I've posted on this topic before, but with the influx of new subscribers thirsty for sexual success, I feel it's time to send out yet another reminder of the importance of muscularity. Some seddit-type Feel Good Bullshit peddlers will have you believe that GAME IS EVERYTHING™ and you can get by with a couple push ups before your nightly sarge. Other LOOKS ARE EVERYTHING™ fatalists will have you believe that if you are not blessed with symmetrical facial features and a chiseled jaw, you should just give up.

As it turns out, there is ample science and credible anecdotal evidence to support the idea that ability to dominate other men in physical contests and the appearance thereof (i.e., muscularity) is a better indicator of sexual success than whatever it is that women themselves deem attractive. And thankfully, muscularity is something that is within the control of every healthy man.

First, check out this study: Quantifying the strength and form of sexual selection on men's traits (found via Chateau Heartiste, of course). Scienticians, feel free to critique the study as I lack the learnin' to do so. But my layman's take on it is as follows.

The TL;DR: Researchers, to determine the strength of female choice vs. contest between males as a sexual selector of male traits, take a bunch of measurements (height, weight, facial and vocal masculinity, bicep circumference, number of sexual partners in the last year, etc.) of a group of fraternity bros. The fraternity bros then look at facial pictures of each other and were asked "what percentage of men each pictured man could beat in a physical fight (0% to 100% in increments of 10%), and to estimate with how many women the pictured man had had sexual intercourse in the past year". Ladies from affiliated sororities were then shown the same pictures and "asked to rate on a 10-point Likert scale how attractive each was for a “short-term, purely sexual relationship, such as a one-night stand”.

The result:

When mating success was used as the fitness measure and success under female choice (attractiveness) and male contests (dominance) were treated as traits, there was directional selection for dominance, but not attractiveness.

And what was positively correlated with dominance (in this case, fighting ability)?

Male contests showed directional selection favoring increased girth [standardization of body weight and shoulder, chest and bicep circumference measurements] and vocal masculinity

Next: Why Is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the Fitness Indicator Hypothesis (found via The Rational Male)

The TL;DR: Researchers conduct six studies which basically find that muscular dudes are preferred for short term sexual relations. Alpha fucks, anyone?

Study #1 (Rating of computer generated images of men of varying muscularity by women):

Among the muscular men, the brawny man [most muscular] was rated the most dominant, and the toned man [least but still muscular] was rated as the least dominant. We observed the same pattern of results for ratings of volatility, except that the ratings of the slender and toned men only differed at a marginally significant level (p=.004). In support of the mating trade-off hypothesis, each of the muscular men (toned, built, and brawny) was rated as being less committed than each of the nonmuscular men (slender, typical, chubby), and brawny men were perceived as least likely to be committed (all ps<.001)

This pattern of results suggests that much like facial masculinity, increased muscularity is associated with inferences that a man is more physically dominant, more volatile, and less committed to his partner. Also similar to facial masculinity, women rated men with moderate muscularity rather than low or high muscularity as most attractive, perhaps because men with low muscularity are believed to possess too little dominance and men with high muscularity are believed to exhibit too much.

Brawny men, although not as rated as attractive, are seen as the most dominant, the most volatile, and least likely to commit. Shades of dark triad, anyone?

Study #2 (Rating of 2D drawings of men of varying muscularity by women):

Consistent with the prediction derived from mating trade-off theory, women report that the best short-term partner for them was more muscular than the best long-term partner for them.

"I don't want to settle down with a muscular guy because he has too many other options."

Study #3 (Survey of muscularity of current sex partners vs most recent short-term sex partners):

In support of the prediction, women reported that their short-term partners were more athletic and more muscular than their other recent sex partners on both the Likert scale measure and the MSM. Women also reported that they dated their short-term partners for less time than their other recent sex partners before having sex (1 week vs. 12 weeks), thus validating the temporal distinction between short-term partners and "other" partners. Relative to reports for other partners, **women also trusted their short-term parters less, felt less emotionally close to them, and reported they were less romantic.

Remember, it's not likely that these chicks are seeing a guy for a date more than once a week. Likely, these are first date bangs.

Our finding that women reported greater muscularity in their short-term partners than in their other partners is consistent with the hypothesis that muscularity is a cue of fitness. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that women felt less emotionally close to their short-term partners than to their long-term partners before sex. One interpretation of this finding is that women were biased to recall short-term partners more negatively than other partners. A second interpretation, consistent with the mating trade-off hypothesis, is that women were more willing to have short-term relations with muscular men without the requirement that they demonstrate characteristics particularly desired in long-term mates (trustworthiness, emotional closeness, etc.), possibly because these men possessed physical indicators of genetic fitness.

