If looks really matter...

DangZagnut · 2017-05-25T20:41:30+00:00

It unfortunately conflicts with what TRP says, because TRP isn't particularly accurate about edge conditions. It's one of the issues with assuming AWALT as a basis for a ideology. It only makes it valid if AWALT, which isn't accurate in ALL cases.

Some women like personality and are willing to overlook things like physical looks. Women aren't like men, it's not all about visual things to them. Men are way more visual than women. Women are not as visual. Sure they don't want some cheeto dust covered neckbeard that hasn't bathed in weeks, but they're far more willing to deal with a good personality.

Some may just be looking for a provider, and feel an uglier man will be less likely to cheat and be better to support a family than Thor Thunderdick. Maybe she like the way he goes down on her. Maybe despite all odds she really finds him funny and he makes her laugh. Maybe she's been cock carousel and wants to settle down just to do it with a regular guy.

There's no explanation, because all people are individuals and their motivations aren't always clear. That's the problem with putting attributes to everyone of a particular sex, race, nationality, etc. eventually exceptions come up which starts to unravel the whole thing.

gravelheart · 2017-05-25T20:44:57+00:00

You don't understand red pill theory yet. Women don't have to be attracted to their provider.

Zigis2 · 2017-05-25T21:15:30+00:00

WHAT DO WOMEN WANT (From The Moral Animal by Robert Wright)

For a species low in male parental investment, the basic dynamic of courtship, as we've seen, is pretty simple: the male really wants sex; the female isn't so sure.7 She may want time to (unconsciously) assess {59} the quality of his genes, whether by inspecting him or by letting him battle with other males for her favor. She may also pause to weigh the chances that he carries disease. And she may try to extract a precopulation gift, taking advantage of the high demand for her eggs. This "nuptial offering" — which technically constitutes a tiny male parental investment, since it nourishes her and her eggs — is seen in a variety of species, ranging from primates to black-tipped hanging flies. (The female hanging fly insists on having a dead insect to eat during sex. If she finishes it before the male is finished, she may head off in search of another meal, leaving him high and dry. If she isn't so quick, the male may repossess the leftovers for subsequent dates.)8 These various female concerns can usually be addressed fairly quickly; there's no reason for courtship to drag on for weeks.

But now throw high MPI into the equation — male investment not just at the time of sex, but extending up to and well beyond birth. Suddenly the female is concerned not only with the male's genetic investment, or with a free meal, but with what he'll bring to the offspring after it materializes. In 1989 the evolutionary psychologist David Buss published a pioneering study of mate preferences in thirty-seven cultures around the world. He found that in every culture, females placed more emphasis than males on a potential mate's financial prospects.9

That doesn't mean women have a specific, evolved preference for wealthy men. Most hunter-gatherer societies have very little in the way of accumulated resources and private property. Whether this accurately reflects the ancestral environment is controversial; hunter-gatherers have, over the last few millennia, been shoved off of rich land into marginal habitats and thus may not, in this respect, be representative of our ancestors. But if indeed all men in the ancestral environment were about equally affluent (that is, not very), women may be innately attuned not so much to a man's wealth as to his social status; among hunter-gatherers, status often translates into power — influence over the divvying up of resources, such as meat after a big kill. In modern societies, in any event, wealth, status, and power often go hand in hand, and seem to make an attractive package in the eyes of the average woman.

Ambition and industry also seem to strike many women as {60} auspicious — and Buss found that this pattern, too, is broadly international.10 Of course, ambition and industriousness are thingsa female might look for even in a low-MPI species, as indices of genetic quality. Not so, however, for her assessment of the male's willingness to invest. A female in a high-MPI species may seek signs of generosity, trustworthiness, and, especially, an enduring commitment to her in particular. It is a truism that flowers and other tokens of affection are more prized by women than by men. Why should women be so suspicious of men? After all, aren't males in a high-MPI species designed to settle down, buy a house, and mow the lawn every weekend? Here arises the first problem with terms like love and pair bonding. Males in high-MPI species are, paradoxically, capable of greater treachery than males in low-MPI species. For the "optimal male course," as Trivers noted, is a "mixed strategy."11 Even if long-term investment is their main aim, seduction and abandonment can make genetic sense, provided it doesn't take too much, in time and other resources, from the offspring in which the male does invest. The bastard youngsters may thrive even without paternal investment; they may, for that matter, attract investment from some poor sap who is under the impression that they're his. So males in a high-MPI species should, in theory, be ever alert for opportunistic sex. Of course, so should males in a low-MPI species. But this doesn't amount to exploitation, since the female has no chance of getting much more from another male. In a high-MPI species, she does, and a failure to get it from any male can be quite costly. The result of these conflicting aims — the female aversion to exploitation, the male affinity for exploiting — is an evolutionary arms race. Natural selection may favor males that are good at deceiving females about their future devotion and favor females that are good at spotting deception; and the better one side gets, the better the other side gets. It's a vicious spiral of treachery and wariness — even if, in a sufficiently subtle species, it may assume the form of soft kisses, murmured endearments, and ingenuous demurrals. ...

Pope_Lucious · 2017-05-25T21:23:19+00:00

Your observations could be consistent with AF/BB.

rtmlex · 2017-05-25T21:25:16+00:00

M.O.N.E.Y.

scarymovie2 · 2017-05-25T21:27:39+00:00

Troll is baiting...sounds like a chick or very effeminate man

raisins3142 · 2017-05-26T01:30:12+00:00

Alpha fucks and beta bucks.

Women are willing to settle for an unattractive man once they are at a certain stage and want resources.

Betas have to pay for sex with resources and commitment. It's why the wives of betas don't worry about them going out or being around women too much. They know they'd have to date a woman for a while to get laid because they are not the type to get easy sex. The women of alphas are the jealous type.

This is why women always complain about jealousy. It's because most are with betas and the betas know that the wife will get sexual attention and could fuck every time she goes out for a drink without him.

Title	If looks really matter...
Author	scarymovie2
Upvotes	3
Comments	21
Date	May 25, 2017 8:31 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/6dc9ub/if_looks_really_matter/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/if-looks-really-matter.585809 https://theredarchive.com/post/585809

Comments