TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Q4MEN: Would you commit to a woman who is perfect in every way but except for her physical appearance?

vanBeethovenLudwig
June 11, 2018
4 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate

It's easier for men to impress women even if he's not the most physically attractive man - he can use tools like humor, salary, intellect, aggressive traits, good sex, game tactics to attract a woman.

For a man, however, one simple look at a woman will tell him whether or not he's attracted. That's how important physical looks are for women as a potential sexual mate.

Let's say there is a woman who is so wonderfully attractive emotionally and mentally. She reads you like a book, she knows how to tease you, play with you, admire you, submit to you. Only thing is, she's not gorgeous. Physically she's a 6 or a 7. You've dated 8's and 9's before but couldn't get along with them.

Would you commit to a woman that you weren't physically attracted to, even if she's the perfect woman mentally?

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Q4MEN: Would you commit to a woman who is perfect in every way but except for her physical appearance?
Author vanBeethovenLudwig
Upvotes 4
Comments 115
Date June 11, 2018 4:39 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/q4men-would-you-commit-to-a-woman-who-is-perfect.261968
https://theredarchive.com/post/261968
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/8qawl0/q4men_would_you_commit_to_a_woman_who_is_perfect/
Red Pill terms in post
game
Top posts by vanBeethovenLudwig

GTFU. Grow The F*** Up.

253 upvotes
September 6, 2020
/r/RedPillWomen

Don't be fat.

144 upvotes
December 11, 2017
/r/RedPillWomen

Why hobbies are so important

128 upvotes
January 27, 2018
/r/RedPillWomen

The goodness of a woman's heart

124 upvotes
October 8, 2018
/r/RedPillWomen

Modern women choosing traditional masculinity

91 upvotes
May 21, 2018
/r/RedPillWomen

Childlike vs. Childish

75 upvotes
June 29, 2017
/r/RedPillWomen

Example of why single motherhood is bad for children

69 upvotes
May 8, 2017
/r/RedPillWomen

An "interesting woman with a brain."

66 upvotes
November 15, 2017
/r/RedPillWomen
Comments

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost15 points16 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

100% yes, 10 for relationship and a 6-7 physically, I would marry her.

Idk why you think a 6-7 is not attractive tho. Are you a woman? Men find a wide range of women attractive, 60th percentile women are still totally bangable

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigroses are red, feminists are blue1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

I guess I'm more saying that a man is objectively more attracted to a 8 or a 9, even if a 6 or 7 is also still attractive to him. It's more of asking would you commit to a lesser physically attractive woman, if you're obviously more attracted to a 8 or 9?

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah it just depends on what I can get. If I could get a 10 RMV 10 SMV woman I would. If I had to settle than I’d pick the best combination of rmv and SMV.

How it actually works tho is that I’ll casually date the girls I wouldn’t commit to, while dating others and keeping my options open. Once I meet a girl I really like, worth committing to, I’ll commit. That could be a 6-7 sure

[–]couldbemage2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not just about what you can get... I can get a 8-9, but there's typically tons of problems associated with them.

More likely to find functional people if I'm not dating out of my league.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Right that’s what I said, if I could get a 10 RMV AND 10 SMV then I would

I can’t get that, so I have to settle in RMV and SMV to varying degrees

[–]couldbemage0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Makes sense.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If I could get a 10 RMV 10 SMV woman I would.

If I had to settle

Are you a 10 RMV and 10 SMV?

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You’re assuming that people are rational actors

They’re not

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s the truth

[–]couldbemage2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course? How is this even a question?

[–]reluctantly_red2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's more of asking would you commit to a lesser physically attractive woman, if you're obviously more attracted to a 8 or 9?

Men don't make such fine distinctions. Guys are usually either attracted or not. If she makes it into the attractive category we're good (and other traits become more important).

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigroses are red, feminists are blue0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, that's my question. So what I've learned is as long as there is a baseline of attraction, she passes.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I would definitely consider a 6-7, even according to that one, horribly compressed image out there that people use all the time. 6-7 is not "nothing" in the looks department, I'd say a 3 or below is. :/

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup I agree fully

[–]Son_of_Tzu12 points13 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Contrary to popular belief, female attractiveness is not the be all and end all of dating. There are behavior patterns, personnality traits and habits that make the the seduction process a chore.

