This is a theory I've been thinking about for quite some time, years in fact, in one form or another. I've been discussing it with some of my BAS brothers, and am curious what the community thinks.

The theory in a nutshell is that there exists a minimum level of physical attractiveness for each girl that you must meet in order to be considered as a potential sex partner/boyfriend. This will be related to her looks +/- some leeway, and will vary from girl to girl. Common PUA rhetoric is that looks don't matter very much. This is in their interest, they are a business and want to attract the largest possible number of customers. If they tell you it doesn't matter how you look because they can teach you to seduce any woman, they will widen their customer base. However, from my observation this isn't the case, and real life shows this pretty clearly.

PUA theory breaks attraction down into a number of factors, including looks, confidence, wealth, social network, and power. The minimum attractiveness theory states firstly that you must meet the minimum level of physical attractiveness, and that above that level increasing your physical attractiveness won't do much for you and suffers from diminishing returns. All those other factors can help raise your attractiveness, and push you FAR above a man without them who well exceeds the minimum physical attractiveness level (due to the diminishing returns of physical attractiveness beyond the minimum), but without the minimum level those factors won't do much for you other than make you a more attractive mate when sitting at the very bottom (or slightly below) the threshold. Of course different girls value different factors differently. Golddiggers in LA or NY might have a far lower minimum attractiveness threshold, but a far higher minimum threshold of required wealth, for example.

This puts aside extreme cases, such as a man well below the minimum level but with hundreds of millions of dollars and a very confident, charismatic personality, say a New York financial mogul or advertising titan. However, in very extreme cases, say Danny Devito, who possesses wealth, power, and fame, he's too far below the minimum physical attractiveness threshold for it to help much. Hence he (allegedly) uses his power explicitly as a trade for sex with aspiring starlets. His power disparity in his environment is great enough that he can exploit it and get sex in exchange for promises of benefit, but it's not enough for women to find him attractive in his own right (without getting something from him).

This theory can be validated from a Darwinian perspective. If a woman's goal is to choose a suitable mate to ensure the propagation of her DNA as children, there are some minimum requirements that must be met relative to her environment and capabilities, and it's in her interest to get the best mate she can both genetically and otherwise. There is little benefit genetically to having children with a man who is an 8 versus a man who is a 10 on the physical attractiveness scale, though obviously all else being equal it's beneficial. Statistically, most men will tend to be average. This means they will make a decent living, have an average level of confidence, charisma, social network, seductive prowess, etc. So you're competing with other men in your environment and around your level. Unless you are a severe outlier in one area - fabulously wealthy, amazingly charismatic, or incredibly talented - you need to ensure you meet the minimum level of an acceptable mate in every area. Even if your "game" is somewhat above average and you can approach, kino, and be fun and interesting, there are lots of other men who can do the same. It's unlikely you'll become a sexual magnet like TofuTofu. If you don't meet the minimum level of physical attractiveness, or any other aspect for that matter, and you aren't outstanding in other areas, why should she not find a man with all the same qualities - which won't be hard to find since statistically you will tend to be average - who doesn't suffer from your defect in any one area (obesity, for example). An aside, I'm not sure the other characteristics suffer from diminishing returns like physical attractiveness does. Wealth, charisma, confidence, social network, and power likely provide linear or greater returns as they increase, unlike physical attractiveness.

The purpose of this theory is to show men that - if they are average men and not large outliers in the other areas - they should ensure they meet the minimum level of required attractiveness to get the girls they want. Thankfully, probably 75% of men or more can meet the minimum level by being in shape, well groomed, and well dressed. I know this isn't earth shattering in any way, but many men focus on inner/outer game and PUA tactics without ensuring their physical attractiveness meets the minimum required level. I focus on physical attractiveness in this post more than other factors because it's the most visible factor (relative to wealth or social network, for example) in short-term bar game.

I'm not completely convinced of this idea, and hence I posted it here to hear what people think. So don't flame me if you don't agree, I'm not ideologically attached to it, it's simply something I've been thinking about and observed during my dating life.