Previously on meet cutes, we looked at the commonness of having women be initially attracted to you. In general, I think that it’s not that common for the majority of men, though there are always some percentage of the population that would be attracted.
Scott posted his stance on Sigma’s blog and I think some of it is true and some of it isn’t (my responses in regular, then some analysis).
I recently tweeted my final position on this, which I suppose might lose me some support. I have been beating around the bush on the topic for a while, trying to be gracious, trying to sugar coat it.
I believe that the red-pill content creators (the big ones, Christian or not) are full of crap if they believe that true, visceral attraction can be created in a woman who never had it for you in the first place. Like within the first meeting.
Some of them have a conflict of interest in trying to create this fiction, because they sell books and have monetized youtube accounts. It is in their best interest to make this seem possible.
But I have never seen a woman go from being luke warm about a guy and then become [truly] hot for him. She may settle and convince herself that she is attracted to a man who is the best she can get, but hot crazy in love–no.
If you are not getting really obvious IOIs right from the start, move on. If that makes me “black pill” so be it. I want men to find women who cannot keep their hands of them, otherwise they risk terrible destruction later on.
This is generally more true for men who are primarily attracted based on physical appearance. Getting to know them better will not increase any visceral attraction toward them for the most part, except if they are capable of very seductive behavior.
I think the real question is how many women for that matter are marrying men that they don’t have any attraction at all for?
There are certainly both men and women who are marrying with varying levels of attraction, but very few have absolutely no attraction. These are probably the ones where you have the wives cringing away from physical contact with their husbands in wedding photos. There are a few, but they’re definitely not even a big minority.
If we’re using a 0-10 scale where no attraction is a 0 and crazy love at first sight is a 10, there’s a big range. The real question isn’t if we can take a 0 to a 10… it’s if we can take a 3-4 to a 7-8 in most cases. The “sort of maybe attractive when I’m ovulating” or “relatively dead bedroom but once were attracted to each other” to “I want to do him at least several nights a week.” You don’t have to be the 10 of “I want to bang like bunny rabbits all the time.”
In reply, Scott says:
At first glance, the idea of a spectrum of attraction (woman—>man) strikes me as wishfully ascribing male thinking processes to women. This is understandable, and tempting. I am guilty of it from time to time. I just don’t think if you (a guy) are placed in the “meh” file you can ever get out. So I have never actually tried.
I’m not sure I agree with that.
There are definitely some reciprocal indications in terms of attraction itself. For instance, women can pick out attractive features on men just like men can pick out various attractive features on women. If they have particular unattractive features that knocks them down. Most people are not models so they have a relative mix of attractive or unattractive features.
In general, male sexuality operates on some lines of physical attractiveness: “would bang but wouldn’t date” to “would bang and date” to “would bang and marry.”
As we know though, female sexual strategy is relatively dualistic: AF/BB. Ideally, a man has both AF (dominant, handsome, charismatic, masculine, high status, successful leader,) and BB (money). Women’s hierarchy is AF+BB > AF > BB > None. Or if they are their own BB with a good job then it’s AF+BB > AF > None > BB.
It’s a spectrum and not a yes or no. Women who can’t marry an AF+BB or AF will try to get a man who has some AF with a lot of BB.. and so on down to only BB. But they will be less and less happy about it.
Admittedly, one problem I have is looking through the lens of my own lifetime of experience, an N of one. In that myopic view, I have never seen this happen. In any relationship I ever developed, be it a ONS, a FB, or an LTR that lasted years, her attraction was always obvious and unmistakable, from the first few seconds save for my obtuse lack of sensing it. I have been told “dude, she is REALLY into you” on more than one occasion before I noticed these signs.
An example from real life would be something like, I went to a party one time at a friends house and there was a girl there. I immediately found her really cute and started talking to her. There was ZERO indication from her that she was interested, so I moved on within a nanosecond. At that same exact party, I met another girl who would become my longest relationship to date at the time (it lasted about 2 years) and she made it really obvious that I had a green light. So, what I see from women is attraction that actually leads to something more is a dichotomous variable. “On” or “off.” Nothing in between. And you cannot slide along that scale like on a slide rule with them.
On the other hand, men I think can do the spectrum thing. I have had several LTRs that developed over time with women for whom I had almost no regard for in the first place. Its usually a coworker, or someone you see on a regular basis for whatever reason. She could be flashing giant orange flags that read “here I am come and approach. I will say YES” and I just move along with my life as if nothing is happening. Then, one day the thought flashes across your mind “I never noticed how cute her smile is.” And then you are toast. All of the sudden she is all you think about from the time you get up to the time you go to bed. You now have a crush on a girl who up until this point was just somebody you see as part of the scenery at work.
This is not strictly true. From what I’ve seen it depends on fairly specific circumstances to set men up to be successful when there is not a lot of initial attraction. We discussed some way back when here: understanding the friend zone and escaping it.
Lemme give you another example. I’m maybe average attractiveness (not unattractive but not attractive). A couple of my friends have called me a 6. I don’t normally get women to look at me twice. However, I’ve TAed a few classes where there are multiple TAs working together with a large group of students. What usually ends up happening is that a lot of the students (including the women) start to gravitate toward the more attractive men first. However, I know my stuff down pat, and I usually challenge the students and tease the girls. My professor later told me that a large majority of the students told me that I was their favorite TA. I was getting IOIs from the women whereas I had none before and even asked some out later and said yes.
This is the power of being in a position of relative authority and being charismatic with the students. I think it’s also true that first impressions are the most important, and it’s relatively rare(r) that a woman will like you sans not being attracted at first impression, but it’s been my experience that there are chances to subvert that notion but it has to be in specific circumstances.
YMMV. But I’ve had that happen several times throughout my life like I described in the meetcute article on my site (don’t know if you read that one, but this is not an isolated incident). Some other commenters chimed in saying it was the case for them too.
I think part of the issue is that Scott is very naturally attractive while many of the other men may not necessarily be that attractive. His experience is that he can just move onto women who are naturally attracted to him without understanding the various scenarios where women may not be attracted at first but may be more attracted over time under various scenarios.
Like I said in the other meetcute post, I could count on one hand the amount of women who were attracted to be naturally. However, I do generate some interest from women based on my relative position or status (TAing, when I was leading Bible studies, teaching others, etc), occasionally based on my personality (humor or charisma in certain areas), maybe some based on my physique (decently muscular but not overly so… it does increase as you become more and more muscular), and other common attraction factors like this.
Possible conclusion: Might be more common for your average joe to have more interest generated post-first meeting than someone who is naturally physically handsome. Most of my attraction from women seems to have been generated after the initial meetings. That said, overall interest is much more for someone who is naturally physically handsome so they have way more options.
In general though, I think the talk about extremes isn’t too useful. For the most part, if you’re single you want to work on the various areas (especially becoming muscular, style, etc.) to make good first attraction impressions and the rest builds from there. From here it’s selecting the women who are interested and not wasting your time on the ones who aren’t or somewhat interested. You shouldn’t really deal with the ones who aren’t anyway because it’s too much investment for little results.
Most marriages there was at least some semblance of attraction (2-4 at minimum) and probably higher in the 5-8+ range at maximum (if a husband has gotten fat and lazy for example and dipped down into the 2-4 range then). Building that back up is a much easier task than someone who was never attracted. But again, it seems to be extremely rare that women would marry a man to whom they were never attracted.