many worldly women have learned the tricks and techniques that a woman can use to snag a man’s undying love and devotion. This is what makes them overtly attractive – and dangerous!

Why is love always backwards?

When a man wonders why he can’t “fall in love” with a “nice Christian woman” to marry, he’s usually thinking with the wrong head, and looking in the wrong pool of eligibles.

“…when a man and woman are “just friends” it’s usually the man who wants to be in a romantic relationship but the woman does not.  And generally, similar reasons apply as to why she’s happy with the situation. She is already getting many of the non-sexual benefits of a boyfriend or even of marriage without having to actually date him. It’s almost certain the woman in this friend zone situation is well aware that the man has romantic feelings for her.  That is why I categorize these types of relationships as exploitative.

The Masculinist (Aaron M. Renn): How To Get Out Of The Friend Zone (2020 November 16)

Not only is it exploitative, men actually hunt and hope for such experiences!

Remember the axiom, Men love ideologically!? 

In fact, the church fully endorses this perverse relational archetype, as Anon pointed out under Deep Strength’s post, The friend zone is the same as feminism in the female life path (2021 January 12).

“Unfortunately “friends first” is often pushed in the American churches as the best way to go about seeking a mate.  “They were friends first!” is an exclamation I’ve heard more than once from a proud parent, or pastor. In at least two cases it was painfully obvious to me at least that the girl was settling for a man, rather than head-over-heels crazy.

“Friends first” is possibly just another version of “courting”, which worked for some and failed for others. To reiterate, it’s not a bad thing per se, but when it’s pushed as the bestest way to seek a wife, it’s very flawed.”

Yes, just as the church feeds feminine fantasies leading to doom, the church also coaxes the male fantasy of female pedestalization by way of idealizing the “falling in love” experience as being concomitant with the “Friends” archetype. This heresy follows the popular 90s sitcom and exacerbates the sex-specific weaknesses that are already present in men and women.

Epilogue

Men, especially younger men, have a natural (sinful?) habit of seeking out women who command sexual authority over them. It’s entrancing.  It’s intoxicating. It’s obsessive. So men naturally (and quickly) “fall in love” with such women.

The problem is when Christian men prioritize the “in love” experience of being obsessed with a woman as a prerequisite for considering a woman for marriage!

This is essentially idolatry!

As a word of hope, it is possible for a nominally low SMV man to have a great deal of sexual authority over a particular woman who just so happens to have the right “vibes”, or “chemistry”, or what have you. Instead of looking for love in all the wrong places, men should look for IOIs to judge his own sexual authority and choose appropritately.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Attraction, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Churchianity, Complementarianism, Courtship and Marriage, Decision Making, Desire, Desire, Passion, Discernment, Wisdom, Education, Enduring Suffering, Female Power, Game Theory, Handling Rejection, Headship and Patriarchy, IOI's, Male Power, Models of Failure, Personal Presentation, Relationships, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV, Stewardship, Strategy, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

126 Responses to Something’s not right… (about Sexual Authority)

  1. Scott says:

    Everyone who was watching the show “friends” in the 90s and saw the romantic relationships develop between Ross/Rachel and Chandler/Monica new it was bullshit.

    But we WANT it to be reality. The power of cognitive dissonance stands squarely as a bulwark against reality and ultimately happiness.

    Schwimmer and Perry (the actors) are good looking and charming and well, actors. So they pretty much have the pick of whatever women they want.

    But the characters they played were dorks and in the real world never had a chance with those girls. But we see through the magic of television that if you just pine and pine and pine and pine for your Rachel eventually she will come around!

    Lame

    For the billionth time. If she is not crazy about you from the start — and makes it really obvious — next!

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Friends – my wife made me watch it – I swear.

      The episode where Rachel views an old home movie where Ross is sad and pathetic seeing her run off to HS prom with another guy. Rachel views this old home movie and she suddenly gets hot for Ross and runs over and makes out with him.

      Yeah totally realistic. Blue-pill man fantasy.

      Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “Schwimmer and Perry (the actors) are good looking ”

      It’s funny. When I first saw the show (I think I was 19-ish) I thought they both looked like goobers. My immediate reaction is those guys are way too goobery for those girls (I had no idea who the characters were or the relationships). It was clear that Joey was a good looking guy.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        I agree. I have had this argument about Ross and Chandler with others. It’s claimed Ross is the beta and Chandler is a dork omega. Sorry, I don’t see it. Ross is an adenoidal simpering whining neurotic overly fastidious p*ssy. Chandler is at least snarky, witty, and funny.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      But the characters they played were dorks and in the real world never had a chance with those girls.

      Same with Big Bang Theory. No way does Leonard get even so much as a second look from Penny in real life. BBT Leonard sleeps with Sheldon’s hot sister AND Raj’s hot sister, as well as a couple of women from work. That’s absurd. No way does a real life Leonard get the action BBT Leonard gets. Not happening, ever.

      Howard does not get Bernadette. Raj does not get anyone. Sheldon gets his ass kicked every other day and bullies still take his lunch money.

      Same with just about every other John Hughes film and Disney romcom – Best Friend does not get laid. Duckie does not get the hot blonde at the high school dance. Duckie goes home and gets Dad’s Playboys out (or now, P0rnhub).

      For the billionth time. If she is not crazy about you from the start — and makes it really obvious — next!

      Yes. But as a practical matter in 2021 post-Christian, Brave New Harris Administration World, that means a large percentage of men get nothing. It also means a lot of men waiting until around 40 or so to get any attention at all. That attention will be limited to women demanding beta bux commitment and investment, right now.

      I think we as men, and men in general, need to face up to this and prepare for it. A big percentage of men will be out of luck. The next tier will struggle mightily. Above that, a lot of men will decide it’s not worth the effort, and GTOW. And the top men will clean up.

      It’s worth remembering that a lot of the men who are failing miserably now are men who, as recently as 25 years ago, would be married fathers, in marriages of varying success. Yes, many would be divorced, but the point is they were able to get to marriage and fatherhood. Now, they can’t even get their potential wives to look at them, because they’re too busy in their phones with their OnlyFans “businesses” and IG profiles. They can’t get anything at all.

      this is where we’re headed, I think, and I don’t see it reversing. I see it continuing in that general direction for a good long time.

      Liked by 3 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Man I’m really glad I haven’t watched TV in…. near on 30 years now?

        Reading about them shows made me cranky. Can’t imagine my response to actually viewing them

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Also a lot of top tier guys seem to be walking away. Not just from marriage but the whole thing.

        I was watching a pod cast….. with Whitey Ford?……. and he remarked on how many musicians these days don’t behave like rock stars back in the day nd those are the guys you would think are cleaning up

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Ton

        “Me too” respects no status.

        Liked by 2 people

    • lastmod says:

      It was fun show….and even then I knew it was nonsense…….but “Friends” I suppose just fit the times. Yes…let’s take a look at Ross. Total dork. Creepy-sensitive, a typical NYC whiner type……but had some decent looks behind him. He did have a personality of sorts. He was a “Phd” so to speak. Had a decent job, and yes…..had some fun and cool “Friends”

      If Ross looks like your average ‘palentologist’ who worked in a museum “in-the-real-world” he would be reduced to porn. A pity f*ck now and then….maybe a foreign bride from China.

      Now Chandler. Sarcastic, cynical……….but funny because he had decent enough looks (good hair) and a very good job. I calculated all the times he helped “Joey” over the ten year run of the show financially (rent, and everything else). Chandler dropped about 175K on this “friend” from 19994-2004. Chandler (and we never knew what he ‘exactly’ did in his office tower job) made a very well above average living for any run of the mill mid-late twenties GenX guy at that time. A NYU education pays off evidently. If Chanlder looked like your average stiff is some silicon valley high tech campus at the same time he would be at the local strip clubs, placing personals with no reply, and would have fallen for PUA / Game / and any other self-help thing out there. As we all know…..he didn’t look like that and of course got Monica and didn’t have to settle for Janis.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Scott says:

    And just to make sure we pulverize this dead horse into a nice fine pink mist. There are several reasons to follow this advice.

    First. If you find yourself having to wear down her defenses by navigating the rat and cheese maze that is her friend zone –> something more criteria, rest assured there are several other rats in that maze.

    Second. And that if you do get to be the lucky rat, you will always be nagged by the sinking insecurities of what that means.

    Third. If you must employ “game” (which is an inherently unstable, and unrealistic version of yourself that you concocted by reading red pill stuff) to get her in the first place, understand that that this means you will have to employ these tactics for the rest of your marriage, and still not be sure who she really fell for.

    (See the redpill salesman playbook)
    –It didn’t work
    –You didn’t internalize game, buy this book
    –I bought the book, it didn’t work.
    –You didn’t internalize game, buy super chats on this youtube channel
    –I bought the super chats. It didn’t work
    –You didn’t internalize game. Buy 600$ tickets to this seminar
    –I went to the seminar, it didn’t work…

    Fourth. It is far more likely that a man will “fall” for a woman whom he choses after she chases him than it is the other way around. Like orders of magnitude more likely. Like, I have never seen it happen where a woman who acquiesced and consented to dating a man who kept nagging her became head over heels in love with him and a later point. But I have seen the other way around, to include myself.

    A broken clock is right twice a day –or– John Hughes was a fool, but he wasn’t dumb

    If you put enough monkeys on enough typewriters for long enough, eventually one of them will produce something that approximates Shakespeare. Likewise, being as prolific as he was with the teen/romantic comedy genre, Hughes managed to stumble on this truth, once, and only once that I am aware of. Enter “Some Kind of Wonderful ” (1989)

    Recall, the entire premise of this film was that Keith (Eric Stoltz) is chasing the dream girl/gorgeous/leggy homecoming queen type (Leah Thompson). But all the while, his best friend the tomboyish, but ultimately super cute “Watts” (Mary Stuart Masterson) is his true love–and she waits for him to come to his senses and realize this. When the problem with the other girl is resolved with a bizarre plot twist involving a house party and some of their freakish friends, he and Watts finally become an item and whatever.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Every man now should watch The Last American Virgin (1982), especially the ending. All you really need to watch is the last 15 minutes of the film, and watch the credits as well. If you have not seen that movie, or the last 15 minutes, go watch it. Now. THAT, right there, is a depiction of real life for the Average Frustrated Chump. That’s the AFC’s life on a monthly basis, at least. Every man needs to see it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Every man now should watch The Last American Virgin (1982), especially the ending.

        Dude. That movie was brutal. Brutally honest, but brutal.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        It’s funny looking at the ending again. I mean not humorous but interesting because come to think of it the same thing happened to me in college — not in quite the same way (I didn’t walk in on them, but the person I was dating basically flamboyantly cheated on me in front of a bunch of friends during a weekend I was away, and the news got back to me, through said friends, quickly enough, and the circumstances, relative SMVs and so on, all line up with this. It messed with me for quite some time after that, really, although I did recover from it of course.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Dude. That movie was brutal. Brutally honest, but brutal.

        That’s why men need to watch it. Because that ending, or something like it, happens to most of us. Men who weren’t AFCs, men who never needed red pill, got experience with this by around age 12 or 13, and learned that it’s part of life and girls just do this and to shake it off and keep going because there’s always another girl.

