Women don’t really understand male attraction and implications

TPC’s response to feminine beauty is highly controllable theory and analysis is interesting. Although there is the typical disdain for anything that men have to say about women (which is amusing to say the least), this seems to indicate that women don’t actually understand male attraction at all.

In the wake of this epic 1996-level wild thread/discussion about marriage difficulty for young Christian men and women these days, the male blogger Deep Strength posted a long rambling thing about “feminine beauty” that made me realize a key part of where some men are talking past some women in these matters.

A scale is not a switch.  When some men use the classic 10 point scale for looks/beauty/attractiveness, they aren’t using it as a scale, but as a switch.  On/off.  Yes/No (to the question of whether they might, in the abstract, desire to know a woman in the Biblical sense).  That is why Deep Strength thinks the young woman in his post went from a “3” to an “8” when she didn’t budge much in the scale sense.  She wasn’t a 3 or an 8 to start with.  She was an average girl who now looks above average because she puts more effort into her dress and carriage and lost weight via exercise and diet.  On a ten point scale she went from 5 to 6.

But this blogger converted “went from girl I would never think of desiring to girl I might have desirous thoughts of right now” into ten point scale language. “From a 3 to an 8!”

This is, needless to say, confusing.  He could have simply used a switch and reduced confusion dramatically.

This is somewhat right and somewhat wrong from a switch point of view.

The concept of a switch is too basic. There is the common phenomena of “would do” or “would not do,” but in reality it’s more complicated than that which I explained in my post.

The concept of attraction floors is nothing new. Donal wrote on it a few year ago. Both Christian and secular men have standards for who they “would or would not do” but they also have a higher floor for “who they would marry.” This is why semi-attractive or attractive sluts are for pumping and dumping, but the attractive chaste lady is what they would look for to marry. The only difference is secular men actually pump and dump while maybe looking to marry and Christian men are either committed to be Monks or Patriarchs. The latter chooses to obey God.

On the other hand, TPC is wrong about this part which I find interesting enough to be main topic for this post:

She was an average girl who now looks above average because she puts more effort into her dress and carriage and lost weight via exercise and diet.  On a ten point scale she went from 5 to 6.

But this blogger converted “went from girl I would never think of desiring to girl I might have desirous thoughts of right now” into ten point scale language. “From a 3 to an 8!”

This is, needless to say, confusing.  He could have simply used a switch and reduced confusion dramatically.

Heartiste posted on it a while ago, and there is the general consensus among the majority of men that this woman went from about a “3” to about an “8.” Maybe plus or minus one point, depending on how men like red heads or whatever other factors. She most certainly did not go from a “5” to a “6” from a male perspective. It is vastly underestimating the importance of physical attractiveness.

Now, you could liken male attraction to female as a switch, but like I said before it does not quantify the complexity of the actual process. If we are only talking about “pure attraction” and were eliminating “desirability” factors, modesty notwithstanding, and eliminate morality from the equation, then for non-thirsty men approximately:

  • They would “not do” this woman at anywhere from about 197 lbs to 175 lbs.
  • They would “maybe do” said woman at 165 lbs to 155 lbs.
  • They would “do” said woman at 140 lbs.
  • They would “definitely do” said woman at 124 lbs.

To quantify this into actual numbers (which is why men use the 1-10 scale):

  • They would “not do” a woman at <= 3/10.
  • They would “maybe do” a woman at 4-5/10.
  • They would “do” said woman at 6/10.
  • They would “definitely do” at >=7/10.

As Donal notes, the attraction floor is the same thing men would use to quantify dating and/or marriage material as well from a purely attraction standpoint. There may be different qualifications for relationship status. Indeed, a man may only consider dating and/or relationship status in the “do” to “definitely do” range. A man may only consider marriage in the top part of the “do” and “definitely do” range. For example, to add on relationship status qualifiers:

  • They would “not do” a woman at <= 3/10. Would not date.
  • They would “maybe do” a woman at 4-5/10. Would not date.
  • They would “do” said woman at 6/10. Maybe date. Questionable marry.
  • They would “definitely do” at >=7/10. Would date, would marry.

Each man may have different qualifications for what he finds acceptable. Some would only marry at higher attractiveness levels. Some would marry with lower attractiveness levels.

A binary “yes” and “no” is too simplistic to understand the multiple various floors of quantification of female attractiveness.

