Thesis: I disagree with how TRP sells this, and try and state what I was raised with; essentially that 'looks matter, but personality>looks'. I go off-track with a history lesson explaining why I think the older RPers fell for this advice as kid, which may or may not have been a pointless history lesson, I'm still up in the air about that. I then move to the post-modern era-MTV generation through to the Millennials-and discuss how social conventions can manipulate perceptions of reality, and history can be rewritten. Long story short, as we have reached a state of open hypergamy, the social narrative has changed from "nice guys don't finish last, SHALLOW MISOGYNISTIC ASSHOLES do" to "nice guys don't finish last, ENTITLED LAZY LOSERS do". What must be remembered, as u/Pem_Bayliss has insinuated a few times, is that even though they say we've always thought like this, 20 years ago we were spoon-fed a different story.

I had a visceral emotional response to Griddy's thread on "gay men just get it without having to be told what I thought was obvious" which initially anger-phased me (in part due to misunderstanding of what was being implied) into missing my evening gym session. Never mind, it was closing very soon anyway; near midnight over here.

The responses to that inevitably were full of TRP saying one of their favourite defences; "we were lied to!"

I quite often hear TRP complain that they were given crap advice in attracting women by society and their parent figures. I have heard it so much that I listed it as one of the [types of threads I was sick of seeing crop up on PPD.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3q3a4r/a_note_on_circular_thread_conversations_and_ideas/) It is now up there with threads of "Nice Guys" in their various forms, and people coming in to concern troll about AWALT, in terms of how much a thread annoys me.

However, I am equally annoyed by the callous response often given by TBP and PPW/RPWs alike: "dafuq! U blind? U autistic bruh? U been living in a cave? How the effing fuck did you believe women didn't want hawt guys? Lol this is proof terpers are all just a bunch of neckbeard virgins."

I suppose this is because TRP put forward a not particularly believable report of the "just be yourself" advice given to men. According to redpillers such as Pem, the difference given to men in the 70s and 80s was literally thus:

"Looks don't matter! Women want nice guys! Nice guys are sexy! Nice guys are attractive! Every woman wants a nice guy! Just be yourself! You'll find someone who loves you one day!"

Even as a red sympathiser, I do not really buy into this. However, I'm applying values retrospectively. History revision ahead, I can somewhat believes this if the advice was given in the 70s/80s, for a few reasons:

  1. Poverty. I live in the North of England. 's'not as posh or rich as London tbqh, and we've been fucked over by the recession. My parents and grandparents experienced a much lower standard of living to that I've been blessed with. In the UK during the 70s, there were power cuts. The working class had whole weeks without electricity. The average family was much, much more concerned with feeding themselves and their family, and staying out of the cold, than impressing women, living up to the then generally unattainable lives of those on the silver screen, in Hollywood and the West End. I can't speak for America, however.

In particular, the current "health nut" craze-bodybuilding, clen eating etc.-was considered the reserve of a small collection of men, and too affluent a lifestyle for the average labourer. In the days of homophobia, vanity was associated with femininity and "real men" didn't bother looking after their appearance. They asserted their power by putting another pint and packet of crisps in their beer bellies and not giving a fuck about it.

Ironically, this masculine imperative was an industrial bourgeois subversion of the ancient masculine body image ideal. In other words, in manual labour-intensive economies and slaves trades of the ancient empires, complete with their renowned necessary military forces, it would be a sign of poor health and status for a man to be fat, weak or frail. In industrialised, mechanised, urban, commercial environments with more pronounced class divisions according to meritocracy as opposed to bloodline, the wealth class distribution could be determined by body fat ratios. The poor would often die frail, weak and ill of hunger; the rich would dine well and consequentially be more portly (or in the case of active aristocratic young men, in good health and athletic.) Hence, a famous line allegedly heard by Rousseau; "if they [the French peasantry] can't afford to eat bread, let them eat cake!"