Alpha fucks, beta wines and dines and cries with you while you watch Gilmore Girls.

Study #4 (Men's sexual activity (self-reported) vs. muscularity):

Consistent with the predictions, greater muscularity, as coded by independent judges, was associated with greater lifetime partner number, though this association was not statistically significant (p>.05). However, when we controlled for two important confounds, age and body fat level, the association between muscularity and partner number was statistically significant. This pattern was obtained across each measure of muscularity. This finding supports the prediction that muscular men have more mating opportunities.

No surprises here.

Study #5&6(Sex partner number, self-rated attractiveness vs. self-rated muscularity):

As predicted, compared with less muscular men, muscular men rated their bodies as sexier to women in each study. Similarly, muscular men reported more lifetime sex partners, more short-term sex partners, and more affairs with mated women at significant or marginally significant levels. We then conducted partial correlations controlling for participants’ age and self-reported body fat level on the FSM to better isolate the association of muscularity to self-rated attractiveness and sex partner number. The pattern of results remained essentially unchanged, although the association between muscularity and number of brief sexual affairs in Study 5 dropped to marginally significant (p=.058). In Study 5, we also included self-esteem as a control to rule out the possibility that general self-confidence was driving the association between self-reported muscularity and sex partner number. Despite the fact that self-reported muscularity and self-esteem were positively related (r=.39, p<.001), when self-esteem was added as a control, muscularity was still a significant predictor of past number of sex partners and self-rated attractiveness.

Muscular dudes feel better about themselves and slay more vadge.

Finally, some anecdotal evidence of the effects of muscularity on attraction from around the manosphere:

The Book of Pook, What Every Skinny Guy Should know:

The ultimate example: there was a girl I was in oneitis that drove me to this webpage. As I got bigger, her reactions to me changed as well. At 155, I was ‘average’. At 175, she knew something was up. I got her at 195.

I know many of you guys are saying the same thing, “I get beautiful women too and I am skinny!” But the thing is, all these examples here is based on attraction on the body alone. I am NOT working to get these women. My body is doing 99% of the attracting. I can just be a statue and get a response. (But of course, you have to take action. This is based on doing zilch.)

Big guys are allowed to get away with more things. I allowed to be cruder, to be bolder, to take advantage of women more (I’m serious!), and so on. You can also be stupid as well. My biggest problem is women only wanting me for sex (no, this is not a joke. Yes, it is a problem). You try to find a girl that fits your life and all she is interested in is your body! It is like getting rich and putting up with gold diggers.

Danger and Play: Going from Fit to Big

Yes, women find you more attractive. Let’s just get this out of the way. I don’t care about that “scientific study” that allegedly shows that the ideal physique that women more desire is Brad Pitt’s from Fight Club. In the real world, I go by what women do and not how they answer survey questions.

I’ve been fit and big. I know what women find attractive. I know how to read what the nerds call indicators of interest.

You simply get more IOIs from women. That’s just the way it is. If you disagree with me and have never been on both sides of the fence, then you don’t have the right to an opinion. In short, I don’t want to hear any garbage from Internet nerds about what women want.

No, it’s not about confidence. Some will say, “It’s not that your’e bigger that draws more attention. It’s that being big makes you more confident, and this in turn translates to more attraction from women.”

No. I am a confident mofo and have always been confident.

Yours truly: Fitness is the Base of my Game

Also, TRP members such as /u/GayLubeOil, /u/puaSenator, /u/TRPsubmitter and /u/TokyoPickup can probably regale you with tales of EZ-mode lays based on nothing but pure, swole-fueled primate attraction that crosses.

And a bonus comment from the rational male himself on this topic:

One thing that most guys overlook is that a muscular physique IS an indicator of dominance for women.

Before a word is spoken or a behavior acted out, a woman's evolved hindbrain picks up on visual cues of dominance. Since a man in better physical shape was so consistently associated with a dominant personality and dominant behavior this became the physical cue for women's arousal.

Of course you can be a Beta chump and still pull tail because you're good looking, but it's not because of dominance – it's the appearance of dominance. Likewise Game and applied dominance may get you the bang, but only after you overcome the handicap of lacking an appearance of dominance.

Now get out there and lift some heavy shit.