Implications

The thing that I am most curious about is why TPC quantifies this woman at 197 lbs at a “5” and at 124 lbs as a “6.” It has been shown that the vast majority of males consider this woman from a purely attractiveness standpoint to be a “3” in the first picture and a “8” in the last picture.

Barring other qualifications like character, morality, and things like that, she moved from a “would not do” and “would not date” status in a man’s mind to a “definitely do” and “would date and would marry.”

As we have noted before, women generally are not motivated to improve their own attractiveness to men to up their potential chances for dating and marriage. Why is this?

  • Lesser motivation? Is it because women actually only see themselves and other women going from a “5” to a “6” in their own head, when in a man’s head they go from a “3” to a “8”? Vastly underestimating the importance of physical attractiveness?
  • Contempt for God’s creation? Whenever men discuss the attractiveness of women they always speak of it like they disdain how men were created by God to think about attraction to be pretty much solely physical beauty.
  • Passivity? Generally, women have been conditioned into being passive about their own roles and responsibilities in the dating and marriage arena?
  • Projection “just get it”? Women want men who “just get it” and want a man who “just gets her” or “loves her just the way she is”?

Anything I’m missing? Perhaps a combination of everything?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Women don’t really understand male attraction and implications

  1. thedeti says:

    DS:

    The problem the girls have with your post is that you’re overly sexualizing the entire concept. You’re talking about it in terms of a woman’s raw sexual attractiveness, divorced from everything else. The hens want you to see the whole picture, like they do. They want you to assess this woman’s raw SMV like they do – from 5 to a 6. They don’t want you analyzing this SMV thing to figure out how it works.

    Cuz we’re Christians. And we’re not supposed to do that. We’re supposed to be “above” that. Sexual attractiveness isn’t supposed to matter. What’s supposed to matter is her fitness as a wife. What’s supposed to matter is whether you’d marry her, not whether you’d have sex with her.

    The girls can’t see that you never get to the question of “would I marry her?” until we answer affirmatively to the question “would I have sex with her?” And if they can see that, they don’t want men to be thinking about that, because it’s bad and immoral and perverted for men to consider “would I have sex with her?”

    Another thing that’s going on here is that you are writing down and putting into print something that men do in a nanosecond without even thinking about it. Women get skeeved about all this because, while they know men do this, they don’t want to hear men talking about it and they certainly don’t want to see blog posts written by men where it is analyzed in graphic detail with photos and scales and male opinions. Men do this; but it’s rare that you see a man write about it, and how he does it, and the questions he rapidly asks himself while he does it.

    I also find it funny, the notion of women deciding what men “need” in the way of assessing a woman’s looks.

    That’s why TPC is all weirded out and the hens’ feathers have been ruffled.

  2. thedeti says:

    “As we have noted before, women generally are not motivated to improve their own attractiveness to men to up their potential chances for dating and marriage. Why is this?”

    Confining this to Christian women, I think you’ve hit on the major parts. Let me add also that women often misjudge their own attractiveness to men. Most women underestimate their physical attractiveness in general and overestimate their attractiveness to attractive men.

    Christian women have been conditioned over several generations to discourage overtly sexually forward conduct and behavior. A man has to “love her for her mind” and “for who she is” and “as a sister in Christ”. He is not supposed to think of her as a sexual being, even after marriage. His overt and frank statements of his sexual attraction are considered bad, evil, immoral and perverted (at least in most Christian Prot ministries). (Of course, it doesn’t help that the men who are expressing that sexual attraction are themselves not all that sexually attractive, which further repulses these Christian women).

    And tied into this integrally, is the fact that the pool of Christian men these Christian women are (ostensibly, at first) “selecting” from consists almost entirely of unattractive, unassertive, skinnyfat or obese men who haven’t gotten it together. And they’ve been trained to be this way. So what these women do to overcompensate for it is

    (1) date and have sex with attractive nonChristian men, and these women respond very favorably to these men’s overt sexuality; or

    (2) date and don’t have sex with unattractive Christian men and then marrying one of them, with the usual sequelae we’ve all discussed (withholding and conditioning sex, no sex, ILYBINILWY, divorce following unhaaaaappiness, etc. etc.

    It doesn’t help that most Christian men are not attractive and don’t even know what it takes to be attractive. There are lots and lots of unattractive Christian men. Lots. Most.