That's a bit of a tangent, but basically, whereas in the past almost everyone of working age would be fit, half a decade ago the poor and working class would have been fitter (but hungrier) than the rich. Therefore women were torn between rich and fat, or poor and fit. Young and handsome, and poor but at least earning-i.e. beta fucks-was therefore an attractive option. But as men get older they tend to move from BF to Beta Bucks, which is where attraction wanes. This was particularly true until the last century's significant advancements in medical health, and the average age of mortality rising. Enter the great post-war changes under liberalism; feminism, the sexual revolution and the civil rights movements, globalisation, mass immigration and cosmopolitanism, the transmission of post-modernist theory and discourse, a shift towards atheism or Islam in replacement of Christianity, and the technological revolution. Now that the standard of living has risen, almost everyone is well fed (by which I mean, doesn't starve; trust me, poor people don't get to clean bulk easily!) Women's hypergamous standards responded accordingly. If more men on average are in better health with a good job, and live longer in good health, then it follows the new higher SMV is a healthier/fitter man. And so we had the fitness/bodybuilding revolution of the 80s, 'macho culture' (helped by the rise of LGBT rights), and so on, until eventually we have what was to our parents 'attractive' as the new average Joe.

  1. The SMP was still very pro-monogamy. While women were partially 'liberated', and not literally the property of their husband, they still retained a degree of financial, and particularly social/domestic, dependence on men. As such, "beta buxes" or beta providers were in high demand, and attractive. In worst case scenario, marital rape was yet to be made illegal or recognised, so she was her husband's property in all but name.

Feminism had yet to have a significant impact on the nuclear family unit, the pill only having become mass-manufactured a decade or so beforehand (hence the Swinging Sixties, although that was in part a reactionary response to the Cold War and teenage rebellion against conservative parents/authority figures). Rather the seeds were being sown with the birth of the Sensitive New Age Guys for no-fault divorce and single motherhood to become the norm.

3a) Communal values still largely took priority. Again in UK, the village presence was integral, which often included some religious component, and in the past 2 decades there have been some patriotic complaints from mostly older generations that the country's becoming too "Americanised". In the US, I understand there was a marked change in scenery between country life and city life too. Obviously, the world has become more cosmopolitan, liberal and atheist as well.

b) Likewise, hook-up culture had yet to become the norm; one night stands were mostly a once-in-a-lifetime experience for being away at university. Sexuality was not entirely frigid, but it was still not something to discuss blasé in public as it has become. Infidelity was considerably more frowned upon too, and considered a rarity.

c) Finally, related to all of the above, the media had yet to replace the community, family and church (or religion) as primary source of core values. Money was important, obviously, it had been for centuries, but many families still held some sort of intrinsic spiritual purpose above it. Equally, looks were not as valued as much. We simply weren't as vain-and even if we were, it was considered the mark of the wealthy elite to be attractive. It still is, really, but it's much easier and cheaper for someone to mimic and emulate them (see for example the hordes of Instagram models, fashion, fitness and make-up channels on Youtube, etc.)

However, this advice isn't really believable in the modern era. We now live in an age of unprecedented luxury in the West. The first world no longer has to worry so much about putting bread on the table, as keeping up with the Joneses. Communal values have been replaced with individualism, we have no real 'village community anymore, I don't know half of my neighbours. We have replaced gods and kings with corporations and celebrities, and in absence of a centralised moral authority, the media age typically leads to narcissism, vanity, hedonism and rational self-interest. Of course, I as a child raised Christian am moralising here too much with my terminology. The fact of the matter is, things which we once called "superficial" if you were spiritual, and associated only with pipe dreams of being rich and famous if you were more down-to-earth, have now practically become expectations, let alone ideals or ambitions.

This transition to a culture dominated by corporate values had been established already by the 90s, having been noticeably prominent throughout the Reaganite era. However, at that time, feminism was yet to become what it is now; a political movement used by corporations to sell products and brands, and enforce policies, with ideological agendas. We can't deny that for all the feminists out there who live anti-patriarchy, socialist-esque lives, the power base of Western feminism is capitalist. Feminist advice then, in the late 20th century, was still, or at least was selling itself, as alternative, reactionary, the underdog fighting corrupt social values.

The dating advice I personally received on the issue of "looks don't matter" was decisively feminist or sympathetic of feminist agendas at least. It fit neatly into what I was taught from Church of England upbringing; to love thy neighbour, to pursue inner riches over the fleeting allure of material desires, to control my passions. Ideals quickly dying out.

