Men care about looks, women care about personality.
Women don’t care much about looks, they just want a stable, nice guy with decent career prospects.
How often have we heard these truisms repeated in society? They’re also rampant in the red pill community, where men are told to “work on themselves”, building a great career and status, until at which point, they’re told, the women will come to them.
It’s a nice fantasy, isn’t it? The problem is that it’s not true, at least not anymore. Fifty years ago, these statements held weight, but they no longer apply in the age of hypergamy for girls in the age range men are looking to have sex with (pre-Wall women).
Let’s take a look at a 2008 study by Paul W. Eastwick and Eli J. Finkel, researchers in Northwestern University’s psychology department. The study is entitled Sex Differences in Mate Preferences Revisited: Do People Know What They Initially Desire in a Romantic Partner, and the fulltext can be found here.
They invited 163 undergraduate students to a two-hour speed-dating event, but first had them fill out questionnaires how important looks, personality, and earning power were in a partner. The pre-test results were about what you’d expect. Women placed the most importance (8.1/9) on personality, the second most (7.73/9) on earning prospects, and the least importance (7.18/9) on attractiveness.
However, look what happened when the researchers matched the students up and allowed them to contact each other after the event:
Of course. With society’s eye keenly watching as the female participants answered the study questions, they deluded themselves into thinking that a potential mate’s personality and earning potential were going to be the most important prospects.
But when they were allowed to covertly reach out to their “matches” after the event afterwards, reality set in: it was physical attractiveness, not personality or earning potential that was the most likely factor for the girls to message the guys.
Conclusions:
1. Ignore what women say. Watch what they do.
2. Physical attractiveness is the most important component in female to male mate selection, not personality (Game) or money.
P.S. before I get any complaints about this only applying for younger women, the same results have been replicated in a couple other studies featuring older women:
- Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed-dating experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 673– 697.
- Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993.
Pancake Mouse 
Women absolutely value physical traits more than they admit to in all situations and for all ages. Looks are especially important in:
A possible caveat: In many studies, women tend to have much more variance in what they consider to be physically attractive. For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9146813
“Results of three independent studies supported predictions derived from evolutionary theory: Men’s assessments of sexual attractiveness are determined more by objectively assessable physical attributes; women’s assessments are more influenced by perceived ability and willingness to invest (e.g., partners’ social status, potential interest in them). Consequently, women’s assessments of potential partners’ sexual attractiveness and coital acceptability vary more than men’s assessments.”
To women, physical attractiveness is more variable and holistic than for men. So, while women do place great value in “attractiveness” the definition of “attractive” is much more personal to women than to men.
For example, a group of men looks at 100 women and rates looks. The standard deviation for each girl’s rating will be low. A group of women look at 100 men, the deviation will be greater for each man rated.
What does this mean?
1. Yes, men need to acknowledge that women actually do want an “attractive” man. Don’t be in denial. Instead, maximize your own personal attractiveness.
2. Even after maximizing your own potential, be prepared for a variety of responses to your physical appearance. Some women will love it and want you immediately, some women will be ambivalent (“maybe, depends”), some women won’t (“ew I don’t like blonde hair”). This goes even for the “hottest” guy in the world.
3. Remember, ultimately, that women rate attractiveness “holistically”: When moving from attraction to comfort to seduction, they factor in looks, personality, game and context/situation. Maximize all of these elements to be a true player.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul, I don’t buy the idea that women’s attraction is more varied. Walking through the romance section of a bookstore will give you an idea of how much muscularity is narrowly desired. Sure, some girls might like huge beefcakes, some might like small muscular guys, or musuclar guys in suits versus muscular cowboys…
I tried checking out your citation but can’t read the full paper
LikeLike
The romance section of a bookstore is not a good counterargument, because romance novels are written to appeal to the general population. (P.S. who even reads romance novels anymore? Except for post-wall women and fat women?)
Here’s the full text:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14071303_The_Perception_of_Sexual_Attractiveness_Sex_Differences_in_Variability
LikeLike
Well I’ll partially agree, and partially disagree. I assume the “romance” section was written primarily for women. It is a billion dollar industry, with that much money I expect publishers/authors are going to do some good research into the best cover of a book (and I suppose, descriptions of men in the story) to target women.
Thus, I’m sure there is a ton of data driving this business (they’re out to make the most money after all) and I believe it is useful for understanding sexual dynamics. Perhaps I’m conflating romance and erotic literature, which would need to be clarified first.
Even if all the readers are post-wall spinsters, I think this part is irrelevant. If non-babes are going to fantasize via literature, I assume they’ll be fantasizing about the “best” men. Just as men look for the hottest babes in porn.
LikeLike
PM this is great. Another gem is how women become way more selective when their dating pool consists of large (versus small) groups.
This helps explain why online dating sucks so bad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You whole blog seems to be a big adovcate of game and pua shit being the most important thing yet you post this? You support guy like jmulv who is very pro game and anti looks. you also recommend goodlooking loser which is anti game and suggests cold approach is all about looks, did your views change or something. Cause this makes it sound like game is only a small fraction of what matter and that you looks mean the most.
also what are you views on todd(ex RSD instructor). I saw some of his product the system and some of his infields seem fake as fuck TBH. guy is like short and below average looking. some of the chick in his vids are way out his league and even look like stereotypical escorts. His advice is way over analytical / aspie that it actually give me anxiety. Even jmulv called him saying he fakes shit aswell as some ex rsd employee on sluthate.
also did some digging and found this
Some of of those are questionable due to the blue. But some are undeniably the same especially the ones with todd.
LikeLike
It’s almost like people can have nuanced views about these sorts of things.
Here’s what I believe, and what I’ve always believed:
Game matters.
Looks matter (more).
P.S. I don’t support JMULV. I don’t support any pickup artist. I support only their ideas that apply to the true nature of reality.
I think Todd is generally legit from what I’ve seen. I think your claims are innacurate.
LikeLike