  3. thedeti says:

    The number one problem Christian women have today is that the men they are attracted to are immoral nonChristian men; and they are not at all attracted to the unmarried Christian men they know and interact with. And they do what most women do: Have sex with the attractive immoral nonChristian men they are attracted to in a longshot at a relationship, or just for fun, or less often, in the hopes of “winning him to Christ” (ha).

  4. Jeremy VanGelder says:

    Girl loses 71 pounds. Women say she only gained a point on the attractiveness scale. Tough crowd.

  5. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    In the current sexual marketplace, women don’t feel they have to make any effort to attract men. They have social dominance. Ideally, they should be able to tap any man they desire on the shoulder. The man will succumb to her, a victim of his own desire. In the days before internet dating, women realized they had to compete because the dating pool was limited. Internet dating threw that out the window, making the dating pool unlimited and choice addition a possibility.

  6. Ame says:

    Jeremy VanGelder says:
    April 12, 2017 at 5:05 pm
    “Girl loses 71 pounds. Women say she only gained a point on the attractiveness scale. Tough crowd.”
    – – –
    yes … women are tough and mean – especially if the other woman passes by the one judging. or gets close enough to her to compete with her. or leaves that woman’s level and rises above it. women are extremely critical of other women.

    __________

    very interesting post. it IS difficult for women to think like a man; that is a good thing.

    Deti is spot on.

    i think it there are so many ideas and opinions out there and conflicting information that it’s hard to find someone, anyone, who will just tell the truth. and then when they do, many women get really angry about it till men just walk away letting them think whatever they want cause it’s not worth it.

    there’s a basic under-truth in this that says, “I don’t have to understand it to believe it’s true.” and that is certainly *not* PC in our culture or among women. we think we have to understand something for it to be true.

    in the Christian world we take that a step further and say, “It *must* fit into MY understanding of God and the Bible for it to be true.”

    within all that … there are the truths that God DOES love us just as we are, that Jesus DID die on the cross for our sins, just as we are, and that God looks at the heart while man looks on the outside.

    “But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees;[a] for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7

    we tend to see this as a blight to humanity, but what if it’s just stating a truth that is neither good nor bad but simply is?

    ““For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    neither are your ways my ways,”
    declares the Lord.
    9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
    so are my ways higher than your ways
    and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8-9

    God’s ways and thoughts ARE NOT like ours – they are higher. Again, this is neither good nor bad but is simply a statement of fact.

    women tend to want men to be like God, and men can’t be like God because there is ONLY ONE God. men are like the men God created them to be, not like God. and God created men to be visual and to appreciate the beauty of the female body, and this is very, very good.

    within that, while there are some women with universal beauty, we can only be as beautiful as our body can be. if a woman is 5’9″, she cannot be 5’1″. if a woman has lily-white fair skin, she cannot have dark, tanned skin. if a woman has a large bone structure, she cannot have a tiny bone structure. if a woman does not have lots of money, she cannot surgically alter her body. so we need to be taught to do the very best we can with what we’ve been given. make your body the very best it can be – inside and out. develop good and healthy habits. this can be done without resorting to eating disorders and stupid things.

    and then realize not all women appeal to all men, and that is OKAY. *I* do NOT have to be attractive to all men, i just need to be attractive to my man … and to be responsible for the body God has given me which, as a Christian, is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. i need to take good care of my body.

    taking care of our body does NOT negate our spiritual side, or our mental/emotional side. they are ALL important and are ALL intertwined together. separating one out from the other discredits the whole of God’s creation of us.

    and women just need to accept that God created men to be attracted to the physical beauty of a woman, regardless of whether she understands it or not, and that this is a GOOD thing. it does not diminish her, it elevates her.

    _____

    there is another side of this that women have difficulty with, and that’s that men can be attracted to a lot of women while choosing his woman. just b/c he is attracted to other women doesn’t mean he doesn’t continue to choose his woman.

    and men have their ‘thing’ that they like, and that’s okay, too. i always get a kick out of my husband’s ‘analysis’ of other women’s bodies – what he likes, what he doesn’t like, what he finds attractive, what he doesn’t, etc. it’s enlightening. i’ll sometimes think a woman is beautiful, and he’ll look at her and think she’s ugly and wouldn’t have her. he likes what he likes, and not all women have what he likes … and that is OKAY.

    _____

    and then there’s the wife-goggles. i think women jump to the wife-goggles and claim that all men should love like those with wife-goggles! but what they don’t see is that wife-goggles are earned over time; they are not given freely or flippantly.

  7. @ thedeti

    Good points.