RP claims that high SMV naturally erodes such character from women, which imo is true. To an extent.

Showing disinterest, distance and unavailability can encourage a woman to act in a pleasant and aggreable way, but honestly it's a considerable waste of time and energy.

To answer your question, well I believe you don't really understand how to be pursued. It's a woman's fantasy to be craved for more than looks, but unless the guy can't pull consistently more attractive mates those qualities won't be valued as much by the men you desire.

Most probably, he'll try something with you, but due to your insecureties of being 'uglier' than his usual standing you'll become overbearing in some way and he'll drop you.

Could be wrong, but that has been my experience my experience dating women "less than ideal" aka ugly, fat or socially awkward but had great souls and whatnot.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigroses are red, feminists are blue1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

To answer your question, well I believe you don't really understand how to be pursued. It's a woman's fantasy to be craved for more than looks, but unless the guy can't pull consistently more attractive mates those qualities won't be valued as much by the men you desire.

Just to clarify, do you mean that even though women wish they were craved for more than their looks, from a man's perspective, it's still all about the looks?

[–]Son_of_Tzu3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's only a problem in you date above your SMV though. Do you want to be in a relationship where your partner doesn't feel physically attracted to you?

Thing is it's not ONLY about looks, but if the looks arent there then most won't bother with the rest. It's looks first, then red flag hunting.

[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Okay. So a very attractive personality and above average looks? Sounds like a hell of a deal.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So a very attractive personality and above average looks? Sounds like a hell of a deal.

Yeah -- the OP is basically asking if you'd accept an almost unicorn -- the answer of course is hell yes.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Depends 100% on what this girl actually looks like and what I think of her looks. Only you know what these HB10 numbers mean in your own head.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigroses are red, feminists are blue-1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

6 or 7 would be a girl next door look, healthy body weight, cute face - simply nothing exquisite but still attractive overall.

An 8 or 9 would have specifically more attractive features such as incredible skin, nice eyes/eyelashes/eyebrows, naturally nice breast/hips/glute shape, delicately shaped nose, body type.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your OP is confusing because you specifically include that the man is not physically attracted to her but here you’re saying she’s still attractive.

Would you commit to a woman you aren’t attracted to if she’s “perfect” in very other way is a very different question that would you commit to a woman who is “perfect” in every other way but is not as hot to you as other, less perfect women.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigroses are red, feminists are blue0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

True. Good catch on detail.

I guess I wouldn't mind the answer to both questions!

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

6 or 7 would be a girl next door look, healthy body weight, cute face - simply nothing exquisite but still attractive overall.

Do you have any idea how vague that is?

An 8 or 9 would have specifically more attractive features such as incredible skin, nice eyes/eyelashes/eyebrows, naturally nice breast/hips/glute shape, delicately shaped nose, body type.

There are no standardized definitions of "incredible skin, nice eyes/eyelashes/eyebrows, naturally nice breast/hips/glute shape, delicately shaped nose, body type."

I'd have to see the girl to come to a decision.

That being said, if I had to choose from a group of women who all passed my "looks test" (for lack of a better way to put it) .. I wouldn't make the final decision based on looks.

[–]WhatIsTheMeaningHere2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That being said, if I had to choose from a group of women who all passed my "looks test" (for lack of a better way to put it) .. I wouldn't make the final decision based on looks.

Yeah basically this. After a certain point in attractiveness, I can tell when a girl looks better, but it's almost like after 6, all the girls seem just as attractive to me on a superficial level.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That being said, if I had to choose from a group of women who all passed my "looks test" (for lack of a better way to put it) .. I wouldn't make the final decision based on looks.

I'm not sure how many other guys think the same way we do but there is a baseline for physical attractiveness and then you look for a "hook" in terms of personality. The flip side is that if you are hitting on those 8s and 9s and actually getting somewhere then you start looking for red flags rather than hooks.