I'm going to reiterate, I had an upbringing from a family who were of conservative Christian values, though being working-class voted Labour (which in my grandparent's time was actually socialist as opposed to centre left; I grew up under centre-left New Labour, at the same time as the Bush Sr./Clinton/Bush Jr. administrations). Essentially, I was raised in idealistic spiritual mentality which made me easy pickings for someone to seduce me with an appeal to the feminine mystique. It was a shock to me to be exposed to a more liberal, atheistic, existentialist and sometimes even nihilist worldview in middle and high school. Naturally being religious, I had sexual hang-ups too. I still do frankly. Part of the reason I'm so attracted to this place. The just world fallacy hit hard.

I'm only going to cover the topic of LOOKS here as dating "advice" in general is rather broad and complex, and this post is dense enough as it is. Examples of the sorts of tropes and additional messages I got in the 90s and later on during my teenage years can be found in my big 10,000 odd word rant about feminist dating advice from last year.

I can't talk for the older men in the sub, but this was the message I received (and pointed out to wub):

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/401l88/griddy_is_sad_because_gay_men_understand_what/cyr6g5i?context=3

It's not quite as simple as them saying "looks don't matter at all". I disagree with RP saying that this was the social narrative.

What tends to have been told, and exaggerated by RP, is "looks don't matter as much as personality. What you see on the TV is what rich powerful men project onto women. Only narcissistic, shallow, gold-digging women who attract equally shallow, self-absorbed men truly value these. Women are less shallow than men, knowing what it is like to only be valued for your appearance, and so we tend to prefer smart, hard-working, kind, funny, interesting and generally all round cool guys to just some hunky meathead with the personality of sandpaper. Now this isn't to say you should not keep yourself clean and looking smart, but it's not like you have to be a male model or ripped bodybuilder! nervous laughter"

Now this advice is NOT all terrible. However, it is easy for an AFC to internalise this young as "looks don't matter enough to women to work on them, I'm better off prioritising working on personality"…and because one of the defining traits of a Nice Guy is that their personality is risk-averse, they focus SOLELY on beta personality traits…which is a recipe for disaster in ATTRACTING women.

I'm going to add the disclaimer that yes, it's true I was partially looking for an excuse. I'd received nasty rejection from a generic blonde bimbo type way back in 6th grade, which (combined with media and kid's shows, given my social anxiety left me little exposed to my female peers until late HS) left me with a bit of a"nice guys finish last" mentality.

With that said, I was never motivated not to be in good shape. It always incentivised me. But I DID see it as shallow, and shallow as bad. It was largely a revenge fantasy. I thought I was special for doing it. (Tbf, I was; I was in better shape than a lot of my male peers, but anyway...)

Finally, I am going to add that yes, we were never told that Sally McBoobz4Dayz the Hot Cheerleader was going to fall for our amazing personalities. What we were told was, she was a bitch. A shallow, narcissistic, selfish, stupid bitch. See my Mean Girls post on [Regina George.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3zo33q/do_men_really_want_to_fuck_regina_george/)Again, this fit perfectly into my bitterness over that rejection. What we were told was that ["good, respectable women" look past the shallow to the "inner beauty", if you could do the same.] (http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/07/the-feminine-mystique/) Hence, "have you ever noticed the shy nerdy bookworm with the glasses in the corner?" Hence, Charge of Superficiality I II and the frequent, soon-to-be archived Hot Girl Goggles complaint from BP.

The "YouGoGrrl" clause, now appropriated by ever less under the sun including the narcissistic, entitled, manipulative brats who really DON'T need a pick-me-up, was originally applied to these outcasts of cultural expectations of femininity. The nerdy. The homely/chubby. The ugly. The socially awkward. And indeed, the nice. Feminism tried to counter this influence and raise these girl's self esteem, providing them an outlet for empowerment. To snap up the male market intelligent and financially promising enough to politicise feminism and act as white knights, but not socially powerful or Game-aware enough to represent a threat to its goals in the long-term, over the course of the 80s and 90s Revenge of the Nerd fantasies were released, often where an average beta/AFC or even omega fell for one of these girl's personalities-and, like Beauty and the Beast, was eventually rewarded with a transformation in her appearance associated with her rising confidence and self actualisation. Silly example but for example, Todd and the Book of Pure Evil. Mentioned in my thread on dating advice above, Beauty and the Beast is the "looks don't matter" trope subverted for women. Remember, Gaston is a dick, and all the muscles in the world can't compensate for him being so full of himself in Belle's eyes.