    At the end of the day, I don’t get it. I mean I even have a post on a woman who “got it” so to speak. She pretty much set things up to be with a man she liked. I wrote about it.

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/real-life-ruths/

    The women who do come around here that are single presumably want to marry but they don’t put much effort into actually making it happen. Makes no sense.

  8. Pingback: A scale is not a switch – The Practical Conservative

  9. @ fuzziewuzziebear

    In the current sexual marketplace, women don’t feel they have to make any effort to attract men. They have social dominance. Ideally, they should be able to tap any man they desire on the shoulder. The man will succumb to her, a victim of his own desire.

    Somewhat.

    I think most single women *know* it is bad, but maybe not bad enough to make life changes about it?

  10. @ Ame

    Good points. I know these particular women aren’t charitable at all, so I’m not particularly concerned with what they think about me or anyone here.

    I’m trying to understand where women are coming from. It’s the thought process that needs to be understood if the single women do want to get married and want to take steps to make it happen.

    My future wife and I actually may have the potential influence to help young men and women figure things out in the future. It would be nice to be able to educate them on actionable steps in line with their nature about how to understand and take steps to be married in the current desolate landscape.

  11. hearthie says:

    Some of it is that we are looking more at faces than y’all are, maybe? Think bone structure, good teeth, that sort of business.

    The example used above – she probably raised her SMV rating by a point (minimum) with that tight red dress. So, on the one hand – yes, most of us know that if you want to attract a man, tight red dresses are VERY helpful. Also, water falling from the sky is called rain.

    But we don’t think of raw attractiveness like that. We’re thinking of what said girl would look like minus makeup and in a tshirt/jeans/ponytail when we’re evaluating attractiveness, at least on a number scale. Equal footing, as t’were. So yes, we’re talking past one another, yet again.

    This is why we say things to one another like, “she’s such a *pretty* girl, I wish she’d…”

    Explanation attempt, not argument attempt. 🙂

  12. both women and men should work on attractiveness. if im working on my health and figure, i dont want a christian man who looks like ugh

  13. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Deep Strength,
    Since it is based in attitude, I don’t know how to address it. What I think will happen is that women will go to venues that used to be good to meet guys and find out that they don’t work anymore.

  14. thedeti says:

    DS:

    “I’m trying to understand where women are coming from.”

    What on earth for? (Rhetorical question.) I’m starting to care less and less about this, really.

  15. @ hearthie

    The example used above – she probably raised her SMV rating by a point (minimum) with that tight red dress. So, on the one hand – yes, most of us know that if you want to attract a man, tight red dresses are VERY helpful. Also, water falling from the sky is called rain.

    But we don’t think of raw attractiveness like that. We’re thinking of what said girl would look like minus makeup and in a tshirt/jeans/ponytail when we’re evaluating attractiveness, at least on a number scale. Equal footing, as t’were. So yes, we’re talking past one another, yet again.

    We are both talking about SMV. Interesting. So you would generally agree with TPC that she went from a “5” to a “6”?

    For men, she went from “3” to “8.” Sure, her face maybe went from a 4ish range to 6-7 range. “5” to “6” is the most conservative I’ve seen. Less of a change, but still a jump in 2-3 SMV points because of the loss of fat on the face.

    The last picture is not so much about the dress. I think that is being overemphasized. The real “sexually attractive” part of the 124 lbs picture is the bust to waist to hip ratio that is extremely alluring to men.

    A more modest dress would have a similar effect because of the emphasis on bust-waist-hip ratio. Other examples that are more “pretty” or “beautiful” rather than “sexy”:

    Any type of dress or skirt that has a “pulled in” waist to emphasize a smaller waist in contrast with the bust and/or hips is attractive to men. It doesn’t have to be immodest.

  16. @ SapphireYagami

    If you’re going to comment, please stay on topic. We’re talking about female sexual attractiveness.

  17. @ thedeti

    “I’m trying to understand where women are coming from.”
    What on earth for? (Rhetorical question.) I’m starting to care less and less about this, really.

    I’ll answer it anyway.

    I know many single Christian men and women who want to be married. I care about my friends because most of them are committed Christians, but they’re just not attractive. If they can understand why it is that way and take steps to improve that it’s good and will up their chances.

    Sure, there’s tons of naysayers from the women and the men as I’m sure you are aware. The rationalization of the lack of care for others online doesn’t dissuade me from doing anything about it for the people I care about.