But yes, the final decision isn't going to be made on looks but rather on personality and lifestyle traits.

[–]Offhisgame 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

You sound creepy as fuck

[–]PPD-AngelIncel Ban Count: 9[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Be civil

[–]TedescheMRA5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Personally, I have found that attractive personality traits in women have a secondary effect on my physical attraction to them; meaning, if I really like their personality, they become more physically attractive to me in subtle ways. I overlook their physical flaws more easily and focus more on their attractive physical qualities.

If I met a girl who was a 9 or a 10 in every mental category, a 6-7 in looks would present no barrier. The trade-off is so obscenely worth it too, when you consider the rarity of top-tier personalities compared to looks.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigroses are red, feminists are blue0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The trade-off is so obscenely worth it too, when you consider the rarity of top-tier personalities compared to looks.

Top-tier personalities as in how?

[–]TedescheMRA1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I just mean that people that meet all/most of another person’s personality requirements are rarer than those who get a “10” in a random person’s looks department. There are far more variables in play with personality than looks.

[–]ffbtawPurple Pill Man4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I thought you were going to say a 2, a 6 or 7 would be eloping material.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Depends on a lot. Rating people is purely subjective. Your 6 might be a 4 to me. You could be one of those HAES people and tell yourself that 400lb lady is beautiful the way she is.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Would you commit to a woman that you weren't physically attracted to, even if she's the perfect woman mentally?

Absolutely, whole heartedly I would commit to that sort of relationship.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If she is 6 or 7 I’m still physically attracted to her but not as much as with a 9.

I wouldn’t commit to her if she were a 1 but otherwise perfect for me. I’d just stay single if every woman who I was physically attracted to in any way was incompatible with me.

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 1 point2 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

I was under the impression that 7/10 was considered attractive

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Me too, 5 is average, 6 somewhat attractive, 7 Definitely attractive, 8 very attractive to everyone, 9 supermodel looks, 10 a 9 which matches your preference..

Imho a 7 is a catch most guys on reddit don't get. Maybe they need to go lift

[–]quicklogaccountI claim to cause RPs to feel blue0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

This scale is hellish. Most guys around me shift the "average" to 60%, maybe because it's passing marks in nearly every school, but they they take the average of their surroundings.
My 6 before college is now EASILY my 8.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps but it's apparently a RP scale. That's the numbers and that's the qualifiers. I get the 6 being average idea but if we have 10 numbers then 5 does sit in the middle. IMHO in terms of categorization it's pretty descent, it just sounds bad if you think 5 is low.

but I believe that there's like a 2 point st.dev based on preferences (beep bop boop I know),

[–]quicklogaccountI claim to cause RPs to feel blue0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I actually nerded this out pretty hard some years ago.

Most men use the scale like this.

Unfuckable: It encompasses most women. Guys are upper middle class, most women fit here, older or poorer.
Low number, often 3
Fuckable: Stretch from the ugliest women they see in their classes and every day life to the ones they consider slightly under their league.
Average, often 6
The women they believe is on their league to the ones they believe are great picks for them.
High, often 8
The hot women they believe they might score
Higher, often 9
The women that are not part of their every day. TV people and such.
10

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That may be the approach used, I don't have a PhD on the subject so I don't know, I was just curious of where I was on the scale now and before I married so I googled redpill girl scale and got an image which seemed like a good measurement.

Having some objective criteria, even in a subjective realm like attractiveness is useful in some way

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

IME, if you have some common terms of reference, and you aren't dealing with the three classes of guys I mention above, the SD is more like a half point to one point at the most. That is, if I say a girl is a 7, roughly two-thirds of other guys won't go lower than 6 nor higher than 8.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hmmm, I dont think your wrong but still think that given the subjective nature that 2 points swings are reasonable, especially close to the mean (ie a 4 vs a 6), but at the ends of the spectrum there is far less movement. If we say 5 is the mean, 1SD = 4-6, 2SD=2-8 (thus 7-8's makes up 13.6% of given population), 3SD=1-9 (thus 9's are 2.1%) & 10 are black swans, then 2 points on the scale roughly equals a change in 1SD, with bias for movement at the ends (I think going to such details is silly but I do find statistic models interesting). I think your right in terms of random sampling and giving a 1 point shift, but as you only need one person in that sample to give a higher mark to find a match do think suggested method is reasonable.