        Liked by 2 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      Women are easy enough to mange if you don’t place to much value on them. On them in general or anyone of them in particular.

      Game, re-ordering life etc can be a hugely useful tool but most of the PUA type dudes always seemed to preach a very surface level skill set.

      Liked by 3 people

      • feeriker says:

        Women are easy enough to mange if you don’t place to much value on them. On them in general or anyone of them in particular.

        Sad to contemplate, but true. Very, VERY true. The “woman tree,” or “woman warehouse” attitude (a.k.a., “the abundance mentality”) is really the only way to fight back. More than a few “middle tier” men have said that after operating on this principle for several years they gave up on relationships altogether after deciding that none of the women were worth the investment of their time, money, or emotions.

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL it’s a werid thing

        I’m happy with my domestic life but I probably spend about 50% of my time solo.

        Like

    • lastmod says:

      “Third. If you must employ “game” (which is an inherently unstable, and unrealistic version of yourself that you concocted by reading red pill stuff) to get her in the first place, understand that that this means you will have to employ these tactics for the rest of your marriage, and still not be sure who she really fell for.”

      Exactly.

      Like

  3. Oscar says:

    Here’s a sincere question I haven’t been able to resolve in my mind. Obviously, the reason I want to resolve it is not for me, but for my boys, since at least some of them are likely to be a lot like I was in this respect.

    College was the first time I got much attention from girls. I started college after my first enlistment, so I was older than other students, and I’d put on some muscle (still skinny at 6’0″, 165 lb). I’m an engineer, with a typical engineer’s personality. Stable, analytical, boring to most people, zero charisma.

    I would’ve said of most of the girls I dated in college that “we started as friends”, including my wife. There were a few times I asked girls out pretty much cold, and got a date out of it, but none of those ever went anywhere. I did get put in the “friend zone” a few times, and quickly learned to just bail out.

    My wife and I met at a college church group. I lived in a big house with five other guys (mostly engineering students) who attended the same group. Because the house we rented was so big, we often hosted get-togethers at our house. That’s where the now-Mrs. and I met. One of my roommates was interested in her, so I didn’t ask her out. That never went anywhere, so after my roommate moved on, I asked her out, but the now-Mrs. and I were “friends” that whole time.

    It wasn’t until after we were married that my wife told me that the first time she saw me, she asked one of her friends, “who’s the guy with the deep voice?”

    Clearly, she was interested from the start, I just didn’t notice. So, how does a young, semi-socially-clueless engineer-type, like I was, learn to notice?

    I’m still a semi-socially-clueless engineer-type. I’m just not young anymore.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      The most salient point in your story is:

      Your wife was into you from day one

      The rest is the awkward details of how you finally activated that dynamic in spite of yourself. And that’s a big piece.

      Your boys can learn to recognize the cues. Jack has tried to cover that topic elsewhere on here, but I do believe it is one if the areas (along with assortive mating) that is an untapped (and realistic) solution to all this.

      Also, girls like Elspeths daughters need to SEE CHRISTIAN men having these conversations and figure out how to show IOIs and have fun with it for Christ’s sake. Life it already too short and stupid enough for everyone to be lonely and miserable.

      We should explore it more on this site. It’s important.

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      So, how does a young, semi-socially-clueless engineer-type, like I was, learn to notice?

      Experience. And having more experienced men walk you through it and tell you what they’re seeing. And some hindsight.

      This was one of the most important parts of early Red Pill and the manosphere when I first got here – identifying IOIs, IODs (indicators of disinterest), and how to respond to both. It was and is done in written “lesson/lecture” format for men who learn things that way, and for men who just didn’t get a lot of experience with it.

      There’s no substitute for experience, though, so a “semi socially clueless” man has to get out there and increase his social acumen and abilities. That’s why a lot of the focus was on “get out there and get rejected” and “get out there and talk to people and talk to women and date some of them and have sex with the ones who will have sex with you”. Because a lot of them just didn’t actually do the things that help you learn what IOIs and IODs look like in the field, in real life, in real time.

      Experience, help, hindsight, and field-testing. That’s pretty much it.

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        That’s why a lot of the focus was on “get out there and get rejected”

        That’s pretty much what I did, though I had zero guidance. After getting rejected a few times, I figured out that rejection wasn’t the end of the world.

        Still, I ended up following Scott’s advice, even though I’d never heard it, and was completely unaware that my wife had been “into me since day one”, as Scott puts it. Now I need to teach my boys how to do it intentionally.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lastmod says:

        and when in the 1990’s a good 30% of men were not getting IOI’s period, at all (and I lived in San Francisco back then, worked in San Jose this was felt here WAY befoer the rest of the USA) it was “tough breaks for you…just be a boss, learn Game…..women don’t care about looks, they want a ‘leader’)” but now we’re at some critical mass…..most men now are NEVER going to get IOI’s so “trying” to read them as a young man is pretty stupid when they don’t exist for most men now.

        The gal has to like you…..that has always been the case………and you men here make it out like “real men choose the gal” and the reality is “she is choosing you” in some strange ironic twist of fate you still don’t mention your looks in all of this. All of you who had this when you were younger WERE better than average looking.

        You cannot make a 5’8″ guy a ten in looks, even when he “works out”. You are not going to take a 6’3″ ecto-frame guy like myself at 25 and have hime become a 8 on the looks scale because he just dresses better or gets a better haircut. Ugliness is to the bone. You can’t put lipstick on a pig.

        As for quoting Aaron Renn. That a-hole’s take on “urbanism” RUINED tha last hope for downtown Fresno. We had a vintage pedestrain mall from 1964 designed by Garrett Eckbo and ripping out a beautiful piece of mid-century-modern design. His book on “Urbanism” was quoted extensively at the debates and city hall meetings for “ripping out” our pedestrian mall. This man has no business being taken seriously on anything.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        women don’t care about looks

        There you go again with the same lie.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        no….that “was” the advice in the RP man-o-sphere until a few years ago. Now looks “do” matter, and forgetting their 180 turn around on this issue claiming “they always knew this”

        I am not lying. You guys were

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        “You are not going to take a 6’3″ ecto-frame guy like myself…”

        I suspect that taller isn’t always better. If you’re smaller boned guy you look gangly if you’re taller. I”m 5’10 barefoot so my smaller frame isn’t too out of proportion. I wouldn’t want to be taller unless I was bigger framed.

        I suspect women discriminate more strongly against short height then they do for tall height. Obviously their ideal is tall and muscular.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        I am not lying. You guys were

        Who’s “you guys”?

        I never said “looks don’t matter”.
        Jack never said “looks don’t matter”.
        Scott never said “looks don’t matter”.
        Nova never said “looks don’t matter”.

        You’re lying, Jason.

        Like

  4. Scott says:

    Deti

    The Duckie character deserves an entire book worth of analysis.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Duckie is the personification of everything a man should NOT be. High school and college men, for instructions on what NOT to be, watch Pretty in Pink and pay attention to Philip “Duckie” Dale.

      Duckie is weird, neurotic, whiny, and insecure. He’s got a stupid sounding nickname. He dresses like a fop dandy. He’s skinnyfat. His best friend is an equally neurotic and insecure lower middle class girl who he follows around like a whipped puppy.

      And, of course, true to form, he’s smitten in love with her. Being around Andie, his best friend, is literally the only thing he ever does. His entire life revolves around Andie. He spends all his time with her. She is all he thinks about. Everything he does is designed to get her to notice him and love him. He beclowns himself in public by lip syncing a song at her place of employment in the most embarrassing, over the top way. He whines to Andie’s boss at the record store about “I love her TOO MUCH!” He acts like a bitch by trash talking Blane, Andie’s love interest.

      Let that be a lesson to all you youngsters out there. Kids, don’t be Duckie.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Oh, yeah, and Duckie doesn’t do anything even remotely masculine until the very end of the film, when in what can only be a fantasy dream sequence, a hot blonde curls up her finger at him and motions him lustfully to “come hither”, and Duckie strides to her forthwith.

        That’s the ONLY assertive, manly thing Duckie ever does – and it’s not even real.

        Hughes’ original ending had Andie ending up with Duckie. It was changed because the test audiences absolutely hated that. They all wanted Andie to end up with handsome boyfriend material Blane. No one wanted Duckie to get her, because that’s not real. Girls don’t want their best male friends as lovers. Andie never showed any attraction to Duckie at all – he was just a friend to her, so Duckie ending up with her made no sense.

        Don’t. Be. A. Duckie.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        It would have made more sense, in light of everything else we see of him to make the character a closeted gay guy.

        Maybe even has secret a crush on Blane.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        But instead of making him gay, Hughes wants us to believe the “someone out there for everyone” canard, which is why we get the blonde at the end.

        It’s completely bizarre, and looks like a subplot resolution just to tidy things up. Which it is.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        I didn’t remember who “Duckie” was, so I looked him up. Check this out.

        https://www.salon.com/2016/02/27/the_trouble_with_duckie_how_pretty_in_pinks_most_lovable_character_gave_a_generation_of_teenage_boys_the_wrong_idea/

        Disciples of Duckie, we had it all wrong.
        …..
        Re-watch “Pretty in Pink” and Duckie comes off not as a role model but as a cautionary tale about what we can destroy while growing up…
        …..
        I wish had known better than to think my high school best friend/crush would fall for me after months of not letting on, and then getting mad when she fell for someone else, and in between trying to woo her with a lip-synch performance (mine was Mötley Crüe’s “Home Sweet Home.” Laugh all you want.).

        You mean to tell me that actual human beings thought Duckie was “a role model”? Even I’m not that socially clueless!

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL had a Duckie in my 1st Ranger platoon and that nick name never slowed him down

        Point being it’s probably not the nick name but the over all package…. with a weak name thrown in as curb stomp

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        You mean to tell me that actual human beings thought Duckie was “a role model”?

        Yes. Pretty in Pink was released during my junior year in high school. It was an instant hit. Everyone saw the movie. Immediately at least a couple of guys started creating the Duckie look and wearing similar clothes and hairstyles.

        At the time Molly Ringwald was one of the most popular actresses in the country. The role of Andie Walsh and the entire film were written and created for Ringwald. But, Duckie stole the show. That role is still considered Jon Cryer’s tour de force role, his magnum opus, the best acting performance of his entire career.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        That role is still considered Jon Cryer’s tour de force role, his magnum opus, the best acting performance of his entire career.

        It was great acting, and hilarious, but nothing to emulate, and definitely effeminate.

        Like

      • Scavos says:

        @thedeti

        “Let that be a lesson to all you youngsters out there. Kids, don’t be Duckie.”

        No worries. We got Scott “Skippy” Jessop, from The Virgin Diaries(TLC Version), to serve as our modern-day reminder of what NOT to be. The biggest difference being that Skippy is a real person, while Duckie is a character.

        I’ll be sure to watch The Last American Virgin and Pretty in Pink in the near future.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Novaseeker says:

    As a word of hope, it is possible for a nominally low SMV man to have a great deal of sexual authority over a particular woman who just so happens to have the right “vibes”, or “chemistry”, or what have you. Instead of looking for love in all the wrong places, men should look for IOIs to judge his own sexual authority and choose appropritately.