    Men and women are suffering in the MMP and when you have the information to help them why wouldn’t you do it?

  18. thedeti says:

    DS:

    Men and women both know, deep down, what their problems are. They know what is unattractive about them. They just don’t want to do what it takes to fix it. Because for the most part, they don’t really have to.

    Men know they’re slackers. They know they’re ambitionless slugs who would rather pork out on crappy food, get drunk, get high, play Xbox, and work their dead end jobs. They know they’re unattractive. They just don’t care, because they’ve made a conscious decision that the effort to change isn’t worth it. Can’t get a woman, why try? Can’t get a better job, why try?

    Women know they’re battleaxes. They know they’re mean, nasty, petty, slutty, shallow, out of shape, and ugly inside and out. They know what it takes to treat a man well. They simply choose not to do it. They mistreat men because they can. They have sex with men because they can. They act the way they do because they can. Why should they change? They’re getting what they “want” anyway.

  19. hearthie says:

    No, I think she went from a 4 to a 7. But I’m not a guy, so YMMV. We may also be including a broader range of women in that estimate – from Christie Brinkley at 10 to the woman in the mobility scooter with the lapped over belly at 0. ? I’m working for more understanding between us, better communication. The “why”, as t’were.

    I’ve actually written a BOOK about style, which includes substantial information about the psychological affects of various colors and cuts, as well as several essays (in my assorted blogs) over the years, and I have a pinboard I started for confused gals. (Any of this can be linked for your use if you’re interested, I don’t want to spam your combox). Okay, just one. Written in 2014. So, yeah – this is completely my thing. 🙂 http://hearth-tobelovely.blogspot.com/2014/06/clothing-for-flirtation.html

  20. thedeti says:

    I’m looking at the photo of the ginger in the OP who lost 70 pounds. Just an observation: Look at the tremendous difference in attractiveness between Ginger at 140 pounds, and Ginger at 124 pounds. She’s gained 2 points just in that interval. A big part of that is her attire, though – at 140 she’s slobbed out; at 124 she’s dressed for attractiveness.

  21. Ame says:

    “The real “sexually attractive” part of the 124 lbs picture is the bust to waist to hip ratio that is extremely alluring to men.”

    i think this is something women need to know. it’s not something i would have thought of on my own.

  22. @ hearthie

    No, I think she went from a 4 to a 7. But I’m not a guy, so YMMV. We may also be including a broader range of women in that estimate – from Christie Brinkley at 10 to the woman in the mobility scooter with the lapped over belly at 0. ? I’m working for more understanding between us, better communication. The “why”, as t’were.

    Our populations are the same.

    Women you can’t tell their boobs from their stomach are definitely down in the 1 range. I personally don’t think Christie Brinkley is a 10, but sure that’s a good example.

    In general, style does help both men and women A LOT. Maybe 1-2 SMV points, and it shows you actually care about how you present yourself.

    That’s a good post though. Sundresses are definitely good. Floral patterns, light colors, and so on. Feminine clothes in general.

  23. @ Ame

    i think this is something women need to know. it’s not something i would have thought of on my own.

    I figured as much. Most of the women were focusing on the clothing it seems, but the important part isn’t the clothing but what the clothing accentuates.

    There is some truth to the fact that men are attracted the .7 waist to hip ratio. A modest dress that really accentuates that part of a woman will be attractive to men will definitely work wonders.

  24. @ thedeti

    Yeah, if you read Heartiste comments, the men tend to generally say that she went from around 5ish at 140 lbs to 6ish at 132 lbs to 8ish at 124 lbs.

    There’s a large SMV jump in the last 8-16 lbs because she starts to gain the waist-hip curves, dress for attractiveness, and so on.

    Women that are even as little as 10-20 lbs overweight and lose it all will tend to experience bigger SMV increases as the waist to hip ratio comes in than those who are 40-50 lbs overweight down to 10-20 lbs overweight.

    It’s not about the lost weight. It’s about how the lost weight affects the body shape.

  25. Lost Patrol says:

    Body shapes.

    Old saying: The clothes make the man.

    Not an old saying – but has always been true: The woman makes the clothes.

    This is an interesting OP in the way it breaks things down to analyze the components of attraction. In real time when men are looking at a woman it’s a package deal assessment. They are not parsing it out into components at first take. As deti has mentioned before, it takes about two seconds, and is not an intellectual exercise.