[–]abriefhistory_Supporter of science and respect0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Most guys around me shift the "average" to 60%, maybe because it's passing marks in nearly every school

Kind of off-topic for me to ask, but really? Most schools I know (and all of those I've been to) use 50% as a pass. I know that some use 60%, but I don't think it's nearly every school.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

In the army, you needed a 70% to pass any written test, but then again, if you fail out in the field, you can die.

[–]quicklogaccountI claim to cause RPs to feel blue0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

In Brazil most schools use a 60% mark, some use 70%. There's debate about it with merits to both sides, using 50% and harder tests and 70% and easier tests but making students used to the idea they can't make mistakes.

Colleges use a different grading, the best ones use A to E but in the end they'll just use % scores with 60% pass mark.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

"Average" is ill-defined. You can talk mean, median or mode. Plus it is very context-specific.  The  SMP as a whole is skewed towards the lower end. That is, it is not a symmetrical bell curve. The "average" person in society at large probably rates a 4 or even a 3. OTOH, if you are in college surrounded by relatively fit 18 to 22 year olds, the average there would probably rate a 7 overall.

In general, a 5 is someone very plain looking. Not ugly, not obese but maybe a bit overweight and with no notable facial features. A 6 typically has either a nice body or a good face but usually not both. A 7 has a nice body and a pleasant face. An 8 is like a 7 but version 2.0 with a better body and face. And a 9 will have an almost perfect body and facial features. YMMV but on my scale, a 10 is a 9 who has a "push", that is something that for you personally separates perfect from almost perfect.

The latter is the only place where subjectivity comes into is. The problem with the HB10 scale (or any scale for that matter) is that many people can't be objective. You get three basic types who ruin it. One is shitlords who posture about the 8s and 9s they are banging, and then who will tear down any girl that someone else scored. Second is young, inexperienced men - generally in college or younger - who think a UCLA cheerleader is a 6 because that is all they are exposed to. Third are the solipsists who will say weird things like "your 7 could be my 3". It doesn't work that way: a 7 is a 7 and a 3 is a 3 but just because you can't step into the shoes of other guys doesn't invalidate the scale.

[–]quicklogaccountI claim to cause RPs to feel blue0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Some time ago I tried to figure out how we use that scale and noticed something like five calibration points.
Very ugly women, encompassing most of (wo)mankind and rating a very low number, "3", followed by "under average", including women uglier than the ones in the guy's environment, making up to some number considered "average", "6", then hottest ones the guy sees every day making up to 8, very hot ones he doesn't see every day making up to 9, and TV people / very beautiful and overly produced women making 9 to 10.
There are some differences from your suggestion. Subjectivity is in all the numbers, and is also caused by one's environment.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

In general, a 5 is someone very plain looking. Not ugly, not obese but maybe a bit overweight and with no notable facial features. A 6 typically has either a nice body or a good face but usually not both. A 7 has a nice body and a pleasant face. An 8 is like a 7 but version 2.0 with a better body and face. And a 9 will have an almost perfect body and facial features. YMMV but on my scale, a 10 is a 9 who has a "push", that is something that for you personally separates perfect from almost perfect. The latter is the only place where subjectivity comes into is. The problem with the HB10 scale (or any scale for that matter) is that many people can't be objective. The latter is the only place where subjectivity comes into is.

Unfortunately there is NO agreed upon "objective" way/system/model to measure any individual's beauty.

We know SOME of the traits that make up physical attractiveness, we sometimes know the importance of those traits, but not in one system. (Your explanation of the system is very vague, for example. "Pleasant" face isn't a concrete idea).

Third are the solipsists who will say weird things like "your 7 could be my 3". It doesn't work that way: a 7 is a 7 and a 3 is a 3 but just because you can't step into the shoes of other guys doesn't invalidate the scale.