    To be honest, I haven’t seen this pulled off. I mean, I don’t doubt that it is theoretically possible for a low SMV man to get IOIs from an attractive woman due to his sexual authority due to having the right particular vibes or chemistry … but I haven’t seen it. Vibes and chemistry tend to line up quite closely with respective SMVs, and people find vibes and chemistry with others in the same “effective SMV band” (defined below) as they do, provided that they are attracted at all to people who are in that effective SMV band.

    By “effective SMV band” I don’t mean people who are actual SMV parallels, but rather given the overall market dynamic, are the sets where each sex thinks they are parallel to. So in most markets today, young women have extraordinary market power, so a 25yo female 6 isn’t in the same SMV band at age 25 as a male equivalent 6 … her “effective SMV band” is 7-8 at that age, and so male 6s aren’t generally generating chemistry and vibes for her. The girls who may have chemistry and vibes for the male 6 equivalent is a girl who is a 4 or 5.

    And there lies the issue.

    I agree that it makes sense to be with a woman who is head over heels for you. The two best relationships I had in my life were both with women who were more attracted to me than I was to them, for all the reasons you state here. It just works better that way. But … unless you are quite attractive yourself at the time you attract them, the women in this category are, generally speaking, not going to be all that attractive, and may not be attractive to you — at least not attractive enough to want to be in a relationship with. A male equivalent 6 is typically not going to want to be with a 4, whether she is head over heels for him or not, and may even be lukewarm about a 5. A male 8 equivalent has it easier, because female 6s and 7s are well above the normal attractiveness threshold, and so he can opt for a girl who is lower than he is in SMV, is head over heels for him, and yet is still objectively attractive, and therefore a very interesting and even compelling woman for a wife. Key though — he’s attractive enough to get that with this approach. Even a slightly lower but still above average guy (a male equivalent 6) is with much slimmer pickings, and a guy who is dead on average at the mean is looking at below average girls if he wants a girl who is going to be head over heels for him.

    Again, I think there are cases where you can find someone who is in your actual SMV band and not the “effective SMV band” (i.e., the female 6 if you are a male equivalent 6) who just has the hots for you for some reason, but in my own personal experience and in lots of observation, this is just very, very rare due to hypergamy.

    Basically from my perspective the strategy remains: work hard to max attractiveness on all levels, and then see what kind of woman (level of attractiveness) is attracted to you in your local marketplace and determine whether it’s worth pursuing. If not, then re-evaluate options, including location.

    Liked by 2 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      A 25 year old dude who is a 6 in the SMP is probably going to have ioi’s and sexual authority over mud turtles and swamp donkeys. Which he might bang if that’s all he can pull but he’s unlikely to marry something that far bellow his own value.

      Which is the other side of the self improvement coin. If you’re a dude 4, busting your ass might make you a 6…. Which means you have to bust your ass some more to pull a 6 or a 5. Most guys are not going to see that as a good deal

      Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Which is the other side of the self improvement coin. If you’re a dude 4, busting your ass might make you a 6…. Which means you have to bust your ass some more to pull a 6 or a 5. Most guys are not going to see that as a good deal

        Exactly. It’s where I eventually landed in my view of self-improvement as a means to an end in this context as well. It works best for guys who are already in the mid-5 to low 6 range, because if they manage to improve themselves with effort 2 scale point equivalents, to say around a male 7, they will really see tangible benefits from that in terms of being much more attractive to female 6s … and female 6s are prime wife material for many, many guys. A guy who is a mid to higher 6 baseline can also improve to high 7 maybe even stretch/low 8 male equivalent … and then attract some low 7s, which is even more of a tangible benefit that will probably more than justify the effort for him. But the guy who is a baseline 4 who can only ever get to the level of a male 6 is likely not going to find the effort very worthwhile in a lot of cases … for a lot of these guys the juice isn’t worth the squeeze, so to speak, and so it’s probably better off for them to focus on other things in life if they can’t be attracted to less attractive women (men vary in this … some guys seem to be capable of being sexually attracted to objectively unattractive women, whereas many other guys are not, so it does vary).

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        Took me a little while to learn that lesson.

        A kilgillion years ago after my divorce I need excatally 1 piece of advice. Took me a few tries but it was pretty much all gravy once I stopped doing the job interview deal

        1st group of guys I was helping on the regular were young infantrymen in my scout/ sniper platoons. They were all fit, some what adventurous etc etc so a little bit of coaching went a long way.

        Took me a while and getting called out on the man o sphere a few times for shit to sink in

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        5 is average. a 4 is slightly below. Most men fall into the 4-6 range. Most women view any man below a 7 as “ugly”

        Being average looks on a cultural standard to women is now “way below average”

        We can thank Game for throwing this curve and making women “up the ante” of their expectations. Do you see how its almost impossible for a younger man today? It was bad enough in dot.com era San Francisco in the 1990’s.

        Probably would be ending my life if I was a young guy today at this point

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Nova said in a very recent comment (too lazy to look up) that most men who are a 6 wouldn’t be satisfied with a woman who was a 4 and probably not a 5. If a guy barely above average isn’t satisfied with a girl (assuming she has a good personality/is feminine) who is 1 to 2 points below him (and close to the average) then it’s hard to feel sorry for him. I”m hope I”m quoting Nova accurately.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        Chicks have to pass the boner test to generate any interest and most guys aren’t going to be down with a 4 and lower AND assuming a woman will be femmine/ have a good personality etc etc when they lost the looks lottery is a huge-ass-assumption

        Huge

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Nova said in a very recent comment (too lazy to look up) that most men who are a 6 wouldn’t be satisfied with a woman who was a 4 and probably not a 5. If a guy barely above average isn’t satisfied with a girl (assuming she has a good personality/is feminine) who is 1 to 2 points below him (and close to the average) then it’s hard to feel sorry for him. I”m hope I”m quoting Nova accurately.

        Yep.

        A man who is above average (6) generally isn’t going to be happy with a woman who is below average (4). He may be happy with a 5, depending on the guy.

        This is something I have referred to, for years, as the “attraction floor”. Both men and women have attraction floors. The attraction floor is simple: it’s the level below which someone finds people not attractive enough to be interested.

        Women’s floor is relative to their own SMV and is generally right at their own SMV level — that is, women prefer men who are +1-2 or higher than themselves, but will satisfice with someone who is “level” with their own SMV. Below their own SMV, they will not go (remember, this is not solely based on men’s looks for women .. the “ugly dude with the hot 8 chick” is bringing something else to the table that is boosting his SMV in her eyes).

        Men tend to have their attraction floor generally -1-2 to their own level, provided, however, that the -1-2 is not below the “absolute floor” — that is the level at which women are absolutely unattractive for him, period. This isn’t an issue for men who have higher SMVs, because their -1-2 is comfortably above the absolute floor. Men who are in the middle, though, can run into problems, where their effective attraction floor gets squeezed such that, say, -2 is now below the absolute floor, and therefore he only finds -1 and higher feasible for him. And it gets worse the lower his SMV gets until he finds himself in a place where his SMV is so low that the only women who are attractive enough for him to be interested are +1 or more, and he’s done at that point. A man who is a 3, for example, often will not find other 3s attractive at all because they are below the absolute floor, never mind the 1s and 2s who probably would find him interesting, as a 3, for them. So he remains single, because he has no feasible and attractive women available to him — the women who are available to him are not attractive to him.

        Of course, as you say, nobody cares about this. If a guy who is a 6 isn’t attracted to 4s and isn’t able to find a 5, nobody cares that he won’t settle for a 4 — that’s his problem. Same for a guy who is a 3. If he won’t t take the 2 who wants him, why should we feel sympathy for him? He’s a 3 himself, right? I mean beggars can’t be choosers, right?

        That’s all understandable, but the reality is that attraction floors are real and exist. Some men seem to plow through them better than others do — that is, we have all seen couples where both people are very unattractive physically (which generally means other things are unattractive about them, because that tends to be the way it works) yet they seem happy together. I think this is because different guys have different thresholds for happiness and different needs spectra and the like. That is, some guys simply need companionship a lot more than others, and function less well single — they will tend to be more compromising physically than others. Other guys want a family a LOT, as an abstract matter, and will go below an attraction floor to get one. And still other guys seem to not have much of an attraction floor at all (we’ve all known guys like this as well — anything that moves seems to be their attraction floor, and this is fine, it exists, but we also all know it isn’t typical for men either). Many guys, however, have an absolute attraction floor, and if they are in the unfortunate position where this is above their own SMV they can either improve their SMV or live alone — those are the options, really.

        It’s why the best option for men is to improve their SMV as much as they can, because if they do most guys can at least get to the point where their own SMV is above the “absolute floor” so that at least “level SMV” girls are attractive to them — so a man improves from a 2 to a 4 and now can attract at least some 4s, who are right at his absolute floor. It would be better he if could go from a 2 to a 6, because then he would have at least some chance (although a smaller one) at a 5 or even a very small chance at a 6, because he would have a much easier time getting a 4. A guy who is a “natural 6” probably has his absolute floor at 5 and not 4, so he should similarly improve to around 7, which should be doable, and then he can much more easily attract 5s and, with more difficulty, 6s, with even the very lucky occasional 7 in the mix (but unlikely). It makes sense for him to do the work to improve as well.

        Men never get sympathy for their lot in the SMP, neither from women nor from other men, so most guys honestly shouldn’t spend a lot of time worrying if other guys care about their lot. Most other guys don’t, at all. So don’t worry about it. Just focus on what makes sense for you, keep your eyes open, and be honest with yourself about what your boundaries are, what is achievable and what isn’t, and whether it makes sense to agree with yourself to be single.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Nova,

        I may not understand the scale perfectly but it seems to me there’s enough individual variation in taste that a lot of guys who are 6 could find a 4 they’re attracted to. You’re talking +/- 1 point from average. Some guys might rate every girl who’s flat chested no more than a 4. I don’t care about boob size – there’s cute girls with mosquito-bite sized boobs and cute girls who look like they’re carrying a pair of midgets in their shirt. My individual taste is independent of breast size (just as an example).

        Obesity among young people complicates things but let’s say for argument’s sake I mean among non-obese people.

        When we were teenagers I’d guess most of our peers would have rated me and my wife anywhere from 4 to 6. IOW – I think we were both average looking 18 year olds. I was attracted to her and she was to me. Looks matter but when people are good enough looking for each other to be co-attracte then personality and other qualities matter too.

        She passed my “boner test” as Jack puts it. She said she wanted her babies to have my blue eyes and liked high intelligence (not bragging – in the loser town we come from I was a friggin genius).

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Looks matter but when people are good enough looking for each other to be co-attracte then personality and other qualities matter too.

        But that’s my precise point … that works if “people are good enough looking for each other to be co-attracted”. Plenty of people are not in that category, when hypergamy is taken into account, in light of the absolute floor issue.

        In your example, if it’s a male 6 and a female 4, in some cases it can be feasible if what makes her a “4” is fine from the 6’s perspective — that’s your specific example, in fact. I would argue that if this is, in fact, the case, then the guy has a personal divergence that is significant enough from the general scale such that the girl in question “counts” as a 5 for him because what is making her a “consensus 4” is something that isn’t important to him. That’s fine. But if you knock the man’s SMV down one to 5, and the girl is a 3? Much less likely, because it’s more things that are causing her to be a 3 than a 4. ANd if you flip the SMVs around so that the girl is the 6 and the man is the 4, the relationship simply doesn’t happen, of course, that goes without saying.