  26. feeriker says:

    The women who do come around here that are single presumably want to marry but they don’t put much effort into actually making it happen. Makes no sense.

    Deti has beaten this topic to death already, but it apparently still bears repeating: any woman who REALLY, TRULY wants to get married WILL get married if she’s motivated enough to put forth the effort (unless she’s a morbidly obese, psychotically violent substance abuser, and even that won’t deter or turn off desperately thirsty men). And it apparently doesn’t take very much effort, either.

    Unlike deti, I don’t live in “flyover country,” but IME the story is the same in the urban coastal areas I’ve lived in for decades. ANY woman who makes getting married her Priority Number One and puts the effort into making it happen, makes it happen. I’ve known several women, a couple north of forty, who were fanatically singleminded about getting married. All of them did, and all but one are, to my knowledge, still married.

    As deti also points out, and I wholeheartedly concur, too many women are offended by the very idea that they have to take ownership of their goals and take proactive steps to realize them. Most seem to prefer to think that they have the power of Moses to summon God to cause MAN-a to just fall from the heavens when they want one, no work or sacrifice required.

  27. On the picture in the OP, it should probably be pointed out that the Woman at 132 still has a “Red Flag” for potentially blooming up to, well, 200 pounds. There’s a tipping point where there’s a problem developing and it’s almost always downhill from there. Once she would add another 10 pounds, it’s almost always a lost cause.

    As to the core issue of all of this for “why?”, it starts with the easiest temptation for Women: being a Princess. Yes, Disney sells it because it sells. Women (whether as children or adults) want to be the Princess. Note it is “Princess” and not “Queen”. The Princess doesn’t have responsibilities. The Princess is chased after by a bevy of eligible Princes. The Princess forever has the throne’s duty waiting for her, but that is for another day. The Princess has servants; the Princess does not serve.

    It’s the perfect trap for a Woman’s Vanity.

    Oh, also on the red head. Her face structure doesn’t carry weight well, at least as shown in the picture. That’s the big drop in the last few pounds. Her face actually thinned out properly.

    This is also something of a side point, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it addressed. Photos flatten facial features, it’s the reason some people are “photogenic”. But, related, most Men are actually looking down at Women. Depending on the height difference, it can really skew the perspective on a Woman’s face. This is the reason for prominence of the Selfie being at an elevated angle and slightly on tilt. This reflects the natural view a Man will have a Woman in person. Which means I just made an argument for a Selfie being the proper way to judge a Woman’s face.

  28. Lost Patrol says:

    Viewing angle is actually a significant factor that I hadn’t thought about. In real life it can often be modified quickly as viewer and subject move about, but generally no such option with camera work. A thing to keep in mind.

    Elevated tilt for Selfies is a great example. Selfies is probably a subject for discussion in it’s own right. A woman that takes a lot of selfies – red flag warning.

  29. Oh yeah, the Selfie-Addict is definitely after the rush of attention, however, the angle, isn’t some accident. Considering the tilt most end up at, it’s roughly equal to the viewing angle of a Man at normal talking distance that’s around 6 inches taller than the Woman.

    This is also probably why symmetry in a Man’s face is viewed better. (Aside from the genetic/health tells.) A Woman is pretty much looking up your nose when she’s talking to a Man. Also explains the difference in cheekbone values, plus issues like the V-taper with broad shoulders.

  30. there is a woman I know from work, she has worked on a smv but no one is interested, then what is she suppose to do now?

  31. feministhater says:

    Work harder and find other men who might be interested in her. It’s a non-stop action that requires devotion to the task.. That or stop moaning and do something else with her life.

  32. feeriker says:

    there is a woman I know from work, she has worked on a smv but no one is interested, then what is she suppose to do now?

    That question cannot be answered without knowing WHAT this woman supposedly did to put herself out there. Call me a cynic (who,MOI? Perish the thought!), but my own past observations lead me to assume that she probably THINKS she did more for herself and exerted more effort than she actually did.

  33. @ SapphireYagami

    there is a woman I know from work, she has worked on a smv but no one is interested, then what is she suppose to do now?

    Would need a picture to see if it’s actually the case that:

    1. She’s worked on it and still unattractive
    2. She’s attractive and likely needs to improve other characteristics
    3. Some combination of 1 and 2

  34. Mark MacIntyre says:

    I have some thoughts about why most women resist working on their attractiveness, especially when it comes to actual exercise and diet.

