Genetics

I was chatting to a girl about this yesterday, so I thought I'd do a long post on the subject.

Part One – Peter Crouch

(i) You can see here a photograph of Stoke City footballer Peter Crouch. By no means does he have an enviable physique. However, he is a good footballer, an England international, and must, by definition, be a pretty decent athlete.

(ii) As a footballer, Crouch will be on a specific programme of strength training. And you can see here that he's in as good shape as he could possibly be. But walking around the beach, he still looks like this.

(iii) In short, Crouch is never going to have an enviable physique whatever he does. He is always going to look painfully, almost anorexically skinny.

Part Two – Jim McMahon

(iv) The other day I was watching a documentary on the 1985 Chicago Bears and Jim McMahon came on. And I thought immediately “fucking hell, his neck is twice the size of mine!”. You can see a picture of McMahon here.

(v) That's why it's possible for McMahon to look like this. It is not possible for Crouch to look remotely like this.

(vi) Your base genetics determine your absolute potential. So for many men, lifting is completely pointless. That's before you go into the genetic ability to create muscle, which varies hugely, with some people unable to gain muscle. I have gone into this in much greater depth previously, I'm not going to do that again because some people refuse to accept this. But I hope this basic demonstration sinks in. I know that it won't, but I hope it does.

Part Three – Nicola Charles

Some months ago, I saw a clickbait article on the television programme Neighbours. This is an Australia soap opera almost entirely populated with eye candy in an often successful attempt to get people to watch it and overlook the fact that it's shite.

The article was looking at people who had been in Neighbours and showing you how they look today. So there's a 20-year gap, sometimes more, between the time they were in the programme and the present day. Every single one of them is still good looking.

(vii) In the course of reading this article, I encountered Nicola Charles. She was in the show when I used to watch it at uni, which was a fucking long time ago! But she recently came back into the series, so I looked her up to see what she looks like now. She basically looks exactly the same as she did 20 years ago.

(viii) You can see a photo of her here posted just yesterday. She is 47 years-old! Hitting the wall has been a pretty gentle process for her! Here she is about 20 years ago. You can see a video of her being interviewed here in 2013. If you want nitpick, she has maybe put on a bit of weight since she was younger. But she has barely changed at all.

Part Four – Tina Hobley

(ix) Just to briefly mention, a personal favourite of mine is actress Tina Hobley. You can see her here in 1997 and here in 2015. Again, she looks almost exactly the same. I think she looks better now actually.

(x) So I would contest that if you have good genetics, your hitting of the supposed wall will be extremely minimal, if you even hit it at all. I am 100% confident that Tina Hobley, nearly 46, and Nicola Charles, aged 47, would have no end of male suitors, of all ages, whatever they do in their lives. They could slut around all over the place, they could have kids to different men, they could commit serious crimes, they will still manage to attract someone.

(xi) And as Tina Hobley has done none of those things, she will have a massive choice of suitors. Nicola Charles has been married three times, has kids to other men, didn't stop her marrying a DJ just a few years ago. She could dump him tomorrow and still get married again, if she chose to do so.

(xii) The only thing that will limit them is their perception of what is acceptable to them; for example, they probably wouldn't date a 25 year-old.

Part Five – Conversation

(xiii) So I was talking to this girl, and she was saying that I look young for my age, which is nothing I haven't heard before many times because I've got a babyface. She agreed that if I had more hair I would probably look 10 years younger than my age. Of course, being young looking as a man is almost worthless, it really has little impact on anything, although it's not a bad thing either.

(xiv) But the point is that I didn't do anything to achieve this. I didn't particularly look after myself, although I try to keep at a healthy weight. I've never moisturised or anything like that, bollocks to that. I don't even wash my face. The only time I wash my face is if I get a spot, which is once every few months. I've always been like this and looked like this, when I was 25 I looked young for my age, I do now, I will do when I'm 60.

(xv) And she looked good for her age, and she was saying that Jennifer Lopez still looks great for her age, which is obviously true. And she was saying that if you look after yourself then you can look good well into middle-age. Which is where I disagree. That's fine to some extent, but this is mostly determined by genetics. Of course you should try to make the best of yourself. But ultimately you have minimal control over how attractive you are.

Part Six – My Observations

(xvi) Similarly, in my opinion, you have minimal control over how successful you are in dating. We all like to believe otherwise, just as the girl I was talking to liked to believe that if you look after yourself you can look great when you're 45 (and obviously you do have to look after yourself to have any hope of achieving this).

(xvii) By far the most valuable asset you can have as a man is to plug away relentlessly and not get discouraged when the inevitable rejection occurs. If you're one of the better looking guys, over which you have minimal influence, you will have to tolerate somewhat less rejection, although it will still be your default experience in dating. Every guy who is successful simply pursued women a great deal and didn't worry about it when he was rejected most of the time. And that is the most important thing, not self-improvement.

(xviii) I suppose the other particularly valuable asset than you can have, as in anything, is sheer luck and good fortune.

(xix) Good genetics are also extremely valuable. Forget about lifting making any difference, this will only have any impact if you're genetically fortunate.

(xx) Socio-economic status and personal connection also play a role, but these are disqualifiers not qualifiers.

(xxi) By far the most valuable asset you can have as a woman is good genetics.

(xxii) While self-improvement is somewhat worthwhile, it is absolutely nowhere near as valuable as accepting rejection and possessing good genetics, which will ultimately decide whether or not you're successful.

And I've dated a quite bit over the last couple of years, I've read PPD a great deal, I've observed the world around me, couples, dating and relationships. And I have seen absolutely nothing to remotely dissuade me from this perspective.

(xxiii) I have never seen any evidence that lifting will help you without good genetics, in fact all of the evidence I've seen points to the opposite.

(xxiv) I have never seen any evidence that 'game' or mindset will help you without either (a) good genetics, or (b) playing the numbers game and therefore having a steadfast attitude to rejection, which is what ultimately leads to the success, not 'game' itself.

(xxv) It is possible that being the alpha or particularly competent male in a certain setting can elevate your attractiveness, but this can be extremely difficult to achieve.

(xxvi) I have never seen anything that a woman of healthy weight can do to enhance her SMV.

(xxvii) And for the most part, good looking, genetically fortunate people of both genders never hit the wall if they remotely take care of themselves, or if they do it's at such an age that they wouldn't want to date anyway.

(xxviii) There are so many good looking women aged over 35 on dating sites (which is, of course, only a portion of the overall number), it's just laughable to suggest women hit the wall at 35. And the argument that they have diminished options is also just plain wrong. Fertility can be an issue, as I've said before, but if you think these women are just going to put out with anyone because their biological clock is ticking, guess again.

If you believe otherwise...if you believe that game is really useful in the absence of other more important factors. If you believe that lifting is massively valuable in the absence of good genetics. If you believe that women inevitably hit the wall even when they have good genetics and this really damages them. If you believe that you can date successfully as an average looking guy simply by being socially competent, without either sheer good fortune and luck or experiencing massive amounts of rejection...

Then you are simply wrong.

What we should do is what was proposed by the TV show Peep Show.

Let's line up two naked rows, best-looking people can pick the best-looking people, the dregs can be left with the dregs and we can all go home early and get it over with.

Because that's pretty much what we do anyway.