        My point is that there is a squeeze that happens in the mid to lower mid ranges for men due to hypergamy, such that it helps for a man to either get to the higher middle (male 6) or above if he possibly can, because it gets much, much easier if he does.

        I do agree that once you are attracted to people who find you attractive, other qualities matter, but I’m talking about getting to the point where you’re in a place where you are attracted to the people who are attracted to you. Plenty are not in that place.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Okay – I get your main point. I guess mine was that I think there’s enough individual variation in taste (some subjectivity even though men and women have general preferences) to say that there’s no “concensus 4.” I guess I think of a little broader categories. Maybe not as broad as 20-60-20. Yeah there’s a difference between 21st percentile and 79th percentile. But broad enough that there’s a lot of variation in the rating of “4’s through 6’s.”

        I think what rubbed me the wrong way a bit is that a common manosphere and reactionary right complaint is that average men can’t get average women like in the 1950s yet I see statements that a slightly above average man isn’t happy with an slightly below average (or even average woman). And imagine how this must seem to an incel who has nobody.

        I doubt in the 1950s that either sex was happy marrying objectively ugly people. I don’t think of a 4 as objectively ugly but maybe I don’t understand the rating system very well.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        I think what rubbed me the wrong way a bit is that a common manosphere and reactionary right complaint is that average men can’t get average women like in the 1950s yet I see statements that a slightly above average man isn’t happy with an slightly below average (or even average woman). And imagine how this must seem to an incel who has nobody.

        I doubt in the 1950s that either sex was happy marrying objectively ugly people. I don’t think of a 4 as objectively ugly but maybe I don’t understand the rating system very well.

        Ah.

        I think everyone has a slightly different take, as you suggest, on what the “ratings” are, but at least as I use them, average is “5”. “4” is somewhat below average — that is there is something unattractive about them. “6” is somewhat above average, that is there is something more attractive than average about them. The difference between “6” and “7” is that “6” generally has something more attractive than average coupled with a lot that is average (most commonly, for women, above average face, average physique or vice versa), whereas the “7” is fully above average in all categories — some categories may be more above average than others, but nothing is “average”. “8” is simply a more perfect, higher level version of a “7”, and rarer. 9s are so rare as to be irrelevant for these discussions — they are not in general circulation so not relevant — and 10s are best considered to be “9s that fit my own exact taste”, and, again, not relevant for these discussions. Highest “rating” in general circulation is “8” and even they are quite rare — typically the most attractive woman in the room is a “7”. On the lower side, “3” is someone who is fully below average — there is nothing even average, it is all below average. “2”, like 8, is just a more degraded version of “3”, and “1” is very uncommon as are 9s.

        So for me, there’s a big difference between “4” and “6” in that the “6” has something that is above average in attractiveness and the “4” doesn’t have that but instead has something that is below average in attractiveness. For me, average is “5” — they are the plain janes — not attractive, not unattractive, just in the middle.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        ““4” is somewhat below average — that is there is something unattractive about them. “6” is somewhat above average, that is there is something more attractive than average about them.”

        I guess I imagine that a lot of people in the middle have features that are tradeoffs.

        A girl has a delicate pretty face but that often comes with small boobs a flat butt and not ideal hip-to-waist. She has some above average and some below average traits without even mentioning the variation in men’s tastes (some men prefer the little porcelain doll type, some prefer voluptuous women). And without mentioning how her personality can enhance her attractiveness (sweet vs. average vs a witch).

        Yes, low people on the scale – THere are people with lots of bad features or one bad feature that kills their attractiveness. Not really tradeoffs.

        High scale people – well they have lots of above average features and few serious flaws.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        She has some above average and some below average traits without even mentioning the variation in men’s tastes (some men prefer the little porcelain doll type, some prefer voluptuous women). And without mentioning how her personality can enhance her attractiveness (sweet vs. average vs a witch).

        For me, someone who has (a) some unattractive things, (b) some average things and (c) some above-average things is, objectively speaking, a “5”. (a) and (c) wash, and you are left with (b) overall.

        It’s true that for some guys (c) may be something that is a button-pusher for them, so it more than outweighs (a), and makes the person above average. OK, but that is not objective. Yes, attraction is subjective, but it is also, in general terms, objective — someone can be a subjective 6 but an objective 5.

        If that’s the case, why bother talking about an objective scale at all? Because, in general, there is quite a lot of consensus. It isn’t nearly total, but it’s quite pronounced. I remember when Deep Strength posted that famous picture set of the girl who lost a lot of weight, for example, and there were some disagreements about whether the last picture or the second to last picture were the most physically attractive (it’s just a picture, there is no persona described), but it was between those two pictures. The level of consensus was pretty high.

        For purposes of this discussion, my point is that a guy who subjectively views a girl as 2 points lower than him in attraction (whether she is “objectively” such or not) is often not going to be very attracted to her if she is below a certain objective “floor” of objective attractiveness. That “floor” varies by men (and as I said above, some men don’t have floors at all … but most do), but most men won’t go below the floor. If the floor is too close to their own actual SMV, it leads to a crunch. This is more common the lower you get in male SMV, and it starts to hit in the midrange. Obviously (or at least to me it is obvious), if an individual guy who is, say, a 6 himself finds a woman who is generally considered a “4” to be more like a “5” because she has some quality pushes his attraction buttons, she is usually going to be above his attraction floor, in a personal sense, regardless of where she is objectively. It’s just that with a lot of guys that won’t be the case, because they aren’t getting their buttons pushed in that way.

        Again, I get why this guy gets no sympathy — he doesn’t deserve any. Life is tough, cupcake. Most guys do get that. But they should be aware of the crunch areas and work to get themselves out of them, if at all possible, to make life easier on themselves.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “If that’s the case, why bother talking about an objective scale at all?”

        I think because it is conceptually useful. I just think it lacks precision that some seem to assign to it. Like the 80/20. I don’t know if that’s the number or if Pareto is the correct distribution. You suggested (in the comment I thought was so good) a 90/10. I’ve seen some data suggesting the top 16% of men. I think the concept is right but don’t know the real percents. Same for attractiveness scale. I think I interpreted your comment as implying more precision in rating than I think possible.

        “that famous picture set of the girl who lost a lot of weight, for example, and there were some disagreements about whether the last picture or the second to last picture were the most physically attractive (it’s just a picture, there is no persona described), but it was between those two pictures. The level of consensus was pretty high.”

        In all the other pictures the girl was fat. It’s wierd really – does obesity modify the scale? If attractiveness is more or less objective it shouldn’t. The scale needs context (e.g. “young women – don’t compare 18-24 to old women). Really all young fat girls should objectively be 1 or maybe 2. I don’t think very many men like obesity. That is an attraction floor for most men and a man is very likey to be settling for a fat girl.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        In all the other pictures the girl was fat. It’s wierd really – does obesity modify the scale? If attractiveness is more or less objective it shouldn’t. The scale needs context (e.g. “young women – don’t compare 18-24 to old women). Really all young fat girls should objectively be 1 or maybe 2. I don’t think very many men like obesity. That is an attraction floor for most men and a man is very likey to be settling for a fat girl.

        In general I agree but there are guys who do, in fact, like larger women. They are outliers, and they have a “personal scale” that is quite at odds to the “objective scale” and they tend to be aware of this, based on what is generally presented by, eg, pop culture as sex symbol type women, when other women tend to appeal to them, personally, more. A well known example of this is Kim K — I see nothing at all attractive about Kim K, but obviously quite a few guys do. Kim K is not fat, but her body type is flat out unattractive to me (and many other guys I have discussed that specific issue with), yet she obviously has some guys who like her. With larger women, there are also guys who like them. Ashley Graham, for example, has a ton of fans, but they are more of the “outlier” variety as compared to “conventional beauty standards” which are what drive the “objective scale”.

        SO I do think these personal variances appear, and there are certainly outlier men who have a different set of standards from conventional beauty — it’s just that most do not. Ashley Graham has her fans, and a fair few of them … but there are far, far fewer of them than for a conventionally attractive woman.

        On that set of pictures, there were some guys who thought that the last 3-4 pictures were all attractive. It is just that the overwhelming consensus was the last 2, with a majority in favor of the last one (something I think which reflects a change in beauty standards even during my lifetime, from the second to last image to the last image as women have focused much more intently on muscle tone and “tightness” than they did 30 years ago).

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I’d say anything below a 4 is obese.

        I’d say it’s rare to come across a skinny “butterface” that is repulsive (I’m not including meth mouths in this)

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I think the last two pictures weren’t entirely fair to compare also because in the 2nd to last picture she was dressed sloppily.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @ Lexet: “I’d say anything below a 4 is obese.”

        It seems like a lot of confusion in the rating system (and the resulting variation in how men score examples) comes from how you approach it: is it an “absolute” standard or is it judging women as they are in 2021 where the median 20-something girl is probably overweight or obese (despite not having given birth) and might have tatoos, blue hair, weird piercings?

        I argue the standard should be absolute (and in appropriate age brackets) because in context we’re talking about what twentysomething men want and hoping that twentysomething men aren’t settling for girls they aren’t attracted to.

        So, considering that, I’d say obese twentysomething girls are a 1 or 2.

        1 is for morbidly obese and/or ugly face, 2 is for obese with (what would be if she lost weight) a normal or pretty face.

        I think the girl in the picture collage that Heartiste/Deep Strength posted went from a 2 to a 6.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Nova

        It is just that the overwhelming consensus was the last 2, with a majority in favor of the last one

        Like I said on Deep Strength’s blog, there’s a cultural component to that. As a general rule, Asian dudes like their women skinny. White dudes like them a little bigger than that. Hispanic dudes like them a little bigger than that, and black dudes like them a little bigger than that.

        I’m Hispanic. I think she looks her best at 132 lb, especially if she was all dolled up, like she is in the photo at 124 lb. And, frankly, I think she looks fine anywhere from 140 lb to 124 lb.

        Deviation from our own personal standard is how we rate women. Pretty much any woman can find a man who finds her attractive enough. She may not be his “dream girl”, but most men aren’t anywhere near as picky as women pretend we are.

        They just want an excuse to not do the hard work the girl in the photos obviously did.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Oscar

        The last three pictures are the only ones where the girl looks attractive. How the girl dresses makes a difference. My reaction to her presentation (how she’s dressed) in the last three pictures (in descending order) is: “cute”, “slob”, “slut.” Probably catch hell for being a prude on that last one.

        I guess the last three pictures depict what I was saying to Nova. To me various guys could rate her (in the context of twentysomething girls) in those last three pictures as a 4 to a 6. She doesn’t ever rise to what Nova describes as a Gaussian 8 or even 7.

        “Hispanic dudes like them a little bigger than that, and black dudes like them a little bigger than that.”

        “36-24-36? Only if she’s 5’3″ – Sir Mix-a-Lot.
        But no bigger than the 140 picture. It’s “Baby-got-back” not “Baby-got-snacks.”

        “They just want an excuse to not do the hard work the girl in the photos obviously did.”