    Firstly, women can be highly motivated in this area, but it tends to be short lived. You see it most commonly after a breakup. Suddenly the women who had previously sat around the house eating junk food and watching Netflix all day is at the gym six days a week, on a Paleo diet, and taking selfies of her shrinking butt for social media. Had she done this while partnered, that relationship would have blossomed. Why the motivation then, but not sooner?

    I blame hormones.

    Women have less dopamine and testosterone than men. These two neuropeptides create motivation. Men have tons more testosterone than women and also more dopamine. This is also why—incoming non-PC statement—men are generally funnier than women.

    Dopamine is also released during stress. Hence, the “fine line between pleasure and pain” and why some people enjoy scary entertainments like roller coasters and horror movies. Stress is motivating, provided you have opportunity to act. Big life changes tend to create this kind of stress, whereas being stuck in a lousy relationship causes a feeling of helplessness, which has the opposite effect for prompting positive change.

    On the other hand, women have much more oxytocin than men. You may have heard of this hormone as the bonding hormone or the “hug drug”. It’s released during bonding behaviors, from hugs, to sex, to making eye contact (which is why women make more eye contact than men).

    Oxytocin also plays a big part in social interaction and social hierarchy awareness. This is most likely why female social interactions feature a great deal of subtle inclusion/exclusion behaviors. Women practice social exclusion and gossip as a way to jockey for social position. Because of their high oxytocin, being socially excluded is very undesirable. Women will do almost anything to avoid being ostracized by the group.

    Female social hierarchy is almost entirely based on sexual market value. The hottest girls are at the top. For women, sexy equals powerful. When women compete among themselves for sexual attractiveness, they are competing for power. All those women’s magazines you see with hot women on the cover, those attractive women on the covers are seen by other women as powerful. When a hot girl marries a rich man, that is power plus power.

    So, when a woman feels sexually unattractive it strikes at her very core. This is her raison d’être under attack. If you suggest to a woman she is sexually unattractive, watch out! You’re also effectively undermining her social status and not just her mate value.

    However, a woman who has already suffered loss in that department is highly motivated to regain her standing. Thus the huge amounts of energy after a breakup, which subside once she is again ensconced within a relationship.

    This is also why dread game works. It threatens rejection, but it’s not overt. It’s also why your own SMV has to be high for dread game to work effectively. The threat of social exclusion from a lesser SMV person holds no water for women. It’s like a weak person in a subordinate position trying to usurp leadership. It’s innately offensive.

  35. anonymous_ng says:

    One of the things I became more aware after converting to Orthodox Christianity are the differences in philosophy between the West and the East.

    Here in the West, we enthusiastically embrace binary thinking, and the idea that something has to be all A or all B. So, we divide the person into mind and body. Perhaps some also include the soul or spirit, but in the East, the idea is almost ridiculous. It’s not unlike the trinity of God, they are three, but also one. The mind, body, and spirit of man are separate, but also inseperably part of a single whole.

    Then also here in the West, the intellect defines man. Transgender is perhaps the latest example where we are expected to accept the delusions of their mind as reality in contrast to that reality which is in front of our eyes. But, we can also see it in the idea that bodybuilders and athletes are meatheads, and almost by definition can’t be highly intelligent. I suspect that to accept otherwise would upset our applecart of assumptions.

    From there, it seems to me that evalutating a woman based on her attractiveness is to say that we are treating her like an object because her identity is not her looks or her body, but her mind.

    Thus, in a more holistic sense, Gov Chris Christie is unfit to govern as he’s unable to govern his own appetites as evidenced by his morbid obesity.

    For a woman to accept at a deep level that her attractiveness is first in body and then in spirit and only last in intellect would require her to believe counter to the prevailing social trend, and be not unlike a salmon swimming upstream, but would also require massive change in identity and that’s pretty hard for most people.

    Or, at least that’s how things appear to me.

  36. @ Mark MacIntyre

    Interesting points.

    We do know that womens’ menstrual cycles affect their behavior, so it wouldn’t be a far leap to say that certain conditions (man versus no man) can also affect their behavior.

  37. @ anonymous_ng

    True. There is definitely an anti-trend in regard to both the secular AND the Christian in regard to denying the reality of female beauty on their sexual attractiveness to men.

    To be fair, anything written on this blog and within this ‘sphere is not about making things “easy” but providing information for those willing to use it. If it helps just one, that is good.

  38. Pingback: Feminine beauty is highly controllable theory and analysis Part 2 | Christianity and masculinity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s