OK, so absent a system to rate someone's looks, we can:

1) Offer our own opinion, which will be part objective and part subjective

2) COLLECT opinions and get an average/median ranking for someone aka "consensus attractiveness"

You're suggesting that the rating of a target, same "girl A" is going to be the SAME across all men. Of course, this is bullshit, as any measure of central tendency will have a dispersion of numbers. Someone rated an average/median/whatever value of "6" may have a full range of 1-10 ratings assigned to them.

A good system or model of rating attractiveness would have very very high correlation with consensus attractiveness ratings.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

The term is "intersubjectivity"

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

What definition of intersubjectivity are you using here and how does it apply?

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Subjective experience within a common framework.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap...0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, that would still suggest that a target's rating will fluctuate between raters, right?

[–]DebatePonyLet's ride!2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If she isn't physically attractive, she isn't perfect.

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No commitment whatsoever. Considering that infidelity is increasing and divorce rapes being so common.

Moreover, I don't trust modern women to stay attracted to the same man forever. The more beautiful they are the more solicited by other male advances they are, and the more tempted to branch swing they are too.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. Submission is optional.

That is all.

[–]WhatIsTheMeaningHere1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Tbh 6 or 7 is where I start to say that there are diminishing returns in terms of attractiveness gains. A 7 can easily compete with a 9 in my eyes. Maybe it would be a bit of a stretch for the 6, but I can't quite put my finger on what a 6 would look like. Voice is a big thing for me too, so a 7 with a voice that I like would probably win out against a 9 without it. I think the 7-10 range is debatable and subjective.

[–]yikingyocks1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Can you give an example of a bad voice?

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigroses are red, feminists are blue1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably an extremely nasal voice or rough, gruff voice. Attractive feminine voices tend to be either low, breathy, soothing or cute, soft and bubbly.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

1) Squeaky, like Bernadette from Big Bang Theory or too many Chinese and Japanese girls.

2) Gravelly, like they have had to much booze and cigarettes in their time.

[–]TheMiddlePeakEat the best of both pills1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would be attracted to a 6 or a 7. I can do above average, average is cutting it close, closer to no, below is a hell no.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure would.

[–]Fabianstrategy1Asshole with asshole opinions1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Some basic physical attraction has to be there. I'd never commit to a woman at this point, I'm probably too feral for a relationship beyond booty calls and FWB, but there was a time where that would've been my ideal mate. It's appalling how under-developed the majority of women's personalities and skills are now.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigroses are red, feminists are blue1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's appalling how under-developed the majority of women's personalities and skills are now.

Underdeveloped as in how?

[–]Fabianstrategy1Asshole with asshole opinions1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The majority of women I see, (say 75%) can barely cook or basically take care of themselves, haven't read a book since school, have no real ambitions, believe things like tanning and netflix are hobbies, and basically regurgitate everything they see on the real housewives of whatever. They spend the majority of their free time on Facebook and Pinterest, yet create nothing from the latter that they favorite. Of the 12 women I've dated in the last 2 years, only two were able to hold a conversation about something other than vapid reality tv shows and what their friends are doing.

[–]DareyFathom1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Would you commit to a woman that you weren't physically attracted to, even if she's the perfect woman mentally?

No. I've tried doing so a couple times and I inevitably always lose interest. I can't do it despite my best efforts.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Would you commit to a woman that you weren't physically attracted to, even if she's the perfect woman mentally?

No, but we seem to have different interpretations of what 6s/7s mean.

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

If shes a 6, how would i have spent any time with her to know she has a good personality?

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigroses are red, feminists are blue1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Hmm, so you're saying you wouldn't have spent the time to get to know her if you didn't find her physically attractive in the first place?

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Bingo

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Chad dropping the pinkpill

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What is pink pill?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The blackpill but for women

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The vast majority of guys find a 6 to be attractive (bangable), but if you are swimming in a sea of 7s to 9s then ya, you probably will not be dating a 6 in the normal course of things.