        IMO, they reacted the way they did (narrower assessment of the girls rating change and astonishment at men’s broader rating of her change) because they didn’t want to believe she was a 3 when fat (either because they’re fat or because of the pressure that would put on them not to be fat) and because they didn’t want to believe men value thinness high enough to rate her a 8.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        But no bigger than the 140 picture. It’s “Baby-got-back” not “Baby-got-snacks.”

        Meh. She still looks acceptable at 150 lb. What can I say? I’m Hispanic. Don’t judge me!

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Oscar,

        “Acceptable” meaning as a twentysomething male you’d be interested in her (if judging by appearance)?

        I guess if I were a young man, I’d hope to find a girl that I more than accept – actually find her attractive. To me the girl in the picture becomes objectively attractive at 140. At that point, how she carries herself (dress) makes more difference than her exact weight.

        Not putting you on the spot, but what numbers would you assign her in the last 4 pictures?

        Conditions: rating among twentysomething girls based on objective attractiveness (not where a 170lb girl with blue hair and visible tats is “average”).

        Just curious how other guys think.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        “Acceptable” meaning as a twentysomething male you’d be interested in her (if judging by appearance)?

        Yep.

        Not putting you on the spot, but what numbers would you assign her in the last 4 pictures?

        Conditions: rating among twentysomething girls based on objective attractiveness (not where a 170lb girl with blue hair and visible tats is “average”).

        No worries. On my scale that I wrote earlier, from 155 – 140 lb, I’d rate her as “plain”. From 132 – 124 lb, I’d rate her as “pretty”, with 132 lb as my top preference.

        Like I said, there are cultural reasons for that. Plus, the way she carries her weight. Some women get a beer gut, or tyrannosaurus thighs. This girl doesn’t have those problems. I don’t want to get any more crude than that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Thanks Oscar.

        BTW, my reason for asking isn’t so us married guys can be pigs and rate chicks on hotness or whatever. I am interested in understanding what ordinary men’s attraction is like and what reasonable expectations should be for young men like my sons – all related to my discussion with Nova about 4’s vs. 6’s.

        I would submit that your response and mine supports my contention that there’s enough individual variation in men’s preferences that there isn’t a lot of difference between a 4 and a 6, particularly if the rating distribution is gaussian. But we’re only 2 data points I guess.

        FWIW, I think the girl is most attractive at 140 but I can’t separate how she dresses from her attractiveness – in the 155lb picture her manner of dress looks designed to conceal overweight sloppiness. But I get the point about ethnic preferences.

        I am curious, is the preference for bigger women a Spanish thing, a Mesoamerican Indian thing? A Latin American culture thing? Hispanic is a very broad category.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL in practical terms there are two groups of women

        Bangable

        Not bangable.

        Anything past that is academic vs practical

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        I am curious, is the preference for bigger women a Spanish thing, a Mesoamerican Indian thing? A Latin American culture thing? Hispanic is a very broad category.

        That’s a good question. As far as I can tell, the more European a Hispanic man is, the more European his tastes are. My family is a pretty good mixture of European and Mesoamerican. I have a German last name, but when I was stationed in Germany, it confused the Germans, because I “don’t look German”, if that makes sense.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @ Oscar

        Something like 4 of the most common 10 Spanish surnames are Germanic in origin. From memory “Gomez” is one of them.

        There were German-Mennonite immigrants to some Central American countries – I don’t know how much their surnames propagated – my impression is they are pretty insular from surrounding cultures.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        The Amish and Mennonites in Latin America are very insular. They still speak German, and pretty much only deal with outsiders when it’s necessary.

        The other Germans that immigrated to Latin America vary in insularity. In Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina there are still towns where the main language is German. I don’t know of any towns like that in Central America (though there might be).

        One of my jiu-jitsu buddies is from Brazil (shocking, I know). He doesn’t speak German, but his mom does, and she was born in Brazil. Her dad immigrated from Germany to Brazil. Not sure I want to know the back story there.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        I forgot to mention that a fairly common surname in Latin America is “Aleman”, which means “German” in Spanish.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Yes.

      One of the biggest problems that happens to men is women either feigning attraction to get commitment (rare) or where sexual attraction is lukewarm. Women can get a little bit to some attraction for a lot of men, including average men. Women can get “yeah, sure, OK, I guess” feelings for some men working to get on her radar. Men have to be able to recognize when that’s where she is, and head things off at the pass before investment and commitment happen. Because “yeah, sure, OK, I guess” will not cut it in a serious relationship or marriage. She has to be hot for you from the very beginning. If she isn’t, and if you’re not seeing signs of that at first meeting, cut her loose.

      The problem for men is that most of us don’t get women who are “hot for you from the very beginning”, at least not very often at all. When you don’t see something often, it’s hard to identify it. And when you see something that “kind of sort of” looks like attraction, you can confuse lukewarmth for the real thing. Most men don’t inspire “hot for you from the very beginning”. They just don’t. Or, if they do, it’s rare, and the women who express that might not be very attractive to you, as you said. This is becoming an increasingly insoluble problem, or, more accurately, a problem that simply has no solution.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        This is becoming an increasingly insoluble problem, or, more accurately, a problem that simply has no solution.

        You just need an emulsifier. That’ll give you a sweet emulsion.

        I’ll see myself out.

        Like

    • Jack says:

      NovaSeeker wrote,

      “I don’t doubt that it is theoretically possible for a low SMV man to get IOIs from an attractive woman due to his sexual authority due to having the right particular vibes or chemistry … but I haven’t seen it.”

      I’ve seen it. (This was back in 97, however.)

      A female friend of mine who was in the 7-8 range fell for one of the ugliest guys I ever met in my whole life. He was chubby, rude personality, thick glasses, messy hair, never bathed, stank all the time… In short, a very unlikeable person. But… he was 6’6″, aloof, and he had a donkey d!ck (or so I heard in a whisper from her best friend). That was exactly the combination of traits she needed to be humbled and open herself up. She got totally hooked on this guy and she was ashamed of herself for it. She married this guy within 4 months. She told me she’ll never go out with him in public, but she has a reserved personality so that’s alright with her. She just wanted to have kids and be a lazy housewife.

      This was a bizarre turn of events that baffled my group of friends, but yet, we recognized that she had found true contentment (even though it was humiliating), and an inner peace that the rest of us hoped for but could never find.

      Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      All of you seem to be using 5 as the absolute average on the 1-10 scale. I get it, that’s the straight math. I’ve heard that the scale looks something more like this in verbiage form: 10-The Best, 9-Really Good, 8-Good, 7-Decent, 6-Okay, 5-so/so, 4-Poor, 3-Bad, 2-Really bad, 1-The worst….I’ve also heard it put this way, the today’s younger women want 8-10s during their prime years, 18-24 years old, to have the hot sex with; 7s on down are just ONS and/or drunken sex. When the ladies reach the late twenties on into the early thirties, they’ll go for a 6 or 7 male if he has bucks (Beta Bucks), but they consider that ‘settling’ because 8-10 is really their standard, what they are accustomed to during their prime years. This includes the female 6-7s out there. They’ve had one or more 8-10s, hence the Red Pill concept of the ‘Alpha Widow.’ Something for the young men to keep in mind. If they are going to engage in the ‘self improvement’ effort to raise their rating a point or two, unless they raise themselves into the 8-10 range, they’re setting themselves up for disappointment. If they improve say from a 5 to a 7 (or 4 to a 6), their prospects for casual sex get better, however, the female 6s-7s, still see them as ‘substandard’ compared to the male ‘8-10s.’ Unless they can crack that 8-10 level, they’ll have difficulty landing an LTR, unless they drop down to the female 4-6 range for a girlfriend. Oh, and even the guys that work themselves up into the 8-10 range, still have to deal with a whole new range of issues that come with the 8-10 ladies: high N-counts, emotional issues, STDs, drug and alcohol habits, entitled mindsets, etc. I knew an 8-10 female, 27 at the time, very beautiful and classy dressing girl on the outside (a 9 for sure); however, on the inside, all of the above issues and more.

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        How’s this?

        9-10 Beautiful
        7-8 Pretty
        5-6 Plain
        3-4 Homely
        1-2 Ugly

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Female:
        9-10 Beautiful
        7-8 Pretty
        5-6 Nice looking
        3-4 Below average
        1-2 Ugly and/or obese

        Male:
        8-10 Alpha
        5-8 Greater beta
        2-5 Lesser beta
        1-2 Gamma

        Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        I’d do it like this:
        Female
        10-Beautiful in face and figure, i.e. lots of T & A to go with a beautiful face, excellent hip-to-waist ratio. ‘Porn Star’ face and figure. Talking here LOOKS only, not personality, attitude, etc.
        9-Same as 10 with the exception of maybe a small bust, slight pudge, or some little thing or other that keeps her from being a 10 (aka total knockout).
        8-Good looking, nice figure, but some men say Meh, in other words, no guys say no to a 10 or a 9 (I’m talking purely on looks and figure alone, not including personality and any red flags. BTW, this can drop even a 10 down to an 8 or below depending on how lacking she is in personality and/or virtue, i.e. the flag thing).
        7-Good looking girl, most/all men would bang her, but she has some thing or other that keeps her from being a 8, maybe a bit of a ‘butterface’ (everything looks real good but her face–not so attractive), some weight on her, or some ‘flaw or other’ (again, not really a ‘flaw’ in that there’s something wrong with her, just some feature that is not 8-10 that keeps her out of the 8-10 range).
        Guys, btw, I’m just shooting this stuff off the top of my head, thinking out loud. You adjust as you see fit. Just a conversation starter, that’s all.
        I’ll leave 6 on down to you all’s imagination. lol Have fun with it. Be enlightening. The 1-10 scale gets tossed around so much in the manosphere, and mostly it’s stated ONLY numerically. I seldom hear it broken down verbally; in other words, what does the profile of an 5,6,7,8,9,10 woman look like in words. What is the verbal picture of her? Oh, one more thing, I get that the old adage that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, true enough! However, this inquiry is just generalizing, for example what do most men generally consider a 10 to be?

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        From my perspective, it’s a Gaussian distribution (i.e., a “bell curve”, with most women being 4, 5, or 6, and then less and less the further you get away from that central area.

        Therefore there are almost no 10s, so it’s not really a relevant category. 10 is best considered a “9” who pushes your personal buttons.

        There are also almost no 9s, just given the statistical rarity of them, and the ones who do exist are not in general circulation. These are women who live off their looks: models, actresses, some of them are in areas like news readers and sports sideline reporters and so on, although many of that level are actually 8s. There are few 9s. Best bet to meet one is to hang around Hollywood, model agencies in NYC and places like that.

        8s are the prettiest girls who are in general circulation. Many of these also live off of their looks (the TV hosts and sideline reporters and weather girls and news readers and so on, as well as B list actresses, some TV actresses, some flight attendants, pharamaceutical representatives who peddle drugs to docs, etc.). They are less perfect than 9s but still very close to perfect: nearly perfect facial symmetry, non-outlier height, nearly perfect skin tone, quality and luster, nearly perfect hair, toned physique (regardless of body type — various types are 8s but in our culture slim/slender/toned physique type predominates among 8s currently) and, when compared with 7s, the overall effect is simply more striking because women with that list of nearly perfect physical attributes are quite rare. Although there are 8s in general circulation, there aren’t that many of them. You may go a while without seeing a single one, depending on where you live, and when you do come across one, unless you are in a place where they congregate (if you are, you will know), it will typically be only the one. When they are around, they are very noticeable, it is almost impossible not to notice them if you are a heterosexual man.

