W
WhatIsMyPlan?
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2019
- Posts
- 476
- Reputation
- 1,550
Title is self explanatory. I am going to address the various arguments and reasonings against working out to achieve a good body. The lunacy needs to end now. Once and for all.
I want to begin by stating that for me, the strongest argument for working out and building a strong physique to me is just the fact that I intuitively know that it's attractive. I don't need stats or arguments to prove this, I just realize and know it through instinct, and through my anecdotal experiences in life.
But I am going to begin by countering the ideas in the looksmax and incel communities with stats on why body is important.
1.) Muscle and Body Matters According to Studies.
This study demonstrates a major correlation between perceived male strength and attractiveness in the eyes of women.
Another study indicates that shoulder-width to waist ratio and V-Taper account for 80% of a man's bodily attractiveness.
"They were just rating muscular guys as attractive because they had chad faces."
This is incorrect as well. A study titled "The relative importance of the face and body in human attractiveness" had subject rate faces and bodies separately in terms of attractiveness, and then rated them with face and body together. They found that not only was body a significant predictor of one's attractiveness, but also that having a highly rated bodily attractiveness paired with a low rated face led to person having a significantly higher overall attractiveness rating than their rating on face alone. Additionally, having a shit body brought down the ratings of someone who was rated as a chad on face alone.
In short, body significantly boosted attractiveness in men even when their faces were considered bad.
2.) Shoulder to Waist Ratio
Another idea the pervades the PSL sphere is that while body certainly is important, the importance does not comes from working out but rather from one's bone structure and how wide their clavicle are in comparison to their waist,or from generally athletic looking body proportions. In other words, women are not attracted to muscle because it's not 100% genetic the same way that bone is.
Once again, this is misinformed nonsense and a misunderstanding of biology and sexuality/mating. First of all, many traits which you may consider to be "non genetic" are likely very much determined by genetics. This may include propensity to even go to the gym, as well as one's genetic muscle reception to pressure or testosterone, or prevalence of testosterone within an individual.
More importantly however, I want to combat the idea that women are "only attracted to muh bones because muh genetics". It turns out that men have evolved to have dimorphic fat distribution where fat in carried more in the shoulders and chest than it is in females. There's no correlation between this and strength, so it is thought to be sexually selected trait, meaning that women selected men who had broader/ larger shoulders throughout human history based party upon how that fat distribution lends itself to the V shaped male body.
What this means is that women are not attracted to you bone composition, but your body composition. They're attracted to the shape of your body whether that shape is achieved through muscles, fat, or bone is irrelevant.
So, obviously, this shape can be achieved through building muscle by working out. Yes, I will concede that if you naturally have significantly wide hips than your waist it is going to be hard to become attractive through building muscle BUT you may be able to achieve body proportions that don't look particularly subhuman and as such become more less ugly looking.
3.) Why PSL Debates About Body
The reason why PSL debates about body so much is probably just because the culture of PSL and the incelsphere are created from a rejection of conventional advice in regards to sex, dating, and attracting women.
It's similar to the founders effect, where countries adopt the ideals and practices of their founders on a macro level even hundreds of years later. An example of this is how America is full of pseudoscience and sigmashit work ethic crap because its founders were uneducated and working-class settlers who left Europe because it was over for them over there.
In the same manner, PSL rejects the idea od going to the gym to become more attractive as "just hit the gym bro". PSL doesn't reject working out because it's ineffective, but because it's normie advice. Normies recommend going to the gym to become more attractive. PSL is all about the rejection of normie advice in favor of becoming more attractive.
So obviously a tension arises here. You have normie dating advice that works, but PSLers in general as a culture reject normie ideals. This leads to these forums having varied and inconsistent beliefs ranging from the belief that body doesn't matter, to the belief that body does matter but only based on bone structure, to the idea that muscls matter but only some people who good insertions will be able to build decent muscle.
Blackpill is rooted in fatalism. It's over, but blackpillers can't agree why it's over. Is it because frame is genetic only? Is it because body doesn't even matter? All that matters to blackpillers is that your fate cannot be changed.
4.) No Gym For your Face
I find these types of arguments to be some of the dumbest. Sure, if you are obscenely ugly a good body will do very little for you. The same could be said about plenty of others aspects of attractiveness. For example a 5'2" guy with a chad face is fucked. No amount of jaw or eye area can save you from being a gigamanlet. Does this mean face doesn't matter.
This guy, JSanza29,
Was once a poster boy for incels the way BLackops2cel was. He was also 6'5". Does this deny the importance of height? Of course not. Similarly, someone with a chad bone structure could be bald and covered in acne and have sallow skin and be ugly. Does this deny the importance of bone structure.
Obviously all aspects of your appearance all have to be at least decent in order to be attractive. Posting picture of ugly ripped dudes who are 5'2" doesn't prove shit.
I also think its silly considering that this forum constantly discusses how limited facial surgery is. We all agree that realistically, nobody can go from subhuman to chad with plastic surgery, and that many people are limited in they have flaws that can't even be fixed through surgery.