The questions still stand, at least is theory: 1) would you choose a peach of a 6 over a bitchy 8 to be in an LTR with? 2) Would you get into an LTR with someone who you *don't* find physically attractive if she was perfect in every other way?

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

1) would you choose a peach of a 6 over a bitchy 8 to be in an LTR with?

Eh.

2) Would you get into an LTR with someone who you don't find physically attractive if she was perfect in every other way?

No.

[–]Arobin080 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Physical attraction will always be more important than personality or anything else but a 6 or 7 doesn’t sound too bad, I’d still find her physically attractive enough that the rest would be a bonus. 5 or lower with everything else perfect, definitely not.

[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds perfect.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, if I was in an age where I wanted to settle down, I would committ to a 6 who is perfect LTR material

[–]Taipanshimshonhere for the downvotes0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There are many times I find cute features to like about a girl. She just can’t be actually objectively ugly or obese.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Tried it out, nope.

[–]quicklogaccountI claim to cause RPs to feel blue0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My wishful reasoning started writing "yes":
Developing a bond is good enough to make up for the loss of freedom to fuck strangers, the additional loss from "gorgeous" to "not gorgeous" is no biggie, and you even sought to make her perfect and still a 6 or 7.

Then my skeptical self kicked in and reminded me relationships are inevitably hard and such a "perfect" woman comes with small letters. What brings the conclusion.

Would you commit to a woman that you weren't physically attracted to, even if she's the perfect woman mentally?

While I'd gladly commit to a woman that was "perfect" on purely non physical aspects while being below what I'm used to on the looks, I'd be so skeptical of her "perfection" I would deny commitment.

[–]stats1350 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Physically she's a 6 or a 7.

For a long term relationship whats important isn't how she looks now but how she looks in the, as the phrase implies, long term. How long will she remain a 6 of a 7? Let say she is an 18 yo that will effectively remain in the fuckable 6 or 7 range for at another twenty odd years. Hell yea, I'm committing to that. Since we are starting off with the premise that she is perfect in every other way, what she will do is fuck my brains out for the next few decades and make it so that I forever associate her with lust and pleasure and happiness, and I never want to put the effort into another woman. But if she is close to the wall and only has a few fuckable years left, then no chance I'm committing to that. I'll find myself a younger woman even if it means a few imperfections.

[–]InformalCriticismProbably Red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Intelligent average-looking women have had the ability to mentally appeal to me, but I would never commit. The best they could do is get a fling.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

no

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I would not. You've got to have something in both categories. If you've got some in one but nothing in the other, I cannot be attracted to you. It's nothing personal, and I feel bad for you, and I have no intention of being a dick to you over it, but I wouldn't commit or even start dating a person with nothing in the looks department.

I disagree that this revelation suggests that women have it harder - I think we've pretty thoroughly established that women are considerably harsher on men's looks than a.) they are willing to admit, and b.) men are on their looks.

[–]ifelsedowhilelocal cop - cherry top0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's hard for me to answer this question because I don't have problems finding attraction for every woman young enough or non fat. She should be really fat or really past her fertile years. But honestly I doubt an obese woman could be perfect in every way since obesity is a red flag.

[–]it_takes_the_redpillRed rover red rover send 'em all over0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd say this is my current ideal strategy, honestly.

As long as she stays somewhat fit I think the bond formed/her sexuality (she's perfect so she has a completely compatible sexual chemistry) overcomes that.

I'm planning on living rural, though, so I just don't believe that above a certain threshold attractiveness girls are incentivised to develop an attractive personality. The ones that are 8-10 have so many options I can't see them giving up city life or seeing the value of hard work.

I don't acutally believe most 8-10s learn any feminine skills anymore. I can cook more than most of the girls I've dated. A lot of the hottest women I knew in college were absolute slobs with little impulse control.

Oh, and I like that she isn't going to be showered with attention that reminds her of those options all the time. I believe women have a hypergamous nature, that they are capable of subduing if they want, just like men can subdue their polygamous nature. It's a matter of how much do I really want her to be tempted by it over time.