        7s are less perfect 8s. Nothing is “wrong” — there are no “flaws” in the appearance, but things are less perfect. Fewer of these women can make a living from their looks, but some do in areas like flight attendant and some of the TV positions, if they are on the higher end of 7. A key fact, though, is that due to the Gaussian, there are a lot more of these than there are 8s, so you will see quite a few of these around. Again, it varies based on where you live, with more in certain urban areas where they tend to congregate, but they are just not statistically as uncommon, so typically they are the prettiest girl in the room when you are in most rooms (because most rooms have no woman in them who is an 8+). Pretty much all men, regardless of their own level, are quite happy with a solid 7 as a girlfriend or wife — they are generally considered very attractive and hot. They are just not as perfect as 8s are, and therefore not stunning, per se. They are nevertheless very noticeable and noticeably more attractive than the rest of the girls are.

        6s are where the less than above average traits start to come into play. A 6 generally has a hot body and an average face or a hot face and an average body. If she has both, she’s a 7. If she has neither, she’s a 5. 6s are generally considered pretty and prime girlfriend/wife material by most guys, other than for the very high end guys. Not every single 6 will be as attractive to every single guy, depending on whether he values faces or physiques more (guys differ a lot on that), or whether she pushes his buttons or what have you, but most guys find quite a few 6s well attractive enough to date and marry. The good news about 6s is that there are a lot of them, because they are the most attractive set that is still in the Gaussian middle, the fat part of the distribution numerically (not physically lol). The bad news about 6s is that they are by far the most impacted by hypergamy and alpha widow issues, because it is the 6s that have the primary ability to “have sex upwards in their 20s” (typical case is pretty female 6 with male 8) and then thereafter be unable to be attracted to male 6s or even in some cases male 7s.

        5s are average — plain janes. Not unattractive, not attractive. Individual 5s may push a specific man’s buttons, in which case she is not a “personal 5” for him, but is higher for him because she is specifically attractive to him, but she’s still objectively a 5. Quite a few men will happily date and marry 5s, especially men in the 6 level.

        4s are the reverse of 6s — women with average face and below average body or average body and below average face. There are quite a few of these, as many as there are 6s. In my experience, for most men these women are the attractiveness floor — the least attractive they will find attractive enough to generate interest. If a man is a 5 or a 4 himself he will generally be willing to date and marry these girls. They are generally not “female incels”.

        3s are the reverse of 7s — everything is below average. Body, skin, face. They aren’t conventionally attractive. They aren’t obese (those are the 2s), but they are just not attractive. These are below the floor for most guys, but not for all — go to Wal-Mart and you will see.

        2s are like 3s but generally obese, often morbidly so. Again, below the margin for most guys, but even some of these find men to be with them, as the “Wal-Mart Test” will demonstrate.

        1s are trace amounts and very uncommon.

        So that’s my own way of describing in more detailed words how I view the “objective” scale.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I agree that objective looks like a lot of qualities are more or less gaussian.

        “5s are average — plain janes. Not unattractive, not attractive.”

        I guess this is the beta in me. Does a girl have a face that is reasonably feminine such that you get those twitterpated feelings when you look at her face? If she was your girl and took off her clothes in front of you would you get aroused and want to have sex with her? Is she free of qualities that are attraction disqualifying to you? E.g I don’t like tall amazon women with big bones.

        If the answer is yes to these questions then she is attractive and the level of attractiveness above your “threshold/floor” doens’t matter nearly as much as her personality.

        I may have lower standards who knows – I get the impression most guys here are very upper middle class.

        Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        “From my perspective, it’s a Gaussian distribution…”
        Novaseeker, this is really good. Thanks! Let me chew on this a bit. I think you’re more accurate than what I said, that’s my initial impression. First thing I noticed from your post, the 27 year old I used to know (now approaching 31), that I’ve been calling a 9, would be a high 7 based on the way you described the 1-10 scale above. Interestingly, she has a girlfriend who fits the description of the 8 category you gave. I guess that is the ‘Alpha’ female of the pack (Alpha meaning top woman in beauty not the stereotypical ‘ball busting’ alpha female type). It seems the other females of her group are 6s and lower/mid 7s. Interesting. All good looking, no 5s and below are in the group. Probably something there in the way the female friends groups form.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “From my perspective, it’s a Gaussian distribution (i.e., a “bell curve”, with most women being 4, 5, or 6,”

        Nova, I’d like to revisit this, not for the purpose of poking at you or being right. It’s just fascinating to me and seems important.

        Let’s add the qualification that we mean young women (teens and twenties) since that’s when relationships should form and since we’re middle aged dads, this is about our sons’ prospects really. Also, let’s assume that obese girls are 1’s and 2’s since the vast majority of men dislike that (i.e. when they accept a twenty-year-old fattie they’re settling). I have to map these things into real world experience since rating numbers are abstract so here goes.

        I work with a bunch of twenty something women. It’s an office setting so they don’t make their living off looks like the 7’s, 8’s you mention. I think it follows that as a bunch they are average young women – the statistical middle you describe. Here’s the sort of thing a man who is around young women (Jack is a college professor I think) might notice:

        Girl A: Pretty, long red hair (“ooh-lah-lah!!” some guys would say) everything “tight” and an ideal hip-to-waist, but that less-than-ideal skin that often comes with the red hair and small boobs.

        Girl B: Prettier face and better skin than girl a, but skinnier without the great hip-to-waist and also no boobs.

        Girl C: Very pretty face and hair (best of bunch in this regard), butt is too big (needs to lose 10, maybe 15 pounds) somewhat baggy clothes hide what is likely to be a somewhat sloppier body than A & B.

        Girl D: Big boobs (most dudes like that) but average face, narrow hips with a frumpy butt.

        Girl E: Youngest and “cutest” but big butt (again 10lb weight loss not obese).

        Girl F, G, H …….. you get the point.

        The 4 to 6 Gaussian middle (available to most men including us when we were young – I’m assuming most of us aren’t Alpha studs) consists of a bunch of tradeoffs when you’re talking real world women. There is enough variation in male taste that I think these women belong in more or less one category. I cannot imagine any reasonable Gaussian middle (4-6) young man would imagine himself to be settling for any of these girls (looks wise).

        I think this is what bothered me about your notion of a man of 6 rejecting women of 4 or 5.

        My wife says my sons are all good-looking – mom’s bias – in reality they are normal young men – not models, not trolls – Gaussian middle. They might have individual tastes but if any of the girls I work with aren’t good enough for them (looks-wise) then they don’t deserve a wife. I guess it will seem like I’m on the girl’s side on this one. I think we need to counsel our sons about realistic expectations that’s all.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        The 4 to 6 Gaussian middle (available to most men including us when we were young – I’m assuming most of us aren’t Alpha studs) consists of a bunch of tradeoffs when you’re talking real world women. There is enough variation in male taste that I think these women belong in more or less one category. I cannot imagine any reasonable Gaussian middle (4-6) young man would imagine himself to be settling for any of these girls (looks wise).

        Yes, I think that is where we see things differently. I really, really do not see “4”s the way I see “6”s. There is a gradation, and at least to my eyes it’s pretty clear what the difference is between a 4 and a 6. And I certainly don’t agree that any man who is not interested in marrying a 4 doesn’t “deserve a wife” if he is capable of attracting higher than a 4 — if not, he either needs to get more attractive, or sit out, but he doesn’t have to marry someone he isn’t attracted to.

        The girls you have described seem all quite different to me — if I were to see them in real life I would certainly make distinctions between them in terms of attractiveness. Without seeing them I do not know where they would be on the scale, so to speak, but based on the descriptions they do not seem to be the same on the scale to me. Similarly, I don’t think men see themselves as being a part of a “4-6 middle band”, but most male 6s see themselves as being more attractive than male 4s, and therefore most of them see themselves as assortively dating a different girl than a male 4 is.

        I get it — you tend to have more of a three-band scale: unattainable, attainable, unacceptable. Some guys are like that, and you seem clearly to be one of them. It’s easier if you are like that, I think, because you have broader bands. Other guys have more refined bands, like I do — and I think this is the basis of the 10 point deal to begin with, because without finer bands, it makes no sense to have 10 degrees, or in effect 9, if there are really just three bands.

        Women, by the way, themselves tend to have three bands, but they do rank men within the bands as well. When I was younger, one of the more popular bar games for girls was a game where they would look around the place and categorize the guys into one of three categories: fuck, marry, kill. The first category is what most of the manosphere would call “alpha”, but really just means what the game says: men for sex, regardless of relationship. The second category is men for relationships. The third category is men who are not the radar for either sex or relationships (“kill” doesn’t mean literally they want to have him killed, but rather that if he were killed it wouldn’t make a difference, in terms of sex and relationships, because he’s out of the running for those anyway).

        They might have individual tastes but if any of the girls I work with aren’t good enough for them (looks-wise) then they don’t deserve a wife. I guess it will seem like I’m on the girl’s side on this one. I think we need to counsel our sons about realistic expectations that’s all.

        I would say that guys need to know what they can achieve and go for that. If they are not attracted to what they can achieve, they can either improve what they can achieve, switch to a different market (i.e, relocate) or sit out. I really don’t recommend settling in that case, or trying to convince yourself that you are attracted to girls in a certain range because you should be — you either are or you aren’t. It may very well be that you don’t get married if you aren’t attractive enough to attract women you find attractive enough to be interested in. Normally that doesn’t happen until lower in the scale, but it can happen at any point in the midscale as well, I guess, especially depending on where someone lives and the local market conditions. My own son’s approach to that has been to change the market, which I think is sensible — I didn’t prompt him to do it, but he figured it out, as he typically does.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        It’s hard to discuss this when we can’t share real world examples, only describe them with words and numbers.

        “I get it — you tend to have more of a three-band scale: unattainable, attainable, unacceptable.”

        Actually, I’d say two-scale band in terms of physical attraction. “Attracted to”, “not attracted to.”

        I realize there’s differences among “attracted to”, but if she’s in your “attracted to” band, then personality, mannerisms, even voice matters much more.

        I’ve said before, that’s probably a very beta male trait.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Nova & Cameron,

        You realize we’re not actually discussing a bell curve, right?

        Most women in the US are fat. That means that, in an actual bell curve, a 5 is fat.

        When a man rates a woman, he rates her against some ideal in his head – his “dream girl”. Whatever that ideal looks like, that ideal is a 10 to him. He then rates women in accordance to how much they deviate from that ideal. He doesn’t rate her along the actual population curve.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        More. I think there’s potentially two rating systems: a “hypothetical one” and a “practical one.”

        The 1-10 is the “hypothetical one” that we are discussing because established convention in American manspeak uses this system. I think 10 categories for young women is too fine a gradation. 5 or something is more realistic to account for individual variation in men’s tastes but also acknowledge that beauty/attraction standards are real and not random. Note: “young women” is a specific context for young men navigating the SMP and excludes grandma and ridiculous examples like women subjected to Hindu acid attacks. The “hypothetical one” is the one a bunch of guys sitting around at poker night with girly magazines use.

        The “practical one” is the one that accounts for your ideal and your attraction floor so it has three categories: ideal, above, below. I think this is what I’m describing. There are so few women e.g. who are chaste, are sweet-tempered, acknowledge (even in principle) male headship, etc.

        Self improvement to improve your SMV? Ok- but self improvement should be for it’s own sake. If you’re around average and care about +/- 1 out of 10 in physical attractiveness then by all means go for it.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @ Oscar, yes I’ve thought about that. Should the “rating system” be relative, that is based on how girls are in 2020 or based on “how girls should be” removing the (very recent) conditions of obesity tats and blue hair. I guess my answer is that the rating system should be objective and not relative. Young women who are obese are 1’s and 2’s if we’re using the 10 point scale.

        I do try to mention “young women” as context – there’s still many overweight teens and twenties but fewer than the general female population. And because the rating system for mate selection is not relevant to a 46 year old married guy – just to my sons. None of the twentysomethings I work with are obese.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron,

        I guess my answer is that the rating system should be objective and not relative.

        That would be nice, but I doubt it’s possible. There’s a strong objective component to beauty (that’s why most men agree on which women are truly beautiful), but there’s also a strong subjective component (which is why we increasingly disagree with increasing deviation from the ideal).

        If you think about it, that’s a good thing. It’s why most women can find a man who finds them attractive enough when they’re young.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        There’s a strong objective component to beauty (that’s why most men agree on which women are truly beautiful), but there’s also a strong subjective component (which is why we increasingly disagree with increasing deviation from the ideal).

        I agree with this, which is why I say that there is an objective “5” who, if she pushes a specific guy’s buttons, gets rated by him a bit higher, but not objectively by other guys. The objective is there for girls in general, regardless of whether the girl pushes your buttons — if she pushes your specific buttons, triggers your specific triggers, she’s always going to get a boost in your eyes over her objective baseline. To me, that blends both elements and I think reflects how they work in practice, at least for me. I can generally step back and say “that woman is not as objectively attractive as the other one over there, but she rates equally to me because she pushes my specific buttons in X, Y, Z way”. Maybe most guys aren’t that detached from their own assessments I don’t know.

        In any case, it’s rather different from this:

        When a man rates a woman, he rates her against some ideal in his head – his “dream girl”. Whatever that ideal looks like, that ideal is a 10 to him. He then rates women in accordance to how much they deviate from that ideal. He doesn’t rate her along the actual population curve.

        I’ve actually never done that. Maybe I am just attracted to too many different types of girls I don’t know. I don’t have an ideal type, or a picture of what a “10” would be. I do have triggers that cause a girl to be more attractive than others, but I don’t have an idea of a woman that is a composite of those triggers in my head against which all other women are compared and then determined to be close or far from. I notice whether a woman is attractive or not. If I care to assess further, I may think about where I think she falls on the attraction scale (that’s interesting to do, I find — a friend of mine used to do it a lot with pictures of girls and it was interesting to see the consensus and the differences, and the reasoning) in an objective sense. If she has specific subjective triggers that catch my attention, it’s obvious to me, and that probably would boost her in my eyes, but but I also and aware of what my triggers are and so I also sometimes do say to myself “ah, but you really only think she’s attractive because of X, when that girl over there is actually more attractive than she is” … if that’s really the case, of course. In any case, to me its more that I notice attractive girls — sometimes because they have the triggers, sometimes because they are just very objectively attractive, even if they aren’t a “type” I generally like because they don’t feature a trigger or two.

        You realize we’re not actually discussing a bell curve, right?

        Most women in the US are fat. That means that, in an actual bell curve, a 5 is fat.

        On a population-wide scale we are, when you take into account the population of the world. Of course we don’t live every place on the planet at once (lol!), so there is always the local distribution which lays over the objective Gaussian distribution.

        Local markets are distorted in all sorts of ways. You may be in a market with an abundance of 2s and 3s, or one with an abundance of 8s. Here in DC, for example, we have a lot of very fit people under 40 so the younger educated set of women here tends to be in the 6s range due to having above average (i.e., fitter than average) physiques. We don’t have an extraordinary amount of 7s, because the difference there is genetic in nature and the genetic 7s don’t flock here, and similarly we have far fewer 8s than in other cities closeby like NY or even places like Miami, never mind Los Angeles. But we have more 6s per capita than lots and lots of places. Miami has a lot more 7s and 8s as does Southern California.

        These things skew depending on location a great deal, but on an overall basis (again globally, given that the US is fatter than other places) there is an objective scale and it follows a Gaussian distribution. In the local place where you live (USA total and then within the US where you actually are) the variances in the local market from the “objective distribution” are substantial, I think, in many cases, going in both directions.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Scott says:

    There is more truth in one stanza of this song from Social Distortion than all the episodes of friends, Big Bang theory and red pill salesman combined.

    “Well high school seemed like such a blur.
    I didn’t have much interest in sports or school elections
    And in class, I dreamed all day about a rock and roll weekend.

    That girl at the front of the room.
    So close, yet so far, you know she never seemed to notice
    That this silly schoolboy crush, wasn’t just pretend”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Scott says:

    Sometimes I get the feeling that the “where are all the good men” narrative is not just a form of hidden agenda, as the super into it red pull guys are. I think many women have deluded themselves into thinking this is true. Like real creepy level of self deception.

    (The red pill gurus point out, as I do sometimes that the list of things women usually provide conspicuously leaves out the phrase “as long as she already thinks you are hot”)

    But I remember years ago listening to the Dennis Prager show and his “male female hour” when droves of women would call and seriously explain that all they want is “nice. Not a liar. Has a good job.”

    And these women sounded like they really believed what they were saying. Like they would be totally happy with 5’5” paunchy low confidence guy if he was just those things.

    Liked by 1 person

    • SFC Ton says:

      Agreed

      Occasionaly my personal life and The Girls social life will interact and without fail some 35- 50 year old dumby medical field chick will say she just wants a nice guy but the last guy who asked her out was too short, to broke, asked her boring questions over texts etc etc

      Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      “But I remember years ago listening to the Dennis Prager show and his ‘male female hour’ when droves of women would call and seriously explain that all they want is ‘nice. Not a liar. Has a good job.’ And these women sounded like they really believed what they were saying. Like they would be totally happy with 5’5” paunchy low confidence guy if he was just those things.”
      I think what they mean, assuming these are women older than 25-26, “I’m ready to settle down now and get married, start a family. Done with all my FUN years! Now, where have all the ‘good, marrigable men’ gone off to?” She means Alpha qualities (not necessarily an ‘Alpha,’ but at least a higher Beta) with a respectable/highly respectable, white collar professional job that brings in good money, AND he’ll wife me up to include my ‘big day’ wedding event and honeymoon to an absolutely breathtaking exotic location, so I can post tons of pictures of ME in my wedding dress being the absolute CENTER of ATTENTION on my social media pages to make all my friends and ex-lovers jealous.
      Add to this guys. Have fun with it!

      Like

  8. Scott says:

    Oscar/Deti

    I swear I’m going to build website called “Duckie was obviously gay”

    It will be wholly devoted to the thesis that the entire Pretty In Pink universe only makes sense if the Duckie character was in fact a closeted homosexual who was in denial of his own feelings toward Blane.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Random Angeleno says:

    Back in the day, people would say to me “just be yourself” and women will gravitate to you. But I discovered that only works as long as “she thinks you are hot”. My mother clearly thought that about my father from the beginning. But neither parent could explain to me why JBY didn’t work for me, the son who was nowhere near as hot as his father.

    At my age, all my IOI’s come from unattractive women. Well my libido isn’t what it was so I’m not so thirsty anymore. Hence it’s getting easier, maybe too easy, to just say no as a Christian.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Novaseeker says:

    Back in the day, people would say to me “just be yourself” and women will gravitate to you. But I discovered that only works as long as “she thinks you are hot”. My mother clearly thought that about my father from the beginning. But neither parent could explain to me why JBY didn’t work for me, the son who was nowhere near as hot as his father.

    That’s the issue, I think. At some level of male attractiveness, due to the way hypergamy skews the “assortive mating” curve (ie, “assortive” from a mid-20s female perspective is “her SMV +1-2” and not “her SMV”) at most periods prior to the time that women settle for a husband (when she will move it down to “her SMV” and “settle for” an actually assortive mate, and think she has done him a favor by doing so), it just doesn’t work for men to wait for a woman to show IOIs. Not because you won’t get them — you will (and if you don’t notice them, then you need to learn what to look for, because even less attractive men do get them), but they won’t be from women you find attractive enough to be interested in yourself. That’s the issue.

    Liked by 2 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      So I reckon one of the tricks the relationship types need to learn is how to be around early 20’s to mid 20’s gals while they are themselves late 20’s – early 30’s?

      Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      “…it just doesn’t work for men to wait for a woman to show IOIs. Not because you won’t get them — you will (and if you don’t notice them, then you need to learn what to look for, because even less attractive men do get them), but they won’t be from women you find attractive enough to be interested in yourself. That’s the issue.”

      This is a point that has been glossed over which needs to be emphasized. When a man gets IOIs from women, the vast majority of them will be from women that have no appeal (i.e. sexual authority) to him whatsoever. This is part of the conundrum.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. feeriker says:

    That whole album is really good.

    Their best. I don’t believe that they ever did anything as good before, and certainly haven’t done anything as good since.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell is pretty good too.

      Like

    • Scott says:

      But then again, I can’t really think of a Social D song or album I don’t like. They are in my top five bands, ever list.

      The Cult
      The Smiths/Morrisey
      Lenny Kravitz
      Social Distortion
      Simple MInds

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        Do find it odd you like The Smiths / Moz Scott. Surprised. The Smiths were probably the only 1980’s band that I liked in the 1980’s. Saw Morrissey in concert several times in the 1990’s……the show in Boston in early 1991…some fat gal got up on stage in a wedding gown….Moz flees the stage with a terrified look……..show was cancelled / ended early. We got a refund. In 1994 at the Warfield in San Freancisco he came out draped in the Union Jack crooned and swooned that whole place into ecstasy………..in 1998 in San Jose he ended the show when a bunch of us (me included) tried to get on stage in our jeans, doc martens, crips optic-white tees to touch him. Crazy times…..

        I gave Mike Joyce from The Smiths a cigarette after a PIL show (he was playing with them in 1991) on their tour while hanging out backstage

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        The Smiths “Headmasters Ritual” from early 1984. Related to this well since I went to a boys school for my last two years of high school.

        Like

  12. Sharkly says:

    “This is essentially idolatry!”

    Bingo!
    And once you realize that all the churches are teaching this goddess worship, you realize why neither politicians nor preachers will ever lead us out of this popular and profitable delusion. It is natural for men to desire women, whom God made to be men’s glory. And anybody who wants to rule over men just needs to put that “carrot” out on a “stick” and men will pull the cart all the way to the slaughterhouse. Because men, like Christ, are willing to lay down their lives for the undeserving, and the ungodly everywhere are willing to use and exploit your life for their godless purposes. Ultimately that serves Satan’s purpose of keeping you serving a woman, (the creature rather than the Creator) and being distracted from serving God first and foremost.