That doesn't apply anymore. Geek is chic. Lots of geek girls work out and are sexy. Even the ones who don't and are still average plain Janes, [grew up on a diet of hunky male superheroes] (https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/39wlbm/cmv_women_have_it_easier_in_the_dating_arena_and/cs74equ) and so forth. They grew up on the "YouGoGrrl, never settle" diet too, which became more and more overt as casual sex, hypergamy and objectification of men became normalised. When they don't want the quarterback, they want the hot androgynous or metrosexual geeky guy. Now we have the current imbalance in the SMP that we see, where average women view their average counterparts as "entitled Nice Guys" who they reject, to which the boys cannot understand "the media said THESE WOMEN WEREN'T LIKE THAT even if the cheerleaders and bimbos are", they were thought to be a NAWALT effectively, alas-and the vicious circle of the gender wars begins anew.

But what has CRUCIALLY happened in the interim is that the social narrative has changed. We were raised to believe that we would be fools and just knuckle-headed men for believing that women could be so generalised as to be relegated to the shallow nature of the sex-crazed male, fighting the corruptive influence of patriarchal media beauty standards. Now, we are raised to believe we are moronic, lazy, entitled and naïve men for thinking women ever wanted anything BUT a hot Alpha.

Yes, Rollo has done a post on this: Open Hypergamy.

TL;DR

  • Cultural context of older RPers saying "we were lied to!" is important, however, I genuinely don't think that children of the 70s were being lied to. I'm not saying women weren't attracted to alphas, or masculinity, or hypergamy didn't exist or anything. However, various cultural, financial and social pressures and influences would provide a disincentive to acting on these interests, so BB was the norm, and most women felt that way, not knowing any differently.

  • By contrast, contemporary developments provide women with an incentive to be hypergamous in choice of mate preference, which includes "look". However, the standard for 'average' male physique has risen as standard of living and value of health/fitness from an aesthetic (as opposed to performance) perspective has increased. We've also had a retro-active regression back to ancient values of masculinity, which included the masculine body ideal.

  • The "we were lied to!" clause applies more to the dating advice given to children raised in the 90s and early-mid 00s, when 3rd wave feminism was more genuinely left-ist and alternative/reactionary. Certain feminist tropes have risen in popularity-particularly Nice Guys and entitlement. Others such as "looks don't matter" have fell by the wayside, as feminism has become more mainstream, the status quo, propagated by influential liberal media channels and ultimately, capitalist. I would somewhat agree that any 18 year old who still genuinely thinks "looks don't matter to women, at all!" was either raised in isolation by a feminist single mother, is blind or resides in a monastery.

  • Personal biases; religion, just world fallacy, relatively sheltered and conservative upbringing, sexual anxieties, body image issues, rationalisation for bitter experiences of rejection in childhood

  • Even in the 90s, it is inaccurate to say that we were told "looks don't matter"; rather, we were told that women KNEW that looks mattered, and resenting objectification and cultural media beauty standards themselves, tried to be LESS SHALLOW THAN MEN (which they are successful at according to the feminine mystique, being wonderful creatures of superior morality, and therefore will give "good men" a chance if they "work on their personality". The trope explicitly did NOT make out that hot cheerleaders will be all over you; it invaded male spaces where geeks and betas already loathed jocks and cheerleaders. It promised that "good (feminist) women" were better than that, more moral. It essentially manipulated the low-hanging fruit of men to proselytise, the Game-oblivious nerds i.e. millionaires of he future, with the Women Are Wonderful effect and feminine mystique. Then, as feminism and geek culture became more influential and bigger businesses, nerdy became the new sexy and geek girls wanted their Chad too. At which point, the culture normalised that women always* wanted attractive men and we were all fools for thinking otherwise.

We were not lied to. We were gaslighted.

Discuss and/or CMV.