Plus, blowjobs. She's great at those. And since she legitimately enjoys giving them of her own volition and doesn't get resentful, I can't see myself ever leaving.

[–]Wallstreet30 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Basically you are describing a couple of women I was after in College, so, yeah.

6-7s are still highly attractive. Any woman whose BMI is over 25 isn't as attractive as she thinks she is. BMI of 25 and above is automatic DQ from the HB scale.

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

A girl who was perfect in every way would let me fuck random sluts so her looks would be irrelevant

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I like the way you think. Not only would she let me; the perfect woman would bring home 18-22 year-old bi-curious girls to share, keep them happy when I need to sleep, and make us all pancakes in the morning.

[–]truedemocracy3Such An Asshole!0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is like Red Pill 101. No. Attraction is crucial to any successful relationship. Now if she had a pretty face, maybe a little heavy, and was actively trying to lose weight - sure. Or in other instances I can find a woman's appearance average but absolutely fall in love with a personality and she becomes much more attractive.

But it's impossible to flip the switch from no to yes

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

depends on how "physically imperfect"

if it's just a few pimples or extra pounds in an otherwise pretty girl, I'll take it

if she isn't even hot enough to warrant a boner though, then back to the friendzone

[–]trail220 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

most of the men and women that I know have abotu the same level of attractiveness. The number of very attractive women with okay loking guys is to me the same number of failry unattractive women with okay looking men.

Yes women say it's easier but I am going to say that your underlying fact is wrong. Yes the most attractive women sometimes end up with not so attractive women, but you only have to walk aroudn to see an equal number of very overweight women walkign around with men who awhile below averae, are in no way as big s their wife.

[–]Raii-v2The Best Pill is Gold0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, get her as. 7 and teach her how to dress and do makeup like a 9. Marry her then buy her some new boobs.

Profit

[–]reluctantly_red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Almost every guy will jump at the chance to commit to a really cool woman who is not ugly (6s and 7s are not ugly).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

She's a 6 or a 7? That still sounds attractive. If I really got along with someone I think I could love her no matter what she looked like.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There is a shift from the last bit of the discussion in the OP to the final question, and they straddle the title of the post.

YMMV but basically my previous two partners were 8s and I ended up marrying a 6/7.

The thing is, I think I am on solid ground to say that the vast majority of guys are in fact physically attracted to a girl who is a 6.

But to answer the final question, ***no***, I would not have married my wife if she way a 5 or a 4 or something and I wasn't physically attracted to her.

[–]xiiteelee0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There are certain factors in the looks department that are also part of her character.

How much she takes care of her body is definitely a character trait that affects other aspects of life, so I have a hard time splitting the two as you do in your post.

[–]sketch1620000 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Perfect personality and better than average attractiveness? Yes, I'd absolutely be thinking about marriage pretty quickly.

It's easier for men to impress women even if he's not the most physically attractive man - he can use tools like humor, salary, intellect, aggressive traits, good sex, game tactics to attract a woman.

I don't think it's easier at all. All of those non-physical things are very difficult or impossible to improve if you're not just naturally gifted at them. As in, it could take literally a lifetime to significantly improve upon them. What's more, those aren't so much "tools" to make up for a lack of physical attractiveness, but instead are actually requirements. For a man, just being handsome often isn't nearly enough. You have to offer at least two of those things in your list, in addition to some level of physical attractiveness, in order to begin to attract a woman.

Coming from a male perspective and experience, I would much rather have appearance be the entire game and just work on my looks for a few hours a day instead of having to literally rewrite my entire personality, in addition to having to work on looks anyway.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You just described my gf and yes i committed to her. 6-7 is very very fuckable

[–]Dweller_of_the_Abyss0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Umm... Uhh... Hell yeah. If our "compatibility" is perfect and she meets my minimum threshold for looks (which isn't high), I would've committed before I learned of AWALT. Unfortunately for guys like me, rolling the dice on potential unicorns will end in multiple crap outs energetically and financially.

[–]HostileErectile0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's easier for men to impress women even if he's not the most physically attractive man - he can use tools like humor, salary, intellect, aggressive traits, good sex, game tactics to attract a woman.