    In today’s religion of feminism, the principal “virtue” of a man is his ability to attract and please women. Thus the godless Chad who delights women is treated as being far more worthy than the ugly churchling, no matter how great his piety.
    Whereas in the only true religion, a man is firstly to serve God with all his mind, body, and soul. And a man is to rule over his wife well.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      When men speak about how desirable they are to women, e.g. tall, dark, and handsome, muscular, studly, Alpha, and in demand, it is often a display of their worldly/churchian credentials. Since the latent ability to bed/seduce women is valued almost supremely in both the world and the churchian milieu.
      While it might also sometimes be necessary for the point to be made for arguments sake to preclude people from assuming that a wife or another particular woman’s disdain for you, might just be the result of your own general unattractiveness. Often people throw out their Alpha status, or other female admired traits as an appeal to credentialism in this our woman-worshipping age. Whereas, how often do we boast about how well in tune we are with our Creator? It shows what frame of mind we all live in.

      Jeremiah 9:23-24 Thus says the LORD: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth.

      Notice how bragging about a man’s specific appeal to women, was not directly mentioned in the Bible passage above. Men and women both appreciate riches and strength, and some select folks appreciate wisdom. In a truly patriarchal society, men would be more concerned how they might appeal to virgins’ fathers, than to the damsels themselves.

      For men, trying to appeal to women, is going to lead either just to vanity, or to direct degradation of their appeal to God. I don’t see how molding yourself to the fancies of women is pleasing to God, except for in such matters as where women value the same attributes as God. But ultimately we should seek God and His righteousness first, and steer clear of any defiling woman who cannot be taught to appreciate that calling. And then hopefully among such godly women, you could find one that lusts for you too.
      That’s a pretty tall order in this godless age, when men (God’s image and glory) are systemically demonized, and all of society is aimed at smashing God’s holy patriarchy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Sharkly,

      “Whereas in the only true religion, a man is firstly to serve God with all his mind, body, and soul.”

      Your quote from scripture is inaccurate.
      Serve –> Love
      There’s a difference.

      Another passage related to your comment…

      “The chief end of man is to glorify God.”

      Like

      • Sharkly says:

        You are right, Jack.
        However, I think the service of God logically follows, to the degree of the love.

        John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
        John 14:21a He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me:
        John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
        Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and His servants shall serve Him:
        Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

        We who love God serve Him by keeping His commandments, so that God’s will is done by His servants, in earth as it is in heaven. This glorifies God. While we are to love God with the totality of our being, that does not prevent us from also loving others whom God loves. So likewise, Serving God with the totality of our being, does not prevent us from serving others in keeping with God’s will.

        However, we should be careful not to let our service of others upend God’s order and chain of command, lest we not be serving God, but disobeying God’s holy patriarchy and serving a Feminist idol instead. If by serving our wives, we sacrifice our prescribed dominion, or our headship, we have left off serving God and are serving an idol, who is not the image of God, the lord over us,(as husbands are to their wives) but the wife has become a goddess, a substitute deity, a defiler, whereas wives are to submit to their husbands in everything, as unto the Lord.(whom the husband images, while the wife images the church)

        I think many folks miss the logical conclusion that Feminism and empowering women is idolatry and blasphemously equalizing or even subjecting the image and glory of God to “the glory of the man”.(1 Corinthians 11:7)

        1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

        Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      “In today’s religion of feminism, the principal “virtue” of a man is his ability to attract and please women. Thus the godless Chad who delights women is treated as being far more worthy than the ugly churchling, no matter how great his piety.”

      That is a powerful statement, and a damning one culturally/societally speaking. Unfortunately, a lot of truth in it this day and age.

      Like

      • Sharkly says:

        In a way, that is just my paraphrase of concepts Dalrock had written, about the ultimate churchian men’s “virtue” being ‘creating vagina tingles’, because the churchian’s divine master speaks through the wife’s and also other women’s vaginas in that way.

        I suppose the churchian women’s chief virtues would be being strong independent women, and rebelling against and overriding their fathers’ and husbands’ attempts to influence and mold them into something else,… basically Feminist obstinance. And, of course, being attractive. ‘Cuz all beautiful women are goddesses, and plain or ugly women are clearly flawed in that regard.

        So then, old women only exist to keep the care homes in business, they have no other purpose, unless you can get them to voluntarily do some menial work for you. They’re basically like expired milk, somebody might still try to use them, but most won’t. Women chose to make their value revolve primarily around their control of sexual access, it is hard for them later to find another use. The older ones can’t give godly advice, because they’re ungodly fools who don’t know the word of God. So, they aren’t even a positive influence, like they should be. And somehow they never see their fate coming until it is too late to invest in having more children and building lasting value. Young women forced society to value them based just upon their beauty and untapped fertility and they refused to become valuable or treasured by others by producing other contributions, and then when their beauty and fertility inevitably expires, they find themselves largely unwanted, unneeded, and burdensome to others.

        Like

  13. lastmod says:

    I was “Duckie” in high school. No, not his look but I related well to him when I saw the movie in the theaters in 1986. It was the spring of my freshman year in high school. Since none of you here could ever relate to Duckie when you were that age……….I’ll explain

    Duckie was not a terrible person…..nor did he have poor hygene or social skills. Duckie was a reality that Hughes always had in his films back then……..that is why they had such an impact on teen culture / early adulthood at that time. Everyone could relate to a character in any of his films.

    Duckie is a product of teen guy who still had not perhaps physically matured as fast or as early as some of his male peers. His style (for the 1980’s was urbane / alternative) for the time was a bit new-wave. He had a sense there because he had to make up for other areas he KNEW he lacked and would NEVER have. A little over the top even back then……but hip. Duckie could not be “preppie” back then because it would have looked even worse or fake or forced.

    Andie (Molly Ringwald) did like him, and considered him a friend but the signals Duckie interpeted from her were not genuine. He believed he had to “wait” and he would be “rewarded”

    Duckie didn’t really have anywhere to turn to friendship wise. He and Andie were probably friends for many years before high school.

    Duckie had his moments (when he want after the older love-interest to Andie) in the high school. I remember the theater cheered when jumped that guy. Many people rooted for Duckie, but even then…….at that time……I knew Duckie would never get Andie. He like any guy ALWAYS had to be the bigger person to let someone else off the hook (Blaine) and tell the gal to “go for him”

    Duckie is an icon (small letter “i” icon) for the fact that he represented a sh*t ton of teenage guys back then. Nothing that any of you can relate to. Then or now.

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      I didn’t see Pretty in Pink but I assume the Duckie character was similar to Anthony Michael Hall’s characters in John Hughes films.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        No, no really. His character anolog was more accurately represented by Ally Sheedy in The Breakfast Club.

        As Deti points out above, Duckie has absolutely zero masculine/manly qualities. The most important problem with him, in the context of these conversations is he will NEVER have a “meet cute” for several reasons.

        He, like Cameron in Ferris Buellers Day Off has built up, in his mind, that sex is the “end all, be all of human existence.” This occurs when the trajectory of normative sexual development is arrested either due to factors within/ innate to you, or the unlucky breaks of your social situation, but as I’ve tried to point out before— is really a combination of both interacting.

        If he were a real person, and Duckie was placed alone, in a room with a girl who was obviously interested in him (not throwing herself at him, but who was giving him subllte but clear signals) he would not engage and make a move because he would be so spun up in his own head with rationalizations about what he should do that she would eventually turn off the external cues and the moment of truth would be lost. He is literally incapable of reaching his hand out, putting it on the side of her face and pulling her in to kiss her because the moment is to terrifying and intense.

        Women are pretty clear about this if you just come out with it. I’ve been told “I prefer it when you just take. I don’t like it when you ask.” All of them have this basic firmware running, and you are required, as the man, to know when it has come to that.

        Instead he would ruin the moment by talking. There is a moment in that time alone with the girl where a man who has sufficiently navigated all the hurdles leading to that point knows that it’s time for the talking to stop.

        Duckies fictional character believes that “be yourself,” one of the most idiotic mantras of our time means “go out of your way to send signals to the whole damn world about how over the top weird you are.” And that this misfit status, turned up to 11 makes you somehow above all the fake people around you. But deep down he knows that it’s really all an act to hide the fact that he wishes they would accept him.

        Regardless, he persists in telling himself the most insidious of lies— “someone will come along and see through all the externals and love me for the person I am on the inside” with predictable results.

        And the jock goes home with his girlfriend after football practice.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lastmod says:

        Scott I liked your reply….but the type of girl that “goes home with the jock” woould never go for Duckie Nyway.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        The Ally Sheedy character could get a guy – she just had to clean herself up. The inequality in attraction between the sexes. Just pointing that out not complaining – just how the world is.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        If he were a real person, and Duckie was placed alone, in a room with a girl who was obviously interested in him (not throwing herself at him, but who was giving him subllte but clear signals) he would not engage and make a move because he would be so spun up in his own head with rationalizations about what he should do that she would eventually turn off the external cues and the moment of truth would be lost. He is literally incapable of reaching his hand out, putting it on the side of her face and pulling her in to kiss her because the moment is to terrifying and intense.

        Women are pretty clear about this if you just come out with it. I’ve been told “I prefer it when you just take. I don’t like it when you ask.” All of them have this basic firmware running, and you are required, as the man, to know when it has come to that.

        Instead he would ruin the moment by talking. There is a moment in that time alone with the girl where a man who has sufficiently navigated all the hurdles leading to that point knows that it’s time for the talking to stop.

        Lots of guys are naturally like this at first, I think. I was when I was in HS and learned the hard way that if you miss the window, you’re done — there’s no going back, no mulligan. It’s a hard test — if you miss, you miss, and you need to move on to another girl, period. Once I learned that, I didn’t miss it when it came up with a different girl, if I was interested in pursuing — that is, I was aware, then, that if I didn’t move the window was closed one way or the other.

        It’s one of those things you that once you understand it, it’s easy enough to maneuver, but before you understand it, is easy to get wrong. Some guys seem to take longer to figure it out than others do, I think. One thing is that the timing for that needs to be perfect — if you’re too early, it’s too aggressive and off-putting for many girls, whereas you can’t really be “too late”, because the window is closed at that point and she isn’t into it any longer, you’re too late, you missed it. It’s one of those things you have to get goldilocks right, but once you are aware of how the moment “feels”, you won’t generally miss it. You don’t have to act on it, of course, but if you don’t you know well what the consequences are.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        Easy for you to say

        Like

  14. lastmod says:

    Probably worse. But the Otis Redding scene in ‘Pretty In Pink’ still is bomb. Duckie knew where it was at.

    Like

    • Scott says:

      Maybe but the girl thought it was silly, not sexy.

      He believed he could woo her by acting like a clown. And like all guys like him, failed. It was entertaining sure.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        I was talking real music! Acting a clown….well, that’s all Duckie was allowed “to be” its pretty much over for any guy like Duckie by the time he hits that age. Those of you on the other side who had the gazillion IOI’s will never understand

        Like

  15. Pingback: The Lopsided Liberalized Mating Market | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s