So I think this should highlight the importance of gymcelling even more. ithen surgeries being more about fixing subhuman features than creating chad features, , having a good body could be absolutely crucial for some looksmaxxers when it comes to reaching the point where you're actually attractive to women.
I want to begin by stating that for me, the strongest argument for working out and building a strong physique to me is just the fact that I intuitively know that it's attractive. I don't need stats or arguments to prove this, I just realize and know it through instinct, and through my anecdotal experiences in life.
But I am going to begin by countering the ideas in the looksmax and incel communities with stats on why body is important.
1.) Muscle and Body Matters According to Studies.
This study demonstrates a major correlation between perceived male strength and attractiveness in the eyes of women.
Another study indicates that shoulder-width to waist ratio and V-Taper account for 80% of a man's bodily attractiveness.
"They were just rating muscular guys as attractive because they had chad faces."
This is incorrect as well. A study titled "The relative importance of the face and body in human attractiveness" had subject rate faces and bodies separately in terms of attractiveness, and then rated them with face and body together. They found that not only was body a significant predictor of one's attractiveness, but also that having a highly rated bodily attractiveness paired with a low rated face led to person having a significantly higher overall attractiveness rating than their rating on face alone. Additionally, having a shit body brought down the ratings of someone who was rated as a chad on face alone.
In short, body significantly boosted attractiveness in men even when their faces were considered bad.
2.) Shoulder to Waist Ratio
Another idea the pervades the PSL sphere is that while body certainly is important, the importance does not comes from working out but rather from one's bone structure and how wide their clavicle are in comparison to their waist,or from generally athletic looking body proportions. In other words, women are not attracted to muscle because it's not 100% genetic the same way that bone is.
Once again, this is misinformed nonsense and a misunderstanding of biology and sexuality/mating. First of all, many traits which you may consider to be "non genetic" are likely very much determined by genetics. This may include propensity to even go to the gym, as well as one's genetic muscle reception to pressure or testosterone, or prevalence of testosterone within an individual.
More importantly however, I want to combat the idea that women are "only attracted to muh bones because muh genetics". It turns out that men have evolved to have dimorphic fat distribution where fat in carried more in the shoulders and chest than it is in females. There's no correlation between this and strength, so it is thought to be sexually selected trait, meaning that women selected men who had broader/ larger shoulders throughout human history based party upon how that fat distribution lends itself to the V shaped male body.
What this means is that women are not attracted to you bone composition, but your body composition. They're attracted to the shape of your body whether that shape is achieved through muscles, fat, or bone is irrelevant.
So, obviously, this shape can be achieved through building muscle by working out. Yes, I will concede that if you naturally have significantly wide hips than your waist it is going to be hard to become attractive through building muscle BUT you may be able to achieve body proportions that don't look particularly subhuman and as such become more less ugly looking.
3.) Why PSL Debates About Body
The reason why PSL debates about body so much is probably just because the culture of PSL and the incelsphere are created from a rejection of conventional advice in regards to sex, dating, and attracting women.
It's similar to the founders effect, where countries adopt the ideals and practices of their founders on a macro level even hundreds of years later. An example of this is how America is full of pseudoscience and sigmashit work ethic crap because its founders were uneducated and working-class settlers who left Europe because it was over for them over there.
In the same manner, PSL rejects the idea od going to the gym to become more attractive as "just hit the gym bro". PSL doesn't reject working out because it's ineffective, but because it's normie advice. Normies recommend going to the gym to become more attractive. PSL is all about the rejection of normie advice in favor of becoming more attractive.
So obviously a tension arises here. You have normie dating advice that works, but PSLers in general as a culture reject normie ideals. This leads to these forums having varied and inconsistent beliefs ranging from the belief that body doesn't matter, to the belief that body does matter but only based on bone structure, to the idea that muscls matter but only some people who good insertions will be able to build decent muscle.
Blackpill is rooted in fatalism. It's over, but blackpillers can't agree why it's over. Is it because frame is genetic only? Is it because body doesn't even matter? All that matters to blackpillers is that your fate cannot be changed.
4.) No Gym For your Face
I find these types of arguments to be some of the dumbest. Sure, if you are obscenely ugly a good body will do very little for you. The same could be said about plenty of others aspects of attractiveness. For example a 5'2" guy with a chad face is fucked. No amount of jaw or eye area can save you from being a gigamanlet. Does this mean face doesn't matter.
This guy, JSanza29,
Was once a poster boy for incels the way BLackops2cel was. He was also 6'5". Does this deny the importance of height? Of course not. Similarly, someone with a chad bone structure could be bald and covered in acne and have sallow skin and be ugly. Does this deny the importance of bone structure.
Obviously all aspects of your appearance all have to be at least decent in order to be attractive. Posting picture of ugly ripped dudes who are 5'2" doesn't prove shit.
I also think its silly considering that this forum constantly discusses how limited facial surgery is. We all agree that realistically, nobody can go from subhuman to chad with plastic surgery, and that many people are limited in they have flaws that can't even be fixed through surgery.
So I think this should highlight the importance of gymcelling even more. ithen surgeries being more about fixing subhuman features than creating chad features, , having a good body could be absolutely crucial for some looksmaxxers when it comes to reaching the point where you're actually attractive to women.