Nope. far from it. I would say the exact opposite.

Let's say there is a woman who is so wonderfully attractive emotionally and mentally. She reads you like a book, she knows how to tease you, play with you, admire you, submit to you. Only thing is, she's not gorgeous. Physically she's a 6 or a 7.

Personally? No, sexual attraction is one of the most important factors for me.

But in general? Sure, i see mutiple men everyday settle for women because of desperation.

I see so many unattractive women dating men above their league simply because they can nowadays.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

This post asks two different questions. The questions are:

Would you commit to a woman who is perfect mentally but less physically attractive than the women you usually date; but is still "attractive enough"

and

Would you commit to a woman you are not physically attracted to?

These are two very, very different questions.

As to the first question:

Probably. her physical appearance doesn't have to be "perfect". A 6 or a 7 is good enough for most men.

Now, for the second:

Would you commit to a woman that you weren't physically attracted to, even if she's the perfect woman mentally?

That's a VERY different question from the one you posed in the headline and in the body. No, no man will have ANYTHING to do with a woman he's not physically attracted to. He won't commit, he won't fuck her, he won't date her, he won't talk to her.

Questions for the OP: You do realize, do you not, that a female 6 or 7 is more than physically attractive enough to command quite a price? You get that, dont' you? You do realize, do you not, that a female 6-7 is in no way, shape, manner or form "Physically unattractive"? You do realize, don't you, that no man EVER even so much as talks to, much less commits to, a woman he is not AT ALL physically attracted to? I mean, you understand that, right?

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigroses are red, feminists are blue0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a VERY different question from the one you posed in the headline and in the body. No, no man will have ANYTHING to do with a woman he's not physically attracted to. He won't commit, he won't fuck her, he won't date her, he won't talk to her.

Questions for the OP: You do realize, do you not, that a female 6 or 7 is more than physically attractive enough to command quite a price? You get that, dont' you? You do realize, do you not, that a female 6-7 is in no way, shape, manner or form "Physically unattractive"? You do realize, don't you, that no man EVER even so much as talks to, much less commits to, a woman he is not AT ALL physically attracted to? I mean, you understand that, right?

Yes, I understand now. So basically, there's an attraction threshold, and as long as the woman passes that threshold, the man is perfectly OK with her regardless of her being a 6, 7, 8, or 9.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. She just has to be at or past his baseline. And he can determine within a second or two if she meets or exceeds that baseline.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would absolutely take that deal. 6-7 isn't even unattractive, that's still above average. Add that their personality is 10/10 compatible with mine as well and fuck yeah she sounds great.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably. I'm a 6-7 myself. Most attractive women I've been with are around 8.

I think my "happy point" is someone who I rate as a 7. Everything above that is great, but other things are more important once she's above that threshold.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep.

[–]L0git3xRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, but what I consider attractive isnt typical.

So yes she had to be attractive when I dated her. Had to be nice, intelligent.. etc.

[–]S1imdragxn0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A 7 that’s perfect in every other way would be an angel imo

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Commitment is very different from hiring a model. Yes, wrap up and keep the change. But I'm yet to meet a woman perfect in every way except physical appearance, so I consider your question purely hypothetical.

[–]PhotosyntheticChad0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn’t even notice those other things because I wouldn’t be attracted to her in the first place. There has to be attraction for me to pay attention.

[–]avecruxsancta0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

"reads you like a book, she knows how to tease you, play with you, admire you, submit to you"

If she weren't attractive, I'd imagine these "good" traits would come off as stalker-ish or too clingy. I'd imagine that most wouldn't want to be wanted by someone visually subpar.

[–]orcscorper..||. |.|.| ...|| .|.|| |..||-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Easy yes. No hesitation. I would have to be just friends with a one, and I would probably try to make it work with a two, but perfect in every way? If you're in it for the long haul, she's probably not going to be that pretty at 60. At the age when everyone gets ugly, appearance won't matter a bit.

How does that go? If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, find yourself an ugly wife?

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter