im starting to think status is just as important as looks

[SchizoParanoid_]

cope or nah?

 

[Old Bvll]

 

[Saint Casanova]

It’s more important

 

[Clqs]

Cope

 

[esoterik]

eh, probably but looks is more favorable in ltrs

 

[SchizoParanoid_]

It’s more important

would you mind to elab why?

 

[jfllcellular]

cope or nah?

good status literally just makes up for a lack of looks. no status chad vs high status sub5. would you say they're equal in the dating pool? Also way easier to go from no status to top percentile status than it is to go from sub5 to chad. So i would have to say looks is more important(obviously prioritize both)

 

[SchizoParanoid_]

eh, probably but looks is more favorable in ltrs

looks are a leverage in ltrs and so is status, they are equally important in ltrs imo

 

[esoterik]

looks are a leverage in ltrs and so is status, they are equally important in ltrs imo

my perspective is, in ltrs looks are more advantageous for biological reasonings e.g reproduction etc

lets say ur in a ltr with pure status, shes attached to a external asset, a asset that has no biological ties to you

its why kings and high status dudes in history fuck alot of women and not really ltr

 

[SchizoParanoid_]

good status literally just makes up for a lack of looks. no status chad vs high status sub5. would you say they're equal in the dating pool? Also way easier to go from no status to top percentile status than it is to go from sub5 to chad. So i would have to say looks is more important(obviously prioritize both)

the thing is, you're comparing both extremes, chad vs sub5, imo its useless to bring those 2 into the discussion because its obvious chad gets girls just by existing and sub5s are despiced by most women and most people dont fall into those 2 categories. also i'd argue its kinda impossible to be a true chad and not have status

 

[SchizoParanoid_]

my perspective is, in ltrs looks are more advantageous for biological reasonings e.g reproduction etc

lets say ur in a ltr with pure status, shes attached to a external asset, a asset that has no biological ties to you

its why kings and high status dudes in history fuck alot of women and not really ltr

interesting take, im thinking status is more of a multiplier for looks kinda

 

[Paul Allen.]

Status is more powerful, but most men would prefer to be loved for their looks.

A looks-based LTR is usually more genuine and affectionate than a status-based one.

 

[jfllcellular]

the thing is, you're comparing both extremes, chad vs sub5, imo its useless to bring those 2 into the discussion because its obvious chad gets girls just by existing and sub5s are despiced by most women and most people dont fall into those 2 categories. also i'd argue its kinda impossible to be a true chad and not have status

there is ur answer then, if true chad inherently comes with status why would status be equal to looks. If anything, looking at the extremes is when we see the truth. If we talk about the part where most people fall into, likely somewhere in mtn, the mtn with more status would obviously be better. The whole point of being good looking is the fact that it insinuates status/power tho

 

[esoterik]

interesting take, im thinking status is more of a multiplier for looks kinda

eh, i went down this rabbit hole and somehow talked to a few russian girls who dated a somewhat relative big russian music artist

its not a multiplier of looks rather it makes u look more favorable, the big difference between looks and status is the male uses his external success to achieve higher biological success and the female uses her biological success to achieve external success

 

[jfllcellular]

Status is more powerful, but most men would prefer to be loved for their looks.

A looks-based LTR is usually more genuine and affectionate than a status-based one.

yes, one is seen as the chick just being a gold digger and simply liking you for your money versus just literally being physically attracted for being you. Feels more genuine even though both technically can be seen as equally superficial.

 

[Paul Allen.]

yes, one is seen as the chick just being a gold digger and simply liking you for your money versus just literally being physically attracted for being you. Feels more genuine even though both technically can be seen as equally superficial.

One is biological attraction, the other is based on man-made constructs.

The difference in the overall vibe of the relationship is usually pretty clear.

 

[jfllcellular]

One is biological attraction, the other is based on man-made constructs.

The difference in the overall vibe of the relationship is usually pretty clear.

100%

 

[acm]

looks usually means status in social environments like school uni work wtv

 

[Swarthy Knight]

This low key slaps

 

[我需要阴部]

go hand in hand

 

[Paul Allen.]

This low key slaps

Indian remixes were the peak of internet humor

Never gets old.

looksmax.org

@Old Bvll

 

[Yliaster]

The importance of Looks vs Status fluctuates and isnt fixed.

A normie tier guy for example with motion at Clubs or on Social Media will oftentimes outstep even a Chad
depending on Environment/Location

 

[Swarthy Knight]

Indian remixes were the peak of internet humor

Never gets old.

looksmax.org

@Old Bvll

Half these are privated

 

[mrdouchebag]

The way I see money and status goes like this:

Fill a room with 100 young hot female models.
Have them pick between a hot Chad that has an average job and an average looking by all metrics famous billionaire(both men are more or less the same age).
~90 of them will pick Chad
~10 of them will pick the famous billionaire.
If the plain looking guy wasn't rich and famous, he'd get picked exactly 0 times.

The thing with money and status is that you need a lot of it to make a big difference.